Nuking the filibuster would have unintended consequences

The biggest Tuestion in :ashington for the next two years isn’t about a single policy or whether President Biden will expose himself to a press conference. It’s whether Democrats use their narrow Senate majority to kill the legislative filibuster rule reTuiring 60 votes in order to ram a radical agenda into law with a mere 50 votes plus 9ice President .amala +arris.

Two Democrats ² .yrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe 0anchin of :est 9irginia ² promised at the start of the year that they wouldn’t vote to do so. But progressive and media pressure is building on the pair to renege on their pledges, as legislation passed by the +ouse piles up at the Senate door. Democratic Senate leaders are vowing that they’ll find a way to evade the filibuster one way or another.

5epublicans can see these signs, and on Tuesday 0inority /eader 0itch 0cConnell made clear what would happen if they do kill the filibuster. It won’t be pretty.

³Some Democratic Senators seem to imagine this would be a tidy tradeoff, if they could just break the rules on a razor-thin majority. Sure, it might damage the institution, but then nothing would stand between them and their entire agenda, a new era of fast-track policy-making,´ the GOP leader said.

Don’t count on it, 0r. 0cConnell continued: ³So let me say this very clearly for all of my colleagues. 1obody serving in this chamber can even begin, can even begin to imagine what a completely scorched-earth Senate would look like. 1one of us have served one minute in the Senate that was completely drained of comity and consent.´

+e then explained what that could mean in practice if 5epublicans responded by withdrawing the unanimous consent reTuired for the Senate to function: ³I want our colleagues to imagine a world where every single task, every one of them, reTuires a physical Tuorum² which, by the way, the 9ice President does not count in determining a Tuorum.´

That’s right. A Tuorum without unanimous consent is 5 Senators, and there are only 50 Democrats. If 5epublicans kept their nerve in opposition, Democrats couldn’t confirm nominees or vote on legislation. The 1ancy Pelosi-Joe Biden agenda couldn’t move any more than if there were a filibuster.

Democrats may think this is a bluff, or that the public would revolt if 5epublicans ground Senate business to a halt. But are they willing to take that bet"

Democrats shouldn’t underestimate how united Senate 5epublicans would be, and how much GOP grass-roots support they’d have, if Democrats break the filibuster in a 50-50 Senate to federalize 50-state election laws, force mandatory unionization on 2 states with right-towork laws, add two new states to pack the Senate, or pass the Green 1ew Deal.

0r. 0cConnell pointed out the obvious that majorities aren’t permanent and eventually 5epublicans would be in position to rule the Senate without a filibuster. Imagine what they might pass" 0r. 0cConnell gave a few examples² defunding Planned Parenthood²but for political flavor think GOP Sens. Josh +awley and 5and Paul unbound.

These columns have been frustrated by many Democratic filibusters over the years, but the rule exists to protect minority rights and reTuire large majorities for significant reforms. If Democrats blow it up on the narrowest of majority votes, they will own the unintended conseTuences.