Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wants to do away with, or peel back, the filibuster to pass Democrats’ proposed voting bills. This move, if successfully implemented, will unequivocally prove that even the most blatant acts of hypocrisy by those on the Left will not deter the Democrats from implementing dangerous policies to quench their insatiable thirst for power and control.
Historically, the filibuster has been used as a system of checks and balances. While it has typically been used between the three branches of government, it also applies to the House and Senate, which participate in the legislative process in different ways. As reported by the Heritage Foundation, “Senate rules require a supermajority to end debate before a simple majority can pass a bill. That gives the minority more influence and encourages deliberation and consensus.”
Currently, Senate rules require at least 60 votes to move legislation forward. This has been the case since 1975 and compels at least some bipartisan support to move a bill forward given the current party breakdown in the Senate. A filibuster occurs when the legislation fails to garner at least 60 votes. Democrats currently lack the requisite number of votes to defeat a filibuster on their voting rights bills.
Schumer and many congressional Democrats want to eliminate the 60-vote requirement to pass their voting rights bills, which will, in essence, federalize the nation’s elections and make them much more susceptible to fraud and corruption.
Ironically, Schumer and many of the Democrats supporting this move sang a different tune not too long ago. For example, Schumer strongly defended the 60-vote threshold and opposed changing the rules when it came to confirming Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. In 2005, Schumer strongly supported the notion of extended debate, as did Sens. Joe Biden and Barack Obama. Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy echoed Schumer’s sentiment and noted that eliminating the filibuster would be “an abuse of power to advance a power grab” and to “undercut the checks and balances of the Senate.”
Moreover, nearly four years ago, 61 senators signed a letter opposing any efforts to curtail or to limit senators’ rights to engage in full and extended debate over proposed bills or legislation. Many of the Democrats who signed that letter continue to serve in the Senate today, including Vice President Kamala Harris.
Why would many of the same Democrats who adamantly defended the filibuster suddenly change their tune? One likely explanation revolves around their quest for power and their willingness to do whatever it takes to maintain power no matter the cost.
John Steinbeck once stated, “Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts … perhaps the fear of a loss of power.” Steinbeck’s words certainly ring true today, as Democrats throughout the country are facing a potential monumental loss of power and control in 2022.
One way to mitigate such damage is to control the elections and to implement rules that will seemingly benefit the Democrats come election time. To do this, Democrats in Congress could try to use the “nuclear option,” which will allow them to end debate and to vote on cloture with a simple majority vote.
If they do so, they will not only be disregarding the notion of checks and balances but also taking a major risk. Specifically, if Democrats lose control of Congress in 2022, the Republicans could very well use the same strong-handed tactics to push subsequent legislation through. While President Joe Biden will likely veto such measures, his reign as president and the Democrats’ control of the White House could easily change hands in 2024.
As such, any possible rule change by the Democrats could put them at a major disadvantage in the not-too-distant future.
Elad Hakim is a Florida-based attorney and columnist.
