What I'm happiest about is that the mainstream of Senate reform discussion seems now, much more than it was a few yeas ago, to recognize that there are differences between the filibuster on legislation, on judicial nominations, and on executive branch nominations. Moreover, whether by design or not, we've wound up with some recognition that exec branch nomination filibusters are at least highly problematic.
I am disappointed that supermajority confirmation for exec branch nominations survived. I continue to believe that simple majority cloture is the way to go for exec branch picks. It's possible that we'll now have that de facto; we'll have to see. I'd rather hve it by rule.
On the other hand, for those of us who want a middle ground -- filibuster reform, rather than a majority party rule Senate -- it's good news that we did not get majority-imposed reform. It's of course hard to tell exactly how much it matters, but I do think that one successful "nuclear" blast will make a House-like Senate quite a bit more likely.
Of course, all this is pending how things actually work out in practice. We'll know more in a few months.
Despite Harry Reid's unsteady history on the subject, it would be in the best interest of the Senate to reform the filibuster. This 60 vote rule needs to end if real legislation is going to be passed. However it is comforting to see that the filibuster lives to see another day and Washington was able to compromise on something.
ReplyDeleteNobody was even considering modifying the 60 vote rule for legislation. (Except insofar as McConnell threatened he would do so as soon as he got a majority *if* the Democrats unilaterally changed the filibuster rules--even if only on executive appointments--now.) That is going to be totally irrelevant before 2017 anyway (except in the very unlikely event the Democrats win the House in 2014). The Democrats can't get any legislation the Republicans don't like through the House. The Republicans, even if they win a majority in the Senate, can't get anything past Obama's veto. So the filibuster is really only about appointments for the next three and a half years.
DeleteWill the Democrats filibuster--or switch to the GOP position of having a board run the CFPB--when the Republicans take over and appoint a Wall Street lobbyist to run it?
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think the Democrats would be unified against a Wall Street lobbyist? There are a pretty solid number of Democrats who are comfortable with big business. I'd expect, say, Elizabeth Warren to pull a Rand-Paul-Drones-Style talking filibuster, but I'd be surprised if they went nullification, particularly since they want the CFPB. Republicans probably don't want the NLRB at all.
DeleteThat presumes that one with an antithetical leader is better than without any leader, however. No way I can really tell which would be more effective. To that end, might a future Republican just not nominate anyone (to CFPB, NLRB, etc), or is there a check on that?
This reasoning seems backwards: if filibuster discussions are now much more openly recognizing the different justifications for each type of filibuster, then shouldn't Democrats have gone ahead with reforming the executive nomination rules, with less to fear about that implying anything about judicial and legislative situations?
ReplyDelete"...It's possible that we'll now have that de facto..."
ReplyDeleteThe "no filibustering judicial nominees" only applied to the 109th Congress (how convenient).
I'm pretty sure the "de facto" rule will hold at least until we get a new Senate. So I guess the question is whether a formalized rule would be more likely to hold into a new Senate than the de facto rule.
ReplyDeleteAs another commentator suggested, you might think the lesson of the "de facto" rule for judicial nominations is that yes, "de facto" rules are less likely to hold over. On the other hand, now that we have two precedents for the successful employment of the nuclear threat to get a "de facto" rule, maybe we will see it happen in every Senate.
I guess we shall see.