Is it time?

The question before you is this - is it time to nuke the filibuster?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 33.3%

  • No

    Votes: 1 33.3%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • Total voters
    3
  • This poll will close: .
ending a filibuster on legislation will bite us big time in the future.

another carve out perhaps? “Cloture on any continuing resolution shall require only a simple majority.”
 
zymurgy said:
no carve outs would also be subject to reciprocity. I am not comfortable going nuclear, but if they do, they need to limit it as done with judicial appointments
Click to expand...

There are pros and cons.

Both a carve out and the nuclear option would enable passage of the CR but both carry long-term implications for Senate procedure when Democrats regain the majority. However, I believe you're correct that a carve out is potentially less risky.

  • The nuclear option has a track record of provoking reciprocal overreaches. In 2013, Democrats used it for executive and lower-court nominations amid GOP obstruction, which Republicans mirrored in 2017 for Supreme Court justices. A full nuclear invocation for legislation now could embolden Democrats to eliminate the filibuster entirely when they return to power—perhaps via another nuclear vote—allowing passage of pet radical leftist bills like voting rights expansions, climate measures, or immigration reform without GOP input. Analyses from sources like the Brookings Institution note that each "nuclear" step has widened exceptions, eroding the filibuster's role as a consensus tool.
  • By changing the underlying cloture rule, it opens the door for Democrats to interpret it as a green light for further dilutions. For instance, they could argue symmetry justifies nuking it for all non-budget items, leading to a more polarized Senate where simple-majority rule becomes the norm. Current GOP hesitation (e.g., Majority Leader John Thune's October 9, 2025, statement rejecting it for the CR) reflects a desire to avoid this "slippery slope," as it would make the Senate function more like the House—majority-driven and less deliberative.
  • It's politically explosive, fueling narratives of "power grabs." Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) advocated it on October 3, 2025, but Senate GOP leaders like Thune and Whip John Barrasso oppose it, citing long-term damage. If used, Democrats could campaign on "restoring Senate norms" while pursuing aggressive changes, potentially swaying voters in the midterm elections.
  • A carve out, by limiting it to CRs addresses a specific dysfunction—recurrent shutdown threats—without touching the filibuster's core for policy bills. This mirrors budget reconciliation, which already bypasses filibusters for fiscal matters (e.g., 2021 Democrats' $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan; 2017 Republicans' tax cuts). Reconciliations' Byrd Rule constrains scope, and a CR carve out could include similar guardrails, making Democrat expansion harder (but not impossible) to justify to the voting public.
  • Even Democrats like Fetterman have supported CR-specific carve-outs, calling it "entirely appropriate" to avoid shutdowns. Historical proposals (e.g., 2022 voting rights carve-out) failed internally, suggesting targeted changes face less unified opposition. When Democrats regain control, they might extend it (e.g., to debt ceiling votes), but this would be incremental rather than revolutionary, potentially inviting GOP pushback without full-scale war.
Regardless of the path, Democrats would likely retaliate by broadening exceptions—e.g., carving out gun control or abortion rights—but the nuclear option amplifies this risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top