Is Senate’s Save Act Filibuster Worth the Pain?

Letter to Romans: The Senate’s filibuster debate is peaking as is the SAVE Act’s. If the Founding Fathers were sitting in today’s gallery, most might vote AGAINST the chamber’s filibuster rule that can trigger a “supermajority” vote to pass any such “ordinary” bill…

Yet, the WSJ editorial board’s latest op ed pleads with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R) NOT to do away with the chamber’s filibuster rule so’s to pass the SAVE Act. Of course, it’s now being blocked by Democrats & a few Republicans. Regardless of the pressure from No. 47 & the MAGA folks wanting the SAVE Act to “save the union,” the editors argue, “It’s not worth it.” Consider, they urge, the floodgates of progressive brainstorms the Democrats would likely pass & ruin the union as soon as they regained a majority in the House & Senate.

Perhaps now’s the time to recall why the Founding Fathers REJECTED supermajorities in enacting most legislation. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called because the failed Articles of Confederation had required supermajority votes & even unanimity on some key matters. It resulted in constant gridlock. The new Constitution Madison, Hamilton & Mason settled upon did retain some supermajority votes, e.g., in approving treaties. But it REJECTED them for “ordinary” legislation by requiring a simple majority of 51 votes. Indeed, these Founders worked hard during that creative summer 240 years ago to avoid more gridlock yet achieve a delicate balance of power between majorities & minorities. It's not too much of a stretch to think they'd sympathize with those frustrated with the Senate’s Rule XXII blocking needed voting reform. Yet isn’t the WSJ really arguing the Senate’s filibuster-induced 60-vote rule for the SAVE Act may be more faithful to the Founders’ envisioned balance of powers, even if it may also operate as a perpetual Union Divided device?

Davd Soul