Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer sat down with Vox’s Dylan Scott and Li Zhou to talk about a variety of issues, but mostly about the prospects for the 2020 election and what happens in 2021.
Of particular interest were his thoughts on filibuster reform should Democrats retake the Senate. In a discussion about what Democrats could have done to maximize their power in manipulating Senate rules to try to slow down the judicial nominee juggernaut under Mitch McConnell, there was this exchange.
Dylan Scott: This all relates too to the filibuster question, which a lot of the presidential candidates are getting.
Chuck Schumer: And none of them have answered it yet.
Dylan Scott: None of them have really answered it, though some of them have signaled an interest in changing some of the rules, and obviously I think a lot of people on the left view the filibuster as a fundamental hurdle to Medicare-for-all.
Chuck Schumer: Let me just say this. Get the majority. Beat Trump. We’ll leave discussion of rules to next year.
First of all, it’s absolutely not true that none of them have answered it. Sen. Elizabeth Warren was pretty clear about getting rid of the legislative filibuster. “Everything stays on the table. You keep it all on the table. Don’t take anything off the table.” Former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee is similarly blunt, saying “the time for the filibuster has come and gone.”
In their wake, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke keeps it on the table, too, saying “We have to look at some of these institutional reforms, whether it’s the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, the filibuster in the Senate, we’ve got to get democracy and our institutions working again.” And now Sen. Cory Booker, who previously was cool to the idea, saying “We should not be doing anything to mess with the strength of the filibuster,” has shifted: “I’m going to tell you that for me that door is not closed.”
Booker is figuring out that to be a presidential candidate, he can’t also be a cautious senator not making waves in his current job. The reality is, the groundwork needs to be laid now in the Democratic conference to be prepared to do this. Why pre-emptively give Mitch McConnell veto power over the agenda of the next Democratic president? Particularly when the consequences of not enacting that agenda are so dire?