How Can It Get Worse?

The nuclear option won’t destroy the legislative process, it will simply stop Republicans from using filibusters as their weapon of mass obstruction.

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 13: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) leaves the Capitol building on October 13, 2013 in Washington, DC. Congress continues to struggle to find a solution to end the government shutdown, which is currently in its 13th day. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
National Journal
Norm Ornstein
See more stories about...
Norm Ornstein
Nov. 26, 2013, 3 p.m.

So much has now been writ­ten about the fili­buster that one might think there is noth­ing more to say. Wrong! I do have some ob­ser­va­tions, about the Sen­ate lead­ing up to this change, and about the Sen­ate go­ing for­ward, that I hope will plow new ground — or at least use dif­fer­ent fur­rows.

First off, I view the ac­tions taken last week with some sor­row. I am not ex­ult­ant that the change took place the way it did. I have long been an ad­voc­ate not of re­mov­al of the fili­buster, but of fili­buster re­form; my main idea has been to shift the threshold from 60 votes needed to stop de­bate to 40 votes needed to con­tin­ue it — put­ting the onus where it be­longs, on the minor­ity, with an even more re­laxed threshold for ex­ec­ut­ive nom­in­a­tions.

But I would much rather have seen this im­passe re­solved the way it has been in the past, with a bi­par­tis­an agree­ment to break the lo­g­jam and ap­prove most of the pres­id­ent’s nom­in­ees, along with a re­turn to the 2005 stand­ard that fili­busters of nom­in­a­tions should be re­served for “ex­traordin­ary cir­cum­stances.” When it be­came clear that there was no chance of such a deal, I sup­por­ted Harry Re­id’s ac­tions.

It is true that both parties have used, and ab­used, fili­busters of ju­di­cial nom­in­ees in the past. A sharp in­crease in the use of fili­busters against ap­peals court judges — in­clud­ing what I de­cried then as the fool­ish fili­buster against the highly qual­i­fied Miguel Es­trada — led then-Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Bill Frist to pro­pose what his pre­de­cessor Trent Lott called the nuc­le­ar op­tion in 2005. I strongly op­posed it then, and breathed a sigh of re­lief when the “Gang of 14” — sev­en sen­at­ors from each side of the aisle — reached a com­prom­ise that ended up con­firm­ing such ex­treme judges as Janice Ro­gers Brown and Priscilla Owen and re­turn­ing the Sen­ate to the stand­ard of lim­it­ing fili­busters to ex­traordin­ary cir­cum­stances.

What changed? Mainly, Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans. In 2005, Lamar Al­ex­an­der, join­ing most of his col­leagues, said, “I would nev­er fili­buster any pres­id­ent’s ju­di­cial nom­in­ee, peri­od. I might vote against them, but I will al­ways see they came to a vote.” But since Obama moved in­to the White House, Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans upped the ante dra­mat­ic­ally, turn­ing the fili­buster in­to a routine weapon of mass ob­struc­tion.

On judges, the com­bin­a­tion of fili­bus­ter­ing even nom­in­ees who ul­ti­mately were con­firmed un­an­im­ously or near un­an­im­ously, just to soak more of the Sen­ate’s most pre­cious com­mod­ity, time, and of fili­bus­ter­ing not based on qual­i­fic­a­tions of the nom­in­ees but simply to keep slots from be­ing filled, is simply over any line. And it is far from the mor­al com­mit­ments made in the 2005-06 peri­od, and from the un­der­stand­ing reached this past Janu­ary that headed off more sweep­ing rules changes at the be­gin­ning of the 113th Con­gress. It was that vi­ol­a­tion that moved sen­at­ors long skep­tic­al of chan­ging the rules, like Di­anne Fein­stein, Bar­bara Box­er, and Max Baucus, in­to sup­port­ing Re­id’s move. And the un­con­scion­able block­age of the ex­traordin­ar­ily tal­en­ted and ex­per­i­enced Mel Watt from the hous­ing fin­ance agency was a clear, in-your-face de­fi­ance of Sen­ate comity.

There is an­oth­er point that has rarely been made. It is Sen­ate prac­tice, go­ing back a long way, to give sen­at­ors the abil­ity to re­com­mend or block nom­in­a­tions for fed­er­al dis­trict court va­can­cies in their states — us­ing what are called “blue slips.” Since Barack Obama be­came pres­id­ent, sev­er­al Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors have re­fused to re­com­mend any nom­in­ees for dis­trict court va­can­cies in their states, an­oth­er breach in fun­da­ment­al prac­tice.

The Sen­ate rules mat­ter, of course. But the rules are deeply in­ter­woven with Sen­ate norms. The need to achieve un­an­im­ous con­sent to move most any­thing, and the un­der­ly­ing need to get 60 votes for any­thing con­tro­ver­sial, in most cir­cum­stances, have pushed the Sen­ate to­ward col­legi­al­ity, to­ward the need to broaden co­ali­tions and move to the cen­ter. But if the norms are blown up, which is what Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans un­der Mitch Mc­Con­nell have done over the past five years — us­ing the rules not to build bridges but to con­struct dams — it be­comes al­most in­ev­it­able that the rules will change to ad­apt. Of course, it is not a one-way street; Re­id has too of­ten filled the amend­ment tree, deny­ing the minor­ity (and some­times rank-and-file mem­bers of his own party) op­por­tun­it­ies to amend bills. But that has noth­ing to do with con­firm­a­tions, and the weight of blame tilts heav­ily to the GOP side.

Secondly, un­like 2005, there were not sev­en Re­pub­lic­ans, or five, will­ing to come to­geth­er to reach a com­prom­ise. There were prob­ably two — Susan Collins, who com­mend­ably did not sup­port the fili­busters of the three nom­in­ees to the D.C. Cir­cuit, and John Mc­Cain, who cares about the tra­di­tions of the Sen­ate. The fact is that if there had been sev­en, they would have found sev­en will­ing part­ners on the oth­er side. There were not, leav­ing Re­id no real choice but to move.

Per­haps the oth­er Re­pub­lic­ans in the Sen­ate, in­clud­ing Mc­Con­nell, thought Re­id was bluff­ing and did not have the 50 votes he needed. But it was very clear to any­one watch­ing closely that he did — thus, my ex­plan­a­tion that Mc­Con­nell and his col­leagues pro­voked this ac­tion. Why? One reas­on is that Mc­Con­nell needs a more com­pel­ling tar­get to shore up his shaky reelec­tion po­s­i­tion. Obama­care is not enough in a state, Ken­tucky, where it is work­ing bet­ter than any­where else. Point­ing to the Demo­crats as an evil force tramp­ling on the Con­sti­tu­tion en­ables him to push at­ten­tion in a dif­fer­ent dir­ec­tion, giv­en that a tiny sliv­er of Ken­tucki­ans ap­prove of his role broker­ing the re­open­ing of the gov­ern­ment — he is the one stand­ing against the un-Amer­ic­an Demo­crats. And if Mc­Con­nell pre­vails, and if Re­pub­lic­ans con­trol the House, Sen­ate, and White House in 2017, he can blame Re­id and the Demo­crats when he re­moves all re­main­ing fili­buster road­b­locks.

On to the con­sequences. First, it is im­port­ant to note that the only change here is the threshold num­ber for clo­ture. All the oth­er ways sen­at­ors can delay ac­tion re­main in place, in­clud­ing deny­ing un­an­im­ous con­sent, re­quir­ing two days for a clo­ture pe­ti­tion to ripen, and de­mand­ing the full de­bate time after clo­ture, among many oth­ers. The hold, which is ba­sic­ally a no­tice by a sen­at­or that he or she will deny un­an­im­ous con­sent to move for­ward on a bill or nom­in­a­tion, is still there, al­beit with less po­tency. Will Re­pub­lic­ans use these weapons more than in the past? Sure. But if they over­use them, bring­ing the place to a screech­ing halt over even minor nom­in­ees for boards and com­mis­sions, Re­id will be temp­ted to change the rules again. That is a fairly po­tent de­terrent against melt­down.

As for holds, they will stay. All sen­at­ors use them and treas­ure them, as a way to grab the at­ten­tion of a White House or Cab­in­et of­fice that of­ten will just ig­nore their wishes or stone­wall their le­git­im­ate con­cerns. But now, holds will only ap­ply for a lim­ited time, with a sharp in­crease in the power of the Ma­jor­ity Lead­er to de­cide how long that time will be. If he wants to ac­com­mod­ate an in­di­vidu­al sen­at­or with a griev­ance against the pres­id­ent or a de­part­ment, he can sit on a key nom­in­a­tion for weeks or months. If he doesn’t, he can ig­nore the hold, even though it will still re­quire him to jump through some hoops to move a nom­in­a­tion to a vote. Ma­jor­ity lead­ers could al­ways ig­nore holds if they de­sired, but if they did so for minor­ity sen­at­ors, the minor­ity party would unite and sup­port a fili­buster. Now, he can re­ward friends and pun­ish en­emies more eas­ily. This real­ity, so far as I can tell, has gone com­pletely un­noticed by the cognoscenti. One caveat: If in­di­vidu­al reneg­ades like Ted Cruz de­cide to ab­use the hold pro­cess by put­ting them on every nom­in­ee, there will be some in­cent­ive to change the fun­da­ment­als of un­an­im­ous con­sent agree­ments, to re­quire more than one sen­at­or to block im­me­di­ate con­sid­er­a­tion of nom­in­a­tions, at least. In­deed, Lott and Tom Daschle pro­posed just this in The Wash­ing­ton Post. But for now, the hold will re­main, be­cause it suits all sen­at­ors and it em­powers Re­id.

Does this mean few­er mod­er­ate and more ex­treme judges? This was a point made by my friends Ruth Mar­cus and J. Har­vie Wilkin­son, who is a true role mod­el as a judge. When Chuck Grass­ley, who made a habit of taunt­ing Demo­crats on the Sen­ate floor on this is­sue, threatened that if Re­id pulled the trig­ger, there would be more judges like Scalia and Alito, I laughed. We got Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Janice Ro­gers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and many oth­ers without any fili­buster change! And if the rules had not changed and the Re­pub­lic­ans elec­ted a pres­id­ent with a Re­pub­lic­an Sen­ate in 2016, I am sure we would see a steady march of Fed­er­al­ist So­ci­ety-ap­proved arch-con­ser­vat­ives nom­in­ated. We may see a few more judges nom­in­ated un­der Obama who are left of cen­ter, but I doubt ser­i­ously that he will try to flood the courts with rad­ic­als. All three nom­in­ees for the D.C. Cir­cuit are well with­in the main­stream. And a tilt ser­i­ously to the left would res­ult in de­fec­tions from Mark Pry­or, Joe Manchin, Mary Landrieu, and enough oth­er mod­er­ate and con­ser­vat­ive Demo­crats to make the nom­in­a­tions prob­lem­at­ic.

What about le­gis­la­tion? Will Re­id’s move — as Olympia Snowe, among oth­ers, fear — add to the hy­per­par­tis­an­ship and des­troy the le­gis­lat­ive pro­cess? No. As Re­id said, how could it get worse? Here is the real­ity: Any le­gis­la­tion that Mc­Con­nell and his col­leagues saw as not in their polit­ic­al in­terest was not go­ing to pass, peri­od. Any le­gis­la­tion that passed with a hand­ful of Re­pub­lic­ans was not go­ing to make it through the House, be­fore or after the nuc­le­ar op­tion. Some le­gis­la­tion, like im­mig­ra­tion re­form, that passed the Sen­ate with su­per­ma­jor­it­ies, was not go­ing to make it through the House.

Be­fore and now, if there is le­gis­la­tion that Mc­Con­nell and his col­leagues see as in their polit­ic­al in­terest, they will vote for it, peri­od. Does any­body ser­i­ously think that Mc­Con­nell will kill a farm-bill deal, if one is ever reached, be­cause he wants to protest Re­id’s rules change? Will he block a tough new sanc­tions bill on Ir­an be­cause of the new at­mo­sphere in the Sen­ate? Block a budget con­fer­ence deal and bring the gov­ern­ment to a halt? Block ul­ti­mate pas­sage of a de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion bill? No, no, and no.

Per­haps some smal­ler-bore le­gis­lat­ive ini­ti­at­ives will die. But the 113th Con­gress was well on the way to sur­pass­ing the 112th as the most do-noth­ing Con­gress in our life­times long be­fore the nuc­le­ar op­tion. Noth­ing, sadly, has changed — ex­cept the abil­ity of a pres­id­ent to staff his own ad­min­is­tra­tion and to fill long-stand­ing va­can­cies in the ju­di­ciary.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Source:
PEAK CONFIDENCE
Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Source:
CITIZENS UNITED PT. 2?
Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."

Source:
×