“It is now time for the Republicans to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’ and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!”
That’s what President Trump posted on Truth Social back during the shutdown, adding, “WE are in power, and if we did what we should be doing, it would IMMEDIATELY end this ridiculous, Country destroying ‘SHUT DOWN.’”
This was prior to Democrats, off-year election over, suddenly deciding to agree to the same deal to reopen the government that Republicans had been offering for weeks.
The 60-vote supermajority the United States Senate needs to end debate and vote on legislation is a small‑r republican measure, not a small‑d democratic one. Reasonable people can disagree over its merits, certainly, but I like the greater consensus it requires.
What I don’t like is that the party in control of the Senate can at any time change the filibuster rule in any way it wishes, including ending it altogether.
Rules shouldn’t be this easy to junk.
Make the Senate filibuster not just a rule, but constitutional law.
Another major matter of constitutional change is sorely needed. The stability and independence of one of the three branches of the federal government, the U.S. Supreme Court, hangs by a thread.
The number of justices, now nine, is nowhere set in the Constitution.
Congress and the White House, when held by the same political party — even short of 60 votes in the Senate, because they could simply end the filibuster — could immediately add ten new justices.
Or 20.
And then confirm all the president’s picks.
All something Democrats mused about doing years ago: packing the High Court with many new justices to magically engineer a new Democratic Party majority on the SCOTUS.
The number of justices, like the Senate’s super-majoritarian filibuster, aren’t written in stone.
But should be.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Krea and Firefly
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
5 replies on “Constitutional Defects”
A very great educational effort would be required for constitutional amendments of the sort that you propose to be ratified by the required majority of state legislatures. Only a minority of Americans recognize the virtue of requiring a senatorial supermajority for various actions, and Democrats are aching to nerf the Constitution when next they control both Chambers of Congress and the Presidency.
You’re right it would require a lot of people to understand the Constitution, especially Article I, which allows each chamber to set its own rules. For instance, the required supermajority used to be 67.
Personally, I favor a 2/3+1 majority requirement to pass anything in the Senate or House, and a simple majority to repeal anything previously passed.
Nitpick: The 60-vote rule is not actually the filibuster, even though a lot of people call it that. A real filibuster consists of a Senator speaking continuously and never yielding the floor to prevent a vote from occurring. The 60-vote rule is just “cloture” — a vote, between speakers, to end debate, so that a final vote can be taken.
Democrats blocked cloture on circuit and appellate court judges under Bush 43, even though the nominees had bipartisan support. When the GOP returned the favor under Obama, then Harry Reid decided to end the filibuster for lower court judges. He was warned it would open the door for the GOP to make a similar change, but he went ahead. The GOP then did the same for the Supreme Court. Progressive Dems are now drooling at the idea of statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. If this happens at least two states will lose House seats, unless Congress also increases the number of House members, which currently sits at 435.
Paul. There is nothing wrong with our constitution. But there are lots of things wrong with the people that have been appointed to Judgeships and how they interpret and apply the constitution. Obama taught constitutional law at the U. of Chicago before he was elected to the senate in 2004. He was accused of abusing the constitution by overstepping the bounds of executive branch power and ignoring the separation of powers. Did familiarity breed contempt? Trump has been smeared with the same accusations. Where is the truth?
The founding fathers vision for the judicial branch was to act as impartial judges answering questions of law by applying established legal principles and precedents to specific cases, ensuring consistency and fairness. That’s why it’s called case law precedent. It establishes rules for how existing laws should be interpreted and applied in future cases.
With politically biased judges being appointed to rubber stamp various ideologies, we have seen a deterioration in that vision. The canonization of George Floyd as the victim of a systemically racist society is proof. When you have a “lawmaker” in congress say that just because you commit a crime doesn’t make you a criminal is proof that the way things are and the way things should be have been reversed. Those of us with our consciences still intact cannot process such changes easily and refuse to live in delusions.
Adding more laws is not the answer. Enforcing the ones that are already in existence and appointing judges that aren’t beholden to wealthy politically biased donors is the best way forward… in a perfect world.
BTW: The simple math question that must be answered to post a comment would be considered racist by CNN.