A Republican proposal to abolish filibusters on Supreme Court nominees is gaining steam in the Senate, a move that would make it much easier for the White House to fill high court vacancies just as President Obama appears likely to get another appointment.
The push comes a year after Democrats, who controlled the Senate at the time, unilaterally changed the chamber’s rules to do away with filibusters on all White House nominations except Supreme Court picks. The move infuriated Republicans, who accused then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., of running roughshod over the Senate’s complex systems of checks and balances by taking away a key minority party power.
Presidential nominations require only Senate — and not House — approval. Filibusters don’t exist in the lower chamber.
Under the GOP plan, the 60-vote threshold for legislation would remain unchanged.
The proposal comes as there is growing speculation that 81-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg may retire from the Supreme Court within the next two years, giving President Obama a coveted opportunity to nominate a candidate for her replacement. Without a filibuster, a nominee would need only 51 — not 60 — votes in the 100-seat chamber to be confirmed.
But the proposal, pushed by Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Roy Blunt of Missouri and Mike Lee of Utah, among others, reflects growing GOP confidence that they will retain control of both congressional chambers in 2016, while winning back the the White House.
Republicans behind the plan say they’re eager to “codify” the Democrat’s highly controversial power play.
“This is a way to settle that issue and close that ugly chapter in the Senate and do it in a way that respects the institution,” said a senior Republican Senate aide. “If Democrats are going to continue to break the rules so they can rig the game in their favor, this is way to show that we’re going to settle this question with proper procedure and we’re going to protect the filibuster for the future.”
Unlike Reid’s hurried move last year, the GOP proposal calls for the matter to be first OKed by the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, then receive a full vote in the Senate.
“The process of how this is done is just as important as the changes that are made,” the aide said. “I think that when the Republicans were in the minority, the biggest problem they had with what the Democrats did was that they went nuclear — they broke the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules.”
Republicans add that their effort would help ensure that the minority’s filibuster authority for legislation remains unchanged and protected.
“We’re sort of building a damn against further changes to the filibuster in terms of taking it away for legislation and other things, because that’s a very important tool of the minority,” the aide said.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., hasn’t weighed in on the issue. But with Blunt serving as chairman of the rules panel, it’s likely McConnell doesn’t have serious reservations. The panel is expected to take up the issue later this winter.
Still, it’s uncertain just how many Republicans are on board. Many have suggested during the past year they would be uncomfortable keeping the Democrats’ rule change should they regain control of the Senate in 2015.
“I think we should go back to 60 votes to approve any nomination. I think it stood the test of time,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt in November. “If you keep it at 51, all they [Democrats] have to do is pick up three, four Republicans, and I’m worried that you’re no stronger than your weakest link. Having to get to 60 is a much more collaborative process.”
Erick Erickson, editor of the influential conservative blog RedState.com, wrote Monday he also is in favor of keeping the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees.
“I support the filibuster not because it is a check on the Democrats, but because it is a check on the establishment by conservatives,” Erickson said. “We have been shafted before by the GOP in terrible Supreme Court picks. We should not make it easier for them to do so.”
