[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – When West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin opened the door this week to make it more ‘painful’ to block legislation, some Democrats saw a groundbreaking opportunity to remake the Senate and remove a major obstacle to a progressive agenda .
It was a telling change for Manchin, the most outspoken Democratic supporter of filibuster – an apparent sign of party consensus that the rule can be relaxed or even abolished. Some progressives say his idea would open the door to the passage of ambitious bills to strengthen voting rights and gun control, which have cleared the House and are heading for a fatal crash with the 60-vote threshold of the Senate.
“This is very important,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., The main antagonist of filibuster, said in an interview. “There has been a huge shift in the Democratic caucus, saying, ‘We were elected to solve the problems, not to apologize because [Senate Republican leader Mitch] McConnell stopped us. This excuse won’t fly, and neither should it. “
Merkley said he had gauged senators’ interest in a “talking filibuster,” which Manchin supported. The idea is to test obstruction of senators by forcing them to speak out in order to stop the legislation – the West Virginian alluded to actor Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith visits Washington.
Such a change would end the filibuster as it currently exists, while allowing a determined minority to slow down or scuttle the bills. It would also allow a steadfast majority to survive them.
Democrats have 50 votes in the Senate and would need every member on board to change the rules. But since Republicans are quick to warn them, they can live to regret the new precedent.
“Majorities come and majorities disappear. But the essence of the Senate is the filibustering of the legislative timetable. Change that and you change the Senate – and America – forever,” McConnell told reporters, dismissing any changes. of the rule. “The status quo on this issue is exactly where we should be.”
As McConnell noted, Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., Were the two Democrats who spoke out against ending the filibuster during a January debate over its future. But they also did not rule out making changes.
Manchin made it clear on NBC’s Meet The Press on Sunday and on Fox News on Wednesday that he was not calling for new filibuster exemptions for certain issues, saying: “I will never give up my belief that the minority should have a say. “
But he said there should be a higher bar to obstruct.
“People have to make sure they’re ready to show – that would be great, don’t you think, if someone was out there to tell you why they’re opposing?” Manchin said on Fox News.
This week, Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., And Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., Also endorsed a talking filibuster. Others have said they are ready to end the filibuster, including Senator Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Who has a reputation for being moderate.
The voting rights issue will be a litmus test of Democrats’ willingness to maintain filibuster, as Republican-led state legislatures across the country, including Georgia, pass a wave of restrictive election laws which experts say will disproportionately hamper access for Democrats. by ballot.
“The right to vote preserves all other rights. It is not just a legislative issue alongside others. It is the very basis upon which we are sent here to defend the cause of the American people,” said the Senator Raphael Warnock, D-Ga. , whose January victory in the historically red state placed Democrats in the majority. “It’s urgent. And so I think all options have to be on the table, in terms of Senate rules.”
Talking about filibuster: how would it work?
The details of any rule change would be critical, Merkley said.
Under the current rules established in 1975, the onus is on the majority to find 60 votes to pass legislation; if 41 or more senators vote against, the bill stops and the majority can do nothing. Merkley calls it a “showless, effortless, silent and invisible” blockade.
A talking filibuster would reverse that burden, forcing a group of 41 senators to stand up and take turns talking endlessly – to voice their grievances with the bill under consideration.
Eventually, Merkley explained, one of two things will happen: the majority party will lose its temper and pull the bill, or the number of senators present will drop below 41 and allow the majority to move the bill forward. bill with a three-fifths majority.
Manchin’s remarks came within a week when Republicans united in opposing President Joe Biden’s $ 1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief program, despite his high popularity, which made some Democrats pessimistic on the conclusion of major bipartite agreements on issues such as immigration and infrastructure.
“It has been a pivotal week,” said Adam Jentleson, former Democratic Senate executive assistant and author of the book “Kill Switch,” which argues that filibuster cripples American democracy. “Manchin’s comments were certainly encouraging, but perhaps most important is the fact that no Republican voted for the US bailout. I think it highlights the need for reform more than anything else. “
As Democrats bask in the glow of the Covid-19 revival victory, they face an intimidating choice over what to come next as the filibuster opposes Biden’s agenda, like the pay rise minimum, the fight against climate change, the overhaul of the criminal justice system and the strengthening of Obamacare. with a public option. The Covid-19 bill could bypass the systematic obstruction because it was budgetary; most other invoices will not be eligible.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, DN.Y., said this week he would call votes on two bills passed by the House aimed at filling loopholes in the background check rules for the buying guns, “and we’ll see where everyone is at.”
Asked by NBC News if a talking filibuster is the way to go if his priorities are below 60 votes, Schumer kicked off.
But he kept the door open, suggesting failure is not an option.
“All I can tell you is we need big, bold action. And we need to find the best way to get it,” Schumer said in an interview. “If the Republicans work with us, great. But we have to. Period.”
[ad_2]
Source link