Blocking presidential nominees: The New Nullification?

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92167/cordray-warren-cfpb-obama-republicans-nomination

Republican threats to block nominees to the consumer board are of a piece with their opposition to Don Berwick, Obama's first choice to run the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services; to Peter Diamond, whom Obama tapped to sit on the Federal Reserve Board; and most recently to John Bryson, Obama's nominee to take over the Commerce Department. It's nothing short of a power grab by the Republican Party – an effort to achieve, through the confirmation process, what they could not achieve through legislation. And it seems unprecedented, at least in modern times.

...

But since that time the Senate has deferred more to the president on appointments, partly on the theory that a modern society needs a president who could staff the executive branch with like-minded officials. Although senators have frequently raised substantive and ideological objections to nominees, explicitly or implicitly, they did not engage in such wholesale, blanket opposition to appointments based (explicitly or even implicitly) on governing philosophy. As the Senate's own website confirms, the Senate voted down nominations "only in the most blatant instances of unsuitability." The obvious exception has been judicial appointments. But even those have increased dramatically in the last few years and, besides, those are lifetime appointments to an entirely separate branch of government.

What makes this ideological policing even more pernicious is the fact that it’s policing by a minority. The formal letter threatening to block consumer board appointments includes 44 Republican senators, less than a majority but enough to block nomination with filibuster. If the Senate still operated by majority rule, Berwick, Bryson, Diamond, and Warren would likely be busy running their agencies right now. Instead, they are serving as lame duck recess appiontees -- or not serving at all.

...

Just to be sure, I consulted Thomas Mann, the political scholar at Brookings known for his encyclopedic knowledge of congressional history. Here's what he said:

    In the case of the Consumer Protection Board, Senate Republicans have said they would not confirm anyone who does not agree to restructure the leadership of the agency from a single person to a multi-member body. They insist that a legitimately passed law be changed before allowing it to function with a director – a modern-day form of nullification. Same with the director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. There is nothing normal or routine about this. The Senate policing of non-cabinet appointments is sometimes more aggressive but the current practice goes well beyond that, more like pre-Civil War days than 20th century practice.

Ah, yes, nullification. The ostensible philosophy behind that idea was the need to protect rights of a permanent minority, namely the slave-holding states of the South, lest they never have a say in policy. But Republicans aren't a permanent minority in need of special constitutional protections. They're a faction trying to bully the majority. And they're getting away with it.

[krazen1211]

Yawn. How quickly he forgets John Bolton and Miguel Estrada.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Both parties do it, so what?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Yawn. How quickly he forgets John Bolton and Miguel Estrada.

Now compare how many Bush nominations did the Democrats block with how many Obama nominations did Republicans block, you hack.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Both parties do it, so what?

False equivalence alert!

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I didn't say I favored it, but it's not the breaking news you want it to be. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

I didn't say I favored it, but it's not the breaking news you want it to be. 

Who said anything about breaking news? What prompted Cohn to write this article is the fact that Republicans declared openly that they will oppose whomever Obama nominates for the Consumer Protection Bureau, regardless of their qualifications, just because they don't like the law. THAT is unprecedented.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I didn't say I favored it, but it's not the breaking news you want it to be. 

Who said anything about breaking news? What prompted Cohn to write this article is the fact that Republicans declared openly that they will oppose whomever Obama nominates for the Consumer Protection Bureau, regardless of their qualifications, just because they don't like the law. THAT is unprecedented.

Maybe the public disclosure of their position is unprecedented, but not necessarily the tactic itself.  But, whatever, still not news.

[minionofmidas]

That does indeed seem to be unprecedented.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I didn't say I favored it, but it's not the breaking news you want it to be. 

Who said anything about breaking news? What prompted Cohn to write this article is the fact that Republicans declared openly that they will oppose whomever Obama nominates for the Consumer Protection Bureau, regardless of their qualifications, just because they don't like the law. THAT is unprecedented.

Maybe the public disclosure of their position is unprecedented, but not necessarily the tactic itself.  But, whatever, still not news.

Yes it is. Democrats blocked Bolton and Estrada but they never said that they will oppose whomever W. nominates for their positions because they didn't like some law Republicans passed (not to mention that in Bolton's case it was Voinovich and Chafee who sinked his nomination).

[memphis]

I didn't say I favored it, but it's not the breaking news you want it to be. 

Who said anything about breaking news? What prompted Cohn to write this article is the fact that Republicans declared openly that they will oppose whomever Obama nominates for the Consumer Protection Bureau, regardless of their qualifications, just because they don't like the law. THAT is unprecedented.

Maybe the public disclosure of their position is unprecedented, but not necessarily the tactic itself.  But, whatever, still not news.

Yes it is. Democrats blocked Bolton and Estrada but they never said that they will oppose whomever W. nominates for their positions because they didn't like some law Republicans passed (not to mention that in Bolton's case it was Voinovich and Chafee who sinked his nomination).

Blocking Bolton's nomination made some sense at least. He was an ambassador the UN, and opposed the very existance of a UN.