The drama of adding drama to the Senate, either by eliminating the filibuster and forcing the Republicans to beg centrist Democrats to defect, or by returning the filibuster to something like its original form, as in taking the floor and talking their heads off, has not yet come to its climax. President Biden has joined Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) in calling for a return to the old filibuster ways, but some folks, such as John Bresnahan, who are intent on only seeing the task directly in front of them think, this is foolishness:
Thereby stopping Senate business. Chris Cillizza elaborates.
But a talking filibuster is just window dressing on the broader problem of the lack of bipartisanship in the Senate. It won’t solve the fundamental problem — and it could, actually, block up the chamber’s work even more. …
If the talking filibuster was reinstated, so too would be the rule that no other Senate business — judicial confirmations, Cabinet confirmations etc. — could be conducted while the chamber was being held by someone in the process of filibustering. Meaning that for as long as the filibuster could go, the Senate would be at a complete legislative stop. Nothing could or would get done.
Which then raises this question: How long could a filibuster go?
While the common perception of the filibuster is a lone senator holding the floor for as long as they (and their bladder) can hold out, it’s actually not in the Senate rules that only one senator can speak during a filibuster. According to a 2017 Congressional Research Service report on Rule 19, which governs filibusters:
“Rule XIX places no limit on the length of individual speeches or the number of Senators who may speak on a pending question. It does, however, tend to limit the possibility of extended debate by its provision that ‘no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.’ This provision, commonly called the two-speech rule, limits each Senator to making two speeches per day, however long each speech may be, on each debatable question the Senate considers. A Senator who has made two speeches on a single question becomes ineligible to be recognized for another speech on the same question on the same day.”
I take this less seriously than I might, because I think the Democratic leadership has more on its mind that individual victories. The Republican leadership and base has, through its behavior before and during the Insurrection, and even since, shown that it is no longer qualified to govern a liberal democracy – and doesn’t want to. They even say it, given their violent reaction to House H.R. 1, a bill to make it easier for voters to, you know, vote. It’s noteworthy that it’s, once again, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) who thinks so little of the bill. The Democratic recognition of the depravity of the Republican Party means they are no longer treating this as a series of individual contests, but a war requiring strategy.
That strategy includes the filibuster reform, which forces the Republicans on to the national stage in an environment far different than that of 1972, when the silent filibuster was implemented. Fast delivery of news, 24 hour coverage of a filibuster, reporters asking Republicans why they support a particular filibuster…
The context has changed, and I don’t think Cillizza really is taking this into account.
The potential elimination or reformation of the filibuster has made oneAssssssssss Senator very upset, and seeing as that is Senator McConnell (R-KY), the GOP leader, that may be a very good thing indeed. While his speech has been ridiculed by both politicians and comedians, it’s worth looking at it again just to reinforce his terror at the thought of losing his biggest weapon:
“Nobody serving in this chamber can even begin to imagine what a completely scorched-earth Senate would look like,” he said. “Even the most basic aspects of our colleagues’ agenda, the most mundane tasks of the Biden presidency would actually be harder, not easier for Democrats in a post-nuclear Senate. … We will use every other rule to make tens of millions of Americans voices heard.”
“It would not open up an express line for the Biden presidency to speed into the history books,” he added. “The Senate would be more like 100-car pileup — nothing moving.” [WaPo]
As numerous observers have pointed out, And how is that different from the status quo?
Without the silent filibuster, he either has to put up or shut up. If the filibuster is returned to talking form, with its attendant risks that I detailed in my previous post, he has to take the risk of the talking filibuster. If it’s completely eliminated then he’s forced to try to persuade a Democrat to his cause, and that’s not easy. Horse trading may or may not be in his quiver, either, as McConnell’s stated goal is to not permit any Democratic victories.
Reform or elimination are both bad for McConnell, and he’s facing a Democratic Party that has no patience for Republican depravity. This isn’t just about getting legislation passed, it’s about destroying the heart of the Republican Party, and while that won’t be accomplished by changing filibuster rules, it can deal a lot of damage to the Republicans’ base.
