In a recurring display of political opportunism, Senate Democrats and Republicans have once again switched stances on the filibuster, depending on who holds power. When Democrats held a narrow majority under President Biden, they sought to eliminate the filibuster, with only two dissenters from within. Republicans staunchly defended it as a tool to promote bipartisanship. Now, with 53 Republicans in the Senate and Donald Trump back in office, the GOP is considering using the Congressional Review Act (CRA)—which only requires a majority vote—to bypass California’s ban on new gas-powered car sales by 2035. However, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that the CRA does not apply, since California’s standards were set via EPA waivers, not federal regulation. Defying the parliamentarian’s authority could set a dangerous precedent akin to eliminating the filibuster, warned Democrats, who now defend the rule. The episode underscores the partisan nature of filibuster debates and the selective reverence for Senate traditions based on political convenience.
The filibuster, a procedural tool that requires a supermajority to end debate on most legislation, has long been a point of contention in the Senate. Historically, it has been used to block legislation, often by the minority party. In recent years, as political power has shifted between parties, both Democrats and Republicans have altered their positions on the filibuster to suit their immediate legislative goals.
In 2021, when Democrats held a slim majority in the Senate, there was significant pressure within the party to eliminate the filibuster to pass key pieces of legislation, such as voting rights reforms and climate change initiatives. However, moderate Democrats like Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema opposed such a move, arguing that preserving the filibuster was essential for maintaining bipartisan cooperation and protecting minority rights in the Senate.
Conversely, during the Trump administration, Senate Republicans staunchly defended the filibuster as a necessary tool to promote bipartisanship and prevent the majority party from unilaterally passing legislation. They argued that the filibuster ensured that all voices were heard and that significant legislation required broad consensus.
Now, with Republicans back in control of the Senate and Trump in office, the GOP is considering using the CRA to overturn California’s 2035 gas car ban. The CRA allows Congress to review and potentially nullify federal regulations, but the Senate parliamentarian has ruled that it does not apply to California’s vehicle emissions standards because they were set through EPA waivers, not federal regulation. Despite this ruling, some Republican leaders are pushing forward with the CRA resolution, arguing that the EPA’s decision was politically motivated and that Congress has the authority to override it.
Democrats, who previously sought to eliminate the filibuster to advance their legislative agenda, now defend the Senate’s traditional rules, including the filibuster and the authority of the parliamentarian. They argue that disregarding the parliamentarian’s ruling would undermine Senate traditions and set a dangerous precedent for future legislative actions.
This back-and-forth on the filibuster highlights the partisan nature of Senate procedural debates and the selective application of Senate traditions based on political convenience. As the Senate prepares to vote on the CRA resolution, the outcome will have significant implications for the future of the filibuster, the authority of the Senate parliamentarian, and the balance of power between federal and state governments in setting environmental policy.
The filibuster remains a powerful tool in the Senate, but its future is uncertain as both parties continue to navigate the complexities of legislative strategy and political power. The current debate over California’s 2035 gas car ban serves as a reminder of the ongoing tensions in the Senate over procedural rules and the extent of federal authority in regulating environmental standards.
