Graham just broke the rules to advance Amy Coney Barrett's nomination out of the Judiciary Committee

[bigtree]

Last edited Thu Oct 22, 2020, 09:44 AM - Edit history (1)

Vanita Gupta @vanitaguptaCR
BREAKING: Chairman @LindseyGrahamSC just broke committee rules to advance Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. No Democrats were present. They will do anything to jam through this nominee to rip away health care amid a pandemic. It's disgraceful.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Ohiogal]

1. All their wet dreams coming true with this judge

Makes me sick. Please fix this, Joe!

[Statistical]

2. Reform the courts and let them choke on the ashes.

[calimary]

3. I fucking HATE republi-CONS.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. How can the vote be "unanimous" when the Democrats weren't present to vote?

[malaise]

5. Where is the Parliamentarian on this? n/t

[bigtree]

10. in committees it's the chairman who rules on those questions, I think

...and members can vote to appeal the rule of the chair, simple majority needed.

I'm pretty sure the parliamentarian is for the full Senate.

[mfcorey1]

6. Can the nomination be voided because of the break in the rules?

[Mike 03]

8. This is what I want to know too.

[lagomorph777]

11. Biden must use this as evidence that SCROTUS has to be unpacked.

It will help make the case.

[FBaggins]

34. Nope

There is no requirement that the committee even be involved.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

7. Senate BLOODBATH eminent. ...

Graham, Cornyn, Sasse, and others fortunes just went down the tubes.

[BComplex]

9. I hope this act is the last nail in Lindsay Graham's senate re-election coffin.

Jaime Harrison needs to show that Graham has just trashed the senate judiciary committee by his actions. No respect at all for the rule of law, or for his own promises.

[dem4decades]

12. What was the committee rule that was broken?

[Spazito]

15. In order to vote, the committee must have 2 members of the minority present in order...

to form a quorum, no Democrats were present hence no quorum.

[dem4decades]

16. Got it. Thanks

[dansolo]

26. Should there have been one Democrat present?

I thought a quorum was assumed unless requested. if so, then that was a screw up on the part of the Democrats. If two minority members are required, then they could have had one member present to request a quorum call.

[Spazito]

28. Good point, I am not sure a quorum call is used in committee, here is what I found...

Rules of Procedure United States
Senate Committee on the Judiciary


III. QUORUMS

1. Seven Members of the Committee, actually present, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of discussing business. Nine Members of the Committee, including at least two Members of the minority, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business. No bill, matter, or nomination shall be ordered reported from the Committee, however, unless a majority of the Committee is actually present at the time such action is taken and a majority of those present support the action taken.

IV. BRINGING A MATTER TO A VOTE

The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with twelve votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.


https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/rules

[LaMouffette]

13. They are giving us no choice but to expand the court.

If Biden wins the presidency and we gain control of the Senate, we have to expand the Supreme Court. McConnell, Graham, and the Republican-controlled Senate have now stolen TWO Supreme Court seats.

My picks? Katie Porter and Barack Obama. (If we're going to make Republicans' heads explode, let's make their heads "blow up good, blow up real good!&quot

[young_at_heart]

14. I guess "united" states no longer apply?

No attempt to work with Democrats or care in the least about their objections. I wonder what the Founding Fathers would say?

[uriel1972]

18. yeah "reach across the aisle" my arse...

bipartisanship be damned, this is about our power!

[riversedge]

17. umm John Nichlos tweet now say This Tweet is unavailable. --when I clicked.

[Sunsky]

19. And what will happen as a result of him doing so? nt

[Hoyt]

20. Nothing will happen from this. While I understand the "protest," one can't thwart votes by

one side not showing up. That's Mickey Mouse when either party tries such stunts. I'm sure GOPers have pulled similar stunts many times in past.

[SergeStorms]

21. When republicans are in charge...

there are no rules. Rules, laws etc. only apply to Democrats. I hope I've cleared this up for everyone.

[meow2u3]

22. Leningrad Lindsey is following the Moscow Mitch rule

"Because we can, we'll make up the rules as we go along."

[Tarc]

23. It doesn't matter. Both Barrett & Kavanaugh represent blood on the Steinbot's hands

This is why I have not spent a second of time arguing against the Barrett nomination.

Elections have consequences, and the far-left Jackpine Radical Stein/Sarandon swill will reap this in droves.

[blueinredohio]

24. If Graham cheated on this vote can't we have her removed when democrats win?

[benld74]

25. Maddow last night Shumer said

Senate GOP has been overruling the Senate parlimentarian at every step.
I guess that is what’s meant by the tweet on Comrade Lindsey above.

[bucolic_frolic]

27. You meet partisanship with partisanship when power changes hands

We'll be excoriated for it, but it's what you do because they did it first. This hypocrisy must end and you end it by reversing their power grab.

[mvd]

30. Power. All these creeps care about is power

I think Biden will support increasing the number of judges. He just is careful now in what he says.

[Evolve Dammit]

31. That few people wielding supreme power for life needs to be overhauled. Not needed IMHO.

And this nominee is a prize. Michelle Bachman crazy eyes. Missing the big cross of Bondi, Coulter, Ingraham so far... Get the religion out of it for Chrissakes!

[Marrah_Goodman]

32. They have shown over and over that the rules do not pertain to them.

[crickets]

33. Taking away health care coverage during a pandemic isn't just disgraceful.

It's deliberate, premeditated mass murder.

[They_Live]

35. Genocide

yes.

[catharineg]

36. What I love about conservatives

They do lots of religious talk, I guess to imply morality, but they are for corporate welfare(not the welfare of people), they're against obamacare,, they adore the 2nd amendment, are pro-death penalty and antichoice in the name of Jesus,

Funny thing about conservatives, with 86% accuracy, you can tell a lib from a con by looking at an MRI of the brain. Cons have enlarged right amygdala, are driven by fear and squeamish too. It's no wonder they love their guns

[The Wielding Truth]

37. She is illegitimate. She can be removed as soon as the new senate is seated.

[onenote]

38. How?

The only way is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate and that isn’t happening.

[dware]

40. Amazing how many gloss over this little detail. nt

[dware]

39. Really?

Do tell us how she can be removed as soon as the new Senate is seated.

[The Wielding Truth]

42. Illegal procedure. There was no quorum of the approving committee. She must be brought forward again

The case must be made or Senate rules are moot.

[dware]

43. There's no provision in the Constitution for a quorum,

Moscow Mitch didn't even have to present it to the Judiciary Committee, he could have just brought it to the floor for a vote, as has been noted several times on DU.

[The Wielding Truth]

45. Senate rules must be adhered to.

[dware]

46. Yeah, good luck with that argument.

Since when have the R's respected the Senate rules?

I can guarantee that Barrett will not be removed from the SC.

We stand a far better chance of rebalancing the SC by adding additional seats.

[The Wielding Truth]

48. Senate Parliamentarian has power. Am I wrong? Who can call Republicans to task?

[dware]

49. Look, the plain, simple fact is that once she's seated,

she isn't going to be removed just because a dubious rule wasn't followed.

I'm sorry, but that's the reality we live in now.

[The Wielding Truth]

50. I can refuse to go along. You can, too. Truth and rules and laws are being turned inside out.

I won't bend over and let them destroy democracy.

[dware]

51. Yes, we can refuse to go along with it,

but I also live in reality and reality says that she's not going to be removed unless, she resigns, not happening, she dies, unlikely anytime soon, or she's impeached and removed, which is a pipe dream.

Look, I know your heart is in the right place, but sometimes you just have to face reality that what you hope for just ain't happening.;

Great talking to you and have a pleasant Sunday.

[RandiFan1290]

41. They fight to win for their voters. nt

[KentuckyWoman]

44. Can we assume Barrett will refuse the nomination since "rule of law" was broken?

Yeah... dream on.

In reality, Judiciary committee might be "Senate rules" or even "tradition" but the US Constitution doesn't say anything about Judiciary Committee. Mitch can do it any way he wants.

[The Wielding Truth]

47. It's not her call. Her nomination was not moved forward by the procedure in place It has no legs.