As I argued on Thursday, the case for Republicans enacting the SAVE Act (or SAVE America Act) without 60 votes in the Senate ignores the substantial downsides of clearing a path for Democrats to do the same thing to enact HR 1 and many of their other priorities that were bottled up in 2021–22 and 2011–14 for the sole reason that they could not get 60 votes. Yet, we still see House Republicans pushing to “go to war with the Senate GOP” over its adherence to the 60-vote threshold. My piece kicked up a fair amount of furious denunciation from voices such as Sean Davis and Rachel Bovard of the Federalist, who ended up retreating from openly arguing that their preferred “talking filibuster” approach would actually yield passage of the bill without 60 votes. As Bovard put it:

A talking filibuster forces a public political process which, in turn, forces negotiation. Ideally, at the end, you get a bipartisan product which can achieve cloture — an outcome only possible if you force a talking filibuster first. McLaughlin’s entire “gotcha” (a bill can pass at 51!) is procedurally illiterate (all bills pass at 51) but also intentionally leaves out that a talking filibuster does not automatically result in that.

A talking filibuster forces a public political process which, in turn, forces negotiation. Ideally, at the end, you get a bipartisan product which can achieve cloture — an outcome only possible if you force a talking filibuster first. McLaughlin’s entire “gotcha” (a bill can pass at 51!) is procedurally illiterate (all bills pass at 51) but also intentionally leaves out that a talking filibuster does not automatically result in that.

Of course, threats only work if they are credible, so Bovard omits what........

© National Review