Frank Alegria, Patriot Academy Alumni
For over a year, the vacant seat on the Supreme Court has been untouched, thanks to an extended invocation of an election precedent by Republicans. Late January of this year, President Trump revealed his appointee to fill the opening – conservative Neil Gorsuch of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
As dictated by Senate rules, his confirmation would require only an assenting simple majority. Democrats, however, are actively moving to filibuster the vote, which would throw a wrench into Gorsuch’s ascension to the Supreme Court.
To counter this, Senate Republicans have threatened to use the so-called “nuclear option,” which would effectively end the standoff. But what exactly does this procedure entail, and what would it set as a precedent for future SCOTUS appointees?
The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure in which the Senate attempts to override a chamber rule or precedent by a simple majority vote. It all starts with a member calling the validity of a procedure (such as the filibuster) currently in use into question. The president (or president pro tempore) of the Senate then rules the matter a “constitutional question,” which then proceeds to a vote.
The entire chamber casts their ballots, and if the president’s ruling is upheld by a simple majority (the members determining the mechanism in question should no longer be used), the procedure is overruled, and deemed inapplicable in the future to similar situations (i.e. judicial confirmation vote)).
Proponents of this procedure have argued that since the Constitution allows for the Senate to make and amend its own rules, use of the nuclear option should not be frowned upon nor discouraged. Furthermore, by invoking this controversial procedure, it would prevent lengthy standoffs, quickly fill executive or judicial openings, and reach speedy conclusions to urgent and pressing matters.
Dissenters, however, fear that should this tactic be employed across the board, a bare majority could simply alter Senate rules however it liked. This would result in individual senators losing independence, encourage the distasteful environment of partisan politics, and weaken the power of the minority party.
I do not agree with the Democrats’ sentiments or strategy concerning Mr. Gorsuch. But given how Republicans were in the minority in ‘13 and cried “foul” to Harry Reid’s ousting the filibuster for executive and judicial appointments, it would seem almost hypocritical for the GOP to suddenly reverse course and do the exact same thing in the Gorsuch situation.
Make no mistake – if the filibuster is disposed of now, it is likely gone forever. Whether in the majority or minority, Democrats have no care for due process, and will therefore never restore it. And should Republicans invoke the nuclear option for Mr. Gorsuch’s confirmation, and a Democrat president make a nomination while his party holds the Senate, be assured that this moment will haunt Republicans, but most importantly conservatives, forever.
