by dexeron » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:45 am
Holy shit the nuclear option.
To folks not in the know: the Senate, under Harry Reid, just changed the rules when it comes to the approval of nominations by the President. Some explanation: technically, any person (say, a judge to a Federal bench) that the President nominates only needs a majority to approve his/her nomination to go forward - a simple up or down vote. However, because of the filibuster (the parliamentary procedure allowing members of a minority party to extend debate - an important part of checks and balances on power) this meant that in some cases, if the minority party wished, the nominee would actually require 60 votes out of the 100 Senators as opposed to merely 50 - 60 being the amount needed to bring "cloture," or the end of debate.
In most cases, this is not important: most nominees historically are granted a simple "up or down" vote, and move on. In certain cases, concerned members in the Senate will exercise this power, however, and it can be a useful tool, as a check on Executive power. This rule change eliminates the 60 vote rule for cloture, but only for nominations - and not for the nominations of Supreme Court Justices. It does not affect other types of legislative duties, or the passage of bills.
So, because the filibuster has been an important tool in the legislative arsenal for many, many years, and even through this rule change only affects the Senate's "advise and consent" role with regards to some kinds of Presidential nominees, I'm still not sure how to feel about this:
1. As I said before, the filibuster has been important, used by both sides, and I believe it serves a purpose as a check on the power of the majority (in line with our American philosophy of "Majority Rule/Minority Rights."
2. However, the amount of nominees blocked by the Senate during this administration is unprecedented. In American history, a total of 168 Presidential nominees have been filibustered. 82 of those were Obama nominees. 86 were under all the other presidents combined. In other words, almost half of all nomination filibusters were under Obama, an unprecedented level of obstruction.
Despite that, some might point out that many of Obama's nominees were eventually allowed through anyway, though even granting that, the procedural delay on their nomination process is still unprecedented.
And even understanding that, and even deploring that, I still am not sure what to feel about this rule change. The answer to a mold problem in your home is not to burn the house down. The answer to urban blight is not to drop a nuclear bomb on the city. I am left wondering whether this is truly a wise move, long-term. Is it a double-edged sword? When (not if, we live in a pendulum) the Republicans own a majority in the Senate, will the Democrats, today lauding this move, live to deplore it? Has this opened a metaphorical Pandora's Box, with unforeseen consequences we can't even predict? Or is my nostalgia for the way things have always been done coloring my perception of a change that was required to make our union "more perfect" - at least in terms of how it works procedurally?