“The Senate is structurally biased against the party with a large urban constituency therefore we should use our fleeting majorities to pass as much legislation as we can and the filibuster inhibits this” isn’t that difficult to understand.
https://twitter.com/Yascha_Mounk/status/1375258143014453250
Also, there is the little thing of how the Republican Party is radicalizing against majoritarian democracy and the only way to shore up the right to vote is with federal legislation that, hey, the filibuster makes impossible to pass.
Many people have written easily available and detailed arguments against the filibuster in its current form and it is probably worth reading them before pontificating on what filibuster opponents think.
One of those arguments, by the way, is that there is that substantive political equality makes it unjustifiable to place an additional supermajority requirement on top of a scheme of representation which puts all states on equal ground.
That a party would have to win three branches of government in at least two election cycles to have a shot at passing partisan legislation is, itself, a supermajority requirement.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
