Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Senators Doing It Right

Chuck Schumer today finally said that he would support confirming Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. This set off plenty of guffaws on the twitter machine, as savvy journalists pointed out that of course a leading, loyal, partisan Democrat would support Barack Obama's nominee for a cabinet position.

And, yes, that's true as far as it goes.

But the focus on whether Hagel will be confirmed (and he'll still need some Republican votes, or else a GOP willingness to allow confirmation by simple majority) misses that what Schumer was up to was a perfectly legitimate and meaningful part of the nomination/confirmation process; in fact, it's exactly how the process is supposed to work.

That is, Schumer had some concerns about Hagel and perhaps about administration policy more generally, and he used the confirmation process to press Hagel for commitments about the things Schumer was most concerned about. In this case, it was mostly making sure Hagel was on board with stated administration policy (and, perhaps, that stated administration policy matches actual administration policy). At any rate, technically Schumer could derail the nomination or at least severely delay it by deploying all the tools Senate rules give him; in reality, however, what those tools do is give individual Senators leverage to press nominees on specific issues of interest. 

That's how it should be; executive branch agencies and departments are supposed to be responsive to both Congress and the White House. And the whole idea of single-member (or I suppose dual-member in the Senate) districts is that various different discreet interests will be represented in the way that they really might not be by the president. Granted, I'm not sure how much actual policy commitment is going on in this case and how much playing to the cameras, but that's okay, too.

When it comes to Senate reform, that's why I have no problem at all with holds on nominations. Of course, holds are backed up by the ability of individual Senators to object, and the Majority Leader could move ahead using the cloture process. But as long as Senators who place holds are seeking to actively represent some particular interest (and not just a partisan opposition), then I see no problem with it. 

On the other hand, there's really no reason that a minority should be able to permanently defeat an executive branch nominee -- so cloture should, in my view, only require a simple majority in these cases. 

And again: the interest of the minority party is mostly just position-taking, which is perfectly served by opposing the nominee and then losing a vote. 

All of which is just to say that this is the easiest part of Senate reform: for executive branch nominations, all that's really needed is to reduce the cloture requirement to a simple majority. Toss in reduced (or use-it-or-lose-it) post-cloture time, and you've solved almost all of the problem.


  1. The National Jewish Democratic Council seems to have swallowed a member of the “anti-Israel right” for the sake of their Party’s leader. There's not much about their decision making, just a statement of faith in the President:


    Their idea seems to be that the President is in charge, so it doesn't really matter who he appoints -- so long as you trust the president, there's nothing to worry about. I don't buy it, but I'm sure a lot of Americans do.

  2. Why don't you write about Reid's practice of filling the amendment tree, which is the real reason there are Republican fillibusters? That is, Reid is not allowing the minority to offer any amendments to legislation, so the only way to have any voice is to fillibuster. We don't hear about this because it is a Dem who is playing dirty. If McConnell were in charge it would be front page NYT/Wapo.

    1. I have read about filling the tree, and I support reforms that would guarantee amendments.

      However, it's clearly not true that filling the tree is the cause of filibusters, since Republicans have filibustered not only legislation, but also nominations -- which have no amendments, of course.

      It's also true that while to some extent Reid has used these tactics to avoid votes that Democrats don't to take, he's also used them to block "filibuster by amendment," in which lots of amendments are filed just to slow down consideration.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Who links to my website?