WASHINGTON — Large-scale filibuster reform came to the Senate on Thursday, even if it was a bit later than reform advocates like Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken would have liked.
Stung by a series of Republican filibusters on President Obama’s judicial and administrative nominees, Sen. Harry Reid asked the Senate to change its rules Thursday and require only a majority vote to end debate on those nominations going forward. In the past, majority party senators faced a 60-vote hurdle for breaking a threatened filibuster, and Democrats only hold 55 seats. Changing the rule itself needed a majority vote, and 52 Democrats, including both Minnesotans, voted to do so.
It was the long-threatened “nuclear option” finally come to fruition — over objections from every Republican, some of whom helped broker a compromise and preserve the filibuster just four months ago, Democrats changed the rules and set themselves up to approve most of its president’s nominees no matter what the minority has to say about it.
Minnesota Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken have long backed filibuster changes, although their proposals were often more nuanced than just slashing the 60-vote threshold for these types of nominees. But both said Thursday the changes were justified, given how Republicans have blocked Obama nominees, from a member of the House picked to lead the federal housing agency to three nominees to the powerful D.C. Circuit Court this month.
Of the 47 executive branch nominations ever blocked by Senate filibusters, more than half have come during Obama’s tenure, according to Reid’s office.
“There is a reason for the minority in the Senate to have certain rights, but with those rights comes responsibility, and they were not exercising that responsibility at all,” Franken said.
Filibuster fight has lasted months
Filibuster reform has been on Democrats’ radar for the past several Congresses, but until Thursday, most clashes over it have ended in some type of compromise.
In January, as the 113th Congress kicked off, lawmakers agreed to end filibusters on “motions to recommit,” the procedural move needed to bring bills to the Senate floor. This didn’t end the minority’s ability to block bills and nominations, but rather sped up the legislative process a bit.
Republicans continued to block Obama executive branch nominees, so in July, Reid threatened to do what he’d thus far resisted: pull the trigger on a major rule change and lower the 60-vote threshold on nominees once and for all. Lawmakers scrambled and reached a short-term accord: After a closed-door meeting of the full Senate, Republicans agreed to approve a slate of Obama nominees in exchange for preserving filibuster rules.
But the filibuster fight caught fire again this month when Republicans blocked three nominees to the D.C. Circuit, most recently on Monday. Reid again threatened to overhaul the rules, and followed through on Thursday.
In the past, Klobuchar had pushed a package of generally smaller reforms (the most notable would have been the return of the “talking filibuster,” where senators holds the floor for the duration of their filibusters). But she said Thursday she had also supported a lower voting threshold — “it just didn’t have a lot of legs in the past” (Reid, notably, opposed dramatically changing the rules until this session).
Franken had pitched a plan to flip the filibuster rule on its head, requiring 41 votes to keep debate open rather than 60 votes to close it. That would put the onus on the minority to keep their filibuster going rather than on the majority to break it.
He said Thursday he would have preferred senators institute a plan like that at the beginning of the year, rather than fight through nominations the way they have since then. But in the end, he’s happy with the rule change.
“We’ve seen executive agencies that have been short of very important personnel, and that makes it very hard for the executive branch to do its work, and we have seen filibuster after filibuster on things like judges where it’s really been abused,” he said.
Republicans could eventually use rules, too
Republicans contended the rule change was just meant to draw attention away from the rough rollout for President Obama’s health-care law. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called Democrats hypocritical for pushing a rule that allows them to approve Obama’s nominees, but one that would still let them filibuster a Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice (assuming a Republican president could appoint one while Democrats still held the Senate).
“This rules-change charade has gone from being a biennial threat, to an annual threat, to now a quarterly threat. It’s become a threat every time Senate Democrats don’t get their way,” McConnell said during an intense floor debate. “And their repeated promises at the end of every crisis, that they won’t threaten it again, just don’t seem to be worth any more than their promises on Obamacare.”
But the rule change could end up helping Republicans down the road. If they’re able to take back control of the Senate and the White House, they can use the same rule Democrats changed today to push through their own nominees.
Three-fifths of Senate Democrats, including Klobuchar and Franken, have only served in a majority and not worked through the powerlessness Republicans feel in the Obama years. Franken said Democrats felt hastened to pass the new filibuster rules in case Republicans regain the chamber and do it for themselves.
“There were many of us who felt that whether we did this or not, there was no assurance that the other party wouldn’t do this anyway,” he said.
Klobuchar said she’s OK with some future Republican majority using the new rules, as Democrats plan to over the next few months. She stressed Democrats aren’t looking to change the rules on Supreme Court nominees, and she said Republicans should follow that precedent.
“I think you just make it simpler to put them on the court and put them on the president’s team, and I think we go into this knowing this would apply whether a Republican is president or a Democrat,” she said. “The key is just to move some of these things.”
Devin Henry can be reached at dhenry@minnpost.com. Follow him on Twitter: @dhenry
And the Republicans wonder why
No longer a need for Senator Cruz to read “Green Eggs and Ham”, as impressive as that my have been.
As the Democrats Proved Under George W. Bush
They never have and never would use the filibuster to obstruct a duly-elected president’s right and ability to have a normal level of impact on the Federal Bureaucracy and the Federal Judiciary in the way the Republicans have done since President Obama was first elected (although some of us certainly wished they would have been at least a little bit obstructionist at that time).
That being the case, despite the Republican’s dire predictions regarding what will happen the next time they gain the presidency and the senate together (if they ever do), NOTHING will have changed for Democrats in that circumstance. Democrats simply will not abuse their power as the minority party in the Senate in the same way the Republicans consistently have.
Now, for the next year, President Obama will finally be able to appoint necessary leaders for every part of the Federal Bureaucracy and fill the 90+ vacancies in the Federal Courts, as he should ALWAYS have been able to do.
This is NOT a step away from the normal functioning of the Federal Government, it is a RETURN to normal functioning of the Federal Government, necessitated by the unprecedented way Republicans have abused the tools made available to them as the minority party in the Senate for the past 5+ years.
Democrats are going to rue the day
when they voted for this. President Cruz will have some appointees that will make Robert Bork look like a liberal.
Cruz
I get all tingly when conservatives talk about Ted Cruz as a presidential contender. So does Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Tester: Why did President Romney allow this to happen?
Why?
Oh, wait, Mitt Romney isn’t president.
I was confused for a bit, because you were absolutely sure that Mitt would win last year.
But I’m sure your prediction of a Cruz victory in 2014 will be 100% right this time!
“President Cruz”
Mr. Tester, please don’t say things like that. I was drinking coffee, and it got all over my monitor and desk.
I’m also getting a headache. thinking of all the possible rejoinders.
Oh, look what I found
According to a May report from the Congressional Research Service, President Obama had 71.4% of his circuit court nominees approved during his first term, which is slightly better than George W. Bush’s 67.3% level of success during his first term.
President Cruz?
Quite possibly the funniest thing I’ve ever read on the internet. You people really do inhabit a parallel universe if you think that Cruz has any chance of ever holding that office.
What happened to minority rights?
This is the coup of the 51%.
Harry Reid will go do as one of the worst Senate leaders ever, along with his co-conspirators Senator Amy K and Big Al.
We all know now that Obama is a Lame Duck and this act is the final reach for power of a failed president.
Bi-partisan opposition tried to hold back this coup, but raw power triumphed over principle.
Minority rights?
Do “minority rights” include effectively denying the President the power to appoint judges and other officials?
Where in the Constitution so revered by conservatives are “minority rights” a limitation on Congressional powers to make its own rules (rules, not laws)? It seems to me that the drafters contemplated everything would be done by a straight majority vote.
As one prominent commentator noted:
“This filibuster, as you know, they’re filibustering these nominations which requires essentially 60 votes for a judge to be confirmed. The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says simple majority, 51 votes. But because they’re invoking the filibuster, which, you know, the Senate can make up its own rules but not when they impose on the Constitution and not when they impose on the legislative branch. Separation of powers here. But if nobody stops them, they’re going to keep getting away with it. It’s up to the Senate Republicans to stop them.
[…]
If the Senate, which has the constitutional right to make its own rules, decides that it wants to require a super-majority vote to pass certain bills such as tax bills — and they can do that. They can write those rules all day long — such a rule would not infringe on presidential power. But to do so when it affects a presidential power, which takes us into a separation of powers issue, like the appointment of judges, that is unconstitutional, in my layman’s view.”