Something very important happened yesterday, and though I am
in no way an expert on the subject, I think I ought at least to take some note
of it. The Senate, by a vote of 52-48,
ended the practice of filibustering Administration appointments and nominations
for Federal District Court and Circuit Court [but not Supreme Court]
judgeships. This will make it possible
for Obama's nominations to the DC Circuit to be confirmed quickly, and should
permit him, if he can get his act
together, to fill all of the vacancies in the Federal judgeships before the
2014 elections, when the Democrats might [but probably won't] lose control of
the Senate. This is a huge development,
bigger even than the difficulties with the roll-out of the insurance exchanges
mandated by the Affordable Care Act. The
judgeships are lifetime appointments, which means that Obama can put his stamp
on the federal judiciary for decades to come.
How can a vote of 52-48 overturn filibustering, which
requires a cloture vote of 60? Herewith
a little inside baseball. Since I am
only marginally knowledgeable about all of this, I welcome corrections from
those better informed. Briefly, a change
of the rules of the Senate requires a two-thirds vote, virtually impossible to
put together. But there is a way around
that fact. Here, as I understand it, is
what happened yesterday.
The Senate is presided over by the Presiding Officer, who
is, by Constitutional mandate, the Vice-President. In his absence, which is to say almost
always, a senator from the majority party is handed the job of sitting in the
Senate President's chair and doing whatever the Senate parliamentarian tells
him or her to do. It is a terminally
boring assignment whose principal challenge is appearing to be awake. Yesterday, not at all by accident, the
senator presiding was Patrick Leahy, who is Chair of the Senate Judiciary
Committee. A Democratic Senator [Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid, I think] posed a parliamentary inquiry to the
Chair, viz., Are Presidential nominations for Administrative posts and District
and Circuit Court judgeships subject to a filibuster? Leahy quite properly ruled, as presiding officer,
that according to the rules the answer is yes.
Reid then challenged the ruling of the Chair. A challenge to a ruling of the Chair is
non-debatable and requires only a majority vote to be sustained. Reid had the votes [this is, of course, the
crucial point -- it has taken a long time and an outrageous use of the
filibuster to get fifty-one Democratic senators to agree to limit the
filibuster.] The Chair was overruled,
52-48, and Presto, the rules were effectively changed, at least for as long as
the Democrats control the Presidency and the Senate.
This alteration of the rules does not alter the ability of
the Republicans to block any legislation they wish by threatening a filibuster,
nor does it apply to any future Supreme Court nominations Obama may be lucky
enough to have the opportunity to make.
4 comments:
Once again a lucid, concise explanation, Dr. Wolff. The maneuver seems a bit like artificial castling in chess. :)
This is a very helpful account. Sen. Leahy wasn't just handed the job of presiding, though. He is President pro tem of the Senate.
Ah, thank you. I missed that.
That means, by tradition, he is the longest serving member of the majority.
Post a Comment