Democrats’ failure to convince even just 10 of their Senate Republican counterparts to vote to convict Donald Trump for inciting a deadly insurrection was viewed by progressive lawmakers and activists as a case in point for why the majority party must eliminate the legislative filibuster if it hopes to implement its agenda on climate, immigration, voting rights, and other key issues.
Just seven Republicans on Saturday joined every member of the Democratic caucus in casting “guilty” votes against the former president, leaving the Senate well short of the two-thirds majority — 67 votes — required for conviction.
If Democrats could not persuade 10 of their GOP colleagues to vote to hold the former president accountable for provoking a coup attempt that left five people dead, progressives asked, why would they expect to convince 10 Republicans to join them in breaking the archaic 60-vote Senate filibuster that is standing in the way of crucial legislative priorities?
“The fact that we could not get even 60 senators to vote for the most obvious proposition of convicting Trump is a clarion call for eliminating the filibuster!” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California) tweeted, a sentiment that others echoed in the hours following the Senate’s second acquittal of the twice-impeached former president.
“Dear centrist Democrats, you couldn’t even get 10 GOP votes to convict the guy who sent a mob to kill you all. You think you can get them to vote on issues like immigration/climate? Come on,” immigrant rights activist Erika Andiola said Saturday. “You have to end the filibuster and use every tool at your disposal to get things done.”
“People sent you all to Congress to make their lives better,” Andiola added. “They sent you to keep your promises. Not to rely on the minority party. Not to rely on the party who defended a fascist with their vote today.”
Senate Democrats are currently attempting to use the filibuster-proof reconciliation process to pass a coronavirus relief package over the objections of intransigent Republicans, but that procedural tool is severely limited by rules requiring all legislative provisions to have a direct budgetary impact.
That means Democrats will likely have to work through “regular order” to advance priorities that don’t qualify under reconciliation. If Senate Democrats refuse to eliminate the filibuster — a move that would require the support of all 50 members of the Democratic caucus plus a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Kamala Harris — they will effectively need 60 votes to pass legislation.
If we can’t even get 10 Republican Senators to vote in favor of convicting the President who incited a violent mob to storm the Capitol, then how do we plan to pass the bold policies needed to build this country back? It’s clear we must abolish the filibuster.
— Nina Turner (@ninaturner) February 13, 2021
In a column Saturday after 43 Senate Republicans voted to acquit the former president, The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent wrote that “Democrats must accept the full implications of the GOP’s ongoing and intensifying radicalization. And they must be prepared to act upon them.”
3. Get the package into law as quickly as possible.
Those are the House and Senate bills that would expand voting rights, make voting easier in numerous ways and place limits on counter-majoritarian tactics such as voter suppression and gerrymandering, which Republicans are cheerfully escalating in numerous states.
Ari Berman of Mother Jones similarly noted Saturday that while Democrats “didn’t have the votes to convict Trump… they do have the votes to stop the next attack on democracy by passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the For the People Act if they abolish the filibuster.”
“The stakes couldn’t be higher,” Berman wrote.
Shocking stat: 57 senators who voted to convict Trump represent 76.7 MILLION more Americans than 43 senators who voted to acquit
— Ari Berman (@AriBerman) February 13, 2021
During President Joe Biden’s first month in office, Republican senators have already repeatedly shown that they will not hesitate to use the filibuster to obstruct Democrats and try to get their way.
Just days into Biden’s presidency, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) threatened to filibuster a must-pass organizing resolution in an attempt to force Democrats to commit to leaving the 60-vote threshold intact. While McConnell didn’t get exactly what he wanted, his obstruction did lead Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona) to forcefully reiterate their opposition to eliminating the filibuster.
On Saturday, hours before the Senate voted to acquit Trump, Republicans reportedly threatened to wield the filibuster against Biden’s cabinet nominees and legislative agenda if Democrats followed through with calling witnesses in the impeachment trial. As Common Dreams reported, House impeachment managers ultimately backed off under pressure from top Senate Democrats.
“Guess what: they’re going to block all this shit anyhow!” Brian Beutler, editor-in-chief of Crooked Media, said in response to Senate Republicans’ reported threat. “That’s an argument for getting rid of the filibuster, not for agreeing to call witnesses and then immediately caving.”
Not everyone can pay for the news. But if you can, we need your support.
Truthout is widely read among people with lower incomes and among young people who are mired in debt. Our site is read at public libraries, among people without internet access of their own. People print out our articles and send them to family members in prison — we receive letters from behind bars regularly thanking us for our coverage. Our stories are emailed and shared around communities, sparking grassroots mobilization.
We’re committed to keeping all Truthout articles free and available to the public. But in order to do that, we need those who can afford to contribute to our work to do so — especially now, because we only have the rest of today to raise $22,000 in critical funds.
We’ll never require you to give, but we can ask you from the bottom of our hearts: Will you donate what you can, so we can continue providing journalism in the service of justice and truth?