Kamala Harris is on a mission. The Vice President has set her sights on demolishing one of the Senate’s oldest and most debated traditions—the filibuster. Her goal? To pass a federal law codifying abortion rights, rolling back the clock to pre-Dobbs America when Roe v. Wade still stood.

The move, she argues, would ensure that women nationwide have access to reproductive healthcare without interference from individual states. But here’s the catch: eliminating the filibuster could reshape the balance of power in Washington, making it far easier for a slim majority to steamroll the opposition. In short, Harris’s plan could unravel the very fabric of bipartisan governance.

Let’s not sugarcoat it—scrapping the filibuster isn’t a simple tweak. It’s a full-blown demolition. The 60-vote threshold has been the Senate’s safeguard, ensuring that any law passing through its doors has at least some support from both parties. It’s the guardrail that prevents wild swings of policy every time power shifts hands. Without it, the Senate risks becoming the House’s unruly cousin, where the majority gets its way—always.

And sure, maybe today it’s about a pro-abortion law, but what about tomorrow? What happens when the tables turn, and a simple majority is all that’s needed to pass a nationwide abortion ban? Harris’s plan may seem like a win for progressives now, but in the long game, it might lead to chaos.

From Washington Examiner:
Manchin, a centrist senator who has fought to maintain the filibuster, had indicated supporting Harris’s bid for president after he left the Democratic Party earlier this year, but he said Tuesday that removing the filibuster would be a mistake.

“I have been consistent on the importance of protecting the 60-vote threshold, which we call the filibuster, since I arrived at the United States Senate. This threshold stabilizes our democracy, promotes bipartisan cooperation, and protects our nation from partisan whiplash and dysfunction,” Manchin said in a statement.

Enter Joe Manchin, West Virginia’s independent senator and self-proclaimed filibuster fan. He’s been at this crossroads before, and this time he’s not budging. Manchin has made it clear that while Harris might have her eyes on 2024, she’s missing the bigger picture. Removing the filibuster, he argues, would be the political equivalent of blowing up the Senate’s last defense against partisan tyranny. “It stabilizes our democracy,”

Manchin reminded us earlier this week, like the seasoned pragmatist he is. And, to his credit, he’s been consistent. Whether it’s a Republican majority or a Democratic one, he stands by the filibuster, refusing to let his personal or political affiliations drive him off course.

In fact, Manchin was once rumored to be warming up to Harris’s presidential bid. After his high-profile break from the Democratic Party, political watchers whispered that he might back Harris if she became the 2024 nominee. But on Tuesday, he slammed the door on that possibility, saying her stance on the filibuster is an absolute dealbreaker.

“That ain’t going to happen,” he said bluntly, putting an end to any speculation. His logic? It’s simple—Harris’s vision of gutting the filibuster is, in his words, “the most horrible thing” for the country. He didn’t mince words, and frankly, when Manchin talks, a lot of moderates listen.

He went a step further during an interview with CNN, calling the filibuster “the Holy Grail of democracy.” These are strong words from a senator who has made bipartisanship his brand. To him, the filibuster isn’t just a procedural hurdle; it’s the glue that forces the Senate to work together, to talk, and to find common ground.

Without it, Manchin warned, the Senate would become “the House on steroids”—a chaotic, partisan mess where the loudest voices win, and the country is whipped back and forth by extreme policies. And he’s not wrong.

Even Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, another independent, chimed in to slam Harris’s plan. On X (formerly Twitter), Sinema called it a “terrible, shortsighted idea,” pointing out that while today’s majority might use the filibuster’s removal to pass pro-abortion legislation, a future Congress could just as easily weaponize it to do the opposite.

She’s not alone in this thinking. Many who understand the long-term game of Washington politics know that destroying the filibuster today could come back to haunt both parties.

Meanwhile, Harris, undeterred, pressed forward with her vision. In a Tuesday interview with Wisconsin Public Radio, she doubled down, advocating for the filibuster’s removal so that 51 votes—not 60—would be enough to pass legislation protecting reproductive rights.

To her, it’s a matter of urgency and principle. But urgency has a funny way of distorting judgment in Washington, and the consequences of a hasty decision could echo for decades.

Both Manchin and Sinema have already bid farewell to their Senate careers, stepping away from reelection races after their independent turns. But their warnings should still ring loud and clear for those looking ahead to the next political cycle. Manchin, who once toyed with the idea of an independent presidential run or even entering the Democratic primary after Biden’s exit, has now stepped back entirely. Maybe that’s because he knows that this fight over the filibuster is bigger than any one politician or campaign. It’s about keeping the Senate a place where consensus can still be reached—a place where debate and dialogue, however messy, still matter.

So, while Harris continues to push forward with her agenda, folks like Manchin and Sinema are reminding us of one very important thing: the rules that frustrate us today might just save us tomorrow. We had better be careful about what we wish for.

Key Takeaways:

• Kamala Harris wants to eliminate the Senate filibuster to pass a federal law on abortion rights, but critics argue it would destabilize the balance of power.
• Senator Joe Manchin strongly opposes removing the filibuster, calling it essential to preserving democracy and bipartisan cooperation.
• Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema warn that eliminating the filibuster could backfire, enabling future majorities to pass extreme legislation without bipartisan support.

Source: Washington Examiner