7 judges were voted out of the Senate judicial committee today. DiFi voted by proxy.

[mcar]

Link to tweet

?s=20

7 judges were voted out of the Senate judicial committee today. DiFi voted by proxy. Vote tallies..

Mónica Ramírez Almadani : 12-9
Jeffrey Cummings: 12-9
Michael Farbiarz: 17-4
Wesley L. Hsu: 13-8
LaShonda A. Hunt: 14-7
Robert Kirsch: 13-8
Oreli Merchant: 12-9

Cc: @RoKhanna

[ColinC]

1. She could only vote by proxy if not the determining vote

These judges only got through because they had bipartisan support

[mcar]

2. Yes. But it worked, didn't it?

[ColinC]

3. There were far more that couldn't be appointed because she is out

[lapucelle]

5. They weren't "appointed". They were advanced out of committee.

Now they’ll be voted on by the full Senate.

[ColinC]

8. Not sure why you think the semantics of this matter

Their appointment is indeed advanced to a full senate, and their appointment will be completed once the senate votes. There are many others whose appointments will not be completed due to Senator Feinstein’s absence.

[Hortensis]

25. Not sure why anyone would every deny that there are many

technical details, rules, and potential strategic plays we don't know about, and continue even on learning about this simple one.

Most professional legislators will never master the strategic playbook, evven after years in congress. They leave it to colleagues, typically in leadership, who are particularly suited to it.

I think this development should wake those not already long woke to the reality of their own ignorance, and make us wonder and watch for what comes next. Fascination is in order, and much more fun than fear and frustration.

And, after all, while we are living history, our time to become players is next year at the polls.

[ColinC]

26. ..

👍

[In It to Win It]

4. Debatable. They had bipartisan support. It seems they were going to

get through committee anyway.

[onenote]

14. An overwhelming majority of Biden's nominees are confirmed with some republican support.

Last edited Thu Apr 20, 2023, 04:59 PM - Edit history (1)

It may come as a shock to some, but the vast majority of Biden's judicial nominees have been confirmed with at least some, often multiple, republican votes on the Senate floor. Specifically, out of 118 confirmed judges, only ten were confirmed only with the votes of Democratic senators.

In the committee, this also has usually been the case -- it is hardly unusual for one or more republicans to vote for advancing a Biden judicial nominee. As the votes above indicate, this is the case even when most, and often all, other republicans on the committee vote against the nominee. Here's another example -- on February 2, 2023, with Feinstein in attendance but Peter Welch absent, leaving the committee with an 10-10 split, 12 of Biden's nominees were advanced by the Judiciary Committee. Ten of the twelve were advanced by an 11-9 vote, meaning a single Republican voted to advance the nomination. Who was it? Lindsay Graham, of all people. Should we now treat all of those nominees as somehow suspect because they received one Republican vote?

With respect to those 118 confirmations, the Republicans who have supported Biden's nominees have most often been Romney, Graham, Collins and Murkowski. Why? It isn't because the judges they are confirming are ones they would choose if it was up to them, but because they are to a relative degree, still institutionalists who think a president should be given a certain amount of latitude in making appointments.

I certainly hope that DUers aren't about throw more than 100 Biden judicial nominees (and by extension, Biden) under the bus because they happened to get some republican votes.

[In It to Win It]

18. I hope the same

I saw some chatter around Biden's 5th circuit nominee saying or implying that if Ted Cruz supports her, then something is wrong with her. I think that's the wrong approach. I trust the Biden team and Senate Dems to nominate and confirm qualified and fair-minded people to the bench. If they get some Republican support, great!

[betsuni]

33. There does seem to be a purity test, any Republican votes must mean nominees are bad and right-wing.

[lapucelle]

6. It seems to have gone from "No Biden nominees are being advanced!"

to “Big deal, seven Biden nominees were advanced!”

[mcar]

7. Yep

Far be it for reality to intrude on a narrative.

[In It to Win It]

16. The narrative matches it is reality

Lindsey Graham is the reason these nominations (the ones with the slimmest majority). He was the deciding vote. It took the members who were present in the committee to move these forward. It took Lindsey Graham crossing over to vote with Dems. Her proxy vote didn't move these forward.

Her proxy vote couldn't move these forward. She needs to be there. Republicans can stonewall nominations and have been.

[onenote]

19. Uh...there were 11 nominations set up for committee consideration in March.

Eight of the 11 have now been advanced. There now are around 25 nominees that are ready for floor consideration. Feinstein's absence doesn't keep those nominees from being confirmed.

So its not much of a blockade at this point.

[mcar]

20. This

She will either come back in the near future and the rest of the nominations will proceed, or she will resign due to poor health.

Certain congresspeople going around on cable TV insisting that she resign NOW!!11 hasn't helped the issue at all. Many other senators, including Sen. Fetterman, have been out for medical reasons for months at a time. We haven't been screaming that they resign.

[lapucelle]

29. And even if DiFi were to resign, Democrats would still have to go through the same process

of replacing a committee member that the Republicans have already stonewalled.

And Democrats would be in a weaker position because there would no longer be the possibility of the absent member returning to the committee. It would be a vacant seat.

Certain congresspeople have not thought this through.

[mcar]

30. I've read that Republicans could block the new person's appointment

to this committee. Does anyone think they wouldn't do that?

[In It to Win It]

31. They absolutely would

ETA: I'll add that Dianne Feinstein shouldn't resign. Her resignation doesn't seem like an absolute necessity at this point.

[mcar]

38. I agree

[In It to Win It]

23. Not a blockade, but I expect a slowdown

There are nominees that have bipartisan support that will move through committee and onto the floor. That, I don't to change.

I don't expect a complete blockade, but I do expect a slowdown of some nominees until DiFi comes back. Otherwise, it gives them the power to stonewall.

[onenote]

32. As reflected in the most recent vote and the overall history of Biden's nominees

The vast majority of Biden's 118 nominees that have been confirmed had sufficient bi-partisan support (meaning at least one republican) to get out of Committee. Maybe the next rounds of Biden nominees won't have that kind of support, but he has to make those nominations before one can blame Feinstein's absence for slowing anything down.

[In It to Win It]

43. Putting the vote aside, because I'm not saying she's completely blocking the process

just slowing it down.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the reason committee meetings to advance these nominees have been delayed because Sen. Feinstein's been out?

If so, is delayed meetings not slowing down the advancements?

If not, we have different interpretations of 'slowing down.'

ETA: I misread the initial with regard to the media narrative. Mea culpa. I do think the media is overhyping Sen. Feinstein's absence. The "no nominees will advance" narrative was not what I had in mind when I wrote post #16. The narrative I had in mind was some nominees will stall and that the committee won't move as fast because that's the narrative I've mostly read. Obviously, nominees will still advance as we see here on this thread. I've been saying as much here on DU. While some nominees can here are a certain set of nominees that will stall if Sen. Feinstein isn't there to advance them.

[onenote]

45. There have been 18 nominations, approved b efore Feinstein became ill

that haven't been put before the Senate, even though her absence had no impact on their prospects in the Senate (even with Fetterman out, there were 49 Democrats and no more than 49 republicans). In the entire time Biden has been president, the largest number of nominees confirmed by the full Senate in a single month is 13, which is close to the number confirmed in the period that Feinstein was unavailable.

There currently are only 13 nominees that haven't been considered by the Committee. Two of them were nominated this week. Four were nominated on March 21, two on February 27, three in late January, one in November 2022 and one in September 2022. Given that it usually takes at least a month from the date on which a nomination is sent to the Committee and that nomination if voted on, and given that Congress was on recess from March 31, there clearly was no Feinstein-related delay in considering six of the thirteen. As for why the other seven weren't considered before the end of February, when Feinstein was available, you'd have to ask the committee. But it wasn't because Feinstein wasn't available.

If Feinsteins returns in a month or two, and the Committee votes out the pending nominations, by that point, the Senate potentially could have cleared its backlog of approved nominations and move quickly to confirm those newly approved nominees

Thus, as a practical matter, Feinstein's absence hasn't delayed the confirmation of any judges (since judges continued to be confirmed during her absence). And it is not clear why nominations that dated back well before Feinstein became ill weren't put before the Committee before she became unavailable.

.

[lapucelle]

21. Yes, it's a narrative. N/T

Political narrative is a term used in the humanities and political sciences to describe the way in which storytelling can shape fact and impact on understandings of reality.

https://bit.ly/3UVtXCg

[In It to Win It]

24. Then, I guess I'm misunderstanding the narrative that

Dianne Feinstein's absence makes it harder for Dems to advance nominations.

That narrative seems true to me. Her absence means we have to get at least one Republican to cross over rather than Sen. Feinstein being present and advancing them without needing to convince one Republican to cross over.

[lapucelle]

27. As of today, there is a backlog of 25 judicial nominees who have advanced out of committee, but

who are waiting on a confirmation vote from the full Senate. That fact renders the narrative much less "concerning".

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/government_affairs_office/vacanciesstatsshort.pdf

[ColinC]

9. They would have been advanced anyways. It is not actually a big deal

Many judges will not be advanced due to Senator Feinstein’s absence.

[lapucelle]

28. As of today there is a backlog of 25 judicial nominees waiting for a vote from the full Senate.

There are 11 waiting to be advanced out of committee.

[ColinC]

35. So that covers 25/77 vacancies for federal judgeships

The vacancies are piling up and filling them is slowing down.

[lapucelle]

41. Senator Fetterman is back, so that should help.

April 6, 2023

In large part due to ongoing attendance issues, the Senate has made limited progress on judicial nominations in recent weeks, with only three confirmations since March 16. As of April 6, there are still 18 Article III nominees pending on the Senate floor, waiting for cloture and confirmation votes.

With the Senate on recess, the earliest there could be any movement on judicial nominees is the week of April 17, when the recess is over. Numerous reports have indicated that Senator Fetterman intends to return to the Senate that week as well. This will help alleviate some of the attendance issues in the Democratic Caucus.

https://www.acslaw.org/judicial-nominations/on-the-bench/

[ColinC]

42. Definitely. And as another poster pointed out, the next election will be crucial

[Cha]

15. LOL.. Wishing Sen Feinstein

Best Healing Vibes!

[inthewind21]

36. Exactly

Meanwhile, We all hope Fetterman is doing well and can stay healthy after his months long absence from the Senate!

Disclaimer, I'm a Fetterman fan. It's just mind boggling at the difference being made.

[mcar]

39. ...

[onenote]

10. What rule says she could only vote by proxy if she wasn't the deciding vote?

Is this a written rule?

[In It to Win It]

13. Here are the committee rules

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

It says that to send a nomination to the full Senate, a majority of members present have to support it. She cannot be the deciding vote if she is voting by proxy. Nominations would not advance to the full Senate if she's the deciding vote and she's voting by proxy.

[Autumn]

11. So they have voted on no judges since February when she could vote for proxy?

Good grief.

[onenote]

17. There were three meetings scheduled for March.

Eleven judges were supposed to be considered in these meetings. The March 2 and March 16 meetings were cancelled. In the March 9 meeting, one nominee was advanced by voice vote and the other ten were held over. Seven of those ten nominees were approved today, despite Feinstein's absence. Why couldn't they have been advanced back in March? No idea, but apparently it wasn't entirely because of Feinstein's absence.

[lapucelle]

22. No.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217844455#post17

[betsuni]

34. K&R

[ripcord]

37. So she's not a witch and we can't burn her?

[mcar]

40. Guess not

I'm sure some will be disappointed.

[betsuni]

46. +1

[UTUSN]

44. Yippee!