A Hold on Democracy

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at how ridiculous the U.S. Senate's traditions are -- things like the filbuster and ultra-liberal charisma deficient Bay State Senators. I've already ripped the filibuster, and it's not possible to run down the list of comments I've had on Ketchup Boy and Kennedy. The Wall Street Journal takes on one more tradition that shows that getting work done in DC is ancillary to petty feuds...

With a showdown looming over the filibuster of judicial nominees, now is the time to point out another abuse of the Senate's "advise and consent" power. It's called the "hold," whereby an individual Senator can delay indefinitely a Presidential nomination, and it is seriously interfering with the operation of the executive branch.

Call it every Senator's personal "nuclear option." If he doesn't like a nominee or, more likely, doesn't like a policy of the agency to which the nominee is headed, all he has to do is inform his party leader that he is placing a hold on the nomination. Oh--and he can do so secretly, without releasing his name or a reason.

Like the filibuster, the hold appears nowhere in the Constitution but has evolved as Senators accrete more power to themselves. Senate rules say nothing about holds, which started out as a courtesy for Members who couldn't be present at votes. Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden has said holds are "a lot like the seventh-inning stretch in baseball. There is no official rule or regulation that talks about it, but it has been observed for so long that it has become a tradition."

As the article notes, the aforementioned Senator Widen and Senator Grassley of Iowa will be introducing legislation that will force Senators to disclose these holds publicly. I'm with the Journal -- let's get rid of holds entirely.