I’m actually (mildly) surprised by this given that she is almost certainly going to be confirmed by something like 51-53 votes. Obviously I would expect the GOP to try to close ranks if there was a chance of actually blocking her and also that McConnell likely would’ve been pushing like this if there was a chance of preventing her from getting any GOP votes to get a bit of a media win, but what is anyone going to care if it’s just Collins or Collins and 1 or 2 other GOP senators making her confirmation bipartisan?
Although I guess it just doesn’t matter much either way so there’s no real downside to making this push by McConnell.
Now, there’s an idea. “I’m nominating [person] in two weeks. Senators, have your staffs research this person,” and when the two weeks are up, it’s a yea or nay vote. The two weeks will be plenty of time for both sides to do any political horse-trading they need to do, just like in the good ol’ days.
I think the message he’s going for is, awful Democrats shoved through to the supreme court an qualified nominee who was chosen just because she was a black woman and who doesn’t even see anything wrong with child porn on a purely partisan basis. A nominee that non non-evil legislator would ever consider voting for if not pressured by the Biden administration.
If even one Republican votes for her then its harder to claim that she was obviously unqualified.
The problem is that the president can’t control what the senate does. So it would have to be the Senate Majority leader who decides the two week timeline.
But all of this showboating is going on in a subcommittee (the Senate Judiciary Committee). Is there any power held by Chuck Schumer to sidestep their hearings and just hold the up or down vote?
When MCConnell was running the Senate, he never even sent nominee Merrick Garland’s name to the judiciary committee for consideration. This time, the goal would be to get the nominee past the committee altogether.
Be more of a matter of changing the constitution. If it had something like, “The president shall nominate, and the senate has 4 weeks to vote down the nomination, or the nominee will be installed in the position.” then it would put the onus on the Senate to actually give a good reason to object, rather than just dragging the heels and showboating.
Senate Rule XXXI states, "When nominations shall be made by the President of the United States to the Senate, they shall, unless otherwise ordered, be referred to appropriate committees. . . " So there is a presumption that a Supreme Court nominee would be referred to the Judiciary Committee, but it can be avoided. The last SC justice to escape being referred to committee was James F. Byrnes who was nominated by FDR on June 12, 1941, and confirmed that same day.
Under Senate Majority LeaderMitch McConnell, the Senate’s Republican majority refused to consider Garland’s nomination, holding “no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever” on the nomination.[93][94][95] McConnell’s categorical refusal to hold hearings on Garland’s nomination was described by political scientists and legal scholars as unprecedented,[94][96][97][98] McConnell’s choice to lead a Republican blockade of the nomination was described as a “culmination of [his] confrontational style,”[99] and an example of constitutional hardball.[100]Yascha Mounk called it a “blatant abuse of constitutional norms.”[101]
I had originally written that Byrnes was the last “nominee” not to go through committee referral but edited that to “justice” to account for Garland. It is interesting that Senate rules say the nominee “shall” be referred unless “otherwise ordered” without saying how or by whom it may be so ordered. Apparently, McConnell decided he had that authority all by himself.
So it sounds like Chuck Schumer could “otherwise order” the nominee’s name to be considered by the entire senate, instead of going to the subcommittee.
If you have the votes, MCConnell proved that the minority can’t stop you.
The only real pushback is a bunch of senators disappointed that they didn’t get a chance to posture for the television, and the fact that the opposing party will do the same thing when it’s their turn.
I’m not seeing a downside to immediate votes on nominees.
No. Any 51 (or 50 + VP) Senators can push forward any legislation or nominee. The issue is that by convention, you don’t buck the majority leader without changing parties because if you do, you will find that your only committee assignments are to the Senate Janitorial Staff Committee that ensures adequate toilet paper in the Senate men’s room.
If enough Senators are consistently wanting to buck the majority leader, then they pick a new majority leader. The idea is that the majority needs a leader and as part of this majority, we will support our leader. McConnell (or Schumer) didn’t/doesn’t rule by fiat, but by support of the majority of the Senate.
Looking at the history of the nominations, there’s historical precedent for what MCConnell did in stonewalling Obama’s nomination of Garland, but it would also not be out of line for the Senate to approve a nominee by voice vote a couple of week after they’re nominated (which happened as recently as 1965).
Things seemed to have really gotten contentious with Lyndon Johnson, who lost out on the chance to appoint the Chief Justice.
The Senate Judiciary Committee deadlocked 11-11 along partisan lines on advancing Jackson’s nomination this afternoon, as expected. However, procedures adopted for this session of the Senate allow the Majority Leader to bring a nomination to the floor if a committee vote ties, which Schumer should do later tonight. Her confirmation vote is expected Thursday or Friday.
That pretty much locks it in – the vote to discharge her from committee was 53-47 and I can’t imagine why any Senator would vote differently on her confirmation.
Someone please 'splain me this and devastate my iggorance? What is a “vote to discharge”? Is the procedure that, once the Committee votes to advance, the full Senate must then vote to accept that advance (not to be confused with the full vote to actually confirm)? 'Scuse my iggnce, pls, I wasn’t aware of this process.
Okay, thanks. I didn’t get the implication of this from flurb’s “deadlocked 11-11” post above, and I didn’t know that. Iggnce fawt!
ETA: Okay then, how confident are we all that those three Repubs who said they’ll vote to confirm, really will? Especially Collins? Will she do it? Or fink out again?
around. Win-win. 