Dems fume as GOP advances Trump judicial picks during Senate recess

[dajoki]

Dems fume as GOP advances Trump judicial picks during Senate recess
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/15/trump-judicial-picks-senate-recess-901881

A fresh round of partisan jostling broke out on Monday over President Donald Trump's judicial nominees, as Senate Democrats objected to considering several contentious picks for the federal bench during the chamber's preelection recess.

At issue is a pair of hearings on judicial nominees slated for this week and next week, while the Senate is out of session ahead of next month's midterm elections. Senate Democrats raised specific alarms about moving ahead on "controversial" nominees to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which Trump tapped new picks for last week, hours before the minority party struck a deal to confirm 15 of the president's judges and move the chamber into recess — much to the consternation of liberal groups.


"The Committee has never before held nominations hearings while the Senate is in recess before an election. The handful of nominations hearings that have been held during a recess have been with the minority’s consent, which is not the case here — in fact, we were not even consulted," the 10 Democrats on the Judiciary panel wrote to committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Monday.

The White House announced its latest trio of 9th Circuit judicial picks without getting buy-in from the nominees' home-state Democratic senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, both of whom pushed back quickly. The 9th Circuit nominees expected to get considered next week do not include those Feinstein and Haris objected to but do include one, Eric Miller, who met with opposition from one of his Democratic home-state senators.

<<snip>>

Much of the formal ability Feinstein and Harris have to block 9th Circuit nominees, however, evaporated nearly a year ago when Grassley said he would not apply the Senate's so-called blue slip tradition — which allows home-state senators to object to judicial picks — for appeals court judges who cover multistate circuits. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) also has reportedly declined to lend her blue-slip support to Eric Miller, who is slated for consideration at next week's hearing according to correspondence that Grassley's office released Monday night.

[FBaggins]

1. Which is it?

Have there never been hearings during a recess? Or there HAVE been, but it was "with minority consent"?

[dsc]

2. not all recesses are directly before an election

my reading is that a few recess hearings were held, with minority consent, distant in time from elections.

[WhiteTara]

3. Chuck Schumer is an embarrassment

We need a senate leader with spine. I'd prefer a senator with ovaries; women are tough and if they weren't beaten into submission are stronger than anyone with balls.

[FBaggins]

4. Sexist comments aside... what would someone with a spine do differently?

Just wondering.

[WhiteTara]

8. They wouldn't have let McTurtle place 5 seats

so they could go home and campaign. Now McTurtle is putting in recess judges. I don't think that was a good deal. Spinally they would say no to the 5 seats, everyone leave and there would be no quorum.

[FBaggins]

9. Which would have been far worse.

A quorum is 51 votes... which the Republicans have on their own. Plus... when "everyone leaves" they not only have a quorum, they have nobody to block unanimous consent... which allows Republicans to confirm their entire backlogged list.

So... regardless of the size of your balls or strength of your spine... I think we can all agree that it's a good thing that we actually have someone with... you know... a clue when it comes to how things work in the Senate?

Added to this list (to deal with the obvious "well then we leave one person behind to object" nonsense) - If the Senate is in session and we go home... our senators are subject to arrest (which... you know... plays so well with the voting public in red states). They get their 15 judges either way. Under the deal that Schumer cut, Republicans get no more judges then they would have under the alternative... and we get to campaign at a critical time.

I don't know whether you've noticed or not, but we've gone from a fighting chance of taking back the Senate (and being able to block two more years of Trump judges)... to likely losing two net seats. If we drop two more points (which being unable to campaign down the stretch could do)... we could very plausibly lose five net seats.

[WhiteTara]

10. Okay. That was a bad idea.

Yes, thanks for the reality check.

[rockfordfile]

5. GOP is the party of criminals.

Don't give them anything. You know they will always want more.

[tavernier]

6. Yes, fuming is very helpful.

Perhaps a few good sighs and eye rolls will have a deep impact as well.

[gratuitous]

7. It was a Hobson's Choice

Let's say the Democrats forced a vote on each and every nomination all through October. According to the Senate rules, that would have necessitated 30 hours of "debate" time for every nomination. According to the calendar math, that means 15 nominations would have gone through the arcane rigamarole of Senate procedure, and then they would have been confirmed by the time of the election.

The choice for Schumer was obstruct, delay, and keep his caucus in Washington DC throughout October cooling their heels and drumming their fingers, and at the end of that time, 15 nominees would be confirmed. The alternative was to negotiate with Grassley and McConnell on the least objectionable 15 nominees, run them through, then recess the Senate, freeing up members to campaign, meet with constituents, and do something besides sit around the Senate chamber all day long.

The end result in either case was 15 confirmed judges; the difference is what you would rather have your Senator doing the last three weeks of the campaign season.