Some conservatives are calling for the filibuster to be obliterated as a means to expedite the repeal of Obamacare and to quickly confirm a Trump nominee to the Supreme Court. They also want to use it to fast track the Trump agenda. Using the so-called “Nuclear Option” to rid the Senate of the filibuster would be a long-term mistake and would set back the conservative movement for years.

The Hill reported on Nov. 12, 2016, “While Republicans are relishing the chance to pursue an ambitious agenda in 2017, conservatives warn that one thing stands in their way: the Senate filibuster. The 60-vote procedural threshold could stymie GOP priorities in the upper chamber, disappointing voters who handed Republicans control of the White House and Congress for the first time in nearly a decade.” The article cited Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.), never-Trump activist and Wisconsin radio host Charlie Sykes, and Hugh Hewitt. They are wrong because obliterating the filibuster would make any Trump victories short lived because, inevitably, Democrats will take power again sometime in the future, and they will use the same tool to repeal all of the Trump agenda. In politics, all victories are temporary.

The most important action item for conservatives is to fully repeal Obamacare. It is not necessary to get rid of the filibuster to repeal Obamacare. There are two reconciliation measures available to Congress in the next year to push through tax reform and Obamacare repeal. Although the reconciliation process is complicated, ultimately the majority can do what they want in reconciliation if they have the will to pile as much as they can in a reconciliation repeal measure.

ADVERTISEMENT

Avik Roy of Forbes disagrees. He wrote on Nov. 9, 2016 that he doubts that reconciliation can be used to fully repeal Obamacare, yet concedes that nothing prevents this new Congress from passing a quick partial repeal bill to start the process of full repeal. Roy wrote that there is precedent for using reconciliation for partial repeal. “Republicans did this in January, when they sent to President Obama’s desk the Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015. That bill would have repealed Obamacare’s tax hikes, Medicaid expansion, and insurance exchange subsidies, affecting more than 15 million enrollees. That’s a big deal, because it affects $2 trillion of spending over the next decade.” It is possible for a patient Republican majority to chip away and ultimately fully repeal if they are smart.

I think Roy is wrong. Reconciliation can be used to fully repeal Obamacare on day one of President Donald J. Trump’s tenure. Remember, in the last Congress both the House and Senate Budget committees issued specific instructions to use reconciliation to repeal Obamacare. They vetted a one-line repeal and faced resistance from the Senate Parliamentarian, a Senate staffer. The Senate can vote for a different interpretation of the rule. It is possible for the senators to vote to make a judgement as to whether full repeal of Obamacare passes the test of whether a one sentence repeal impacts spending and revenue of the federal government for a fiscal year by a vote of the full Senate.

One conservative leader was quoted in The Hill last year saying that full repeal is within the preview of reconciliation. “We think from what we’ve heard there’s a really credible case to be made that the one-sentence repeal instruction for reconciliation passes all the tests,” said Dan Holler, spokesman for Heritage Action for America. “From our vantage point, we think there are credible arguments that you can get all of ObamaCare [repealed] through reconciliation and that’s where the focus of lawmakers should be as the budget comes up and as instructions are written,” he added. He is right.

As for nominations, that is a whole different set of issues. When Sen. Harry Reid Harry Mason ReidThe Supreme Court vacancy — yet another congressional food fight Trump seeks to turn around campaign with Supreme Court fight On The Trail: Battle over Ginsburg replacement threatens to break Senate MORE (D-Nev.) used the Nuclear Option to rid the Senate of the filibuster on judicial nominations exempting the Supreme Court, it was understood by insiders that the Supreme Court exemption made zero sense. Reid used the argument that the filibuster was unconstitutional as applied to nominations, yet he exempted the Supreme Court. Although I would like to see the filibuster on all nominations reinstated, it makes logical sense to go the other way and obliterate the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations to make the Senate precedent consistent. Conservatives would cheer and get revenge on Reid by forcing through a conservative nomination to the Court. This outcome would prove that Sen. Reid’s use of the nuclear option was a major partisan mistake by Democrats.

As for the legislative filibuster, Republicans would be making a big mistake if they used strong arm tactics to ignore the cloture rule, Rule XXII of the Senate’s standing rules. When you look at rule, there is no distinction between the filibuster on nominations and legislation. Ultimately, the most effective senators who use the filibuster to slow bad ideas are conservatives who are fighting their own leadership on bloated appropriations bills, warrantless wiretapping and the defunding of Obamacare using the power of the purse. Sens. Rand Paul Randal (Rand) Howard PaulSecond GOP senator to quarantine after exposure to coronavirus GOP senator to quarantine after coronavirus exposure The Hill's Morning Report - Sponsored by National Industries for the Blind - Trump seeks to flip 'Rage' narrative; Dems block COVID-19 bill MORE (R-Ky.), Mike Lee Michael (Mike) Shumway LeeMcConnell shores up GOP support for coronavirus package McConnell tries to unify GOP Davis: The Hall of Shame for GOP senators who remain silent on Donald Trump MORE (R-Utah) and Ted Cruz Rafael (Ted) Edward CruzTrump argues full Supreme Court needed to settle potential election disputes Press: Notorious RBG vs Notorious GOP The Hill's Morning Report - Sponsored by Facebook - Washington on edge amid SCOTUS vacancy MORE (R-Texas) will be the ones defanged if the filibuster is changed.

ADVERTISEMENT

There is a case to be made to use the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominations as a way to bring some equity into the treatment of Obama nominees vis-a-vis Trump expected nominees. There is no compelling case to use the nuclear option to rid the Senate of the cloture rule and to convert the Senate into a smaller version of the House where individual senators would be stripped of all power. Conservatives supporting the obliteration of the filibuster need to take a step back before they blow up the Senate and make America’s laws less permanent.

Brian Darling is former Sr. Communications Director for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and former Sr. Fellow for Government Studies at The Heritage Foundation. He can be followed on Twitter @BrianHDarling

The views expressed by authors are their own and not the views of The Hill.