Filibuster Nuclear Option Could Backfire Politically

April 04--WASHINGTON -- An all-but-inevitable Senate rule change to end filibusters of all U.S. Supreme Court nominees will not only affect how high court nominees are selected, vetted and confirmed, but could also lead down a slippery slope that permanently changes how Congress works.

"That will certainly lead to cries from some in the Republican majority to extend the 'nuclear option' to cover legislation as well," said Gregory Koger, a University of Miami political science professor who has testified before Congress and authored a book on filibustering.

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the nomination of federal Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's pick for the court, as Senate Democrats announced they had enough votes to block a procedural vote and hold up the nominee.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has stopped short of formally declaring he'll change Senate rules to drop the threshold for cloture -- a vote to end debate on a nominee and proceed to a confirmation vote -- from 60 votes to a simple 51-vote majority. But he has repeatedly declared that Gorsuch "will be confirmed this week." Senate aides said the rule change, referred to as the "nuclear option," is all but a certainty.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who served as the 41st senator to declare an intention to filibuster Gorsuch -- joining Massachusetts Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Edward Markey -- decried the expected rule change, saying he hoped that Democrats and Republicans come together to find a way to avoid it.

"We have eroded the process for reaching agreement and dishonored our long traditions of acting above partisanship," said Coons.

The nuclear option, last used in 2013 by former Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to end filibusters of non-Supreme Court judicial nominees, could prove to be an irresistible option for other Senate actions in an effort to overcome partisan divisions. But pondering such a change for passing legislation, which would allow the party in power to pass bills with little or no notice, debate or amendments offered by the minority party, could be politically perilous, Koger said.

"There will be some senators who don't always want to go along with everything that their party wants to do. If you have the filibuster, that is not as obvious because the minority party is taking the lead in blocking the legislation," Koger said.

Without the filibuster, "senators will have to stand up to their own party and suffer the slings and arrows," Koger said.

___

(c)2017 the Boston Herald

Visit the Boston Herald at www.bostonherald.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.