Today could have been the day when Senate Democrats went nuclear – reining in minority party abuse of the filibuster with a simple majority vote.  That would have been my Super Bowl.  Instead, the Senate is poised to adopt a bipartisan set of modest (many say, meager) changes to the Senate’s cloture rule.   More like the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl, I say.

As many have noted (for starters, Ezra Klein here and Jonathan Bernstein here), the proposed changes to the Senate’s Rule 22 fall far short of what reformers had hoped for.  Much blame has been heaped on Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, and on a few senior Democrats, highlighting their resistance to abandoning the Senate’s sixty-vote threshold for bringing the chamber to a vote.  The reforms are modest, largely finding ways of speeding up the Senate once both parties have agreed on the matter at hand (for instance on the way to advancing a measure to the floor or after cutting off debate on a nomination).  Even if the changes may seem to many like small potatoes, I think there’s more to be gleaned from the Senate’s brush with reform.

First, take a little, give a little.  Today’s rule changes remind us that there is no free lunch when it comes to Senate reform.  That hurdle is built into Rule 22, given its requirement that 67 senators consent to a vote on efforts to reform Rule 22.  In the absence of majority willing to bear the costs of asserting the majority’s right to change its rules, Senate reform is necessarily bipartisan and incremental.  Reforms must secure the consent of the minority, or be packaged with changes judged equally important to the opposition.  (Recall that even when reformers reduced cloture to 60 votes in 1975, they paid a price: 67 votes would still be required to end debate on changing Rule 22.)  Today’s reforms allow a majority to circumvent filibusters of motions to proceed to legislative measures.  In return, the majority pays a price each time: The minority is guaranteed votes on two amendments, whereas previously recent leaders might have precluded all amendments by immediately “filling the tree.”  To be sure, this potentially dilutes the value of the rule change for the majority.   But concessions are dictated by the Senate’s inherited rules.  (And, of course, nothing is that simple when it comes to Senate rules; the majority may yet fill the tree, at least after the disposition of the minority’s amendments.)

Second, I suspect we might be underestimating the importance of a non-debatable motion to proceed for the majority party in a period of partisan polarization.  Judging from the increase in filibusters on the motions to proceed in recent years, minority parties have fought hard to keep bills off the floor that they oppose on policy or political grounds.   So long as the motion to proceed could be filibustered, majority and minority parties shared agenda-setting powers.  Today’s change grants the majority a slightly stronger hand in choosing the chamber agenda.  To be sure, the minority can still filibuster the bill and amendments beyond those newly guaranteed, but the reform undermines the minority’s ability to throw the majority off course.  Take immigration policy, for example.  Filibusters of the motion to proceed have kept the DREAM Act off the Senate floor in recent years.  Minority influence over the Senate’s agenda is diminished with today’s reform.

Third, these are leader-driven reforms, shaped by the unique burdens carried by the majority and (sometimes) minority leaders.  For example, the reforms speed up post-cloture debate on some judicial and executive branch nominations, and allow the chamber to hurry onto cloture votes on motions to proceed to legislative business when the minority offers a modicum of support.  No surprise that these housekeeping changes elicit little enthusiasm.   These changes don’t make it any easier for a majority to break sizable minority opposition.  And they potentially make it harder for rank and file senators to exploit the rules in pursuit of their own policy goals.  But from leaders’ perspectives, the reforms rein in the excesses of rank and file dissent when a bipartisan group is ready to move ahead.  As one Senate Democrat aide confided, “that’s all Reid ever really wanted.”

Finally, this episode highlights the limitation of the Constitutional option and other “reform-by-ruling” strategies.  There appears to have been a majority or near-majority support for securing only very limited reform of Rule 22.  Senators seem unwilling to use the tactic for a major overhaul of the Senate’s cloture rule—in part because of the fear of minority retaliation, in part because the filibuster rule likely serves as the foundation of senators’ power.   To be sure, Harry Reid aggressively used reform-by-ruling in the fall of 2011 to secure smaller changes to Rule 22 (as did Robert Byrd in the 1980s).  But we have to reach back nearly forty years to the 1975 reforms to find a Senate majority willing to go nuclear to impose major changes to Rule 22.  (Even then, reformers proceeded without the support of the majority leader, Mike Mansfield.)  Perhaps senators see the consequences of weakening Rule 22 in a different light when the parties polarize over policy problems and solutions, with senators nervous about curtailing extended debate when the tables turn on their majority.  Regardless, so long as majorities will only form to impose  minor reform by majority vote, those majorities will be forced to live under supermajority rules that daily frustrate their policy and political agendas.

And in the Senate’s world, those frustrating days can last for weeks!

I’m late to the conversation about whether or not Republican efforts to insist on sixty votes for cloture on Chuck Hagel’s nomination as Secretary of Defense constitutes a filibuster. Bernstein’s earlier piece ("This is what a filibuster looks like") and Fallows’ recent contribution provide good, nuanced accounts of why Republican tactics amount to a filibuster, even if some GOP senators insist otherwise. In short, the duck test applies: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then …. it’s a filibuster!

Still, I think there’s more to be said about the politics and implications of the Hagel nomination. A few brief thoughts:

First, let’s put to rest the debate about whether insisting on sixty votes to cut off debate on a nomination is a filibuster or, at a minimum, a threatened filibuster. It is. Even if both parties have moved over the past decade(s) to more regularly insist on sixty votes to secure passage of major (and often minor) legislative measures and confirmation of Courts of Appeals nominees, we shouldn’t be fooled by the institutionalization—and the apparent normalization—of the 60-vote Senate. Refusing to consent to a majority’s effort to take a vote means (by definition) that a minority of the Senate has flexed its parliamentary muscles to block Senate action. I think it’s fair to characterize such behavior as evidence of at least a threatened filibuster—even if senators insist that they are holding up a nomination only until their informational demands are met.

Second, there’s been a bit of confusion in the reporting about whether filibusters of Cabinet appointees are unprecedented. There appears to have been no successful filibusters of Cabinet appointees, even if there have been at least two unsuccessful filibusters against such nominees. (On two occasions, Cabinet appointees faced cloture votes when minority party senators placed holds on their nominations—William Verity in 1987 and Kempthorne in 2006. An EPA appointee has also faced cloture, but EPA is not technically cabinet-level, even if it is now Cabinet-status). Of course, there have been other Cabinet nominees who have withdrawn; presumably they withdrew, though, because they lacked even majority support for confirmation. Hagel’s situation will be unprecedented only if the filibuster succeeds in keeping him from securing a confirmation vote.

Third, using cloture votes as an indicator of a filibuster underestimates the Senate’s seeping super-majoritarianism. (Seeping super-majoritarianism?! Egads.) At least two other recent Cabinet nominations have been subjected to 60-vote requirements: Kathleen Sebelius in 2009 (HHS) and John Bryson (Commerce) in 2011. Both nominees faced threatened filibusters by Republican senators, preventing majority leader Reid from securing the chamber’s consent to schedule a confirmation vote—until Reid agreed to require sixty votes for confirmation. The Bryson unanimous consent agreement (UCA) appears on the right, an agreement that circumvented the need for cloture. Embedding a 60-vote requirement in a UCA counts as evidence of an attempted filibuster, albeit an unsuccessful one. After all, other Obama nominees (such as Tim Geithner) were confirmed after Reid negotiated UCAs that required only 51 votes for confirmation, an agreement secured because no Republicans were threatening to filibuster.

Finally, what are the implications for the Hagel nomination? If Republicans were insisting on sixty votes on Senator Cornyn’s grounds that “There is a 60-vote threshold for every nomination,” then I bet Reid would have been able to negotiate a UCA similar to Sebelius’s and Bryson’s. But Hagel’s opponents see the time delay imposed by cloture as instrumental to their efforts to sow colleagues’ doubts about whether Hagel can be confirmed (or at a minimum to turn this afternoon’s cloture vote into a party stand to make their point about Benghazi). Of course, it’s possible that the time delay will work to Democrats’ benefit if they can make headlines that GOP obstruction puts national security at risk. (Maybe Leon Panetta should have jetted to his walnut farm to make the point before the cloture vote.) Whatever the outcome, the Hagel case reminds us that little of the Senate’s business is protected from the intense ideological and partisan polarization that permeates the chamber and is amplified by the chamber’s lax rules of debate and senators’ lack of restraint. Filibustering of controversial Cabinet nominees seems to be on the road to normalization—even if Hagel is ultimately confirmed.

Sen. Rand Paul has just completed his nearly thirteen hour filibuster against John Brennan's nomination to head the CIA. Breaking off his filibuster (because, he inferred, he had to pee), Rand was heralded for bringing back the "talking filibuster." There was much written (and tweeted) about his filibuster, which began with Paul’s dramatic:

"I will speak until I can no longer speak…I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."

I thought I would add a few late-night thoughts in honor of this day spent with C-Span 2 humming in my ear.

First, I think Jon Bernstein’s reaction to the filibuster was right on the mark.  There’s been a lot of enthusiasm for the talking filibuster today, from Ezra Klein's "If more filibusters went like this, there’d be no reason to demand reform," to Josh Marshall’s, "This is a good example of why we should have the talking filibuster and just the talking filibuster." But Bernstein raises a critical point: "Today’s live filibuster shows again just how easy it is to hold the Senate floor for an extended period." The motivation of recent reformers has been to reduce filibustering by raising the costs of obstruction for the minority. In theory, making the filibuster more burdensome to the minority—while putting their views under the spotlight—should make filibusters more costly and more rare. (Paul did note in coming off the Senate floor tonight that his feet hurt…) But as Bernstein points out, Paul believes in his cause, and it plays well with his constituencies. On the physical front, the tag-team of GOP senators rallying to Paul's cause also lessened the burden on Paul (as would have a pair of filibuster-proof shoes). That said, today's filibuster was a little unusual. The majority seemed unfazed by giving up the day to Paul’s filibuster, perhaps because the rest of Washington was shutdown for a pseudo-snow storm. Moreover, the Brennan nomination had bipartisan support, with Reid believing there were 60 senators ready to invoke cloture.  In short, today's episode might not be a great test case for observing the potential consequences of reform.

Second, keep in mind that this was a double-filibuster day. The nomination of Caitlin Halligan for the DC Court of Appeals was blocked, failing for the second time to secure cloture. With 41 Republican senators voting to block an up or down confirmation vote on Halligan, an often-noted alternative reform (which would require 41 senators to block cloture instead of 60 senators to invoke it) would have made no difference to the outcome. And what if the minority had been required to launch a talking filibuster to block Halligan’s nomination? Reid might have been willing to forfeit the floor time to Paul today.  But Reid would unlikely have wanted to give up another day to Halligan’s opponents. As Steve Smith has argued, the burden of talking filibusters also falls on the majority, which typically wants to move on to other business. "Negotiating around the filibuster," Smith has argued, "would still be common."  On a day with two successful minority filibusters (at least in consuming floor time and deterring the majority from its agenda), we can see why the majority might be reticent to make senators talk.

Third, let's not lose sight of the target of Rand's filibuster: The head of the CIA.  Although the chief spook is not technically in the president’s cabinet, the position certainly falls within the ranks of nominations that have typically been protected from filibusters.  Granted, that norm was trampled with the Hagel filibuster for Secretary of Defense. But rather than seeing the potential upside of today's talking filibuster, I can't help but see the downside: In an age of intense policy and political differences between the parties, no corner of Senate business is immune to filibusters.

All that said, what's not to like about a mini demonstration of a real live filibuster?!  Perhaps Paul's late day Snickers break was cheating.  But it was a good C-Span type of day overall, for filibuster newbies to Franklin Burdette devotees. Even Dick Durbin well after midnight seemed to be enjoying the fray. Perhaps there’s a silver lining for talking filibusters after all.

It seems the Senate could have a really hot summer. Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has reportedly threatened to “go nuclear” this July—meaning that Senate Democrats would move by majority vote to ban filibusters of executive and judicial branch nominees. According to these reports, if Senate Republicans block three key nominations (Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Thomas Perez at Labor, and Gina McCarthy at EPA), Reid will call on the Democrats to invoke the nuclear option as a means of eliminating filibusters over nominees.

Jon Bernstein offered a thoughtful reaction to Reid’s gambit, noting that Reid’s challenge is to “find a way to ratchet up the threat of reform in order to push Republicans as far away from that line as possible.” Jon’s emphasis on Reid’s threat is important (and is worth reading in full).  Still, I think it’s helpful to dig a little deeper on the role of both majority and minority party threats that arise over the nuclear option.

Before getting to Reid’s threat, two brief detours. First, a parliamentary detour to make plain two reasons why Reid’s procedural gambit is deemed “nuclear.” First, Democrats envision using a set of parliamentary moves that would allow the Senate to cut off debate on nominations by majority vote (rather than by sixty votes). Republicans (at least when they are in the minority) call this “changing the rules by breaking the rules,” because Senate rules formally require a 2/3rds vote to break a filibuster of a measure to change Senate rules. The nuclear option would avoid the formal process of securing a 2/3rds vote to cut off debate; instead, the Senate would set a new precedent by simple majority vote to exempt nominations from the reach of Rule 22. If Democrats circumvent formal rules, Republicans would deem the move nuclear. Second, Reid’s potential gambit would be considered nuclear because of the anticipated GOP reaction: As Sen. Schumer argued in 2005 when the GOP tried to go nuclear over judges, minority party senators would “blow up every bridge in sight.” The nuclear option is so-called on account of the minority’s anticipated parliamentary reaction (which would ramp up obstruction on everything else).

A second detour notes simply that the exact procedural steps that would have to be taken to set a new precedent to exempt nominations from Rule 22 have not yet been precisely spelled out.  Over the years, several scenarios have been floated that give us a general outline of how the Senate could reform its cloture rule by majority vote. But a CRS report written in the heat of the failed GOP effort to go nuclear in 2005 points to the complications and uncertainties entailed in using a reform-by-ruling strategy to empower simple majorities to cut off debate on nominations. My sense is that using a nuclear option to restrict the reach of Rule 22 might not be as straight forward as many assume.

That gets us to the place of threats in reform-by-ruling strategies. The coverage of Reid’s intentions last week emphasized the importance of Reid’s threat to Republicans: Dare to cross the line by filibustering three particular executive branch nominees, and Democrats will go nuclear. But for Reid’s threat to be effective in convincing GOP senators to back down on these nominees, Republicans have to deem Reid’s threat credible. Republicans know that Reid refused by go nuclear last winter (and previously in January 2009), not least because a set of longer-serving Democrats opposed the strategy earlier this year. It would be reasonable for the GOP today to question whether Reid has 51 Democrats willing to ban judicial and executive branch nomination filibusters. If Republicans doubt Reid’s ability to detonate a nuclear device, then the threat won’t be much help in getting the GOP to back down. Of course, if Republicans don’t block all three nominees, observers will likely interpret the GOP’s behavior as a rational response to Reid’s threat. Eric Schickler and Greg Wawro in Filibuster suggest that the absence of reform on such occasions demonstrates that the nuclear option can “tame the minority.”  Reid’s threat would have done the trick.

As a potentially nuclear Senate summer approaches, I would keep handy an alternative interpretation.  Reid isn’t the only actor with a threat: given Republicans’ aggressive use of Rule 22, Republicans can credibly threaten to retaliate procedurally if the Democrats go nuclear.  And that might be a far more credible threat than Reid’s. We know from the report on Reid’s nuclear thinking that “senior Democratic Senators have privately expressed worry to the Majority Leader that revisiting the rules could imperil the immigration push, and have asked him to delay it until after immigration reform is done (or is killed).” That tidbit suggests that Democrats consider the GOP threat to retaliate as a near certainty. In other words, if Republicans decide not to block all three nominees and Democrats don’t go nuclear, we might reasonably conclude that the minority’s threat to retaliate was pivotal to the outcome. As Steve Smith, Tony Madonna and I argued some time ago, the nuclear option might be technically feasible but not necessarily politically feasible.

To be sure, it’s hard to arbitrate between these two competing mechanisms that might underlie Senate politics this summer.  In either scenario—the majority tames the minority or the minority scares the bejeezus out of the majority—the same outcome ensues: Nothing. Still, I think it’s important to keep these alternative interpretations at hand as Democrats call up these and other nominations this spring. The Senate is a tough nut to crack, not least when challenges to supermajority rule are in play.

UPDATE 4: Sarah Binder explores the questions, "Why did the Senate go nuclear now, and what will be the consequences for future majorities eager to further curtail the filibuster?"

UPDATE 2: Sarah Binder writes that "this is big" in another new post on Monkey Cage blog, "Boom! What the Senate will be like when the nuclear dust settles." 

UPDATE: Sarah Binder has a new post on Monkey Cage blog, in which she explains why GOP targeting of the D.C. circuit may not be as unprecedented as some think and why it would be difficult to parse out "acceptable" filibusters from those that aren't. "We'll learn soon enough," Binder writes, "if Democrats have the guts to go [nuclear] and, if so, whether that compels any Republicans to stand down."

Over the past few weeks, Senate Republicans have filibustered President Obama's three nominees to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, claiming alternatively that Obama was trying to pack the court and characterizing the court's caseload as lighter than other circuits. News reports now say that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering changing the filibuster rule for some executive and judicial nominees, the so-called "nuclear option.

In 2010, Brookings Senior Fellow Sarah Binder, an expert on Congress and congressional history, testified to the Senate that "the filibuster was created by mistake."

We have many received wisdoms about the filibuster. However, most of them are not true. The most persistent myth is that the filibuster was part of the founding fathers’ constitutional vision for the Senate: It is said that the upper chamber was designed to be a slow-moving, deliberative body that cherished minority rights. In this version of history, the filibuster was a critical part of the framers’ Senate.

However, when we dig into the history of Congress, it seems that the filibuster was created by mistake. Let me explain.

The House and Senate rulebooks in 1789 were nearly identical. Both rulebooks included what is known as the “previous question” motion. The House kept their motion, and today it empowers a simple majority to cut off debate. The Senate no longer has that rule on its books.

What happened to the Senate’s rule? In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr was presiding over the Senate (freshly indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton), and he offered this advice. He said something like this. You are a great deliberative body. But a truly great Senate would have a cleaner rule book. Yours is a mess. You have lots of rules that do the same thing. And he singles out the previous question motion. Now, today, we know that a simple majority in the House can use the rule to cut off debate. But in 1805, neither chamber used the rule that way. Majorities were still experimenting with it. And so when Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didn’t think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book.

Why? Not because senators in 1806 sought to protect minority rights and extended debate. They got rid of the rule by mistake: Because Aaron Burr told them to.

Once the rule was gone, senators still did not filibuster. Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on debate, leading to the first real-live filibuster in 1837.

Binder makes additional insightful points about the origin and historical uses of the Senate filibuster in that testimony to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.

She also calls attention to another of Obama's recent judicial nominees: Ronnie White for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which is yet another window, she says, on the "evolving wars of advice and consent."

Binder also has data on whether Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Senate GOP have "played fair" on President Obama's nominees.

For additional analysis about the filibuster, see Binder's "What Senate cloture votes tell us about obstruction," in which she wrote:

Ultimately, the rise of the 60-vote Senate in a period of polarized parties signals that the minority party has mastered the art of blocking the majority. Sometimes, the minority leader drives the opposition in his conference; other times, he follows it. Regardless, what’s true of the tango is also true of the Senate: It takes two parties to make it look good. The minority party no doubt often feels that the majority leader is too quick to call for a vote, and its members might reasonably oppose cloture on that ground. However, my sense is that far more often, majority leaders resort to cloture when they find themselves unable to cajole the minority party to cooperate. As the Senate GOP conference fractures between pragmatists and ideologues, securing GOP consent will likely become even harder. Counting cloture votes remains an imperfect — but still valid — method of capturing minority efforts to block the Senate.

Get all of Sarah Binder's research and commentary about the Senate filibuster on her bio page.

Sen. Harry Reid has gone ahead with the so-called "nuclear option" to attempt to change Senate filibuster rules on some executive branch nominations, passing the rule change with a 52-48 vote. In their Vital Statistics on Congress report, Brookings Senior Fellow Thomas Mann and AEI Resident Scholar Norman Ornstein provide data on the number of attempted Senate cloture votes taken from 1979 to 2012, the 96th to 112th Congresses. The chart below demonstrates the average attempted cloture vote taken by party when that party was in the minority.

For more data on both attempted and successful cloture votes sine 1919, look up table 6-7 in Vital Stats (PDF).

Senior Fellow Sarah Binder, a leading expert on Congress and congressional history who called, in 2010, the Senate filibuster a "mistake," offered a recent analysis of Senate cloture votes, writing that "Counting cloture votes remains an imperfect — but still valid — method of capturing minority efforts to block the Senate."

More recently, Binder wondered whether "Democrats have the guts to go there and, if so, whether that compels any Republicans to stand down."

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius may lose the most from the Senate’s rule change on the filibuster—and the Affordable Care Act may be healthier for it. I wrote last month on the FixGov blog that “Republicans are the Reason Secretary Sebelius Won’t Resign” (or be fired). That argument is no longer valid. My claim—the president’s inability to get her successor confirmed because of filibustering Republicans—is nullified by the Senate’s rule change, and the benefits may reach far beyond Obamacare.

The Implications of Filibuster Reform for Healthcare

Problems exist in HHS. No one denies it. However, for many appointees in the Department, the Senate rules served as a life preserver in a torrent of poor implementation, managerial failures, and bad PR. So long as the president faced the prospect of long-term vacancies among appointees overseeing ACA, the HHS leadership would be spared.

Today, that all changed. Moving forward, President Obama needs the support of only 51 Senate Democrats to replace top-level political appointees throughout the executive branch. This offers the president substantial breathing room. Nominees no longer need the support of every Democrat and a scarcely identifiable five Republicans. Instead, nominees can draw the ire of as many as four Democrats and still be confirmed.

Maybe Kathleen Sebelius is not to blame for the botched healthcare marketplace roll out. Maybe her Office did not give the thumbs up for the President to repeat “if you like your plan you can keep it.” Maybe she did not contribute to the poor salesmanship of the legislation from the start. However, if she was to blame (and perhaps if she wasn’t), her days in the president’s cabinet may well be numbered. The same may be true for deputies and other administrators in the Department who oversaw the weaker areas of the roll out of this law.

By repositioning HHS personnel or breathing new life into a Department facing continued struggles, the president may well ensure the administration of his signature legislation accomplishment improves. The right appointees can coordinate and communicate policy needs and goals up and down the bureaucratic hierarchy. Rather than settling for a program that meets or falls short of expectations, there is an opportunity to build an effective ACA.

Good Governance beyond Obamacare

The first half of October showed us that political actors in Congress contributed to a broken legislative branch. The second half of October showed us that political actors in the Administration contributed to a broken executive branch. Now is the time for the president to start anew and fix one branch, in the shadow of a Senate trying to fix itself.

In my piece from last month, I also argued that the filibuster rules in the Senate allow for the continuation of poor management and governance. If weak appointed personnel are causing policy problems, communication miscues, and other headaches for the president, the ability to replace them with something other than the word “ACTING” was limited by the 60-vote threshold.

President Obama, who has faced a string of personnel and management issues over the past year, now has greater freedom not simply to oust problematic appointees, but to install talented, effective leaders. With this ability comes a tremendous opportunity to jumpstart an administration that is sputtering.

In this podcast, congressional expert Sarah Binder explains why the Senate filibuster is a historical mistake. She talks about her research on Congress’s relationship with the Federal Reserve and addresses whether Congress is more polarized today than it has been in the past. Binder, a senior fellow in Governance Studies, is also a professor of political science at George Washington University and contributor to the Monkey Cage blog.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST ON ITUNES »

Show notes:

• The Federal Reserve: Balancing Multiple Mandates (testimony by Alice Rivlin)
• Boom! What the Senate Will Be Like When the Nuclear Dust Settles
• Beyond the Horse Race to Lead the Fed
• Droning on: Thoughts on the Rand Paul “Talking Filibuster”
• Advice and Dissent: The Struggle to Shape the Federal Judiciary
• The History of the Filibuster

* In the image, Senator Henry Clay speaks about the Compromise of 1850 in the Old Senate Chamber. Daniel Webster is seated to the left of Clay and John C. Calhoun to the left of the Speaker's chair. (engraving by Robert Whitechurch, ca. 1880, Library of Congress)

The July 4th congressional recess’s pause in 2014’s record pace of judicial confirmations is a good time to explore the reason for the upsurge.

The 54 confirmations at 2014’s half-way point compare to 43 in all of 2013. What’s behind the increase? Some have said that the Senate’s November 2013 rules change—to allow a simple majority to end filibusters on most nominees—“has resulted in [the] sharp increase.” There is a lot of appeal (and even a little truth) to the claim, but beware the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy that if “B” follows “A”, “A” necessarily caused “B”.

There have been 61 confirmations since November 21. The rules change clearly enabled three of them. Late October and mid-November filibusters of three D.C. circuit appellate nominees were the immediate cause of the change, which in turn allowed their post-November confirmations.

Saying how many of the other post-November confirmations would have failed without the rules change is an exercise in informed speculation. Here’s one way to look at it: how many of those confirmations had enough negative votes to have sustained a filibuster under the old rule?

Invoking cloture—i.e., cutting off debate—under the old rule required 60 votes. Filibuster proponents were often able to prevent that by peeling off, if not 41 Nay votes, at least votes in the 30s, assuming not all 100 senators were present to vote. For this analysis, let’s set the bar at 34—the fewest number of votes that prevented a 60 vote cloture-invocation against any Obama nominee (most filibuster-sustaining votes were in the high 30’s and low 40’s).

Forty five of the 51 post-November district confirmations quite probably would have happened without the rules change. They had fewer than 34 Nays. And it’s hardly automatic that the six with at least 34 Nays would have been filibustered under the old rule. Senators can and do oppose a nominee but oppose filibustering her as well. Prior to the rules change, 12 district judges were confirmed even though they had at least 34 Nays. Only one of those needed a cloture vote to move to confirmation—33 voted against cloture and 44 voted against confirmation. (Cloture votes, a rarity before the rules change, have been routine since then, and they generally get around 30-40 negative notes. But these appear to be protest votes against the rules change, inasmuch as 27 of the 51 district confirmation had no Nays and another 14 had 20 or fewer Nays.)

So it’s reasonable speculation, but still speculation, that the rules change had no direct effect on district confirmations.

Circuit confirmations are a different story. The three D.C. nominees clearly owe their confirmations to the rules change. Three of the seven other circuit confirmations since November had well over 34 Nays (40, 43, and 45, in fact). One nominee had represented challengers to California’s since-overturned same-sex marriage ban; another, also a Californian, was nominated to a long-vacant seat that Republican senators claimed belonged in Idaho. The third, with 45 Nays, had authored Justice Department memos providing legal justifications for drone strikes against U.S. citizens. Successful filibusters against all three, under the old rule, seem quite plausible. (The other four post-rules-change nominees were confirmed with either no, or in one case, three negative votes.)

Bottom line: The rules change likely enabled at most twelve of the 61 post-rules change confirmations, and it more likely enabled only six.

The frenetic pace of 2014 confirmations is due mainly to Senate Democrats’ desire to secure as many as they can before the November elections and the possibility of losing control of the confirmation process.

For nearly fifteen hours between Wednesday morning and early Thursday, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), along with his Connecticut colleague Senator Richard Blumenthal (D) and Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), led a filibuster on the floor of the Senate aimed at addressing gun control issues in the aftermath of last weekend’s mass shooting in Orlando. Other than learning that Wednesday is pizza night in the Murphy household, what else should we take away from this Mr. Smith Goes to Washington­-style exercise? Here are three lessons:

1. The real meaning of “I” in “I hold the floor until I yield the floor.”

Anyone who tuned into yesterday’s filibuster joined Senate procedure wonks (and faithful viewers of the West Wing) in the knowledge that a senator who holds the floor can yield to another senator for a question without yielding the floor. Indeed, 38 of Murphy’s 45 Democratic colleagues (as well as two Republicans, Senators Ben Sasse (R-NE) and Pat Toomey (R-PA)), came to the chamber yesterday to ask “questions.” In many cases, these were lengthy speeches—Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), for example, read brief biographies of all 49 Orlando victims—in which the speaker satisfied the question requirement with a conclusion that asked Murphy for his reactions to their statement.

This kind of teamwork on extended speech-making is not unusual. When Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) took the floor to talk for 21 hours about the Affordable Care Act in 2013, he took questions from nine fellow Republicans (as well as two Democrats). Last May, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) got an assist from ten colleagues, including seven Democrats, during his filibuster of a bill extending the PATRIOT Act. The depth of Murphy’s bench not only reduced the energy he had to expend speaking, but also helped guarantee that the entire discussion was on-message and focused on the topic at hand; Murphy did not have to resort to reading the phone book to fill the hours.

2. In policy terms, it’s hard to know if the filibuster was a success…

When Murphy left the floor early Thursday morning, it was reported that Senate leaders had agreed to consider two gun control amendments: one that would address the ability of suspected terrorists to purchase guns and a second that would expand background checks for gun purchases. Details of the deal ensuring consideration are still emerging, but it is difficult to know if Murphy’s filibuster caused Senate leaders to agree to hold votes on them. It is possible that, had Democrats simply threatened to object to the motion to proceed to debate on the underlying spending bill, Republican leaders would have been forced to agree to consider the amendments for which Murphy and his allies were pushing. In the contemporary Senate, this is often how obstruction proceeds: without extended speeches and off the floor, with the two sides negotiating behind the scenes.

3. …but the political victory is perhaps more important

As my colleague Sarah Binder and her co-author Steve Smith wrote in their 1997 book on the filibuster, “encouragement from external groups…has given senators an incentive to exploit their procedural rights, sometimes leading them to block legislation with the filibuster or with holds and at other times leading them to use procedural prerogatives to force the Senate to consider issues of importance to parochial, partisan, or national constituencies.” On these grounds, Murphy’s filibuster was unequivocally a success in the eyes of its supporters. As the filibuster neared its end, Murphy reported that his office had received 10,000 phone calls supporting his efforts, and the hashtag #filibuster was trending on Twitter for much of the day. Even if the underlying amendments are not adopted—a real possibility that Murphy acknowledged in one of his final speeches of the evening—the visibility of the exercise is likely to pay political dividends for Democrats in the coming weeks.

Mark Muro, senior fellow and policy director of the Metropolitan Policy Program, discusses a plan to address the economic boom-bust cycle in states that rely heavily on “fracking” and how this plan can spur innovation, inclusive economic development, and de-carbonization in the U.S.

“Inclusive economic development is critical; it’s about widening the circle of prosperity to more people. An inclusive economy is a highly innovative one … one that provides many opportunities for building skills, and it is a sustainable one,” Muro says. “Sustainability is about smoothing the boom and bust cycles that are disruptive to people, communities, and the state economy. But it is also about a clean economy.”

Also in this podcast a Coffee Break from Eyerusalem Siba, research fellow with the Africa Growth Initiative in the Global Economy and Development program. Also stay tuned for our presidential election update with John Hudak.

Permanent trust funds: Funding economic change with fracking revenues (by Mark Muro and Devashree Saha)

Busted: State budgets feel fracking crash

Look to advanced industries to help drive productivity gains

Enabling female entrepreneurs and beyond

Bloomberg’s Clinton endorsement signals a big business problem for Trump and the GOP

Thanks to audio producers Mark Hoelscher and Zack Kulzer, plus thanks to Carisa Nietsche, Bill Finan, Jessica Pavone, Eric Abalahin, Rebecca Viser, and our intern Sara Abdel-Rahim.

Subscribe to the Brookings Cafeteria on iTunes, listen in all the usual places, and send feedback email to BCP@Brookings.edu 

The latest BLS jobs report shows little sign employers are worried about the future strength of the recovery. Both the employer and household surveys suggest U.S. employers have an undiminished appetite for new hires. Nonfarm payrolls surged 242,000 in February, and upward revisions BLS employment estimates for January added almost 21,000 to estimated payroll gains in that month.

The household survey shows even bigger job gains in recent months. An additional 530,000 respondents said they were employed in February compared with January. This follows reported employment gains of 485,000 and 615,000 in December and January. Over the past year the household survey showed employment gains that averaged 237,000 per month. In comparison, the employer survey reported payroll gains averaging 223,000 a month.

These monthly gains are about three times faster than the job growth needed to keep the unemployment rate from climbing. As a result, the unemployment rate has fallen over the past year, reaching 4.9 percent in January. The jobless rate remained unchanged in February because of a continued influx of adults into the workforce. An additional 555,000 people entered the labor force, capping a three-month period which saw the labor force grow by over 500,000 a month. The labor force participation rate continued to inch up, rising 0.2 percentage points in February compared with the previous month. Since reaching a 38-year low in September 2015, the labor force participation rate has risen 0.5 points.

More than half the decline in the participation rate between the onset of the Great Recession and today is traceable to the aging of the adult population. A growing share of Americans are in late middle age or past 65, ages when we anticipate participation rates will decline. If we focus on the population between 25 and 54, the participation rate stopped declining in 2013 and has edged up 0.6 percentage points since hitting its low point. The employment-to-population rate of 25-54 year-olds has increased 3.0 percentage points since reaching a low in 2009 and 2010. Using the employment rate of 25-54 year-olds as an indicator of labor market tightness, we have recovered about 60 percent of the employment-rate drop that occurred in the Great Recession. Eliminating the rest of the decline will require a further increase in prime-age labor force participation.

Two other indicators suggest the job market remains some distance from a full recovery. More than a quarter of the 7.8 million unemployed have been jobless 6 months or longer. The number of long-term unemployed is about 70 percent higher than was the case just before the Great Recession. Nearly 6 million Americans who hold part-time jobs indicate they want to work on full-time schedules. They cannot do so because they have been assigned part-time hours or can only find a part-time job. The number of workers in this position is more than one-third higher than the comparable number back in 2007. Nonetheless, nearly all indicators of labor market tightness have displayed continued improvement in recent months.

February’s surge in employment growth and labor force participation was accompanied by an unexpected drop in nominal wages. Average hourly pay fell from $25.38 to $25.35 per hour. Compared with average earnings 12 months ago, workers saw a 2.2 percent rise in nominal hourly earnings. Because inflation is low, this probably translates into a real wage gain of about 1 percent. While employers may have an undiminished appetite for new hires, they show little inclination to boost the pace of wage increases.