The subject line of a 7/16 Daily Kos email reads, "The filibuster was reformed today. Really"
Really? The NY Times article states, "Senate leaders reached an agreement on Tuesday to preserve the filibuster in exchange for confirmation votes on President Obama’s stalled nominees..."
To clarify, the deal was related to 7 of Obama's agency nominees. It did not, for instance, address the many blocked judicial nominees. On Tuesday, the Senate did vote on and approve the appointment of one of the deal's seven nominees - Richard Cordray for the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB). A procedural vote was scheduled for 7/17 for Obama's nominee to the Export-Import Bank. Although not yet scheduled, the deal is supposed to allow votes for Obama's nominees for Labor Secretary and head of the EPA. Obama was forced to withdraw 2 of his 3 NLRB nominees and offer other nominees in their place. Votes for the NLRB nominees are to be scheduled at a later time. As a result, time will tell how the GOP actually handles the other 6 nominees.
I've read that without new NLRB appointees the agency will soon lack a quorum, limiting its ability to act. Practical consequences are pending with these votes.
In exchange, the Senate majority dropped any efforts to make even small changes even to just the rules that apply to nominees to agency posts. The best case scenario seems to be the Senate minority will switch to lengthy delays (rather than permanent blocking) of other nominees and continued blocking of legislation. And efforts to strangle the budgets of the CFPB, NLRB and EPA.
After the 2010 election, everywhere one heard conservatives shouting, "Elections have consequences". Supposedly, the fact Republicans won a majority of House seats meant voters wanted every single right-wing plan Republicans advocated, so everyone should let them do anything they wanted. During the 2012 campaign season, Republicans attempted to exclude as many non-GOP voters as possible with selective voter roll purges, voter ID laws, voter intimidation, 6-hour-long lines at some voting sites, etc. In spite of this, a majority of those allowed to vote picked a Democratic President and a Democratic majority in the Senate. Adding all the votes for House candidates across the country, you find 51% of voters chose Democrats - it was gerrymandering that gave the GOP a majority in the House. The voters made their wishes known, but the "Elections have consequences" Republicans continued to use Senate rules to block action - even on things like nominees that do not have to go to the House.
The Senate rules were shown to be too easily abused. But the Senate majority went to lengths not to limit abuses. Even something as simple as letting a minority indefinitely block a majority, but requiring them to walk up to the podium and talk in order to block a majority was beyond the imagination of the Senate majority. They might have modified the rule to permit agency nominee votes with 55 votes rather than 60 - if they didn't want to change it to a simple majority vote. But there was nothing they were willing to tweak.
The fact is, there are plenty of opportunities for a minority to block federal action without use of filibusters. Because each state has 2 Senators regardless of population, a majority of Senators representing a minority of the population can prevent action. 51% of House members can block legislation passed by Senators representing 60% of the people. Gerrymandering can give a minority control of the House. A President can be elected with 49% of the popular vote and veto a bill supported by a majority of Congress. Judges appointed by a past President whose policies are now a minority point of view can strike down a law passed by a popular President and Congress. Why do we need to keep abused Senate rules as well?
Prior to this deal, liberal groups made a serious effort to pressure Senate Democrats to act on filibuster reform. They were ignored. Yet the Daily Kos email says, "The fight to fix the Senate isn't over, but today we took a big step in the right direction." Getting something in return for not fixing the underlying problem is better than nothing. Still... If that's a "big step", what would you call minor tweaking of agency nominee rules? An enormous step forward? Then what would you call requiring those who want to filibuster to speak at the podium? Total victory? Sorry, maybe I'm getting as far into hyperbole as the email.
It's better that Senate Democrats got Cordray (and supposedly 6 other nominees) rather than nothing. But they are the majority. They're not even a bare 51% majority. It shouldn't be that impressive that a Democratic majority was able to get some of what a Democratic President requested. If the Senate majority follows this up with a successful showdown to get most of a Democratic President's judicial nominees and some of the previously blocked Democratic-sponsored bills - it will at least look like they're breaking filibuster abuses in general, although without changing the problematic rules.
I can't say they definitely won't, but don't count your chickens before they're hatched.