Does the filibuster “threaten the very integrity” of the Senate? Or is it “part of the fabric of this institution”? If you’re Harry Reid, the answer depends on whether you are the Senate majority leader or the Senate minority leader.
Right now, Reid’s Democrats control Congress’ upper house. As majority leader, he’s frustrated because the GOP has blocked some of President Obama’s appointments. So Reid has now issued a threat: Unless Republicans allow a vote on all seven of Obama’s unconfirmed nominees, he’ll push through the so-called “nuclear option” — a rule change that would effectively eliminate the filibuster for executive-branch nominations.
Last night senators from the two parties met behind closed doors to try to come to some kind of compromise. To be honest, neither party comes to the table on this issue with clean hands.
Today it’s Republicans blocking President Obama’s appointees. But not so long ago Democrats were doing the same to block President Bush’s.
The truth is, Republicans and Democrats use the filibuster when it’s in their interests, and rail against it when it’s not.
Back when Republicans were threatening their own nuclear option because Democrats were blocking President Bush’s judicial nominees, Reid opposed any change. In a book he later wrote, he put it this way: “Once you open the Pandora’s box, it was just a matter of time before a Senate leader who couldn’t get his way on something moved to eliminate the filibuster for regular business as well. That, simply put, would be the end of the Senate.”
The real problem here is that the modern filibuster has been cheapened. The best fix would be to go back to the old rules and insist that anyone who wants a filibuster to, well, filibuster — i.e., to speak continually to stave off a vote. In recent months we’ve seen these old-fashioned filibusters used in perfectly appropriate ways, by the GOP’s Rand Paul in the US Senate and the Democrats’ Wendy Davis in the Texas Senate.
A real filibuster would force senators to calculate political risks and literally take a stand if he or she wants to block a president’s choice. Harry Reid is right that the Senate needs some strong medicine. But he’s mistaking the cure for the disease.