Ezra Klein noted the following the other day: One huge effect of filibuster reform: Obama can actually fire people. This is worth considering, since in the pre-reform period the administration ran the risk of a massive, lengthy vacancy for anyone who was asked to leave.
Also, it may induce higher quality candidates to be interested in appointment. Under the pre-reform system a candidate would not only have to go through an exhaustive vetting process, but then wait around for an indefinite amount of time since the appointment could be held up in the Senate indefinitely.
For example:
the nominee would often have to put their life on hold for months or years as the Senate worked through the obstruction — and, sometimes, the nomination would end in defeat. Republicans filibustered the nomination of Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond to the Federal Reserve Board for over a year. Eventually, he just gave up, and so the U.S. government lost the service of one of the world’s most brilliant economists.
Another point that occurs to me, and that I have not seen discussed as yet: the change could have an affect on recess appointments. If presidents can be guaranteed a vote on their nominees, this should diminish the rationale for making recess appointments.
