From the New York Times: Senate Takes Major Step Toward Repealing Health Care Law

They began a process that allows the repeal to be considered as a reconciliation bill which makes it filibuster proof.


- Click here for the article.

Senate Republicans took their first major step toward repealing the Affordable Care Act on Thursday, approving a budget blueprint that would allow them to gut the health care law without the threat of a Democratic filibuster.

The vote was 51 to 48. During the roll call, Democrats staged a highly unusual protest on the Senate floor to express their dismay and anger at the prospect that millions of Americans could lose health insurance coverage.

One by one, Democrats rose to voice their objections. Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington said that Republicans were “stealing health care from Americans.” Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said he was voting no “because health care should not just be for the healthy and wealthy.”

The presiding officer, Senator Cory Gardner, Republican of Colorado, repeatedly banged his gavel and said the Democrats were out of order because “debate is not allowed during a vote.”

The final vote, which ended just before 1:30 a.m., followed a marathon session in which senators took back-to-back roll call votes on numerous amendments, an arduous exercise known as a vote-a-rama.

The approval of the budget blueprint, coming even before President-elect Donald J. Trump is inaugurated, shows the speed with which Republican leaders are moving to fulfill their promise to repeal President Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement — a goal they believe can now be accomplished after Mr. Trump’s election.

The action by the Senate is essentially procedural, setting the stage for a special kind of legislation called a reconciliation bill. Such a bill can be used to repeal significant parts of the health law and, critically, is immune from being filibustered. Congress appears to be at least weeks away from voting on legislation repealing the law.

From Politico: Democrats mount gun control filibuster

A procedure we will cover later the semester.

- Click here for the story.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) launched a talking filibuster on the Senate floor — which was quickly joined by fellow Democrats — in an effort to pressure Republicans to accept legislation that would deny suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms and require universal background checks.

The Senate is debating a spending bill that Democrats hope to offer gun amendments to, but Murphy said that the Senate should “not proceed with debate on amendments to this bill until we have figured out a way to come together on, at the very least, two simple ideas.”

“I’m going to remain on this floor until we get some signal, some sign that we can come together on these two measures, that we can get a path forward on addressing this epidemic in a meaningful, bipartisan way,” Murphy continued on the Senate floor on Wednesday, after he first started his filibuster at about 11:20 a.m.

Most of the Democratic caucus was unaware of Murphy's plans until he took the floor, two senior aides said, though there had been some talk Tuesday about lining up speeches throughout the night Wednesday.

At the same time, Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) are exploring whether there is common ground on a deal to prevent suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Currently, the two parties are backing very different approaches to resolving instances where someone feels they've been wrongly put on a watch list and therefore cannot purchase a gun.

For more:

- Wikipedia: Filibuster.
- Wikipedia: Filibuster in the U.S. Senate.

On Ted Cruz and the recent debt ceiling vote

Out junior Senator is not making many friends in the Senate among his fellow Republicans. A few stories related to the recent debt limit vote:
- After GOP filibuster bid, Senate votes to suspend Treasury’s borrowing limit.

. . . Wednesday turned into a wild ride in the Senate. All the political unrest that has roiled the Republican Party in recent years — the establishment vs. conservative outsiders who threaten incumbent Republicans with primary challenges from the right — was on full display.

As he has for the past year, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) placed himself at the center of the day’s action. McConnell and Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) had sought to allow a simple majority – all Democrats – to approve the suspension of the debt limit until March 2015. But Cruz refused to go along, forcing more complicated procedural moves. That infuriated his Republican colleagues, because it meant that at least five GOP senators would have to vote with the Democrats to end the filibuster.

- The Minority Maker: Ted Cruz hurts his party by forcing a meaningless debt-ceiling vote.

The Senate passed the House debt-limit increase on Wednesday, but not before some needless drama that helps to explain why Republicans remain a minority.

Democrats had enough votes to pass the increase with a simple majority, which means they would have owned the debt increase. But then Senator Ted Cruz —the same fellow who planned the GOP's shutdown fiasco in October—objected on the floor and insisted on a 60-vote majority. This is exactly what Democratic leader Harry Reid wanted because if the bill failed he would have sent the Senate home on recess and returned later this month to join President Obama in flogging the GOP as the debt-ceiling deadline neared.

The 60-vote threshold was reached only after GOP leaders Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn and 10 others voted to let the final debt-ceiling vote proceed. All 12 then opposed the increase on final passage, but thanks to Mr. Cruz they had to walk the plank with Democrats on a procedural vote.

- Ted Cruz isn’t planning to be in the Senate for very long.

By forcing the Senate to round up 60 votes to end debate and force a final vote on a clean increase of the debt ceiling, Cruz knowingly complicated things for the top two Republicans in the chamber -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (Texas). Both men face primary challenges from their ideological right and neither relished the idea of helping break a filibuster for a debt ceiling increase with no Republican proposals attached.

It's not news that Cruz cares little for Senate tradition. He ran in 2012 on his willingness to shake up the institution, and time and again -- most notably during his nearly 24 hour talk-a-thon to protest Obamacare -- he has been willing (and gleefully so) to be a fly in the ointment. But, this latest gambit by Cruz may well be the most telling because it directly impacts two men who, if Cruz had any thought of sticking around the Senate for any extended period of time, not only could, but would make life very uncomfortable for him.

- High cost of an ego trip.

Cruz’s ego trip had come at a high cost. He had forced McConnell, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas and other Republicans to cast votes that could cause them to lose primaries to weaker general-election candidates, and he had risked getting his party blamed for a default.

The Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial page dubbed Cruz “the Minority Maker” for making his GOP colleagues “walk the plank” on a “meaningless debt ceiling vote.”

But Cruz doesn’t care about all that. Leaving the chamber, he told reporters McConnell’s fate would be “ultimately a decision . . . for the voters in Kentucky.”

His actions suggest Cruz has put himself before his party and even the nation’s solvency. And in this sense his actions are typical of the 2016 GOP presidential field. Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Rand Paul are mucking up the gears of government in ways that will earn them favorable attention in the primaries.

From the NYT: After G.O.P. Leaders Step In, Senate Votes to Raise Debt Ceiling

Now the bill goes to the president for a signature.

Students should note the mention of

Click here for the article:

Senate Republican leaders on Wednesday rescued a measure to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, overcoming a threatened filibuster from members of their own party and averting a potential shock to the economy.

A vote to cut off debate on the debt ceiling measure passed 67 to 31, after a dramatic scene on the floor when Republicans managed to muster 12 votes in support, clearing the way for final approval.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, and Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the Republican whip, waited nearly a half-hour as their Republican colleagues refused to vote to end debate on the bill. When it was clear that the debt ceiling increase would fail, they stepped forward in tandem to deliver the deciding votes.

The Senate then quickly voted to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, without any conditions, until March 2015, sending the legislation to President Obama to be signed. The passage ended the possibility of a calamitous debt default, as lawmakers scrambled to get out of town before a snowstorm rolled in.

The 55-to-43 vote, largely along party lines, ended three years of fiscal brinkmanship in which the threat of a default hung over acrimonious debt ceiling negotiations, and came a day after the Republican-controlled House passed the same legislation by relying almost entirely on Democratic votes.

The legislation required 60 votes to clear a procedural hurdle and break a threatened filibuster after Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, said he planned to object to any effort to raise the debt ceiling with a minimum of 51 votes. But he failed in his attempt to unite Senate Republicans to prevent the increase.

From the Atlantic: Now Abolish the Filibuster for Legislation, Too

People don't seem all that upset at the demise of the filibuster.

This guys wants to see it to further and have it repealed fro legislation also:

Much of the commentary on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rolling back the filibuster for most presidential appointees has been celebratory, even euphoric. It certainly was a step toward restoring some semblance of "majority rule" to our creaking 200-year-old republic. But commentators seem to forget that the filibuster has been used to sandbag important legislation as well, not just presidential appointments. And that's arguably where the most damage has been done. All sorts of good legislation, supported by a majority of the nation, also enjoyed majority support in the Senate, but Reid was not able to muster 60 out of 100 votes and break GOP-led filibusters.

Recent Senate filibusters of important progressive-leaning legislation include:
Firearm background checks: After the horror of Sandy Hook and other massacres, 54 senators supported legislation in April 2013 to institute background checks aimed at stopping would-be buyers who are ineligible to own guns. Polls showed that 90 percent of Americans supported the measure. Yet the bill died because its advocates could not round up the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster. President Obama called it a "shameful day for Washington," but it was really a pretty typical day in this era.

Cap-and-trade: One of the top items on Obama's agenda after taking office in 2009 was to implement a cap-and-trade law to cut carbon emissions. In June 2009, the Democrat-controlled House passed a bill, but it stalled in the Senate after failing to garner enough votes to overcome a Republican-led filibuster. In July 2010, Democrats finally abandoned hope of passing legislation in the upper chamber. "In order to pass comprehensive legislation, you have to have 60 votes. To get 60 votes, you've got to have Republicans. As of today, we don't have one Republican," said then-Senator John Kerry.

American Jobs Act: A GOP-led filibuster killed this jobs-and-stimulus bill in October 2011. Fifty-one senators voted in favor of a procedural motion to begin debate on the bill—short of the required 60 votes. The bill was a mix of tax cuts and new spending aimed at spurring job creation. It included $270 billion in payroll-tax cuts and other tax relief, along with $175 billion in new spending on roads, school repairs, and other infrastructure projects, as well as an extension of unemployment benefits and aid to local governments to prevent impending teacher and police layoffs. A majority of senators representing far more than a majority of the American people supported the bill.

Paycheck Fairness Act: The Senate Republican minority blocked passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act in June 2012, with "only" 52 senators voting for the bill and 47 against. The act aimed to decrease the pay gap between women and men by increasing protections for women filing gender-discrimination lawsuits, creating a federal-grant program to improve women's salary-negotiating skills, and rewarding employers who have fair pay practices, among other steps.

Sequestration: In February 2013, a Democratic compromise budget plan would have replaced the sequester with a combination of spending cuts and new revenue from closed tax loopholes. It had Senate majority support but it was shot down by Senate Republicans, with 51 senators voting for and 49 against.

Affordable Care Act: In March 2010, Democrats had to deploy the budget maneuver called “reconciliation” to cut off a Republican filibuster of Obama’s signature healthcare legislation. Though the bill was passed, filibusters, as well as threats of filibusters and other parliamentary tricks, constricted lawmakers' flexibility and contributed to the byzantine final law—which in turn helped to create today's implementation mess.

In each of these cases, Democrats tried and failed to find 60 votes, but there are plenty of other cases where they didn't even try. The way the filibuster works today is that even the threat can stop legislation in its tracks. Because the process takes Senate floor time, the Democratic majority has in recent years preferred to avoid drawn-out confrontations by essentially giving in to threats and moving on to other business. Small wonder that the Senate—and by extension the entire government—has become so paralyzed.

The Dish complies reactions to the nuclear option

For one set of reactions click here, for the other click here.

I'll pick some to highlight in the following posts.

The Senate Goes Nuclear

From the NYT:

The Senate voted on Thursday to eliminate the use of the filibuster against most presidential nominees, a move that will break the Republican blockade of President Obama’s picks to cabinet posts and the federal judiciary. The change is the most fundamental shift in the way the Senate functions in more than a generation.

The vote was one that members of both parties had threatened for the better part of a decade, but had always stopped short of carrying out. This time, with little left of the bipartisan spirit that helped seal compromises on filibuster rule changes in the past, there was no last-minute deal to be struck.

The vote was 52 to 48.

Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, set the change in motion on Thursday with a series of procedural steps.

“The need for change is so, so very obvious. It is clearly visible,” Mr. Reid said as the Senate convened Thursday morning. “It is time to get the Senate working.”

Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, denounced Democrats for trying to “break the rules to change the rules” as a way to distract the public from the president’s political problems over his health care law.

“You think this is in the best interest of the United States Senate and the American people?” Mr. McConnell asked, sounding incredulous. “I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you’ll regret this. And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.”

The gravity of the situation was reflected in a highly unusual scene on the Senate floor: Nearly all 100 senators were in their seats, rapt as their two leaders debated.

Tensions between the two parties have reached a boiling point in the last few weeks as Republicans repeatedly filibustered Mr. Obama’s picks to the country’s most important appeals court, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Senate has voted on three nominees to the court in the last month. Republicans have blocked them all, saying they would allow the president no more appointments to that court.

Tensions between the two parties have reached a boiling point in the last few weeks as Republicans repeatedly filibustered Mr. Obama’s picks to the country’s most important appeals court, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Senate has voted on three nominees to the court in the last month. Republicans have blocked them all, saying they would allow the president no more appointments to that court.

Democrats, who filibustered their own share of Republican judicial nominees before they took control of the Senate, have said that what the minority party has done is to effectively rewrite the law by requiring a 60-vote supermajority threshold for high-level presidential appointments. Once rare, filibusters of high-level nominees are now routine.

With the appeals court left with a bench of just eight full-time judges — there are 11 full-time seats — Democrats argue that Republicans are denying Mr. Obama his constitutional powers to appoint judges and reshaping the nature of the federal judiciary.

The filibuster changes, approved with just a simple majority under a procedural move so contentious it is known as the nuclear option, do not affect Supreme Court nominees.

The Dish links to commentary.

From New York Magazine: Senate Republicans: All Obama Judges Are Bad

Senate Republicans are filibustering a third Obama nominee to the DC Circuit Court. Democrats are once again weighing the opinion of changing Senate rules to scale back the filibuster.

For reasons that remain unclear, Senate Republicans have since decided to block Obama’s nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court, the country’s second-most-powerful court, en masse. “There is no reason to upset the current makeup of the court,” argues Charles Grassley. Democrats have “admitted they want to control the court so it will advance the president’s agenda,” says Mitch McConnell.

This – unlike many of the arguments of convenience deployed in such fights — is a perfectly blunt account of both side’s beliefs. Democrats want to nominate judges who share the Democratic legal philosophy, which tends to treat the Democratic policy agenda as constitutional. Republicans want to keep the courts as Republican as possible, because Republican judges are more likely to strike down laws passed by Democrats.

The bluntness of the account reveals its radicalism. Previous judicial fights have revolved around the question: How personally or ideologically unacceptable must a judge be to merit rejection? Republicans are now arguing that Obama’s nominating judges to vacancies on the court is illegitimate per se.

A campaign speech, not a filibuster

Our Senator's 21 hour speech was technically not a filibuster since there were already enough votes collected to ensure cloture - meaning that a vote on the continuing resolution was guaranteed to occur.

The National Journal explains here.

Rand Paul's speech which held up the nomination of a CIA director and Wendy Davis' which forced the end of a special session of the Texas Legislature both qualified. But it was similar to a speech given by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in 2010 - which was also not a filibuster.

A filibuster - according to Wikipedia - is:

a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal. It is sometimes referred to as talking out a bill, and characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body.

The consensus seems to be that the speech had little to do with defunding Obamacare, and more to do with raising Cruz's viability as a 2016 presidential candidate and gathering campaign contributions.

This might have been the first big speech of the 2016 presidential race.

Scary thought.

While a minority might be powerless in the US House of Representatives, it is not in the US Senate

A useful reminder by James Fallows.

In the House, a minority is indeed "largely powerless." Just ask Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, et al about how life has changed since 2010.

In the Senate, it's very different. There a minority is extremely powerful. Just ask Mitch McConnell, who has made 60 votes -- not a simple majority of 51 -- the de-facto minimum for getting either nominees or legislation approved.

Here's one way to think about it: in both the Senate and the House, the minority party has about the same proportional strength. The Republicans now have 46 Senate seats, obviously 46% of the total. And the 201 Democrats in the House are just over 46% of its makeup.

But in the House, those 46% might as well be 0%, since everything is run by majority vote. While in the Senate, 46% is a fully empowered blocking minority -- which can keep judgeships vacant, legislation from being approved, and essentially anything else from being done. That is, as long as they vote as a bloc, as they usually have; and are committed to making the filibuster not an emergency matter but a daily routine, as under McConnell they have done.

Written Assignment #6 - GOVT 2305 - 11 week online class only

The use of the filibuster in the US Senate has increased greatly over the past few years, so much so that critics wonder whether it does more harm than good. Normally filibusters have been used sparingly by a minority in the Senate to stop bill they find objectionable, but more recently it has been used to place broad limits on the ability of government to operate at all. For example, executive and judicial positions remain unstaffed because Senate Republicans have enough votes to prevent the votes from getting to the Senate floor.

Senate Democrats are considering whether to change the rules that allow filibusters to happen - there is nothing in the Constitution about filibusters. They happen because of the process that evolved in the Senate over time. but these processes can be changed. That doesn't means its a good idea to do so, or that the change might not have consequences.

I want you to read up on this controversy and weigh in on it. What would the consequences of filibuster reform be on the the Senate? Is reform a good or bad idea?

150 words at a minimum.

Some links:
- Wikipedia: Filibuster in the US Senate.
- An Accident of History?
- US Senate: Filibuster and Cloture.
- Wikipedia: Rule XXII.
- Save the filibuster, Harry Reid.
- Democrats poised to limit filibusters, angering GOP.

The understaffed federal judiciary in a handful of charts

This is one of the factors driving possible filibuster reform.

From WonkBlog, some charts detailing the factors leading to an understaffed - and possibly weakened - federal judiciary.

One of the featured charts:

From the Monkey Cage: Crowd-Filibustering in the Texas Senate

Its also being called the citizen filibuster. A handful of actors both inside and outside the Texas Senate worked together to defeat SB5 - at least temporarily.

One of the authors at The Monkey Cage walks through several aspects of the filibuster. I'd consider this essential reading for my students since it reminds us of the reality of how political power is exercised.

Did Dewhurst screw up?

Accusations are flying that the Lieutenant Governor's mismanagement of the special session set the stage for Davis' filibuster. Dewhurst's political future may have evaporated. We've been reading about Allen Shivers and how he made the Lieutenant Governor a powerful position. I wonder if history will look at Dewhurst as being responsible for undermining it. 

Great detail from Ross Ramsey:

When the special session began (and, to be fair, before abortion was on the agenda), Dewhurst took a long-planned trip to France. That had to do with the dedication of a D-Day museum, a project that involves some family history for Dewhurst, whose father was on a bomber crew. Most lawmakers gave him a pass, even if they rolled their eyes at the same time.

When it came time for Dewhurst to give someone a pass, it was the last day of the session, and he decided that the most important issue on his plate was more important than the funeral of the father of Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio. It’s true that the funeral was held on the last day of a special session with several bills still in play.

But it’s also true that the first bill in line — because Dewhurst put it there — was the abortion bill. He and everybody else knew there would be a filibuster and that it might imperil other legislation on tap.

He might have asked senators to vote out the other bills, gone to the funeral and let Davis have a short filibuster on Tuesday night. That would have completed the other business, taken some of the spotlight away from Davis and set up a story for Republicans coming back in another special session to get their work done in a way the Democrats couldn’t block.

Or he could have used the rules to cut off the filibuster, which turned out to be the strategy he pursued. He assured the governor and House leaders that the abortion legislation would pass on Tuesday. But the day slipped away from him.

Senators are allowed to talk as long as they want, and when they do that in a strategic way — to delay a vote, for instance — it’s a filibuster. Those can be stopped if the senator doing the talking breaks the rules of the filibuster, yielding the floor to another senator, sitting or leaning on furniture, or going off subject. It’s a three-strikes-you’re-out rule, and Senate Republicans decided that was the way to go.

Instead of the customary empty chamber where one senator filibusters and friendly colleagues take shifts asking questions to pass the time, senators stuck around for Davis’ debate, watching for mistakes. They eventually found three that Dewhurst would sustain, and the filibuster came to a halt. But it was late and his rulings were questionable — to some of the senators and most of the spectators — and a challenge pushed Dewhurst out of the chair.

The parliamentary wrangling and the protesters ate up the rest of the time, and when Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, finally called a vote on the abortion bill, it turned out that the midnight deadline had passed.

Republicans had the votes they needed, and the conversations about whether and when to come back and try again started right away on Wednesday morning.|

They might be able to put the bill back together, but Dewhurst’s fortunes are another issue. In his attempt at a political revival, he flopped on stage with everyone watching.

The Davis Filibuster

The special session finished with a successful 13 hour filibuster against SB5 Fort Worth Senator Wendy Davis.

Some related items - mostly from the Texas Tribune:

- Legislative History of SB5.
- The impact of proposed abortion restrictions.
- Led by Davis, Democrats Defeat Abortion Legislation.
- Slideshow.
- Filibuster Launches Davis Onto National Stage.

From the Chron: Texas Senate has a history of record-breaking filibusters

Opponents of the abortion bill being debated in the Senate are planning a filibuster.

The Houston Chronicle points out that the record was set in the Texas Senate in 1977 - 43 hours. They also point out that the filibustered bill passed immediately after the filibuster was over.

Not exactly your normal filibuster, but here goes

Gun measures filibustered in the Senate

The US Senate filibustered a variety of amendments to the gun control bill, though a couple other amendments seem cleared for a vote.

The bill is S. 649, the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013. Click here to find the bill on Thomas.


The NYT has a graphic that walks through the amendments.

The ones that failed would have expanded background checks for online sales and guns shows and substituted checks for enforcement mechanisms for the mentally ill, banned assault weapons and limited the size of magazines, made straw pruchases a federal crime, mandated that concealed firearms licenses from any state be accepted in all states, and ensure that only judges could deem veterans unfit to own a gun due to mental incompetence.

The two that passed today are meant to improve mental health programs and impose penalties on states for releasing gun ownership data.

Catching up on gun control

There's been lots under the bridge since we last covered this. Action has occurred on all levels of government.

The US Senate is set to begin discussing the bill, and the Washignton Post is reporting that a Republican led filibuster attempt might be thwarted:

The Senate will hold the first key procedural vote on a bill to curb gun violence Thursday as more than a half-dozen Republicans announced that they will join with Democrats to stop any attempt to block popular legislation drafted in response to a deadly shooting at a Connecticut elementary school.

The vote would formally start the the most wide-ranging and ambitious battle over gun control in 20 years.

In scheduling the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he doesn’t know if he has sufficient support to proceed to further debate on the bill. Regardless, “we’re going to vote on this anyway,” he said. “It may take a little time, but the American people deserve a vote.”

Senate procedural rules require Reid to secure at least 60 votes to move ahead with the legislation. Republican support to proceed doesn’t guarantee final passage of the bill — just that the Senate can actually begin formal debate. Getting at least 51 senators to support a final bill will prove difficult, as the politics of the issue are especially tricky for several Senate Democrats seeking reelection in 2014 in rural and Midwestern states.

If the vote to proceed is successful, the Senate is expected to spend the remainder of April debating and voting on a bill that would expand the gun background-check system, make gun trafficking a federal crime for the first time and provide $40 million in federal funding to help revamp school security programs. Senators of both parties would be permitted to introduce related amendments, including plans to establish an online portal for background checks, and to provide more federal funding for mental health programs assisting military veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reid has also promised votes on proposals to ban military-style assault weapons and to limit the size of ammunition clips, but supporters expect those amendments to fail.

More on the filibuster against Judge Halligan

There are four vacancies on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and Senate Republicans have been able to prevent President Obama from filling any of them. Democrats are strategizing to figure out how to respond.

From the NYT:

A fresh feud over federal judgeships has again begun to agitate the Senate, with Republicans so far blocking President Obama from filling any of the four vacancies on the nation’s most prestigious and important appeals court.

After Republicans this week filibustered the nomination of Caitlin J. Halligan of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Democrats quickly began discussions over how to respond. One possibility is for Mr. Obama to make several simultaneous nominations, in effect daring Republicans to find specific objections in multiple instances. Democrats say Republicans would be hard pressed to come up with legitimate reasons to disqualify all four.

“We need to design a strategy to counter the Republicans, and we are going to need the president,” said Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico. “Rather than putting just one up, we should put before the Senate all four and expose what is happening here.”

If Republicans were to continue to steadfastly block a series of appeals court nominees, Democrats say they might then have justification to revisit Senate rules and claim new power to thwart filibusters.