Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review Online ponders the Senate filibuster’s future.
Senator Ron Johnson has supported the filibuster but thinks that ending it is right “at this point in time.” Like President Trump, he argues that Republicans may as well do it since Democrats will as soon as they have the votes. Also like Trump, he argues that eliminating the filibuster will enable Republicans to secure enormous policy victories — including a transition to a new health-care system to replace Obamacare.
I’ll admit that Republicans passed their major legislation of this year, the One Big Beautiful Bill, more easily than I had expected. But it’s hard to believe there is a raft of major legislation that Republicans would enact in the next year if only there were no filibuster. They have not done any of the preparatory work needed to pass a health-care bill — such as, for example, writing a health-care bill. Their margin in the House is small, and likely to shrink further after special elections. Far from being in a hurry to pass bills, the House has barely been working: Its last roll-call vote was on September 19.
Trump says that Republicans would accomplish “so many things” without the filibuster but has been vague about what they would be. He has mentioned “the best judges” and “the best U.S. attorneys” — although nominees are not subject to the filibuster already — and “all the other things we would get.” He has also mentioned tax cuts. But Republicans already had an opportunity to pass all the tax cuts they have a majority for, without facing any filibuster. That was the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Trump has been a lot more specific about what the Democrats would do if they had a Senate majority and no filibuster, and there’s a reason for that: At the moment, even with Democrats out of power, they have more of a legislative agenda than the Republicans do. Whatever else one thinks about the filibuster, that argues against the prudence of Republicans choosing this moment to get rid of it.
