Dems Pressured to ‘Pick a Fight for Once’ Over RBG Seat as Collins and Murkowski Oppose Pre-Election Vote

By Jessica Corbett, staff writer at CommonDreams. Originally published at CommonDreams

“With less than 50 days until the election and voting already underway in many states, it’s important that we demand all senators pledge not to move forward with any nominee until after the next inauguration.”

That’s according to a new petition from MoveOn.org, now signed by over 780,000 people, urging the GOP-controlled Senate to honor the dying wish of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and allow the victor of this year’s presidential contest to choose her replacement.

As early voting was getting underway in some states for this year’s general election—in which President Donald Trump is facing off against Democratic nominee Joe Biden—the liberal justice died Friday night at the age of 87, sparking an intense battle over what to do about her empty seat.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) swiftly made clear that Trump’s third nominee to the court would get a vote in the upper chamber—eliciting charges of hypocrisy from Democratic lawmakers, advocacy group leaders, and others opposed to a pre-election appointment. They all pointed to McConnell’s infamous decision to block outgoing President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016.

“It would be a truly inexcusable act of hypocrisy and injustice for Trump and Senate Republicans to move any nomination forward,” declares the MoveOn.org petition, reiterating that ballots are already being cast. Biden, in a Sunday speech at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, urged GOP senators, “Please follow your conscience.”

Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine—who is up for reelection this cycle—have said they oppose voting on a nominee before November 3. However, they were both silent on the possibility of a lame-duck session vote, and at least two more members of the GOP would have to join with them and all Democrats to block the confirmation of another right-wing justice—an appointment that, without significant reforms, could alter the court’s makeup for decades.

While joining the ranks of those calling out McConnell for “breathtaking hypocrisy, ” Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson wrote Saturday in an NBC News op-edthat “we should at some point just be honest. McConnell is seizing on Ginsburg’s death as an opportunity to solidify the conservative leaning of the Supreme Court for decades to come—as we knew he would. This is about raw partisan power. There is no legitimate explanation beyond that. Sometimes things are exactly as they appear.”

Given McConnell’s pledge to hold a vote on Trump’s next pick for the court, set to be announced next week, University of Northern Iowa professor C. Kyle Rudick wroteSunday for Common Dreams that “charges of hypocrisy are insufficient to change the course of the RBG’s replacement or, in fact, in other Republican attempt to race-bait, disenfranchise voters, or increase the wealth of the affluent. Each of these things are not inconsistent with the party’s actual agenda—power for the sake of power.”

“Democrats are starting to wake up to this reality. They are considering, if elected in sufficient numbers, to remove the filibuster rules and pack the courts,” Rudick noted. “Only time will tell if they have the stomach, or the means, to pursue these types of goals. There is one thing that is that is for sure: Democrats will not win political power through accusations of Republican hypocrisy.”

Declaring that now is the time for “constitutional jiujitsu,” Jeffrey C. Isaac of Indiana University, Bloomington offered Democrats some suggestions. “The Senate Democratic leadership should strategize about the entire range of legislative tactics that can be employed, now, to forestall a rushed SCOTUS replacement appointment,” he wrote for Common Dreams. “This includes possible threats to eliminate the filibuster if the Democrats win back the Senate in November.”

Although it remains possible that McConnell and Trump could force through a nominee, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said Friday that he doesn’t believe it is “a foregone conclusion.” Now, he added, congressional Democrats can either “pretend they are powerless in this situation, or they can pick a fight for once.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) reportedly warned the chamber’s Democratic caucus on a Saturday call that “healthcare, protections for preexisting conditions, women’s rights, gay rights, workers’ rights, labor rights, voting rights, civil rights, climate change and so much else is at risk.” Given that threat, Schumer said, “Let me be clear: If Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans move forward with this, then nothing is off the table for next year. Nothing is off the table.”

Despite the tough talk, some progressives have suggested that considering Schumer’s track record of allowing Trump and McConnell to remake the federal judiciary with right-wing judges confirmed to lifelong posts, a primary challenge to the minority leader—who is up for reelection in 2022—could increase the pressure on him to use all tools at his disposable to prevent a third Trump justice on the nation’s highest court.

Some opponents of a Trump Supreme Court nominee are drawing inspiration from none other than RBG. As Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), said on a Saturday call with leaders of civil and legal rights advocacy groups: “Of the many lessons we must take from Justice Ginsburg’s life, perhaps none is more prescient than the need to reject the temptation of pessimism and embrace the grit and determination it takes to see every fight to the end.”

In a Saturday Medium post arguing that “RBG deserves better than liberal defeatism,” writer Will Oremus asserted that “hypocrisy has always been rampant in Washington, but it’s usually easier to hide than this—and when you can’t, it still doesn’t sit well with a lot of voters.” He continued:

To pretend that norms will constrain Trump or McConnell would be folly, yes. But for Democrats, the media, and the public to concede the ground in advance is to do their dirty work for them. To frame what should be a career-dooming level of hypocrisy as the obvious play, the shrewd political move, is to stand down and wave Senate Republicans through what should be a punishing political gauntlet. It lends credence to excuses like “that’s just politics,” or “the other side would do the same.” It lets them off the hook.

“The New York Times‘ Jamelle Bouie had the right idea,” Oremus added. “Democrats, he suggested, should pursue a two-track strategy that insists on tying Republicans to their 2016 words while at the same time threatening devastating retaliation, in the form of court-packing, should they go back on those words. ‘You want no norms?’ the Democrats should say. ‘We’ll show you what that looks like when we’re in charge.'”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

57 comments

  1. Procopius

    Some opponents of a Trump Supreme Court nominee are drawing inspiration from none other than RBG.

    How about taking inspiration from Mitch McConnell in 2009? The complete obstruction of everything the Democrats tried to do was the entire Republican agenda, as stated by McConnell in December 2008. I am angry when I see people posting that the Democrats had a majority in 2009 and 2010. They only had 57 Senators until Minnesota finally certified Al Franken in July, and after Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts to replace Senator Kennedy. 51 is no longer “a majority.” 57 is not enough to invoke cloture. And even though the two Independent Senators tended to vote with the Democratic Caucus, one of them was Weepin’ Joe Lieberman who had a grudge against Democrats and who even campaigned for McCain in 2008. That’s why the ACA had to be passed through the Reconciliation procedure and could not be improved in the conference committee, as was expected in 2009.

    Reply
    1. NotTimothyGeithner

      They had a majority. The filibuster is a self imposed rule voted by the majority. They can limit their constitutional power. United States vs Ballin

      I know it’s from the 19th century, but it’s still the ruling.

      Reply
    2. Phemfrog

      Stop making excuses for them please. Activists were begging them to end the filibuster BEFORE 2009. These types of excuses also force me to accept the idea that the party has ZERO control or influence over their members. You are telling me there was nothing they could do to force Joe Lieberman? The Reps always find a way to force their caucus in line. Also we went into 2009 with a huge mandate (for lack of a better word). Using the power they had to help the country is what they were elected to do! Read that DailyKos thing Rev Kev posted. It’s exactly what we have been saying for 20 years! When they show you who they are, BELIEVE THEM!

      Reply
      1. d

        if the fillibuster were removed in 2009, where would we be today? aca would be dead along with other things D’s want to keep as they could not stop the Gs back in 2017-2018 at all.

        Reply
  2. Chris Smith

    The problem for the Dems to my mind is that they are guilty of the same hypocrisy. For them last time it was all “the Senate has a constitutional responsibility” to vote on the nomination of a sitting president. Now they want to block an appointment for an opposing party.

    Both sides have flipped their positions on this matter to the ones that benefit them. All I can say is “whatever.”

    Reply
    1. Dr. John Carpenter

      +1

      Unfortunately for the Dems, this didn’t happen long enough ago to be shoved down the memory hole. I do think people will remember and see it for what it is.

      Reply
      1. a different chris

        No, don’t buy it.

        There is an American tradition from the schoolyard itself, faithfully repeated in seemingly 99% of Hollywood action movies, of being good until the other side isn’t then “showing them what a mistake they made”.

        Dems will be seen as righteous in their attitude change.

        What difference that will make I have no idea. We seem to have fixated on this, acting like Independents, which will make the difference, are savvy political followers who are watching the SC thing closely.

        Ha.

        Reply
        1. Chris Smith

          Each side, Dems and Repubs, will see themselves as the “good guys” and righteous in their attitude change (forced on them by the other side naturally).

          Politics has just gotten tiresome at this point. It reminds me of the philosophical treatise “On Bullshit.” In which the author argues that BS is worse than lying because a liar is merely trying to deceive their audience. A BS artist knows that they are telling an untruth, but they also know that the audience knows that what the BS artists says is an untruth. The audience knows the BS artist is lying but plays along anyway. The audience also knows that the BS artist knows that the audience knows that the BS artist is lying. We are fast approaching peak BS here.

          Reply
        2. ShamanicFallout

          Here’s John Turley re Chuck Todd on MTP yesterday. Note the quote from RBG:

          ‘Since he just referenced Ginsburg, it would seem relevant to note her position in 2016 on whether the Senate should vote on a nominee in an election year: “That’s their job. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”‘

          Ouch

          Reply
  3. Tom Doak

    The most amazing part of the debate, to me, is all the horror expressed over the “exercise of raw power” that it will take for Republicans to push through a confirmation.

    I guess exercising raw power is not what the PMC does – they follow rules-based norms and hope their bosses don’t exercise raw power against them.

    “We don’t want to govern,” was a perfect slogan for the Democratic Party.

    Reply
    1. lyman alpha blob

      The Democrat party was hoping that just pointing out the hypocrisy of it all would fulfill their obligation to “fight for” something or other and then the donations would come rolling in. Then they’ll lose anyway and complain about how Republicans are mean (only the currently elected ones though – the out of office Repubs like Bush and Cheney are now huggable, avuncular role models) to elicit more donations.

      Sounds like they’re about half way there with no governing required.

      Reply
    2. drumlin woodchuckles

      Or as The Simpsons re-expressed it: ” We hate life and ourselves and we can’t govern.” I tried finding the image, but there was no way to bring it here neat with no fellow-travelling clutter.

      Reply
  4. NotTimothyGeithner

    The missing part of any strategy is making Republicans uncomfortable. Look at the NFL and the Team from Washington. Though symbolic efforts, making them uncomfortable works. Senators such as Johnson from Wisconsin need to be hounded at all times and made to know that votes are a given but he will never not be identified in public. The comity in DC has to end because power is all the GOP really respects.

    Making jokes about Graham won’t work.

    Reply
  5. Eureka Springs

    Democrats would no more want a decent Justice on the court than they wanted someone like Sanders near the Oval.

    This is nothing but kabuki of the worst remake for TV ilk. My greatest amazement is how many still fall for this shizzzz.

    Reply
  6. EoH

    If Democrats want to do something, they should just do it. Issuing warnings and voicing shock, horror, or disappointment are for those who work in a bipartisan chamber. With the current GOP, issuing threats it’s the behavior of losers, like those who try their best, but go home alone instead of with the prom king.

    As for Susan Collins’s deep “concern,” she’s a troll who will reliably vote for McConnell every time. Any noise from her about delay is her prepping the football, hoping that Charlie Brown will try to kick it one more time. Any other noises are an attempt to put a price on her cooperation.

    Reply
    1. Dr. John Carpenter

      I used to work in a high school and there was an interesting phenomenon I saw. Two students who were going to fight, just fought. Little to no warning or posturing. One would just take a swing at the other and that was that.

      On the other hand, the two students who would go back and forth with insults and what they were going to do to the other, had no intention of actually doing it. They needed to save face, but were relieved when someone came to break things up or the bell would ring and they had to go back to class.

      The Republicans more often than not are the former and the Democrats are almost always the later.

      Reply
      1. Skip Intro

        I believe The Washington Generals and Pro Wrestling are also good analogies for the showy empty gestures from the faux resistance.

        Reply
  7. Hank Linderman

    Picking a fight sounds great, but there are better ways to move forward. For example, working to undo the damage of giving up on Rural and Working America.

    I’m the Democratic nominee for Congress in KY2, my second run in a completely safe Republican District. I am a Thomas Frank disciple, meaning I don’t think Democrats can win in rural districts until they offer a credible alternative to the *populism* of Trump and the Republicans. When asked, I call myself a “progressive populist”, my big issues piece is called “The Contract for Rural and Working America.” https://hank4ky.com/Contract-For-Rural-And-Working-America.pdf

    On Saturday, I and presumably many others in the 2nd got a letter from Speaker Pelosi, asking me to contribute to help keep and expand the House majority. Shocking news: my race (or the race in the 1st, 4th & 5th) wasn’t listed on their map or list of races. BUT, would I please give them money? This says it all about the National Party’s commitment to Rural America – give us your money but your candidates are on their own.

    Meanwhile, I am organizing the district, introducing activists from the 21 counties to each other, holding zoom meetings. We just completed our first project: a yard sign that can be displayed anywhere in the Commonwealth. It says, “Had Enough? Vote Democratic!” The other side has “Vote Democratic!” and a blank space above where those who are artistically / editorially inclined can express themselves. Examples: “Bless Your Heart, Vote Democratic!” or “I Won’t Tell Your Husband, Vote Democratic!”

    I’m also chairing a new advisory group to the KY Democratic Party, the Rural Council. This group and the equally new Black Caucus were approved last week. We will be pushing to organize, we will conduct listening tours, and hopefully hold public forums on divisive issues. Most important: there is finally a channel to address the KDP directly. We intend to be complimentary and coordinated with the Black Caucus and other advisory groups.

    As a farmer / friend said to me, “Hank, I’m afraid we’re gonna’ have to get down in the dirt, grassroots.” THIS is what the Party needs to do.

    Anyway, regardless of November’s outcome, I will be carrying on, working to get the attention of the National Party. Even if they sweep the table, they will have less than 2 years to show Rural and Working America that they give a single sh!t. I could use some help, website is here: https://hank4ky.com/

    Best…H
    270-925-9498
    hank@hank4ky.com

    Reply
    1. JuneZ

      Generally, this is a good program. But why not back up the living wage with a federal job guarantee, as Sanders and others have proposed?

      Reply
      1. Hank Linderman

        The Contract is a work in progress and will likely change over time. I will look deeper into the job guarantee.

        Thanks.

        Best…H
        270-925-9498

        Reply
  8. GK

    This article seems like just an excuse for Democrat bashing. It demands that Democrats fight the nomination, but the only thing it suggests they do is threaten to do things the Republicans don’t like if the Democrats win the Senate and White House. There are at least two problems with that. First, that threat is meaningless unless the Democrats do win — by no means a sure thing. Second, the threat is also meaningless unless the Democrats agree not to do the things Republicans don’t like if the Republicans comply. Plenty of people want them to pack the court and end the legislative filibuster anyway — who here is in favor of the Democrats taking that off the table if there is no replacement for RBG?

    The only reasons for Republicans not to push through a nominee is respect for norms (something Republicans have abandoned and, frankly, seems to have very little appeal here either) or an electoral price. Perhaps others disagree, but I don’t see much reason to believe that anyone planning to vote Republican at this point will change their vote because a Republican president and Senate add a conservative to the court.

    Reply
  9. AnonyMouse

    Nothing will stop a hard-right conservative being appointed as RBG’s successor.

    Threats won’t do it. Appeal to conscience won’t do it. Republican defectors won’t do it. And everyone knows it.

    It may be that the best course available is to simply kick up as much hell as possible about it for electoral purposes. Make it clear that every single Republican senator has the option to stop the descent of the Republic and chooses not to. Hammer the electoral mandate that comes with a massive lead in the popular vote and with the fact that just 23% of the electorate back a new judge being confirmed before the Supreme Court.

    Obstructionism, through the courts and through the legislature, is a given throughout a hypothetical Biden Presidency. If lily-livered Dems attempt to “de-escalate” the situation, they will find themselves laying the groundwork for another Trump in 2024 – only with more competence and less faith in democracy to reign him in.

    Reply
  10. Lee

    Democrats: Look! The Republicans are burning down the temple of norms, and feeding people to the lions! Send cash so that we can continue to complain vociferously.

    Reply
  11. cocomaan

    Democrats thought that eliminating the filibuster on appointments would work out in their favor.

    Why in the world would they think that packing the courts would do the same?

    Stop changing the rules. If you need more seats in Congress to pass the legislation you want to pass, start being more popular.

    Reply
  12. Off The Street

    Good Ol’ Harry Reid will get a chapter, or at least a few paragraphs, or possibly just a footnote, or something in future writings about the Great SCOTUS Panic of 2020. I guess he thought it was a good idea at the time.

    Here is the sub-head to that Grauniad article linked above: Historic rule change means presidential nominees require only a simple majority to proceed to Senate confirmation

    In the meantime, mostly crickets.

    Reply
    1. NotTimothyGeithner

      Reid’s problem isnt that he changed the rules but that he didn’t demand Obama fill the vacancies. The rules are just rules and holdover from Jim Crow. The modern use of the filibuster for all things is relatively recent partially because the Dems became so riget wing and everyone in DC needed a dog and pony show.

      The GOP would be changing the rules to their person on if they had to. Frist wouldn’t bat an eyelash. The only reason they had vacancies is they were always short on lawyers as nutty as they wanted them to be judges.

      Reply
  13. A. N. Mouse

    People keep saying about how there is a possibility of Murkowski and Collins not voting to confirm at least before the election, and then maaayyybe add in Romney who would make it a 50/50 vote to be broken by Pence. Those same people might then further hold out hope for Mark Kelly to win his race and be seated in November, which would make it 51 against and thus the problem would be solved. This, of course ignores how often Collins go back on her word, right down to her earliest campaign promises of being a single-term senator.

    However… do most Democrats really think Manchin is a sure vote against? He voted for Kavanaugh and is often a willing water carrier for Republicans to claim their actions were bipartisan. Can Schumer keep him in line? Does Schumer even want to want to or will he be more afraid of a primary challenge from AOC for failing to use all means available?

    Reply
    1. sharonsj

      Schumer has been helping McConnell fast-track Republican judicial appointees to the lower courts. I don’t expect him to do much other than run his mouth about Republican hypocrisy. Meanwhile, I sent blistering comments to both my senators (one R, one D) and then I read many of the other comments out of curiosity. On the Dem side, everyone mostly praised RBG. On the Repub side, hypocrisy be damned–they all wanted an immediate Trump nominee.

      Reply
  14. Matthew G. Saroff

    My prediction: McConnell will declare that it is essential to move on this as quickly as possible, and schedule the first vote in the Judiciary committee just after the election in the lame duck.

    Republicans like Collins who want to pay both sides of the fence ahead of the election will complain, but won’t be able to do anything, and after the election will vote to move the nominee forward, whether Trump wins or not.

    If I were a betting man, and I am not a gambler, I play games of skill like poker, I’s give serious odds on this.

    Reply
  15. MK

    Too simple to work (for GOP):

    Nominate and hold the committee hearings. Schedule the vote for the week after the election. If Trump and/or senate GOP have won, then easy vote yes. If Trump and/or senate GOP have lost either (or both), then you could still vote yes as a lame duck without having to worry about facing voters again.

    The GOP will have a vote – bet on it. The only question is when do they schedule it?

    Reply
  16. Michael McK

    I wouldn’t count on the electeds to do anything but raise a fuss and money. And yes, Joe Manchin would likely scupper anything if they tried.
    I fear the only way to stop another Trump justice would be for 100,000 people to go to DC and jaywalk all day for at least 2+ months and cause such a traffic jam that the city is shut down at least until Nov. 30th. Just keep walking so as to not get arrested and rely on numbers.
    The problem is that most of the people with enough flexibility in their lives and fire in their bellies to do that have been demotivated for the last year by the shafting of Sanders, Biden’s courting Republicans and his promises to keep fracking etc.. I can imagine a scenario where the masses rise up to stop Trump’s choice and then, in the spirit of healing, Biden nominates a Garland type.

    Reply
  17. ptb

    Unfortunately Senate Democrats can’t block anything until they regain a majority. The handful of Republican holdouts are just doing routine intramural horse trading, nothing to do with Democrats, ‘principles’, or their re-election – except that one of McConnell’s options would normally be to threaten to primary them, but he would have to offer something else now since it is too late for primaries.

    The sole leverage at this time for Democrats is the House, and it’s hard to imagine what piece of legislation could be worth a Supreme Court spot. Control of courts is McConnell’s #1 priority among his obligations to the GOP’s sponsors. (he pretty much said this point-blank in a Fox news interview some time ago).

    It is also not particularly good swing-voter politics to make a defining election issue out of Trump/McConnell’s authority to do a confirmation on whatever schedule they see fit. The political concept of doing so would be to win over independent or leans-Dem-low-likelyhood-voter women. But if the nominee is a woman then you can’t attack her too hard, or Republicans once again play the victim, and the pitch to the target audience gets too refined to be practical.

    Basically it really sucks that RBG passed away now.

    Reply
  18. molon labe

    I am a classic liberal (remember the 1st and 2nd amendments?), paleo-conservative (no foreign military adventures unless the country is directly threatened–good old days), somewhat libertarian (end the war on drugs, leave me alone, get off my lawn, and, yes, I did make that).

    1) Merrick Garland should have had a vote and been approved. I would draw the line at the beginning of the summer recess.
    2) Trump should announce his nomination along with a statement that he will withdraw it if McConnell brings it to a vote before the election is decided or if he loses–and he should do so. This way, both sides can see what/whom they are voting for without a constitutional crisis (other than the election itself).
    3) No court-packing–we have enough trouble with legitimacy.
    4) A pox on both their houses for giving me a choice of a barely competent narcissist (bungled COVID-19, screwed the environment, awful tax policy–but no new wars and fighting Congress to bring troops home) or a more corrupt, greedier, war-monger with dementia.

    Reply
  19. d

    at this point those opposed to the Gs scheme have no chance to stop them from doing what they want to do, if they can agree among themselves. now if the voters in 2018 had kicked out some current Gs then maybe we wouldnt be here now. to many seem to want to ignore this cause its inconvenient. and while its not popular, we the voters did this, which includes us . and there are a few states that for what ever reason just for some reason, just wont agree with us, no matter how much it ends up hurting them.

    we have become the enemy or the devil, or what ever tricks their trigger. and we cant convince them of any thing.

    and the reverse is also true

    Reply
  20. drumlin woodchuckles

    I remember once reading that Senators had something called a “Hold” which they could “put” on any nominee they did not like, for any reason or no reason at all. It was purely peremptory and it was a high-handed privilege which Senators had.

    So my sincere question to the readership is: did such a thing ever really exist? Did Senators really have a “Hold” which they really could really “put” on any nominee for no reason at all?

    If the answer is “no”, then I have no further questions.

    If the answer is “yes”, then I have one further question. And that is . . . do Senators still have this “Hold”, even unto this very day? This very hour? This very moment?

    Reply
  21. drumlin woodchuckles

    As to Republicans not having a conscience, what they have is an Agenda. Advancing the Conservative Agenda is the Republicans’ Prime Directive. Advancing the Conservative Agenda IS their conscience. If they are advancing the Conservative Agenda, then they are being TRUE to THEIR conscience, which IS their Prime Directive, which IS advancing the Conservative Agenda.

    Democrats and Liberals don’t think like Republicans at all.

    I remember once Matt Taibbi writing an article about how esthetically disgusting and loathsome and noisome liberals are AS PEOPLE . . . what with their wallowing in weakness and their “Please don’t hit me!” and their Beautiful Noble Loserism. It was the stench of masochism and the slime trail of their Beautiful Loseristic Victimism which disgusted normal people as much as anything else. And led decent people to shun the psychological-leper liberals. I wish I could find that article.

    Reply
  22. drumlin woodchuckles

    Well, I tried looking up “Senatorial Hold” on line. I found several things which I had trouble understanding.
    Here is one which “seems” to “imply” that a Senator can hold up the process of bringing the name of a nominee for appointment to something to the Floor. The procedure is complicated and any Senator can stick a “hold” in the spokes.

    Here is the website. https://politicaldictionary.com/words/senate-hold/

    If I understand this correctly . . . that a Senator can “hold” the process leading to bringing an appointee-nominee to the Floor, inCLUding a Supreme Court nominee . . . . then that means that the Catfood Democrat Senators “could” stop Trump’s every nominee with an obdurate unreasoning hold. Or hold after hold after hold from Senator after Senator after Senator.

    And so if the Catfood Democrat Senators “could” hold Trump’s every nominee, but they DON’T, then that means they don’t WANT to and they don’t CARE to. Which would mean the Catfood Democrat outrage is actually cardboard replica outrage, designed to uphold the fantasy of Catfood Democrats who actually caaaaaaare . . . about You.

    By refusing to hold every nominee Trump sends up, the Catfood Democrat Senators will reveal themselves to be working the “Fighting for You” rackets. Which is what they will do.

    Reply
      1. drumlin woodchuckles

        Well, there goes that, then.

        If it’s just a “norm”, then the CDems can pretend there is nothing they can do. Their ” Fighting for You” pose becomes just a little more foam-rubber plausible.

        Reply
        1. Jonhoops

          There is nothing they can do… there isn’t any pretending. The norm was the Senate majority leader would respect a hold because it signaled that the member would filibuster.

          The majority leader always had the ability to bypass the hold. And since the nuclear option has gutted the filibuster, the holds have become moot . Mitch can simply ignore them.

          Reply
  23. d

    how did the senate create the majority leader? its a constitutional office is it? is this a creation of the senate itself? is it in the law?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *