ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Lee Harris has an article on filibuster history that actually contains a lot of interesting and fresh material. Also, The Hill has an editorial peering into the future of the filibuster:

Predicting the future in politics is dangerous work. But the chances of a bipartisan compromise that sticks are slim or none.

The Wednesday issue of the New York Times has an article titled "Democrats Reject a Compromise on Judicial Nominees." Among other things, the article discusses the idea of dumping some of the nominees:

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, indicated that Republican leaders would oppose any compromise that falls short of allowing all the currently blocked nominees a vote. Mr. Reid has offered to allow some of the disputed judges to advance, and others are negotiating a similar trade-off, with a decision to be made later on which judges get floor votes and which do not. "To this point, any suggested agreement by the other side involves a kind of random slaying of good people," Mr. McConnell said.

Good for Senator McConnell. In the same NY Times article, Senator Feinstein poses a question:

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, held the floor for more than an hour Tuesday as she went through the histories of several judicial nominees in the Clinton administration who were denied votes by the Republican majority, some because of secret "holds" put on nominations by a single senator.

"Which is better," Mrs. Feinstein asked, "a filibuster by 40 members on the floor openly declared, publicly debating an individual's past speeches, an individual's temperament, character, opinions? Or a filibuster in secret when one doesn't know who or why?"

I'd like to answer Senator Feinstein's question. A secret "hold" on a nomination is much much much better than an endless filibuster by 40 members on the floor. An explanation is below the fold.

A “hold" is an informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that the Senator does not wish a nomination to reach the floor. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator's wishes. And, even if the Majority Leader does follow the Senator's wishes, a hold can be overcome by making a “motion to proceed." It takes only a simple majority to approve a motion to proceed. The motion to proceed is usually --- but not necessarily --- offered by the Majority Leader, and it can be openly debated on the floor, even if the Senator who placed the “hold" remains anonymous.

So, the key thing is that a secret “hold" on a nomination can be overcome by the Majority Leader, or by 51 Senators voting for the motion to proceed. In contrast, when 40 Senators on the floor endlessly filibuster a nomination (or filibuster a motion to proceed to consider a nomination), that floor filibuster normally cannot be overcome by either the Majority Leader or by 51 Senators, and instead 60 Senators are normally required. That’s why a hold is so much better than an endless filibuster by 40 Senators on the floor --- the hold can be more easily overcome, by a simple majority. For lots of useful definitions, see the Senate's own glossary.