Democrats saying that the "nuclear option" really isn't that bad because other options are available for blocking nominations

From the New York Times:

The decision by Senate Democrats to eliminate filibusters for most judicial nominations only marginally enhanced President Obama’s power to reshape the judiciary, according to court watchers from across the political spectrum, because Republican senators can still veto his nominees to most currently vacant appeals court seats. 

The new Senate rule clears the way for eight appeals court nominees who have already had confirmation hearings to win approval with simple majority votes, including three on the powerful Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which reviews federal policies and regulations. But it left unchanged the Senate’s “blue slip” custom, which allows senators to block nominees to judgeships associated with their states. 

“It is hard to overstate the change’s importance for the D.C. Circuit, which has a disproportionate impact on the world, but it won’t have overwhelming impact elsewhere,” Kathryn Ruemmler, the White House counsel, said in an interview. “The blue slip rule for judges has been more problematic than the filibuster, in part because it is a silent, unaccountable veto.” . . .  

After the vote to change the filibuster rule, Mr. Leahy reiterated his support for the blue slip rule. Still, he also said he could change his mind if it were abused — without defining “abuse.” . . . 

“Some Democratic appointees may be more attracted to retiring in this window because they have more confidence that Obama will be able to appoint a young successor,” he said. . . .

The "blue slip" rule won't help stop nonjudicial nominations.  I should also note that the "blue slip" rule has been changed in the past.  Sometimes it has required that both Senators from a state use their "blue slip," but at other times it has only required one Senator doing it.

Filibusters have fallen under Obama: The media is confusing motions to file for cloture votes with successful filibusters

Click on figures to enlarge.

There are three stages in a filibuster fight: file a motion for cloture, a vote on cloture, and whether a cloture is invoked.  In the Senate, a motion must be filed before a cloture vote can take place.  Motions to file for cloture is the measure that the Democrats and the media want everyone to focus on, but the typical discussion averages the numbers across administrations and ignores that this soared before Obama became president.  Indeed, the important point to emphasize is that the increase in motions for cloture occurred when Democrats took control of the Senate in 2007.  What happened was that Democrats decided to file a motion for cloture whenever debates started, even if there was no threat of a filibuster.

Motion for clotures soared from 68 in 2005-2006 (when Republicans controlled the Senate) to 139 in 2007-2008 (when Democrats controlled the Senate), and they have remained high since then as Democrats have continued to be in control.

But a motion filed is not a vote on cloture, let alone a successful filibuster.  Indeed, the annual rate of successful filibusters under Obama (15) is actually slightly lower than it was under George W. Bush or Clinton (17 each). 

The drop is even more pronounced when one looks at the pattern since the Democrats took control of the Senate in 2007.  In 2007-2008 under George W. Bush, there were 51 successful filibusters.  During the next to congresses under Obama those numbers were 28 and 32.  So much for the claim that Obama is being singled out for filibusters.  

Conclusion: the changes in both motions to file and filibusters are due to the Democrats taking control of the Senate.  And it is not surprising given that Democrats are running the show, the problems were greater for George W. Bush than for Obama.

The data for this is available here.

The Senate "Nuclear Option" looks more and more certain

The quotes from Democrat Senators keep coming.  Yesterday I pointed to quite a few.  Now from the Huffington Post:

"I am very open to changing the rules for nominees," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) told The Huffington Post. "I was not before, because I felt we could work with them. But it's gotten to an extreme situation where really qualified people can't get an up-or-down vote." 

"I do now," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told reporters when asked if she supports filibuster reform. She said she changed her mind on the issue after watching as a bipartisan deal to let President Barack Obama's nominees get votes, struck over the summer, went nowhere. 

"We had a meeting in the Old Senate Chamber and everybody had an opportunity ... to really express themselves," Feinstein said of the summer meeting. "I thought it was going to bring about a new day. The new day lasted one week, and then we're back to the usual politics." . . .  

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) replied . . . "It's time to changes the rules for nominees." . . .  

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said he's "open" to the idea of filibuster reform for nominees, saying he sympathizes with Obama on the issue, given his own experience as a governor and an executive. "You have to get your team together," Manchin said. Asked why he thinks some of his colleagues remain reluctant to support changes, he shrugged.

From the WSJ:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) is convinced Democrats must move to alter Senate rules to limit the minority party's ability to filibuster the nominees, and is ready to take the controversial step if his caucus backs it, according to a Senate Democratic leadership aide. . . .  Mr. Reid could move as early as this week. . . .  

Mr. Reid said Tuesday that he was "considering looking at the rules."

Real Clear Politics has this:

“I’m at the point where we need to do something to allow government to function,” Reid told reporters. “I’m considering looking at the rules,” he said. . . . 

The "Nuclear Option" push really begins now

The Huffington Post as this ominous quote from Senator Patrick Leahy:

"I fear that after tonight, the talk about changing the cloture rules for judicial nominations will no longer be just talk. There will be action," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "We cannot allow this unprecedented, wholesale obstruction to continue without undermining the Senate’s role provided in the Constitution and without harming our independent federal judiciary." . . .

Some quotes from angry Democratic Senators in Roll Call:

Democratic leaders are again taking the temperature of their caucus on whether to finally go “nuclear” and change the Senate rules after Republicans blocked another judge Monday night, aides said. 

Conversation about the “nuclear option” between leaders and the rank and file began as members trickled back into town before a failed 53-38 cloture vote on the nomination of Robert L. Wilkins to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. . . .

“When will we say enough is enough? Repeatedly over the past month, a minority of Senators has blocked qualified nominees by abusing the Senate rules. The rules on nominees are not working, and we need to change them,” [Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.] said in the statement. “This court will rule on the critical protections that we put in place to protect hard working families from the predatory practices of Wall Street. We cannot let a minority of Senators block qualified nominees and endanger the important reforms that have been put in place to protect Oregon families.” . . . 

“When it comes to judicial nominations, I am fulfilling my constitutional responsibility, but Congress is not. Instead, Senate Republicans are standing in the way of a fully-functioning judiciary that serves the American people,” Obama said. “The American people and our judicial system deserve better. A majority of the United States Senate supports these three extraordinary nominees, and it is time for simple yes-or-no votes without further obstruction or delay.” . . . 

“I am very hopeful that Sen. Reid will be able to get … these votes on the floor so that they can be voted up-or-down, but I think we have a constitutional responsibility, particularly with judges, to vote on the nominations of the president,” Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin said at the CBC news conference. . . .

Politico:

It may take weeks to get there, but the latest GOP tactic essentially guarantees the Senate will soon endure another draining fight over changing the chamber’s rules by a simple majority by invoking what is called the “nuclear option.” . . . .

CNN notes:

the idea [“nuclear option”] has gained steam in recent weeks even among some veteran Democratic senators who have been reluctant to change the rules. . . . 

Another article in Roll Call mentions that Democrats are pushing the claim that the filibuster was due to racism.

Minutes after Senate Republicans blocked confirmation of an African-American judge to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Marcia L. Fudge, D-Ohio, suggested that one of the motivators for the filibuster was his race. 

“I certainly think it had some impact,” said Fudge at a press conference flanked by fellow CBC members and Democratic Sens. Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island after Republicans blocked Judge Robert L. Wilkins. “It is clear who they are keeping out of judicial nominations and other positions that we know have to be filled for the government to run effectively. 

“You have to ask them what their motives are,” Fudge continued. “All I know is what I see.” . . . 

Democrats may be really close to the "Nuclear Option," ending the ability to filibuster judges

From Politico:

Senate Republicans blocked another one of President Barack Obama’s nominees to a key appellate court, enraging Democrats and further raising the prospects of a battle over changing the rules that govern the chamber. . . .  

White House press secretary Jay Carney portrayed the persistent GOP resistance to Obama’s D.C. Circuit picks as nothing short of historic. . . .

Roll Call magazine:

Democrats inched closer to another “nuclear” rules standoff Tuesday evening on the heels of another filibuster vote on one of President Barack Obama’s nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Several Democratic senators, led by Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, met with reporters late Tuesday with another round of warnings about the chances that not filling the seats on the appellate court could lead to a “nuclear option” rules debate. 

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. There comes a tipping point, and I’m afraid we’ve reached that tipping point,” Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois said at the news conference. “We cannot ask people in good faith to submit their names and reputations to this judicial process if they’re going to be treated so unfairly and unjustly by the Republicans and their filibusters.” . . .

From The Hill newspaper:

Reid “is willing” to change the rules but “the question is whether the leader can get 50 Democrats, not 49 or 48, to sustain that motion.” . . . . 

For the first time, Reid has the strong backing of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who had been leery about weakening the power to filibuster judicial nominees.  

“I’m glad that I’m not the only one out talking about this,” Reid said last week when asked about the possibility of rules reform. “We have someone who [has] never, ever been upfront on rules changes — that’s Sen. Leahy, who said he’s really disturbed about what’s going on.” 

Leahy’s support might help Reid persuade wavering colleagues to strip Republicans of the power to filibuster judicial picks. 

“He has the backing of Sen. Leahy, which is huge for this. That’s a really important step,” said a Senate Democratic aide.  

Reid came close to triggering the so-called nuclear option in July after Republicans held up Obama’s picks to executive branch agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board. He backed off the threat after Republicans allowed the nominees to go through. . . . .

Reid came close to triggering the so-called nuclear option in July . . . 

The Huffington Post has statement from Biden:

Vice President Joe Biden, long a defender of tradition in the United States Senate, said Thursday it might be time to change the institution's rules after Republicans blocked yet another one of President Barack Obama's nominees. 

"I think it's worth considering," Biden said after the GOP nixed the appointment of Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) to oversee the Federal Housing Finance Agency. . . . 

Democrats have recently been pushing gutting the filibuster over the debt limit.

Liberals said Tuesday that there may be no other way out of a debt ceiling crisis than to invoke — or at least threaten to employ — the so-called nuclear option, an enormously contentious move that would allow the party to raise the national borrowing limit with 51 votes rather than 60. 

Such a move would prompt howls of outrage from Republicans and could have dramatic implications for the future of the Senate. But it would allow Senate Democrats to pass a bill raising the borrowing limit through 2014 and shift the burden to the House GOP before a potentially devastating default on the $16.7 trillion national debt on Oct. 17. . . . 

Strangely, it isn't clear what the benefit is for Democrats to change this given that the Republicans control the House. 

UPDATE: The National Journal indicates that it looks as if the Democrats now have the votes to push through the "nuclear option."