The Filibuster Is an Important Check and Balance That We Need: Panelists

President Trump has called for Senate Republicans to eliminate the filibuster to end the government shutdown. Joining us to discuss is Bart Marcoy, a former career diplomat, energy department official and presidential campaign policy adviser. Now he's president of Marcoy Partner International Corporation. And we have Robin Bro, a Democratic strategist and former Obama regional campaign director. Uh so good afternoon to you both. Now, before we get into the filibuster debate, uh news just broke uh moments ago in the SNAP case uh that the federal government has been ordered to use contingency funds for SNAP's food aid payments during the shutdown. So, Bart, uh your initial reactions to this? >> Well, I I uh I see these courts I see these judges making orders uh superseding the Constitution and superseding American law. I it'll be interesting to see whether the administration appeals it on the basis of principle. They ought to appeal it. On the basis of politics, they may decide not to. But the jud the judge, he or she has no authority to order that. You heard Secretary Rollins say without a budget, we are not authorized by law to to spend that money. It's not our money to spend until there is a budget. How a judge gets around that, I don't see. But the the underlying political uh pressure, who knows? Who knows what they'll do with that? >> So, Robin, any thoughts on that? >> There are 27 million people in the United States that use the SNAP program. Every $1 that's spent generates another $1.73 in in GDP. Uh so, we've got to do this. Funds run out, as we all know, tomorrow. My kids go to school uh and they they go to school with children who largely receive those benefits. There's are families right here in my community that will starve. We're hosting canned food drives. We're picking up tomorrow, in fact. Uh so, you know, we're trying to pick up the slack, but if we can find a way to legally use those funds from the contingency, I would love to do that so that American families don't suffer. Don. >> All right. So, Bard, what do you think about this? you know, for over 40 million Americans uh benefit from the federal food assistance. Do you think this situation highlights how uh perhaps fragile government assistance can be? And um do you think has America become too reliant on government assistance as opposed to community bodies like local charities and churches? >> Yeah, it it this really I think it's over 42 million Americans. It really points up the the danger of relying on the government for things. When when you rely on the government, then the government giveth and the government taketh away. And and it is people used to think that the government was the bedrock of stability and guarantees. And we see that it's not. We see the Democrats using the word leverage over and over and over saying, "This is our leverage. This is our only leverage." and they're leveraging the the human suffering that Robin was just talking about. And and uh when I was a kid, there was government relief available, but when you needed food, you went to a church, you went to your family, you went to your your neighborhood association, and people gave and people gave freely. And I mean, our church is uh is working very hard to make sure that nobody goes hungry and trying to help fill in other expenses, utilities and rent and things like that. Uh I think most churches have some sort of uh some sort of program to do that. We work we work hard at the local food bank to make sure that they're they're full that the the the demand on them is great, but the community around has risen and and met the demand and the shelves at the food bank are not empty in spite of this this increased demand. So yeah, don't rely on the government. Find find other charitable sectors. They're much more reliable. You know, Robin, uh, I think Bart raises a good point there that, um, do you think we need to put more emphasis on strengthening communities to help families overcome difficult times such as this? >> Yes. Uh, absolutely. And and my church is also doing that. Uh, like I said, my my kids boy scout troop is organizing a can food drive tomorrow. Uh, I want to say to the viewers, donations of food and st shelf stable goods are certainly appreciated right now, but I spoke directly with some of our local area food banks. their funding is actually affected directly because of the government shutdown. So, they told me directly that what they need right now are financial donations. So, uh please by all means Google your local food banks uh and help supplement some of their funding because right now they're not receiving some of the government funds that they that they usually get to offset their own expenditures. Uh but by all means also fill up your little neighborhood food pantries. Uh there there pretty much in every community there's a little little miniature food pantry somewhere in your neighborhood where people can just drive their cars up and pick out what exactly whatever they need. Uh so make sure that those shelves are stocked. Uh yes, just like Bart said, the government giveth and the government taketh away. Uh this shows how fragile that system can be and nobody wants to see Americans starve. That this is America. That should never happen here. >> All right, Bart. Uh back to the topic I mentioned off the top. Um do you think uh should Republicans use the so-called nuclear option and get rid of this uh filibuster? >> I'm strongly opposed to that. The filibuster is a is a longhonored uh time-tested tradition. The the Senate is supposed to be the the the saucer that the hot tea is poured into to cool off. The the House passes something. the the Senate is where the minority party still exercises some element of control, a great deal of control to avoid um to avoid the kind of of um excesses that you see in some parliamentary systems in Europe that when when the minority party gets a veto, as they have now, as the Democrats have now, even though it irritates me, even though it it it enrages is me. Um, I still want that I want that veto power to remain. I want there to be a 60 vote margin necessary for anything big. And there's nothing bigger than a budget. We we we know how to get the budget passed. We call your senators, your your Democrat senators. The Republicans have all voted 13 times for a budget. Call your Democrat senators and say enough with the politics. Open the government. fund the government, vote for the budget. That's how we're supposed to be able to change things. Don't don't abolish the filibuster. That That's my opinion. >> Okay. So, Robin, how do you feel about the 60 vote uh threshold? >> Bart, I'm literally going to be stealing your talking points about this and using them on my next segment because that is exactly how I feel. Uh thank you so much. You made my life easier. >> You're welcome to them, Robin. >> Yeah, exactly. I, you know, we were in this position as Democrats and I I disagreed with my party then wanting to use the nuclear option at that time during Biden's first two years. And if I were uh, you know, in in a representative right now elected, I would still feel strongly uh, just like Bart said that that we need to preserve the filibuster, it exists for a good reason. Yes, I'm extremely irritated with what's going on right now. I don't like that politics are being played uh in times like this. It's been over a month. Uh this is getting to be ridiculous. Uh but I think there are ways that we can negotiate some things out here. There's one thing right away. Uh there's a so-called poison pill in this bill uh whereby the president of the United States would not have to abide by lower court orders uh if this bill were to pass. I think that needs to go because we wouldn't want I'm sure Republicans would not want that used against them uh if they lose power in 2028 uh and and a Democratic president then has the ability to to not abide by court orders. There are things like that. Let's let's get rid of that. See if there's any wiggle room here where we can negotiate uh because we got to do something. We're in gridlock. >> All right. So Bart, you made your position very clear, but how do you respond to President Trump saying if Republicans don't do it now, Democrats will just do it in the first day they take office? >> They might, and we can't control that. Uh they have done it before. They did it with judges. Harry Reid uh uh changed the rules of the Senate to to uh abolish the filibuster for confirming judges. Came to regret that very quickly. Mitch McConnell. The people call him the turtle. Um I I got to say I've I've had my differences with Mitch McConnell, but he sure was right. He said, "You're probably going to regret that and it'll probably be sooner than you think." And boy was he right. A year and a half later, President Trump was in office and he nominated three Supreme Court justices that went through on a majority vote. If there had been the filibuster, if Reed had not abolished the filibuster for judicial confirmations, we would have had three very different uh justices on the Supreme Court. I'm glad they're there. I I I like having them there. I think they're bringing restoring a balance to the court, but but uh yeah, the Democrats might do it, but we can't stop them. we can stop ourselves from doing it and you start on that slope where each side is doing it every time they have control and then it becomes a very slippery slope. >> So Robin uh you and Barge are very much aligned on this issue. So let me play the devil's advocates part. What do you say to the argument that the filibuster is often used as an obstruction tool? >> It exists for a reason. Yes, it is used as an obstruction tool. We saw that, like I said, in President Biden's first two years. Uh, and it it's necessary because just like Bart said, sometimes there's legislation that gets through the House that just doesn't really it's not what's needed. The Senate exists as a stop gap measure to prevent bad legislation going through. Uh so you know without that I'm just worried that without checks and balances in place what might get passed that certainly I as a Democrat wouldn't want a Republican majority getting passed through right now. Uh and vice versa I'm sure that Republicans wouldn't want that if the tables were turned and Democrats had majority control in a couple years. So no this is you start messing with this and it's you're going to come to regret it just like Bart said Mitch McConnell cautioned about. So if a majority of senators um and therefore by extension the voters support a policy, is it reasonable or not to say that then it should pass? >> It's reasonable. It's reasonable to say that, but that's how you get it through the House of Representatives who have to answer to the voters every two years and and they have to be more responsive to the immediate desire of the voters. a third of the Senate, only a third of the Senate is up for reelection every two years. They they have six-year terms and they have time for the voters to reflect and to say, you know what, it was six years ago and I'm still mad and I'm going to get that so out of office or to say, "Wow, six years ago, I thought what I really wanted was for that that legislation to pass. I am so glad that it didn't pass. I'm so glad that the Senate had to argue more, debate more, negotiate more, and come up with a compromise more because what we ended up with is not dangerous and it is what we needed. That's the point of it. They the the the founders of the nation and the and the people who first wrote these these uh rules were trying to avoid the wildfire of of of of populist notion uh that of demagoguery that could sweep a nation and and really burn it up. They were trying to say let's slow down, cool down, think this over. and the and at least twothirds of the Senate have four years or six years to to convince the voters that what they did was right. It's you're supposed to negotiate in the Senate far more than you are in the House. That's what makes this current stalemate so so discouraging. >> Okay, Robin, I'll give you the final thought here. Anything you would like to add? How long do you think the shutdown uh could continue before one side blinks first? It's I I really hope not much longer. I hope not longer than a week or so. Don, uh I would also, you know, Bart urged you to call your Democratic representatives. I would also urge people to call their Republican ones. Uh the ACA uh subsidies are set to expire. Insurance premiums under the AC, which is also known as the Obamacare. A lot of people for some reason don't understand that they're one and the same. The ACA is Obamacare. uh those call contact your Republican representatives cons express your concern about your insurance premiums possibly doubling if they don't renew those subsidies. If we can get some movement with Republicans on that, we we can unlock this situation and get this passed and get get the country working again. >> Well, all right. Great conversation today, I'd say. Thank you very much to you both, Robin Bart. >> Happy Halloween. >> Thank you.