Nominations get Nom'd!

Today I want to take a second to talk about a back burner issue that most people don't think too much about. It's one that, never the less, can affect policy and real people's lives and can cause a lot of consternation in the Senate. If you guessed Nominations (judicial and otherwise) you guessed right!

Really the only time Senate nomination hearings get any kind of real press coverage is when we're in the market for a new Supreme Court Justice. And rightfully so. If we're only going to pay attention to this important part of the Senate's job occasionally, that is certainly the occasion to pay attention. But I'm going to make the arguement that these sorts of nomination hearings are much more important than that.

Currently, the GOP caucus in the Senate is holding up a number of nomination hearings. The most recent to make any kind of news is that of Craig Baker for a position on the National Labor Relations Board. His nomination failed with 52 yea votes. Take a minute and look at that. The Senate has 100 members. So if Mr. Baker got 52, why did his nomination fail you ask? Because of the ever present Filibuster. In the world of the Senate right now, the GOP is threatening filibuster on every issue. Every nomination, piece of legislation, and every other bit of Senate business. Even that which they themselves propose. It's a tactic to make the Democrats look like they're weak and can't get anything done. Other recent examples are Erroll Southers and the Shelby snafu from the New York Times and Talking Points Memo respectively. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby blocked every nominee waiting for Senate hearings. He's effectively holding up the funcitoning of government all by himself. In fact, the only thing more effective at that right now is the Mid-Atlantic Snowpocalypse. This is the problem.

I am realizing now that this is more of a filibuster post than a nominee post, but forgive me for positing that the two issues are hopelessly tangled up.

There are several options for solving our filibuster problem and getting the country back to doing business. Honestly, I'd rather get rid of it. This allows the checks and balances of the system to work best. In that sort of system any percieved overreach by one party will be checked, eventually by the other when they come back into power. The good stuff will remain however. Things like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security which the GOP was against initially (and still are) will stay because they recognize the political popularity of these programs. As it currently stands it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass a cloture motion. This is down from from the 67 originally mandated after 1975. I would argue that it needs to come down further if it should remain at all. Perhaps 55 or 53 votes would be better. But then again, at that point we're rapidly approaching cloture invocation at a simple majority of 50 which makes the provision essentially dead anyway.

I am sure I'll wax about this more later. It's an ongoing issue that will generate it's own news one way or the other. Likewise, I see it as an important question our Democracy is facing right now. I promise more coverage.