Harris’ Filibuster Hate is Political Suicide for Dems
Say Democrats carve out a filibuster exception for abortion. What’s then to stop Republicans from carving out exceptions for pro-life protections?
It appears that Kamala Harris and her Democratic allies have forgotten the lessons of the past and are doomed to repeat them.
Harris recently announced that she was in favor of nixing the Senate filibuster to force through abortion protections in the upper chamber during an interview with Wisconsin Public Radio.
"I've been very clear,” Harris said. “I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe, and get us to the point where 51 votes would be what we need to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom and for the ability of every person and every woman to make decisions about their own body and not have their government tell them what to do."
Harris’ liberal base was over the moon with her comments, urging her to stick to her guns and gut the legislative procedure. And yet, there were calls for temperance even from within her own party.
West Virginia senator Joe Manchin told CNN he would now refuse to endorse Harris over the remarks, warning that the filibuster’s demise would result in utter chaos.
“Shame on her. She knows the filibuster is the Holy Grail of democracy,” Manchin said. It’s the only thing that keeps us talking and working together. If she gets rid of that, then this would be the House on steroids.”
Manchin added, “I think that basically can destroy our country, and my country is more important to me than any one person or any one person’s ideology. … I think it’s the most horrible thing.”
Democrat-turned-Independent Kyrsten Sinema noted on Twitter, “To state the supremely obvious, eliminating the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade also enables a future Congress to ban all abortion nationwide. What an absolutely terrible, shortsighted idea.”
Manchin and Sinema were frequently attacked by their Democratic colleagues for their refusal to kill the filibuster back in 2022, but they were absolutely correct to do so.
The filibuster serves as an important check in the legislative process, preventing the upper and more reasoned body from simply becoming a smaller version of the House of Representatives.
During one of the various conventions to determine the future of the federal government, Founding Father James Madison wrote that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" of the popularly elected House.
In Madison’s vision, the Senators would be elected by the states and not the people, something that was eliminated with the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1912. That Democrats are now attempting to remove the filibuster is an indication that even popular election of senators isn’t enough, and that the Senate should simply be another House.
It’s clear why they want it that way. As much as they claim to be above petty politicking, Democrats recognize that they have an advantage when it comes to larger, more populated states and want to utilize that advantage as much as possible.
Not content to gobble up the lion’s share of representatives from New York and California, those states now must have an outsized say in the Senate. But this flies in the face of yet another, very intentional check the Founders instituted into our government.
The Founders knew that if the nation were to survive, every state would need to buy into the Union. Why would a smaller state willingly surrender itself to a system where bigger states dominated their every affair? A compromise was struck to give the small states reason to buy-in, resulting in the birth of the Senate.
But even foolishly ignoring the vision of the men who formed our system of government, abolishing the filibuster would be monumentally stupid for Democrats given the advantage the Senate currently gives to the GOP. The reality is more states are red than blue. Generally speaking, that means more Senators will be Republicans than Democrats.
Given that more often than not Republicans will control the Senate, why would Democrats hand them the keys to more unchecked power? This isn’t even the first time Democrats have made this mistake with the filibuster!
After Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option in 2013 to obliterate the filibuster for judicial appointments, Senate Minority Mitch McConnel infamously warned Democrats that “you’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.”
While Democrats cried foul when McConnell masterfully turned the table to then put three Constitutionalist justices on the Supreme Court, they had no one to blame but themselves. Turnabout is fair play after all.
Why would Harris expect things to go differently this time? Say Democrats carve out a filibuster exception for abortion. What’s then to stop Republicans from carving out exceptions for pro-life protections? Why are Democrats so utterly incapable of looking more than three seconds into the future?
Harris and the Democrats would be total fools to eliminate the filibuster. It would erode yet another bulwark in our system of checks and balances and would be a short term win for her party anyway, resulting in policy that would likely be immediately overturned next time Republicans seize power.
I don’t know why Democrats continue to play with this filibuster fire and expect not to get burned. But if there's an adage I’ve found to be true is that history often repeats itself.
Coming soon to a theater near you: The Nuclear Option, Part 2. Best grab your popcorn.