« "Intensity of Political Desire" | Main | Philanthropy, left and right »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Excellent point. The parallel between the current attitude in the Senate & Cold War brinksmanship is incredibly apt, though this is the first time i've read it anywhere.

So as a way of defusing that atmosphere, what would you think of a compromise on judicial nominations that said, fine, judicial nominations can't be filibustered - but they'll need 60 votes to pass? Just convert the implicit supermajority requirement into an explcicit one. Everyone gets the much-prized "up or down vote", and the minority can still block nominations of judges on whom they are united in their disagreement. Because it's generally harder to get somebody to cast a vote against a nominee, as opposed to an obscure procedural vote that has the same impact, there would likely be a lot of situations where it would actually be easier for the majority to get the votes than it is today - especially in those cases where the reasons that a few swing Senators would prefer to vote against the nominee are bad ones that would not stand up to public scrutiny. In other cases, where the nominee draws strong minority opposition due to their extreme judicial philosophy or other attributes that the Senators would go on the record to oppose, there'd still be a way for the minority to withhold a lifetime judgeship.

Hopefully, as a result Presidents would be forced to nominate centrist, well-qualified judges - the absurd notion that best & easiest way to mollify your party's extremists is to give lifetime judgeships to the radicals of their choice would at last go by the boards. And extremists in either party who have turned the judiciary into a battleground will have to find other battles to fight. All around it seems to me it would be good for the Senate, good for our politics, and good for jurisprudence.


lots of interesting points. i wonder if they could work out some more rational rules after all this blows over, without the majority at the time (whenever that may be) being short-sighted and small-minded about it.

the recent tactic of sneaking unrelated stuff through on must-passes is especially filthy.

The Heretik

Lucid excellence in detail and argument, Decembrist. A few random thought:

Compromise is the lost art.

Her we may lose more than just the right to filibuster.


Fine post, Steve. This current battle in the Senate is indeed only the latest manifestation of the 'nuclear' or 'cold war' politics which has been ascendent since 1994. The hounding and impeachment of Clinton was also the 'nuclear option', as was the government shutdown, as was Bush v Gore (IMO), as is the shocking practice of the - well, 'bizzare' is the right word for it - 'mark ups' and tack-ons, etc. How do you deal with an insurgency like this?

I too have watched a lot of CSPAN 2 in the last couple of days, but there's only so much I can take - I'm getting chest pains and a sore jaw from teeth-grinding..oh wait, 'Whizzer' Allen has the floor....


As a process guy (not political), I'm curious if the changes might have something to do with complexity.

Are things just too complex for most senators to get bogged down in the details these days, while a committee has a fighting chance of sorting through the details (or perhaps on the negative side, ability to obfuscate the details with complexity)?

And another question. Does Congress really have to do anything, or might we be better off making it really hard for them to change things? I suppose this is anathema for a progressive technocrat to ask. And maybe this is the point of the K-street gravy train - poisoning the well of legislative action by abusing legislative action. Buy by and large, after 200 plus years, why does congress have a whole lot that needs to be done these days? Shouldn't the basic structure be pretty well ironed out already, with the various departments getting most of what they need to get done, done, simply by following established law?

Bob H

Republicans actually win the battle on judges, Democrats will never yield on Bolton. They will filibuster forever on his nomination -- and time buys even more potential Republican defectors who are uncomfortable with the high-handed tactics of the White House."

The Republicans will merely invoke the same rule change on non-judicial nominees.


Bolton's confirmation will not be able to be filibusted. His appoint is covered by the samd "advise and consent" section of the Constitution as Judges.


No, Bolton himself could get 'held' - Bush would have to do a recess appointment. But about the implications of the Nuke Option for the future, Ed and BobH are right.

Mark Schmitt

The version of the "nuclear option" that we expect Frist to invoke applies only to judicial nominations above the District Court level. But once that precedent is set, there is no reason it couldn't be extended to other "advice and consent" nominations.


And it'd be totally uncharacteristic of these people to *not* finish off the fillibuster.

As to: "And nominations are a terrible platform for developing those alliances because they offer so little room for compromise. You can't amend them or modify them. The only compromise is to take a large number of nominations and agree to some and not others, which is a very limited option and doesn't give much play for creativity."

The usual solution is that some people simply don't get confirmed (whichever point they get stopped at). This administration doesn't accept that. It's not that they are losing more nominees; it's that they are losing *any*.

The comments to this entry are closed.