It is now being widely reported that senators have struck a Republican-friendly deal on judicial nominees which would confirm slightly more than half of the non-controversial nominees currently awaiting a vote, while permitting the GOP to block the four nominees they have decided to oppose:

After a months long blockade, Senate Republicans have agreed to let at least 19 of President Barack Obama‘s non-controversial judicial nominees win confirmation in the waning days of the congressional session in exchange for a commitment by Democrats not to seek votes on four others, according to officials familiar with the deal.

Among the four is Goodwin Liu, a law school dean seen as a potential future Supreme Court pick, whose current nomination to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has sparked strong criticism from Republicans.

As part of the arrangement, the Senate has approved 10 judges in the past few days without a single dissenting vote. One of them, Albert Diaz, had been awaiting confirmation to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., since clearing the Judiciary Committee in January.

The audacity of this deal is truly breathtaking. Republicans will confirm less than all of Obama’s “non-controversial” nominees — the nominees that they have absolutely no objection to whatsoever — and will block anyone they choose, no matter how spurious their objections. And, lest there be any doubts, the right’s objections to nominees such as Liu are flimsy at best. Most of the case against Liu is routed in intentional misrepresentations of his scholarship, some of which accuse him of saying exactly the opposite of what he has actually said.

So how did the America get to this point, where the majority has to bargain and plead to confirm nominees that no one objects to, and where even the slightest minority objection will scuttle a nominee? Unsurprisingly, the answer lies in the Senate’s easily-abused rules.

The Senate rules empowers the minority to force up to 30 hours of wasted floor time for each nominee the majority wishes to confirm. When you multiply this across the hundreds of judges, ambassadors, assistant secretaries and other jobs a new president must fill, it adds up to more time than the Senate is in session for two entire presidential terms:

Because the minority has the power to slow the Senate to a virtual halt, they can use this power to extort even the most unreasonable demands from the minority. In this case, the Senate GOP can simply threaten to grind all confirmations to a near halt unless the majority complies with their arbitrary demand to block Liu and others.

Next month, a one day window opens up when a bare majority of the Senate can change its rules to prevent this kind of hostage-taking from happening again. If the Senate misses this opportunity, another window will not open again for two years.

Late last week, the House GOP leadership circulated a memo announcing their plans to impose a new requirement on all legislation introduced in that body:

The Pledge to America released by House Republicans in September of this year included a commitment to “require every bill to cite its specific Constitutional Authority.” To implement this proposal, the Transition Team and the Elected Republican Leadership are recommending a change to standing Rules of the House to require that each bill or joint resolution introduced in the House be accompanied by a statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the proposed law.

As this requirement will apply to all bills and joint resolutions introduced in the 112th Congress — including those introduced on the first day — we are writing to provide early guidance for complying with this rule so as to minimize any disruption caused by its implementation.

As ThinkProgress explained when the GOP released its so-called Pledge to America, this proposal is largely a solution in search of a problem. The Constitution gives Congress broad authority to regulate the national economy and to raise and spend revenues, and there is simply no evidence whatsoever that Congress exceeds this authority on all but the most rare occasions. Less than one federal law is struck down every year as unconstitutional, and many of the few laws that are struck down are invalidated because they violate the Constitution’s civil rights protections — such as the right to free speech or to be free from discrimination — and not because they exceed Congress’ enumerated powers.

Yet, while the GOP’s proposal is unlike to address any existing problem, it could also wind up causing serious new ones.

In a questionably-reasoned decision allowing the most high-profile of the health care lawsuits to move forward, Republican Judge Roger Vinson held that the Affordable Care Act’s provision requiring all Americans to either carry health insurance or pay slightly more income taxes somehow does not fall within Congress’ power to levy taxes because Congress did not use the word “tax” to describe the provision in some parts of the bill.

Moreover, the health care litigation provides a warning that established constitutional doctrine may not always be there when Congress needs it. One year ago, the notion that the Affordable Care Act might violate the Constitution was a punchline. Today, the Supreme Court’s precedents are even more favorable to the Act than they were a year ago, and the doctrinal argument against health reform remains laughable. Nevertheless, one federal judge has already declared a portion of the law unconstitutional, and Judge Vinson appears poised to do the same soon. If either of these decisions are upheld by the Supreme Court, the scope of Congress’ power would become impossible to pin down.

So the new landscape is very simple. Congress will be required to name a constitutional provision that supports each law they pass. If Congress fails to mention another provision, Judge Vinson would say that that provision can’t apply — even if it would be sufficient to uphold the law. Moreover, the scope of each of Congress’ powers can change at a moments notice and without warning. So any law could be struck down simply because some Member of Congress makes an unforeseeable error in describing the law’s constitutional basis.

There are many reasons why Judge Vinson’s opinion should be reversed on appeal. The House GOP just came up with another one.