Category News

Republicans Shouldn’t Overuse the FIlibuster on Judicial Nominees

Danny Vinik Leave a comment

I’m in transit today so this is just a quick post. Back with more tomorrow.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) will bring up the nomination of Patricia Millet to the D.C. Circuit Court this week. Millet is one of three nominations that Reid plans to bring up for a vote in the next few weeks. The D.C. District Court clearly is a Republican stalwart and has been one of the best ways for conservatives to derail the Obama administration’s legislative agenda as it has jurisdiction over many federal laws (environmental regulations, labor conflicts, etc.). Republicans are eager to keep it that way, but Obama’s three nominees of the court would swing it in the Democrats favor. That’s set up another possible filibuster battle with Reid potentially using the nuclear option to change the Senate rules on judicial nominees (as he threatened to do this past summer before Republicans caved) and force the candidates through. So, should Republicans filibuster?

The answer is found in a Jonathan Bernstein post from this afternoon. Here’s a part of it:

 In my view, large, intense minorities should have an opportunity to block lifetime appointments. As a practical matter, however, they’re only going to be able to keep that opportunity if they use it sparingly. Arbitrary declarations by the minority that appointments to regular vacancies are “court packing,” backed by partisan filibusters, are exactly the kind of thing that will lead to the demise of any minority influence whatsoever.

Republicans are jeopardizing the ability of the minority party to influence federal appointments. The filibuster exists here for a reason. But that reason is not so that a party can block all judicial nominees in order to arbitrarily keep control over it. If Republicans have a serious issue with a candidate, a filibuster is understandable. But blocking three candidates all at once? That’s not.

Republicans should tread even more carefully here, because it’s very unclear if they can take back the Senate next year. If not, that means they have a number of years of dealing with federal nominees as the minority party. If they force Reid to use the nuclear option now, Democrats will easily push through their candidates for the next three years. Republicans will lose their most powerful tool with many years left in the Obama presidency. They may think that Reid will back down and withdraw the nominees, but I find that unlikely. The majority leader showed no willingness to give an inch during the shutdown fight and I expect that to continue here. Republicans are taking a risk if they do choose to filibuster. It’s not a risk that they should take.

Midday Links

Danny Vinik Leave a comment

Ted Cruz’s Iowa Speech Reveals the Limits of the Grassroots

Danny Vinik Leave a comment

On Friday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.) headlined Iowa’s annual GOP fundraising dinner, speaking for 45 minutes without a teleprompter or notes. It was Cruz’s third trip to Iowa, likely in preparation for a 2016 presidential run.

Much of his speech was centered on Obamacare and the government shutdown, which he still believes was a success despite receiving no concessions from President Obama and angering many people in his party.

“One of the things we accomplished in the fight over Obamacare,” he said. “is we elevated the national debate over what a disaster, what a train wreck, how much Obamacare is hurting millions of Americans across this country.”

That’s not actually true. The shutdown overshadowed the launch of the government exchanges, which have had massive issues during the first couple of weeks and have seen only marginal improvements since. Once the shutdown finished and debt ceiling deal was complete, the media’s attention turned to Obamacare and the administration has been on the defensive since. Cruz’s strategy provided a distraction from Obamacare during what may be its darkest hour. That’s not exactly elevating “the national debate over what a disaster” it is. In fact, it’s the opposite.

But Cruz is right about one thing: the grassroots support around the country is impacting American politics.

“For everyone who talks about wanting to win elections in 2014 — particularly an off-year, nonpresidential year — nothing, nothing, nothing,nothing matters more than an energized and active and vocal grassroots America,” he said. “I’m convinced we’re facing a new paradigm in politics. It is the rise of the grassroots.”

At the fundraiser, Cruz pointed out five issues that the Tea Party base has successfully influenced:

  1. Gun control and the Manchin-Toomey Bill
  2. Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) filibuster over drone policy
  3. Comprehensive immigration reform
  4. Bipartisan disagreement over Obama’s Syria strategy
  5. The government shutdown

Looking at each one of those issues, it’s clear that Cruz has a point. Despite most Americans being in favor of universal background checks, pressure from the small but powerful gun-rights groups (most of whom are Tea Partiers) convinced lawmakers to oppose it. Paul’s filibuster made national headlines and provoked a new conversation over America’s drone policy. Immigration reform is also favored by the majority of Americans, including citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States, but the odds of any legislation passing look slim thanks to the Tea Party. Obama’s decision to ask Congress for approval to attack Syria may not have resulted from grassroots anger, but the slim chances he had of receiving a force authorization were certainly a result of bipartisan opposition to his proposals. Finally, the government shutdown was the direct result of the Tea Party’s fury at Obamacare, forcing GOP lawmakers to go along or be labeled a RINO.

In each situation, the grassroots Tea Party base, despite representing less than a quarter of the electorate, had a significant impact on the policy debate. The Tea Party has earned this power by developing a vocal, angry foundation that it can mobilize to have an outsized effect on elections. Cruz is right. The grassroots truly is powerful.

However, what the junior senator has not grasped is that there is a limit to this power. In the end, the Tea Party still represents a small part of the electorate and their scorched-earth tactics have earned the derision of much of the nation. The problem with having enough power to block popular legislation is that you make a number of enemies by doing so. Cruz & Co. make even more enemies when they choose tactics that have no chance of success.

In the other four issues he cites, the conservative base achieved their goals. They scuttled universal background checks, immigration reform and a strike on Syria and brought drone policy to national attention. The government shutdown was different. It was bound to fail from the beginning, but Cruz didn’t care. Now, the Republican Party has its lowest favorability ratings of all time and Cruz’s favorables with non-Tea Partiers have plummeted. He’s solidified his position as cult hero amongst the Tea Party, but at the expense of alienating the Republican establishment, crowding out media coverage of HealthCare.gov’s struggles and damaging his credibility as a strategic thinker. Cruz is right that the grassroots has become a powerful force in politics, but the government shutdown revealed the limits of that power. Likewise, Cruz has become an imposing figure in the Senate, but the past month demonstrated that he faces limitations as well.