The Senate ended the filibuster for most presidential nominations. "Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents, a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further. Democrats used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades...In the long term, the rule change represents a substantial power shift in a chamber that for more than two centuries has prided itself on affording more rights to the minority party than any other legislative body in the world. Now, a president whose party holds the majority in the Senate is virtually assured of having his nominees approved, with far less opportunity for political obstruction." Paul Kane in The Washington Post.
Explainer: Everything you need to know about Thursday's filibuster change. Dylan Matthews in The Washington Post.
Must-read interview: The world's leading filibuster expert on what happened today and what to expect next. Dylan Matthews in The Washington Post.
Nine reasons the filibuster change is a huge deal. "The filibuster now exists in what you might call an unstable equilibrium. It theoretically forces a 60-vote threshold on important legislation. But it can -- and now, in part, has --been undone with 51 votes. Its only protection was the perceived norm against using the 51-vote option. Democrats just blew that norm apart. The moment one party or the other filibusters a consequential and popular bill, that's likely the end of the filibuster, permanently." Ezra Klein in The Washington Post.
How Reid did it. "[A]fter several weeks of counting votes, Reid was still encountering skepticism even among his confidants as late as Monday evening. He bucked up his troops ahead of the hugely controversial move...As some of his fellow Democratic senators remained on the fence, Reid called in a heavy hitter to close the deal: President Barack Obama, according to sources familiar with the matter. Obama personally called senators on Wednesday to back the move, and Reid ultimately won the vote on a slim margin, 52-48." Manu Raju in Politico.
@dcbigjohn: If Democrats think this filibuster rules change won't come back to bite them in the ass, they should disabuse themselves of that notion.
Why Reid did it. "He was tired of making deals with McConnell, only to see their spirit violated by yet more obstruction, allies say. The two reached an informal agreement in January that was supposed to lead to fewer filibuster threats, and another deal in July that paved the way for several executive-branch nominations...Reid and other Democrats also concluded that Republicans, if they did retake the majority, would likely change the rules to give themselves more power if Democrats hadn't done it already." Molly Ball in The Atlantic.
Etymological explainer: Where the word "filibuster" comes from. Spoiler alert: Pirates are involved. Megan Buerger in The Wall Street Journal.
What it's like to be a Republican senator right now. ""When you start, it's like wars -- there's no end to this. I don't know where it goes," says Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. "In my view this is the most important and most dangerous restructuring of Senate rules since Thomas Jefferson wrote them at the beginning of our country," Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee says...Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona says he's afraid that Republicans will be unable to resist using the same power. "That's what I fear. I fear that once Republicans get the majority it's very tough to tell the base that you're going to diminish your own authority," he says, adding that he expects Reid to eventually kill the filibuster for legislation as well." Jonathan Strong in National Review Online.
Senate's filibuster rule change should help Obama achieve key second-term priorities. "The Senate vote Thursday to lower the barriers for presidential nominations should make it easier for President Obama to accomplish key second-term priorities, including tougher measures on climate change and financial regulation, that have faced intense opposition from Republicans in Congress. The move to allow a simple majority vote on most executive and judicial nominees also sets the stage for Obama to appoint new top officials to the Federal Reserve and other key agencies -- likely leading to more aggressive action to stimulate the economy and housing market. And it frees Obama to make changes to his Cabinet without the threat of long delays in the Senate before the confirmation of nominees." Zachary A. Goldfarb in The Washington Post.
@BCAppelbaum: On a more serious note, the change in filibuster rules makes it a lot easier for Obama to restock the Fed with stimulus supporters.
Senate's filibuster decision could reshape influential D.C. federal appeals court. "The decision by Senate Democrats on Thursday to change the rules for confirming judicial nominees could dramatically reshape an obscure federal appeals court that renders some of the most influential legal decisions in the country. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- dubbed the D.C. Circuit for short -- was at the center of the Senate fight after Republicans had blocked three of President Obama's nominees to the panel. Those three are now likely to be approved by a simple majority in the Senate...It is often described as the most important court in the land after the Supreme Court. And for the past two decades, the D.C. appellate court has generally been considered favorable to business, skeptical of regulation and supportive of broad executive powers to wage war and ensure national security." Carol D. Leonnig in The Washington Post.
Explainer: More on why that court matters so much. Brad Plumer in The Washington Post.
One huge effect of filibuster reform: Obama can actually fire people. "[T]he constant use of the filibuster against political appointments made it extraordinarily difficult for the White House to fire anyone because they didn't know whether they'd be able to appoint a replacement -- or, if they could appoint a replacement, who Republicans would actually accept. And the more political controversy there was around an issue the more dangerous a personnel change became." Ezra Klein in The Washington Post.
This is surely a great day for Sens. Udall and Merkley. "Ever since they arrived in the Senate, Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall have had one huge, seemingly insurmountable goal: To change Senate rules on the filibuster. On Thursday, they won...Filibuster reform has long been a marquee issue for Merkley (Ore.) and Udall (N.M.), who are part of a new breed of Senate reformers who have never served in the minority. Now, they're looking to expand their change to filibuster rules governing legislation -- but that's going to be a much harder sell." Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim in Politico.
BINDER: What the Senate will be like when the nuclear dust settles. "The mostly likely effect will be felt when the president's party controls the Senate. Before today's change, presidents (typically, although not always) chose nominees with an eye to whether the nominees could secure 60 votes for cloture. With only a majority required to bring the Senate to a confirmation vote, there will be little incentive for presidents to consult. I think the biggest potential effect will be visible with appointments to the federal bench." Sarah Binder in The Washington Post.
@dylanmatt: Only ending the filibuster for nominees and not legislation is hypertimid incrementalist bs.
WEIGEL: How Dems stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb. "In May 2012, Republicans blocked an attempt to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank...In retrospect, that was the moment progressives brought their party on board with the biggest majority-rule congressional reform since the 1970s. Every one of Reid's procedural moves since then has broken the minority's power to obstruct legislation. This wasn't just a case of broken trust between Democrats and Republicans--though that was part of it. This was a victory for a movement that believes its greatest threat comes from unfriendly courts and minority obstruction."David Weigel in Slate.
CHAIT: Why Dems dropped the nuke. "The main reason for this odd, partial clawback of the filibuster is that President Obama has no real legislative agenda that can pass Congress...That reality means two things. The first is that President Obama's second-term agenda runs not through Congress but through his own administrative agencies. His appointees are writing rules for financial reform, housing policy and -- the potentially enormous one -- climate emissions." Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine.
DICKERSON: The old Senate was already dead. "[T]oday's change was merely a rule that codified an established fact: The Senate club is no longer what it once was. Or, as Byrd might put it, today's change made what was de facto now de jure...The traditions are still there--senators are not supposed to refer to each other by first name--but as the memories about political slights grow longer than the memories of maintaining time-honored institutional traditions, the place has changed." John Dickerson in Slate.
One huge effect of filibuster reform: Obama can actually fire people. "[T]he constant use of the filibuster against political appointments made it extraordinarily difficult for the White House to fire anyone because they didn't know whether they'd be able to appoint a replacement -- or, if they could appoint a replacement, who Republicans would actually accept. And the more political controversy there was around an issue the more dangerous a personnel change became." Ezra Klein in The Washington Post.
This is surely a great day for Sens. Udall and Merkley. "Ever since they arrived in the Senate, Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall have had one huge, seemingly insurmountable goal: To change Senate rules on the filibuster. On Thursday, they won...Filibuster reform has long been a marquee issue for Merkley (Ore.) and Udall (N.M.), who are part of a new breed of Senate reformers who have never served in the minority. Now, they're looking to expand their change to filibuster rules governing legislation -- but that's going to be a much harder sell." Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim in Politico.
BINDER: What the Senate will be like when the nuclear dust settles. "The mostly likely effect will be felt when the president's party controls the Senate. Before today's change, presidents (typically, although not always) chose nominees with an eye to whether the nominees could secure 60 votes for cloture. With only a majority required to bring the Senate to a confirmation vote, there will be little incentive for presidents to consult. I think the biggest potential effect will be visible with appointments to the federal bench." Sarah Binder in The Washington Post.
@dylanmatt: Only ending the filibuster for nominees and not legislation is hypertimid incrementalist bs.
WEIGEL: How Dems stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb. "In May 2012, Republicans blocked an attempt to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank...In retrospect, that was the moment progressives brought their party on board with the biggest majority-rule congressional reform since the 1970s. Every one of Reid's procedural moves since then has broken the minority's power to obstruct legislation. This wasn't just a case of broken trust between Democrats and Republicans--though that was part of it. This was a victory for a movement that believes its greatest threat comes from unfriendly courts and minority obstruction."David Weigel in Slate.
CHAIT: Why Dems dropped the nuke. "The main reason for this odd, partial clawback of the filibuster is that President Obama has no real legislative agenda that can pass Congress...That reality means two things. The first is that President Obama's second-term agenda runs not through Congress but through his own administrative agencies. His appointees are writing rules for financial reform, housing policy and -- the potentially enormous one -- climate emissions." Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine.
DICKERSON: The old Senate was already dead. "[T]oday's change was merely a rule that codified an established fact: The Senate club is no longer what it once was. Or, as Byrd might put it, today's change made what was de facto now de jure...The traditions are still there--senators are not supposed to refer to each other by first name--but as the memories about political slights grow longer than the memories of maintaining time-honored institutional traditions, the place has changed." John Dickerson in Slate.
No comments:
Post a Comment