Until late Monday, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. ,was providing yet another case study in D.C. dysfunction. The honorable senator had unilaterally placed a blanket hold on over 70 Obama administration nominees that had been passed out of committee and were awaiting final confirmation by the full Senate. Among the standard appointments being held up were leadership positions within the departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Shelby placed the hold in a ham-handed attempt to force the Pentagon to reconsider how it will award a $40 billion Air Force refueling tanker contract. If European-owned Airbus wins out over AmericaâÄôs Boeing, Alabama stands to gain a massive new manufacturing plant (at the expense of other statesâÄô existing factories), and Shelby likely gets a ticker-tape parade through Birmingham. Like the filibuster, holds hurt effective democratic governance. The trouble is, Senate rules operate by unanimous consent; a single senator can object and gum up the entire process. Instead of moving to vote on the nominees, each one would be subject to a filibuster. Even with only one objector, clearing procedural hurdles takes Senate floor time away from numerous other, more important considerations. So, there is never any incentive even to bring up the subject in the first place. ItâÄôs no wonder legislation goes to the Senate to die. MinnesotaâÄôs Senate delegation should follow the lead set by their predecessor, former senator and Vice President Walter Mondale, who led the 1975 effort to reform filibuster rules. Even though Shelby withdrew the motion, it is time to sensibly reform Senate rules to address modern forms of political obstructionism.