The Senate voted on Thursday to eliminate the use of the filibuster against most presidential nominees, a move that will break the Republican blockade of President Obama’s picks to cabinet posts and the federal judiciary. The change is the most fundamental shift in the way the Senate functions in more than a generation. The take from the Kos: Surrendering on three judges would've allowed the GOP to continue obstructing the other 87. Provoking the Democrats into eliminating the filibuster, on the other hand, now allows Democrats to ram all 90 through with minimal trouble. Just when I think the partisan divide could not get greater -- the earth opens. I'm part happy (the petty part), part depressed for the future (the rational part). EDIT: Holy Crap -- CNN's headline at the moment could not be more hysterical -- in the classic sense of that word.
A couple of days ago, Chris Hayes had on his program former Parliamentarian of the United States Senate Alan Frumin. HAYES: But, is not that a bargain breaking down? You used the word responsible and of course responsible is in the eye of the beholder in this case, but are we seeing things now in terms of obstruction, the routinization of the filibuster -- the refusal to, you know, confirm any give an up-down vote to anyone who is nominated, regardless of credentials. Have we seen a deterioration in those norms? FRUMIN: I believe we have. As I said, I spent 35 years defending the prerogatives of the minority and the unique nature of the senate and how that is done through its rules and its precedence. I am very much concerned that the norms have been eroded. There's nothing to really celebrate here. It's just become obvious that historical norms have become so abused that it's affected the operation of the government. The minority telling a president with three years left to serve that he's not going to be allowed to nominate anyone to the District of Columbia Circuit is utter bullshit.
WaPo has 9 reasons why this is a big deal. These last three drive it home for me: " 7. 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...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. 8. There's a lot of upside for Republicans in how this went down. It came at a time when Republicans control the House and are likely to do so for the duration of President Obama's second term, so the weakening of the filibuster will have no effect on the legislation Democrats can pass. The electoral map, the demographics of midterm elections, and the political problems bedeviling Democrats make it very likely that Mitch McConnell will be majority leader come 2015 and then he will be able to take advantage of a weakened filibuster. And, finally, if and when Republicans recapture the White House and decide to do away with the filibuster altogether, Democrats won't have much of an argument when they try to stop them. 9. With gun control dead, immigration reform on life support and bitter disagreement between the House and Senate proving the norm, it looked like the 113th Congress would be notably inconsequential. Today, it became notably consequential. It has changed how all congresses to come will work. Indeed, this might prove to be one of the most significant congresses in modern times. "
The Republicans pushed for this to happen. I assume it is because they now can attempt to occupy the moral high ground, and that they can forever use this option when in power and blame it on the Democrats. To his credit, John McCain has been working hard to prevent this from happening and to horse-trade a deal to keep the current system working. He's a dying breed, though, a Senator who tries to pass legislation.
No, he's a total hypocrite. He joined the filibuster for all of the recent nominees that triggered the nuclear option. If he truly deserved credit, he would have joined the Democrats and voted to give those three a vote. He didn't. You can't say he didn't want this to happen if he went along with his party to cause this to happen.
I'm sure the democrats are honest and intelligent enough to realize they have now opened the door for the republicans to do this type of ramming through of nominations once they are in power. Of course the republicans are better at being partisan, and tend to be a bit nuttier (the whole religion thing) so I'm reasonably sure this is going to backfire and make the country worse off. GG America. But for the next 2? years the liberals can be all "im taking my ball and going home". Hope its worth it.
I don't think either party should be able to use the filibuster to block nominations, so I'm naive enough to not understand what the problem is.
Are you kidding? McCain probably shoulders more blame for this than most Senators. Back during Bush's administration the Dems were starting to head down the path that the Republicans are currently on and were filibustering more and more and a group of Republicans, including McCain, and Democrats stepped up and pretty much put a stop to it by agreeing to vote against filibusters except in "extreme" instances. As soon as Obama was elected, the Democrats tried to keep that group together, but the Republicans walked away from that agreement and made filibustering the norm rather than the exception. If McCain had truly wanted to save the filibuster, he could have re-entered the agreement he and the other Republicans abandoned in 2008.
Frankly, I love that this raises the electoral stakes for all senatorial and presidential elections. The stakes should be clear and they should be real. The filibuster just obscured everything. I'd love it more if the filibuster was destroyed for legislation as well. But that will come soon enough now -- exactly as it will now come immediately if a qualified Supreme Court justice nomination is ever filibustered. Edit ... this is right: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_11/no_buyers_remorse_here_on_the047898.php
The second the GOP gains a Senate majority the filibuster is dead period. The GOP wanted Reid to make this opening move. It gives them the precedent to run the Senate with a bare majority. I'm fine with that. Not because I want them in the majority, but because I think that's how the Senate must operate in today's political world.
Not really. At least in 2016 they probably won't be viable nationally. If they want to be nationally viable in 2020, they'll have to come back to earth. In that case, they won't be anywhere near as radical as they are now. If the GOP abandons the fringe and once again becomes a mainstream political party capable of winning presidential elections -- well, fine, let them govern.
I dunno.. Is it really that silly considering how the Republican party is busily alienating everyone but white Christian males? The Republicans are going to have to undergo a rather major course redirection before they really have a chance at the White House. Now, if the Republican party does undergo the course redirection, you have a point, but part of that course redirection would be to get more in line with Democratic ideals and the impact of a Republican president would be lessened. IE, if Christie-esque gets into the White House, you won't see the same fire breathing Conservative SCJ nominee that you'd get with a Cruz or Rubio-esque White House.