Senator Durbin (D) is asking Senator Graham (R) to hold a hearing for Merrick Garland

[servermsh]

Yep, this is where we are on February 1st.

@SenatorDurbin wants AG hearing for Merrick Garland next week before impeachment trial begins, tells
@LindseyGrahamSC there’s no justification to object to Feb. 8 timing.

Link to tweet

[Thomas Hurt]

1. Why are the Democrats asking the christofascists for hearings....

aren't the Democrats supposed to hold the chairs of all committees now?

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Nope- the organizing resolution still hasn't been passed. Nt

[uponit7771]

14. Do you know what it takes to get one passed? This looks on its face like a steam roll situation if

... I've ever seen one.

Just change the rules and kick them out

[elleng]

2. OH, FFS, 'asking???'

or TELLS, more like it, imo.

[msongs]

3. so the repubs are still running the senate nt

[sarcasmo]

4. If (D) are asking Lindsey, I think your statement is correct.

[StarfishSaver]

15. The OP's claim that Durbin is "asking" Graham to do anything is incorrect

[dsc]

19. actually no it apparently isn't

Graham is apparently somehow still chair.

[StarfishSaver]

21. But nowhere does that tweet or any other story say that Durbin "asked" Graham to do anything

The suggestion is that Durbin is tiptoeing around Graham. More of the "Democrats are wusses" chorus.

[lapucelle]

24. Thank you ... Here's the full text of Durbin's letter.

The full text of the letter can be accessed through a link at the bottom of this article.

https://www.riverbender.com/articles/details/durbin-to-graham-no-justification-to-delay-judge-garlands-confirmation-hearing-47543.cfm

And the OP doesn't include the 2/2 tweet...

Link to tweet

[StarfishSaver]

25. I'm sure that was unintentional

[lapucelle]

28. The full text of the letter can be accessed through a link at the bottom of this article.

https://www.riverbender.com/articles/details/durbin-to-graham-no-justification-to-delay-judge-garlands-confirmation-hearing-47543.cfm

[StarfishSaver]

32. Yeah. But showing the letter would have screwed up the "Democrats are weak" argument

[onetexan]

30. Clear as day to me this is no "ask", this is basically his nice way of saying go we'll do it w/ or

without you. Not sure why ppl here are saying the GOP are still in charge of the senate.

[The Wizard]

8. My guess is McConnell is stalling

reorganizing to get leverage. I'm thinking he'll bribe Manchin to get him to switch to R that will make him majority leader again.

[Celerity]

17. That is a huge danger, BUT I do not think Manchin is quite there yet. IF the Rethugs take back the

Senate in 2022, he might bolt then, as his 2024 re-election bid in the insanely Trumpian Red WV looms large.

[onetexan]

33. Manchin would be really stupid to be dooming himself by aligning himself w the party of Sedition &

white nationalism. He's conservative but i doubt he'll switch.

[Celerity]

35. He is a calculating politician. He will do what he thinks is best for his future. I think primarying

him is stupid, as we will lose the seat for sure, but I am under NO illusion that Manchin is flat-out what is for the best interest of the nation on many subjects. We need to elect enough non-conservadems to neuter Manchin, Sinema and whoever else wants to play footsie with the centre-right (or become the centre right themselves). Manchin and Sinema would be considered as shading towards the beginning of the rightward edge of most all core EU nations' centre right parties. Henry Cuellar (forced birther, A- rated by NRA, anti-LGBTQ, pro private prisons and big oil, anti-immigrant, supports, fundraises for, and campaigns for a racist RW climate change denier Rethug in John Carter, etc) would be considered a hard radical RW'er. That is how artificially skewed to the right the US political scales are.

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. Schumer needs to put an end to this nonsense, right fucking now.

They are delaying hearings for AG because, once confirmed, all the following will happen:

1. Investigations into Republican congressional collusion with insurrectionists
2. DOJ will bring felony charges for Insurrectionists before Grand Juries, including charges for Seditious Conspiracy and Insurrection
3. DOJ will expedite criminal and counterintelligence investigations into Trump and his administration, likely beginning with the “Individual 1” charges from the Mueller investigation
4. DOJ will launch criminal and counterintelligence investigations and prosecutions into Republican members of congress, including McConnell, Graham, Burr, Loefler, and Purdue.

[StarfishSaver]

10. If only Schumer were as adept and tough as DUers are

[uponit7771]

16. Are they holding out the vote on the resolution till kGOP doesn't filibuster it? thx in advance

[StarfishSaver]

18. I don't know

But I do know that I don't know and I don't assume the fact that I don't know means that they don't know what they're doing ...

[uponit7771]

22. Got it, there's ... NO DOUBT ... that the kGOP is not interested in a liberal democracy any longer.

... There's little they can do right now to express to America in no uncertain terms they don't have a damn about majority anything including keeping chair seats in the senate with at minimum a threat of a filibuster on senate organization rules.

This is ... damn

[onethatcares]

13. you have no idea

how correct I hope you are with your predictions.From the all of my heart. I'm so tired of our democracy being treated like a crime family.

Thank you.

[StarfishSaver]

11. Actually, you are sorely mistaken

It's easy to sit around on computers demanding that people "DO it right effing NOW!" - especially when they don't have a clue how any of this works.

[StarfishSaver]

12. Where does this say that Durbin is "asking" Graham to do anything?

Link to tweet

[servermsh]

20. Durbin is threatening to take other action if Graham won't call a hearing

You know that.

The other action, I would guess, is taking the vote straight to the full Senate.

Or are you asserting that Durbin can call the committee into action for a hearing?

[StarfishSaver]

23. Not at all

I'm challenging the mischaracterization of Durbin's approach as "asking" Graham to do anything as if he's kowtowing to him. As you said, Durbin didn't ask Graham. He told him what he's planning to do if Graham doesn't hold a hearing.

[servermsh]

26. "if Graham doesn't hold a hearing"

Yep. If Graham chooses not to have a hearing, because Graham is in control of the committee. On February 1st, 2021.

Please note Schumer (and Maddow, etc.) loudly proclaimed LAST WEEK that this impasse was all over. Yet, there has been no vote on the organizing resolution. And we, the public, have not yet been able to read the organizing resolution.

[Kaleva]

27. I recall Schumer announcing last week that progress had been made

An excerpt from an article published last week:

"“There has been notable progress in my discussions with the Republican leader,” Schumer said Tuesday, adding that “we’re finally able to get the Senate up and running.”

Though Schumer has control over what goes to the Senate floor, Democrats will not take control of committees where lawmakers start the legislative and nominations processes until the chamber passes a resolution setting guidelines. Generally, the Senate approves the measure through unanimous consent, giving McConnell the power to stall it."

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/26/senate-filibuster-schumer-mcconnell-near-power-sharing-deal.html

Could you provide a link to a story from last week where Schumer loudly claimed the impasse was all over?

[servermsh]

29. LOL. He didn't say "It's going to be at least another week before we take over"

Rachel, DU, DailyKos, etc. all erupted with the glorious news that the impasse was over. People here on DU even chided those who had criticized Schumer for taking so long! LOL.

1/3rd of the Senator's terms end on January 3rd two years from now. The incident with Leahy shows we can lose the Senate at any moment. We can't waste this time!

[Kaleva]

37. No link to back up your earlier statement?

This is what you claimed in post 26:


"Please note Schumer (and Maddow, etc.) loudly proclaimed LAST WEEK that this impasse was all over. "

If true, a link out to be very easy to produce.

Your reply to me in post #29 doesn't even mention Schumer.

[servermsh]

38. Headline

The NYT headline is literally this:

"An impasse ends in the Senate as Democrats win a filibuster battle."

Schumer's spokesperson says:

We’re glad Senator McConnell threw in the towel...

That means it's over!

If all of these articles were so incredibly wrong, why didn't Schumer release a statement correcting them?

EDIT: With link!

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/us/politics/an-impasse-ends-in-the-senate-as-democrats-win-a-filibuster-battle.html

[Kaleva]

40. NYT & Schumer's spokesperson were talking specifically about the filibuster

As your links show.

Nothing personal against you but I, and others, are just saying you ought to chill and let our leaders in the Senate take care of things. I, and many others, have the utmost confidence in them doing so.

[servermsh]

43. LOL. Yes the language about the filibuster in the organizing resolution! n/t

[Kaleva]

46. You are talking about the organizing resolution but your links talk about the filibuster

This is what you said in post #26:

"Please note Schumer (and Maddow, etc.) loudly proclaimed LAST WEEK that this impasse was all over. Yet, there has been no vote on the organizing resolution. "

In an earlier post, I provided you with a link where Schumer was quoted last week as saying progress was made and he was talking about the organizing resolution.

[StarfishSaver]

34. Your facts are getting in the way of the "Dems ain't shish" attacks

[Kaleva]

44. I applaud your efforts to interject well grounded facts into these threads!

[StarfishSaver]

31. Schumer never claimed "the impasse was over." He announced that McConnell had dropped

the filibuster demand.

It sounds like you're new to this - I bet you never before read an organizing resolution before it was passed (or after, for that matter).

Why do you feel that the public needs to read an organizing resolution right now?

[servermsh]

36. "Why do you feel that the public needs to read an organizing resolution right now?"

Why now? Because 1/3rd of the Senator's terms ends on January 3rd two years from now. That's a hard deadline. We've already lost almost one month of time since January 3rd, 2021.

Did you not see Leahy go to the hospital? We could lose the Senate at any time. And Mitch won't wait more than a week to turn things around. He'd would just do it!

We have judgeships to fill. I want the Senate moving forward with the same speed that Mitch accomplished. That's another reason for "why now?"

I cannot understand this reflexive defensiveness. It is a fact that today is February 1st and we've lost almost a month of time. Mitch is laughing.

[StarfishSaver]

41. What value would it bring for you to read an organizing resolution right now?

Would you contribute to or speed up the process in any way if you had an organizing resolution in hand?

Do you think the fact that you haven't seen an organizing resolution means Schumer and the Democrats are doing something wrong?

If so, what exactly should they be doing instead? Please be specific. And "they need to fight harder!" or "they need to force through an organizing resolution now!" aren't answers.

Please detail the specific strategy you propose Schumer use within the rules to get an organizing resolution passed right now - this will require you share with us the inside knowledge that you have about precisely how every one of the 50 Democrats plan to vote, in addition to detailing how you would use the rules to get the resolution onto the floor and passed on the time schedule you're insisting on.

[servermsh]

45. 50 votes?

Why does Schumer need 50 Democratic votes? Are the Republicans still objecting to something in the OR?! Because that is not in the news anywhere! If Republicans are objecting, why did Schumer's spokesman say Mitch "threw in the towel"?

Could we get the OR passed at least as fast as Mitch installed a justice on the Supreme Court?!?!?

To answer your main question: The publishing of the OR would be a step towards giving the public confidence that they are about to vote on it (just like with normal legislation).

[servermsh]

39. NYT

Anyone reading the NYT article I linked above (or almost any other article) would get the message that the impasse was over.

The NYT headline literally said the impasse had ended. LOL.

[StarfishSaver]

47. Nice try. Schumer isn't the NY Times

You claimed "Schumer (and Maddow, etc.) loudly proclaimed LAST WEEK that this impasse was all over."

Schumer never made such a claim. The New York Times headline did.

If you're going to attack Schumer, at least make the effort to be accurate.

[msfiddlestix]

42. that's just too fucked up.

I'm freaking pissed off about what's happened after we won.

[elleng]

48. from the letter, says THIS:

“Although I hope we can proceed in a bipartisan fashion, I am prepared to take other steps to expedite the Senate’s consideration of Judge Garland’s nomination should his hearing not go forward on February 8,”
@SenatorDurbin
says. 2/2

[choie]

49. Why do we have to ask him anything?

he's in the damn minority - he's not the chair of the Judiciary committee anymore.

[StarfishSaver]

50. Read through the thread

"Ask" was language the OP used. It's not accurate