So, based on Jeremy Peters’ reporting in the New York Times, it looks like the Senate Democrats have coalesced around a strategy that will kill the filibuster for presidential appointees, but not for judicial nominations. If that’s the best they can do, it’s better than nothing, but it’s stupid.
If the Senate “breaks the rules to change the rules,” as Mitch McConnell is so fond of saying, they will create a nasty precedent that the Republicans will be only too eager to use in the future. It is, after all, the changing of the rules in mid-session that is more important than the substance of the rules change. Once it is done once, it is easier to do in the future. So, if the Dems are holding off on getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees because they want to reserve the right to filibuster Republican judicial appointments in the future, that’s a pipe dream. They should just bite the bullet and do away with the filibuster for all nominations, regardless of whether they are for the executive or judicial branches.
Whenever the Republicans have the chance to confirm a Republican president’s nominations, they are going to do away with the filibuster anyway, so the Dems should not pretend otherwise. The country has become too polarized to function with a 60-vote requirement for nominations. The sooner the Dems accept that, the better.
