Staff Reports
Vice President Kamala Harris has once again shown that her playbook is to change the rules whenever they don’t serve her agenda, calling for the end of the Senate filibuster during a CNN town hall. This relic of Senate tradition, which allows for extended debate and has been utilized by both parties, is suddenly on Harris’s chopping block—all in the name of codifying the controversial Roe v. Wade. Apparently, the Vice President believes that if she can’t gather enough support the old-fashioned way, she should just bulldoze through the obstacles.
When asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about how she plans to make this happen without the crucial 60 votes normally required in the Senate, Harris didn’t hesitate to suggest reconsidering the filibuster. In her world, if the system resists progressive visions, then the system ought to be changed. This seems to reflect a broader tendency among her party, where long-standing institutional norms are only as good as they are useful for pushing radical agenda items.
🚨Wow. Kamala Harris says she will gut the filibuster.
Right after she does that, Democrats would make DC and Puerto Rico states, pack the Supreme Court, and pass unrestricted and taxpayer-funded abortion up until the moment of birth. pic.twitter.com/fgtiD4W5Wh
— Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) October 24, 2024
Notably, Harris hasn’t just picked this idea out of thin air. Back during her presidential campaign in 2020, she called for ending the filibuster to push through the Green New Deal, a plan that many critics view as nothing less than a far-left socialist wishlist. Strangely, the Vice President didn’t seem worried back then about the erosion of Senate rules. It’s almost as if the significance of tradition and stability depends entirely on whether it can help Democrats achieve their means.
Concerns are being raised by Republicans about the implications of Harris’s comments, especially from NRSC Chairman Steve Daines. Daines pointed out that Democratic leaders might go ahead and scrap the filibuster if they regain control of the Senate, which would allow them to ram their agendas at 51 votes instead of requiring bipartisan cooperation. With this power, the Democrats could implement some serious game-changers, such as packing the Supreme Court, making Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico states—and thus adding more Democrats to the Senate—and federalizing elections to create only one brand of democracy.
The dialogue around the filibuster represents more than just a debate over legislative procedure; it’s a culture war that pits tradition against a wholesale radical transformation of the political landscape. If the Democrats get their way, the Senate could become merely a rubber stamp for the far-left agenda, sacrificing the very checks and balances that have served as a cornerstone of American governance. Harris’s willingness to trash the filibuster is an anthem to progressives who might be too eager to secure power, regardless of the repercussions for the democratic process.
