Senate Republicans this week adopted rule changes that could make the august upper chamber something like a miniature version of the raucous and deeply partisan House.

In a bid to speed confirmation of President Trump’s nominees, Republicans voted Wednesday to cut the debate time for lower-level judicial and administration picks from 30 hours to two. Ordinarily, such a rule change requires the backing of a two-thirds supermajority. But the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, detonated the so-called nuclear option, lowering the threshold for passage to a simple majority — a move Mr. Trump had been clamoring for. Only two Republicans joined with Democrats to oppose this latest erosion of the minority party’s ability to “advise and consent.”

This may sound like parliamentary arcana, but the impact should be clear to anyone unnerved by the Senate’s newish practice of ramming through Supreme Court picks with a bare majority — another Trump-era innovation by Mr. McConnell.

The Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, charged that the move “risks turning this body into a colosseum of zero-sum infighting, a place where the brute power of the majority rules, with little or no regard to the concerns of the minority party, and where longstanding rules have little or no meaning.”

Mr. McConnell contends that he was forced into this by Democrats’ “mindless, undiscriminating obstruction for the sake of obstruction.” This claim will strike many as ludicrous. Well before the name Merrick Garland became synonymous with partisan stonewalling, Mr. McConnell was widely regarded as a master of obstruction, even by members of his own party.

Even so, it was not the Republican leader who started the Senate down this path. That distinction goes to the former Democratic leader Harry Reid, who, in November 2013, went nuclear to dismantle the filibuster for most judicial and executive nominees. Irked by the Republican minority’s bottling up of President Barack Obama’s picks, Democrats overwhelmingly backed the measure, which passed by a four-vote margin.

At the time, Mr. Reid blamed Republican obstructionism. “They have done everything they can to deny the fact that Obama has been elected and then re-elected,” he said.

Like today’s Democrats, Republicans then warned of enduring damage to the institution. “Breaking the rules to change the rules is un-American,” said Mr. McConnell, then the minority leader. “I just hope the majority leader thinks about his legacy, the future of his party, and, most importantly, the future of our country before he acts.”

Republicans also vowed that Mr. Reid’s team would live to regret crossing this line. “Democrats won’t be in power in perpetuity,” Senator Richard Shelby told reporters. “This is a mistake — a big one for the long run.”

Not six years later, here we are. For all his complaints about Democratic obstructionism, Mr. McConnell has pushed through a record number of Mr. Trump’s judicial picks. In addition to killing the filibuster of Supreme Court nominees, Mr. McConnell ended the “blue slip” practice, an tradition that effectively gave senators veto power over nominees from their home state. Now he has done away with extended debate on most nominees.

Someone needs to stop the spiral. There is much about Senate processes that should be reformed. But razing the body’s deliberative culture for partisan gain serves no one well, whichever side does it. Each line crossed makes the next one that much less daunting. This latest power grab has prompted concern about when the Senate will end the legislative filibuster. Such defanging of the minority would likely be a tough sell among lawmakers. But, as with confirmations, the 60-vote requirement on legislation would most likely end in stages, starting with baby steps like requiring only a simple majority to open debate.

Democratic presidential hopefuls are being asked about the issue. None seem eager to wade in. Yet. But as 2020 approaches, the issue will become more charged, and with every perceived Republican affront, the Democratic base will grow more impatient for its team to play hardball. If Democrats retake the White House and Senate, the pressure to deal with Republican obstructionism will intensify as progressives push bold plans — “Medicare for all,” the Green New Deal, gun-safety measures, and so on — impossible to realize under the current system without a Senate supermajority. But if the rules were changed to allow passage with just 51 votes, who knows what could be achieved?

This would make moving legislation through the often-infuriating upper chamber easier, more like in the House, which provides few protections against the tyranny of the majority.

No doubt this would strike some as a great victory — until the next time their team lost power.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Source: Read Full Article