The nuclear option is activated
We all knew it would happen. But now it has happened: the GOP has voted to exercise the nuclear option for the confirmation of SCOTUS justices. This does away with the ability of the minority Senate party to block a president’s nominee to the Court, but it doesn’t address other circumstances such as what will happen when the president is of a different party than the Senate majority.
I can envision all sorts of things that could happen. For example, the GOP blocked the Garland nomination in just that instance, when Obama was relatively near the end of his tenure. This was actually a risky move on the part of the GOP, because had Hillary Clinton been elected (which certainly was a very good possibility) they would have almost certainly been forced to deal with the prospect of a far more liberal justice than Garland.
I also think it somewhat likely—I’d bet more likely than not—that, before the next four years is up, the nuclear option will be extended to other Senate business.
What I foresee if that happens is that the majority party in Congress will be able to pass laws more readily, but those laws will be more easily reversed the minute Congress changes hands. The Senate used to act as a brake on precipitous moves that were strictly partisan or especially extreme. No more, particularly if both houses of Congress are controlled by the same party, which often happens.
I foresee the possibility of the country careening more wildly between one extreme and the other. Sort of like this:
[NOTE: By the way, I wanted to start that video at minute 1:36. For some reason, although I tried to do it the way I always do when I change the start time of videos, it didn’t work and the video starts at zero. It’ll take me a while to figure out what’s wrong, but I suggest you start watching it at 1:36.]
This may work:
I take that back.
It was hilarious reading the NYTimes report of the nuclear option- it took them three paragraphs to remind their readers that it was the Democrats in 2013 who first pulled the trigger, spending the first two paragraphs telling their readers that it was the Republicans changing long standing rules of the Senate. Even when they finally get around to acknowledging the Democrats use of this option, they then falsely claim that the Democrats left the filibuster in place for SCOTUS nominees, thus implying that the Democrats had at some point refused to go nuclear for such an appointee.
I’d say your video is a pretty good analogy for where we’re potentially heading.
The actions of Democrats everywhere are increasingly signaling that they don’t intend to abide by the laws of the land, regardless of what their lips may be saying. They are waging an undeclared war and are betting that they can bend us to their will because eventually our only alternative will be to fight back with physical force, which they know we will avoid at almost any cost.
This may amuse:
First: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-the-filibuster-unconstitutional/2012/05/15/gIQAYLp7QU_blog.html?utm_term=.b5a605416bb2
Next: https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/850028749655597056?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
Note the comments of Klein’s fans.
They must have memories as short as their tempers.
The overdramatic caterwauling by some of these Democrats is nauseating. Talk of this as a ‘dark deed’ and the like. All this for a nominee that by any historical standard is extremely qualified to sit on SCOTUS.
They should have let them filibuster, then let the Dems take the blame for “shutting down the government” over a perfectly qualified nominee. Especially since the Senate doesn’t seem to be doing much of anything else these days.
John Yoo has a piece at WSJ saying that the fillibuster as currently practiced actually cuts down debates. I don’t know whether he is right, but I wonder how many Dems would be willing to stand and talk for 24 hours in order to prevent something from coming to a vote.
The fact that this isn’t the way it has always been is the other part of this that seems to get glossed over. Seeing people talk about Republicans not believing in the Constitution and the sort when the filibuster isn’t mentioned in it. This was rule that was put in and now it has been taken out. Whether that is good or bad I don’t know but it far from the end of times.
Despite the hoopla about precedent, I heard a Senator, forget who, comment that there had never before been a filibuster of a SCOTUS nominee. The closest to such precedent was when Abe Fortas was nominated to advance from Associate Justice to Chief Justice. A commentator also pointed out that requiring 60 votes for cloture is a “precedent” and is not a rule.
There is so much extraneous verbiage (and I refrain from the first description that came to mind), that the essential elements, and truth of the matter, are completely obscured.
I say again. Do away with super-majority for cloture. Bring every measure to the floor with a pre-defined length of time for debate. Party leaders can determine who gets to speak for their side within the time constraints. This would hopefully focus the debate on the issue, and not on minutiae. No reason that every Senator needs to speak to an empty chamber just to stroke an ego. Define those issues for which a super majority is deemed appropriate–possibly tax measures, war, or impeachment–in advance. Force a vote on the merits of the issue so that every Senator registers a position by such a vote.
I have long thought that the description of the Senate as the “World’s greatest deliberative body” was a false conceit. I favor the British Commons. Now they are proving that they are closer to a clown show.
In unbroken series? Not 48 certainly. Keep the chamber in business 24/7 and it’s over in a month.
And the Dems are the ones that changed it from that in 1975 anyway.
So, what was originally a collegiality premised unlimited speaking privilege, which was occasionally used to impede bringing the question to the floor, becomes a privilege to languidly signal with the flick of a limp wrist, that one would filibuster if one had the will and determination to do what one does actually not have the will and determination to do … and thus, nonetheless, bring everything to a halt.
However, with the two track system also put in place at that time, I see no reason not to rid the senate of the virtual filibuster privilege, and just let each senator have his one time recognition in order to to have have his unlimited say (no yielding) on that issue … probably while allowing other business to proceed more or less simultaneously …
If the filibuster crew wishes to take the other business track hostage by filibustering any questions considered on another track, I see no reason why legislation tracks could not be multiplied and questions differentiated to the point where the filibusters ran out of enough soldiers to keep up the constant babble.
Of course doing so would put to an end once and for all the illusion of senators actually offering each other collegial respect and a thoughtful hearing for the sake of a liberty preserving republic … but what else is new?
About a year ago when it appeared that Trump was actually serious about the campaign and working hard to win the nomination lots of commenters here and on other sites thought he was a Clinton buddy pulling a trick on the conservatives.
As he gained momentum he had my support because if he actually won he would be able to nominate a conservative to the Supreme Court. That alone was enough of a reason for him to have my vote and the fact the he was not Hillary was the icing on the cake.
Tomorrow when Gorsuch receives the consent of the Senate I will be pleased and happy. I am proud of our GOP Senators for getting the job done the only way it could be done.
There will be Hippie, Harpies Screaming in the street this weekend and that will be fine too.
“. . .offering each other collegial respect and a thought fun hearing. . .” And if ever there were an example of exactly the opposite, it was my own Senator, Dingy Harry Reid.
It’s just a Senate rule change so what. The way the World is now going back and forth with future laws might be a good thing, eg. Trying things out and seeing how they work out if not switch back. ( just my 2 cents)
It’s clear the US is in a period of destabilization. Which is not necessarily bad. We could restabilize at a more better, maintainable equilibrium.
But that’s not what we are seeing. The US is lurching from blue to red to blue to red and back again in larger swings.
I agree the Reps had no choice to go nuclear for Gorsuch.
But systems in which positive feedback generates larger swings always blow up.
So it’s now settled that Supremes are voted in on the basis of their politics.
The next arms race is a race to the bottom to put the youngest nominees possible into the Supreme Court.
Why not a 35 year-old SC Justice?
A 28 year-old?
Coming to a theater near you.
I thought I wrote, and it even now appears as:
But I have apparently been quoted as writing:
If I did originally write the babble F quoted, then Thanks Neo for saving me with an edit.
And if I did not write a nonsense sentence, as I admit I sometimes have done, then no harm done anyway.