Vice President Kamala Harris’s advocacy for the elimination of the legislative filibuster to safeguard abortion rights has provoked severe criticism from Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who support filibuster preservation.
Breitbart reported that Harris's call to end the Senate filibuster over abortion rights has met strong opposition from Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who are both Independents but caucus with Democrats as they are former Democrats themselves.
During a Tuesday appearance on Wisconsin Public Radio, Vice President Kamala Harris expressed her support for abolishing the legislative filibuster, a Senate mechanism requiring a supermajority for the passage of most legislation.
Harris argued that this drastic measure was necessary to codify the right to abortion and negate state-level pro-life laws. Her stance quickly sparked controversy and with Manchin and Sinema not supporting her, Harris is once again losing with independent voters.
Harris described the filibuster as an outdated barrier preventing the implementation of necessary legal protections for reproductive rights.
"I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe. To put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom," she stated. Harris’s perspective aligns with her broader commitment to safeguarding abortion rights at a national level, regardless of individual state policies.
However, Harris's proposal did not sit well with Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, an independent who aligns with Democrats but often diverges from party lines on key issues. Manchin voiced his disapproval shortly after Harris’s comments were made public, distancing himself from her position and emphasizing the importance of the filibuster in maintaining bipartisan dialogue within the Senate.
“Shame on her. She knows the filibuster is the Holy Grail of democracy. It’s the only thing that keeps us talking and working together," Manchin said, addressing the gravity he perceives the filibuster holds in the legislative process. He continued, "If she gets rid of that, then this would be the House on steroids."
Manchin argues that removing the filibuster could deteriorate the foundational workings of U.S. democracy, turning the Senate into a partisan battleground akin to the House of Representatives.
Manchin also explicitly stated his intent not to support Harris moving forward, citing the proposal as potentially devastating to the national interest: “That ain’t going to happen. I think that basically can destroy our country, and my country is more important to me than any one person or any one person’s ideology… I think it’s the most horrible thing.”
Similarly, Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona criticized Harris's proposal as overly shortsighted, highlighting the future political risks such legislation could incur. "To state the supremely obvious, eliminating the filibuster to codify Roe v Wade also enables a future Congress to ban all abortion nationwide. What a terrible, shortsighted idea," Sinema asserted.
Sinema's criticism underscores a concern that eliminating the filibuster could pave the way for swift and sweeping reversals in federal law depending on the majority party, thus leading to greater instability in U.S. legislative practices.
Both Manchin and Sinema have expressed their intentions not to seek reelection, demonstrating their political independence and continued support for the filibuster amidst evolving Senate dynamics. Their resistance to Harris’s suggestion reflects a broader apprehension about the potential long-term consequences of such a procedural change.
The debate over the filibuster is not new. The erosion of the filibuster started in 2013 when then-Majority Leader Harry Reid employed the nuclear option, lowering the threshold needed to end debates on most presidential nominees.
This precedent was extended under Mitch McConnell’s leadership to include Supreme Court nominees. These changes have gradually weakened the filibuster’s power, but complete elimination has remained a line that many senators are unwilling to cross.
Harris's proposal fits into a larger narrative of increasingly polarized Senate actions where major parties have looked to exert greater authority when in the majority. This shift towards a more majoritarian Senate has sparked significant debates about the balance of power and the role of minority opinions in legislative processes.