Do Senate Dems Have the Votes to Go Nuclear?

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 16: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) (C), speaks to the media while flanked by U.S. Sen. Tom Udall (D-CO) (L) and U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), after attending the weekly Senate Democratic policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol July 16, 2013 in Washington, DC. Democrats gathered a the luncheon to discuss their agenda.
National Journal
Elahe Izad and Michael Catalini
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Elahe Izad Michael Catalini
Nov. 11, 2013, 4:15 p.m.

One group fa­vor­ing abor­tion rights labeled the nuc­le­ar op­tion a “dan­ger­ous power grab.” Five oth­ers said in a state­ment that they would “op­pose any ef­fort to take away the right of any Sen­at­or to fili­buster now or in the fu­ture.”

That was in 2005. Now, with Demo­crats run­ning the Sen­ate, those groups have largely si­lenced their cri­ti­cism of the “nuc­le­ar” op­tion, which would change Sen­ate rules and make it harder to fili­buster nom­in­a­tions.

But they still fear the nuc­le­ar op­tion — and that may have hindered Demo­crats’ abil­ity to carry it out.

While Demo­crat­ic sen­at­ors are again rais­ing the specter of a rule change, it is no longer clear that they have the 51 votes they’ll need to ex­ecute such a plan, ac­cord­ing to a Demo­crat­ic lead­er­ship aide. Sen­at­ors point to con­cerns raised by abor­tion-rights groups that worry a Re­pub­lic­an Sen­ate could one day clear an­ti­abor­tion judges on a simple ma­jor­ity vote, the aide said.

In­deed, while these groups are keep­ing a lower pro­file this time around be­cause Demo­crats are in charge, the wor­ries that fueled their full-court press against the Re­pub­lic­an ma­jor­ity in 2005 re­main.

“Our con­cerns would be that should the power struc­ture flip in the fore­see­able fu­ture, that con­ser­vat­ives would use wo­men’s re­pro­duct­ive is­sues as a ham­mer and a wedge,” said Anna Scholl, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of Pro­gress VA. “That’s a very ser­i­ous con­cern.”

The cur­rent ef­fort in the Sen­ate is led by stal­wart re­formers like Sens. Jeff Merkley of Ore­gon and Tom Ud­all of New Mex­ico, but Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id and As­sist­ant Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Dick Durbin have kept a lower pro­file.

Durbin’s stock line about the nuc­le­ar op­tion is that there will be a “tip­ping point,” but he has yet to spe­cify when that would be. Re­id, nev­er shy when it comes to jab­bing Re­pub­lic­ans, has cri­ti­cized them for block­ing nom­in­a­tions but stopped short of say­ing he’s made up his mind to go nuc­le­ar.

Back in 2005, a num­ber of groups were vo­cal in ad­voc­at­ing against a rules change. Planned Par­ent­hood’s Ac­tion Net­work said at the time that it gen­er­ated al­most 115,000 calls, let­ters, and pe­ti­tion sig­na­tures against the nuc­le­ar op­tion. Civil-rights or­gan­iz­a­tions, such as the Lead­er­ship Con­fer­ence on Civil Rights, had like­wise cri­ti­cized Re­pub­lic­ans for pur­su­ing the meas­ure.

But Nan Aron, pres­id­ent of the Al­li­ance for Justice, ar­gues that this fight is dif­fer­ent than in 2005.

“We’re op­er­at­ing in a whole dif­fer­ent world now. The fili­buster was used only a hand­ful of times by Demo­crats to re­gister op­pos­i­tion to ju­di­cial nom­in­ees on mer­it. Now, ju­di­cial nom­in­ees are be­ing fili­bustered for an en­tirely dif­fer­ent reas­on, and that is solely for the pur­pose of ob­struc­tion, re­gard­less of who the nom­in­ee is,” Aron said. “This shouldn’t be ne­ces­sary at all — to call for rules re­form — but if Re­pub­lic­ans are go­ing to block votes on ju­di­cial nom­in­ees … to ob­struct, then the Demo­crats have no choice but to call for Sen­ate floor re­forms.”

Some ad­voc­ates be­lieve that Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans will likely pur­sue rules changes them­selves if they take the ma­jor­ity in the Sen­ate. In­deed, Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans say they would make such changes if Demo­crats change the rules now. Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, says his mes­sage to Demo­crats is, “Do it” — in ef­fect dar­ing them to make the rules change.

The is­sue last came to a head in Ju­ly, when 98 sen­at­ors met in the Old Sen­ate Cham­ber late in­to the night. The deal that emerged soon after that meet­ing cleared the way for a hand­ful of Pres­id­ent Obama’s nom­in­ees.

But that agree­ment pre­served Demo­crats’ abil­ity to raise the is­sue again, which is pre­cisely what’s hap­pen­ing in the Sen­ate. Re­pub­lic­ans blocked Demo­crat­ic Rep. Mel Watt of North Car­o­lina to head the Fed­er­al Hous­ing Fin­ance Agency and Pa­tri­cia Mil­lett to sit on the D.C. Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals.

The Sen­ate re­turns after the Vet­er­ans Day hol­i­day on Tues­day. Already Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors are prom­ising to block Cor­ne­lia Pil­lard, who’s also been ap­poin­ted to serve on the D.C. Cir­cuit Court.

“The Sen­ate rules aren’t work­ing,” Scholl said. “In­stead of be­ing used to pro­tect the rights of the minor­ity, [they’re] be­ing used for petty polit­ic­al games. [But] there are cer­tainly risks in­her­ent in mov­ing for­ward with the nuc­le­ar op­tion.”

What We're Following See More »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
50 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DELIBERATE MORE
FCC Pushes Vote on Set-Top Boxes
54 minutes ago
THE LATEST

"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
6 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Bannon Still Collecting Royalties from ‘Seinfeld’
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."

Source:
×