In a week that was dominated by the antics of the crack-smoking mayor of Toronto and the remembrance of JFK, the United States Senate did something unprecedented.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled the trigger on the nuclear option, which allows presidential nominations — with the exception of Supreme Court appointees — to be confirmed by the Senate with a simple majority vote. Nominations for federal judges and bureaucrats will no longer have to pass the 60-vote threshold. This nuclear option would stop many filibuster attempts during the confirmation process.
Filibusters are a known problem in the Senate. An extremely large amount of filibusters have taken place during the Obama administration. Maybe Reid felt compelled to champion the nuclear option he always wanted in place.
If only that were reality. In 2005, when the Democrats were the minority party in the Senate, Reid said the proposed nuclear option the Republican majority wanted to put in place was a “raw abuse of power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government.” Republicans threatened but did not implement the nuclear option in 2005 because Democrats were filibustering then-President Bush’s appointments. It’s amazing how history repeats itself.
Then-Senators Obama and Biden riled against this nuclear option and said that “if the majority chooses to end the filibuster … (it will) put an end to democratic debate“ and “you cannot change the Senate rules by a pure majority vote,” respectively.
Consistency is not a strong suit of Washington politicians.
We can parse through this partisan noise and agree that the Senate majority party always wants a simple majority vote in order to get their agenda through Congress. Filibusters were a problem in the Senate for both the Bush and Obama administrations.
Ramming this rule change is reminiscent of another Harry Reid stunt. Back in 2009, Reid ran the Affordable Care Act through the Senate much like he is doing with the nuclear option, and we all know how that is faring.
Reid justified the rule change by claiming that Congress is not working. This is, in fact, true. Countless pieces of House legislation have been denied debate in the Senate and pocket vetoed by the current Majority Leader Reid. But why let facts get in the way of your politics?
The timing of this change is a little unusual. On one hand, the new Senate procedure successfully silenced the talk of the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act and the internal uneasiness of many in the administration of its second go. This move would also quickly get the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — considered to be the second most powerful court in the country — nominees confirmed and ready to rest on the bench.
On the other hand, this move is close to the 2014 midterm elections. Many pundits and commentators predict that red-state Democrats will face uphill fights this election season. Why would Reid implement this change if his majority is at risk? If he becomes the minority leader, at least he can fall back on his previous anti-nuclear option position.
Politicians on both sides try to bend the rules to get what they want. Historically, when politicians respected each other, no nuclear option was needed. Instead of gridlock and inaction, politicians collaborated and accomplished great things.
Instead, we have politicians who try to game the system to push their own agendas. The nuclear option might come and go, but it is a symptom of a larger problem in Washington.
Michael Beato is a UF economics sophomore. His column runs on Tuesdays. A version of this column ran on page 6 on 11/26/2013 under the headline "History repeats itself: Senate goes nuclear"
