Back when Democrats held control of the Senate, I favored doing away with the filibuster altogether. Senate Democrats fell slightly short of a complete nuclear option. I was not a hypocrite when Republicans gained the Senate majority, and have continued to say that filibusters that automatically require a supermajority of 60 votes are a bad idea. I have no objection to old style filibusters that last only as long as a single senator can speak without a break. Since Democrats will probably keep the White House and take the Senate in November, we can be sure that Republicans will filibuster all Supreme Court Nominees for years. Nuke the Filibastards!!
In the wake of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, Republicans abandoned any pretense at decorum and immediately began issuing pronouncements as to how and when Scalia’s seat should be filled—namely, not by Barack Obama. If that’s the way they want to play it, then fine: Here’s how Democrats should respond.
There’s no law or Senate rule that can compel Mitch McConnell, the GOP majority leader, to allow a vote to proceed on anyone Obama might nominate. McConnell could choose to wait as long as he likes—indeed, he can wait until Republicans control both the White House and the Senate at the same time. And if that situation doesn’t obtain in 2017, he could delay confirmation hearings until 2021, or 2025—whenever the red stars finally align.
Could “political pressure” move McConnell any more quickly? Unlikely. Republicans don’t care what the traditional media says about them—hell, they love to claim the press is their enemy—so even if a thousand newspaper editorial boards exhorted McConnell to move forward on a nomination, he’d just shrug his shoulders. And it’s even less likely that any Republican senator would find him or herself threatened for re-election because of GOP recalcitrance. Process stories rarely move voters.
But there is one force in this universe McConnell does have to respect, and that’s the nuclear option. In 2013, when Senate Democrats eliminated the use of filibusters for most presidential appointments, they still kept them in place for Supreme Court nominations. Therefore, even if Republicans lose both the Senate and the White House this November, they could still filibuster any Supreme Court pick that Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders might put forward in 2017.
And that’s why Chuck Schumer, who will replace Harry Reid as leader of the Senate Democrats next year, has to be willing to go full thermonuclear and end the filibuster once and for all if Democrats retake the chamber. In that scenario, a Democratic president could nominate whomever he or she likes, and the Democratic-controlled Senate could confirm that person, with as few as 50 votes since the vice president would break ties.
Schumer needs to issue this threat now, while it can still credibly be made…
Inserted from <Daily Kos>
I fully agree, except for one thing. I object to choosing Schumer to succeed Leg Hound Harry. We need a progressive who is not in Butcher Bibi’s pocket.
15 Responses to “Nuke the Filibastards!!”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Yes. Thanks for this post. It is EXTREMELY important. I am not happy with Schumer either – but I would be happy if he could accomplish this. And I don't suppose he is carved in stone.
I'm sure the reason the Founding Fathers did not write into the Constitution that the Senate has to bring nominations to a vote was that it never occurred to them that a Senate majority leader would be sp irresponsible as to even consider failing to do so. I guess some of those earthquakes may not be from fracking but from Founding fathers spinning in their graves like high-torque engines.
The latter is an astute observation, Joanne. But perhaps their spinning could be used to generate some green electricity?
Delaying a vote is inconsistent with Scalia's view of the constitution ironically.
I have signed one petition to Schumer on this.
Also inconsistent with what St. Ronnie and McConnell said in 1988.
Even though I've been following this blog for a couple of years now, some idiosyncrasies in the way Congress is run remain alien to me and both filibustering and not bringing something to the vote are two of these. After all these years I still can't get my head around it how these can be part and parcel of a working democracy. Perhaps that is because it isn't working?
It isnt. The party in control of the Senate or House conreols what comes to the floor in that body. The filibuster is part ofr the Senate rules. The majirity party sets the Senate rules on the first day of each new term.
This is gonna be a long haul to get the SCOTUS back to a more liberal stance. There's a lot of things that COULD happen, but probably won't. We should be so lucky as to have McTurtle retire, one way or another! But there are several other options that I won't say anything about, because I don't want the RepukkklicanTs to know the strategy!!! But Pres. Obama and Elizabeth Warren works in the scenario!!
You don't have to nuke the filibuster completely. Just get rid of it for judicial appointments.
I would leave only the talking filibuster.
I hope they do nuke them, but what I hope more is that this backfires on them and the American people get angry enough at their obstructionism to vote them out of office.
So when did Schumer become Reid's heir apparent officially? or is it only unofficial at this point? Harry should have taken care of this when he could, but unfortunately, he put credence in McTurtle's gentlemen's agreement. He should have known that McTurtle is no gentleman!
Schumer is the next senior Democrat behind Reid and Durbin, who are retiring. anhd the tradition is for him to move up. But Senators could vote in another instead,
Love your play on words, Tom. Filibastards. How appropriate.
Thanks Dotti!
Thanks all! Hugs!!