Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T12:26:11.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Going Nuclear, Senate Style

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2007

Sarah A. Binder ,
Anthony J. Madonna  and
Steven S. Smith
Sarah A. Binder
Affiliation:
George Washington University and The Brookings Institution, E-mail: [email protected]
Anthony J. Madonna
Affiliation:
Washington University, E-mail: [email protected]
Steven S. Smith
Affiliation:
Weidenbaum Center, Washington University, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conflict within and beyond the United States Senate has refocused scholarly and public attention on “advice and consent,” the constitutional provision that governs the Senate's role in confirming presidential appointments. Despite intense and salient partisan and ideological disputes about the rules of the game that govern the Senate confirmation process for judicial appointees, reformers have had little success in limiting the ability of a minority to block contentious nominees. In this paper, we explore the Senate's brush with the so-called “nuclear option” that would eliminate filibusters of judicial nominees, and evaluate competing accounts of why the Senate appears to be so impervious to significant institutional reform. The past and present politics of the nuclear option, we conclude, have broad implications for how we construct theories of institutional change.Sarah A. Binder is Professor of Political Science at George Washington University and a Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution ([email protected]). Anthony Madonna is a Ph.D. candidate at Washington University ([email protected]). Steven S. Smith is the Kate M. Gregg Professor of Social Sciences, Professor of Political Science, and Director of the Weidenbaum Center, Washington University ([email protected]). The authors thank Stanley Bach, Richard Baker, Greg Koger, Forrest Maltzman, Elizabeth Rybicki, Eric Schickler, and Greg Wawro for helpful comments and advice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 729 - 740
Copyright
© 2007 American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arthur, W. Brian. 1994. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Babington, Charles. 2005. “Battle of Judicial Nominee Resumes.” Washington Post, March 2, A15.
Bach, Stanley. 1991. The Senate's compliance with its legislative rules: The appeal of order. Congress and the Presidency 18 (1): 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. 1997. Minority Rights, Majority Rule: Partisanship and the Development of Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Binder, Sarah A., and Steven S. Smith. 1995. Acquired procedural tendencies and Congressional reform. In Remaking Congress, ed. R. Davidson and J. Thurber. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Binder, Sarah A., and Steven S. Smith. 1997. Politics or Principle? Filibustering in the United States Senate. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Burdette, Franklin L. 1940. Filibustering in the Senate. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chaddock, Gail. 2003. “Judicial nominee logjam? Change the rules.” Christian Science Monitor, May 12.
Chambers, William Nisbet. 1956. Old Bullion Benton: Senator from the New West. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Gold, Martin, and Dimple Gupta. 2005. The Constitutional option to change Senate rules and procedures: A majoritarian means to overcome the filibuster. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 28: 205–72.Google Scholar
Hoar, George F. 1903. Autobiography of Seventy Years. New York: C. Scribner's Sons.
Hulse, Carl. 2003. “Vote Nears on Bid to Ease Rules to End Filibusters.” New York Times, June 6, 28.
Koger, Gregory. 2002. Obstruction in the House and Senate: A Comparative Analysis of Institutional Choice. Ph.D. diss. University of California, Los Angeles.
Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Nather, David. 2005. “Senate Races against the Nuclear Clock on Judges.” CQ Weekly, May 30, 1440.
Niven, John. 1988. John C. Calhoun and the Price of the Union. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pierson, Paul. 2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review 94 (2): 251–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quaife, Milo M., ed. 1910. The Diary of James K. Polk during His Presidency, 1845 to 1849, IV. Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Co.
Remini, Robert V. 1991. Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Roberts, Jason, and Steven S. Smith. Forthcoming. “The Evolution of Agenda-Setting Institutions in Congress: Path Dependency in House and Senate Institutional Development.” In Process, Party and Policy Making: New Advances in the Study of the History of Congress, ed. David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
“Senators Compromise on Filibuster.” 2005. CNN.com, May 24. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/23/filibuster.fight
Smith, Elbert B. 1953. Thomas Hart Benton: Southern realist. American Historical Review 58 (4): 795–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. 2005. “The Elusive Middle Ground: What Happened to Compromise?” New York Times, May 29.
Toobin, Jeffrey. 2005. “Blowing Up the Senate.” New Yorker, March 7.
Upchurch, Thomas Adams. 2004. Legislating Racism: The Billion Dollar Congress and the Birth of Jim Crow. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Victor, Kirk. 2004. “Bombs Away!” National Journal, December 11, 3668–72.
Wawro, Gregory J., and Eric Schickler. 2006. Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Welch, Richard E., Jr. 1965. The Federal Elections Bill of 1890: Postscripts and prelude. Journal of American History 52 (3): 511–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Clyde, and Shirley B. Cook, eds. 1999. The Papers of John C. Calhoun, XXV. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.