The Senate Filibuster goes against the spirit of the Constitution and allows a minority of Senators representing a minority of the population to stop the Senate from implementing policies favored by a majority of the people and its elected representatives. It’s an anti-democratic graft onto an institution already grounded in putting the brakes on democracy. This recent column by Jamelle Bouie sets out the anti-filibuster arguments clearly and concisely (much better than my own effort from several years back, The Filibuster is Not a Check or Balance).
But the filibuster has got a real fan in Senator Cory Booker!
On the opening day of his campaign, Booker said "I will personally resist efforts to get rid of it." In a Politico story that ran on January 31, Booker stated: “We should not be doing anything to mess with the strength of the filibuster. It’s one of the distinguishing factors of this body. And I think it is good to have the power of the filibuster.” Link.
He addressed the subject at more length in an interview this morning on NPR’s Morning Edition — this is my transcription from the audio story:
“I’m willing to listen to some more arguments, but we need to understand that there’s good reason to have a Senate where we’re forced to find pragmatic bipartisan solutions, Let’s be a country that operates from that sense of common purpose”
THE FILIBUSTER HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BIPARTISAN SOLUTIONS AND BIPARTISAN SOLUTIONS MEANS REPUBLICAN SOLUTIONS STOP SUPPORTING REPUBLICANS
Ahem. So he supports the filibuster because he says it’s good for pragmatism, bipartisanship, and a common purpose.
“Pragmatic." Because serious politicians support things that they think will work, whereas partisans suggest policies that... they also think will work. In any event, there is ZERO REASON to believe that “pragmatism” will suddenly appear in the gap between a bill with 51 votes and 60 votes.
I can’t even with this bipartisan nonsense. After eight years of the Obama administration, you're going to campaign on the basis of saying if we only reach out to Republicans, we can all work together? Really? Really? Suffice it to say that the filibuster does not create any requirement that the Senate works together on a bipartisan basis. Instead, it allows 41 Senators to thwart a majority of 59 Senators. There is no requirement that votes come from more than one political party to break a filibuster (if for some crazy reason you thought Republicans were a good faith party with good ideas for governance, or just generally fetishized bipartisanship).
And as for a common purpose. A simple MAJORITY of the Senate is a “common" purpose. In fact, the founding fathers designed the Senate to be elected in three separate cohorts so that it would only pass legislation that had been the common purpose for many years, as opposed to a passing passion. The filibuster doesn’t raise up a common purpose. It does the opposite! It allows the common purpose to be thwarted by a minority of Senators, which since it's the Senate may only represent a small fraction of the American people.
Booker’s not the only candidate to support the filibuster, just the one who seems to talk about it the most. We need to hold every Democratic candidate to account on this issue, and ask them why they support (if they do) such an anti-democratic rule in the Senate. We deserve answers — and better ones than these.