The Case for the Filibuster
Tens of millions of Americans alarmed by the radical Left’s ongoing assault on the American body politic heaved a collective sigh of relief on January 19 when the Senate narrowly voted to uphold the longstanding parliamentary practice known as the filibuster. Were it not for the principled intransigence of Democratic senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, the Senate filibuster, one of legislative Washington’s most cherished and long-held institutions, would have met an indecorous end at the hands of the demagogic mob disguised as Democratic legislators.
The filibuster, be it noted, is not a constitutional requirement. It is instead an institutional tradition that emerged as a dual consequence of the constitutional provision allowing the Senate to establish its own procedures and rules of conduct, along with the understanding — once almost universal in Washington — that the Senate, as the “upper house” of the American legislature and its allegedly deliberative body, should seek scrupulously to uphold the principle of checks and balances, and to maximally enable the voice of every one of its members.
Unfortunately, as the ongoing campaign against the filibuster has shown, most of the hyper-radicalized Democratic faction no longer accepts any limits on majoritarian power in either house. This has become especially relevant at a time when the top priority for the entire Democratic Party is nothing less than a radical and thoroughgoing overhaul of the American system of government — an overhaul that, if successful, would be at least as deleterious and impactful as the New Deal, and would virtually guarantee a permanent lock on government power by the Schu-mer- and Pelosi-led radical leftist Democrats. Included in the Democrats’ widely advertised program would be “stacking” the Supreme Court (something that FDR also attempted, in order to safeguard the New Deal); granting statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. (thereby guaranteeing four new Democratic Senators); maintaining a permanent “open door” policy for illegal immigrants likely to vote Democratic in perpetuum (in order to effect a demographic shift in Texas, Florida, and other refractory “red” states); spending the country trillions of dollars further into receivership; and — perhaps most ominously of all — usurping federal control over all state election laws, a flagitious attack on a constitutionally protected state power if ever there was one. Given the ferocity of the building electoral backlash against the radical Left, Democrats understand only too well that the time is short and the stakes are high — hence the fevered drive to abolish the filibuster and seize control of state elections before November.
JBS Member or ShopJBS.org Customer?
Sign in with your ShopJBS.org account username and password or use that login to subscribe.
Subscribe Now
- 24 Issues Per Year
- Digital Edition Access
- Exclusive Subscriber Content
- Audio provided for all articles
- Unlimited access to past issues
- Cancel anytime.
- Renews automatically
Subscribe Now
- 24 Issues Per Year
- Print edition delivery (USA)
*Available Outside USA - Digital Edition Access
- Exclusive Subscriber Content
- Audio provided for all articles
- Unlimited access to past issues
- Cancel anytime.
- Renews automatically