Posted on 01/24/2015 8:54:55 AM PST by Bratch
I was expecting some action out of the new Congress, but I really never saw this one coming. A group of Republican Senators led by Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) are floating the idea of further extending the nuclear option enacted by the Democrats to take filibusters off the table when considering nominees to the Supreme Court. Clearly wiser heads than myself have been able to determine why this is such a great idea, because I’m not seeing it at the moment.
Top Senate Republicans are considering gutting the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees — a move that could yield big rewards for whichever party controls the White House and Senate after 2016.
The move, still in its early stages, reflects growing GOP confidence in its electoral prospects next year. But it could also have a major immediate impact if a justice such as 81-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg steps down, making it far easier for President Barack Obama to get a replacement confirmed…
The 60-vote filibuster threshold would remain for legislation.
The Politico story seems to focus on whether or not they’ll be able to get most of the Republicans to go along with it, and then persuade a sufficient number of Democrats to join them to reach the magic number of 67. Doesn’t that sound just a bit backward? The Democrats are looking at two years in the minority when the President may very well have to nominate a new SCOTUS justice. They should be doing back flips over the idea, since they can often get at least a few Republicans to support a judicial nomination by the President, and they will only need four or five to seal the deal.
I suppose that the analysis from the authors has some merit when they interpret this as a sign of growing GOP confidence in its electoral prospects, but holy moley… that’s a lot of confidence. I wouldn’t say that 2016 is in the bag for the Republicans in any way, shape or form yet. And besides the White House, it’s still entirely possible (though perhaps not likely) that the Democrats could even take back control of the Senate with a big enough Hillary wave. (Again, I’m not saying that will happen, but we would prove that we’ve foolishly learned nothing from recent history if we ruled out the possibility entirely.) If that happens, the Democrats have already demonstrated that they are willing to change the rules as best suits their needs, and they would switch them back and forth on whichever schedule best facilitates their advantage.
If the GOP scraps the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees now, it benefits nobody except Barack Obama and his allies, making if much easier for him to rail through a far more liberal choice than would otherwise be possible. Then, if the GOP manages to lose the White House again and the margin in the Senate remains small, the Democrats will get at least four more years of benefit out of it. If the Republicans do take the White House but somehow lose ground (and control) in the Senate, the Democrats can simply put the filibuster back in place in January of 2017, and what possible evidence of good will exists to suggest that they wouldn’t make such a hypocritical move?
I suppose I’ll wait to hear a more full explanation from Alexander and friends if this proposal actually picks up steam. But for the moment, it just doesn’t make any sense.
I can see it for one reason. Should the GOP maintain the Senate in 2017 when they swear in a GOP president (we hope), then if they continue the non-filibuster “nuclear” option in that term, they can argue it isn’t out of political opportunism while flooding the courts with fresh appointments that would only need 50 votes, locking out the Dems and a few RINOs.
But it is a risky move at best.
Concern about more activist justices probably wouldn’t be as much of a concern today if state legislatures hadn’t ratified the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, foolishly giving up the voices of the state legislatures in Congress by doing so.
Alexander and Blunt should be tarred and feathered. They are RINOs.
Whatever it is, it’s better than what you can eat from the TV tray in front of your couch, hypocritically posting about your love of the Constitution while wanting Republicans not to follow it.
The Republicans never used it anyway. They just voted for whoever the Democrat President nominated. It is the Democrats that uses it on the Republicans. since they are two wings of the same Party ......
I agree. I’ll say what I yelled at Schumer during the Gonzales debacle...”The President’s nominee deserves an up or down vote.”
The SCOTUS, in a recent *unanimous* ruling (over the NLRB), determined that congress alone decides when it is in recess, and threw out Obama’s recess appointments. So attempting to make a recess appointment to the SCOTUS, when congress was still in session, even pro forma session, would be rejected by them as well.
Most likely, the Chief Justice would refuse to swear in or seat that person.
Only if it is not going to take impeachment to get rid of them.
The GOP: Striving to make the Party-as-a-whole contain less courage than one French flag.
Yeah, your version is more succinct.
Can you post that reference? I am only familiar with that on spending bills.
Actually, with respect to legislation, there is no constitutional issue with Senate or House rules that require a supermajority to shut off debate. They can have their own parliamentary rules, and courts can't get involved in that. There is no obligation to pass laws, or allow votes on them. Budgets are laws, laws relating to taxing and spending. The only reason that budgets don't have filibusters is because the rules passed by both houses regarding the budgeting process forbid filibusters on budget bills.
The filibuster was intended for legislation...not advise and consent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
