Many Democrats would like nothing better than to have the confirmation hearings for President-elect Trump’s attorney general nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions resemble the 1986 battle in which the Alabama Republican was actually rebuffed as a judicial nominee.
There are two reasons this is unlikely to happen, both of them substantially of the Democrats’ making. The first is a dearth of moderate to liberal Republicans in the Senate. The key votes against Sessions 30 years ago came from Arlen Specter (who later recanted and said he regretted his opposition) and Charles Mathias.
Susan Collins of Maine is arguably the only Republicans of this stripe left in the Senate. The moderate to liberal Republicans of old who were not defeated by conservative primary challengers were replaced by liberal Democrats. Mathias was succeeded by longtime Democrat Barbara Mikulski, who is retiring in January. Specter switched back to the Democratic Party, lost his primary and saw his Pennsylvania seat go to conservative Republican Pat Toomey.
The second reason Sessions is an odds-on favorite can be more directly placed at the Democrats’ feet. Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pushed through a change in filibuster rules to make it easier for President Obama’s executive appointments to go through. Reid probably also thought Democrats would regain their Senate majority in this year’s elections.
Well, the Democrats did not retake the majority. And now it is going to be easier for President-elect Trump to win approval for his executive branch picks.
While the Democrats are facing the immediate consequences of this rule change, what to do with the filibuster remains a dilemma for Republicans too. Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., appear to have put nuking the legislative filibuster out of reach for now but there will be pressure to end judicial filibusters when the fight to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court begins in earnest.
The filibuster is a useful tool for conservatives trying to slow the growth of government because it can block a lot of bad legislation. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine Republicans winning filibuster-proof majorities for conservative efforts to push the size of government in the opposite direction, such as entitlement reform and repealing parts of Obamacare that can’t be wiped out through the reconciliation process.
Nuking the filibuster would give the Republicans a stronger hand for at least the next two years and might increase the chances of accomplishing those bigger-ticket conservative agenda items longer term. But it will also place them at the mercy of some Democratic majority in the future.
Republicans will have a chance to watch and learn from Democrats as some controversial Trump nominees sail through the Senate on straight party-line votes.
Both parties face a filibuster dilemma. The Democrats are just going to get to face theirs first.
