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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onenote

(42,374 posts)
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 04:22 PM Jan 2022

No, the Republicans cannot, by themselves, block a vote on a Biden SCOTUS nominee.

These is a post in GD that claims that the Republicans have a way to block a vote on Biden's SCOTUS nominee and, implicitly, blames Schumer for making a bad deal with McConnell in the power sharing agreement. (S. Res. 27).

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16289270

Don't be fooled. The article cited in that OP is spreading disinformation.

Specifically, it claims that if the Judiciary Committee splits evenly on a nomination, it cannot reach the floor if a motion to discharge passes with 60 votes. WRONG. All it takes to discharge the nomination is a simple majority of the whole senate. And multiple nominations have been moved to the floor by means of motion to discharge that passed with a simple majority. In most instances, the simple majority is achieved because some Republican senators choose not to vote. But even where the motion to discharge is tied 50-50, it passes because Harris can break the tie ---- something she has done on a couple of occasions.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00462.htm

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00161.htm

52 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No, the Republicans cannot, by themselves, block a vote on a Biden SCOTUS nominee. (Original Post) onenote Jan 2022 OP
Unless they have a couple of sheep to help them. onecaliberal Jan 2022 #1
Manchin and Sinema both voted against Barrett onenote Jan 2022 #3
I just hope they keep their traps shut wryter2000 Jan 2022 #6
Double agents gonna double agent... lame54 Jan 2022 #14
Double posters are going to double post. onenote Jan 2022 #16
Especially when the site says... lame54 Jan 2022 #17
Double agents gonna double agent... lame54 Jan 2022 #15
I agree with all of this. ShazzieB Jan 2022 #30
oh i like Ms. Jackson!! She would be an excellent nominee, AND she's only 51!! onetexan Jan 2022 #32
The problem with Manchin and Sinema is that they appear to enjoy the attention whopis01 Jan 2022 #47
Going against the party on Biden's other judicial nominees would've gotten attention onenote Jan 2022 #48
Ah - but not the same kind of attention whopis01 Jan 2022 #49
American Rescue Plan onenote Jan 2022 #50
Thanks for the spelling correction whopis01 Jan 2022 #51
They both voted for Jackson this past year obamanut2012 Jan 2022 #11
Bingo NC DENVERPOPS Jan 2022 #21
Even for committee votes, a VP can step in? Sounds like "yes." Thanks. NT mahatmakanejeeves Jan 2022 #2
She does not actually vote in committee bottomofthehill Jan 2022 #4
Not in Committee. Before the full Senate. onenote Jan 2022 #5
A thought wryter2000 Jan 2022 #7
I think its possible onenote Jan 2022 #8
I wish one of them were on the committee wryter2000 Jan 2022 #10
There's even a decent chance Lindsey Graham votes for the nominee. tritsofme Jan 2022 #9
I wouldn't count on it. onenote Jan 2022 #12
True. He must consider that a mostly African American jury may be in his future. Marcuse Jan 2022 #19
Moscow Mitch: But it's not right that a democrat with less than four years left in his term can get keithbvadu2 Jan 2022 #13
Nah. GB_RN Jan 2022 #18
He was only able to do that with Scalia's seat because he was the majority leader... markpkessinger Jan 2022 #31
I Realize That. GB_RN Jan 2022 #34
He has been able to scuttle Biden's bills. Irish_Dem Jan 2022 #42
But, but, L. Coyote Jan 2022 #20
lolol Celerity Jan 2022 #40
The only way the republicans could stop the nomination from going through William769 Jan 2022 #22
They haven't been friends of the repubs on any of Biden's judicial nominees. onenote Jan 2022 #23
Thats good to hear. William769 Jan 2022 #24
I think what they're concerned about is any Repubs voting for his replacement. Calista241 Jan 2022 #25
Hopefully Phillip Elliot has already received plenty of feedback. ColinC Jan 2022 #26
He seems to be ignoring the dozens of tweet pointing out that his article is flat out wrong. onenote Jan 2022 #27
Hopefully. It's insane they published it... ColinC Jan 2022 #28
Twitter responses are great. Plenty of his colleagues are already ColinC Jan 2022 #29
Time has printed a correction and revised the story. onenote Jan 2022 #37
Took em long enough ColinC Jan 2022 #38
I like how the correction cut the article in half ColinC Jan 2022 #39
Time is a zombie mag, same as the even worse (and RW amplifying) shitrag Newsweek Celerity Jan 2022 #41
key words: choie Jan 2022 #33
Won't happen anyway... WarGamer Jan 2022 #35
This was discussed on TRMS LetMyPeopleVote Jan 2022 #36
If this shifted the balance of SC power, McConnell would be right on it. Irish_Dem Jan 2022 #43
Please share how McConnell could use "back door" power to block it onenote Jan 2022 #44
His pals do his bidding when he orders it. Irish_Dem Jan 2022 #45
In other words, you have nothing. onenote Jan 2022 #46
MoscowMitch cannot block this nomination LetMyPeopleVote Jan 2022 #52

onenote

(42,374 posts)
3. Manchin and Sinema both voted against Barrett
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 04:28 PM
Jan 2022

And neither has voted against any Biden nominee.

The most likely nominee is Kenjani Brown Jackson, who served on he District Court from 2013 to 2021 (confirmed by voice vote) and then was confirmed to a spot on the DC Circuit by a 53-44 vote with every Democrat supporting the nomination (including Manchin and Sinema) and three repubs (Murkowski, Collins and Graham). I fully expect Graham, who has no spine, to reverse himself and vote against her. But I also would not be surprised if Murkowski and/or Collins vote to confirm her.

wryter2000

(46,016 posts)
6. I just hope they keep their traps shut
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 04:31 PM
Jan 2022

They're done blocking voting rights. I hope they're not craving attention.

ShazzieB

(15,952 posts)
30. I agree with all of this.
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 06:29 PM
Jan 2022

But the potential likely nominee is Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Just wanted to point that out.

whopis01

(3,467 posts)
47. The problem with Manchin and Sinema is that they appear to enjoy the attention
Thu Jan 27, 2022, 12:29 PM
Jan 2022

brought on by being the pivotal vote(s).

In the example you gave, had they voted against confirmation, it would have still passed with 51 votes. So going against the party wouldn't have brought significant media attention on them.

If their votes can make the difference, I have a strong feeling that they will want to make that known.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
48. Going against the party on Biden's other judicial nominees would've gotten attention
Thu Jan 27, 2022, 01:18 PM
Jan 2022

if that's all they cared about.

But they didn't do that.

whopis01

(3,467 posts)
49. Ah - but not the same kind of attention
Thu Jan 27, 2022, 02:49 PM
Jan 2022

The vote would have gone through without them.

They would have appeared as being against Biden, but not really wielding any power.

When they are the lynchpin, they get the attention that they want.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
50. American Rescue Plan
Thu Jan 27, 2022, 03:05 PM
Jan 2022

The $1.9 trillion stimulus bill that passed in March -- required Harris to break a tie 50-50 tie to move it forward. Seems like if attention was the motivation, that would've been a prime target for Manchen and/or Sinema. And one or more tie-breaking votes were needed to move eight of Biden's nominees across the finish line -- they would not have "gone through without them."

I suspect a lot of things motivate Sinema and Manchin -- most of which seem flimsy. But merely getting attention doesn't seem to be the "linchpin" (or, as your post says, "lynchpin&quot .

whopis01

(3,467 posts)
51. Thanks for the spelling correction
Thu Jan 27, 2022, 04:57 PM
Jan 2022

I am honestly amazed I have made it this far in life and never realized how that was spelled. (Just in case this reads differently than I intend - I mean this with all honesty and no snark at all).

As far as Sinema or Manchin go, neither of us knows what they are going to do right now. We shall see soon enough. Obviously I hope you are correct here. I think your points are valid - but I think mine are as well.

obamanut2012

(25,906 posts)
11. They both voted for Jackson this past year
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 04:50 PM
Jan 2022

That is likely who Biden will nominate. They are not voting against her.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
5. Not in Committee. Before the full Senate.
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 04:31 PM
Jan 2022

The power sharing agreement provides that if there is deadlock in Committee, the Committee chair can notify the Secretary of the Senate of the deadlock, and then can call for a vote by the full senate on a "discharge" motion that only needs a simple majority. Once the discharge motion is approved, there is another vote, this time on cloture, that also just requires a simple majority vote. And then a vote on the nomination.

It adds a couple of steps, but it doesn't change the outcome.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
8. I think its possible
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 04:34 PM
Jan 2022

Particularly if the nominee is a Black woman, with a decade of judicial experience that they both supported seven months ago.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
12. I wouldn't count on it.
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 04:50 PM
Jan 2022

He's the embodiment of wishy-washy, so i don't think his vote to confirm her to the Court of Appeals means squat to him.

However, I can see Murkowski and/or Collins supporting Jackson

keithbvadu2

(36,360 posts)
13. Moscow Mitch: But it's not right that a democrat with less than four years left in his term can get
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 05:23 PM
Jan 2022

Moscow Mitch: But it's not right that a democrat with less than four years left in his term can get a SC Justice in place.

???

GB_RN

(2,267 posts)
18. Nah.
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 05:27 PM
Jan 2022

He'll just say it's an election year, and "the people" should have a voice. Meaning that they should have a chance to steal the Senate, and then be able to block every nominee for every court, agency, etc, etc, Biden has come up from here until the end of his term(s).

markpkessinger

(8,381 posts)
31. He was only able to do that with Scalia's seat because he was the majority leader...
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 06:42 PM
Jan 2022

...As minority leader, he has no such power.

GB_RN

(2,267 posts)
34. I Realize That.
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 08:53 PM
Jan 2022

However, that doesn't, nor will it, stop him from being a supremely hypocritical douchebag, saying exactly the kind of thing I stated above by relying on the fact that a lot of Americans (including 99% of Republicans) have very short memories and that the media won't ever call him on his hypocrisy.

William769

(55,124 posts)
22. The only way the republicans could stop the nomination from going through
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 05:43 PM
Jan 2022

Is a little help from their friends. Manchin & Sinema.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
23. They haven't been friends of the repubs on any of Biden's judicial nominees.
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 05:44 PM
Jan 2022

And its very likely that Biden's nominee will be someone that Manchin and Sinema both voted for less than 7 months ago.

William769

(55,124 posts)
24. Thats good to hear.
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 05:47 PM
Jan 2022

I guess these two have disappointed me so much that I just see the worst in them.

Thanks for that.

Calista241

(5,584 posts)
25. I think what they're concerned about is any Repubs voting for his replacement.
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 05:48 PM
Jan 2022

3 of them voted for Ketanji Brown Jackson on the DC circuit. They'd like to be able to say that Mark Kelly, Raphael Warnock and Catherine Cortez Masto were the deciding votes, and use it against them in November.

If a Repub votes for for the nominee, that takes that attack angel off the table.

ColinC

(8,227 posts)
26. Hopefully Phillip Elliot has already received plenty of feedback.
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 06:20 PM
Jan 2022

I sent him and time a message and deleted my other post as you seem to be right about this. Really sad if time knowingly is peddling misinformation like this.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
27. He seems to be ignoring the dozens of tweet pointing out that his article is flat out wrong.
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 06:23 PM
Jan 2022

Maybe Time will be more responsive.

ColinC

(8,227 posts)
29. Twitter responses are great. Plenty of his colleagues are already
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 06:28 PM
Jan 2022

Correcting him, apparently. Just wow..

ColinC

(8,227 posts)
39. I like how the correction cut the article in half
Thu Jan 27, 2022, 04:42 AM
Jan 2022

...and of course destroyed the entire premise the article was based on. Still can't believe they made such a huge mistake. Sheesh.

WarGamer

(12,103 posts)
35. Won't happen anyway...
Wed Jan 26, 2022, 08:57 PM
Jan 2022

I'd bet that 3_ GOP'ers vote YES.

Maybe 4 with Romney changing his vote on Judge Jackson for her confirmation hearing last year.

Irish_Dem

(45,619 posts)
43. If this shifted the balance of SC power, McConnell would be right on it.
Thu Jan 27, 2022, 10:14 AM
Jan 2022

In terms of blocking it.

He has all kinds of backdoor power.

Irish_Dem

(45,619 posts)
45. His pals do his bidding when he orders it.
Thu Jan 27, 2022, 10:21 AM
Jan 2022

This is not a deal breaking issue for him.
So he will keep his powder dry.

He let Biden get one bill past.
The rest he will block.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
46. In other words, you have nothing.
Thu Jan 27, 2022, 10:26 AM
Jan 2022

BTW, how come he's allowed Biden to get a record number of District and Appeals Court judges confirmed, even in situations where all he needed is one vote to prevent it?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No, the Republicans canno...