Last week, the Senate voted to not allow the minority party to filibuster presidential nominations other than Supreme Court justices. I disagree with this move in principle, as I believe that the minority party should have rights. However, as someone who studies government and has watched as the minority party has acted in a self-serving manner in order to prevent the president from making basic appointments, it is difficult to make a pragmatic case against what the Senate Democrats did. The Republican strategy of blocking every nominee they can in order to prevent the Democratic president from getting what he wants is childish, and impedes the function of government. The minority party, regardless of which party it is, has no right to use politically opportunistic tactics to keep our democracy from functioning as it is intended. While the use of the nuclear option is justified to assure that the president can appoint people to fill vacancies in the government, it would not be justifiable if it extended to legislation.
The fact that Senate Democrats were forced to use the nuclear option speaks to the sorry state of our Legislature and our political dialogue. It almost feels as though our Legislature has become a forum for a culture war rather than a functional and pragmatic branch of government.
Last I checked, President Barack Obama is the president, and the Constitution gives the president the authority to fill certain vacancies in the government with the advice and consent of the Senate. Senate Republicans have repeatedly used their caucus to stand in the way of his ability to do that. There are over 200 presidential appointments waiting to be confirmed, not because they are unqualified, but rather because the minority party wishes to impose its will on the majority. This undermines the legitimacy of our elections. President Obama won in 2012. He gets to make some appointments. That is part of the reason why we elected him. Standing in the way of his ability to do so is standing in the way of the will of the American people.
Furthermore this obstruction is politically self-serving and is intended to serve the best interests of the Republican party and not the American people. The overuse of the filibuster in the nomination process was a thinly veiled effort to run out the clock until Republicans could fill these vacancies. Government cannot function if a democratically elected president and Senate are prevented from making basic appointments by a political party wishing to serve its own best interests. These efforts undermine democracy and should not be allowed to continue.
While I am a Democrat, this strategy of obstruction is wrong, no matter which party employs it. If a democratic minority were preventing a Republican president and senate from being able to make basic appointments it would still be wrong because it is still an effort to thwart the will of our democracy. No party should be allowed to obstruct the basic function of government like this. I am glad that the Senate finally ended this insanity.
The Senate should not eliminate the filibuster for legislation because there is large difference between appointments and substantive law. The majority needs checks when changing the law and the minority should have a right to prevent objectionable policy, whereas vacancies need to be filled and the president has a right to fill them with whomever he sees fit.
I wish that the Senate were not forced to eliminate this filibuster for nominations as it could serve as a safeguard against poor judges, ambassadors and cabinet officials. Because it is clear that this obstruction was political strategy and because it is clear that it would impede the function of government for the coming years, it is right that the Democrats have eliminated the filibuster.
This is a sad reflection of where our political discourse is. Our Legislature should be pragmatic rather than ideological, and that starts with us electing people who want to get stuff done rather than advance an ideological agenda at all costs. The key to a functional democracy is compromise, and we have elected people who are not willing to compromise.
I hope in the future that the use of the filibuster in the nomination process can be implemented again as a safeguard against incompetent government officials, but in the current political climate we cannot have it because both parties are trying to advance their ideological agendas even if it undermines democracy.
Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
