The Use of Filibuster to Block Presidential Nominees (Coursework Sample)

Name
Tutor
Subject
Date
The Use of Filibuster to Block Presidential Nominees
In the history of the Senate of United States (US), filibustering of the presidential nominees had been a critical issue which grew in intensity in the era of president Obama. A total of 168 nominees had been denied approval by the Senate, and alarming 82 in the President Obama’s administration alone. Initially, the majority in the Senate had to accrue at least 60 votes out of a possible 100 in order to get their nominees approved, but this was recently changed to a simple majority courtesy of the hard work by Harry Reid of Nevada, who is the leader of the majority in the Congress. However, the rule still applies to the Supreme Court nominees. The Democrats blamed the Republicans for being partisans and resorted to using the rule to settle election scores by preventing president Obama from filling up crucial posts in the executive and the judiciary. Although, the Republicans cautioned the democrats of the regrettable consequences in the future for amending the rule and accused Democrats of grabbing power by changing the laws which recognized the importance of the minority in the Senate, Reid went ahead to table it in the house for voting, a process dubbed ‘the nuclear option’ in which the amendment won by 52 votes out of 100. The repealed rule has allowed President Obama to maneuver his nominees through and continue filling administrative gaps which were interfering with the effectiveness of his governance because crucial positions were left vacant for quite a while due to the nominees being filibustered in the Senate. This paper’s objective is to provide a discussion on the use of the filibuster to block presidential nominees by the US Senate.
The main area of contention currently is the judicial nominees especially the controversial nominees to the Supreme Court. The Republicans wanted to hold the Democrats ransom by asserting that they will recognize the amendments applicable to the judicial nominees including those of the Supreme Court, but Reid insisted that the Democrats would like to maintain the ability of the minority in the Congress to filibuster controversial presidential nominees of the Supreme Court. Despite the possible consequences, the proponents of the change have based their support on the rationale that the current minority have abused the rule resulting in stalled government business. They accept the fact that the current majority could be a minority in the future, but the step was indispensable for the running of the government at the present because the country could not be managed with crucial positions being left vacant while a list of nominees piled in the Senate awaiting for approval. The situation was precipitated by the rapid growth in the blockade of many executive and judicial nominees compelling the majority to use the ‘nuclear option’ as a damage control strategy. The trends demonstrated a spiked filibustering, backlog of presidential nominees, and to logjam the escalating circumstances, it was necessary for Democratic senators to vote for the amendments.
Some senators praised the step as commendable and approved it as the most important alteration in the rules governing the activities of the Senate. They cited the filibustering rule to have evolved into a gridlock plague in the Congress by Republicans becoming excessively partisans even in the issues which required immediate amicable responses such as approving executive and judicial presidential nominees for crucial positions left vacant. The Republicans accused the majority Democrats of invoking the meaning of the Constitution as framed by the Founding Fathers by trampling on the rights of the minority aimed at protecting the Senate, the country, and keeping the government in check. Contrary to the past when the minority used to drag debates in the Congress, the Senate will be in a position to end deliberations on judicial and executive presidential nominees with just a simple majority rather than the previous the supermajority of 60 out of 100 votes. It is important that the Supreme Court nominees were not affected by the changes citing the contentions between liberal and conservative politics in the judiciary which require serious debating before appointing judges. These reforms had been brewing for a long time as evidenced by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge who exclaimed that the filibustering rule was stalling activities of the house by extended imbecile debating without voting and sometimes voting without debating which was perilous. In another scenario, president Woodrow Wilson had predicted that one day a remedy will be found by altering the filibuster rule to make it applicable for successful discussions instead of being used to settle political scores extended from the presidential elections (Cornyn 181-230).
There was a need for filibuster reforms because it used to break the confirmation process of the judicial presidential nominees as witnessed in the case of Estrada who was the first nominee in the US denied a chance for confirmation despite being supported by the Senate majority (Cornyn 183). Such events demonstrated the extent at which the judicial system is compromised by the Congress raising a need for reforms that would enable the Senate to commence afresh. According to Cornyn (188), the Senate’s tradition of filibustering presidential judicial and executive nominees was an abomination and virulent rule causing delays in the process of confirming nominees, something that was not necessary. The reforms were crucial because the filibuster rule was against the US Constitution providing the majority with the mandate to enjoy the majority rule as well as appointing judges. The rule also resulted in an artificial crisis due to a backlog of nominees. The rule had faced serious constitutional objections aimed at ensuring that both the president and the majority in the Senate continue enjoying the privilege of appointing both executive and judicial officials. This is because of the fact that the Constitution of the US is quite clear in stating that the majority should govern in a democratic system of government as the one practiced in the US (Cornyn 196). However, the constitution recognizes the use of the supermajority in some contexts such as expelling a member of the house of Congress, no senator can be impeached without two thirds of the Congress convening, the president can only be allowed to rectify treaties with a two thirds majority consent of the senators in the Congress, and amendments in the Constitution.
Filibustering rule as outlined in the modern constitutional law in the US in rule XXII was considered not only the most troubling counter-majoritarian rule but also a rate limiting step in the function of the government due to delayed crucial appointments and nominations by the president. Through a vote against cloture, the rule provided the Senate minority with the mandate to sustain unproductive debates indefinitely in the form of a filibuster (Magliocca 304). Several proposals were recommended, in vain, to change the clause preventing the minority senators to filibuster presidential nominees or debate on the issue for more than a year. The proposal by Magliocca (305) was aimed at emulating the House of Lords in British, which could provide the perfect balance between the executive, congress, and majority versus minority rule. In order for such recommendations to be accepted, the Congress had to be convinced in accepting the filibuster to be transformed into a veto that suspend presidential nominees for a year before the majority gets their way. Convincing the Congress to adopt the proposal was another different task which resulted in the rule providing the minority with the powers to bully the majority in the presidential nominees for both executive and judicial posts; hence hindering the programs of the federal government. The filibuster rule presented a paradigm shift of the Senate’s norms from an era of Congress functioning without a cloture rule to an age of filibuster which blocked presidential nominees. The Congress used to enjoy productive unlimited debates while the majority had the mandate to move the bill to final voting stage prior to the enactment of the rule (Magliocca 312). The situation later changed when the Congress became more about partisan than issue oriented; hence hindering positive discussions and blocking presidential nominees.
Prior to amending the filibuster rule, the minority dictated the end of debates regarding presidential nominees by allowing the issue to proceed to the final stage of voting, while the majority had the option to make a verdict on the bill to be discussed in the Congress. Senator Robert experienced a potential filibuster in attempts to change the rule to stop the minority from blocking presidential nominees in 1971 (Gold and Dimple 207). He argues that the Constitution was superior to the Senate and provided for a majority rule; therefore, it should be obeyed by the Congress. Despite the filibuster rule preventing the presidential nominees to get votes, the majority has the Constitutional option of invoking the powers of the Senate and forcing a vote. The first Senate in the history of the US had only 20 senators, whose minority was not believed to be able to cause an unlimited debate as observed in the dignified Senate that resulted in the change of rules. Such partisan strategies to hinder the incumbent government were not known to the first Senate, and the original rules of the Senate allowed a senator to bring up a motion for the questions discussed previously before the main question of the day was discussed with the co0nsent of the majority who could also end a debate at discretion (Gold and Dimple 214). It was not until 1806 that Aaron Burr made a creation of a chance to filibuster by revisiting...