Senate Dems ready tactics to muck up Supreme Court confirmation
Category: News & Politics
Via: texan1211 • 4 years ago • 59 commentsBy: By Andrew Desiderio 4 hrs ago (MSN)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Senate Dems ready tactics to muck up Supreme Court confirmation
Senate Democrats can't stop Mitch McConnell from confirming a new Supreme Court justice, but they are already planning to make it as painful as possible.
© Win McNamee/Getty Images Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has his caucus on board with an effort to disrupt and obstruct Senate Republicans.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has his caucus on board with an effort to disrupt and obstruct Senate Republicans, using a wide range of procedural tools to try to make it difficult for the Senate majority leader.
Interviews with more than a dozen Democratic senators revealed broad support for disrupting the Supreme Court confirmation process, even if the strategy yields some collateral damage. Yet Democrats facing tough reelections and those who typically spurn delay tactics overwhelmingly support the hardball campaign, potentially putting them at increased risk of losing their seats.
"We know that the votes are not there [to block the nominee], but you do what you can to call attention to it," said Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent who could be pulled off the campaign trail as a result. "The issue is that this is a power grab."
"We can't do business as usual in a situation that's so extraordinary where the Republicans are breaking their word to rush a nominee so they can kill the Affordable Care Act," added Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). "We can't just say, oh, yeah, that's normal. Sorry."
The goal, senators and aides say, is to highlight what Democrats see as hypocrisy and a blatant abuse of power on the part of McConnell (R-Ky.), who blocked President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee in 2016 but is pressing forward with the goal of confirming President Donald Trump's pick, Amy Coney Barrett, before Election Day. McConnell only needs a simple majority after Republicans eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in 2017. And if Democrats can prevent Barrett from being seated on the court before Nov. 10, she likely wouldn't be able to rule on the Trump administration's effort to invalidate Obamacare.
Democratic senators were quick to justify the retaliation effort, which is only getting started with less than 40 days until the Nov. 3 election.
"Process is everything," said Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). "So if you're going to use the process to try to steal an election, then we're going to use the process to try to do everything for that not to happen."
Some Democrats have already said they will refuse to meet with Barrett, just as many Republicans snubbed Obama's 2016 pick, Merrick Garland. But the party still plans to abide by some norms; Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have decided to attend the confirmation hearings, despite calls from the left for a boycott.
Indeed, McConnell has told his members that they should be prepared for such tactics from Democrats, which could complicate campaign schedules for vulnerable GOP incumbents.
Here's what Senate Democrats have in their toolkit:
The "two-hour rule"
Schumer's opening salvo last Tuesday was to invoke the rarely used "two-hour rule," which can be used to halt all committee business after the Senate has been in session for more than two hours.
The move caught senators and aides by surprise, and it caused the cancellation of several important committee hearings — most notably, a closed Senate Intelligence Committee briefing with William Evanina, the nation's top counterintelligence official, on the subject of election security.
Republicans quickly derided the move as a "temper tantrum" on Schumer's part. When Intelligence Committee Chairman Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) asked for consent that his panel hold its scheduled session with Evanina, Schumer objected.
"Because the Senate Republicans have no respect for the institution, we won't have business as usual here in the Senate," Schumer said on the Senate floor.
While the move made no difference for Republicans' timeline to confirm a new Supreme Court justice, it was one of several ways Democrats could disrupt the chamber's activity.
Perhaps most importantly, when the Judiciary Committee holds its series of confirmation hearings for Barrett in October, the sessions will almost certainly last more than two hours. Democrats could then invoke the two-hour rule to halt the hearing for the rest of the day.
Slowing down legislative business
The Senate can finish up its work on a bill or a nomination quickly with the agreement of all 100 senators. But that rarely happens, and McConnell and Schumer often spend their days haggling over floor time to reach a consent agreement.
On Thursday, Democrats refused to give consent for the Senate to quickly pass a government funding bill, requiring McConnell to file cloture and set up a final vote possibly for as late as Wednesday, just hours before the Sept. 30 deadline. The move also prevents senators up for reelection from campaigning while they tend to Senate business next week.
"Right now I think they're just trying to throw a wrench into anything we do," Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters. "Obviously it's retribution for the decision on the court and they just want to be difficult. I don't know why. It doesn't make sense to me either to bring everybody back next week when we could finish this today."
Object to recess
When the Senate concludes its business for the day, it requires the consent of all 100 senators. Any one lawmaker can object to recessing.
Democrats could force the chamber to remain in session even when Republicans want to close up shop for the day or for a couple of weeks in October to allow vulnerable incumbents to head home and campaign for reelection in the final stretch before November. Still, even if the Senate doesn't formally recess, individual senators could still leave Washington.
Deny a quorum
In order to conduct business, the Senate requires a quorum, or a majority of senators to be present. Any one senator can move to require a quorum call. If just a few Republicans are absent for any reason, Democrats could boycott the quorum call, effectively preventing the Senate from doing business.
Points of order and motions to adjourn
Any senator can raise what is dubbed a "point of order" to ask the presiding officer a procedural question. If the senator disagrees with the presiding officer's ruling, he or she can appeal it and trigger a roll-call vote, requiring senators to spend time voting on the objection. Democrats could theoretically do several of these in a row, which could stall proceedings for hours, even days.
They can also force a series of votes on motions to adjourn or to recess, further occupying valuable floor time and delaying the Senate's business.
Get the House on board
There are a number of actions the Democrat-controlled House could take in order to force the Senate to take up unrelated business.
One of these is a War Powers Resolution, which, if passed by the House, can be put to the Senate floor even by Democrats, who are in the minority.
Some Democrats floated the highly unlikely possibility of impeaching the president or Attorney General William Barr, which would force the Senate to take up a trial. But the idea quickly fizzled — and Republicans could simply vote to dismiss the trial altogether.
Delay a final committee vote
After the Supreme Court nominee's confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, any senator can move to delay the final committee vote by a week. That committee vote formally advances the nomination to the Senate floor.
Under the current timeline, even if the committee vote is pushed back by a week, the nomination could reach the Senate floor the week before the election. But the Senate could also vote for the nominee in the lame duck session.
But how far are Democrats willing to go?
Individual senators have been known to cause a procedural fracas here and there on the Senate floor — but if Schumer develops a cohesive strategy and has the support of the entire Senate Democratic Caucus, it could quickly become one of the most disruptive series of delay tactics in recent memory.
Even Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who voted to confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and is considered the most conservative Senate Democrat, is on board with Schumer's initial effort. He was quick to justify Schumer's use of the two-hour rule, which halted committee business last Tuesday.
"Hell, we don't do anything around here anyway, we've got plenty of time to do meetings," Manchin said. "They can reschedule."
Moderate Democratic Sen. Jon Tester of Montana said he doesn't plan to "second-guess" Schumer, in part because he views the alternative as the destruction of the Senate.
"I don't know that the Senate will ever be what it once was. Mike Mansfield would be shaking his head today," Tester said in an interview, referring to the longest-serving Senate majority leader. "There's no sense of fair play, it's all about power, it's all about retention of power, it's all about screwing people over."
Other Democrats said the disrupt-and-obstruct strategy could prove useful as the party seeks to further highlight the Senate's inaction on pandemic relief, which has stalled for weeks after negotiations broke down.
"We're in the middle of a recession and a pandemic, and apparently he's going to move heaven and earth to ram through a partisan nominee for the court, but there's no time for us to resolve that?" Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a Judiciary Committee member, said in an interview.
At the same time, some Democrats are warning that there should be some limits to the dilatory efforts, in particular when it comes to interfering with Senate activity that remains bipartisan, such as the Intelligence Committee briefing that was scrapped last week.
"You have to be selective about it," Kaine said.
Tags
Who is online
58 visitors
I'm stocking up on popcorn, this is going to be FUN to watch!
So, exactly how far are Democrats willing to go in a futile exercise?
Quite a ways. It appeals to the base.
Every day of delay is a day without one more conservative justice on the Supreme Court. Never can tell how important that could be.
It does surprise me that futility is appealing to Democrats. Explains a whole HELL of a lot!
Why prolong yourselves of the agony of knowing that she will be confirmed, and that there isn't really isn't much that can be done about it in any realistic scenario?
Sounds masochistic to me.
To each their own, though, I always say!
You'd think people would be embarrassed by shenanigans like that.
Yup - and it repulses everyone else!
The stupidity of it is that they don't expect all out retaliation when the roles are reversed somewhere down the road; and in our two party system they will be sooner or later.
The left can't seem to see their own hypocrisy when they were screaming for Obama's nominee Garland to be brought to a vote, and approved. Now they have switched sides.
But that is ok in TDS land
Hard core leftist liberal Democrats have long since lost the capacity to be embarrassed by their actions. The Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings were proof enough of that!
trumpturd and his criminal enterprise administration muck-up everything they touch.
When Joe Biden becomes President, he should stack the courts. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Then watch the republicans whine and cry and bitch.
and just how do you think Biden will be able to do that?
Even if they tried to hold it down to a roar, they just can't help themselves. They will attempt to smear this 48 year old mother of 7. We all know how it will play to normal human beings. Maybe we should thank them in advance.
Prediction: Look for it to get extremely nasty late.
I wouldn't put it pass Democrats bringing in BLM supporters and Antifa to riot in the gallery in an attempt to stop Republican's from voting to confirm Barrett
I don't think they would go that far.
But I do expect some shenanigans outside Congress.
Which most likely will be highly entertaining.
They would have to break all the covid 19 regulations in DC to be able to do that.
Since when have laws and regulations ever stopped them? Especially in sympathetic bastions of Democratic controlled stupidity.
Just wondering, if the court is already 5 - 3 in favour of conservatism, then even if the Democrats were to fill the empty seat it would still be a conservative majority, what is the frantic need to make it a 6 - 3 majority? Would not a more balanced court serve the nation better? Anyway, I see a dilemma for the Republican Senators. If they indicate their support by voting for Trump's pick before the election, there is a possibility that it could cost them their seats due to public pushback, and lose them their Senate majority. On the other hand, if the Senate vote is delayed until after the election, the "Lincoln Project" and other Senate Republicans all provide the necessary majority vote during "lame duck" time, it may be considered justified for the Democrats should they win both POTUS and Senate to "pack the court". Since the Republican supporters are arguing that there was no hypocrisy in McConnell reversing his stand because it is permitted by the Constitution, well then, so is packing the court, is it not?
As I have said before, I don't even think Democrats are stupid enough to pack the Court.
But who knows how stupid they will get?
There is a vacancy on the Court, it needs to be filled, Republicans will vote to fill it.
Just like the Constitution and laws state.
And please don't make the mistake of thinking Democrats wouldn't fill it if they had the WH and Senate. Just like the Republicans.
Is that what they did with Garland?
As you well know, no.
I wish they had voted on Garland, but it is over now.
And remember that the Democrats didn't control the Senate, or else thy would have confirmed Garland, and I bet they would have done so no matter when he was nominated.
I'm not excusing what the Republicans did with regards to Garland. It was a cheap political stunt. But if Democrats are willing to go to almost any lengths to extract their revenge, it makes me think all the bellyaching wasn't really about how shitty it was---it was really just all about how they are pissed that it was done to them by Republicans.
But if an exercise in futility will satisfy Democrats---well YAY!
Thank you for your honest and civil reply.
Democrats didn’t control both the white House and senate for Garland. The GOP does now for Barrett. In an election year with the senate and White House United most all nominees get confirmed. In years when control was divided they almost never get confirmed until after the following election. While bad luck for democrats, tradition supports the GOP for their actions in both 2016 and 2020. As Obama said, elections have consequences!
I would, to a degree. It's unlikely Garland would have received enough votes anyway. It would probably have been a waste of time. Normally, if they know they don't have 50 votes for a bill, they don't bother with debates and votes. I see the same thing with Garland.
There is an argument to made for having the hearings anyway, but then Obama would have just nominated somebody else and the whole business would have started over again.
The problem was they were replacing one of the most (top 3 anyway) conservative justices of the last - i don't know - century maybe. If the proposal had been to replace Ginsburg with Garland, that would probably have looked like a good trade. But Scalia? No way.
Where McConnell screwed up was all that nonsense about waiting for the election. That made no sense constitutionally or even within the normal practice of the Senate. It smelled from the moment he started saying it. But was he within his Constitutional rights? Absolutely.
Personally, I think Garland would have been just fine and the republic wouldn't have collapsed with him on the Court.
Even if the Republicans had elected Garland to the Supreme Court; you really think the Democrats wouldn't be planning their current shit show? They would do everything in their power to delay the nomination until after the election; and drag yet another nominee through the mud during the interview process.
Oh yeah, I think that's probably true. Especially, since the whole idea came from Biden in the first place.
With a 6-3 majority there still isn't a guarantee the court will always vote on the conservative side. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, and especially Roberts have voted on the liberal side numerous times. The liberal justices seldom, if ever vote on the conservative side.
It the Democrats win the presidency and senate they want to add at least four seats to the court giving liberals a 7-6 advantage. Adding judges to the court is the definition of court packing.
All of use know darn well if Hillary had been elected she would have picked 3 liberals for the SCOTUS giving liberals a 6-3 majority.
Exactly.
Indeed he has. Having a majority of one party group on the SCOTUS does not necessarily insure a GOP majority at all times. I feel very sorry for Ms Barrett, as bringing her in at this point, and with such high expectations of her to vote GOP party line at all times no matter what the case may be, or according to the Constitution, which should come first and foremost as the primary job of the SCOTUS, will put her at a very big disadvantage when it comes to her performing according to the law, not according to the dictates of the GOP.
It seems that her only purpose for being placed on the SCOTUS is solely to assist the killing of the 'Obamacare', and other than that there does not seem to be any real talent needed from her, other than to simply vote as dictated by the GOP.
IMHO, her personal religious beliefs and regarding the Roe vs Wade have no place in the decision making as to where or not it should be negated. The only thing that should be concerned is its regard to the Constitution. No one on the SCOTUS should be allowed, or expected, to put their own personal and/or religious beliefs in place of, or primary, to the Constitution. To do so goes contrary to the purpose of the SCOTUS itself.
So Barrett may ultimately become the pariah to SCOTUS and negate the full purpose of that court.
JMOO
Because the reverse can happen. Some conservative justice can suddenly drop dead (which is what happened with Scalia) and then the Democrats would want to replace him with a liberal (which is what they tried to do).
Conservatives never assume that John Roberts will be part of a 5-3 majority and rightly so! The democrats have engineered chaos into the 2020 vote, so they can contest the election - thus the rush!
Prediction: During the confirmation hearings democrats will ask Barrett if she will recuse herself from any decisions involving the election.
I agree that John Roberts cannot be assumed to follow political direction, because he is fair-minded and his decisions are based on law rather than politics. On the other hand there are conservative judges who have not agreed with him, and personally, I wonder if Barrett can free her decisions from her religious or political beliefs.
LOL Oh, did the Democrats disparage mailed balloting? Did they imply that Trump would not accept defeat? Talk about causing chaos.
When we want people who follow political direction, we need look no further than that liberal bloc on the Court - the one that never breaks ranks and always follows their feelings!
I wonder if Barrett can vote against her religious or political beliefs.
That statement sounds like something out of 1930's Germany.
Oh, did the Democrats disparage mailed balloting?
No - they promoted it - even extending deadlines past election day. You see Buzz, that was my point. Thanks.
Did they imply that Trump would not accept defeat?
They don't imply - they still refuse to accept their 2016 defeat.
justice roberts can not be trusted. so, technically right now the court is 4-4
first...
not that simple, they need the WH and both chambers of congress
second...
never going to happen... liberal pipe dream, they are smokin the good stuff
What it all comes down to is that personally I would have no respect whatsoever for any judge who put loyalty to their party principles or religious beliefs ahead of genuinely following and applying the law and where applicable valid precedents in making a decision. Such party hacks should NEVER be permitted to sit as judges.
I agree. This will ultimately be a move that both the GOP, and Ms Barrett, will seriously regret.
Will that be before or after she is confirmed?
And you can somehow prove that Catholics would do that?
What makes Catholics untrustworthy?
A dual loyalty? Where have we heard that before?
What the fuck? I said no such thing. Did I name ANY specific person, of any particular politics or religious belief of actually doing what you accuse me of? I made an OBVIOUS general statement without naming anyone or any religion or political preference. I expect an apology.
You'll have a long wait my friend.
Okay, then never again call me "my friend" or consider yourself to be mine.
Whoa, wait a minute, before you end a friendship, Vic did exactly what RW did 4 hours ago and you should also chastise RW the same way you did @4.2.1.
If that's the way you want it - you got it. I may not be a practicing Catholic, but I don't take that.
If other religions don't stand for it why should Catholics?
RW did not criticize me, whether or not she understood the point I was making. She did not make a statement that indicated that I was prejudiced against a specific religion or person as Vic did and Vic's "dual loyalty" statement was totally uncalled for. Vic twisted my general statement about Judges of any kind, of any religion, of any political bent, even of any country to have been aimed at Barrett specifically. I also do not agree that judges should be elected by the public, but should be appointed. How about twisting that to mean something else? I was insulted and he's made it clear he is not apologetic for doing so.
There is no point.
The Constitution says NO RELIGIOUS TESTS!
[deleted]
well, that sounds like you have knowledge of how she will decide cases. how did you come by that info?
China's Supreme Court has 340 judges. are all of them members of the Communist party?
Paging Ruth Bader Ginsburg...
It's amusing how brainwashed people are about the Court. The party hacks who always vote the way their party wants them to are Democrats. The Judges who are persuadable and not shills are appointed by Republicans.
She will be appointed. The only question is to what level will the Democratic Party take it before the polling makes them back off.
As of yesterday 57% of people polled want the GoP to wait until after the election.
so what, this is not a democracy, and, we do not govern the country based on polls either.
the polls are crap and pushing the agenda.
push polling is nothing new.
A push poll is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to manipulate or alter prospective voters' views under the guise of conducting an opinion poll.
push polls had hillary winning by landslide = the people did not fall for the bs then. and we ain't going to start falling for that bs now.
nothing draws a crowd like a crowd.
however, that theory does not work with polls.
trump gets crowds. and biden gets a few staffers.