ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Posted in Senate Rules — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

In Human Events today, Michael Hammond argues that changing the text of Senate rules would eventually destroy the legislative filibuster, and Hammond contends that existing Senate procedures are adequate for forcing votes on nominees. In the same issue of Human Events, Manuel Miranda also advocates forcing votes on Senate nominees, but he asserts that choosing what method to use is a relatively trifling matter.

I entirely agree with Mr. Miranda's sense of urgency, and also agree with Mr. Hammond that existing rules can be used to force votes on Senate nominees (perhaps in combination with new interpretations of those existing rules, or in combination with new Standing Orders to implement those existing rules). Changing the text of the Senate's rules is indeed a valid option as Mr. Miranda says, but so is implementing existing rules, such as Rule 31.

The headline on Hammond's piece is somewhat misleading: Should Senators End Filibuster of Nominees? NO: Do Not Abandon Measure Once Used To Halt Liberal Agenda. After all, in the piece, Hammond writes: "Existing procedures can force votes on Senate nominees."