It took awhile. A few years even. But, on Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) finally decided he’d had enough.
By a majority vote of 52 to 48, the U.S. Senate changed their rules to partially end the filibuster, invoking what some refer to as the so-called “nuclear option”. The rule change, which will permit an up-or-down majority vote on all Presidential nominations for executive and judicial office (with the exception of Supreme Court nominations), is better described as the “democracy option”.
The rule change, for now, would have no effect on the use of the filibuster by the minority to block legislation. Three Democrats, Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Mark Pryor (D-AR), voted with Republicans to sustain the previous filibuster rules, last changed in 1975 when the Senate amended their Standing Rules to reduce the number of Senators required for cloture — to end debate — from two-thirds to three-fifths.
Although there had been noise, and urging from many quarters, for a dramatic change of the filibuster rules for some time, especially after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) drew the dubious distinction of becoming the first U.S. Senator in history to filibuster his own bill, the impetus became particularly strong over the past several weeks with the outrageous block put on the nominations of every one of President Obama’s nominations to the important D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal, the court which oversees federal regulations.
The result of yesterday’s rule change in the U.S. Senate could well be a return, at least in part, to the Constitutionally designed functions of three different branches of government, as envisioned by our founding documents. It may also mark an end to a thirty-year scheme by Republicans to pack the courts with radical, right wing jurists…
As The BRAD BLOG recently reported, after the Senate Republican minority had successively blocked the nominations of three highly qualified women to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a former Harvard Law Professor, forcefully argued that Senators not only had the right but, indeed, a constitutional duty to change the filibuster rules.
Warren accused Republicans of helping to continue a thirty-year long effort to “rig the courts…in favor of the wealthy and the powerful” and “for no reason other than to nullify the President’s constitutional authority” and the results of the November 2012 Presidential election.
After that speech, this past Monday, Republicans once again used the filibuster to block an up-or-down vote on a fourth Obama nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal, U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins, an African-American. Again, the effort was not by way of objection to the particular nominee, but rather an objection by Republicans to filling those seats at all with nominations of the current Democratic President. It is part and parcel of the GOP’s unprecedented use of the once arcane, now commonplace parliamentary procedure.
After the Wilkins filibuster, NBC observed that Senate Republicans had gone from blocking nominees out of “concerns about ideology or qualifications [to a blanket challenge of] the president’s ability to appoint ANYONE to these vacancies.” Citing that report, Right Wing Watch argued that this amounted to an “unprecedented blockade” that had left “Democrats with few options.” Right Wing Watch outlined the hypocrisy of twelve Senate Republicans who had been “the most strident opponents of filibustering judicial nominees,” in the past, until they “turned master obstructers” during the Obama Presidency.
For example, one of the twelve, Senate Minority Leader McConnell had said in 2005, “Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote.”
Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas argued in 2003 that “filibusters of judicial nominations are uniquely offensive to our nation’s constitutional design.” And Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who was furious at the Democrats’ majority vote to allow for a straight up-or-down majority vote on a President’s non-Supreme Court judicial nominees, said back in 2005 that “filibustering judges” would “destroy the judiciary.” He described the practice as “unconstitutional”.
But, of course, that was when Republicans held the majority in the U.S. Senate under a Republican President.
It would probably be an understatement to suggest that Senate Republicans brought this upon themselves. “There is no historical precedent for the number of cabinet-level nominees that Republicans have blocked or delayed in the Obama administration,” The New York Times observed last May in an op-ed entitled “Malicious Obstruction in the Senate.”
The fact that the new filibuster rules apply to executive as well as judicial nominees is significant. As The BRAD BLOG recently reported, for the past five years, the Senate Republican minority successfully used the filibuster to prevent the Obama Administration from replacing Bush Administration holdover Edward DeMarco as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). DeMarco has been described by opponents as “the single largest obstacle to meaningful economic recovery,” who has steadfastly opposed all forms of debt relief to the underwater homeowners who had been the victims of the collapse of the Wall Street casino known as the bundled, mortgage-backed securities market. It is likely the Obama administration’s nominee to replace DeMarco, Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC), will now finally be confirmed, five years after Obama was first sworn in to replace Bush.
Thursday’s historic vote will not prevent the GOP minority in the Senate from continuing to use the filibuster with unprecedented frequency to block substantive legislation. Neither does it remove the ability of U.S. House Republicans to block legislation in that chamber with the so-called Hastert Rule, by preventing a combined majority of Democrats and moderate Republicans from voting up-or down on substantive legislation. The vote does, however, open the door to judicial and executive branches of government that function, once again, somewhat closer to the manner envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.
As aptly noted by The Nation’s Reed Richardson in “Gone Nuclear: The Media Missed the GOP’s Filibuster War on Government,” the invocation of the so-called “nuclear option”, “wasn’t a win for Democrats as much as it was a win for democracy.”
UPDATE: The L.A. Times front page coverage of yesterday’s invocation of the “Nuclear Option!!!” was somewhat typical of much of yesterday’s mainstream media coverage.
If all you saw was the coverage by the LA Times’ Michael A. Memoli and Lisa Mascaro, you would never know any of the points made in our article above. For example, you’d have no knowledge of Sen. Warren’s argument of the Constitutional duty of both the Executive and Legislative branches to fill Judicial branch vacancies on the federal bench, the GOP’s thirty-year attempt to “rig the courts”, or even the unprecedented obstructionism of Republicans using the filibuster in record numbers under this President.
Instead, they presented yesterday’s historic rule change as simply an assault on minority rights that “brushed aside a century of congressional tradition and further embittered relations between the parties on an already deadlocked Capitol Hill.” (Never mind that the modern filibuster rules were set in the 1970’s, not “a century” ago.)
Typical of the “fair and balanced” charade by mainstream corporate stenographers, Memoli and Mascaro focused on “he said, she said” coverage without taking the time to consider the extent to which the “Democracy Option” was needed to remedy the very “deadlock” to which they referred. They suggested that the “White House seems resigned to a second term marked by Congressional paralysis,” when, in fact, the whole point of yesterday’s historic Senate vote was to end the paralysis that marred Obama’s first term, at least with respect to executive and judicial nominees to the federal trial and intermediate appellate courts.
But “Nuclear Option!!!”, it seems, is much sexier than explaining to readers what actually happened, why it was finally done, and why “Democracy Option” would have been a far more accurate and informative way to describe the historic change.
The democrats need to grow a set of balls and the democrats need to get out to vote. If they keep doing nothing we are going to set this country back 100 years. The republicans got us into a depression and then almost did it again between 2001 and 2008. If it hadn’t been for the social programs we would have been worse off than the first one. The majority of people voted for the democrats and expect them to get the job done.
Politicians are often found to be hypicritical, but this Republican lot is far gone. Another example…
There are conservatives like George W Bush who was on Jay Leno recently who said he wants the US to stay in Afghanistan to help protect the women and girls in that country. That sounds touching and reasonable, but yet many of the same conservatives who use that ploy to argue for an extension of a military presence, are the same ones that want to maintain the status quo in the military that makes it virtually impossible for raped, sexually abused, assaulted and harassed women of our military to achieve justice for crimes committed against them. We want to protect the Afghani women, but we do not seem to care about our women. Sounds more like the Afghani women have as much to worry about from our military as from their own people.
Excellent point Alex.
Great quotes from the GOP senators in days past regarding filibustering of judges. I wonder what circumstances gave us those remarks? In the case of Graham and McConnell it was, hold on to your hat here, Harry Reid led filibusters of Bush judicial nominees. In fact, old Harry made an impassioned speech on the Senate floor explaining just why the nuclear option would:
“If Republicans rollback our rights in this Chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees…the President’s nominees in general…and legislation like Social Security privatization.”
http://democrats.senate.gov/2005/05/18/reid-floor-speech-on-use-of-filibuster/
We see that the judicial nominee filibuster is not, as the President (who’s a proven liar to the American people) states, unprecedented. A higher percentage of Obama Circuit Court nominees have been approved than those which were approved for Bush.
http://news.yahoo.com/are-republicans-really-blocking-obama-s-judicial-nominees-at-%E2%80%98unprecedented–levels-001414638.html
And so now we’re at the point that leftist ideologues can continue their scheme of packing the court with radical left-wing jurists. The 50% +1 people have won for now and the 50% -1 people are fucked by this unprecedented power grab of a bare majority of folks who vehemently argued against their own action just a few years ago. The Senate was designed to be the house which worked together, not in the left wing definition of the minority should acquiesce to everything, but with actual debate and compromise. This is a sad time for the ever growing number of people disillusioned with the lies and damaging policies of this administration of grifters and ponzi scheme artists.
Our friend WingnutSteve returned @ 4!
Hi, Steve! Welcome back! You said…
I realize it’s not a safe assumption that you already understand this, so forgive me for reiterating something you may already know. But you do realize that when Dems filibustered presidential appointees in the past, they did so because they objected to the nominee themselves for an actual reason, right? Not just because they were attempting to keep the seat from being filled by any nomination of that particular President. You do understand that, right?
So, for example, when Richard Taranto was nominated by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals in November of 2011 he was forced to wait 15 months before being finally getting an up-or-down vote in the Senate thanks to Republican obstructionism.
Why the 15 months delay for Taranto? What were the objections to him? Was he a “radical left-wing jurist” as you (foolishly) suggested elsewhere in your comments? Apparently, not. Apparently there were ZERO objections to him, other than he was nominated by this particular President. When Taranto was finally allowed an up-or-down vote in March of 2013, he received a vote in the U.S. Senate of 91 to 0.
If you can cite a similar epidemic of Democrats and “old Harry” behaving that way when they were in the minority, please feel free to share. (You won’t. You never do.)
The Taranto case is not an outlier. It is the norm. Republicans filibustered one appointment after another, not because they had a problem with the nominee (at least none that they expressed), but, in contravention to the U.S. Constitution, they simply didn’t want a Democratic President to fill that particular job, whether it was a seat on the federal bench, or the head of the ATF, or the head of the FHFA, or the head of the CFPB, etc. etc. etc.
Again, if you can cite an instance, much less an epidemic of same, of that having happened when Dems were in the minority, please feel free to share it. If you were unaware of the difference in the situations then and now, because you tend to follow wingnut media almost exclusively (and they lie to you and play you for a happy fool), hopefully you’ve been educated now and understand why they did it, should have done it long ago, and didn’t even go nearly far enough in restoring the small “d” democratic balance to the Senate as designed in the U.S. Constitution.
Huh. Interesting. Perhaps that’s why he didn’t change the rules (yet) on Supreme Court nominees or on “legislation like Social Security” (though he should, by the way) when he made those comments at a time, unlike now, when Republicans controlled majorities in the House, the Senate and the White House.
That’s fun what you did there! Cherry picking is always fun! So let’s look at the article you site, which reads: “Looking at all of Obama’s nominees across his administration, he has suffered unprecedented levels of obstruction.”
As you probably also noticed, but didn’t mention here (for some reason), Obama’s district court nominations have been blocked at a higher percentage than Bush’s. When both district and circuit court nominees are combined, Obama has been obstructed more than Bush.
Moreover, as the article you cite also notes: “Obama is the only president who suffered an increased vacancy during his first term without more court positions being created” and, in regard to district court nominees, “Reagan’s nominees breezed through, with just a 28-day waiting period during his first term, compared with 215 days for Obama.”
When you then add Obama’s Executive branch nominees to the mix, which you tried to ignore here, there’s just no comparison in our entire history. Not even close, as this graf makes clear (since, maybe, you didn’t notice it the first time):
It’s fun that you called Harry Reid a “leftist ideologue”. It’s fun cuz it’s so ridiculous that a “leftist ideologue” like that would have an A+ rating from the NRA, would favor fracking, etc. But let’s not notice that, and respond instead to the most ridiculously uneducated piece of misinformation you included in that particular sentence.
That’s their “scheme”? To “pack the court with radical left-wing jurists”? Really? Which “radical left-wing jurists” are you referring to? Because if there are any, I’m unaware of them being cited by the Republicans who have been blocking those nominations. But I’m open to your list. (You won’t offer one. You never do. You always ignore questions like these. But I’m being polite and given you the opportunity to continue your years of failure in that regard here.)
By “unprecedented”, do you mean, “exactly what the U.S. Constitution called for”? I’ve read the Constitution (have you?) I know there are a number of instances when a super-majority of some type is required in the U.S. Senate. None of them have to do with Presidential appointees or nominations (or even legislation, for that matter). But perhaps I missed it in there? Feel free to cite it. (You won’t, of course. You’ll just ignore this too.)
There are many instances in which the U.S. Constitution explicitly protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority (like, say, voting rights), but the “right” for a minority of Senators to block Executive nominees to the Judiciary (even Supreme Court nominees) or to his own Executive agencies or cabinet is decidedly not one of them.
Feel free to quote otherwise, of course. (You won’t.)
Again, please feel free to cite your explanation of how a simple majority up-or-down vote for Executive and Judicial appointees is in violation with the “Senate design”. Surely you wouldn’t just pull something out of
Rush Limbaugh’syour ass, to make an argument here without evidence to support it, right?Ah, “grifters and ponzi scheme artists”. You really have taken the deep dive into Rightwing “Libertarianism”, eh? Fun! You’ve gone from reasonable Republican, to radicalized wingnut! Has been fun to watch over these past several years!
Now, get started ignoring my questions above right away!
As Brad @5 thoroughly demolished the fact-free tirade posted by our pal, Steve Snyder aka WingNut Steve @4, I’m somewhat reluctant to pile on.
However, I think it important to note that Republican filibuster abuse with respect to nominations to the executive branch are not just unprecedented in terms of the 82 nominees blocked during Obama’s first five years in office vs. the grand total of 86 for Obama’s 43 predecessors combined, but in the positions that were blocked.
When Republicans filibustered the President’s nomination of Chuck Hegel, it marked the first time in U.S. history that any Senator (Democratic or Republican) ever sought to filibuster someone nominated as Secretary of Defense. Republicans advanced their unprecedented filibuster at a time when this nation was still at war (Afghanistan).
I’m wondering whether Steve would go so far as to suggest that the two term Republican Senator from Nebraska was “radical left wing” or whether any of the GOP obstructionists would have had any problem with Hegel’s confirmation whatsoever if he had been nominated by George W. Bush?
Moreover, prior to caving on the issue back in 2005, Democrats had filibustered some of GWB’s Robert Bork-founded, right wing billionaire funded Federalist Society connected nominees for the same reason that a majority of the Senate, in and up-or-down vote rejected the Bork nomination to the Supreme Court by a 58 – 42 vote back in 1987.
The rationale for Bork’s rejection, as explained by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is apropos to the reasons why Democrats opposed Bush’s radical nominees:
No Senate Republican has argued that any of the four successive Obama administration nominees to the DC Circuit Court of Appeal should be reject either on ideological grounds or for lack of qualification, and with good reason.
Take Nina Pillard, regarded as “among the most accomplished Supreme Court advocates in the United States.” She has argued 9 cases before the Supreme Court, briefed 25 others. In one of those cases, she wrote the Solicitor General’s brief on behalf of the George H.W. Bush Administration.
So, Steve, do you now consider George Bush Sr. to be “radical left-wing”? Has the Republican Party really moved that far to the right?
I state facts to place into context the quotes ernie uses from various GOP Senators. I state facts to show that both sides have used the same tactic. I show my sources, which are the highly partisan and rightwing Yahoo News and the Democratic Senatorial floor record.
Brad responds, and thoroughly demolishes me, with his typical long winded diatribe stating opinions gleaned from various DNC/Organizing for Action talking points memo’s. And then ernie follows with “Yeah!”. Some things will never change….
Re Steve Snyder aka WingnutSteve @7:
The next factual reference or link that would even remotely support your claim @4 that Democrats had ever engaged in a “scheme of packing the court with radical left-wing jurists” will be your first.
But you are right about one thing. When it comes to your predictable reaction to valid criticisms of your fact-free musings, some things never change.
The question Brad posed to you was direct and straightforward:
Why am I not surprised that, in your latest comment @7, you pointed to nary a one.
Facts rule. Pay close attention, Steve. I add my invitation for you to respond to Brad and Ernie with facts of your own that refute the arguments they presented.
If you cannot find them, what does that tell you?
Brad and Ernie, thank you.
Steve @ 7,
You’ve outdone yourself. That is the most profound non-answer to a thorough deconstruction of your typically lame talking points I have seen yet. That one’s going into the archives.
Let me add my vote by requesting you surprise us by answering the questions Brad asked you. (House money overwhelmingly says you will not)
WingnutSteve said @ 7:
But, you didn’t. That’s the prob. I asked you to do so, several times, in my reply. If Dems have done those things, have blocked judicial nominees for no reason (other than to keep a President from seating anyone on the bench) or executive nominees (for no other reason than to cripple the agency in question) please site it. That really shouldn’t be difficult. It’s your argument.
Short of that, it looks like you’ve failed spectacularly again. But, as previously, always happy to give you the benefit of the doubt. Offer the evidence to support your own argument.
No. I quoted your own source (the Yahoo article) back to you. I didn’t quote any others, and I don’t receive either DNC or OFA “talking points”. I’m sure it’s possible I’ve “received” them somehow through other sources that I follow, however, which is why I asked you for the evidence to support your argument. You have, as usual, provided ZERO of that evidence in reply.
Apparently.
Steve,
That’s the way intelligent, reasoned argument goes. Someone(you, in this case) makes a series statements. You assign meaning to/derive meanings from your statements. Somebody else(in this case, Brad)challenges your statements and assigned meanings by presenting counter-arguments including evidence that you’ve left out, thus broadening the contexts presented and in the process thoroughly undermining/discrediting your point of view.
Weirdly whining as a response to a clinical deconstruction of your comment only makes your case appear weaker(if that were possible).
Got anything else?
“Brad responds, and thoroughly demolishes me” ~ WingNutSteve
We do not live in a democracy — we live in a republic. The filibuster prevents the minority party from being bulldozed by the majority in at least one part of our government, no matter which side is in the minority.
Webster @8 repeats the oft repeated right wing canard. “We do not live in a democracy,” he proclaims. “We live in a republic.”
For the framers of the U.S. Constitution, the phrase “republican form of government” are synonymous with “representative democracy.”
They distinguished that from “direct” or Athenian democracy, which James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, referred to as “pure democracy” in the form of “a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.”
While we saw examples of direct democracy in the Occupy Wall Street movement, there is no nation on earth that utilizes direct democracy. The U.S. form of “republican government” does entail representative democracy.
The U.S. Constitution contains some undemocratic features — e.g. a vote by a Senator from a rural state like Montana is equal to the vote of a Senator from a populous state, like California.
However, the Constitution does not provide for the filibuster. That legislative tool, once used only sparingly as part of a courtly arrangement to insure that the minority has an adequate opportunity for debate, was perverted into a tool for unprecedented obstruction and gridlock.
The only unfortunate feature is that Democrats limited the “democracy option” to executive and judicial appointments.