Speaking of the Nomination Fight

Speaking of the nomination fight, I have been meaning to comment on another of Brett’s posts. I agree with him that the procedural vote to end the filibuster is categorically different than the vote for or against the nominee, and therefore that it is difficult to argue that what the Democrats are doing is violating the Constitution on the issue of the confirmation vote itself. In other words, they aren’t trying to make the confirmation vote a super-majority vote, rather they are simply using Senate rules to their advantage--which is fair, quite frankly. And so, I have to admit that the argument that what the Dem's are doing is subverting the Constitution to be rather weak.

However, as I have thought about this issue, I have considered whether the “nuclear option” isn’t also a legitimate use of Senate rules for political ends. This option has a Senator making an objection to the presiding officer (the Vice President) that the filibuster is out of order. The Presiding officer could rule, and any ruling could appealed to the Republican-appointed Senate Parliamentarian, who would likely rule in the Republican’s favor, and break the filibuster. And if that is indeed allowable under Senate rules, then it is as legitimate a course of action as the Democrat’s filibuster. In other words: if the argument is that the Democrats are simply using the rules to their advantage by using the filibuster to block the nominees, then the “nuclear option” appears to be a legitimate course of action for the Republicans, if, indeed, such actions are within the rules of the Senate. Now, there are ramifications of such activities, but if the bottom line is that using the rules to one’s advantage is an acceptable practice, even if it goes against precedent, then there is an argument that the Republicans have every right to figure out how to use the rules to their own ends.

And really, the argument against the nuclear option is pretty much the same argument against the Dem’s filibuster: that it is against precedent, and that it would increase partisanship.

Something to think about, anyway.

I am not sure that I would necessarily recommend it, but I am closer to endorsing it now than I was initially.

Posted by Steven Taylor at June 10, 2024 11:10 AM | TrackBack