Ok,
bear with me as I set the "stage" for this week's blog topic....
On
November 21st, the Senate struck down nearly 225 years of precedent by ending
the long-standing filibuster rules for most presidential nominations, a
remarkable change in procedure that has been the subject of a years-long fight
between Democrats and Republicans. The vote was nearly down party lines,
with a couple Democrats siding with the GOP that this was a dangerous move,
politically. This move is known as the “Nuclear
Option!” Oddly enough, those that
preached against this move before, claiming that “…this “nuclear option” would fundamentally change the very foundation
and structure of our democratic procedures and should never be implemented.”
(Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.)).
First
in 1917 and then in 1975, the Senate formally set up rules for
“cloture motions,” the name given to the parliamentary device to shut down
debate. It requires the affirmative votes of 60 sitting senators.
The
Constitution cites only five requirements for Senate supermajorities, including
impeachment convictions of presidents, but allows the House and Senate to set
their own rules. Under long-standing resolutions, the Senate considers itself
to be a “continuing body” whose parliamentary rules remain in effect unless a
two-thirds supermajority votes to change them.
Here’s
a brief recent history of the Senate’s rules disputes:
May
2005: A
bipartisan “Gang of 14″ agrees to work together to avoid blocking
several judicial nominees selected by President George W. Bush. Senators who
helped negotiate the deal included John Warner (R-Va.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and
Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).
February
2010: Senate
Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) dismisses an effort by some
Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, saying the chamber’s procedures
were designed to prevent the majority party from unilaterally changing the
rules. Some junior Senate Democrats were pushing to change the rules
to avoid GOP attempts to block nominations and legislation.
Early
January 2011: Senate
leaders use a parliamentary trick to leave the chamber in a state of
suspended animation — in reality adjourned since Jan. 5 but officially
considered in a long recess that’s part of the same individual legislative day
— until later in the month as they work out a proposed change in the
rules.
January
22, 2011: The
chamber makes its most significant rules change in 35 years by
agreeing to speed up its work by limiting the use of
the filibuster and dropping the confirmation process for about 400
federal agency nominees.
November
2012: Shortly
after Election Day, Reid and McConnell begin sparring over several
days on the Senate floor after the Democratic leader once again threatens
to change the rules by eliminating the filibuster vote needed to formally begin
debate on legislation. He would allow for a final filibuster vote, thus making
the chamber run more efficiently.
December
2012: Showing
how far some are willing to go to challenge what they consider arcane
rules, a federal judge hears in a case about whether Congress is
constitutionally required to pass legislation by a simple majority vote and
whether the Senate’s filibuster rules violate such a requirement.
January
24, 2013: Reid
and McConnell agree to a bipartisan compromise authored by a handful
of senior senators. The new rules essentially short-circuit one filibuster vote
during the “motion to proceed” to a bill, when the chamber begins considering
legislation. Republicans had increasingly filibustered the motion to begin
debating legislation to slow the passage of bills or block them.
July
11, 2013: During
a blistering floor dispute over threatened rules changes, McConnell said that
if Reid goes through with the so-called nuclear option, “our friend the
majority leader is going to be remembered as the worst leader here ever.”
July
26, 2013: In
another near-meltdown, Republicans agreed to confirm several of President
Obama’s executive branch nominees and, in exchange, Democrats agreed to leave
existing filibuster rules in place. The agreement came after an unprecedented
closed-door meeting of senators in the Old Senate Chamber.
Nov.
21, 2013: Senate
Democrats voted to change the chamber’s rules so that federal judge
nominees and executive-office appointments can be confirmed by a simple majority
of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been required for
more than two centuries. The change does not apply to Supreme Court
nominees..... at least for now.....
There
are a number of pros and cons to this change. Click Here to view an article written that
sites some of these issues, as presented by Dr. Galloway, the senior specialist
in American government for the Library of Congress.
Topic
Question: Is
the change in the Senate rules on filibustering a good thing that is basically
long overdue, or will it have fundamental changes that go way beyond current
issues? Will this change set a "dangerous imbalance" in our
government, especially if one party is in control of both the House and
the Senate?
