• 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!

Dem senator wants to change nomination rules amid Garland fight

Unitedwestand13

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,738
Reaction score
6,290
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Something interesting in the senate.

Sen. Tom Udall is proposing changing the Senate rules for voting on judicial nominations as Democrats double down on an entrenched fight over confirming Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.
"We need a change in the Senate rules to address our broken judicial process," Udall said Wednesday. "I urge all of my colleagues to consider this proposal fairly and without partisan interests."

Under the New Mexico Democrat's legislation, a judicial nomination that hasn't been taken up by the Judiciary Committee within 180 days would automatically get a cloture vote on the Senate floor.
The proposal would also require a vote on judicial nominees who are on the Senate calendar 180 days, or roughly six months, after they were nominated by the president. Udall is expected to file the legislation on Wednesday or Thursday.

The push to crack down on who decides when the Senate votes on judges comes as Democrats try to keep a spotlight on Garland's stalled nomination.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) met with President Obama's pick to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday.
Udall, pointing to the stalemated fight, said a "line has been crossed [and] this level of obstruction will only get worse for the years to come."

Democrats argue that Garland is part of a larger slow-walking of Obama's judges by Republicans, with the Senate confirming just 22 judicial nominees since early 2015. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) tried to confirm five additional judges on Tuesday but was blocked by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).
Udall added that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is using the Senate calendar "as a stealth filibuster."
"This isn't governing," he said. "It's an unprecedented power play."
Click to expand...

Dem senator wants to change nomination rules amid Garland fight | TheHill

I don't think some people would agree but I think Senator Tom Udall is suggesting good legislation.
 
I'm guessing that if Clinton wins, McConnell will bring Garland up for a vote in November or December to avoid a more liberal pick after she's sworn in. If she doesn't win he'll wait until Trump is sworn in and picks someone else.
 
Moot said:
I'm guessing that if Clinton wins, McConnell will bring Garland up for a vote in November or December to avoid a more liberal pick after she's sworn in. If she doesn't win he'll wait until Trump is sworn in and picks someone else.
Click to expand...

If Clinton wins, the confirmation of Garland will be among the quickest in history.
 
Moot said:
I'm guessing that if Clinton wins, McConnell will bring Garland up for a vote in November or December to avoid a more liberal pick after she's sworn in. If she doesn't win he'll wait until Trump is sworn in and picks someone else.
Click to expand...

It's not just Garland.

Obams's other judicial nominees are being blocked in a similar manner
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
It's not just Garland.

Obams's other judicial nominees are being blocked in a similar manner
Click to expand...

I really don't anticipate any rule changes introduced by the Dems to pass....unless they take back the Senate.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I know that.
Click to expand...

Then lets hope the Dems take back the senate. I hate to think what a Trump presidency would be like with a GOP house, senate...and SCOTUS.
 
Sore losers, they just don't like the Biden Rule - now.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Something interesting in the senate.



Dem senator wants to change nomination rules amid Garland fight | TheHill

I don't think some people would agree but I think Senator Tom Udall is suggesting good legislation.
Click to expand...

Until the shoe is on the other foot then they will want to change it back.

By Randy Hall | July 7, 2008 | 8:32 PM EDT
(CNSNews.com) - In a replay of events that occurred often during the previous Congress, Democrats and several liberal groups are marshalling their forces in an attempt to derail a judicial nomination made by the Bush administration.

However, a conservative analyst told Cybercast News Service on Monday that Judge Leslie Southwick - and any other GOP nominees between now and the 2008 election - face a "slow walk" both in committees and if they reach the Senate floor.

As the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to vote on Thursday whether Southwick will serve on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, liberal groups have accused him of having a "very fixed, right-wing world view," while supporters said he "is a highly respected attorney with an extensive record of public service."
Click to expand...
Bush Judicial Nominee Faces 'Slow Walk' in Senate, Analyst Says
A spokesman for Reid said that “there comes a point that you’re not going to be able to do controversial nominees,” and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) suggested that any Bush nominees who haven’t made it through the Senate by June aren’t going to make it through at all.

Senate Republicans, meanwhile, see a fight over judicial nominees as a way to rally their base. Thus, rather than reach for a compromise, they’ve begun to rattle their sabers, threatening to slow down all work in the Senate if Democrats don’t move some nominees.

With both parties sensing a political advantage, neither the ongoing stalemate nor the potential for a coming explosion can be considered a surprise.
Click to expand...
Nominations staredown in the Senate - POLITICO

So were the rules good then and not now?

It won't pass. Sooner or later both parties have to live with the same rules. This is a good example of the use of the nuclear option by Reid and the blow back from the Dems when they lost the Senate.
 
rocket88 said:
If Clinton wins, the confirmation of Garland will be among the quickest in history.
Click to expand...

They should quit changing the rules for the convenience of the party in power, regardless of the party, even if it works to the advantage of Clinton.
 
NonoBadDog said:
They should quit changing the rules for the convenience of the party in power, regardless of the party, even if it works to the advantage of Clinton.
Click to expand...

I agree. What I'm saying is that if Clinton wins, McConnell will hold a confirmation vote on Garland so fast your head will spin.
 
rocket88 said:
I agree. What I'm saying is that if Clinton wins, McConnell will hold a confirmation vote on Garland so fast your head will spin.
Click to expand...

I sure wish he wouldn't. That would be just wrong.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
It's not just Garland.

Obams's other judicial nominees are being blocked in a similar manner
Click to expand...

Elections have consequences. The GOP Congress is acting on their constituents behalf by blocking any more of Obama's destructive agenda

If the Democrats want to speed up the process then they need to win the Senate back
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom