|
 Over the longer term, they might regret what they did and how they
did it, Republicans and others are warning.
When Democrats muscled the changes through Thursday over the
opposition of every GOP senator, it helped heighten Congress'
already high level of partisan animosity. Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid, D-Nev., used a process that let Democrats unilaterally
weaken the filibuster by simple majority vote, rather than the
two-thirds margin usually used for major changes in chamber rules,
which would have required GOP support.
"If the majority can change the rules, then there are no rules,"
said veteran Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has resisted similar
changes in the past. "It puts a chill on the entire U.S. Senate."
Such comments suggested a further erosion in the mutual trust the
two parties would need to tackle sensitive, large-scale issues like
still-massive budget deficits and a tax system overhaul. The
tensions also won't help Congress' efforts early next year to avoid
another government shutdown and prevent a federal default, twin
disputes that the two parties struggled to resolve this fall.
And even though Thursday's change left intact the 60 Senate votes
needed to filibuster, or delay, legislation, it raised an obvious
question: Might a future Senate majority, hitting obstacles
advancing a president's agenda, ram through changes weakening
filibusters against bills too?
In control of both the White House and Congress someday, Senate
Republicans might be tempted to force a filibuster change to cover
legislation and use it, for example, to repeal Obama's health care
law.
"I don't think this is a time to be talking about reprisals," Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said after the vote. He said
later, "The solution to this problem is at the ballot box. We look
forward to having a great election in November 2014."
McConnell spoke after the Senate voted 52-48 to allow a simple
majority vote to end filibusters, instead of the 60 votes required
since 1975. The change affects nominees for top federal agency and
judicial appointments, but not Supreme Court justices.
Republicans had warned repeatedly that should they win Senate
control, they will happily use the diluted filibuster to win Senate
approval for future nominees by GOP presidents that under past
standards Democrats might have blocked.
"The silver lining is that there will come a day when the roles are
reversed," said Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, top Republican on the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He warned that when his party wins a
Senate majority they likely will apply the 51-vote filibuster
threshold to a Republican president's Supreme Court nominees.
"The tyranny of the majority. That's what it's going to be" at some
point in the future, predicted Steve Bell, a former top Senate
Republican aide who is now a senior director at the Bipartisan
Policy Center, which advocates partisan cooperation.
Democrats said GOP delays had gone too far, blocking nominees not
for their qualifications or ideology but for political reasons like
preventing too many Democrats from serving on a court.
[to top of second column] |
Republicans argued that Democrats have acted similarly to block
appointments by GOP presidents and warned they would use Senate
rules to their advantage whenever they win control of the chamber.
"We understand all the considerations," Reid said of the risks. "But
let's be realistic. What could they do more to slow down the
country? What could they do more than what they've already done to
stop the Senate from legislating?"
"We'd much prefer the risk of up-or-down votes and majority rule
than the risk of continued total obstruction," said New York Sen.
Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democratic leader.
Immediately after the showdown roll call, senators voted to end GOP
delays against attorney Patricia Millett, whom Obama wants to fill
one of three vacancies at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit. The powerful court has jurisdiction over White
House and federal agency actions.
Millett will be formally confirmed after the Senate returns from a
two-week Thanksgiving recess.
December votes were also planned on District Judge Robert L. Wilkins
and law professor Cornelia Pillard, two other Obama choices
Republicans had blocked for the D.C. Circuit. That will give judges
picked by Democratic presidents a 7-4 edge over those selected by
Republicans for that court.
Labor and liberal groups hailed the filibuster curbs, expressing
satisfaction that Democrats had finally stood up to the GOP.
"There was no choice," said Nan Aron, president of the liberal
coalition Alliance for Justice. "The Republican minority had turned
the existing rules into weapons of mass obstruction."
But Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, one of three Democrats who voted
against diluting the filibuster, noted that past Democratic
minorities have used the procedure to block GOP moves to limit
abortion rights and repeal the estate tax.
He said he feared that a future Senate majority would weaken
filibusters against legislation and "down the road, the hard-won
protections and benefits for our people's health and welfare will be
lost."
[Associated
Press; ALAN FRAM]
Associated Press writer
Henry C. Jackson contributed to this report.
Copyright 2013 The Associated
Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
