On Nov. 21, the U.S. Senate forever changed when 52 senators voted to change Senate rules regarding the judicial confirmation process.

Despite criticism from Republicans, this step could benefit the Senate in making it more productive, thus salvaging its reputation.

The so-called “nuclear option” is a parliamentary procedure that allows judicial nominees to be confirmed by a simple majority vote, thus bypassing the 60 votes normally needed to invoke cloture or end debate. In other words, filibustering judicial nominees is effectively over.

And in typical fashion, Senate Republicans — who had continuously filibustered several of President Obama’s recent nominees — threw a fit over the rule change.

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Minority Leader, called it a “sad day in the history of the Senate.”

Perhaps McConnell finds the move “sad” because this means his party can’t continue its obstructionist ways.

In fact, when Senate Democrats threatened to invoke the nuclear option this past summer, McConnell raised the bar by threatening to eliminate the filibuster altogether the next time Republicans find themselves in the majority.

And you know what? Go ahead, Senator. The end of the filibuster will be a happy day for the U.S. Senate.

What was once a rule reserved only for the most contentious votes has become a tool used to prevent the chamber from accomplishing anything. And we sit and wonder why Washington is so gridlocked.

For starters, it’s because 60 votes are — in effect — needed to pass anything. It’s not like 60 votes are required on an actual nomination or piece of legislation, but those votes are needed to bring debate to a close and trigger an actual vote on the issue at hand.

And it’s only gotten worse with time. Before the Senate devolved into the mess it is today, filibustering meant having to stand on the floor of the chamber and talk until the allotted time for a vote had expired.

It required a kind of conviction and stamina that we don’t see in that body today. Democratic (later turned Republican) Senator Strom Thurmond holds the record for the longest filibuster, speaking for 24 hours and 18 minutes (wrongfully) against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

In the present day, filibustering is as easy as not having the votes to invoke cloture and bring an issue up for a vote. It’s the lazy man’s filibuster — something that has become so normal and procedurally accepted that it’s now a great tool to block nearly anything the minority party doesn’t want passed.

What’s ironic about the Republicans’ reaction is that in 2005, when Democrats were in the minority in the Senate and filibustering then-president Bush’s judicial nominees, they condemned that use of the filibuster.

Back then, Mitch McConnell said, “Any president’s judicial nominees…deserve a simple up-or-down vote.”

How convenient that he ignores his own advice when his party is in the minority.

But aside from Republican hypocrisy over the nuclear option and their obstructive use of the filibuster, the worst part about the rule is how fundamentally undemocratic it is.

Nowhere else in ordinary parliamentary procedure is a three-fifths majority needed to simply end a debate and bring something to a vote.

Electoral candidates don’t require three-fifths of the vote — just a simple majority (or, in some cases, a plurality). The rules of the Senate should reflect this. If a majority is needed to pass legislation and confirm presidential appointments, ending debate on these issues should require only a majority as well.

If Mitch McConnell finds himself Majority Leader one day and wants to eliminate the filibuster, let him do it. The U.S. Senate would be much better for it.

David Swenton is a senior political science and writing and rhetoric major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at daswento@syr.edu or followed on Twitter at @DavidSwenton.

Published on December 4, 2013 at 1:22 am