Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Senate deploys the nuclear option. In tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal (online now), my old friend Sai Prakash and I defend the constitutionality of the Senate’s decision to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. We conclude: “Senators should stop worrying and learn to love the nuclear option.”
Democrats are crying foul, and Republican “institutionalists” have been expressing their regrets. The Democrats had every right to try a filibuster, a political tool with deep Senate roots. But the Republicans also had every right to abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. In 2013, Democrats under the leadership of Harry Reid made the same change with respect to all other appointments.
When Republicans made clear they would take the next step, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said it was somehow a “bigger mistake” than the one the Democrats had made in 2013. Delaware’s Sen. Chris Coons called it a “tragic” choice. Only three Democrats dissented from Mr. Reid’s effort in 2013—and neither Mr. Schumer nor Mr. Coons was among them. The shoe always pinches when it is on the other foot.
But Republicans had more than revenge on their side; they have the Constitution. Article II, Section 2 creates no special vote threshold for nominees. By contrast, it explicitly requires “two thirds of the Senators present concur” to approve treaties. The Founders never constitutionalized the filibuster; the first one occurred in 1837. Congress managed to reach fundamental decisions—the creation of the first departments, the proposing of the Bill of Rights, the establishment of Hamilton’s national bank—without it. No filibuster was necessary then to secure a senatorial consensus. Nor, as the Gorsuch conflict demonstrates, can a filibuster today heal partisan polarization.
But Ricochet-ers: is this a move that Republicans will regret? Are we to worry about the decline of institutional checks on the-majority-rules democracy?