Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Republicans Block Obama Nominations

As the Obama administration attempts to fill open positions on federal courts, Republican Senators are doing everything in their power to block the nominations of Obama's three D.C. Circuit Court nominations. Last week, Republicans filibustered a vote for Patricia Millett, and they plan to do the same with Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins. While the Republican effort to block the nominees is generally just viewed as politics- an attempt to curtail "court-packing" by the Obama administration- the tendency of Senators and political analysts to paint nominee Pillard as a radical feminist demonstrate deeper implications of blocking Obama's female nominees (2/3 of the Circuit Court nominations). Obama's attempt to diversify the federal courts are now being resisted by Republicans, and fought heavily. Though all nominees are considered very qualified, it seems that such character "flaws" are being exploited to justify the politics behind Republican actions, as such Senators as Ted Cruz and Chuck Grassley have weighed in on Pillard's "controversial" views on reproductive rights.

Such a lack of support for nominees is unusual at this stage in a Presidency, and mechanisms to block nominees are usually seen during the last few months of a President's final term. Furthermore, the suggestion of court-packing actually misuses the term, which refers to a President's creation of positions on courts to fill spots. President Obama is constitutionally required to fill empty seats (though Republicans are arguing that it is unnecessary to currently fill the seats), and it is generally accepted that Presidents attempt to nominate judges within their own party for powerful positions- the D.C. Circuit Court being amongst the most powerful in the country. The resistance to the nominations may be moreso out of concern for the Circuit Court's power to review federal agency rules and decisions.

However, what is most interesting about the Republicans attempt to block these nominations is the question of rules and procedures that it raises. Some Democrats have suggested invoking the "nuclear option," which would change the Senate rules to strip Republicans of their filibuster power over nominees. This "nuclear option" is considered an arcane Senate rule, but allows the Senate to force votes on nominees with a simple majority for cloture, instead of the usual 60 votes. The majority leader, Harry Reid, could have the power to invoke this option, demonstrating the impact of agenda control by party leaders. Furthermore, if this option is opposed, it would take a majority to vote on opposing the "nuclear option," suggesting that the Democrats (assuming there would be no dissenters) could vote in a simple majority to invoke the nuclear option and proceed on the vote for the nomination.This filibuster reform was almost invoked over the summer, but was changed last minute when compromises were reached instead. Thus, it may be that the threat of this "nuclear option" would be enough to force Republican Senators to allow for a vote on the nominations. It seems, in fact, that this option is used more as a threat then as a legitimate method of ending a filibuster. That it would be used now demonstrates both the partisan divide that is crippling Congress's productivity, and the apparently very strong desire by Republicans to silence female politicians who are seen as more "extreme" or "feminist."

11 comments:

  1. This post is well timed, considering that it was only two days before Sen. Reid did invoke the so-called "nuclear option." I think one thing that ought to be brought up more frequently is how overblown the phrase "nuclear option" is. Yes, it is has been considered a last resort because it is somewhat drastic, but the word nuclear has the connotation of being incredibly destructive and irreversible. That just doesn't seem to fit well with the procedural change that actually occurred, which can be reversed by a simple majority just as it was initiated by a simple majority.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I definitely agree. It's almost silly how extreme the name of it is, and I think that is one of the reasons for the amount of media coverage. Changes in Congressional procedures are hardly newsworthy most of the time, as the focus is often on bills and nominations themselves. I doubt that people would care so much if it was called something else, and I think the name gives Republicans in the Senate more opportunity to make it seem like Democrats are acting like unfair despots in changing the rule.

      Delete
    2. I agree as well, though I wonder what effects this name has on public opinion of Congress. The "nuclear option" sounds extravagant and used to clearly catch the public's eye, but do members of the public really understand what the nuclear option is? After reading news articles about the procedural change and looking up definitions of the term, will calling it the "nuclear option" really sway voters opinions of Democrats? If members of the public truly looked into what they were reading, I don't see how this name does anything for Republican senators.

      --Arthur Townsend

      Delete
    3. I’m not sure which side coined the term “nuclear option,” but the Republicans are getting the most out of it, aren’t they? In a way it’s really impressive how great the GOP is a creating incendiary names: ObamaCare (which the Democrats later took on, but it was a pejorative at first), Death Tax, Death Panel, Nuclear Option, etc. In all seriousness, these terms go a long way in shaping public beliefs about important issues. Support for the measures of the Affordable Care Act? Very high on average. Support of ObamaCare? Several percentage points lower. I wonder how many people will hear about the Democratic invocation of the “nuclear option” and craft an opinion without ever knowing what it really is.

      Delete
  2. I am not terribly surprised that these seats are being fought over tooth and nail. Next year is an election year. Not only will Republicans be under the gun because they are unwilling to compromise, they also refuse to budge on immigration and other issues. So maybe it's a "do what we can to stop democrats?" type attitude? It is utterly ridiculous in my opinion. -Erica

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to agree with Erica. While the name "nuclear option" is probably getting more media attention than it deserves, the battle over these seats is definitely important. The Republicans clearly don't have the approval they need to be confident going into the next election and these nomination oppositions are a way to show their voters that they are still strong.

      -- Maddie J

      Delete
  3. I'm so happy that the Senate moved forward with the "nuclear option"--the vacancies in the courts are placing such a huge strain on the system, denying justice and the opportunity for cases to be heard across the board. Hopefully this will help fill the existing and future vacancies quickly, and reduce the burden on the federal judicial system.
    While I understand the stupid fear of the Republicans on the topics pertaining to reproductive rights in the court's decisions, they are assuming that the lower court will legislate through judgement, and further, seem to forget that those on the Supreme Court would likely rule their way on this topic in appeals.
    Sophie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it will be interesting to see how taking the nuclear option will affect Senate politics in the future. This option was never invoked before for fear of the opposition making it harder to pass legislation. However, given the recent lack of activity in the House, the threat of opposition seems void since nothing is getting passed either way. I hope that this does not negatively effect cooperation in the Senate in the future.

      Jenny Wu

      Delete
    2. I agree with Jenny. I wonder if this will set a precedent for Senates (and maybe future Houses will follow suit) in the future. As this new rule will not automatically carry into the next Senate, the next Senate will have to vote again on how many votes are required for cloture. As we learned in class, this number is a critical piece in the spatial model that determines how large the gridlock interval is, and if only a simple majority is required to end a filibuster, then we could be experiencing less gridlock in the Senate.

      Delete
    3. Jenny and Jane, you both bring up very good perspectives to watch out for as Senate politics progress. Isn’t it just a matter of time before the Senate forgoes the filibuster altogether? In fact, I’m very puzzled by this half-measure by the Democrats. If the Republicans win back the Senate in the near future, wouldn’t they have the license to take the elimination of the filibuster to the next logical step? Like continuing a fight, the Republicans can always claim the Democrats threw the first punch by invoking the nuclear option for appointees. The Democrats stand to lose next time around by only dipping their toes in their water now.

      Delete
    4. Will, you're absolutly right. Erza Klein, of Wonkblog, had a really good post on this. But also, at this point, I doubt the Democrats even really need to change the filibuster - if a Republican filibustered something vital, would it really take very long before Harry Reid did away with the filibuster all-together? I think the very threat of it is enough for now. - Brian N

      Delete