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:
Filibustering a cabinet nominee is wrong now, and it was wrong when the Democrats tried it in 2006. http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/jamie-dupree/2013/feb/10/filibusters-and-cabinet-nominations/
Well, 'give-em-heck-Harry', how's that gentlemen's handshake with McConnell feeling about now? Feel a sharp pain betwee the shoulder blades? That was McConnel's other right hand; he has no left hand to extend, you know.
Dear Rachel Maddow,
Please get Senator Harry Ried to come on your show and please ask him why he did capitulate with a deal on filibuster reform and after stating last May, "If there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, it’s the filibuster rule, because it’s been abused, abused and abused.”
A second good question would be:-- Mister Senator Ried would you say this is a true statement? "But for now, Republicans have little to fear. The filibuster is safe. Even filibusters against the motion to proceed are safe. And filibuster reformers have lost once again."
Thank you
How many 'I told you so's will Reid be getting now then ?
Anybody else ever notice that the brick wall is constructed by MEN? Did the few "girls" get sent back to the kitchen and/or bedroom? C'mon, gals---pretend it's 50% off everything day, and work your way to the front of the line!! We need a little common sense and aggression here.
Appears the Republicans will only support a nominee who agrees with their “unique” view that George W. Bush made a splendid decision when he ordered the unilateral invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq. This is now the end game of Karl Rove’s core value: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I guess it’s OK to complain, but maybe Democrats should stop and savor the spectacle of a political party gleefully imploding.
The Republicans are totally predictable. This is why I was so disappointed with the results of the Harry Reid/Mitch McConnell debacle. Republicans NEVER play by the rules or stick by any former statements or show any loyalty to anyone they perceive as having "defected" in any way, and will predictably block anyone or any proposal put forth by President Obama....yea, I know that's a run-on sentence....Now they want to pretend that a rose by any other name is not a rose! Or in this case, a "filibuster" by any other name is not a "filibuster"????? Okay Harry, what are you going to do now?
...
(As a generalist) In the scheme of the Constitution the Senate is given the unique and exclusive right to make up its own rules, and nowhere can anyone question this authority. While the Senate rules are published as well being unwritten, hence a gentlemen's agreement between Reid and McConnell was the likely determining factor in Reid's decision not reformulate the filibuster rules. How even if the list of trouble makers keeps growing, McConnell many not be able to abide by any gentleman's agreements, and seek ways to enable his crew to create a similar blocking action. Reid as a traditionalist is intimidated by the "self-rule making power of the Senate", and wants to the point desperation to preserve the Senate's image would be very hard to be put upon to unilaterally declare a rule change, mid-term and all, which would then be challenged by the Senate parliamentarian, who would have to call an immediate vote, and Reid would have to show the votes (to support two rule changes: One for filibuster, and one to override the no change after first day sessions. Then there's the back lash, led by Rev. Jim Jones's cousin, Tom Cruz. The Republican body politic would no matter the damage to the country; disable the Senate for the next two years. The public display of the Senate in the aftermath would be to explode the backroom deals, as every Senator would be out to save the own hide in the next election.
I am not concerned with the minutiae of the involved experts on parliamentarian procedures; the neck ties are too tight there. But I could be advised to be concerned that diminishing the position of the Secretary of Defense of the largest military in the world, when the backfield-in-motion Senators and neo-cons are aligning themselves with an Israeli engineered right wing provocation of a war by any other name with Iran and hold the Oil fields hostage. That these Senators would do these things is not that far-fetched seeing that the Senate has nearly omnipotent power.
Peace and an aggressive Energy Policy being the horrible alternative investment; that merely speculates that the return on investment would be far less that investing in military hardware; and a militancy that often accompanies senile old men sending younger men to war; only exceeded by the vanity of thinning and receding hair.
Note: Most if not all that has gone awry in the United States so many past years was born the United States Senate.
Exactly what does the Republican Party's Senate have to gain by nullifying the President? (That gain has to amount to something?)
Is there no shame in politics? Is there no honor?
(Rhetorical questions only.)
Hagel has 57 votes as of now. He will get 60. GOP is just so out of touch. ,
One word: disgusting.
That the GOP would stoop to such low levels is unbelieveable. However, this is what is expected. It seems that their plan is to destroy the American economy by 2014 so they can present their lie to the American public on TV in their attempt to brainwash the public.
Harry you really thought the republicians would not do this. Everyone knew they would do this. You had the chance and you blew it
Mary
Rachel--Love the show, but it's time for a correction:
"But the filibuster threat — reiterated Monday by Sen. Jim Inhofe, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee — would make Hagel just the third Cabinet nominee in history to require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster on the Senate floor. The other two nominees were President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 choice to head his Commerce Department, C. William Verity, and President George W. Bush’s 2006 choice of Dirk Kempthorne to be secretary of the interior."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/gop-sens-threaten-hagel-filibuster-87493.html#ixzz2KpuAiBu4
President could designate Hagel as 'acting Sec of D" pending Senate confirmation. If the senate did not confirm, then he could keep Hagel on the job and never offer another candidate, Same for all Presidential appointments.