why aren't DEMS refusing to confirm ANY new appointments

[SiliconValley_Dem]

use the old "it's last year if Trump's term" argument that motherfucker McConnell used and just absolutely lock down all appointments from now to Jan 2021!

[Doremus]

1. Good question. Would love to know the answer. nt

[dawg]

27. We are in the minority in the Senate and have no control at all.

[Indykatie]

39. Here's The Simple Answer. Dems Don't Have Enough Votes to Stop Any Confirmations

That's how all this works. You must have a majority of votes to pass or stop any confirmations. Control of the Senate matters greatly.

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. In the Senate there are not enough of us...Because Hillary gave ONE speech once, people who

might have voted for dems didnt.

Because Hillary did not give a certain group everything they wanted, people held their noses or voted 3rd party or not at all.

[Budi]

6. K & R a million

One speech that no one but the attendees ever know what it was about.

Hoping people learned from 2016 to read more than a brief header on social media.

[betsuni]

13. Still can't believe so many people were stupid enough to believe a nutty conspiracy theory

that doing what every former Secretary of State has done, giving speeches about their experiences and being paid for it, make one corrupt and evil. Moronic. Who is that stupid?

[ismnotwasm]

36. Yup.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. They're in the minority and can't prevent them.

[SiliconValley_Dem]

5. filibuster. place holds on nominees. there are ways

[Budi]

9. Sure. Like there was a way to prevent Gorsuch & Kavenaugh.

#Vote💙2020

[SiliconValley_Dem]

10. yep

[Kaleva]

12. Repubs have the votes to override holds and shut down filibusters.

"Nuclear option"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

[StarfishSaver]

20. No, actually, there aren't ways.

[Demsrule86]

26. Not true...there are not ways.

[Kaleva]

4. Dems don't control the Senate.

[Sherman A1]

8. Well, there is that

But it appears a few folks are not aware of that pesky little fact.

[SiliconValley_Dem]

11. i guess the filibuster was destroyed as an option for lower tier nominees

but each senator can okace holds in numerous nominees and work the clock. we have options.

[Kaleva]

14. The party controlling the Senate can change the rules on holds.

[stopdiggin]

18. No. We really don't.

Which is why the frothing at the mouth types shouldn't be allowed to set the narrative. Or dictate policy.

[Hortensis]

7. Because too many believed lying liars who claimed it didn't

matter who won in 2016 because there was no choice worth supporting.

Speaking of, 135 days until we find out if enough people have learned that, in this era, everyone who doesn't vote Democratic is part of a dreadful problem that may still destroy us.

[Patterson]

15. It would take Susan Collins and some other brave souls.

[DFW]

29. Please

Do not use the name Susan Collins and “brave souls” in the same sentence.

[stopdiggin]

16. Because they don't have that ability?

Where did you get the idea that the Dems had this power?
--- -- ---

[Toorich]

17. Senate Democrats

in November 2013 exercised the "nuclear option" to be able to shut down filibuster with a 51-49 vote, not the Rule 22 requirement
of a 60-40 vote for cloture. That was to get Obama judges on Circuit Court that were blocked by the Repugs.
Whatsoever the Democrats soweth, that shall they also reap.

[Demsrule86]

22. We don't have the votes either way...and McConnell would have done the same.

[StarfishSaver]

19. They don't have the numbers to stop confirmations.

Or, in other words, the answer is "Mid Terms 2014" ...

[Demsrule86]

21. We don't have a Senate majority...It is quite simple and why I told everyone I spoke with to vote

Democratic in 16...judges and appointees.

[Progressive dog]

23. Fillibuster rules were changed

to keep Democrats from blocking nominations of unqualified people.

A filibuster in the United States Senate is a tactic used in the United States Senate to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. Changes in 2013 and 2017 now require only a simple majority to invoke cloture on nominations, although most legislation still requires 60 votes.

https://answerism.com/is-the-filibuster-still-going-on

[Demsrule86]

25. We have under 50 votes...and if do you really believe that McConnell wouldn't have gotten rid of

any 60 vote majority? I want to see the filibuster gone...so we can get stuff done if we take the Senate as well as the presidency...we won't have 60 votes.

[Progressive dog]

30. The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for nominees.

Now we have to live with it.

[tritsofme]

32. To be clear, the parties took turns in changing the rules.

Harry Reid and Democrats in 2013 reduced the 60 vote requirement on all executive nominees and judges below the Supreme Court.

McConnell and Republicans in 2017 changed the rules to reduce the 60 vote requirement on Supreme Court nominees.

[Progressive dog]

33. You are right. It was time for it to go.

[wishstar]

24. Even when all Democrats vote against confirmation, Repubs have enough votes

since Repubs control the Senate, it's that simple and Dems don't have power to filibuster appointments.

[MisterNiceKitty]

28. This happened to Obama with Merrick Garland

And there's just a few months left before the election.

So what's good for the goose...

[tritsofme]

31. Stunning ignorance here. Democrats are in the minority, the rules don't allow them to do this.

I’m so sick of Democrats being eviscerated over things they literally have no control over.

[betsuni]

34. +1

[SiliconValley_Dem]

35. i am not "eviscerating" anyone. merely asking what they can do to stop confirmations

[dumbcat]

37. No, that's not what you asked.

You asked:

why aren't DEMS refusing to confirm ANY new appointments

[SiliconValley_Dem]

38. and was answered. quit looking for ill intent where there is none. just want Trump stopped

at every turn for these months till we eject his ass