Mediaboss Marketing

Washington Just over a year ago, Senate Democrats went "nuclear," changing the rules to make it far easier to confirm most presidential nominees from judges to cabinet secretaries. Republicans, in response, went ballistic, issuing doomsday warnings of the move's consequences. Now, they may well keep the rule change.

Hypocrisy? Or practicality?

Continuing it would certainly go against the grain of Sen. Mitch McConnells pledge to restore the Senate to its traditional ways of working. The Republican from Kentucky, who will lead the Senate when the GOP takes controlJan. 6, plans to bring the subject up with his caucusTuesday.

But the spokesman for the current Senate majority leader, Harry Reid (D) of Nevada, says the nuclear option which removed the threat of a blocking filibuster from all nominees except for the Supreme Court was unequivocally worth it. The change to simple majority approval smoothed the gears of the Senate, allowing easier confirmation of nominees.

The move allowed Democrats to alleviate the emergency in judicial vacancies in federal courts, fill vacancies in the crucial federal circuit court of appeals that hears challenges to executive actions, and confirm key nominees, such as Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who was charged with planning the presidents executive action on immigration, writes spokesman Adam Jentleson in an email.

Indeed, the 113th Congress (2013-2014) has had a 95 percent rate of confirmation for judicial appointees unheard of, according to Sarah Binder, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution.

In short, why wouldn't a majority leader want to keep the Senate's new confirmation rule?

The main concern is that this path could turn into a slippery slope that fundamentally alters the character of the Senate and undermines the Founding Fathers' vision for the chamber. The threat of filibuster which requires 60 votes to overcome helps the Senate act in a deliberative way, so it can temper the hot-headed House, which requires only majority votes.

If Senator McConnell keeps the new rule intact, why stop there? Why not apply it to legislation? If a controlling party were to go that far, then the Senate would be little different from the House, where the majority can get what it wants without concern for what the opposing party thinks.

Thats why some Republicans, such as Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona, want to reverse the rule change and go back to the way things were. But McConnell has said that its hard to un-ring a bell. If Republicans change the rule back, they reason, Democrats can just unchange it the next time they are in power.

Link:
One year later, Senate's 'nuclear option' has worked. Is that good?