Within the Margin

Recent Rumblings of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid possibly instating the “Nuclear Option” with regards to Filibusters regarding federal appointments, especially with the current Republican make-up leaves me deeply worried about the medium term consequences to what would surely be a short termed victory.

With Republicans offering continued resistance to the president’s federal appointments, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is once again threatening to “go nuclear” with regards to the filibuster and force through up or down votes and shut off all debate. Okay, that’s a bit of a misrepresentation, but the GOP has and will continue to hold up nominations by President Obama. This isn’t just a GOP thing right now: in the long history of the Senate, it has held up presidential nominations and spurned a few, the most recent that is highly public and a full out brawl in the Senate was the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in the 1980s. The Senate has a right to “advise and consent” on these nominations as a check on the President; this is irrefutable. However, what has happened is the Senate, over the last three or so decades, has been about not giving consent to a few appointees on both sides of the aisle, but at the same time giving no advice whatsoever with respect to what they’re looking for nominees to accomplish. The echo chamber that is modern media has largely failed at noticing this, and when it is noticed, and reported on, unfortunately it is from those who are considered on the fringe (largely the folks at MSNBC like Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes who break down piece by piece the context of these decisions), but no matter.

Senator Reid is said to be considering the nuclear option, and whatever he thinks, he had better be bluffing. Even if he only “went nuclear” on federal appointments, Reid would be opening himself up to an avalanche of trouble. Going nuclear would be a pyrrhic victory and something the GOP must secretly be rooting for as it would give them and ability to go to the American people and further proclaim the victory of the tyrannical Democrat party and that restoring them to the majority is the only way to truly stop the Democrats and their “dictatorship.” Now, the rhetoric is of course ridiculous, but raising money off of “an oppression” would help the GOP in their quest to re-take the Senate (in addition to Dark Money which will almost surely flow into races in North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas and additionally West Virginia, South Dakota, Alaska and Montana…which, if the GOP won all these seats, they’d gain a 2 seat majority). Starting January 2015 off in the Majority, the GOP would then be able to initiate their own rule changes and essentially cut Democrats at the knees by introducing onerous filibustering rules on the Democrats, not just on federal appointments (which they would stop in their tracks), but any and all Legislation.

I fear that the current manifestation of the Republican Party will throw away all historical precedent to achieve its goals, whatever they may be now, and will, if given the chance railroad debate in such a way to make it impossible to rise in opposition. If right wing radio is any indication, the Republican Party as constructed now will bury 200 years of tradition and history in its ill-conceived vision of what America should be, and they would be wielding this power in the chamber meant for debate at a higher scale…it’s a terrifying thought.

Reid must avoid going nuclear, and if he can hold his majority together (he’s likely losing 3 seats in West Virginia, South Dakota and Montana, and maybe 5 in Louisiana and Arkansas), he needs to implement further filibuster reforms and return to the constant talking filibuster and other traditions that will at least be fair and preserve some dignity in the Senate. The plausibility of losing the Senate majority, and being forced to work under unbearable rules by a party that simply wouldn’t care as long as they get their way, is horrifying.

What can be done? Well, there’s a few options one: simply do away with the filibuster in general; this to me is a draconian measure, it also may not be feasible for either side to introduce a complete dissolution of the practice. The other solution would be a complete overhaul of the filibuster and other legislative delaying tactics, the biggest of which is the “secret hold.” These changes would include: the transparent hold, where any Senator may place a hold, but has to do so in the open; the end of the silent filibuster, put an end to the threats and force the offended Senator to speak; take a page from some states and require that filibusters be “germane” to the subject at hand, this would eliminate the possibility of Senators using historical documents like the Declaration of Independence (Which Senator Thurmond used in his day long filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957). These overhauls are badly needed, they would maintain the principles of “unlimited debate” in the Senate. I mean if Texas State Senator Wendy Davis was forced to end her filibuster of an anti-abortion bill because she was adjusting a back brace, should not a US Senator be held to similar scrutiny; I think so. I hope that if Democrats maintain control of the Senate, I hope stronger filibuster rules can be put in place that all Senators can abide by.

Update: 

Earlier this month, the Senate voted to change the rules on cloture and the filibuster with regards to Executive appointments. This is welcome news, and helpful to clear the logjam of presidential appointments. Still, I fear that threats to the Rules, will always be that, threats, as long as Democrats are in control, but considering that Democrats are in serious threat of losing their majority in the Senate, there’s an uneasiness that the GOP won’t be so cautious when they next regain the majority. Reforming the rules for presidential appointments in the executive was the right step at the time, I just hope the GOP remains practical when they next control the Senate.