———————————————————————————————————————-Washingtonpost.com:
The partisan battles that have paralyzed Washington in recent years took a historic turn Thursday, as Senate Democrats eliminated filibusters for most presidential nominations, severely curtailing the political leverage of the Republican minority in the Senate and assuring an escalation of partisan warfare.Saying that “enough is enough,” President Obama welcomed the end of what he called the abuse of the Senate’s advise and consent function, which he said had turned into “a reckless and relentless tool” to grind the gears of government to a halt.
While “neither party has been blameless for these tactics,” Obama said in a statement to reporters at the White House, “today’s pattern of obstruction . . . just isn’t normal; it’s not what our founders envisioned.” He cited filibusters against executive branch appointments and judicial nominees on grounds that he said were based simply on opposition to “the policies that the American people voted for in the last election.”
“This isn’t obstruction on substance, on qualifications,” he said. “It’s just to gum up the works.”
The rule change means that federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has long been required to end debate and proceed to an up-or-down majority vote to confirm or reject the nomination.
The change does not apply to Supreme Court nominations. But the vote, mostly along party lines, dramatically alters the landscape for both Democratic and Republican presidents, especially if their own political party holds a majority of, but fewer than 60, Senate seats.
Why on earth change the rules now? The Senate changed the rules because of obstructionism. Progress ground to a halt. There was no progress. Important positions remained unfilled, often for years. Enough was enough. Was it a good idea? It appears to be. Plus, I like a majority really being a majority rather than 60%. Will I like it if the Republicans ever control the Senate? They probably won’t unless they change–or will they? 2015 could very well lead to an upset. If that happens, the Democrats are screwed.
I expect there will be great moaning and groaning and gnashing of teeth over this one. Harry Reid and President Obama may be burned in effigy. Senate Republicans brought it on themselves though. To continually reject every candidate offered up was just senseless political warfare.
So who is to blame? According to the Washington Post:
The rise of the filibuster and the death of the filibuster can be traced to the same fundamental cause: Party polarization. Before the two parties became reasonably unified and disciplined ideological combatants, filibusters were rarely used as a tactic of inter-party warfare because each political party had both members who supported and opposed the bills in question. As that era waned, the filibuster became constant because parties could agree on what to oppose. But that’s also why the filibuster’s days were (and are) numbered: The majority party agrees on what to support, and continual filibusters against those items increase the majority party’s anger at the filibuster itself.
Republicans take a lot of the blame here. They’ve used the filibuster more aggressively than Democrats, by a wide margin. They’ve also been less willing to cooperate with Democrats on general legislative efforts, making the presence of the filibuster more costly to the Democratic Party. And they’ve been so unwilling to work with Democrats this year that they essentially removed all reason for Democrats to stay their hand. The way Senate Democrats saw it was that if they weren’t going to get immigration reform or gun control or jobs bills or anything big that they cared about, then at least they would get their judicial and executive-branch nominations.
I suppose we will just have to see. This new rules change makes it even more critical for the Democrats to hold on to the Senate. Was it a good idea? I think it is too soon to tell. All the Senate rules are too tricky to think ahead to every situation. I think I will just sit back and watch the floor show.
I think the hypocrisy is going to bite the Democrats in the butt. Here is Joe Biden, now the president of the Senate, back in 2005, on the nuclear option:
I guess it really just depends on which party is in power as to who has the moral high ground anymore.
I guess they felt they had no choice.
I am withholding judgement.
There really was no choice. The measure is limited to certain nominations. The minority was blocking un-controversial, qualified judicial candidates at an unprecedented clip. Too bad the kids couldn’t work it out. But they couldn’t. One has to get on with things. If the Rs really think this system was a good one, they can reinstate it after they get the majority back next year. But they won’t, because it was a bad system no matter who used it for petty political advantage.
Well put, Scout. Agreed. I don’t think they had a choice. Not sure it was a good idea but perhaps the lesser of two evils.
Completely agree. The Democrats have shown us the way, not only on steamrolling the minority but on using various levers of government (e.g. IRS, etc.) against political opponents.
We should wise up and raise these tactics to a power of ten.
Is it painful to be paranoid and always a victim?
@Cato the Elder
I concur with Moon. Take two aspirins, put your feet up and get on with life.
@Scout
There comes a point where something has to be done. I’m very certain that Senator Reid fully understands the implication of what he has done and the consequences of his action should the Republicans regain control of the Senate.
I expect he does, George, and has made the calculus that things had become so incredibly dysfunctional, that they will just have to take that medicine later, but that, for now, the government has to function and it can’t if every single appointment is stonewalled. There is no doubt that the Republicans have taken a Senate custom that is designed to promote deliberation and lowered it nothing more than demolition tool. The numbers speak for themselves. Cato’s comment (and Emma’s) alludes to the idea that the Rs aren’t the only ones that have behaved this way. shame on both parties. But the past five years are orders of magnitude more obstructive than anything that preceded them.
I guess I feel some remorse and trepidation, however, that the abuse of the 60 vote practice that caused its partial elimination this past week, will indeed have the effect of encouraging more radical appointees to lower judicial posts by both parties when they have the presidency and a majority in the Senate. I don’t see how this negative by-product could fail to happen. But the causal event is reckless obstructionism by Republicans in reaction to this particular president.
I do not share Cato’s enthusiasm for these tactics. If we Republicans are true to our principles, when the Senate comes back, we can reinstate the rule and hope that the Democrats act on a higher level of concern for the government than we did.
Of course not Scout, you’re a unilateral disarmament type a guy.
I took George’s advice and took two aspirin (with a glass of single malt), put my feet up, and started to think about who we need to elect in order to get Rush Limbaugh on the Supreme Court with our new filibuster-free nomination process.
51 morally bankrupt politicians. That really won’t be a difficult task at all.
@Cato the Elder
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Too bad that he wouldn’t take the pay cut……
@Cato the Elder
Heh….Glenn Beck might do it though….. 👿 😈
Supremes not included in the “nuclear” option. It seems to me that the excessive use of the filibuster is a last desperate measure by whoever uses it. It has/had become so common that people didn’t actually have to do it, they only have/had to give notice of their intention to do so. It is interesting that the Constitution permits the Senate to make and change its own rules and the side proposing a rule change declares it is only choosing a “constitutional option” while the side opposing the change declares it to be the “nuclear option.”
There’s no “civility” in the Senate; there’s no consequence to this “nuclear option”.
Mitch McConnell is going to allow an end to something as silly a government shutdown if and only if its in his party’s perceived interests, and he is able to pull a few hundred million in pork spending out of it. Not out of civility or fair play.
Using the process to keep slots in government and the judiciary unfilled, as both parties do, is a do*che move.
There’s less civility in the Senate than there is on Moonhowlings.net, certainly.
I am sure glad to hear that!