But if you’re McConnell…wouldn’t you want Reid to nuke you? It helps you raise money with the base, it means you don’t have to negotiate these nominations that your base doesn’t like, and it leaves the door wide open to nuke us back – and worse – if they take over.I don't know whether McConnell actively wants it or not. Today the Minority Leader suggested that the voters are there for the EPA and Labor nominees, which suggests at least some Republicans are willing to pull back from the confrontation that's on it's way soon.
As for McConnell planning to go nuclear himself in the future...well, we're still two election cycles away at least from a GOP president and GOP Senate, and I'm not sure McConnell would set the odds for that combo at better than 50% in 2017. I'm also not at all convinced that McConnell places all that much value on having the precedent of a Democratic exec branch nuclear past to refer to when (and if) he goes nuclear on judicial nominations and legislation. I sort of think he'll do it if he wants to (and gets the chance), regardless of either precedent or what he's said in the past.
But the rest of it? Yup -- I've argued that the minority party is better off if they can flat-out oppose executive branch nominations without having to worry about actually defeating them by filibuster.
Which gets to what I said once again over at PP today: there's just no good reason for 60 on executive branch nominations.
For that matter -- is there an argument out there for 60 on executive branch nominations? Anyone aware of one?
Regardless, McConnell is very good at making Reid think that he isn't afraid of him going nuclear. I suspect the reason why Reid's had a hard time getting 50 votes to go nuclear is because some old veterans suspect this is what's McConnell's game has been all along.
ReplyDeleteI've always been a bit confused that the nuclear option is always discussed as an all or nothing proposition. I've always thought there was an intermediate step available to Reid that gets the President's nominees in, but still preserves minority rights. Perhaps this was an idea in one of the other senate rule reform proposals kicking about during the lame duck, but why not make it so the majority vote threshold only kicks in after 12 months of an executive branch position being vacant? The majority still has incentives to negotiate, play nice or else the job sits vacant for a year, but it checks the ability of the minority to play the nullification game. To take this further, why not have a majority threshold for judicial vacancies after 2 years? These are both modest steps which preserve minority power, but also don't allow the minority to shut down entire branches of government or run out the clock on a partisan advantage on the DC circuit.
This approach has two other advantages. One, Dem senators on the fence for the nuclear option could probably get behind this more modest approach which protects minority rights, and it makes Reid look much more reasonable (nuclear trigger only kicks in if and only if the minority is clearly playing the nullification game), particularly if his next move is used to justify McConnell's further escalation when the GOP regains the majority. In other words, Reid's move will be a baby step, and McConnell's move to an all majority-only Senate will be considered a radical step.
I really like the time-limit concept. I might go 20 months rather than 24 months on judges, so that there's a window between the maximum time limit and a new senatorial term. Or something like down to 55 after 12 months, majority after 24.
DeleteThese seem like exceptionally good ideas.
DeleteAre members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors considered "executive positions" under your terminology?
ReplyDeleteThe argument would be that it encourages the president to make moderate picks that are acceptable to everyone, and prevents the president from stacking agencies with his own loyalists. Same argument as for judges.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this point is that it is virtually impossible to make moderate picks acceptable to everyone under the current make up of the Republican Senate members.
DeleteNo, it seems to me that the problem with that point is that if a president wins an election -- and has at least half the Senate willing to approve his nominees -- then he should be able to stack agencies with his own loyalists.
DeleteJudges are different, mainly because of their lifetime appointments, but perhaps too because they're outside the exec branch.
This approach principal release our organization executed is around that will the game of golf games packages internet casino fervent are generally longing for.
ReplyDeletewow gold
cheapest rs gold
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOh, great, now I can't delete the spam...
DeleteI'll never do it again. And I'm happy for you to delete it and my snideness, if that's possible. And I promise, never again.
DeleteOh, no, I thought it was funny enough to be worth keeping...
Delete