sen. Tom Udall

  • February 6, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    A gaggle of senators, typically given to grousing about so-called activist judges, is agitating for court intervention into the president’s recent recess appointments, which The Atlantic’s Andrew Cohen highlights for its hypocrisy.

    As Cohen notes, Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) agreed to join other senators in filing a “friend of the court brief in support of the federal legal challenges to President Obama’s recess appointments of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and three selections to the National Labor Relations Board. On Friday the senators issued a letter about their intent to file the brief, which will argue that the appointments are unconstitutional.

    All of those senators, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have at one time or another expressed outrage over judges who supposedly legislate from the bench. So Cohen finds “something deliciously hypocritical” of their call for a federal court to take action and nullify the president’s recess appointments.  

    Cohen has some advice on how Democrats should respond to the Republicans’ call for judicial action over the administration’s recess appointments, writing, “If I were a Democrat in the Senate, or a White House tribune, I would be responding to the GOP lawsuit letter by loudly doubling down on the concept of having judges determine political procedure. Republicans want the courts involved in recess appointments? Fine. Then they should embrace the notion that the federal courts ought to decide whether the filibuster is constitutional was well. After all, it has less explicit constitutional support than a recess appointment, does it not?”

    Since it is likely that the Republican senators do not actually want judges determining the constitutionality of recess appointments or wading into the Senate’s use of the filibuster, they might more seriously focus on reforming procedure. Indeed it was the Senate Republican’s stalling tactics on Cordray’s nomination and the selections to the NLRB that prompted the recess appointments.

  • January 28, 2011
    Guest Post

    By Sandy Newman. Mr. Newman is the President of Voices for Progress, and was one of the leaders of the Fix the Senate Now Coalition.

    Senators Tom Udall, Jeff Merkley and Tom Harkin have been extraordinary leaders of a hard-fought effort to reform the Senate rules. ACS, while not taking a position on specific proposals, worked to educate Senators about the constitutional history and the extent of current filibuster abuse. More than sixty organizations involved in an informal Fix the Senate Now coalition joined in supporting their proposals. It is therefore unsurprising that, with the defeat of the Udall, Merkley, and Harkin resolutions yesterday, the initial takeaway is that "reformers lost."

    My take: Yesterday was a day of considerable progress in the latest round of a multi-round fight to make the Senate work.

    Reformers won modest changes in the rules themselves by way of a deal negotiated between the leadership of both parties. They showed that they had nearly majority support for more substantial reforms. And they won an assurance that instead of Democrats playing by one rulebook when they are in the majority, only to have the Republicans subjugate them with different rules later, both parties will play by the same rules.

    Reformers did not prevail on a key procedural issue. They knew that, as in past rules reform battles, those opposed to reform would filibuster the proposed changes. Reformers relied on judicial and Senate precedents affirming that, because a previous Senate can't constitutionally limit the powers of today's Senate, a majority is sufficient to break a filibuster - if it does so before the Senate implicitly ratifies the old rules by operating under them. This procedure, the "Constitutional Option," differed from the 2005 "Nuclear Option," in which the Republicans attempted to throw out the rules in the middle of a session, after the new Congress had already ratified them.

    Senators Udall, Merkley and Harkin had put forward a proposal fair to both parties, one that they knew was unlikely to garner unanimous Democratic support. They had hoped to win the support of some Republicans for both the substantive proposals and the Constitutional Option, especially since so many Republicans had supported the far more radical Nuclear Option. In the end, even Republicans who had publicly called for reform refused to back their reform proposals.