Sen. Democrats can stop all Senate business and kill all Trump judicial appointments-Why don't we?

[NewsCenter28]

What’s the drawback of denying all unaimious consent requests, thus killing the Kavanagh nomination and the other judicial travesties, until at least after the election?

If Kavanagh gets confirmed, it’s only because We decide he should be confirmed, which we never will do! I was looking for delay tactics tonight and found that the senate ‘grinds almost to a halt’ if just one senator refuses the senate agenda. This also doesn’t fall within the nuclear option rule change. Here’s the link:
https://www.politico.com/story/2011/06/rookie-threatens-to-tie-up-senate-057954

From 2011 but why aren’t we doing this? This basically obliterates the entire Trump agenda! Let’s say to Dotard! Not one more single Nazi judge, punk!👍

[msongs]

1. dems should be using ev ery legal maneuver possible. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

14. Period!

[SkyDancer]

2. That's a very good question

and one I'd love to know the answer to.

It isn't just this though, look at the recent MIC budget for 2019.

[joshcryer]

3. They have. It's only a delaying tactic though.

It all started under the Republicans when Obama got reelected. There have been more cloture motions in since 2012 than in several decades before that.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/trumps-nominees-have-already-faced-a-large-number-of-cloture-votes/

[still_one]

4. Please explain the Democrats procedural recourse to stop Senate republicans from approving judicial

nominations?

Democrats can't hold up the SC nominees by requiring a 60-vote consensus, that no longer exists, and in case you didn't know republicans have the majority in the Senate.

Obviously, those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016 didn't given a damn about the SC, and that is where a large portion of the blame lies for the situation we are in now.

Because of that we will lose two SC nominations

[DeminPennswoods]

13. Here's how it works

The Senate does a great deal, if not most of its business using "unanimous consent" (all senators agree to proceed). But any senator can object to the unanimous consent request. Then there's a quorum call and the clerk has to call the roll. If you've ever watched CSPAN2, you've seen how tedious this process is. Once all senators are present, then there is a vote on proceeding with whatever the Senate business is that's being requested.

Senators don't sit at their Senate floor desks all day, they're off in committee meetings, meeting with constituents, etc. When there's a quorum call, then roll call, the Senators have to drop what they're doing and return to the floor to check in and vote.

Senators then have two choices, sit at their desks and go through roll call vote after roll call vote or try to conduct their individual and/or committee work while coming and going from quorum calls and roll call votes. Neither option is especially appealing.

Rand Paul actually threatened to object to every unanimous consent (or did it for a day) in order to force McConnell's hand on something in the fairly recent past. Dems also did this for 1 day since Nov 2016. I recall McConnell questioning why Dems would object to some fairly obsure committee meeting that did not happen because they objected to unanimous consent.

Jeff Flake, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has effectively stopped McConnell's plan to approve Trump court nominees during Aug by going on vacation for the month. That committee cannot proceed without him.

[still_one]

16. Thanks, I appreciate the detailed explanation. I will be reading this in detail +++++++++++++++++

[DeminPennswoods]

22. LOL! Did too much CSPAN watching

earlier in my life.

[spike91nz]

5. If the dems don't stop Trump Supreme Court nominee

They will prove themselves incapable of dealing with the crisis the republic now faces and we will be resigned to our last hope residing with Mueller. It is the lack of strong political commitment when the issues are critical that has rendered the supporters of our policies so apathetic.

[GulfCoast66]

7. Kindly explain who they can stop them.

[emulatorloo]

27. Voters could have stopped Trump's nominees, but they weren't interested

Voters could have given Democrats a majority in the Senate but they weren’t interested in that either.

Elections have consequences. Time to GOTV in 2018

[triron]

28. You mean the Russians.

[uponit7771]

6. Those are rules, not laws, which KGOP changes on a whim

[FBaggins]

8. We've been doing that for a year and a half now

Why do you think Trunp still has so many appointments unconfirmed when he controls the Senate?

It doesn’t “stop all Senate business” - it just slows it down significantly.

[watoos]

9. Something else I have been thinking about

Republicans are ruthless. When Barack won they met and decided to make everything political over country, decided to obstruct everything. I made a mistake by thinking that strategy wouldn't work for long.

This is my opinion; 2 of the toughest Democrats who are rumored to be running for president are Elizabeth Warren and Corey Booker, I hate to say this, but they aren't tough enough, or should I say, dirty enough. I am now on the Michael Avenatti band wagon, even though I know little about him. We need to fight fire with stronger fire. The Democratic establishment is already starting to talk against Avenatti, they are wrong, they underestimate Trump, the Republican Congress, and Trump's tribal followers.

I've come to the opinion that we Dems may need Avenatti to run for president, business as usual is long gone.

I am not talking against Democrats Warren and Booker. I will heartily support them if one gets the nomination, I am just talking reality.

We are all hoping for the bombshell report from Mueller to come out and change everything, myself included, but remember this, IMO, we haven't seen the worst of the Republicans yet either, they will go to any length, even the destruction of our democracy, to maintain power.

[Raven123]

10. I'm not sure about him as President, but definitely would want him in the Senate

That’s where we need help.

[cstanleytech]

11. Well frankly what our Senate leaders should do is meet with the Repugnant ones

and kindly tell them in private if they do not kill this nomination that when they regain control and have a Democrat as President that they will ram through an increase of SCOTUS to 17 and then pack it with progressive judges using the same exact 51+ vote tactic to appoint SCOTUS judges that the Repugnants have been using.

[Shrek]

15. That threat could backfire

Suppose the Republicans retain the Senate. What would stop them from doing the same thing between now and 2020?

With a Democratic threat of court-packing already on the record they'd just claim they're responding in kind.

[cstanleytech]

17. True its a gamble but we are dealing with bullies and bullies will not back down unless

you stand up to them.
And it would not be on the record it would be a private message delivered to their Senate leader who could privately swing enough votes to kill the nomination.

[mythology]

18. Acting like petulant toddlers isn't a good idea

That idea was bad when FDR tried it.

[cstanleytech]

19. That was public though this would be a private message to Mitch

to get his people in line or face the consequences for their actions.

[tritsofme]

23. That is an entirely empty threat...

Schumer can’t credibly speak for a theoretical future majority, let alone the next Democratic president on such a major item.

It would also then be entirely rational for Republicans to relay that “private message” to the public, and “preemptively” take the action you propose, but in the Republicans’ favor.

These sorts of escalations do not end well, and Schumer is smart enough not to get embroiled in them. If we want to stop losing votes in the Senate, we need to win the majority. There is no other solution.

[Squinch]

12. I probably wouldn't vote for him in a primary, but would have no trouble voting for him if he made

it to the general.

[tritsofme]

20. If Senate Democrats systematically frustrated the schedule to the degree you propose, those rules

wouldn't exist for much longer.

McConnell wouldn't simply put up his hands and say "Dang, they got us!"

Republicans would alter the rules on a majority vote, and be able to move on.

Democrats may be able to introduce delay, but the only way to stop them is with our own majority.

[DeminPennswoods]

24. Then the Senate might as well throw out all Parlimentary rules of order

nt

[tritsofme]

25. No majority, led by Democrats or Republicans, would tolerate such systematic obstruction.

Minority Republicans contemplated such a strategy in response to Senate Democrats going nuclear in 2013, but quickly backed off. Shutting down all Senate business over an extended period simply is not a viable or sustainable strategy for the minority.

[Bettie]

21. I always wonder

why, when Republicans don't want something to happen and are not in the majority, how they can put secret holds and other such things on them and they never get anywhere.

Are Dems just not willing to use these tools?

I truly don't understand why when Dems are in the majority, the other side is able to stop nearly all business, but Dems can't seem to stop or stall anything.

[Anon-C]

26. ....

Make it so!