The filibuster was not part of the original Senate because the Framers knew exactly how it'd be used- they saw McConnell coming. The filibuster represents Calhoun's vision, not Madison's. Calhoun wanted a Senate where the minority could block the majority. nytimes.com/2021/01/20/opi…
To those who say the filibuster encourages bipartisanship, Hamilton addressed this directly in Federalist 22: "What at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison," he wrote of a supermajority threshold. It doesn't encourage cooperation, it encourages obstruction.
The de facto supermajority threshold was first forged against civil rights. Jim Crow-era segregationist senators repurposed a 1917 Senate rule to force every civil rights bill to clear a supermajority threshold, blocking them all. Only civil rights bills were blocked in this way.
Yes! Calhoun was profoundly racist. He was slavery’s leading defender in the Senate. He argued on the Senate floor that slavery was a “positive good.” And he was motivated to innovate the filibuster by the desire to protect slavery - to give the South veto power. Bad, bad guy.
In Kill Switch I show how the Senate now applies the standard it used to block civil rights to all issues. There’s no wisdom in this delay, just plain old obstruction. That evolution runs though Richard Russell (a white supremacist) and Mitch McConnell. wwnorton.com/books/97816314…
Yes! In Federalist 62-63, Madison lists all the ways the Senate was supposed to foster wisdom (partisanship per se didn’t exist then). None of them were the filibuster - not just because it didn’t exist, but because Madison believed majority rule was the “republican principle.”
Here is Madison calling majority rule the “republican principle” in Federalist 10. Madison and the framers made clear again and again that within their complicated system of checks and balances aimed at protecting minority factions, decision points should be majority rule.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Adam Jentleson 🎈

Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AJentleson

23 Jan
Biden clearly should not do #1. The problem with #2 is that reconciliation delays the inevitable and creates a tiered system where issues that happen to be ineligible - like civil rights and democracy reform - are relegated to second-class status and left to die by filibuster.
This👇is the danger. By using reconciliation you’re conceding the point that major legislation deserves to pass by majority vote, but only certain kinds for arbitrary reasons. Plus the process itself is opaque and ugly. You risk laying a logistical & political trap for yourself.
All the “here’s what you can do through reconciliation” takes are correct but also look through the wrong end of the telescope. Any of the items mentioned, or a small number of them, would be relatively easy. But putting them all together in one leadership-driven mega package...
Read 7 tweets
19 Jan
A few quick thoughts on this: it's fine. If Dems control the floor and gavels, and ties in committees advance bills or nominations to the floor, those are the powers that come with majority control. Lacking clear majorities on committees might test party unity, but seldomly.
"Power-sharing" is an overstatement. The functional reality of the Senate will not be noticeably different under this than it'd be if Democrats had a bigger majority. The only significant difference is that committees will be evenly divided, but if ties go to Dems, that's fine.
How this works: the Senate has to approve an organizing resolution that sets committee sizes and membership. Under current Senate rules, that resolution needs 60 votes to pass. There's, er, some debate about whether the Senate should go nuclear to abolish the 60-vote threshold...
Read 6 tweets
7 Jan
Hawley is likely to emerge with the political upper hand from today, and it’s important to be clear-eyed about that. Elite opinion may pile on him for a while. But by this time next year his GOP colleagues will be begging him to do fundraising events for them.
Republican voters embraced Trump from the moment he set foot in the 2016 primary. They stayed loyal to him for four years and turned out in record numbers for him in 2020. There’s simply not much basis for thinking they will now reject the approach of folks like Hawley.
Folks having a strong reaction should remember that they’re probably not the ones Hawley is appealing to. After the violence, 138 Republicans took stock and decided it was still in their interests to stick with Hawley. He wants to be a hero to the right. Seems to be working.
Read 10 tweets
30 Dec 20
Yup. Before the filibuster emerged in the mid-19th century, the chair could simply end debate when they thought senators had become dilatory, by ruling them out of order.(Relatedly, the idea that the Framers wanted Senate debate to be unlimited is a myth.)
Before he was a senator, John C. Calhoun was Adams' VP and presided over the Senate as Chair. Calhoun hated Adams because of his "corrupt bargain" with Clay. At the time, it was standard practice for the Chair to rule dilatory senators out of order. But one day...
... a senator was on the floor assailing Adams. Normally, the Chair would rule him out of order. But Calhoun was presiding, and in bitterness to Adams, he let the senator go on. This shocked senators, set a new precedent and nudged the door open to the obstruction we know today.
Read 4 tweets
29 Dec 20
Re-upping. If Trump wants to, he could ask Pence to preside and recognize a senator who is willing to bring up the House-passed bill raising checks to $2K. The VP is president of the Senate, can preside and is free to recognize any senator. How about it, @realDonaldTrump ?
Unlike in the House, the Senate Leader’s power to set the agenda is statutorily weak, based on tradition & precedent not rules. The Garner precedent gives the Leader priority recognition but it’s not a rule. The presider (aka Pence) can ignore it and recognize whoever they want.
Yes it is! Ultimately it comes down to whether the bill has the votes, because the end result of the maneuver is just to get the bill a vote. But for bills like the $2k/CASH Act that McConnell is not brining up precisely because he fears they might pass, this could come in handy.
Read 5 tweets
24 Dec 20
McConnell wants folks to think the $2k bill is doomed in the Senate but he’s really trying to avoid a vote that puts Perdue/Loeffler in a bind and might split his conference. Trump’s the X factor but if he backs it, there’ll be huge pressure on McConnell to bring it to the floor.
Actually, there is! If @realDonaldTrump is feeling as vengeful toward McConnell as reports suggest, he should read @jiwallner (no raging lefty) on how the Senate Majority Leader’s power to set the agenda is statutorily weak, based more on habit than rules.
Trump is probably just being a chaos machine. But if he actually wants the checks he can have Pence preside (VP is the president of the Senate) and give floor recognition to someone who’ll bring up the House $2k bill. If Trump won’t use this power, it confirms he’s just bluffing.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!