This logic from Sinema is fatally flawed, insofar as it implicitly assumes that our founders were wrong about the idea that hard questions are best decided by the will of the majority. Brief thread: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/… 
1/ Today, with the filibuster in place the Senate is prohibited from DEBATING bills that are opposed by the minority. Not voting. Debating. It serves no purpose but to sustain ignorance.
2/ But since the Senate can't vote on a bill until they've debated it, it also blocks the vote. Ergo, our founders idea that hard questions should be resolved by the will of the majority has been inverted. Hard questions are now resolved by the will of the minority.
3/ Hamilton said supermajority requirements: "embarrass the administration, destroy the energy of government, and substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junta to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority."
4/ In other words, while framed as creating greater agreement, in practice they simply substitute the will of the minority for the will of the majority.
5/ So as we sit here today, numerous issues that are supported by the majority of Americans can't even get debated in the Senate. From voting rights to gun control to climate change, the Senate has rendered themselves functionally irrelevant.
6/ If we got rid of the filibuster, the majority could pass things that are supported by the majority of the Senators and the majority of the American public. That is a good thing, and should be done yesterday.
7/ Sinema's argument is essentially, "yes, but if we got rid of the filibuster and the Republicans were in the majority, they could also pass things that were not supported by the majority of the American public but were supported by a majority of Senators".
8/ This is of course true as a purely procedural matter. And it's how we got Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett on SCOTUS (when McConnell eliminated the filibuster for SC appointments) politico.com/story/2017/04/…
9/ But here's the thing about democracy. If you vote in support of the things that the majority of the American people don't like, you tend not to get re-elected. You may recall that the control of the Senate changed hands after those SCOTUS votes.
10/ In other words, our founders' idea was right! On hard questions, the only politically robust way to solve them is to submit the question to the will of the majority.
11/ To accept Sinema's logic you have to instead believe that our founders were wrong, and that you would prefer a government subject to the "caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junta". Count me in the former camp. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
