Lawmakers this week edged closer to eroding the deliberative nature of the Senate by overturning a longstanding precedent allowing up to 30 hours of debate time for judicial and executive branch nominees.
It followed earlier moves by by both Republicans and Democrats that reduced the 60-vote threshold to confirm all executive branch nominees, including Supreme Court picks, to a simple majority.
The changes have left lawmakers worried that the legislative filibuster will be toppled next.
Its elimination would give the party in control of the chamber virtually unfettered ability to pass their agenda with a simple majority instead of having to win 60 votes and the backing of at least a few minority lawmakers.
“The partisan temperament is destroying this place,” Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., warned last week. “It needs to come to an end.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on April 3 took procedural steps on the Senate floor to reduce the debate time for district court judges and sub-Cabinet-level appointees from 30 hours to two hours.
[Opinion: Rep. Alex Mooney: Bring back the ‘talking filibuster’]
The change has been planned for two years and was triggered, McConnell said, by Democrats who have needlessly dragged out debate time to prevent President Trump from assembling his administration and filling court vacancies.
Some nominees have been waiting for confirmation since January 2017, McConnell said, due to Democratic stalling tactics.
The change that shortens debate time mirrors a bipartisan but temporary accord secured when Democrats were in the majority in 2013 and Republicans were slow-walking President Barack Obama’s nominations.
This time, Democrats were unwilling to agree with the GOP majority to shorten the time, forcing Republicans to use the so-called nuclear option and pass it over Democratic objections.
Democrats said they would agree to change the debate time limit, but only in the next administration and not under Trump, who they say has selected unqualified administrative picks and far-right nominees to the federal judiciary.
[Related: Elizabeth Warren to support ending the filibuster]
“Oh, no, we can’t do it now because we don’t like who’s in the White House,” McConnell said in a speech denouncing Democrats for refusing a bipartisan deal.
The next president could play a key role in pushing the Senate even further to ditch the legislative filibuster.
President Trump in 2017 called for Republicans to eliminate the “ridiculous” 60-vote threshold on legislation in order to enable the GOP to pass his agenda with 51 votes.
Several Democrats running for the 2020 nomination have embraced the idea of ditching the filibuster in order to push an important bill out of Congress, such as healthcare reform.
“I think it’s something we should seriously consider,” Democratic hopeful and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke told reporters while campaigning in New Hampshire last month.
Six Democratic Senators are running for president, and none of them are enthusiastic about eliminating the filibuster.
But some, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California, appear willing to at least consider it.
[Editorial: How to save the ‘post-nuclear’ Senate]
The filibuster’s fate ultimately hinges on who controls the Senate.
McConnell told the Washington Examiner in a recent interview that he would not eliminate the filibuster.
But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is four votes shy of controlling the Senate gavel, would not make any promises in a recent interview with Vox:
“Let me just say this. Get the majority. Beat Trump. We’ll leave discussion of rules to next year.”
