In light of Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election and Republicans’ victory in Congress, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker has once again suggested that Republicans should eliminate the filibuster from the Senate, according to a Nov. 9 CNN article. As justification, Walker cites the electorate’s eagerness to have a productive legislative branch, but Democrats in the Senate may view the filibuster as one of the only ways to block or delay legislation with which they disagree. What do you think of Senate filibuster, and do you agree with Walker’s suggestion?

Ryan McCarthy ’18
I enjoy the time-honored tradition of each party changing their minds on whether the filibuster is a good thing for America. I think that partisan politics too often overpowers any debate over the merits of our nation’s political mechanisms, and the filibuster is no exception. While I do believe that there has been a pattern of misuse with regard to the modern filibuster, I would not say that the filibuster itself is a bad parliamentary procedure. It forces the majority party to achieve broad support when dealing with controversial issues and functions as a check on Congress becoming a legislation metronome. Whether it stays or goes, the unfortunate reality is that the arguments the parties will advance will be (unsurprisingly) self-serving: nobody likes rules that don’t work for them.
Ryan McCarthy ’18 is a History undergraduate departmental representative. He is also minoring in Economics.
Shaquan McDowell ’18 
While I understand the idea that Gov. Walker is suggesting (if it is indeed coming from a place of integrity and not limiting the voices of the minority party in the Senate), I don’t think immediate action regarding the filibuster is necessary — if necessary at all. Though the effectiveness of the legislative body has been under scrutiny, the solution to this issue cannot be to disregard the voices of the minority in the Senate. The concept of our Constitution and the representative process makes it clear that those elected to these positions should be intelligent enough to effectively debate and vote, based on reason itself. If Congress is unable to do this, then the question must be asked why. Here’s an answer: It’s not because of the filibuster. There are deeper issues at play here, specifically those concerning the effects of polarization — excluding the voice of the minority, however, won’t resolve that. Nevertheless, Governor Walker completely ignores the fact that there are indeed ways to override the filibuster if the majority of the Senate believes it should be. By way of cloture, a rule introduce in 1917, the Senate can overturn a filibuster by way of two-thirds of the Senate voting against it. 
Shaquan McDowell ’18 is the co-president and co-founder of the Purple Party.
Elias Rosenfeld ’20
The Filibuster is a constitutional constraint that must be kept, especially in circumstances such as now. The framers of our Constitution designed it so change would be difficult and not overnight. As a Democrat, I have seen Republicans use the filibuster a plethora of times to obstruct or delay reforms by the Obama Presidency. This is not necessarily bad: Yes, it does obstruct change, but it also enables compromise and ensures even the minority voice is heard within the legislative chambers of the nation. Additionally, the ability to filibuster must remain in times such as these where the President won the electoral college but not the popular vote and has a Senate which is almost equally divided. The filibuster ensures this large minority is still heard and represented. 
Elias Rosenfeld ’20 was a fellow for the Hillary Clinton campaign in Massachusetts and for the New Hampshire Coordinated Campaign. He intends to major in Politics and Sociology. He is a contributing writer for the Justice.
Mark Gimelstein ’17 
From the outset, the filibuster debate contains a great degree of irony. The same people — mainly liberal Democrats — who now advocate keeping the filibuster were also the ones who had no problem with former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) leveling the “nuclear option,” eliminating most filibusters on nominees, in 2013. Nevertheless, the points made by proponents of keeping the filibuster are valid. Minority rights matter. Just as minorities should and do have a say in helping decide presidential elections through the Electoral College, so too should minorities have a say in the Senate. The filibuster acts as a tool to fundamentally check the excesses of the party currently in control of the Senate. Republicans must remember that there will eventually come a time when they will be back as the minority party in Congress. They cannot take their temporary electoral wins for granted by being myopic in the pursuit of their agenda through force, thereby setting a precedent that the Democrats will not reverse in the future. As a result, the filibuster should stay.
Mark Gimelstein ’17 is the president of Brandeis Conservatives. He is also a columnist for the Justice.