Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Presidential outcome may portend the Senate filibuster’s finish

Presidential outcome may portend the Senate filibuster’s finish

"The delay tactic of filibustering was actually an accident of history that came about in 1807," write Michael Golden and Emmet Bondurant.

Zach Gibson/Getty Images

Golden is the author of "Unlock Congress" and a senior fellow at the Adlai Stevenson Center on Democracy. He is also a member of The Fulcrum's editorial advisory board. Bondurant has argued several cases before the Supreme Court and represented Common Cause in an unsuccessful 2010 lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the filibuster.

Buried in the vortex of voices shouting at each other during this week's South Carolina debate were two consecutive answers in which Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg both announced support for a simple rule change that would be a game-changer for the American people: Finally putting an end to the filibuster.

For several years we've been making the legal argument that the cloture rules of the Senate, who now require 60 votes instead of a simple majority to advance legislation, are unconstitutional. Neither lawmaking nor executive branch appointments were included by the Framers in the five scenarios they laid out requiring supermajorities.


The delay tactic of filibustering was actually an accident of history that came about in 1807. Later on, the Senate simply invented the 60-vote rule so that windy grandstanders couldn't just prattle on forever.

But the legality of the rules wasn't the basis for the debate-stage pronouncements by the Massachusetts senator and the former mayor of South Bend, Ind. The passion the two Democratic presidential candidates have for ending filibusters rests on the fact that they have been used in recent decades to block all kinds of things that overwhelming majorities of Americans support — and often majorities in both chambers of Congress.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

We fervently agree, and to a significant extent, so have the Senate leaders in both parties over the last decade when it comes to cabinet and judicial appointments.

In 2013, Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid exercised what's become known as the "nuclear option" — eliminating the 60-vote hurdle for confirming executive branch nominees and all federal judges except the most powerful nine.

At the time, Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell seethed about the rule change. But after the GOP gained the majority in 2017, he went nuclear himself to get the filibuster ended for Supreme Court nominees as well. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are the result.

Passing legislation, the most important task assigned to Congress, is all that remains captive to the filibuster. After his changing of the rules, and in a staggering display of hypocrisy, McConnell stated, "The legislative filibuster is central to the nature of the Senate. It always has been and must always be the distinctive quality of this institution."

The centuries-old label for the Senate of "world's greatest deliberative body" has literally become a punchline. This cruel joke played out most recently when senators refused to allow witness testimony in President Trump's impeachment trial.

And you want to see legislation pass with the potential to improve your life — or even if you only want to see an idea put to an up-or-down vote — that cruel joke has more serious consequences.

The Senate's pompous sense of self-importance and reverence for the filibuster's history only serve as impediments to progress. Buttigieg got specific about this in the most local fashion during the debate, reminding South Carolinians that their legendary segregationist senator, the late Strom Thurmond, "used the filibuster to block civil rights legislation repeatedly. ... It has got to go, otherwise Washington will not deliver."

Those who disagree often reference the apocryphal story of George Washington describing the Senate as a "cooling saucer" for the heated pace of bills passing through the majority-rule House. They warn about the danger of sudden moves in Congress. Conservative author David French made the case that, "at the very least, it's a recipe for increasing bitterness, division, and instability in public policy."

But we already have a record level of bitterness and division. Meanwhile, big bills with broad support are never put to a final vote. It's been a decade, for example, since an expansive immigration reform called the Dream Act reached its high water mark, dying even though 59 senators voted to break the filibuster, and an expansive campaign finance crackdown suffered the same fate even with 57 senators on board.

What the filibuster effectively does is allow a minority of senators, from states with as little as 11 percent of the national population, to effectively veto bills supported by the senators representing 89 percent of Americans.

The irony is that Republicans who gasp at the thought of killing the filibuster, for fear of its long-term effects, have already made possible majority votes on the judges who may wield power for life. Legislation can be corrected by amendment or repealed through the ordinary course of Congress. The same process does not apply to judges.

Interestingly, not only does Reid not regret his decision to make the first weakening of the filibuster, in retirement he supports its outright extinction. Reid has said it is going to happen, it is only a question of when.

A former GOP Senate leader, too, has seemed to see the light in retirement. In 1993 and 1994, Bob Dole set a record for using the filibuster and cloture — more times than it had been used in all the years between 1917 and 1970. But on his 90th birthday, Dole announced, "There are things that should be stopped, but at least there ought to be a vote. It can't continue, this constant holding up of bills." Ah, the wisdom of experience.

In the debate, Buttigieg and Warren stated their unequivocal support for getting rid of the filibuster. But other senators have also stated openness to making the only nuclear move left — including the other two in the presidential race, Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar.

When you stop and think about our country's birth, and the rules the Founders outlined for our representatives to operate under, this question becomes far less confounding. What great harm would befall the Republic, what great democratic values would be lost if the Senate were to become, for the first time in over 200 years, a majoritarian body governed by the democratic principle of majority rule as the Framers of the Constitution intended?

If the Democrats win this November, they might answer that question once and for all.

Read More

The Hidden Moral Cost of America’s Tariff Crisis

Small business owner attaching permanent close sign on the shop door.

Getty Images, Kannika Paison

The Hidden Moral Cost of America’s Tariff Crisis

In the spring of 2025, as American families struggle with unprecedented consumer costs, we find ourselves at a point of "moral reckoning." The latest data from the Yale Budget Lab reveals that tariff policies have driven consumer prices up by 2.9% in the short term. In comparison, the Penn Wharton Budget Model projects a staggering 6% reduction in long-term GDP and a 5% decline in wages. But these numbers, stark as they are, tell only part of the story.

The actual narrative is one of moral choice and democratic values. Eddie Glaude describes this way in his book “Democracy in Black”: Our economic policies must be viewed through the lens of ethical significance—not just market efficiency. When we examine the tariff regime's impact on American communities, we see economic data points and a fundamental challenge to our democratic principles of equity and justice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

President-elect Donald Trump at Madison Square Garden in New York

Chris Unger/Zuffa LLC/Getty Images

Trump’s First 100 Days Changed the Game – the Next 1300 Could Change the Nation

The country has now witnessed and felt the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term. These days were filled with unrelenting, fast-paced executive action. He signed a record-breaking number of executive orders, though many have been challenged and may be reversed. Working with Congress to pass legislation, though more difficult, leads to more enduring change and is less likely to be challenged in court. While certainly eventful, the jury is still out on how effective these first days have been. More importantly, the period of greater consequence - the months following the first 100 days, which should focus on implementation - will ultimately determine whether the president’s drastic changes can stand the test of time and have their desired impact on American society.

The first months of all Presidential terms include outlining a vision and using presidential influence to shift priorities and change governance structures. The media often focuses on polling and popularity, comparing previous presidents and highlighting public perception of the president's handling of specific issues like the economy, immigration, and national defense. Rasmussen Reports' daily Presidential Tracking Poll now shows 50 percent of likely voters approve of President Trump's job performance, but change has never been popular, and he is unapologetically pursuing it in these first months.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act

United States Capitol building in Washington, D.C.

Getty Images, dcsliminky

Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

In response to Trump’s takeover threats, Canadian coffee shops and cafés are rebranding the Americano beverage as the “Canadiano.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Raising Taxes or Cutting Spending: House Budget Committee Argues Over Debt Crisis Fix

Republican and Democratic representatives discussed the fiscal state of the United State in a House Budget hearing on May 7, 2025

Huiyan Li | Medill News Service

Raising Taxes or Cutting Spending: House Budget Committee Argues Over Debt Crisis Fix

WASHINGTON –– Republicans and Democrats clashed on May 7 at a House Budget Committee hearing over how to address the nation’s mounting federal debt—whether to raise revenue through tax increases or cut spending on federal programs such as Medicaid.

Both parties agreed that the United States was on an unsustainable fiscal path and that urgent action is needed to prevent a debt crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less