Will the filibuster rule change set a bad precedent for Supreme Court hearings too?
The Senate’s filibuster deal would limit senators’ constitutionally-enumerated responsibilities to provide advice and consent on judicial nominees, Heritage Foundation legal scholars Todd Gaziano and Andrew Kloster explain.
“This proposal would seriously undermine the rights of sitting senators to call attention to problematic district court nominees and, as a consequence, would enable the President to make more philosophically questionable and professionally unqualified nominations in the future,” they write.
And it bodes poorly for the future, they add:
Limiting the right of objecting senators in this manner will also set a bad precedent for future rules changes. If the majority of Article III judges can be rammed through the Senate with limited debate, why not the rest of them? Why require potential Supreme Court nominees to appear and answer questions at confirmation hearings? The Senate should always be wary of ceding their constitutional prerogatives, but this is a particularly bad consequence of a deal others are legitimately questioning on other grounds.
What do you think of the Senate’s filibuster deal?