Inching forward on the ‘nuclear option’
Senate Republicans are either bluffing or they’ve assembled the votes they need to pass the “nuclear option.”
Republicans believe they have enough votes to end the filibustering of judicial nominees, a landmark change in Senate rules that would clear the way for President Bush to get conservative judges confirmed but could draw a forceful reaction from minority Democrats, who have threatened to use procedural moves to shut down the chamber in retaliation.
Republican activists working on the issue say they have one last obstacle to making the change — their second-ranking Senate leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who is said to be reluctant to take such a radical step. As majority whip, McConnell wields considerable power over the Republican caucus and members would be hesitant to proceed without his approval.
Supporters of the change say McConnell has argued in closed-door leadership meetings that there was not sufficient public clamor for the change. Conservative leaders plan to pressure him while activists work to raise grass-roots anger at Democratic filibusters, procedural maneuvers that have blocked votes on 10 of Bush’s most conservative nominees to federal appeals courts.
It’s not outside the realm of possibility that the GOP is bluffing. Firm head counts are rare, but various reports indicate that Sens. McCain, Hagel, Chafee, Snowe, Collins, and Specter are not on board with the “nuclear option,” which would leave Republicans short of a majority. And yet, in this article, the GOP claims 53 votes. It sounds like an exaggeration, unless a few opponents have changed their minds.
That said, it also sounds like the right is gearing up for a heck of a fight.
Republicans close to the Senate leadership say they want to force the issue next month by voting to end filibusters in connection with one of Bush’s nominees to a federal appeals court, so the rules-change fight will not taint a Supreme Court candidate. There has not been a Supreme Court vacancy in 10 years, but several of the aging justices — including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who will turn 81 in October — have been treated for serious ailments.
”As we get closer to an anticipated opening on the Supreme Court, that creates a sense of urgency to invoke [the rules change] sooner rather than later, so we put that obstacle behind us as we move into a potential Supreme Court battle,” said Richard Lessner, executive director of the American Conservative Union. ”If we’re going to have a battle over a Supreme Court nominee, let’s not also have a simultaneous fight over Senate rules.”
I’m not entirely sure why McConnell has taken on so much significance here. He hasn’t been a leading skeptic of the “nuclear option” and a spokesperson for his office told the Globe that he’ll vote with his party if Bill Frist pulls the trigger.
Regardless, the right seems to be circling the wagons. Ed Meese, Reagan’s attorney general, and C. Boyden Gray, George H. W. Bush’s White House counsel, said yesterday they want the Senate to move ahead with the scheme, and even George Will, who recently wrote a column urging lawmakers to steer clear of the “nuclear option,” has announced that he’s changed his mind.
We’ll see what happens, of course, but it’ll be interesting to see how much lower public opinion of Congress can get once the Senate can no longer function.