• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jeff Flake Threatens to Block Trump’s Judicial Nominees

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,136
Reaction score
82,398
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Jeff Flake Threatens to Block Trump’s Judicial Nominees

5438f09a3b4c1_jeff_flake.jpg

US Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

6/24/18
Sen. Jeff Flake is threatening to grind arguably the best-functioning part of President Donald Trump’s agenda to a halt. The Arizona senator, a frequent Trump critic, indicated on Sunday that he would soon move to block consideration of the president’s judicial nominees until and unless Republican leaders allow votes on measures aimed at pushing back against Trump’s authority. “I do think that unless we can actually exercise something other than just approving the president's executive calendar, his nominees, judges, that we have no reason to be there,” Flake, who is not seeking re-election, said on ABC’s This Week. “So I think myself and a number of Senators, at least a few of us, will stand up and say let's not move any more judges until we get a vote, for example, on tariffs,” he added. “We ought to more jealously guard our institutional prerogative,” Flake said. “I think in this crisis we're in, I think the judiciary has stood up well. The press has stood up well in terms of institutions. The balance. But the Congress has been lacking.” Flake sits on the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, where Republicans have a razor-thin 11 to 10 majority. If Flake joins with Democrats in voting to block Trump’s judicial nominees from advancing to the Senate floor, it would be a disaster for GOP leaders who have touted the record pace of judicial confirmations under Trump.
Click to expand...

Do it. Let the rubber meet the road. Congress needs to cease enabling Donald Trump.
 
Superfly said:
Don't mean to sound cynical, but I will believe it when I see it. Too many people still want something from Trump. Flake isn't running for re-election, so he has nothing to lose.
Click to expand...

he has 0 power to block anything. he would have to get 51 votes in the senate.
everything he is complaining about congress gave the power to the president.
 
ludin said:
he has 0 power to block anything. he would have to get 51 votes in the senate.
everything he is complaining about congress gave the power to the president.
Click to expand...

One Senator alone can block any nomination.
 
ludin said:
he has 0 power to block anything. he would have to get 51 votes in the senate.
everything he is complaining about congress gave the power to the president.
Click to expand...

Flake can block judicial nominations in committee.
 
ludin said:
he can't block them unless he can get other people to sign on. all it takes is a majority of the senate.
LOL all the powers he is complaining about where given to the president by congress because they didn't want to
do the job lmao.
Click to expand...

IIRC they can be sent to the Senate with no recommendation from the Committee. That said he can surely slow things down
 
ludin said:
not under the new rules of the senate.
Click to expand...

Sessions sits on the Judiciary committee, which has 11 republican and 10 democratic members. If he votes with the Democrats, not a single nominee will be approved by that committee.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Flake can block judicial nominations in committee.
Click to expand...

However, because the blue-slip rule is a custom as opposed to a formal rule, its interpretation is left entirely to the discretion of the Judiciary Committee chair.
no he can't. all the chair has to do is well just not use it.
 
Floridafan said:
Sessions sits on the Judiciary committee, which has 11 republican and 10 democratic members. If he votes with the Democrats, not a single nominee will be approved by that committee.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about.
However, because the blue-slip rule is a custom as opposed to a formal rule, its interpretation is left entirely to the discretion of the Judiciary Committee chair.

it isn't even a rule. it is a custom. Grassley doesn't have to use it if he doesn't want to.
 
JANFU said:
IIRC they can be sent to the Senate with no recommendation from the Committee. That said he can surely slow things down
Click to expand...

yep he could slow things down a bit but he can't block it.
 
ludin said:
yep he could slow things down a bit but he can't block it.
Click to expand...

Senate at 51-49 now throw in Corker. Nominee is toasted
 
JANFU said:
Senate at 51-49 now throw in Corker. Nominee is toasted
Click to expand...

that would require a full senate vote along party lines.
that rarely happens with judges unless they are just completely out in left field.
any tie then the nominee still goes through with pence vote.
 
ludin said:
he can't block them unless he can get other people to sign on. all it takes is a majority of the senate.
LOL all the powers he is complaining about where given to the president by congress because they didn't want to
do the job lmao.
Click to expand...

You have a valid point. Over the years congress indeed has ceded a lot of their constitutional powers either to the administration or to different government agencies and departments. One reason they did it was to avoid hard votes. They can go back home, tell the people it wasn't them who did this or didn't do that. It was the president of some government agency. Congressional elected officials don't want to get the voters mad at them.

Then too, congressional members of the party of the president have behaved and acted more part of the administration than as members of the institution of congress. This includes both major party congressional delegations. There is very little checks and balances when one party controls the presidency, the house and the senate. For congress to be a check on presidential power, the party out of power or who doesn't hold the white house has to control at least one chamber of congress.

But there is hope when congress just becomes yes men to the president. From 1993-94 the Democratic controlled congress became yes men to Bill Clinton without taking into consideration of what the folks back home wanted or wished or what they thought on the legislation passed. November of 1994 the people voted that yes, Democratic controlled, subservient congress to Bill Clinton out and elected a Republican congress.

The same can be said of the yes men, Democratic controlled, subservient congress of 2009-10 to Obama. The people voted them out and returned the House over to the Republicans. Same thing for Bush in 2006 and it looks like in 2018, the yes man, Republican controlled, subservient House to Donald Trump will be turned back to the Democrats.
 
ludin said:
that would require a full senate vote along party lines.
Click to expand...

Which is what Flake is talking about. If Flake and Corker vote nay with the Democrats, no Trump judicial appointee one gets confirmed.

It's simple math ludin.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Jeff Flake Threatens to Block Trump’s Judicial Nominees

5438f09a3b4c1_jeff_flake.jpg

US Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ)



Do it. Let the rubber meet the road. Congress needs to cease enabling Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

He’d have to get at least one other Republican Senator to vote no since the Democrats (specifically Harry Reid) killed the filibuster for non-SCOTUS judicial nominations so the Democrats could stack the DC Circuit. If he tries to use the “Senator Hold” he’ll be ostrisissed politically for the remainder of his term unless he can justify that the hold is based on the nominee, not just his hate for Trump. The Majority Leader can make a rule change lile Reid did and circumvent his tantrums - which is what this would be if it it weren’t based on the nominees, which he admits it would not be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom