[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 173 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Page S6701]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            Democratic Party

  Mr. President, a Democrat Congresswoman said the quiet part out loud 
the other day when she admitted that while she would have supported the 
abolishment of the filibuster if Democrats had won full control of 
Washington, she did not support abolishing the filibuster now that 
Republicans have regained control.
  This is her quote:

       Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now, when 
     the Senate has the trifecta?

  She answered, and I quote again:

       No. But had we had the trifecta, I would've been, because 
     we have to show that government can deliver.

  Let me repeat that: ``[H]ad we had the trifecta, I would've been,'' 
supportive of abolishing getting rid of the filibuster.
  In other words, one rule for Democrats and one rule for everybody 
else. Democrats should be able to do whatever they want; Republicans, 
not so much.
  I happen to agree with the Congresswoman about preserving the 
filibuster. This essential tool encourages compromise and helps ensure 
that all Americans, not just those whose party is in the majority, have 
a voice in legislation.
  The difference between me and the Congresswoman is that I believe the 
rules should apply all the time. I don't think there should be special 
rules for Republicans--or, as the Congresswoman believes, for 
Democrats.
  The Congresswoman is perhaps more frank than some Democrats in 
admitting out loud that she thinks the rules shouldn't apply to 
Democrats. But her attitude, I have to say, is hardly new. If there is 
one thing that we have learned over the past few years, it is that 
Democrats firmly believe that the only legitimate government is a 
Democrat government.
  Take Democrats' campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme 
Court. Let the Court issue any decision that Democrats don't like, and 
these days you can be confident you will hear some Democrat decrying 
not just the Court's decision but the Court's legitimacy.
  Never mind the fact that this Court, like others before it, is 
composed of nine Justices duly nominated and confirmed in accordance 
with the Constitution, or that so-called liberal Justices and so-called 
conservative Justices vote together a substantial percentage of the 
time.
  This Court sometimes issues decisions that Democrats don't like, and, 
therefore, in their view, the Court is somehow illegitimate. I find it 
ironic that a party that has spent a fair amount of time this election 
cycle talking about the importance of preserving our democracy, seems 
intent on embracing the thoroughly undemocratic notion that only one 
party should be making decisions in this country.
  I hate to tell Democrats, but that is not how it really works. And 
the idea that one party should have a lock on power and the Courts is 
usually associated with forms of government that go by less pleasant 
names than democracy.
  I am also always struck by the elitism that goes with Democrats' 
attitude. It is no secret that a lot of people on the left despise 
individuals who voted for President Trump. Words like ``racist,'' 
``sexist,'' and ``misogynistic'' get thrown around to describe voters 
who are simply tired of Democrats' failed economic policies or who are 
worried about the crisis at our border or who disagreed with many of 
the Democrats' radical social policies. And Democrats' apparent belief 
that it is the Democrat Party and the Democrat Party only that should 
be calling the shots in Washington betrays some of that same disdain 
for voters.
  Well, the filibuster is safe for now. And while I don't have high 
hopes for Democrats changing their tune on the Supreme Court, perhaps 
being a minority in the next Congress will at least remind Democrats of 
the importance of protecting minority rights, no matter what party is 
in power, and ensure that the next time Democrats are in charge, they 
are not quite so eager to tear down this important safeguard.
  We can only hope.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.