A worthy effort to mitigate partisanship

PARTISANSHIP has its place in politics, but you’ve clearly crossed a line when you oppose something you previously supported simply because a member of another political party now supports the same idea. Such is the case with Sen. Chuck Schumer, the New York lawmaker who heads the U.S. Senate Democratic caucus.

Sen. James Lankford wants to change Senate rules to reduce debate time for most executive branch nominees from 30 hours to eight hours, and for district court nominees from 30 hours to two hours. His proposal maintains 30 hours of post-cloture debate time for Supreme Court, circuit court and Cabinet-level nominees.

Lankford, R-Oklahoma City, has long touted this simple move as a common-sense way to prevent needless gridlock in the Senate. Democrats have used parliamentary technicalities to impede and drag out approval of numerous, uncontroversial Trump administration appointees, taking obstruction to what may be an unprecedented level.

While Lankford’s proposal would speed approval of Trump administration officials, it has its roots in bipartisan cooperation. Lankford’s plan is identical to one authored in 2013 by former Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. Reid’s plan was adopted for only two years, but was easily approved at the time with strong bipartisan support.

Schumer was among those who supported the Reid plan in 2013 — in committee and on the Senate floor. Yet this week, he criticized Lankford’s identical proposal. Put simply, Schumer was OK with the rule when it benefited a Democratic administration, but rejects it now.

Lankford has the better argument, and not simply because of Schumer’s glaring hypocrisy.

From 1967 until 2012, there were 46 cloture votes invoked in the Senate. But in the “past year and a few months,” Lankford noted, Democrats have requested 85 cloture votes to demand 30 hours of debate time for each nominee.

While Democrats claim more vetting of nominees is required, Lankford noted all the nominees have already undergone committee review, so a “tremendous amount” of vetting has already occurred.

Thanks to the endless obstruction, there are 67 judges and 139 executive officials whose nominations awaiting Senate approval. Few, if any, of those nominees are truly controversial. Most are expected to receive Senate approval once a vote is held.

While both parties have played a role in partisan obstruction, the 2013 vote shows Republicans have been more committed to an efficient process than Democrats, even when such efficiency benefited the other party.

Responding to Schumer’s criticism, Lankford noted that “the precedent that’s now been set by the minority party right now will be the new precedent when the next president comes. So the next time there’s a Democrat president, I can assure you Republicans will say, ‘Well, we’ll just do the same thing Democrats did to the Republican president.’ … And year after year this toxic environment gets worse. The only way to dial the volume back is to actually fix the rules, to be able to make sure they stay fair for everyone.”

No public benefit is provided by leaving judgeships vacant and agency leadership positions unfilled for months or years at a time. Surely senators from both parties can recognize this, and act accordingly.