If Feinstein can't be replaced on Judiciary, why can't Schumer simply hold votes to discharge

[onenote]

nominations on which the Committee is deadlocked?

Remember -- When Jackson was nominated for the Supreme Court, the Senate Judiciary Committee deadlocked 11-11 on whether to approve her nomination. So Schumer immediately filed a petition to discharge the nomination from the Committee and sent that petition to the Senate floor, where it was approved by a simple majority vote.

I haven't seen any discussion of why Schumer couldn't use this same procedure to get the nominations that are currently pending before the Committee sent to the Senate floor.

[tritsofme]

1. There were special rules in the last Congress that allowed leadership to discharge deadlocked

committee votes, that expired with the new Congress.

My understanding is that procedure is not available today.

[FBaggins]

2. Discharge petitions are still an option

It’s just that they can now be filibustered

Easier to get a few republicans to agree to swapping her off of the committee

[Demsrule86]

11. There won't be any agreement and we will only get judges they back.

[FBaggins]

13. For a few weeks

Which really isn’t an issue

But there might indeed be a deal - just not one that we want to accept. For instance - one has already been floated to put Sinema on judiciary and commit to not ending the blue slip nonsense.

But I don’t see agreeing to that

[JoeyFalconi]

17. Discharge petitions are still an option

So Schumer could use discharge petitions in the last session but not in the current session? That doesn't make sense! Why would Schumer agree to such a change? That seems to hamstring Schumer.

[FBaggins]

18. A 50/50 senate has different rules

Most committees were evenly split - which would have resulted in an inability to get anything out of committee.so the deal allowed democrats to use the fact that the VP casts a deciding vote on full-senate ties to bring things to the floor.

Once we had an actual majority - the senate returned to normal rules and every committee (except ethics) has a small democratic majority - assuming everyone shows up.

[onenote]

4. Thanks.

[maxsolomon]

3. She's coming back "soon".

This will presumably be a moot question.

[Hortensis]

5. Thanks for the question and the answers. :)

[themaguffin]

6. This is so insane. She should have never run again & doesn't seem quick to do the right thing

[onenote]

7. Really? Her absence hasn't delayed anything at this point.

Facts matter. What's insane is ignoring them and joining a mob demanding her head.

Apparently it bears repeating: After being being sworn in as a newly reelected member of the Senate for the 116th Congress in January 2019, she missed only 9 votes out of 917 cast in the first 30 months of her term. She had a period between July 2021 and March 2022 when she missed around 25% of the votes, but she recovered and from April 2022 through February 16 (the last day Congress was in session before she became ill), she missed only 4 of 318 votes.

Compare that to, for example, Bernie Sanders: during the same 30 month period from January 2019 through June 2021, he missed 415 of those 917 votes (including 232 out of 239 between July and December 2019). And from April 2022 through February 16, he missed 12 out of 318 votes. Don't recall anyone saying he shouldn't have run for reelection in 2018 or should have resigned rather be a regular no-show. All told, Sanders has missed more votes since he was reelected than Feinstein.

And, of course, Fetterman has missed more votes than Feinstein this year. He was unavailable for most of January, February and March. As of today, Feinstein has been unavailable for one month: February 28 through Mar.30.

Why should she not have run but it was okay for Bernie, given that she had done more Senate work than he has since they were both elected in 2019. And why she should step down now, when she's missed less time than Fetterman. For the record, I don't have any issue with Sanders running for reelection and staying on as Senator even though he was missing bushel baskets of votes. And I have no problem with Fetterman taking the three months he needed to get well. I just think Feinstein has earned the same opportunity to return.

[FreepFryer]

8. How many judicial nominations have taken place in the judiciary committee during her absence? Nt

[onenote]

9. An executive session scheduled for March 16 was cancelled. Ten nominees would've been considered.

Last edited Tue Apr 18, 2023, 01:21 AM - Edit history (1)

If they had been approved, they still would have been behind the 18 nominees that already were approved before Feinstein became ill but that haven't been brought to the floor by Schumer.

And while there are several other nominees that were not scheduled for a Committee vote yet, that's largely because they haven't had hearings yet -- and Feinstein's absence doesn't prevent Committee hearings from being held. One is scheduled for tomorrow, in fact. And in March, one was held even though the Committee Chairman, Sen. Durbin, couldn't attend because he'd tested positive for COVID.

In short, if she comes back in a month, and the Senate focuses on confirming the 18 nominees awaiting floor action, her absence won't have delayed a thing.

Finally, it should go without saying that Feinstein's absence isn't preventing the previously approved nominees from getting a floor vote. Even without her, two other Senators could be absent and, if the repubs all showed up and voted no on a nominee, Harris could still break the tie. Of course, Harris only has had to do that twice this year because, notwithstanding what people might think, there are a few republicans who regularly vote for Biden's nominees (including Romney, Collins and, believe it or not, Graham).

[dsc]

10. actually that isn't true

remember she is also a vote on the floor with both her and Fetterman gone we have no margin for error. Fetterman is back so that is good.

[onenote]

15. Actually it is.

After Feinstein became ill in late February, and without her and Fetterman available, 14 judicial nominees were confirmed in a period of 30 days. In a number of instances, Fetterman and Feinstein weren't the only Democrats unavailable for those votes, but the nominees still were confirmed.

How can that be? Its simple math: The Republicans have 49, we have 51. Take away Feinstein and we have 50. Take away another Democrat (and Fetterman is now back so it would have to be someone else), and we have 49. Even if every Republican shows up and votes against the nominee, it would be a tie that could and would be broken by Harris (something she did twice in early March). Finally, despite what people assume, the republicans have not moved in lockstep in opposing all of Biden's nominees. In the majority of instances, at least two or three Republicans have voted in favor of confirming Biden's judicial nominees -- usually Collins, Romney and, believe it or not, Graham.

[themaguffin]

16. Exactly

[Demsrule86]

12. Yes it has and it will worsen.

[FBaggins]

14. Assumes facts not in evidence

There are 18 judges awaiting floor votes now. What reason have you presented that one or more of the ten appointments delayed in committee would have received a floor vote ahead of them?

And that’s before we even consider why we should care so much (that we force out an elected official) about whether a judge that took over a year to even get nominated shows up on a district bench in July vs May?