The modern filibuster made authoritarianism inevitable

  • Thread starter Thread starter rodoheel
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 18
  • Views: 208
  • Politics 

rodoheel

Iconic Member
Messages
1,666
I was listening to a legal podcast by federalist society types (though generally Trump opponents) Sarah Isgur and David French, and they were talking through some of the early Trump actions, their legal ramifications, etc. They said some things that frustrated me about how our government is supposed to work - specifically talking about the administrative state, which they believe needs to be reformed (like most Federalist society types they have a natural aversion to "unelected bureaucrats"). They were reading from a piece Kavanaugh wrote years before joining the Supreme Court, which touches on the unitary executive theory, that opined that having administrative officers who can't be fired by the president does not advance "liberty" because it creates a decisionmaker who is not electorally accountable. And how now as a result we have an administrative system that neither Congress nor the President can fix - unless the President is the "unitary executive" with complete control over administrative agencies. What they were saying overall is, we may not like how Trump is going about this, but the system is broken and we need someone to fix it (they just both agree that Trump/Musk are not the principled people to be doing that, and certainly not in the vein of "move fast and break stuff").

I said this frustrated me, and that's because they're ignoring (like federalist society types always ignore) that Congress is supposed to be the branch that fixes the administrative state if it supposedly needs fixing. They created the agencies and defined their missions and scopes of authority; they can un-create them, or limit their authority, or whatever. They're the democratically elected officials who are electorally accountable for the consequences of their actions. The problem is, Congress has been ground down into a functionally dysfunctional body for a variety of reasons, but one overriding one: the modern Senate filibuster, which after the procedural changes made in the 1970s now essentially functions like a requirement that legislation be supported by 60 senators. A requirement that is entirely inconsistent with the constitutional design to allow for legislation to be passed by a simple majority. It allows a minority to entirely obstruct legislation from the majority - and since the 70s, you don't even have to do it as a speaking filibuster, which means that you block ills that, as one commentator put it, you are "willing to block covertly but not overtly." In other words, the current rules enable this endless pointless dance where majorities can't pass anything and the public can't even figure out who to blame because the minority doesn't have to stand up and show that they're blocking something unless they want to.

While he knew nothing of the modern filibuster, in Federalist #22 Alexander Hamilton clairvoyantly predicted what it mean to have a "supermajority" threshold, rather than simple majority, to pass legislation:

"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. [...] The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or something approaching it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, destroy the government's energy, and substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, so that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings—hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy."

It is bitterly ironic now, but Trump himself used to want the filibuster abolished, because he was frustrated that Congress wouldn't pass his agenda. But he and the people around him realized late in his first term, or in between his two terms, that the better path forward under the current system was to bypass Congress altogether and go with this "move fast and break stuff" version of totalitarian executive power. The reason we are here is largely because of the filibuster - the thing that has broken Congress more than anything else, even more than political parties themselves, which Washington and Hamilton, among others, always warned about. With Congress rendered functionally unable to enact major legislation, executive power has steadily increased since the 1970s and now Trump has taken it into overdrive. There really is "one easy fix" that can fix some of the biggest problems with our government - one that can return us to the legislative system the founders intended. And because no one has had the courage to make that fix, we're headed down the rabbit hole of authoritarianism instead.
 
1. Sarah Isgur is a fucking idiot. Her solution to the public's waning confidence in the judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular was to . . . name the Supreme Court building after John Harlan. I'm serious. It might be the weakest tea in the history of weak tea. She had other columns for Politico that weren't quite as silly, but not qualitatively better. I keep running across her writing, and she keeps churning out trivial nonsense.


2. David French, by contrast, is a serious person. He's a conservative, and moreover he's a free exercise warrior, which means I don't have all that much in common with him intellectually. Yet his NY Times column has become an "always read" for me, because he's smart, articulate, open-minded and fair. Sometimes I agree with him; sometimes I don't; but I rarely come away thinking I've wasted my time.

3. The unitary executive has been a stupid theory all along, because it's easily demolished by a single question: "define executive power." I've never seen that answered in any remotely satisfying way. When Congress creates an agency and houses it in the executive branch, that doesn't mean the agency wields executive power. Agencies wield executive, legislative and judicial power. And thus a system of separation of powers and checks and balances would give each coordinate branch some power to specify its operations. Alas.

4. It should be remembered that the genesis of the modern unitary executive theory was rooted in corruption. The Supreme Court was considering whether it was constitutional for Congress to vest the power to appoint an independent counsel in the AG and the judiciary was constitutional. The answer, of course, is duh, of course. We saw what happened in Watergate when the president had the power to hire and fire those investigating him. So the vote was 7-1 -- the 1 being Scalia because of course Scalia would jump to defend Nixonian practice.

The dissent was overall mediocre. It wasn't obviously wrong like some of Scalia's other opinions, but it wasn't insightful and relied heavily on the proposition that Article II vests *all* of the executive power in the president, not just *some,* which really isn't an answer to the question, "is this actually executive power." So why is it so famous? Conservative law students, some of whom went on to be judges, have sometimes described this dissent as galvanizing for them, activating (or cementing) a conservative ideological attachment. Really? A case about whether the Attorney General can be forced to appoint an independent counsel if he can't provide reasonable grounds not to?

But the opinion also includes this line: "Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep's clothing: . . . But this wolf comes as a wolf."

Looking back, that should have been a blinking red light about what was about to come. Starting in about 2010, I started thinking a lot about that line, and its essentially fascist nature -- but I had trouble convincing any colleagues of its significance. But "this wolf comes as a wolf" is classic fascist imagery, and it also uses the trope of an enemy within, a wolf that Congress has unleashed, from which the executive must protect us. That's why this opinion is so popular, and it's for an incredibly bad reason.
 
The unitary executive theory IMO violates the Constitution's separation of powers clause. Not a fan of the filibuster to some degree but one can make the case it has thwarted Executive branch dictoators.

Getting rid of the filibuster would simply allow Trump to do illegal or almost illegal things with a Congressional simple majority. And also to dp with a simple majority legal but horrific things sich as bannding a woman's right to choose, slashing SS, Medicare and Medicaid and making the wealty pay almost no taxes.
Right now, Congressional statutes precvent much of this unless Con gress changes them. The filibuster along with the 400 lawyer team for Dems is about all that is saving us now IMO.

The problem isn't the filibuster or the system and rule of aw. The problem is people dispbeying the law and not being held accountable. The podcast argument seems to be that since we did not appease Trump in 2016 and get rid of the filibuster, he is doing even worse things now. Um no, that is like saying we could have taled Putin out of invading Ukraine by appeasing him even more.

There are many court cases pending and to come. Hopefully, the stustem will hold but if it doesn't that is not the fault of the filibuster,
 
Last edited:
As for the filibuster, I've long identified it as a root cause of our political dysfunction. It's not only for the reasons stated in the OP -- though we cannot discount the importance of Congress being dysfunctional; it's also that the filibuster creates the weird accountability problem in which a political party both has control and doesn't. "Dems had the majority; why didn't they do anything with it"? Because they didn't have the necessary supermajority.

On the other hand, the Senate could get rid of it. It's not a rule that was handed down from long ago and has since lost its relevance. The Senate could abolish it tomorrow. Reckoning with the filibuster requires an understanding of why the Senate keeps it around. I don't really know the answer (I have ideas but they are untested and the evidence is mixed), but I think it's important. Otherwise we might get rid of the filibuster and they will just create something else that fulfills the function it serves today.

I don't think that the filibuster can be shown to be uniquely destructive. It's a huge problem. Is it more of a problem than gerrymandering? Is it more of a problem than life tenure for federal judges, and their complete lack of accountability? Hell, more of a problem than the Electoral College? I think they are all of a piece -- they represent a nineteenth century way of thinking about government that just isn't compatible with what we ask of it, especially in our 24/7 world.
 
Getting rid of the filibuster would simply allow Trump to do illegal or almost illegal things with a Congressional simple majority. And alsp tp dp with a simple majority legal but horrific things sich as bannding a woman's right to choose, slashing SS, Medicare and Medicaid and making the wealty pay almost no taxes.
Well, obviously now is not the best time for the filibuster to be abolished. But what if it had been abolished many years ago? Here's an alternative history we might chew on:

2009: Obama proposes Obamacare. Because only 51 votes are needed, Obama and the Dems would have the ability to structure the program according to best public policy practices. No fucking Cornhusker kickback. No watering down of the public option, and then its outright elimination. No weakening of the insurance penalty to the point of insignificance. [we'll leave aside whether something more like a single payer plan could be passed; that's speculative]

Most of all, Obamacare could have been passed by majority vote in June, allowing the focus to shift to other important issues. You know, like Wall Street regulation -- we got Dodd Frank, but that was weaker than it really should have been. Or climate change. Or serious efforts at retraining for workers displaced by trade (or perhaps other solutions). Or all the things about which people now say, "Obama should have done that." Yes, they should have. But Obamacare took like 18 months, and it had to be phased in gradually, and we all know what happened.

If not for the filibuster, there would have been no tea party movement, in my view.

2017: let's start a new alternate history here. Pubs have control, Obamacare is what it is. Pubs tried to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something shitty. They should have been able to do it! And then the voters could look at the two parties and think, "hmm, one gave me health insurance; the other took it away." The parties would be held responsible for their ideas! But instead, the Dems filibustered, so the Pubs had to go with this Frankenstein monster repeal bill that was just terrible all around. It would have made insurance even worse than it was in the early 2000s. And that was one reason that it didn't even get a majority in the Senate. The original repeal-and-replace bill would have passed.

Instead, Dems saved Pubs from themselves. Politics went on as usual; and the Pubs went back to their performative art politics. Dems are bad, evil, disloyal, etc. and the electorate never had to reckon with what the Pubs actually wanted to do.

If the Pubs had repealed Obamacare, I think the Dems would have swept the close Senate races in 2018, and the 2020 election would have been a 1984 style blowout. Trump would have been finished as a political figure, because his supporters would have seen early on how willing he was to sell them down the river.
 
The unitary executive theory IMO violates the Constitution's separation of powers clause. Not a fan of the filibuster to some degree but one can amke the case it has thwareted Executive branch dictoators.

Getting rid of the filibuster would simply allow Trump to do illegal or almost illegal things with a Congressional simple majority. And alsp tp dp with a simple majority legal but horrific things sich as bannding a woman's right to choose, slashing SS, Medicare and Medicaid and making the wealty pay almost no taxes.

Right now, Congressional statutes precvent much of this unless Con gress changes them. The filibuster along with the 400 lwayer team for Dems is about all that is saving us now IMO.

The problem isn't the filibuster or the system and law. The problem is people dispbeying the law and not being held accountable.

There are many court cases pending and to come. Hopefully, the stustem will hold but if it doesn't that is not the fault of the filibuster,
I appreciate your perspective but directly disagree with your logic. The very fact of forcing Trump to do "illegal" things through a congressional majority - instead of by executive fiat - would impose a huge check on his power (and give members of his party in Congress an actual personal incentive to stand up to him, which we don't have now). Congress passing laws that directly violate the Constitution is far more simply and easily dealt with from the perspective of the constitutional order, versus a rogue executive who Congress is supposed to check but refuses to (due in large part to the perverse incentives that the filibuster creates - i.e., the incentive to sit back and do nothing).

Passing legislation is politically difficult. It creates a clear record of what a senator agreed to. The current Congress would not and cut not pass legislation forbidding abortion, because it would be hugely politically unpopular and many of the people who signed on would get crushed at the ballot box. (I can promise you that McConnell, Murkowski, and Collins would be no's, and all they would need is one more moderate-state senator; not to mention anything passing the House by simple majority right now, which is a minefield for Republicans.) Same thing for slashing Medicare and Medicaid - Republicans simply don't have the votes to pass that on a majority basis, and if they did they would be electorally slaughtered. The tax cuts they can and will do anyway through budget reconciliation, so the filibuster isn't helping there.

(ETA: the other advantage of forcing Trump to work through legislation is that it takes far more time than simply issuing executive orders and engaging in summary executive action.)

Again, part of the danger of the current moment is Congress is refusing to stand up for its own power and right to check the President - because Congress has been made pretty much non-functional by the filibuster. The framers never intended anyone to need to 60 votes to pass legislation, and Hamilton eloquently explains why that is bad (something we see today). You see the filibuster as protecting the political opposition, but in reality it is causing the likelihood of the President, through pure authoritarianism, imposing injustice on Americans that could never actually be passed by Congress.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, the Senate could get rid of it. It's not a rule that was handed down from long ago and has since lost its relevance. The Senate could abolish it tomorrow. Reckoning with the filibuster requires an understanding of why the Senate keeps it around. I don't really know the answer (I have ideas but they are untested and the evidence is mixed), but I think it's important. Otherwise we might get rid of the filibuster and they will just create something else that fulfills the function it serves today.
I don't think this is any real mystery. Individual senators - who are mostly concerned with their own power and position - love the filibuster (especially the silent filibuster) because it prevents them from having to do politically unpopular things (whether passing contentious legislation, or opposing contentious legislation). It has turned Congress into a body who engages mostly in useless messaging stunts and sheer obstructionism, with no political incentive to do anything else. This is why America hates Congress but keeps electing its incumbent congresspeople - they hate Congress because it does nothing, but they blame "the system" for that, not their individual senator or representative (whose hands are, of course, tied by the system).
 
I don't think this is any real mystery. Individual senators - who are mostly concerned with their own power and position - love the filibuster (especially the silent filibuster) because it prevents them from having to do politically unpopular things (whether passing contentious legislation, or opposing contentious legislation). It has turned Congress into a body who engages mostly in useless messaging stunts and sheer obstructionism, with no political incentive to do anything else. This is why America hates Congress but keeps electing its incumbent congresspeople - they hate Congress because it does nothing, but they blame "the system" for that, not their individual senator or representative (whose hands are, of course, tied by the system).
I think this would be a largely accurate description in the 90s and maybe into the 00s. But in a world in which all politics is increasingly national and partisan, I'm not sure it does. The best way for senators to be popular is to pass laws that solve problems. "Illegal immigration" could have been solved a decade ago but for the filibuster. I don't think it was individual senators who benefited from the filibuster; I think it was the entire Pub party, which is why they were able to organize the filibuster in the first place.

We were one Sinema away from getting rid of the filibuster, and if we had, imagine all the good legislation that could have passed instead of stall. Student loans. Voting rights. Section 3 implementing language. So on and so forth. Instead, what we got was "I hate those Dems for wanting to forgive student loans" and "Dems promised to forgive student loans but they broke their promise."
 
Well, obviously now is not the best time for the filibuster to be abolished. But what if it had been abolished many years ago? Here's an alternative history we might chew on:

2009: Obama proposes Obamacare. Because only 51 votes are needed, Obama and the Dems would have the ability to structure the program according to best public policy practices. No fucking Cornhusker kickback. No watering down of the public option, and then its outright elimination. No weakening of the insurance penalty to the point of insignificance. [we'll leave aside whether something more like a single payer plan could be passed; that's speculative]

Most of all, Obamacare could have been passed by majority vote in June, allowing the focus to shift to other important issues. You know, like Wall Street regulation -- we got Dodd Frank, but that was weaker than it really should have been. Or climate change. Or serious efforts at retraining for workers displaced by trade (or perhaps other solutions). Or all the things about which people now say, "Obama should have done that." Yes, they should have. But Obamacare took like 18 months, and it had to be phased in gradually, and we all know what happened.

If not for the filibuster, there would have been no tea party movement, in my view.

2017: let's start a new alternate history here. Pubs have control, Obamacare is what it is. Pubs tried to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something shitty. They should have been able to do it! And then the voters could look at the two parties and think, "hmm, one gave me health insurance; the other took it away." The parties would be held responsible for their ideas! But instead, the Dems filibustered, so the Pubs had to go with this Frankenstein monster repeal bill that was just terrible all around. It would have made insurance even worse than it was in the early 2000s. And that was one reason that it didn't even get a majority in the Senate. The original repeal-and-replace bill would have passed.

Instead, Dems saved Pubs from themselves. Politics went on as usual; and the Pubs went back to their performative art politics. Dems are bad, evil, disloyal, etc. and the electorate never had to reckon with what the Pubs actually wanted to do.

If the Pubs had repealed Obamacare, I think the Dems would have swept the close Senate races in 2018, and the 2020 election would have been a 1984 style blowout. Trump would have been finished as a political figure, because his supporters would have seen early on how willing he was to sell them down the river.
I actually think this would be the perfect time for the filibuster to be abolished (though I've tipped my hand here since i really think any time is a great time to abolish it). IMO having it be abolished under complete Republican rule is the best-case scenario for Dems. Doing it themselves will open them up to claims that they are trying to jam through their own unpopular agenda. Let Pubs be the ones to take that heat. As you pointed out, the filibuster saved Pubs from themselves in the Obamacare repeal discussions. It's doing the same thing now, because it is insulating congressional republicans from the ire directed solely at the Trump/Musk administration and keeping them from having to own some really unpopular legislation.
 
I think this would be a largely accurate description in the 90s and maybe into the 00s. But in a world in which all politics is increasingly national and partisan, I'm not sure it does. The best way for senators to be popular is to pass laws that solve problems. "Illegal immigration" could have been solved a decade ago but for the filibuster. I don't think it was individual senators who benefited from the filibuster; I think it was the entire Pub party, which is why they were able to organize the filibuster in the first place.

We were one Sinema away from getting rid of the filibuster, and if we had, imagine all the good legislation that could have passed instead of stall. Student loans. Voting rights. Section 3 implementing language. So on and so forth. Instead, what we got was "I hate those Dems for wanting to forgive student loans" and "Dems promised to forgive student loans but they broke their promise."
I just don't think this sentence - "The best way for senators to be popular is to pass laws that solve problems" - is borne out in the current situation. The problems we have are big and complex and the solutions for them are long-term solutions. People won't even agree what legislation was good, or whether it solves problems, for years after the fact. Especially when this so-called "good legislation" (that I agree with) is very politically polarizing.

I have no doubt that the filibuster is protecting Pubs more than Dems, because the Pubs' ideas are generally more politically unpopular than the Dems'. And it's certainly true that 48 Dems were ready to end the filibuster a few years ago, now that it's plainly obvious how harmful it is. (Sinema and Manchin had obvious personal incentive to oppose it, which is why they did.) I'm just explaining to you why the current iteration of the senate filibuster has persisted for 50 years even while it has steadily made Congress worse and worse during that time.
 
I actually think this would be the perfect time for the filibuster to be abolished (though I've tipped my hand here since i really think any time is a great time to abolish it). IMO having it be abolished under complete Republican rule is the best-case scenario for Dems. Doing it themselves will open them up to claims that they are trying to jam through their own unpopular agenda. Let Pubs be the ones to take that heat. As you pointed out, the filibuster saved Pubs from themselves in the Obamacare repeal discussions. It's doing the same thing now, because it is insulating congressional republicans from the ire directed solely at the Trump/Musk administration and keeping them from having to own some really unpopular legislation.
I usually think any time is a great time. I've said that before. But right now, I fear that a MAGA Congress would end up enacting a horrifying agenda that would make the authoritarianism complete. They would pass an analogy to Hitler's "Enabling Law," depriving the courts of jurisdiction to check the executive, giving the executive extreme power, and probably regulate elections in such a way that they would never be free nor fair again (especially with the courts out of the picture).

The right time was 2017. Or 2019. Or even 2021. Not now, in my opinion. We might never recover. It's like a 350 pound out of shape guy deciding to run a marathon. He won't finish it and might get a heart attack part way through. We have to get a little bit in shape before that.
 
The chief mistake Dems made was not playing political hardball on the Supreme Court like McConnell. The Rs refusing to replace a justice while Obama was Pres and then jamming throught RBGs replacement even after they had lost the 2020 elections was unthical possibly (tho the Senate had no hard and fast rules on these situations( but completely legal. that the Dems should have done in Biden's first two years when they had a Cong majority was to add 2 or 3 justices to the court. That would have been perfectly legal as well. Match the Rs raw political power sleazy but legal game.

the prpoblem now is that in several cases the Admin is violating the Constitution, Cong statutes or administrative regulations. Way beyond sleazy exercise of power IMO. Ramming through some dubious Cabinet nominees is sleazy but legal
 
I just don't think this sentence - "The best way for senators to be popular is to pass laws that solve problems" - is borne out in the current situation. The problems we have are big and complex and the solutions for them are long-term solutions. People won't even agree what legislation was good, or whether it solves problems, for years after the fact. Especially when this so-called "good legislation" (that I agree with) is very politically polarizing.

I have no doubt that the filibuster is protecting Pubs more than Dems, because the Pubs' ideas are generally more politically unpopular than the Dems'. And it's certainly true that 48 Dems were ready to end the filibuster a few years ago, now that it's plainly obvious how harmful it is. (Sinema and Manchin had obvious personal incentive to oppose it, which is why they did.) I'm just explaining to you why the current iteration of the senate filibuster has persisted for 50 years even while it has steadily made Congress worse and worse during that time.
Obamacare was extremely popular once people found out what was in it. The filibuster required the implementation to be heavily delayed, which is how the Pubs were able to organize against it.

I bet if there was no filibuster, the Dems would have kept control of both chambers. Ron Johnson would not have beaten Russ Feingold, and Pat Toomey would not have beaten Joe Sistak. And Mark Kirk would definitely not have won in Illinois.

And if you reverse the results of those three elections, the Pubs can't block Merrick Garland.
 
The chief mistake Dems made was not playing political hardball on the Supreme Court like McConnell. The Rs refusing to replace a justice while Obama was Pres and then jamming throught RBGs replacement even after they had lost the 2020 elections was unthical possibly (tho the Senate had no hard and fast rules on these situations( but completely legal. that the Dems should have done in Biden's first two years when they had a Cong majority was to add 2 or 3 justices to the court. That would have been perfectly legal as well. Match the Rs raw political power sleazy but legal game.

the prpoblem now is that in several cases the Admin is violating the Constitution, Cong statutes or administrative regulations. Way beyond sleazy exercise of power IMO. Ramming through some dubious Cabinet nominees is sleazy but legal
Leaving aside the strategic debate (I can see good points on both sides) the Dems never had 50 votes in the Senate to expand the size of the Supreme Court (just like they never had 50 votes in the Senate to get rid of the filibuster). It wasn't a mistake; it was simply political reality.
 
The chief mistake Dems made was not playing political hardball on the Supreme Court like McConnell. The Rs refusing to replace a justice while Obama was Pres and then jamming throught RBGs replacement even after they had lost the 2020 elections was unthical possibly (tho the Senate had no hard and fast rules on these situations( but completely legal. that the Dems should have done in Biden's first two years when they had a Cong majority was to add 2 or 3 justices to the court. That would have been perfectly legal as well. Match the Rs raw political power sleazy but legal game.
1. If you're right that the Dems could have added seats to the Supreme Court, that's a point in rodoheel's favor.
2. But I don't think they could have. It would have been Manchinema'd.
 
Leaving aside the strategic debate (I can see good points on both sides) the Dems never had 50 votes in the Senate to expand the size of the Supreme Court (just like they never had 50 votes in the Senate to get rid of the filibuster). It wasn't a mistake; it was simply political reality.
Yeah, so many of our problems were created because Sinema discovered Amazon. Seriously, I read an article from someone who was buying all sorts of Sinema's stuff on Ebay. She was spending big $$ on new stuff, and unloading half of it at a huge loss on Ebay.

In related news, she began to cuddle up to private equity. I think she's now employed by some conservative free market private equity funded think tank.
 
Yeah, so many of our problems were created because Sinema discovered Amazon. Seriously, I read an article from someone who was buying all sorts of Sinema's stuff on Ebay. She was spending big $$ on new stuff, and unloading half of it at a huge loss on Ebay.

In related news, she began to cuddle up to private equity. I think she's now employed by some conservative free market private equity funded think tank.
Even worse - she's on the advisory board for Coinbase. She's a natural fit in the cryptocurrency world.
 
I appreciate your perspective but directly disagree with your logic. The very fact of forcing Trump to do "illegal" things through a congressional majority - instead of by executive fiat - would impose a huge check on his power (and give members of his party in Congress an actual personal incentive to stand up to him, which we don't have now). Congress passing laws that directly violate the Constitution is far more simply and easily dealt with from the perspective of the constitutional order, versus a rogue executive who Congress is supposed to check but refuses to (due in large part to the perverse incentives that the filibuster creates - i.e., the incentive to sit back and do nothing).

Passing legislation is politically difficult. It creates a clear record of what a senator agreed to. The current Congress would not and cut not pass legislation forbidding abortion, because it would be hugely politically unpopular and many of the people who signed on would get crushed at the ballot box. (I can promise you that McConnell, Murkowski, and Collins would be no's, and all they would need is one more moderate-state senator; not to mention anything passing the House by simple majority right now, which is a minefield for Republicans.) Same thing for slashing Medicare and Medicaid - Republicans simply don't have the votes to pass that on a majority basis, and if they did they would be electorally slaughtered. The tax cuts they can and will do anyway through budget reconciliation, so the filibuster isn't helping there.

(ETA: the other advantage of forcing Trump to work through legislation is that it takes far more time than simply issuing executive orders and engaging in summary executive action.)

Again, part of the danger of the current moment is Congress is refusing to stand up for its own power and right to check the President - because Congress has been made pretty much non-functional by the filibuster. The framers never intended anyone to need to 60 votes to pass legislation, and Hamilton eloquently explains why that is bad (something we see today). You see the filibuster as protecting the political opposition, but in reality it is causing the likelihood of the President, through pure authoritarianism, imposing injustice on Americans that could never actually be passed by Congress.
Just following up on this post, this article from the Atlantic touches on the point I'm making here, while focusing on DOGE instead of Trump:


For all of the party’s fulminating about the nation’s debt and deficits, Republican lawmakers have shied away from taking votes to slash spending that could prove unpopular with voters. Now they’re content to let someone else gut the government for them—and take whatever political heat comes with it.

“They’re trying to have it both ways—cheering those who are doing this work for DOGE while not having their name on the actual bills,” former Representative Bob Good of Virginia told me. Good, the previous chair of the arch-conservative House Freedom Caucus, left Congress last month after losing in a GOP primary. He’s a fan of DOGE, but he has watched begrudgingly as some of his ex-colleagues have applauded cuts to government bureaucracies such as USAID and the Department of Education that they refused to effect through legislation. When a fellow conservative offered an amendment in 2023 to slash USAID funding by half, Good noted, a majority of Republicans voted alongside Democrats to defeat it. “They won’t suffer any risk or show any courage,” Good said.

...
Ribble told me that he’d recently implored a GOP House member to “jealously guard” Congress’s power over spending. “Because every single time you acquiesce to the executive,” Ribble said he told the lawmaker, “you’re giving them power and precedent for the next guy to do the exact same thing.” His advice seemed to fall flat. According to Ribble, the Republican replied: “Yeah, but I like what they’re doing.”



Focusing so much power in the hands of the President - and allowing him to essentially delegate that power to the unelected co-President Musk - is allowing Republicans to do things they could never accomplish through legislation because of the electoral consequences.
 
Back
Top