Getty Images
Former Sen. Chuck Hagel, President Obama's nominee to become the Secretary of Defense, struggled during his confirmation hearing last week, but that's hardly derailed his chances. Thus far, Hagel has not yet lost the support of any Senate Democrats, and over the weekend, he picked up the backing of a second Senate Republican, Nebraska's Mike Johanns.
With this in mind, when Hagel's nomination is brought to the floor for an up-or-down vote, there's no real doubt that a majority of the Senate will vote to confirmation him. The question for Republicans, then, is whether to allow the up-or-down vote to happen.
Since Hagel appears to enjoy the support of most, if not all, Democrats, Republicans would have to filibuster his nomination -- something that has never been done to a Cabinet nominee since the advent of the 60-vote threshold nearly four decades ago, according to Senate records.
Several Cabinet nominees have failed to win the backing of a majority of senators -- and others have withdrawn their names before reaching the Senate floor -- but a filibuster would mark a serious breach in the unwritten protocol that governs the Senate.
I've been digging around for two weeks, trying to find an example of a cabinet secretary facing a filibuster, and my research is in line with Roll Call's findings -- it just hasn't happened. Not only has no nominee ever been defeated by a filibuster, no nominee (since the cloture threshold was moved to 60 votes) has ever even faced a filibuster.
The closest example I could find was Ronald Reagan's nomination of C. William Verity to serve as the Secretary of Commerce in 1987. At the time, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) threatened to filibuster Reagan's choice because Verity supported increased trade with the USSR. (Helms argued Verity supported "selling the Soviets the rope with which to hang the free world.") But Helms eventually pulled back, dropped his threats, and the nominee was approved on an 84-11 vote.
In 2006, there was also a cloture vote on Dirk Kempthorne's Interior nomination, but only eight Senate Democrats registered their opposition, there was no filibuster or attempt to block an up-or-down vote, and Kempthorne was confirmed with a voice vote.
So, in 2013, Republicans have to decide whether they're prepared to break new ground.
From the Roll Call report:
No Republicans have said yet that they will demand Hagel clear that 60-vote hurdle, but the possibility has been bubbling below the surface in the Senate in recent days.
An aide to Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, who has been among the most vocal opponents of Hagel's nomination, said Feb. 1 that "all options are on the table." [...]
Top aides insist there is no discord among leaders, but statements made in the wake of Hagel's highly scrutinized appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee indicate there could be a difference in opinion. The consensus among leadership aides, however, is that if a filibuster is to happen, it likely would be staged by a junior member.
There is no formal head count on whether a filibuster would block Hagel or whether it would fail, but it would cross a line in the sand when it comes to Senate norms. And if you're thinking it might reinvigorate the debate over reforming the institution's filibuster rules, you're not the only one.
Leave a Comment:
If the Republicans decide to filibuster a cabinet nomination, then Harry Reid should resign in disgrace.
Yes Ron I was about to say. Filibuster? Harry Reid fixed that did'nt he?
No, though I'm tempted to agree, that wouldn't help Dems any.
But Harry has proved himself a fool, he had the option to prevent this and it didn't take clairvoyance to know it was going to happen.
You folks are free to continue to pretend Harry Reid had the to votes to kill the fillibuster, and that he is now responsible for all Republican intransigence. Thats the beauty of the cable news blog world, we are all Krauthammers/Klugmans...
Dude we are all entitled to our own opinions, and a lot of the time the only difference between us and the Kraughthammers and Klugmans of the world is they get paid by media mogals for spoiting their mistaken beliefs.
I don't know if Reid is taking the bullet for other Senators who were unwilling to reform the filibuster, but I do know that a really strong leader would have been able to whip the vote. Harry didn't even try.
At the very least, Reed should resign from the leadership position.
Ron: Take a realistic look at the Democrat Senators, that number around 55. Among them are the Manchins, Feinsteins, Durbins ,Lautenbergs, Landrieus, Heitcamps, and so on. The Democrats will never have the disipiline or unity that the turtle man got from his group, they are too diverse and old school. Landrieu won't even vote for ending oil company subsidies, so to expect her to take a big vote the oil companies would loathe is simply not being realistic in any way IMHO, and that is just one I am highlighting. Now Harry Reid is the boogeyman because he could not whip that group...
It's amusing that the Soviets/Helms are mentioned; most of the GOP either believe that "they" are still a threat or indeed, pine for the glory days.. If they f%ck with Chuck then they're basically extinct.
No way they fillibuster Hagel, it would blow up in the turtles face. Count the votes, they can not sustain forty with Johans, Collins, Murkowsky and so on. This was simply a neocon display of freaky values and base pandering.
I still think when McCain was barking at Hagel for a yes or no answer to his question that Hagel should have asked McCain, yes or no, does he still call his wife the c-word in public.
With all the crap the teapubs have been pulling for the last four years with Obama's nominations, Reid should have pushed for more in dealing with the filibuster. Especially with nominations. The people of this country are sick and tired of the do-nothing Congress and they know who is responsible.
Your precious democrats have loved the filibuster for various reasons in the past. When they were in the minority, they used the filibuster several times so they better keep their mouths shut about the other side using the same tactics because they may need it again one day. They love to use congressional powers when it benefits them but when the other side wants to use the power, they want to change the rules. Typical.
Yes it is typical. The dems have held up hundreds of nominations for every teapub prez for a hundred years. btw, I'm not a dem and I definately don't think any politician is precious. Stop the us vs them crap already and grow up.
People keep mistaking MSNBC as a Liberal News channel, but that is very much wrong. MSNBC is really just a Political News channel with a mixture of political views. You have just as many Republicans on MSNBC as you do Democrats. So if you ever get confused thinking MSNBC is Liberal News only, remind yourself that some of those people talking there are some of the biggest Republican scum’s around and are only for rich bastards at your expense and in certain cases the very cost of your life.
Wow,what an unbelivably stupid statement! Do you even watch MSNBC enough to know what you are talking about? They have one opinion and one point of view that everyone of them repeat, over and over all day long.
Actually and unfortunately, you are not watching closely enough. They are just a Political News channel with a mixture of different political views..
I notice too how certain people do not even reveal their real identity either like they have a problem with doing that. And that is deceiving in itself. What is it, you pretending to be the nice and sweet person than are some twisted mind of deceit. What you trying to do play the rich bastard scam and a world of lies.
The question practically answers itself.
So, filibuster it is.
Anyone who thinks there is anything this radical, far right revolutionary movement (there's a one-word synonym for that) wouldn't do fails to understand the nature of The Enemy. Nobody ever thought someone would use more filibusters in one 2 year period than had happened in the whole history of the Republic, either.
In 1931-33, once the Nazis became a sizable force in the Reichstag, they gummed it up to the point nothing could be done, then ran against the "do-nothing" government, saying they knew how to make things work (which indeed they did). This was essentially the 2012 Republican campaign strategy too. They're still running it.
Never believe a revolutionary won't do something because it hasn't been done before - that's why he's a revolutionary.
Republicans have shown no remorse over using the filibuster as a tool to stop Obama so there is no reason to think that they would rule it out for Hagel. Consider how many petulant prima donnas hold Senate offices and it will be no surprise if the nomination is filibustered. However, it may convince the reluctant Dem senators who would not make significant changes in the rules that major reform is needed. But that will have to wait for two more years with the next Senate session unless Dems decide to go nuclear which I do not think will happen.
Senate GOP ponders" err: rather antisemantic lobby 'booby' trap.
senate armed committee hearing on israel lobby influence vel their intimidation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9t99XbZO9w
---
antisemantic := anti or against semantic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics