How would eliminating the filibuster affect judicial and executive appointments under Joe Biden or recent presidents?

Executive summary — short, direct conclusion up front

Eliminating the filibuster would principally shift decision-making from supermajority consensus to simple-majority control, making it easier for presidents with Senate majorities to confirm judicial and executive nominees but not guaranteeing faster or less contentious confirmations. Past rule changes and the “nuclear option” show that lowering cloture thresholds has already moved nominations toward majority votes, yet empirical evidence and recent procedural innovations indicate that delays and partisan strategy, not just the filibuster rule itself, drive confirmation timelines ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

1. How advocates frame the prize: faster confirmations and greater presidential control

Supporters argue that eliminating the filibuster would allow a president to fill vacancies more quickly and with nominees aligned to their agenda, because cloture would no longer require 60 votes and most nominations could proceed on a simple majority. The 2013 and 2017 rule changes—often called the “nuclear option”—already removed the filibuster for most executive and federal judicial nominations, demonstrating the mechanism by which a majority party can operationalize faster confirmations through procedural change ^{[1] [4] [5]}. Proponents say full elimination would extend that simplicity to legislation and all Senate business, meaning a president with a narrow Senate majority could not only confirm nominees but also enact policy without cross‑party negotiation ^[4].

2. What the historical record actually shows about speed and outcomes

The historical record complicates the simple “faster confirmations” claim: after 2013, when cloture was effectively lowered for many nominees, average confirmation times for some categories of nominees increased rather than decreased, reflecting partisan strategic delay that substitutes for formal procedural hurdles ^[3]. The 2013 and 2017 precedents allowed majority votes for most nominees but did not eliminate committee vetting or political obstruction outside cloture votes; scholars and reporters note that while the legal threshold changed, the political incentives that produce delays did not automatically evaporate ^{[1] [6]}. Thus, eliminating the filibuster would remove one tool of minority leverage but would not by itself erase partisan incentives to slow or contest nominees.

3. How different presidents would be affected — Biden and recent predecessors

For presidents like Joe Biden and recent predecessors, the practical effect depends on Senate composition and political context: a Democratic Senate majority could confirm more ideologically aligned judges and executive officials if the filibuster were gone, changing long‑term institutional balances on courts and agencies, as proponents warn ^[4]. Historical cases—such as opposition to Janice Rogers Brown—illustrate how the filibuster has been used to block particular nominees and thereby shape judicial demographics; removing it would remove that minority check, making confirmations more of a straight partisan contest ^[7]. Yet empirical analyses emphasize that confirmation patterns under Obama and Trump showed persistent delays even after procedural changes, meaning the magnitude of change for any given president would be context‑dependent ^{[3] [2]}.

4. Broader institutional consequences: compromise, norms, and legislative power

Eliminating the filibuster for all business would not only reshape confirmations but also alter legislative incentives and norms by empowering a Senate majority to pass sweeping measures without cross‑party votes ^[4]. Critics warn this could accelerate swings in policy with each change of party control and weaken incentives for moderation in nominations and governance; supporters counter that it permits democratic accountability by enabling the majority to implement its agenda. Some reform proposals — such as two‑track or delayed majority rules — attempt to balance majority rule with safeguards, but analysts caution that any change risks politicizing what has been a restraint on majoritarian swings ^{[8] [4]}.

5. Bottom line and important caveats for interpreting the evidence

The evidence shows that removing or weakening the filibuster would increase majority control over nominations but would not automatically speed confirmations or reduce partisan conflict, because much delay stems from strategic behavior outside cloture rules and from Senate committee processes that remain intact ^{[3] [6]}. Any assessment must account for political context: a president with a safe Senate majority would gain the most immediate leverage, while a president facing narrow margins or divided government would see smaller, more conditional effects. Debates over elimination also implicate institutional norms and long‑run governance tradeoffs between efficiency and minority protection, which will shape whether and how such a change is pursued ^{[1] [4]}.