Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republican allies have just changed the nomination process for the Supreme Court.
Who knew that, when you were just about to lose, you could simply change the rules to your favor? I suppose any adherent of Calvinball could have told you that, but now it’s less cute. Here in the real world, this means that the Senate has gone for the so-called “nuclear option” in order to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
Opposition or support of Gorsuch broke nearly perfectly along party lines. Democrats were opposed to his confirmation for numerous reasons, including Gorsuch’s conservative legislative past and his performance during his confirmation hearings. Many Democrats also recalled the failed nomination of Merrick Garland, a centrist judge nominated by President Obama. McConnell and his Republican colleagues had flatly refused to consider Garland’s nomination.
This time around, however, Republicans decided to deploy the “nuclear option” and changes the rules. They voted to lower the vote threshold for breaking a filibuster from 60 to 51. Democratic opponents, including Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, were threatening to indefinitely delay Gorsuch’s confirmation through a filibuster.
Now, such a move will not happen. Said Schumer, “Today’s vote is a cautionary tale about how unbridled partisan escalation can ultimately overwhelm our basic inclination to work together.”
Under previous rules, the 52 Republican Senators simply did not have enough votes to block the move. Now, assuming that everyone votes more or less along party lines, they can easily clear that hurdle.
What’s the big deal?
So, why is everyone calling this a “nuclear option”? As it turns out, this move sets a potentially dramatic precedent. Presidential nominees now face an easier path through the confirmation process, for one. It also may encourage more overt partisanship in Congress, though bipartisan cooperation has become an increasingly rare creature on Capitol Hill.
Said Schumer, “Today’s vote is a cautionary tale about how unbridled partisan escalation can ultimately overwhelm our basic inclination to work together.”
Critics are now concerned that the filibuster itself is in danger. Previously, members of a minority party or even an individual senator could deploy a filibuster and, by engaging in prolonged speech, bring all legislative work to a standstill. Some welcome this move, claiming that the filibuster has been abused to such a point that little substantive work has been done in Congress.
On the other hand, the ability to filibuster lends power to minority parties. It can potentially keep a majority party from dominating a legislative session. However, now that filibusters can be broken by a simple majority vote – in a Senate that currently hosts 42 Democrats, 52 Republicans, and 2 Independents – such power is considerably diminished.
Next: Last Week Tonight Hits On Marijuana Laws
The implications of this move, while likely far-reaching, are unknown. Does it spell the end of collaboration amongst parties in Congress? Is it just another stop on the long, slow, seemingly endless decline into a contentious, do-nothing government? Could it somehow make Senators work together towards some unknowable end?
Whether this move encourages cross-party cooperation or blows up any chance of bipartisanship remains to be seen. Nonetheless, this is a major move that will affect the operation of our government for years to come.