There's been much talk recently about the
fate of the US Senate's filibuster.
The filibuster has been most often used to preserve white supremacy and to obstruct voting rights. And both remain its primary uses today.
The filibuster should have been abolished a long time ago. There's a reason why no other legislative body in the country has anything like it.
It's also worth remembering that the filibuster is not indicating anywhere in the Constitution. It was also never used during the first 50 years of the Senate's history.
The pretext used to cover up the white supremacy-preserving purpose of the filibuster is gobbledygook about "preserving minority rights."
In deviously gaslighting fashion, "minority" in this context means white elites.
Our constitutional system was designed to protect the rights of the (white) minority. But 'preserving minority [sic] rights' has been corrupted into something far more sinister: a minority veto.
Our system already has plenty of protections from the so-called tyranny of the majority.
In order for a bill to become law, it needs to...
1) Pass the House
2) Pass the Senate, whose very structure is already tilted in favor of states where few people choose to live
3) Be signed by the president, who himself is elected as the result of a system already tilted in favor of states where few people choose to live.
4) If vetoed by the president, it requires a 2/3 majority of each house of Congress to become law.
5) We also have a federal Constitution with certain safeguards. Even if a bill passes all those hurdles, those offended by a 'tyrannical' law can appeal to the judiciary to overturn said law on constitutional grounds.
Giving 41 senators outright veto power over all legislation is unjustifiable and further corrodes confidence in our already teetering republican democracy. It would be absurd even if the Senate didn't have a nihilistic minority of members.
People have talked about returning to the old filibuster where you could only block legislation by actually standing on your feet and talking. Or about requiring 41 votes to block rather than 60 to approve. These are but band aids on a gaping flesh wound. They don't address the fundamental injustice of a minority veto.
You could argue that the problem is not the existence of the filibuster but the low character of the current crop of senators. But the filibuster has been used in this fashion for most of our country's history. It's impossible to plausibly argue that the filibuster has done more good than harm.
I admit, the existence of the filibuster isn't as corrosive to public confidence as the suffocating influence of money in politics. But the sclerosis it ensures is one more giant hurdle preventing a truly representative political system from emerging.
The Constitution begins with pious words about 'forming a more perfect union." It's long past time we got back to working on that task.