Today, I went to the Heritage Foundation for a lecture on the Nuclear Option.
Far from being a lecture on non-proliferation or the arms race, this was about changing the United States Senate standing rules with a simple majority. Usually, Senators will try to force any rule changes during the beginning of a Congress. However, Majority Democrats did not force any changes this year on the rules, because they claim Minority Republicans promised them that the Administration's executive nominees would get through. Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering employing a tactic known as the nuclear option. Basically, it involves attempting to vote on a piece of legislation that is being filibustered. When the presiding officer rules the vote out of order, the Majority Leader will appeal the ruling of the chair--this ruling is not subject to a filibuster, but rather an up or down vote. Then, if a majority of senators vote to strike the ruling of the chair, then the Majority Leader has set a new precedent for the chamber and will be able to get simply majority up or down votes on executive nominees--not the supermajority currently required.
The conservatives arrayed on the panel today expressed doubt that this ruling will apply only to executive branch nominees, but rather that this precedent will bleed into judicial nominees and legislation itself. They stressed that the Republican minority is not trying to obstruct business in the Senate, but rather trying to buy time to allow the American people to learn about executive and judicial nominees and about legislation. Finally, they stressed that if Reid employs the nuclear option, he is inviting even more vitriol into the chamber and will threaten the comity characteristic of the Senate, making it in effect the House of Representatives.
While I appreciated their equivocation, I simply cannot accept that the Republican minority is filibustering these nominees because they want to educate the American people. When they filibustered Ohio's very own Richard Cordray, former Ohio Attorney General and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director nominee, it was not the educate the American people. It was because armies of financial services lobbyists were pounding on their doors threatening to pull support from politicians and the party apparatus. Republicans even made clear that they wanted a panel of directors for the CFPB, effectively making it like the Federal Elections Commission--which, due to its panel of three Democrats and three Republicans never achieves anything. Though I could find nothing from the Heritage Foundation from 2005 when Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was considering the nuclear option because Democrats were blocking Bush nominees, I can only imagine that the Heritage Foundation would have supported the Majority Leader in his decision if it meant a conservative Supreme Court Justice, like Chief Justice John Roberts.
On a lighter note, I was very impressed by former Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove, who spoke of the reconciliation process with respect to the budget as a monster he had created and regrets to this day because it circumvents the power of the minority. All in all, I learned quite a bit from our distinguished panelists.
P.S. I was unable to take any photos but I'd be happy to share any materials I gathered from the lecture.
--
Travis
Far from being a lecture on non-proliferation or the arms race, this was about changing the United States Senate standing rules with a simple majority. Usually, Senators will try to force any rule changes during the beginning of a Congress. However, Majority Democrats did not force any changes this year on the rules, because they claim Minority Republicans promised them that the Administration's executive nominees would get through. Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering employing a tactic known as the nuclear option. Basically, it involves attempting to vote on a piece of legislation that is being filibustered. When the presiding officer rules the vote out of order, the Majority Leader will appeal the ruling of the chair--this ruling is not subject to a filibuster, but rather an up or down vote. Then, if a majority of senators vote to strike the ruling of the chair, then the Majority Leader has set a new precedent for the chamber and will be able to get simply majority up or down votes on executive nominees--not the supermajority currently required.
The conservatives arrayed on the panel today expressed doubt that this ruling will apply only to executive branch nominees, but rather that this precedent will bleed into judicial nominees and legislation itself. They stressed that the Republican minority is not trying to obstruct business in the Senate, but rather trying to buy time to allow the American people to learn about executive and judicial nominees and about legislation. Finally, they stressed that if Reid employs the nuclear option, he is inviting even more vitriol into the chamber and will threaten the comity characteristic of the Senate, making it in effect the House of Representatives.
While I appreciated their equivocation, I simply cannot accept that the Republican minority is filibustering these nominees because they want to educate the American people. When they filibustered Ohio's very own Richard Cordray, former Ohio Attorney General and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director nominee, it was not the educate the American people. It was because armies of financial services lobbyists were pounding on their doors threatening to pull support from politicians and the party apparatus. Republicans even made clear that they wanted a panel of directors for the CFPB, effectively making it like the Federal Elections Commission--which, due to its panel of three Democrats and three Republicans never achieves anything. Though I could find nothing from the Heritage Foundation from 2005 when Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was considering the nuclear option because Democrats were blocking Bush nominees, I can only imagine that the Heritage Foundation would have supported the Majority Leader in his decision if it meant a conservative Supreme Court Justice, like Chief Justice John Roberts.
On a lighter note, I was very impressed by former Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove, who spoke of the reconciliation process with respect to the budget as a monster he had created and regrets to this day because it circumvents the power of the minority. All in all, I learned quite a bit from our distinguished panelists.
P.S. I was unable to take any photos but I'd be happy to share any materials I gathered from the lecture.
--
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment