Filibuster elimination in the next congress if Democrats hold Senate but Republicans get the House?

[kelly1mm]

Question for those interested in filibuster reform. I have read many opinions on why, not just on a real-politic level. but as a matter of fairness and democracy the filibuster should be eliminated. I am hoping that this thread will not devolve into an election forecasting fight but I would like to pose the following hypothetical for discussion:

November 2022 Democrats win/hold 52+ Senate seats. Republicans pick up 10 seats take control of the House.

In January 2023 when the new congress convenes should the Democrats eliminate the filibuster even knowing that with a R controlled House nothing the Senate wants but can't currently pass due to the filibuster will pass both houses? Basically the Democrats can scrap the filibuster but get no legislative benefit for doing so.

To make the question above more interesting in 2024 the Senate map does not look good for Democrats. Lets assume (not a prediction but just for arguments sake) that the Republicans hold 51 Senate seats and continue to hold the House. Lets also assume that DeSantis wins the Presidency (again this is just for discussion, not a prediction). So in January 2025 there is a definite possibility of Republicans holding the House, Senate and Presidency and we already know they control the judiciary. If that were to come to pass would eliminating the filibuster have still been a good idea?

Many have said that when the Republicans get control of the Senate with a Republican House and President they will for sure eliminate the filibuster but I am not so sure. Trump asked McConnell in 2017 to get rid of the filibuster and he refused. Even if they will eliminate the filibuster shouldn't we at least make them do it and eat their words about how sacrosanct the filibuster is and how it protects the rights of the minority party? That certainly sounds self-serving ...... at least or until we are the minority party.

I would love to hear what others think about filibuster elimination with the above hypothetical in mind.

[dsc]

1. The filibuster should be eliminated

it is a near totally one sided weapon now. The GOP has only three priorities cutting taxes (no filibuster), appointing right wing kooks to both the executive branch and the judiciary (again no filibuster), and increasing defense spending (I can't think of any time that has happened with fewer than 60 Senate votes). Conversely, the Democrats want to pass real laws doing real things and often need 60 votes.

The fact is our agenda is popular while theirs isn't. It also, by making it nearly impossible to pass laws, lets the GOP run culture war campaigns and win.

[kelly1mm]

2. Thanks for your reply and I tend to agree with you in general but if given the opportunity I

think Republicans may throw some red meat to the masses that are outside the 'big three'.

Before the blow back from Dobbs I would have said it could be reversal of a Democrat led federal codification of Roe if/when that happens. Maybe repeal of the IRA, or at least the 'green' parts of it?

I do find it ironic that in January 2023 the Democrats will probably finally eliminate the filibuster and STILL not be able to get anything passed due to the Republicans in the House.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

3. In this scenario (which I hope doesn't happen) it would be politically insane to

eliminate the filibuster.

Those who would advocate for the elimination of the filibuster should at least acknowledge that this device can stop insane moves should Republicans win the Senate (and the House).

Other than "carve-outs" (which have had costs and benefits) neither party has eliminated the filibuster.

Mitch McConnell would love for Democrats to take the political fall-out (while being unable to use it to our advantage with a Republican-held House.

That's a classic "lose-lose" for us and a "win-win" for McConnell & the Republicans.

[kelly1mm]

4. Thanks for your reply! This is my first inclination and why I am leery on filibuster elimination.

It does make for interesting side by side screens where the very same people denouncing the filibuster as a relic of jim crow and antidemocratic will be using the other sides talking points verbatim.

I fear that the Democratic party has made SUCH a big part of its push to eliminating the filibuster as being a principled stand and not just a 'we want to get things done and this is stopping us' appeal. How do your stop this car from going over the cliff when it has been petal to the metal for so long?

[Just A Box Of Rain]

5. I guess one starts by imagining the nightmare scenario where the Republicans

gain controll of both chambers of Congress and the White House.

While recognizing that w/o some dramatic changes that the Supreme Court is essentially 6-3, with five of those six quite reactionary forces who have shown their willingness to ignore long-standing presidents and remove the freedoms of American citizens.

The filibuster acts as a potential break on GOP extremism.

I do recognize that in a Republican-led Senate they could change the rules themselves. That is true. However they have not done so in the past when they had the opportunity.

There would be an argument for us to have (at least) short-term gain to pass legislation should we hold the House and pick up a couple extra Senate seats if the filibuster were eliminated.

But with a Republican-held House, that argument vanishes.

There could be serious unintended consequences.

[kelly1mm]

6. But will the Democrats in the Senate be able to make that pivot after making filibuster elimination

such a central part of their message and platform over the last 18 months? I fear they will not be able to. And if so how are they going to answer the questions (legitimately) from the press about their 180? "whoopsies, all that talk about jim crow relic and fundamental fairness ..... my bad!"

[Just A Box Of Rain]

7. Sure. These are consummate politicians who are at the top of their game.

They've faced more difficult problems than this. Only takes a few votes to block ending the filibuster and I think there are more votes than a few to be had from Democratic Senators who share the expressed fears about what a Republican majority with a Republican WH (and a reactionary Supreme Court) might do.

I'm confident sanity would prevail.

Anyway, I'm hopeful that Nancy Pelosi remains the Speaker and that Americans turn out in mass to say no the American fascism and to protect the rights of women.

I think the Republicans will have hell to pay in November.

[kelly1mm]

8. I think in a strange way the Dobbs decision where the Republicans got what they wanted

may in fact end up saving the republic ..... at least for a few more years

Thanks again for your thoughts.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

9. I do think a backlash is coming as a result of Dobbs.

Women (and men) are rightfully outraged with this decision and the end of "the right of privacy" threatens other ights, such as marriage equality.

Part of politics is being aware of the dangers of unintended consequences.

I believe the Republicans are going to pay a price. Unfortunately so are many American women (and girls). It is heartbreaking.

[kentuck]

10. I think the Republicans love the filibuster.

They get what they want with the filibuster. They still get their tax breaks. They still get to block Democratic nominees for different jobs. With the filibuster, they still get what they want and are able to stop Democrats from getting what they want.

It would be more fair and democratic if there was no filibuster. It should be done away with at the first opportunity, in my opinion.

[kelly1mm]

12. There is no filibuster for any executive branch appointments, including judicial and cabinet

level appointments since 2017. Simple 50+1 gets them in. So no, all the recent Democratic nominees have been scuttled by Democrats, not Republicans using the filibuster.

Tax breaks are almost always, by both parties, included in budget reconciliation bills so also not subject to the filibuster.

The first opportunity to get rid of the filibuster will likely be this coming January when the Democrats will likely have 52+ Senators. It will not actually matter though as it is likely that the Republicans will control the House so nothing of consequence will pass both houses of congress. Then, in 2024 is it possible (not probable) that Republicans will control both houses of congress and the Presidency. In that scenario God help us all without the filibuster.

[kentuck]

15. I hear you.

It's going to be a mess if Repubs take either house of Congress.

It's hard to envision any cooperation between the Parties anytime soon.

You are probably right about the filibuster, but if that is what the people vote for, let them have it.

[DemocraticPatriot]

11. If the Republicans win the House, then NO to filibuster elimination

in the next congress....


If the Republicans fail to take the House, then YES to at least creating a "carve-out" for the Democratic voting rights bills, which should be our top priority now. Supreme Court reform should be #2.


If Republicans DO take the House in November, I am confident that their over-reach will be so massive, a complete nightmare clown-car scenario, that the voting public will turn them out in 2024. After all, what will they do? They will try to impeach President Biden, even though there will be NO chance of removing him from office... They will investigate Hunter Biden (and who cares about that except the MAGAts?) They might even pass a nationwide ban on abortion, even though it will have no chance of senate passage. (Remember how many times the GOP House voted to abolish Obamacare??)

However, I am beginning to have some hopes that the GOP will fail to take the house this November.... Things are going about just as wrong for them as they could possibly go.... starting with the backlash to the overturning of Roe, and continuing with the direction that the election may turn into a referendum on Trump, rather than President Biden...

[kelly1mm]

13. So, just to make sure, and not as an attack or judgement, you are NOT considering the filibuster

as fundamentally a bad thing that should be eliminated on principle but rather solely in a real-politic fashion in that is it good when we use it and bad when they do? I THINK that is the actual thoughts of most partisans on both sides actually. However I fear the 18 month attack on the filibuster on principle (jim crow relic ect) makes any retreat from filibuster elimination (in full) difficult if/when the Democrats keep the Senate in 2022.

Thanks for your comments!

LDK

[DemocraticPatriot]

14. No, I do believe the filibuster is a bad and un-democratic thing,

but so is the United States Senate, since all the rural states with low population have equal representation with states who have many millions of population...


I just don't think the Democrats should make the move to eliminate it if doing so will not create immediate political benefits for us. Yes, this is based upon a "politically pragmatic" judgement, and not on "principle".... but its existence does offer us protection against Republican extremism.

We are at war with such extremism, and at war with a party who has no principles... I would not surrender any protection that the filibuster might provide us, if it will do us no good at that time, legislatively.

As far as discussion about "eliminating the filibuster" from the Democratic sides goes, I think that is extreme "inside baseball", and there would be no backlash for failure to do it with a senate majority-- if we are not in control of the House, so that there would be no benefit from doing so. From all I have read about it, there are more Senate Democrats who oppose the idea besides Joe and what's-her-name, so it would be unlikely to happen if there would be no immediate benefit anyway.

[kelly1mm]

16. Interesting! Thanks for your input!