4

Senator Joe Manchin has been consistently opposed to abolishing the filibuster, noting that the filibuster provides for minority input.

I can assure you I will not vote to end the filibuster, because that would break the Senate. We’ve harmed the Senate enough with the nuclear option on the judges. We’re making lifetime appointments based on a simple majority. The minority should have input — that’s the whole purpose for the Senate. If you basically do away with the filibuster altogether for legislation, you won’t have the Senate. You’re a glorified House. And I will not do that.

On the other hand, many progressive Democrats have consistently been in favour of abolishing the filibuster, with a memo from progressive organisations highlighting the advantages of abolishing the filibusters, especially in getting Democrats' priorities passed.

Get rid of the filibuster. ​It would be far healthier, cleaner, and easier to explain politically to simply reform or get rid of the filibuster immediately, and proceed to pass Biden's agenda through regular order—including must-pass civil rights bills, climate solutions and statehood. A quick strike against the filibuster in January will set Biden up to shepherd his entire agenda through regular order, with full committee involvement and proper levels of oversight and transparency.

However, while abolishing the filibuster means that Democrats can get their legislation passed more easily, it also opens the door for Republicans to repeal those Democratic legislation more easily should Democrats lose control of the Senate in the future. Have congressional Democrats in favour of abolishing the filibuster said anything about what happens / they would do if Democrats were to lose control of the Senate in the future?


Note: I'm looking for public statements or opinions from congressional Democrats (incl. House Democrats) who have expressed support for abolishing the filibuster.

5
  • Does it require a public statement? Do you imagine that they would propose abolishing the filibuster for the Dems but not the GOP? – James K Jan 26 at 8:23
  • @JamesK Well, off the record is fine too. I'm more interested in knowing whether there's any acknowledgment, either implicit or explicit, of their long-term plans if the Dems were to be relegated to the minority next time. – Panda Jan 26 at 8:47
  • There's a kind of bias in this question, it seems to assume that Democrats who want to abolish the filibuster think only of their own self interest in the near future. Isn't it obvious that if somebody proposes such a new rule, they must think it's better in general, not only for themselves right here right now? In other words, the question seems to assume bad faith from the people who want to abolish the filibuster. – Erwan Jan 26 at 16:38
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; the conversation about gerrymandering has been moved to chat. – CDJB Jan 26 at 16:49
  • 1
    If they feel it's important, the GOP can always reinstate it when/if they retake the Senate. – dandavis Jan 26 at 18:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .