The fact is that Democrats themselves overruled the parliamentarian on a legislative matter.

The Senate is debating whether or not the Congressional Review Act’s provisions apply to California’s Clean Air Act waivers, which attempt to impose electric-vehicle mandates on the country at large. The Senate parliamentarian has so far deferred to the bureaucrats at the Government Accountability Office to say that they don’t apply, and I have written about why this is incorrect. But as Republicans sprint to the finish line, Democrats have opened up the spigots on their crocodile tears over what this will do to the legislative filibuster. Their latest argument is both wrong and almost funny in its lack of self-awareness.

The Democrats’ latest argument comes via Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

He argues:

The import of overruling the Parliamentarian extends far beyond CRA resolutions.  Once you overrule the Parliamentarian on a legislative matter, all bets are off.” Ominously he continues, “Any future majority would have precedent to overrule the Parliamentarian on legislative matters.  There is no cabining such a decision.  It is tantamount to eliminating the filibuster.

Putting aside that overruling the parliamentarian is, quite simply, how you get any precedent to begin with, this is a more precise argument than what Democrats have made so far, and it sounds pretty bad. Watch out, he warns. It’s one thing to overrule the parliamentarian on executive matters, as in the infamous “nuclear option.” It’s different and, perhaps, unprecedented to do it on a legislative matter.

Only it’s not. As with the rest of their arguments in this episode, Democrats are simply wrong or projecting.

The fact is that Democrats themselves overruled the parliamentarian on a legislative matter in recent memory. Insofar as one is looking for “precedent” on the question, you need to look no further than October 6, 2011, when it was, in fact, set by Senate Democrats.

At issue was a dispute between Leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell over a post-cloture amendment series. Reid was offering a list of seven amendments that was different from the list of seven that Republicans had requested through McConnell. This resulted in motions to suspend being employed as a mechanism to force the amendment series favored by the Republican minority. As McConnell said at the time, “We’d sort of like to be able to pick our amendments and not have [Reid] pick them.”

Reid, in turn, accused Republicans of “filibuster by amendment” and brought up former Senator Tom Coburn’s (R., Okla.) motion to suspend and made a point of order that it was dilatory — that is, designed to delay the inevitable vote. Under Senate Rule V, motions to suspend can be filed in writing with one day’s notice — as Coburn had done in order to protect consideration of his amendment. On the other hand, Rule XXI.2 prohibits dilatory motions after cloture has been invoked. The interplay between Rules V and XXII in the context of pending legislation is squarely a “legislative matter.”

So what happened? The presiding officer, former Senator Mark Begich (D., Alaska), repeated the judgment of the parliamentarian that it wasn’t dilatory under Rule XXII. Reid immediately appealed this ruling via roll call, intending to defeat it and set a new legislative precedent. With all present Democrats voting no, the ruling of the chair was not sustained, thus overruling the parliamentarian.

Unlike what is currently being contemplated, that 2011 action did materially change the process of legislation. As McConnell said at the time, it was setting “a new precedent on how the Senate operates” under which “the Rules of the Senate will be effectively changed.” Indeed, they were: I worked in the Senate for almost a decade, and I don’t think I ever saw a post-cloture motion to suspend, because on one Thursday in 2011, Harry Reid decided to get rid of it by overruling the parliamentarian.

Yet contrary to the sky-is-falling claims by Democrats today, overruling the parliamentarian on legislation, while changing the rules, did not “eliminat[e] the filibuster.” I doubt many people who are around the Senate today could even explain what exactly this new precedent accomplished. In fact, it was an act so unmemorable that Senator Whitehouse seems to forget that he voted to do it.