This is a really important point. Critics of the "administrative state" and executive power rarely acknowledge that the filibuster contributes to both phenomena. The president and executive agencies must fill in more and more gaps in the law because a paralyzed Congress cannot.
https://twitter.com/tryptique/status/1470444066190020616
There is a lot of agreement between conservative-libertarian types and progressives that the executive branch has amassed too much power. But without filibuster reform, very little substantive legislation can pass the Senate, so power continues to flow to the executive.
The current arrangement is very favorable to our Republican-dominated federal judiciary, though, because judges can block executive actions and agency rules then say "sorry, Congress has to do this," knowing full well Congress will never do it. A neat system we've set up.
Of course, confirming judges requires a simple majority in the Senate, while passing substantive legislation typically requires 60 votes. So Republicans get their agenda passed via the federal judiciary while Democrats can't get bills through the Senate even when they control it.
If you are a federal judge who wants to block a rule or regulation, all you have to do is whisper "non-delegation doctrine" and issue a nationwide injunction. No further reasoning required! Meanwhile Democrats get their agenda smothered by the filibuster.
https://mobile.twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1465808104793202688
And finally, you only need a simple majority in the Senate to repeal an existing regulation!
The filibuster prevents Congress from enacting new regulations but NOT from scrapping existing regulations. It is a one-way ratchet.
The filibuster prevents Congress from enacting new regulations but NOT from scrapping existing regulations. It is a one-way ratchet.
https://twitter.com/tryptique/status/1470444637420761089?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
