Think Hagel’s bad? Just wait until there’s a Supreme Court opening
The Hagel battle is actually a dry run for the next justice fight -- and it's clear that the GOP will filibuster
Topics: Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Harry Reid, Editor's Picks, Rand Paul, Filibuster, John Brennan, Politics News
Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Ted Cruz(Credit: Jeff Malet, maletphoto.com/AP/Jacquelyn Martin/Pat Sullivan)Compare that Russian meteor hit earlier this week to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. Got that? Now think about the Chuck Hagel filibuster — and what we can expect if a Supreme Court seat opens up sometime soon.
The Hagel filibuster seems to have fired up interest in Senate procedure, but it’s actually a little difficult to figure out what, if anything, is so unprecedented. The one thing that’s clearly new is that it’s the first time a cabinet nominee has lost a cloture vote. However, it’s certainly not the first time that 60 votes was required for a cabinet post; it’s not the first time that a cabinet nomination was delayed by opposition; and if current reports are correct, it won’t be the first time a cabinet nomination has been defeated by a filibuster. It certainly isn’t the first time a cloture vote has failed on an executive branch pick, or even a high-profile pick.
Some of this is just partisanship. Republicans are making the absurd claim that a 60-vote requirement isn’t a filibuster. Democrats are exaggerating how unprecedented this move is.
Still, the political press, and perhaps even Senate Democrats, seem surprised that Republicans really mean what they’ve been saying ever since Barack Obama was elected about requiring 60 votes to move anything through the Senate. And if there was a Senate norm against filibustering cabinet nominations, Republicans have no intention of honoring it.
And that matters because of the other supposed “tradition” that will be tested the first time there’s a Supreme Court opening: No Court selection has been denied by filibuster.
Now, the first problem with that claim is the case of Abe Fortas in 1968. The Senate took a cloture vote, which failed, and Fortas’ name was withdrawn. Senators opposing Fortas, however, claimed that it wasn’t really a filibuster — more or less in exactly the way that Republicans this week denied that the filibuster against Hagel was a “real” filibuster.
When it comes to norms, however, what really matters isn’t what actually happened in 1968 but what people now think happened. And during the judicial nomination fights when George W. Bush was president, Democrats called Fortas a precedent for judicial filibusters, while Republicans denied it. A contested precedent, presumably, is not a very strong precedent.
Jonathan Bernstein writes at a Plain Blog About Politics. Follow him at @jbplainblog More Jonathan Bernstein.




French President Hollande Signs Marriage Equality Bill
Obama Group Braces For Progressive Backlash Over Keystone
Republican Lawmakers Took IRS Union Campaign Cash
Comments
66 Comments