Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Conservatives should be loudly clamoring for filibuster reform

Sign that reads, "End the Filibuster"
Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Carlson, a high school science teacher in Royal City, Wash., is a volunteer for RepresentUs, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for a broad array of democracy reforms.


The conservative values I was raised with and maintain to this day lead me to the conclusion that the filibuster has to be reformed or abolished. The filibuster hinders our modern political discourse and has a corrosive impact on Congress.

The filibuster allows our politicians to act without integrity, because they can too easily blame their inability to pass legislation on the filibuster. They tell us time and again they wish they could enact the agenda they ran on, but can't because of the filibuster. Therefore, many people don't even really expect politicians to keep their campaign promises — and the politicians know it. If the filibuster were eliminated, our legislators would have no excuse for their inaction.

The filibuster also allows politicians to hide from accountability. A filibuster is not automatic on every bill. A specific politician has to call for it. Filibusterers in the Senate know that filibusters generate very little press coverage. The media talks at length about how senators choose to vote, but the matter of a non-vote does not generate or sustain anywhere near the level of coverage. When the Senate fails to vote on measures month after month after month, those who are responsible for this inaction are never held accountable — and they know it. This allows them to block popular and necessary legislation time and time again and pay no political price for doing so.

There is no reason to think the authors of the Constitution would have supported our modern filibuster and every reason to think they would have been appalled. It's true that the Framers wanted it to be hard to pass laws. George Washington asked Thomas Jefferson why he poured coffee into a saucer. "To cool it," answers Jefferson. Washington replied, "Even so, we would pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."

Note that the coffee is poured into a saucer to be cooled prior to drinking, not poured to be discarded. Filibustered legislation that arrives "hot" from the House simply dies. The For the People Act arrived at the Senate as a "hot" piece of legislation. The bill was then "cooled" using the filibuster, reworked and reintroduced as the Freedom to Vote Act. But this new legislation was also filibustered, despite being rewritten to incorporate Republican Party ideas, such as a voter ID standard. As long as the filibuster remains intact, politicians will use it to prevent anything from being done that they perceive as damaging to partisan interests, regardless of the benefit to America.

Defenders of the filibuster say that it encourages bipartisanship. The evidence, however, points in the opposite direction. The last decade has seen an unprecedented surge in the number of filibusters, along with increased partisan polarization. While this doesn't necessarily mean the filibuster causes partisanship, it shows that it certainly doesn't help. If a minority party knows that legislation will pass, they will be incentivized to work with the majority party to shape the legislation as much to their liking as possible. Under the filibuster, no such incentive exists. Indeed, the incentive runs the other way, as the filibuster will protect one party's interests while simultaneously shielding politicians from being held accountable for partisan behavior.

Conservatives should be loudly clamoring for fixing the filibuster. I encourage you to reach out to your senator and ask that they do what is necessary to allow legislation to be passed and our country to move forward.

Read More

Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Rioters breach Capitol security Jan. 6

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Ours is a system of “checks and balances.”

The president can do this or that, but the courts and Congress can put a stop to it (depending on the circumstances and relevant rules). When the courts rule that the executive branch can’t do something, Congress can write a new law saying the president can do it. When Congress passes a law the president doesn’t like, the president can veto it. Congress, if it has enough votes, can override the veto. And so on. The whole idea is to deny any one branch or person too much concentrated power.

Keep ReadingShow less
Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Rioters breach Capitol security Jan. 6

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Ours is a system of “checks and balances.”

The president can do this or that, but the courts and Congress can put a stop to it (depending on the circumstances and relevant rules). When the courts rule that the executive branch can’t do something, Congress can write a new law saying the president can do it. When Congress passes a law the president doesn’t like, the president can veto it. Congress, if it has enough votes, can override the veto. And so on. The whole idea is to deny any one branch or person too much concentrated power.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump vs. Marjorie Taylor Green?! Here's What MAGA Really Means
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene
Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images

Donald Trump vs. Marjorie Taylor Green?! Here's What MAGA Really Means

In an interview on Fox News, President Trump affirmed his support for H-1B visas. He argued that because the US lacks enough talented people, we “have to bring this talent” from abroad. His words sparked outrage among conservatives.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of Trump’s staunchest loyalists, pushed back against Trump’s narrative. Greene praised US-Americans as “the most talented people in the world.” She even introduced legislation aimed at ending “the mass replacement of American workers” by the H-1B visa program.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump's Deregulation Lure: A Wage Squeeze for the Global South
person using black laptop computer
Photo by Kanchanara on Unsplash

Trump's Deregulation Lure: A Wage Squeeze for the Global South

When Colm Kelleher, chairman of UBS, sat down with Scott Bessent in recent months to discuss uprooting the bank's headquarters from Zurich to New York, it was more than corporate maneuvering. It was a signal flare for the financial world under Donald Trump's second term. Bessent promised a regulatory bonfire that could slash compliance costs and open the floodgates for American finance. The reported talks underscore a broader shift: the United States is apparently positioning itself as the unassailable hub of global capital, drawing in institutions like UBS with tax breaks and lighter oversight. Yet this allure comes at a steep price for emerging markets, where wage growth is already fragile. What looks like a boom for American workers masks a quiet trap, one that could deepen the divide between rich nations and the rest.

Bessent's vision, laid out in private conversations and public hints, paints a picture of American exceptionalism reborn. He has warned of a "perfect storm" of inherited inflation and supply disruptions from the Biden years, now to be tamed by aggressive deregulation and targeted tariffs. In one recent interview, he blamed soaring beef prices on a mix of migrant-driven cattle issues and lingering policy failures, framing Trump's agenda as the corrective force. The rhetoric is folksy, but the policy is sharp: roll back rules that hobble banks, lure foreign firms stateside, and shield domestic industries with import duties. UBS's flirtation with relocation fits neatly here. Across the Atlantic, Trump offers relief: no more endless stress tests, faster mergers, and a friendlier tax code. If UBS moves, it could save hundreds of millions annually in regulatory overhead, funneling those gains into higher bonuses for its New York traders.

Keep ReadingShow less