At the Washington Post, retired Admiral Michelle J. Howard goes after Tommy Tuberville — former coach, now a senator — for holding up military promotions.
When Marine Corps Commandant David H. Berger relinquished his office in July, his photo was taken down but not replaced. Now, there is a blank black spot. The spot is empty because the position of commandant is vacant. Berger’s nominated relief, Gen. Eric M. Smith, has not been confirmed by Congress and is plugging the hole as “acting” commandant. No portrait will be displayed until he is confirmed.
Another photo was blacked out on Aug. 4, when the chief of staff of the Army, Gen. James C. McConville, departed. Adm. Michael M. Gilday, the chief of naval operations, relinquishes his office on Aug. 14. There are more empty spots threatened — visual reminders that absence matters. The Joint Chiefs is a team, and holes in the organization have impact.
Tuberville is holding up the nominations because he opposes the Pentagon policy paying for troops’ travel to get an abortion. Don’t get me wrong: That’s a legitimate topic for debate. Instead of debating, though, Tuberville is simply bringing chaos to the organization.
But, like, aren’t there 99 other senators? Howard:
Tuberville’s power arises from the traditional courtesy of senatorial “holds,” a primary tool senators use to engage the Defense Department and other agencies on issues of importance to them. But holds have not been turned against the Joint Chiefs in this manner since the services were reorganized after World War II. Tuberville has also stated that his holds on promotions do not impact military readiness. Here he is wrong. And he, of all people, should know that.
Ah, well. The problem here isn’t really Tuberville at all. It’s the U.S. Senate and its terrible terrible rules. Any institution that allows a single member — just one — to bring the business of government to a halt and all the other members just choose to live with it is simply broken.
Do Republicans still care what the Founders would say? They used to be big during the Tea Party days, but in the era of Trumpism it seems like references to the Founders are less prolific than they used to be. When stuff like this comes up, though, I think about Federalist No. 58. That’s where James Madison talks about the Constitution not requiring a supermajority quorum in the House to take votes. That’s not immediately applicable to this situation, but also it kind of is:
It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.
“The fundamental principle of free government” would seem to require that one man in one chamber of the legislative branch not be able to block legislation.
But that’s what the Senate does allow. It’s profoundly anti-democratic. And it’s a big reason we’re in this mess.
I fault Majority Leader Schumer for not playing hardball with this. Sen. Tuberville is blocking unanimous consent. They could still take up each individual nomination, debate for the require 10 hours, and vote. True, they could never get through all of the needed promotions, but if Schumer would schedule these debates on Saturday, Sunday, and during this months recess, the rest of the Senate would put some real pressure on Tuberville to give it up. At the very least, most Americans would love to see their representatives working on weekends. Sooner or later, Tuberville and his allies, if he has any, will miss a debate, and the Senate can push the rest of the list through on unanimous consent.
I read it very closely, including the headline. In the story, you write: "The problem here isn’t really Tuberville at all." Yes, the problem is Turberville...no matter the Senate's ridiculous rule. Your wrote in your response to me: "Turberville bad." Then write it for everyone to see, not just me.