Democrats poised to Rebuff McConnell's filibuster demands

Senate Democrats are signaling they will reject an effort by Mitch McConnell to protect the legislative filibuster as part of a deal to run a 50-50 Senate, saying they have little interest in bowing to his demands just hours into their new Senate majority.

McConnell has publicly and privately pressed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to work to keep the 60-vote threshold on most legislation as part of their power-sharing agreement. Democrats have no plans to gut the filibuster further, but argue it would be a mistake to take one of their tools off the table just as they're about to govern.

Many Democrats argue that having the threat of targeting the filibuster will be key to forcing compromise with reluctant Republicans. They also believe it would show weakness to accede to McConnell’s demand as he’s relegated to minority leader.

“Chuck Schumer is the majority leader and he should be treated like majority leader. We can get shit done around here and we ought to be focused on getting stuff done,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). “If we don’t, the inmates are going to be running this ship.”

“It would be exactly the wrong way to begin,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “We need to have the kind of position of strength that will enable us to get stuff done.”

Four years ago, as McConnell himself came under pressure from former President Donald Trump to gut the filibuster, 61 senators signed a letter to Senate leaders emphasizing the importance of protecting the supermajority requirement. And even now Democrats like Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia say they want to keep the filibuster, emphasizing that it drives compromise.

For that reason, the filibuster appears safe for the immediate future regardless of what happens in the coming days. If Democrats were to change it, it would likely be in response to Republicans blocking their bills repeatedly. And there’s plenty of pent-up angst in the Democratic Party, which is now in control of both chambers of Congress and the White House for the first time in more than a decade.

Republicans say that the time to commit to keeping the filibuster is now, not at a moment of political fury over legislation that the minority blocks. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said the GOP simply wants to hear Schumer say “that we’re not going to change the legislative filibuster.”

“You want to do it before there’s an emotional, difficult, controversial issue. So that it isn’t issue-driven, it’s institution-driven,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who organized the 2017 letter from rank-and-file senators to Schumer and McConnell.

The fight over the filibuster holds major consequences, both immediate and into the future. McConnell and Schumer met on Tuesday for a half-hour about how to organize the Senate but came to no resolution. McConnell brought up the filibuster in that meeting, while Schumer argued the Senate should adopt the same rules from the last 50-50 Senate in 2001, which didn’t touch on the 60-vote threshold.

MOST READ

DEFENSE

‘Really quite shocking’: Inside the ugly transition at the Pentagon

WHITE HOUSE

Trump leaves QAnon and the online MAGA world crushed and confused

LIVE UPDATES: BIDEN INAUGURATION

Trump leaves parting Oval Office letter for Biden

LIVE UPDATES: BIDEN INAUGURATION

Stephen Miller attacks Biden's immigration plan in first tweet

WHITE HOUSE

Donald Trump leaves as he arrived, minus his microphone

Previous Slide

Next Slide

The longer the standoff over the organizing package persists, the weirder the Senate will become. New senators have not been added to committees and the ratios have not changed, leaving the GOP in the majority on some panels. That’s already complicating the ability of the Senate to confirm some of President Joe Biden’s nominees.

“It’s exactly the opposite of the conversation that we should be having today,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.). “To sort of jade the day of the inauguration and three new senators being sworn in with sort of political hostage-taking is, I think, an indication of how Machiavellian politics around here have become.”

Democrats could change the Senate rules to a simple majority with the support of all 50 Senate Democrats as well as Vice President Kamala Harris via the “nuclear option,” or a unilateral rules change. The rules have been changed by a majority three times since 2013, once by Democrats and twice by Republicans — first on gutting the filibuster on most nominations, then on Supreme Court picks and finally to shorten the debate time for some nominees. Changing the legislative filibuster would effectively make the Senate much more like the House, a majoritarian institution.

Democrats have not discussed the filibuster impasse with McConnell as a caucus yet, though they are expected to hold a party meeting by phone as soon as Thursday. And several Democrats said they aren’t sure exactly how Schumer will thread the needle with his GOP counterpart. Schumer has repeatedly declined to comment on the talks with McConnell and on the filibuster. Notably, McConnell held firm on keeping the filibuster rule in place even as Trump repeatedly attacked him on Twitter.

But Democrats have strong feelings on the subject that will be hard to reconcile with McConnell’s demand. As Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) put it: “I don’t think there is any way that Democrats would find it acceptable to invoke new rules that McConnell certainly never volunteered to abide by himself.”

“It’s generally up to the majority as to whether they want to pursue a conversation about changing the rules. And we should reserve that right,” added Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “I’m a supporter of filibuster reform, I obviously want to make my case to the caucus when and if that moment arises.”

Schumer may be able to satisfy McConnell with something less than a written commitment, perhaps a speech on the Senate floor or a verbal acknowledgement that his preference is not to invoke the nuclear option. But even some Republicans are skeptical that Democrats will give up their leverage so easily and simply trust that Republicans will work with them on legislation.

McConnell’s “reasoning is let’s do it now while we’re all in this management mode as opposed to under fire when there’s a burning issue,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). “I’m skeptical of the outcome. I think Mitch’s effort is noble but I just don’t think it ends there

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...1Os1pj6t8TxzGg

Hey guys, Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana) that u see in the article continuously voted no on DA since 2007 & is 1 of 5 Senate DINOs who voted nay on 2010 DA that failed in Senate with 5 votes.

before voting no on 2010 DA, Senator Jon Tester said the following: “Illegal immigration is a critical problem facing our country, but amnesty is not the solution. I do not support legislation that provides a path to citizenship for anyone in this country illegally.”

tester.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2362

Never forget his name and retaliate against him politically plz.

He will likely vote against Dream Act again. Always dodge questions about DACA.

Not sure Republicans will align with any democratic bill should the filibuster go. Still, if Democrats are serious about getting their legislative issues in they certainly can't afford to go along with Republican demands. Key problem is there are more than 50 percent conservative legislators in the senate.

Best that can be done is a consensus bill AGJOBS, DACA, and TPS individuals with some internal security measures and further funding for the wall.

Trump's nonsense clear Democrats to play dirty.

Exactly

Graham-Durbin revival

CIR will be done once nationwide e-verify and birthright citizenship are in play

There is even less of a chance for birthright citizenship being in play than a CIR passing Congress.
You need a constitutional amendment. Even if Congressional Democrats legislated a CIR bill removing birthright citizenship as a “deal” with Republicans, other outside groups would challenge it to oblivion in courts.

I’d be ok with ‘citizenship abandonment’ clause to temp down on birth tourism and such in exchange for CIR. But to get rid of birthright citizenship would be a mistake. It would place people in similar situation that we are in only worse. These individuals would have never been to the county of their parents citizenship.

Retaliate against him? He is a Montana Democrat.

Of course he doesn't want to support legalizing millions of illegals.

Although I do think he will support whatever DACA fix the Repubs are willing to support.

This is why we can't get things done.

People like you want revenge for past votes.

That seat would be won by a Republican in no time if he would not run for reelection again.

So let's focus on moderates. That's the key to passage of anything.

Also, I do AGREE that Republicans need to start acting in good faith and find compromise

But with Pelosi in the House, it's hard to compromise with such Leftist Democrats

If I was a Republican Senator, I would demand that no family sponsorship of DACA legalized individuals.

Stop the magnet. Our parents shouldn't be rewarded for their illegal behavior and the TOUGH situation they put us through here.

Then add more enforcement at the border, making sure any new illegal entry is right away turned away and prosecuted.

We need a nation of laws, not broken systems that only benefit bit corporations for cheap labor and keeps Dems in power so they can use us as political pawns