filibuster

  • December 6, 2013
    BookTalk
    The Federalist Society
    How Conservatives Took the Law Back from Liberals
    By: 
    Michael Avery and Danielle McLaughlin

    by Michael Avery and Danielle McLaughlin. Mr. Avery is Professor of Law and Director of Litigation at Suffolk University Law School. Ms. McLaughlin is an associate at Nixon Peabody.

    In mid-November the Democrats finally exercised the so-called “nuclear option,” barring filibusters for all votes on judicial appointments in the Senate, other than for Supreme Court Justices. The change in the Senate Rules followed the Republican filibuster of three of President Obama’s nominees for the very conservative D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and the radical increase in opposition to presidential judicial choices by Republicans since 2009. According to Harry Reid, almost half of the filibusters of presidential judicial nominations in our Nation’s history have been used against President Obama’s selections. The rules change will allow a simple majority of senators present and voting to approve presidential nominees to the federal bench and eliminate the 60-vote supermajority required to overcome a filibuster.

    Right-wing ideologues have been successful since the 1980 election of President Reagan in securing judicial appointments for conservatives during Republican presidencies. Ed Meese, the Reagan Attorney General and now elder statesman of the conservative legal movement, said that “no President exercises any power more far reaching, more likely to influence his legacy, than the selection of federal judges.” The Federalist Society, whose founders were mentored by Meese in the Reagan White House and Department of Justice, has always believed that the easiest way to change the law is to change the judges. We document their success in doing so at all levels of the federal judiciary in our book, The Federalist Society: How Conservatives Took the Law Back from Liberals. Federalist Society members are just as active with respect to judicial selection when a Democrat is president as they are when a Republican is in the White House. For example, in 2010, the Judicial Confirmation Network, formed to promote George W. Bush’s judicial nominations, simply changed its name to the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), once President Obama began nominating judges. The leadership of the group remained in the hands of key Federalist Society members and it lobbied actively against the president’s appointments.

  • November 11, 2013

    by Richard W. Painter, the S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law, University of Minnesota Law School. Mr. Painter served as the Associate Counsel to the President in the White House Counsel’s Office as the chief ethics lawyer (2005-2007). Painter is co-author of the ACS Issue Brief, “Extraordinary Circumstances: The Legacy of the Gang of 14 and a Proposal for Judicial Nominations.”

    Cornelia Pillard, who has been nominated by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has been favorably reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She still, however, awaits a vote by the full Senate on her nomination. The vote should be held promptly, and should be in the affirmative.

    I have no personal or professional connection with Pillard (pictured), but I believe it is important for the Senate to confirm qualified nominees for the federal judiciary, and she is one of them.
     
    I have not seen a record of appellate advocacy as impressive as Pillard’s since I worked in the White House Counsel’s Office on the 2006 nomination of John Roberts to become Chief Justice of the United States.

    Pillard has worked with a broad range of distinguished appellate lawyers on a wide range of cases, and she knows how courts properly decide cases. Lawyers like Pillard who have in depth experience in appellate advocacy understand the limited role of judges in interpreting and applying the law and know that responsible judges will not assume the role of elected legislators, who make laws. We would significantly diminish the risk of having an activist judiciary if all or most federal appellate judges were to have appellate advocacy experience similar to Pillard’s before they go on the bench. The Senate should not pass up an opportunity to confirm a nominee who has such experience and who will likely impart some of her wisdom and constraint to colleagues on the court.

  • July 16, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    As AEI’s Norman Ornstein predicted last week at a Common Cause event on the escalating use of the filibuster to scuttle consideration of legislation and nominations, senators crafted a deal to avoid a slight change to rules governing the filibuster.

    TPM’s Sahil Kapur reports that the deal means that nominees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Environmental Protection Agency, the Labor Department and the Export-Import Bank would get up-or-down votes in the Senate. Also Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, appointed to the NLRB via recess appointments and then re-nominated by President Obama would have to be replaced with new nominees, but with a written promise that the new nominees would be confirmed before the end of August. Following the deal the Senate voted to begin debate on the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the CFPB. Cordray’s (pictured) was recess-appointed to the position by President Obama because of Republican opposition to the agency created by financial overhaul legislation.

    Yesterday during an event at the Center for American Progress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that the only way for Senate Republicans to avoid a vote to slightly change the rules surrounding the filibuster would be to stop blocking consideration of the president’s executive branch nominees. Regarding today’s deal he said, “I think we see a way forward that will be good for everybody,” The New York Times reports.

    Common Cause, which last year lodged a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the filibuster, said the deal should be the start of further action on the filibuster.

    “A vote on these nominees should be just the starting point for rules changes that would break the Senate’s gridlock permanently,” said Common Cause Staff Counsel Stephen Spaulding. “Senate rules should guarantee a prompt review in committee and confirmation by a simple majority vote for ALL future presidential nominees.”

    In a recent guest post for ACSblog, former ethics attorney for President George W. Bush also urged action on the filibuster, saying the “situation is even worse under President Obama now that Senate Republicans who once said they despised the filibuster have shown they actually enjoy it.”

    Regarding judicial nominations, which were not on the table in the discussions that lead to today’s deal, there are more than 80 federal court vacancies, 32 of them considered judicial emergencies. The high vacancy rate has plagued the majority of Obama’s time in office. As noted here Republicans led by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) are threatening to scuttle or greatly stall President Obama’s nominations to fill the three vacant seats on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit hears myriad constitutional concerns, including many challenges to government regulations intended to enforce environmental laws. For more about vacancies on the federal bench, see JudicialNominations.org.

  • July 12, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Richard W. Painter, former Associate Counsel to the President and Chief White House ethics lawyer, 2005-2007. Painter is co-author of the ACS Issue Brief, “Extraordinary Circumstances: The Legacy of the Gang of 14 and a Proposal for Judicial Nominations Reform.”

    Word on Capitol Hill is that Senate Democrats are thinking seriously about changing the Senate's rules to make filibusters less likely. This is a welcome development because the filibuster -- a procedural mechanism for refusing to allow any vote to take place -- has no place in a body that prides itself on deliberation and decision. A decision not to decide, or to allow a minority of senators to prevent the others from deciding, is not deliberation. It is nothing more than obstruction, a way of saying that "if the majority won't vote my way I won't let them vote at all."

    Less than a decade ago the tables were turned and Democrats used filibusters to block President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. Republicans considered amending the Senate's rules to eliminate or reduce the likelihood of filibusters, but in the end they chickened out. They were perhaps more interested in preserving their power to frustrate a future Democratic president than in supporting President Bush. Perhaps they believed that even senators of the president's own political party benefit from filibusters because they can ask the White House for something in return for trying to break the filibuster. For whatever reason Senate Republicans failed to do something about the problem and some of President Bush's most qualified judicial nominees were kept off the federal courts as a result. Other nominees had to wait around for months before they were finally confirmed.

    This situation is even worse under President Obama now that Senate Republicans who once said they despised the filibuster have shown that they actually enjoy it. Thus far, Senate Democrats have followed the precedent of whining about the filibuster but not doing anything about it, perhaps fearing that they may once again be in the minority with a Republican in the White House.  

  • July 11, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) may be nearing a vote to alter procedures around the filibuster, which Senate Republicans have used over and over again to kill consideration of major legislation and seriously delay or scuttle President Obama’s nominations to the federal bench and to executive branch openings. For that matter, as former Labor Secretary Robert Reich recently wrote the Senate Republicans “have filibustered almost everything, betting that voters will blame Democrats for the dysfunction in the Congress as much as they blame the GOP.”

    Reid, according to The New York Times is considering asking his Democratic peers in the Senate to vote to “take the exceptional step of barring the minority party from filibustering presidential appointees.” The report continues, however, that such action would not “affect filibusters of legislation or judicial nominees.” At the moment there are still more than 80 vacancies on the federal bench. The vacancies have hovered at 80 or above for years now. (See JudicialNominations.org for more information about the vacancies.)  

    Yesterday, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Republicans signaled they were preparing to delay or block President’s Obama’s nominees to the U.S. Court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

    Earlier this year Reid, after threatening a similar action on the filibuster, instead entered into an agreement with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that has been widely panned as ineffective.

    Reid, from the Senate floor, blasted McConnell for failing to adhere to the modest agreement. “Exactly three weeks after Senator McConnell committed to process nominees consistent with the norms and traditions of the Senate, he led Republicans in an unprecedented filibuster of a highly qualified nominee for Secretary of Defense,” Reid said. “Nothing could be a starker violation of a commitment to return to the norms and traditions of the Senate than launching the first-ever filibuster of a Secretary of Defense.”

    Reid ticked off other executive branch and federal agency positions that Republicans are stalling or threatening to block, such as nominations to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Labor.