Getty Images
The available research shows that no cabinet nominee has ever faced a filibuster. This week, however, as Chuck Hagel's Defense Secretary nomination reaches the Senate floor, a new level of Republican obstructionism may very well be reached.
"We're going to require a 60-vote threshold," [Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma] told [Josh Rogin].
[Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas] told The Cable, "There is a 60-vote threshold for every nomination."
Well, no, actually there isn't. Cornyn has been in the Senate for 11 years, and I have a strong hunch he knows that "every nomination" doesn't have to clear a "60-vote threshold," and many haven't. Why Cornyn is comfortable saying the opposite is anyone's guess.
Regardless, as Hagel's Republican detractors strategize -- and occasionally engage in ugly McCarthyism -- the likelihood of a filibuster grows.
But in a curious twist, they seem reluctant to call it that.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), for example, intended to put a hold on Hagel's nomination, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he intended to ignore it. It led Graham to tell reporters yesterday that he hopes to block a vote on Hagel, though he doesn't want to describe his efforts as a filibuster, per se. "I define it as constitutional oversight using the only leverage left," Graham said.
Oh good, the GOP's rebranding initiative now includes coming up with better ways to define "filibuster."
Inhofe was even more explicit: "It's not a filibuster. I don't want to use that word."
But is that really one of their options? Can Republicans launch a filibuster of a cabinet nominee, but defend the tactics by saying they don't want it to count as a filibuster?
There are experts in the minutiae of Senate procedure who can perhaps explore this in more detail than I can -- such experts are encouraged to participate in the comments thread below or email me -- but as best as I can tell, what Hagel's GOP critics want now is an extended debate. Hagel's nomination was approved in committee yesterday, and is headed to the floor, perhaps as early as today.
Graham, Inhofe, Cornyn, and others hope to delay a vote by keeping the debate on Hagel's nomination going, daring the Democratic majority to end the debate with a cloture vote.
How is this different from a filibuster? As best as I can tell, there is no difference -- a filibuster, for all intents and purposes, is a prolonged debate intended to block an up-or-down vote on a bill or nominee.
And that's apparently what Hagel's detractors have in mind. The historical qualities of such a move may make Republicans nervous, but if they want to avoid setting a new precedent, they'll have to do better than "I don't want to use that word."
Leave a Comment:
Harry Reid, this is your fault.
Is that intended to be a factual statement?
This. Jeeze Louise, filibuster reform, how does that work?
harry reid should step dpown and hand over the reins to someone more assertive like chuck shumer
Schumer is owned by Wall Street. We want someone with a spine. We want Patty Murray.
If the leadership cannot stomach a rules change, they can put in a "temporary" leader who implements a "temporary" set of Senate rules designed to respond to GOP obstructionism. The "leader"ship can dump this thankless task as they uncourageously do all others on Patty Murray. The message to the GOP will be: when you are ready to return to legislative norms when filibusters were rare, then we can take up a discussion to restore them.
As far as I'm concerned, Murray should be leader on her own rights, and should remain Senate majority leader- I am stating a rationale the leadership could use to jump her to the head of the line. Anyone who changes the rules is going to make enemies- and the gutless wimps "leading" the Dem Senators have more interest in watching their backs than watching out for what is good for the US.
This is the result of Reid's halfway measure, so yes it is a factual statement.
John: Are you catching the irony here? Had Harry Reid "ended the fillibuster", like so many on here claimed he could, you would have around 35 Senate Republicans standing on soapboxes screaming about their rights being taken away, and a media hungry for stories eating that up big time. Now as it stands with Harry Reid only doing what he did, you have Republicans so spooked by the word "fillibuster" they will even lie when they use it. Amazing...
What? Reid never contemplated ending the filibuster- only making it slightly inconvenient to filibuster. As for irony? Sure- though irony refers to an unexpected twist and this sort of perfidy is hardly unexpected.
But why should we care what the GOP Senators say. They throw tomatoes and go on witch hunts. They are the rabble and should be treated as such until they return to the historically observed norms of this grand institution.
And it is not simply ending the filibuster, but as Mann and Ornstein have repeatedly pointed out, there are myriad other rules that can be used to achieve the same level of obstruction. They advocate comprehensive rules reform.
They are right. The irony is that they are hardly radicals, but establishment guys. Yes, it is that bad- and as we go into the first months- it is getting worse.
...yeah. When people looking for simple answers talk politics, one often hears 'term limits' and 'vote 'em all out' and 'she/he is just a regular person like me'. If I need surgery, I want someone who knows what they're doing. If I'm looking to hire someone to represent me, I want someone who knows what they're doing and won't get eaten alive by the hired shills of plutocrats and theocrats.
I hope like the dickens Reid & co know what they're doing, but I'm busy taking care of MY part of the bargain. Someone has to empty the trash, too.
John: The "talking fillibuster" is ending the fillibuster, it's not honest to claim otherwise IMHO. Nobody is going to go to the floor and talk for days like the Stewart movie, they know that won't fly. This bothers me because so many progressives won't admit that simple fact. You claim it would only be "slightly inconvienent", yet it would be a complete change in the rules, factually. You don't see the irony, because you won't admit completely changing the rules is completely changing the rules.
All it takes to sustain a talking fillibuster is 4 guys motivated to take their shift.
Are you saying there aren't 4 nuts in the Senate willing to do that?
"All it takes is 4 guys"... For how long... How about other Senate business... Note: I am not defending the fillibuster, it freaking sucks, but I am not willing to be right wing-style dishonest about completely changing the rules. This notion that the "talking fillibuster" is some minor tweak is ridiculously dishonest, just as it is to pin that all on Harry Reid. Us progressives trumpet ourselves as honest and realistic, yet large segments of us latch on to misleading notions.
It has been noted on this blog that Republicans would be happy to participate in talking filibusters. They can go on and on talking about themselves, brow-beating Democrats, reading phone books. They have no shame and Reid knew this would not be a good thing.
I get it. You are saying Mann and Ornstein are being "right wing-style dishonest about completely changing the rules"?
Come now. The talking fillibuster is no impediment at all to these lunatics, and even if it was there are myriad other rules to obstruct the Senate as Mann and Ornstein point out.
Lebowsky, I understand that split the difference mediocre responses are politically the safe thing to do. It's prudent for self preservation and longer political careers. What you don't seem to realize is that you've been gamed. Being a champion of mediocrity is not being a champion of reason, but a champion of failure.
The way you have been gamed is staring you in the face. All the GOP does is move their goalposts to the right so that "split the difference" winds up more where they want to be, and they will violate all norms to emphasize they are serious about their extreme goalpost positions. And you faithfully get pulled into compromising away Democratic party positions.
It is spinelessness stupidity to allow oneself to be manipulated in such a transparent way- and that is exactly what the Senate leadership: Reid, Schumer and Durbin- are indulging in. Spinelessness.
By Lebowsky's definition, the Filibuster didn't exist until it was reformed because all that talking was being used to block the Senate's business.
John: What a ridiculous strawman it is to bring up Mann and Ornstein, of course they are for eliminating the fillibuster, as I am. You want to have this discussion on a fantasy level instead of a todays reality level. You need more than "come now" to convince me, thats a canard, I don't talk to you that way, it shows latent disrespect. Just as your assertations about being "gamed" are offensive, it suggests you have an understanding that others don't, it gives the impression that you speak down to people. If you are comfortable giving folks the impression that you disrespect the opinions of others, you are doing a bang up job...
More rearranging yourself in your seat.
There has been no rebuttal to Mann and Ornstein's call for comprehensive Senate rules reform. It includes much more than real elimination of the fillibuster, and yes, they agree with the assessment that the talking fillibuster does not end it.
Next time, try making a substantive response to the argument being presented you.
We cannot blame Reid alone for the failure to achieve more filibuster reform. The votes for other reforms were not there for Reid to proceed to a vote. But these recurring filibusters may persuade more Dem Senators to go along with more reforms. At best, Reid would need help from the budget committee members to strong arm the holdouts. Nothing speaks better than money or the lack thereof for projects.
Mike, I am less optimistic. The 60 vote supermajority requirement maintains a comfort zone so that Reid can shield vulnerable Dem Senators from having to go on the record as being for or against issues that divide their constituents. It would be nice if legislators were more motivated by "ribbon cutting" gravy rather than the grave of voting on guns or medicare cuts.
Smart politics. Dumb governance.
Well, it's not like Nancy Pelosi hasn't already proven the old adage: "sometimes the best man for a job is a woman."
@JohnMesserly
The 60 vote requirement also shields the minority party from voting on issues that make them politically vulnerable. It cuts both ways. The Hurricane Sandy vote shows what happens when you make people vote. Now the Republicans from the South and West have created a rift in the party which is why Boehner is trying to minimize the Tea Party. That will deepen the rift between the two factions. Divide and conquer is still a good strategy.
Amen. D.C. It looks like she hasn't the vaguest interest in it, but I wish Pelosi would run for President in 2016. She has the acumen and inclination to drive through truly progressive legislation. Instead it looks like we will be stuck with a neoliberal DLC centrist like Hillary.
Which is not the worst prospect, but I do sometimes wonder about an alternate history in which Hillary was nominated instead of BHO. She would have done no worse, and likely better, in the face of the scorched-Earth obstruction. And, frankly, it would have given him time either in the Senate or as VP, to polish his act before going to the big game.
I think we'd have seen far fewer miscalculations if he'd had more experience first. Or, put another way, better to have Clinton at 61 followed by Obama at 56 than Obama at 48 followed by Clinton at 70.
It has some appeal, I agree and I started to think you are right. But let's look at the details. Under Clinton, would there be
As for improving Obama's skill set, it is debatable what he would have learned from longer Senate experience. The management skills needed would come from a position like that of a Governor, or heading a large agency, but he did not have the resume for a Clinton cabinet appointment.
.
Possibly the net pluses from an Obama in 2016 could have outweighed the more conservative responses Clinton would have made. Lots of imponderables. I think Clinton would have been as incompetent as dealing with the threatened loss of the House in 2010, but some think much of the energy was driven by a racial backlash. It could be right, but the power of the economic populist themes was substantial.
I like how the dem defenders of the filibuster complain the gop will make it all worse some how , so they are frightened , what planet are you people living on?
It's simply an extention of modern conservatism, when in doubt, lie.
While you defend Reid lying to us all about reforming the filibuster , like john said , look in the mirror
"You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means"
Yes, because while they whine and snivel about what 'Obama's sequester' will do to the defense budget they will filibuster the nomination to stick it to the President. What a bunch of two year olds. And somehow this convinces the American voter that the GOP has changed their message? And tactics?
You could see Speaker Boehner wince when the president said "The greatest blow to our confidence in our economy last year didn't come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco?" The sequester cuts would not have happened if the GOP did not threaten to hold up paying the bills.
This is absolutely a filibuster. Graham and Inhofe are saying they'll withhold unanimous consent to proceed to a floor debate, which places a 60-vote threshold for cloture on the motion to proceed. That's what a filibuster is. The fact that they don't want to call it that doesn't matter a whit.
"A rose by any other name..." Though this one would seem to be skunk effluvium.
Maybe this is how we get to the actual "Talking Filibuster".
Well, at least they haven't said they will burn Hagel at the stake.
Yet...
This isn't how the senate is supposed to work. Look at Graham and Inhoff...willful and petty and unconcerned with what is good for the country just what is good for them. We the People have given the senate every chance to correct itself and become functional yet they remain a body ruled by a minority through blackmail and extortion so letting the majority rule has become impossible. It is time to end the senate...the whole body must be eliminated. They are expensive dysfunctional and unconstitutional. Who do they think they are? Time to do what republicans have been striving for...end the senate since it no longer serves the public's interests.
If this level of denial lasts the Republicans will run out of words for anything by ca. 2017.
One could call Republicans stupid. But I don't want to use that word. I think they simply lack cognitive ability and logical thinking skills.
"Cornyn has been in the Senate for 11 years, and I have a strong hunch he knows that "every nomination" doesn't have to clear a "60-vote threshold," and many haven't. Why Cornyn is comfortable saying the opposite is anyone's guess."
__________
"Big John" Cornyn knows very well he's going to get primaried by the teahadists in 2014, and he (like Lindsay Graham) is scrambling to the right as fast as he can. It's not more complicated than that. Indeed, Cornyn himself lacks the complexity of thought to focus on anything more complex than the next election and naked self-interest.
I agree completely. That's probably why Collins from Maine is ultimately voting no on Hagel's confirmation cause she's afraid of a potential tea party challenger in Maine. It seems like these senators are now only afraid of their own political careers and interests instead of helping move the country forward. That's why I think just as with the President members of Congress need to be term limited.
Just one more Republican example of "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you."
Is the "Constitutional option" still available or is that only at the beginning of a Congressional session? I seem to recall that there was Republican discussion of using it to get some of Bush's more odious judge nominees a vote after the session had started .
The Constitutional Option is only available (such as it is) at the beginning of a Congressional session, when parliamentary rules are established and agreed upon by the majority.
The Republicans can do whatever they want in the Senate, because Reid is a *bleep* twit.
Get some damn backbone and put them in thier place!
Gah!
Poor guy will have to wait until, We The Voters, Make the House Right again, and fix this nonsense of a Do Nothing Congress.
Bring up the vote to proceed every day if you have to, and every time you don't get 5 Goopers, ask the cameras why Republicans won't allow a vote on President Obama's choice for SecDef during a time of war?
(The uncertainty in the Pentagon is hampering the Generals from making new battle plans, you know.)
The GOP is full of idiots intent on holding up Hagel's nomination to satisfy the Israel backing lobby and constituents. We don't want you because of Bengazi that you had nothing to do with is insanity. You're not qualified being a former Secy of the Navy just as absurd. Not a fillibuster per se is a fillibuster per se. I wish Hagel would have told McCain yes or no people not doing a perfect job aboard the Forestal causing deaths is a question that you should not answer. What is important is finding out what went wrong and fixing it. Same with Bengazi.
Reid is a weakling that let the GOP step all over him (387 Pelosi House passed bills never got a vote). Rules can be changed at any time by simple majority and for however long determined by that body per a SCOTUS decision on the "nuclear option". Reid could have went nuclear for a week getting a simple majority to fill cabinet positions, then went back to old rules. If the GOP still required 60 for everything two weeks of nuclear voting on bills. By the time it got to 2 months the GOP would have folded up their obstructionist tent.
The spectacle of Republicans trying so fiercely to eat one of their own is ultimately damaging to them, not to Hagel or the President.
Making fools of themselves in a spectacular fashion.
Ultimately won't pay the rent .
I'm not sure why Hagel is too Republican for Republicans.
God am I embarrassed every time someone reminds me that Inhofe flies airplanes. I grew up thinking you had to be intelligent to do that. Running across all the wingnuts who can do it pretty much ends the "cool" factor
A pile of dog poop is still a dog poop even if you call it a conglomeration of canine fecal deposits. CHUCK HAGEL DESERVES A VOTE.
George Orwell called it "DoubleSpeak" -- frightening how accurate his words have become!
What a bunch of hateful, manipulative, self centered, uneducated and immature men!
Repugnicans still think we are so stupid, that if they change the word for what they are doing, we won't recognize that they are doing it....AGAIN! When is the American electorate going to wake up and get these idiots out of office so the business of governing can move on. A paralyzed government is no government at all, but then again, that's what some of them want...bring on the anarchy!
Harry Reid, this is your fault! I wish I could put that into large fonts. We told you and this would happen and you just smiled and said "No. Everyone will play fair now." What a idiot you are!
That Reid failed to kill the filibuster on the first day of the legislative session — in 2008 — led to a failure of the majority-Dem Senate then (when we had a majority-Dem House) to make progress on legislation. Since Dems never actually had a filibuster-proof majority even in 2008 (because of Franken's delay, Kennedy's passing, etc), the entirely predictable obstruction by Repubs in the Senate allowed them to create paralysis, leading to a lackluster first two years for Obama and a resultant argument—bought by gullible voters—that the Dems are useless because even with control of both houses they can't get anything done. Reid's failure to kill the filibuster in 2008 was ultimately one of the most consequential failures of leadership to be seen in ages. His failure to kill it this year is beyond outrageous. He should never have been given the position of majority leader. That he retains the position should be an embarrassment to all Democratic senators.