'Nuclear option' for Supreme Court nominees will damage Senate
© Getty Images

Democrats may be on the verge of reaping the bitter harvest of the seeds sowed in November 2013.

The then-majority Democrats used a controversial parliamentary gimmick to unilaterally reinterpret existing Senate rules. By use of the so-called "nuclear option," they established the principle that a simple majority in the Senate can overrun any rule at any time.

ADVERTISEMENT
It is often written that the Senate Democrats led by then-Majority Leader Harry ReidHarry ReidConservative Senate candidate calls on GOP to end filibuster Ex-Reid aide: McConnell's 'original sin' was casting ObamaCare as 'partisan, socialist takeover' GOP faces growing demographic nightmare in West MORE (D-Nev.) "changed" the filibuster rule as it applies to judicial nominations (with an exemption for Supreme Court nominees).

They did nothing of the sort.

Democrats, by fiat, altered the way the Senate interprets Rule XXII, which governs the procedure for cutting off debate and ending a filibuster. The rule continues to prescribe that when a cloture vote occurs, the question must be put, "Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?"

It goes on to state that cloture is invoked if "the question [is] decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn."

Reid raised a point of order, claiming that the words "three-fifths" mean "a simple majority." The presiding officer, Sen. Patrick LeahyPatrick LeahySenate committee ignores Trump, House budgets in favor of 2017 funding levels Live coverage: Trump's FBI nominee questioned by senators AT&T, senators spar over customers' right to sue MORE (D-Vt.), on the advice of the Senate parliamentarian, rejected the point of order.

However, the majority, by a 52-48 vote (three Democrats voted "no"), was able to overturn the ruling of the chair, creating the new precedent that "three-fifths" or 60 senators means a simple "majority."

It doesn't take difficult math or much knowledge of the English language to see that this is ridiculous.

The Democrats paved the way. Now in the minority, early in the 115th Congress, Democrats will be confronted by a Supreme Court nominee chosen by President Donald TrumpDonald Trump'Arrested Development' will fold Trump into new season 'Arrested Development' will fold Trump into new season Overnight Cybersecurity: DOJ takes down two online criminal markets | Kansas breach exposed 5M Social Security numbers MORE.

They won't like it. If nothing else, they will rightfully feel that the nomination legitimately belonged to President Obama. The Republicans stonewalled it for 10 months. Democrats will believe that the seat was stolen and that the Trump nomination is therefore illegitimate.

Consequently, a filibuster may occur. This could cause Majority Leader Mitch McConnellMitch McConnellOvernight Regulation: Trump administration reveals first regulatory agenda | GOP lawmakers introduce measures to repeal arbitration rule | Exxon gets M fine for sanctions violation Overnight Healthcare: CBO predicts 22M would lose coverage under Senate ObamaCare replacement OPINION | GOP healthcare attack is a vendetta against President Obama MORE (R-Ky.) to trot out the nuclear option precedent and try to extend it to cover the Supreme Court, allowing the GOP to cut off debate and use its majority to confirm the nomination.

This will enrage the Democrats. The nuclear option, which Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenThe Hill's 12:30 Report Dems see huge field emerging to take on Trump Lawmakers send McCain well wishes after cancer diagnosis MORE, while a senator, called "a lie about a rule," was given its label by former Rules Committee Chairman Trent Lott (R-Miss.) in 2005 because Democrats were threatening that if the Republicans used the ploy to overcome their filibuster of several George W. Bush-nominated judges, the angry Democrats would bring the Senate to a halt by obstructing everything.

The bitterness created by the twin outrages of eliminating the right to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, coupled with the unprecedented and constitutionally suspect stonewalling of Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, will further polarize an already deeply torn Senate.

In October, when it seemed possible that the Democratic nominee, Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonOJ Simpson knocks Trump out of the cable news spotlight Poll: Women paying more attention to politics since Trump’s election Poll: Nearly half of liberals say friend supporting Trump would hurt friendship MORE, would be the next president, Republicans Sens. Ted CruzTed CruzCruz offers bill to weaken labor board's power Overnight Finance: GOP offers measure to repeal arbitration rule | Feds fine Exxon M for Russian sanctions violations | Senate panel sticks with 2017 funding levels for budget | Trump tax nominee advances | Trump unveils first reg agenda The Hill's 12:30 Report MORE (Texas), John McCainJohn McCainOvernight Defense: Trump gets briefing at Pentagon on ISIS, Afghanistan | Senate panel approves five defense picks | Senators want Syria study in defense bill Schwarzenegger tweets to McCain: 'You'll be back' Trump called McCain to wish him well after cancer diagnosis MORE (Ariz.) and Richard BurrRichard BurrOvernight Cybersecurity: State Department reportedly eliminating cyber office | Senate Intel chief avoids White House during Russia probe | Dem pushes 'ethical hacking' resolution Trump to GOP senators: Cancel your recess The Hill's 12:30 Report MORE (N.C.) were threatening to block any Clinton nominee. The Democrats' vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim KaineTim Kaine40 million fewer people expected to vote in 2018, study finds Al Gore warns Democrats about accusing Trump of treason Administration briefs Senate on progress against ISIS MORE (D-Va.), in turn hinted that if that happened, Democrats would use the nuclear option to thwart a filibuster.

I wrote then in The Hill:

In my judgment, it would be tragic if the indefensible behavior suggested by McCain (who should know better) and Cruz provokes a new Democratic majority to rewire the Senate rules to overcome a Republican wall of partisan intransigence.

In the future, any president backed by a partisan Senate majority would no longer have to consider the views and seek the votes of at least a handful of members of the opposition party. He or she would be free to select the most ideologically pure candidate.

In 2010, just a few months before his death, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) declared that:

"If the rules are abused, and senators exhaust the patience of their colleagues, such actions can invite draconian measures. But those measures themselves can, in the long run, be as detrimental to the role of the institution and to the rights of the American people as the abuse of the rules."

The Senate now finds itself in a dilemma. The leaders of both parties — McConnell and Democratic-leader-to-be, Chuck SchumerCharles SchumerLawmakers send McCain well wishes after cancer diagnosis OPINION | GOP's 7-year ObamaCare blood oath ends in failure Dems tout failure of GOP healthcare bill MORE (D-N.Y.) — are, I believe, both institutionalists who along with other senior senators of both parties will be reluctant to force the expansion of the regrettable nuclear option. They will fear damaging the Senate and risking a permanently partisan and polarized future for the Supreme Court.

But with the stakes so high, it will difficult to avoid the worst outcome. Damage to both the Senate and the court hangs in the balance.

Hopefully Senate leaders can find a way out.

Arenberg worked for Sens. Paul Tsongas (D-Mass.), Carl LevinCarl LevinTrump and GOP wise to keep tax reform and infrastructure separate Former senator investigated man in Trump Jr. meeting for money laundering Dems abuse yet another Senate tradition to block Trump's agenda MORE (D-Mich.) and Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-Maine) for 34 years and is co-author of the award winning "Defending the Filibuster: The Soul of the Senate-Revised and Edited Edition." He is a visiting professor of political science and international and public affairs at Brown University.


The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.