[November 21, 2013]WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is
nearing a potential showdown on curbing the power that the Republican
minority has to block President Barack Obama's nominations, as Democrats
edge toward muscling a rewrite of filibuster rules through the chamber.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was expected to force a
vote as soon as Thursday on requiring only 51 votes to end
filibusters, or delaying tactics, against nominees for high-level
judgeships and agency officials.
Currently it takes 60 votes to end filibusters. That is a tough
threshold for Democrats to achieve with their 55-45 edge over the
GOP and in today's prickly political climate.
The change would be the most far-reaching to filibuster rules since
1975, when a two-thirds requirement for cutting off filibusters
against legislation and all nominations was eased to today's
three-fifths, or 60-vote, level. It would deliver a major blow the
GOP's ability to thwart Obama in making appointments, though
Republicans have promised the same fate would await Democrats
whenever the GOP recaptures the White House and Senate control.
The clash was approaching as Democrats have grown increasingly
irritated by the GOP's derailing of Obama's selections for top jobs,
including three picks for pivotal judgeships in recent days.
"They have decided that their base demands a permanent campaign
against the president and maximum use of every tool available," Sen.
Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., a leading advocate of revamping filibuster
rules, said Wednesday of Republicans. He said that consideration "is
trumping the appropriate exercise of advice and consent" by GOP
senators.
Republicans say they are weary of repeated Democratic threats to
rewrite the rules. They say Democrats similarly obstructed some of
President George W. Bush's nominees and argue that the D.C.
Circuit's caseload is too low, which Democrats reject.
"I suspect the reason they may be doing it is hoping Republicans
overreact, and it's the only thing that they could think of that
would change the conversation about Obamacare," said Sen. Lamar
Alexander, R-Tenn., using the nickname for Obama's troubled health
care law. "But we're not that dumb."
Reid planned to use a procedural move called the "nuclear option"
that would allow him to change the filibuster rule with just 51
votes, meaning Democrats could push it through without GOP support.
Senate rules are more commonly changed with 67 votes.
Reid's proposal would not apply to legislation or Supreme Court
nominees, aides have said.
Nomination fights are not new in the Senate, but as the hostility
has grown, the two sides have been edging toward a collision for much
of this year.
The latest battle is over Obama's choices to fill three vacancies
at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Since Halloween, GOP filibusters have derailed the president's
nominations of District Judge Robert L. Wilkins, law professor
Cornelia Pillard and attorney Patricia Millett for those jobs, which
are lifelong.
The D.C. Circuit Court is viewed as second only to the Supreme
Court in power because it rules on disputes over White House and
federal agency actions. The circuit's eight judges are divided
evenly between Democratic and Republican presidential appointees.
Senior Democrats wary of future GOP retaliation until recently
opposed the move, but growing numbers of them have begun lining up
behind Reid's effort.
In addition, two dozen groups, including the AFL-CIO and Sierra
Club, wrote lawmakers Wednesday supporting the rules change because
"rampant, ideology-based obstructionism is the new norm in the U.S.
Senate."
This summer, Democrats dropped threats to rewrite Senate rules
after Republicans agreed to supply enough votes to end filibusters
against Obama's selections to head the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Labor Department and other federal agencies.
On Wednesday, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who helped fashion this
summer's bipartisan agreement, met with Reid to discuss ways to
avert the collision, according to aides from both parties who spoke
on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to
discuss the session by name.
