ConfirmThem

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

Senator Lugar was interviewed today on Fox News Sunday. Here's a report about the interview:

One Republican who has been undecided on the rule change...[is] Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana...."I would not take a stand against my party's view that we should have up-or-down votes on judges and that this is a part of the filibuster thing that really needs to be settled and set aside," Lugar told "Fox News Sunday." Lugar said he hopes differences can be settled "through negotiation." A second Republican who has been on the fence, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, said, "I've said to both sides, don't include me in your count right now."

Meanwhile, Richard Hallock of Pueblo West, Colorado has some advice:

Some Repubs say, "yes but! What'll happen when we are again in the minority? They'll do the same thing to us." So what? If changing the rules is right, it is right no matter which side you are on. If it isn't right, don't do it, but then quit gnashing your teeth and take your lumps. We'd like to see the nuclear option used by either side when there is no constitutional justification for minority blockage of the will of the Senate majority.

I agree with Mr. Hallock. Nominations and legislation are very different, and have always been treated differently. After all, they're in separate articles of the Constitution. From 1917 to 1949 there was a cloture rule for legislation but not for nominations. It makes sense to have a 60-vote cloture rule for legislation, but a different threshold for nominations. A lower cloture threshold for nominations would make the Senate less likely to encroach upon the nomination power of the President (i.e. less likely to demand that particular people or types of people be nominated).