Democrats’ Hypocrisy on the Filibuster Is in Plain Sight

After their election loss, notice how quickly Democrats have flip-flopped with respect to their push to abolish the legislative filibuster.

Back in 2021, Representative Pramila Jayapal, chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, helped lead a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer from almost 100 Democrats calling for abolition of the filibuster. “This is an existential moment for our country,” the letter asserted about the need to “end the gridlock” so they could pass their desired legislative agenda. In September of this year, she continued on that track:

Schumer, for his part, hoped that this year’s election would enable his party to do away with the filibuster. That could not happen quite yet, because Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, both of whom defended the filibuster, stood in the way. Sinema had criticized “the steady escalation of tit for tat in which each new majority weakens the guardrails of the Senate and excludes input from the other party, furthering resentment and anger among this body and our constituents at home.” During the week of the Democratic national convention, Schumer was blunt about his vote total: “We got it up to 48, but, of course, Sinema and Manchin voted no; that’s why we couldn’t change the rules. Well, they’re both gone,” referring to their departure from the Senate at the end of this Congress.

Last week, a chastened Schumer made his appeal to victorious Republicans: “Do not abandon the need for bipartisanship.” Those are laughable comments given his history, and they were followed inadvertently by what might be included in his party’s autopsy: “After winning an election, the temptation may be to go to the extreme. We’ve seen that happen over the decades, and it has consistently backfired on the party in power.” As Byron York paraphrased Schumer’s message to Republicans, “Please don’t do to us what we were going to do to you.”

Also last week, Jayapal changed her tune when the subject of the filibuster came up at a press conference: “Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now, when the Senate has the trifecta? No. But had we had the trifecta, I would have been, because we have to show that government can deliver.”

Senator John Thune, who was just elected to lead the Republican Conference, took to the floor yesterday to call out Jayapal for saying “the quiet part out loud.” Consider the double standard:

In other words, one rule for Democrats, and one rule for everybody else.

Democrats should be able to do whatever they want; Republicans, not so much.

But Thune did not confine his comments to rhetorically pummeling the Democrats. He continued:

I happen to agree with the congresswoman about preserving the filibuster.

This essential tool encourages compromise and helps ensure that all Americans, not just those whose party is in the majority, have a voice in legislation.

The difference between me and the congresswoman is that I believe that the rules should apply all the time.

I don’t think there should be special rules for Republicans — or, as the congresswoman believes, for Democrats.

These remarks make clear that even beyond their policy differences, Senate Republican leadership, rather than follow the Schumer-Jayapal playbook, is taking the high road on this foundational question of procedure. Despite coming in with a larger majority than the Democrats had, Republicans will not try to exploit their majority and undermine the Senate. Besides being principled, that stand is also practical. No majority lasts forever, and today’s destructive precedents will come back to haunt the vandals when they find themselves in the minority.

Also unprincipled is “Democrats’ campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court,” Thune said. “Let the Court issue any decision Democrats don’t like, and these days you can be confident you will hear some Democrat decrying not just the Court’s decision, but the Court’s legitimacy.” He added:

I find it ironic that a party that has spent a fair amount of time this election cycle talking about the importance of preserving our democracy seems intent on embracing the thoroughly undemocratic notion that only one party should be making the decisions in this country. . . . And the idea that one party should have a lock on power—and the courts—is usually associated with forms of government that go by less pleasant names than democracy.

We should be thankful for the incoming Senate majority. Let’s hope that the upper chamber never takes the dark turn once urged — until very recently — by today’s Democratic demagogues.