Perspectives on Politics



Going Nuclear, Senate Style


Sarah A.  Binder  a1 , Anthony J.  Madonna  a2 and Steven S.  Smith  a3
a1 George Washington University and The Brookings Institution, E-mail: sbinder@brookings.edu
a2 Washington University, E-mail: ajmadonn@wustl.edu
a3 Weidenbaum Center, Washington University, E-mail: smith@wustl.edu

Article author query
binder sa   [Google Scholar] 
madonna aj   [Google Scholar] 
smith ss   [Google Scholar] 
 

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. a



Footnotes

a Sarah A. Binder is Professor of Political Science at George Washington University and a Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution (sbinder@brookings.edu). Anthony Madonna is a Ph.D. candidate at Washington University (ajmadonn@wustl.edu). Steven S. Smith is the Kate M. Gregg Professor of Social Sciences, Professor of Political Science, and Director of the Weidenbaum Center, Washington University (smith@wustl.edu). The authors thank Stanley Bach, Richard Baker, Greg Koger, Forrest Maltzman, Elizabeth Rybicki, Eric Schickler, and Greg Wawro for helpful comments and advice.



Metrics