Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Cuthbert Allgood

(4,921 posts)
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 03:08 PM Jan 2022

New Headline: Biden, Senate Democrats Can Replace Justice Stephen Breyer on Party Lines [View all]

Last edited Thu Jan 27, 2022, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Editor’s Note: The original version of this story incorrectly stated that Republicans could use Senate rules to block a Biden Supreme Court nomination. It was based on the author’s incorrect analysis of a May 13, 2021, Congressional Research Service report. The Senate will require a majority of votes to approve Justice Stephen Breyer’s replacement, not 60 votes.

Article Link:

But the nuclear option can go into motion only if the Judiciary Committee reports the nomination to the floor, a procedural move that says whether a majority on the committee recommends the full Senate consider the pick. Well, in a little-noticed backroom deal that took more than a month to hammer out, McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer agreed to a power-sharing plan in February that splits committee membership, staffs and budgets in half. (A full nonpartisan analysis from the Congressional Research Service regarding the current process for nominees is here.)

Why does this matter? If all 11 Republican members of the Judiciary Committee oppose Biden’s pick and all 11 Democrats back her, the nomination goes inert. (A pretty safe bet in a committee where at least half of the Republican members have White House ambitions of their own.) The nomination doesn’t die, but it does get parked until a lawmaker—historically, the Leader of the party—brings it to the floor for four hours of debate.

A majority of the Senate—51 votes, typically—can then put debate about the issue on the calendar for the next day. But that’s the last easy part. When the potential pick comes to the floor again, it’s not as a nomination. At that point, it’s a motion to discharge, a cloture motion that requires 60 votes. In other words, 10 Republicans would have to resurrect the nomination of someone already blocked in the Judiciary Committee.


66 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I'm not sure this an accurate description of the agreement. tritsofme Jan 2022 #1
Because Mitch knows to keep his powder dry. Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #2
Or this guy is wrong. tritsofme Jan 2022 #15
If I were Mitch and had this plan Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #18
You didn't answer my question. tritsofme Jan 2022 #20
Except the repubs have tried to block lower court nominations onenote Jan 2022 #35
Editor's Note: The original version of this story incorrectly stated that Republicans could use Celerity Jan 2022 #61
Exactly- see my post #5 below. Nt Fiendish Thingy Jan 2022 #7
Chuck, Chuck, Chuck. SMDH. Scrivener7 Jan 2022 #3
I'm glad you said it first. gab13by13 Jan 2022 #8
He couldn't convince his colleagues to let him be chairman of the Judiciary Committee. tritsofme Jan 2022 #23
that's because he has vastly less seniority than Durbin does dsc Jan 2022 #52
Caucus rules would have prohibited Durbin from holding the post, he got a waiver. tritsofme Jan 2022 #54
leadership track, likely not dsc Jan 2022 #55
Thanks SO much, for 'explaining' this, elleng Jan 2022 #4
Any reason it's wrong? Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #6
The fact that Biden has had a record number of judges confirmed in his first year Fiendish Thingy Jan 2022 #10
So, maybe Mitch kept the powder dry Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #11
Maybe, but perhaps not. See #5 below Fiendish Thingy Jan 2022 #14
Yes. It ignores the fact that the VP can break a tie on a motion to discharge. onenote Jan 2022 #16
Principle bad, show them how to 'screw' us. elleng Jan 2022 #19
Yep. madaboutharry Jan 2022 #9
The old "Hope in one hand..." saying might actually apply. Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #12
Perhaps there's room for a procedural end run by nominating someone already approved by this Senate Fiendish Thingy Jan 2022 #5
That's not a thing. tritsofme Jan 2022 #22
I'm biting my tongue on this one. gab13by13 Jan 2022 #13
The author doesn't know what he's talking about FBaggins Jan 2022 #17
Exactly. So much poor journalism in the rush to be first with analysis. Nt Fiendish Thingy Jan 2022 #21
Thanks, I knew this was hot garbage. tritsofme Jan 2022 #24
You do know the author of the article is aware of the 4-hour limit Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #39
No - he didn't address it FBaggins Jan 2022 #46
lolz obamanut2012 Jan 2022 #25
You sho bout that?! InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2022 #26
Is it in Mitch's interest to block Breyer's replacement Mad_Machine76 Jan 2022 #27
Seems to be a pattern here. Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #28
Defeatists spreading false information? I agree, annoying pattern. tritsofme Jan 2022 #29
They will if they can. Would Democrats be able doc03 Jan 2022 #30
You ought to consider deleting this thread. No sense spreading misinformation. tritsofme Jan 2022 #31
Unless that's the objective. onenote Jan 2022 #33
That's a hot take. Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #34
So you're not going to remove the misinformation? tritsofme Jan 2022 #36
Philip Elliott is expressing a way he thinks the Republicans can block a nominee Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #37
He is wrong. It's been definitively proven in this thread. He is getting roasted on Twitter. tritsofme Jan 2022 #38
And why don't you take down your post, which is plainly incorrect. onenote Jan 2022 #40
That they haven't done this tactic is not proof that the tactic isn't possible. Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #41
What is so difficult to understand? If the rules worked the way this guy tritsofme Jan 2022 #43
You're wrong. They have done it and its failed. onenote Jan 2022 #44
Your post 41 title is a fallacy in itself (Denying the Antecedent) Torchlight Jan 2022 #53
One more chapter in the book of 'here's why this good thing is very bad' Fullduplexxx Jan 2022 #32
false bigtree Jan 2022 #42
Thank you. Although I wonder if this will persuade the OP that he's wrong. onenote Jan 2022 #45
who knows bigtree Jan 2022 #47
This is total BS and you should be ashamed for posting it. William769 Jan 2022 #48
+1 onenote Jan 2022 #49
This is flat out wrong. Bleacher Creature Jan 2022 #50
Yet, three hours after it was pointed out that the Time article was wrong onenote Jan 2022 #51
Did I miss some rule? Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #56
No rule. Just common sense and common courtesy to take down a story you know is false. onenote Jan 2022 #59
Well, there's always self-respect. All you have to do is note that Philip Elliott has reversed muriel_volestrangler Jan 2022 #63
This was discussed on TRMS LetMyPeopleVote Jan 2022 #57
I guarantee that you won't come back in this thread next month and apologize when it's proven wrong Polybius Jan 2022 #58
Time already admitted it was wrong, yet the OP still has not been self deleted Celerity Jan 2022 #62
Crickets crickets 🦗 🦗 tritsofme Jan 2022 #60
Sorry I'm not on here 24/7. Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #64
The GOP cannot block the confirmation of the judge selected by President Biden LetMyPeopleVote Jan 2022 #65
Yeah. I updated all that. Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #66
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»New Headline: Biden, Sena...