Democratic senators will hold the Senate floor all night long in opposition to the nomination of Russ Vought...

[demmiblue]

David Corn
‪@davidcorn.bsky.social‬

Democratic senators will hold the Senate floor all night long in opposition to the nomination of Russ Vought, an organizer of Project 2025, to head the OMB.

February 5, 2025 at 2:49 PM

Democratic senators will hold the Senate floor all night long in opposition to the nomination of Russ Vought, an organizer of Project 2025, to head the OMB.

— David Corn (@davidcorn.bsky.social) 2025-02-05T19:49:18.924Z

[BoRaGard]

1. Yes

[Wicked Blue]

2. MORE INFO - HuffPost

Democrats are planning to talk all through the night on the Senate floor Wednesday in protest of Russell Vought, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Office of Budget and Management.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), Sens. Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Patty Murray (Wash.) are among the Democrats who will be trying to show they’re fighting to stop Vought, a key author of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s far-right policy blueprint for Trump’s second term. Among other things, Project 2025 calls for drastic cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Vought, if confirmed, will play a key role in overseeing Trump’s policy agenda. As head of the OMB, he would oversee the creation of the president’s budget and review federal programs to make sure they comply with the president’s policies.

There aren’t any Republicans who have said they plan to oppose Vought’s confirmation. On Monday night, every GOP senator voted to advance his nomination on a procedural step.
Democrats’ all-night talk-a-thon will begin at around 2 p.m.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-inauguration-live-updates_n_678a8f36e4b097ab56976f5b

[dalton99a]

3. About time.

[proud patriot]

4. GOOD!!

I will keep it on cspan all night with them

[Lunabell]

5. Will fetterman be there?

[kelly1mm]

31. He would love to but he has to pick up his suit (sigular) from the dry cleaners ..... nt

[wolfie001]

58. lol

[Jrsygrl96]

6. They can stall it but they're not going to stop it. 😞

[Think. Again.]

7. They should be making as much public noise...

...against everything and anything this nazi administration does anyway.

I say "Thank You" Democratic Senators!!!

[kelly1mm]

32. Correct. Form over substance. Not nothing, but ultimately futile. nt

[electric_blue68]

57. As Rachel or Lawrence said - they maybe thought Dems would easly fold. While they can't stop alot of stuff they Can...

Make things, and processes as slowed down, and annoying as possible!

[msongs]

8. put a hold or block on it. nt

[tritsofme]

9. It doesn't work that way. They are taking maximum action.

[Wiz Imp]

30. There is no such thing as a block on a nomination

What they have done and are doing is effectively the same as a hold. Apparently the Democrats can hold the floor for an extended period tonight, but once that time runs out, Republicans will be able to move the nomination forward with a simple majority vote.

[tinymontgomery]

10. I don't get it

I don't get it, republicans put a hold on nominations and walk away but we have to talk all night but
they will still get to vote for the guy. Why can't we put a hold on the nominations?"

[tritsofme]

12. Holds don't block a nomination, they make it more painful.

If the majority has the votes and is willing to burn the floor time to invoke cloture and vote, they can.

[tinymontgomery]

37. Thanks, just seems like they get away with everything. n/t

[Wiz Imp]

35. Holds on individual cabinet nominees don't do much.

Can you name any Biden Cabinet nominees who were delayed significantly due to a hold placed by Republicans?

Tuberville's hold stopped nominations from moving forward because there were over 400 packaged together. To get past that hold would have required going through them one by one and allowing debate on each one which would have taken months of time which would have prevented them from doing more important things.

See the procedure for getting around a hold here (on an individual nominee it's not that complicated to get around it):

Note: I'll keep posting this until enough people see it and it sinks in that a hold on a cabinet nominee is not the magic pill many seem to think it is.

From the CRS (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12200) :

In response to a hold, the Senate could choose to pursue consideration of a single nomination without
unanimous consent. The Senate can approve nominations using the cloture process in Senate Rule XXII.
The cloture process was designed to bring the Senate to a vote on a matter, even in the face of determined
opposition to having a vote. In recent years, the Senate has interpreted the cloture rule to require majority
support to end debate on a nomination, and also to establish that two hours is the maximum time for
debate on most nominations after cloture is agreed to.

Absent unanimous consent, the steps to confirm a nomination include:

• The Senate approves a non-debatable motion to proceed to executive session to take up a
nomination on the Executive Calendar. (Normally this motion is approved immediately
without a roll call vote—but with sufficient support, a Senator could secure a roll call
vote on this question. The motion requires a simple majority to pass.)
• The majority leader (or his designee) files cloture on the nomination. (The cloture motion
asks if the Senate wishes to bring debate to a close on the nomination.) Absent unanimous
consent to alter this “ripening period,” the Senate must wait two session days before
voting on cloture. The Senate can conduct other business during these two days, and
usually does.
• Two days of session later, the Senate votes on cloture. The vote is required to be a roll
call vote under the rule. If a majority of Senators voting support cloture, then cloture is
said to be invoked, and further consideration of the nomination is limited.
• The Senate conducts post-cloture debate on the nomination. For all but the highestranking nominations, the maximum time for consideration of a nomination after cloture is
invoked is two hours. Once cloture is invoked on a matter, the Senate can consider other
business during the post-cloture period only by unanimous consent.
• After post-cloture debate time expires, or when no Senator seeks to discuss the
nomination further, the Senate votes on the nomination. This can be by voice vote, but
with sufficient support a Senator could secure a roll call vote on the question of
confirming the nomination. The motion requires a simple majority to pass.
• To make the confirmation vote final, and in order to immediately return the approved
nomination to the President, the Senate routinely takes another parliamentary step by
unanimous consent. To prevent the possibility of a re-vote on the nomination, the Senate
tables (meaning, adversely disposes of) a motion to reconsider (a motion that would
allow a re-vote). (Absent unanimous consent, the Senate could vote to table the motion to
reconsider.)

The Senate often confirms nominations without unanimous consent by using the cloture process just
described. Confirming a large number of nominations using the cloture process could take considerable
floor time. The process can be somewhat expedited by filing cloture on multiple nominations on the same
day (sometimes referred to as stacking cloture motions). Cloture motions filed sequentially on multiple
nominations ripen simultaneously after the next two days of Senate session. Each nomination must still be
considered separately, however, which would usually mean two roll call votes (one on cloture and one on
confirmation, each approximately 15 minutes) and then up to two hours of debate time on each
nomination.

[tinymontgomery]

38. Thanks for the response

That's a lot of shit to wrap my head around. I won't ask this question again.

[Wiz Imp]

47. No problem. Before a few weeks ago, I didn't have a great understanding of how everything works either

When it became clear that a lot of people here were in the same boat, I decided to educate myself and learn as much as I could to try to understand what can and can't be done, and why. I'm far from an expert, but I think I understand the nomination process pretty well now. I also now understand that many people get confused about what can and can't be done because there are a bunch of different situations and people have a hard time remembering what actions applied in what situations.

I hope I don't come across too negatively in some of my replies, I'm honestly just trying to educate others on how the processes work. For me at least, better understanding how things work significantly reduces my frustration level about why this or that is or isn't being done.

[tinymontgomery]

50. Didn't take it as negative, thank you for the info. n/t

[reACTIONary]

59. Thanks! Having a clear understanding...

... is always helpful.

[StarryNite]

11. Please call your Senators to vote NO on Vought.

Our voices are all we have.

[link:Find your Senator: Go to https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm to look up contact information for your Senators.|

[SunSeeker]

13. Good! More of this RESISTANCE please! 🙏

[malthaussen]

14. Ah, an old-fashioned filibuster.

One where the politicians actually have to work to maintain it.

-- Mal

[Wiz Imp]

45. Not a filibuster. Filibusters are not allowed for nominees

[malthaussen]

49. A rose by any other name.

Politicians speechifying and refusing to yield the floor is a filibuster. Whatever the rules say.

-- Mal

[calimary]

15. Do it! More spine, please!

[Grumpy Old Guy]

16. Finally showing some backbone.

It's about time.

[patphil]

17. He's one of the fuckers who masterminded this shit.

I wouldn't let him handle the budget for a Mahjong club at the local Senior Citizens Center, let alone the OMB.

[bdamomma]

18. Do not

Do not surrender

[peggysue2]

19. Good!

Ultimately, we may not be able to stop the nomination but we can delay, delay, delay all of these lawless actions and personnel decisions the GOP is hellbent on pushing through.

Make them work for their treachery and expose the fraud, corruption and over-reach whenever and wherever we can.

Flood the zone with our own noise, aka Truth.

[Clouds Passing]

20. ABOUT TIME!!!!!

[Magoo48]

21. There are a growing number of floors requiring holding out there

in the increasing number of governmental acronyms under assault.

[Irish_Dem]

22. It means a lot to the base for our leaders to be seen fighting back.

[hadEnuf]

23. We need to use every tactic to derail, delay and make them fight for every inch.

The media will have no choice to report on it which will reveal more of what these fascists are doing to Americans.

Fight them on EVERYTHING. Screw this "choosing our battles" shit.

[jgmiller]

24. This is a good start but

This will get all of 30 seconds worth of media time. They keep thinking too small. We have 45 senators (47 with independents). Have each of them speak for at least an hour; 48 hours of a good old fashioned fillibuster will start to get some attention.

[Wiz Imp]

44. It's not a filibuster. Filibuster is not allowed on nominees.

[senseandsensibility]

25. When does this begin?

Thanks.

[AverageOldGuy]

26. Good old-fashioned filibuster

Need to practice the filibuster and use it.

[kelly1mm]

33. Isn't/wasn't it the position of a majority of DU and many Democratic lawmakers that the filibuster is/was a

'undemocratic relic of slavery' which should have been gotten rid of in the last Congress? I mean it wasn't that long ago .....

Those of us who supported the continuance of the filibuster were mocked and ridiculed and I was assured multiple times that a R Senate would abolish the filibuster on day one.

How times have changed.....

[Wiz Imp]

42. This is not a filibuster. The filibuster no longer is allowed for nominees.

[kelly1mm]

48. You and I know that. This is just the regular full time that each Senator is allowed to use in nominations. However

My point was that some here on DU THINK it is a filibuster (like the poster I replied to) and are PRAISING it, as if it is a good thing while just 6 months ago the 'filibuster was the devil .......

So I will ask you straight up. Should the filibuster be maintained? If your answer is now yes, but 6 months ago was no, I will further ask why? If it has always been yes, or always been no, those are both defensible positions.

[Wiz Imp]

52. To be completely honest, I believe the filibuster should either be eliminated or restrictions placed

on it limiting its use and I've felt that way for at least the last 2 decades. It was rarely used for most of the first 200 years of the country, then the use shot up significantly in the early 70's. Since then, the use has only continued to grow to the point that today opposition parties will filibuster just about everything. It was never meant to be used like that. If we could return to a situation where it is used relatively rarely like it was until about 50 years ago, then I'd be in favor of keeping it. However, I have no idea how to change it to make that work. If we can't severely limit its use, then I think it should be eliminated.

That said, and again being completely honest, I'm not going to complain about keeping it in place as long as it may help limit some damage the Republicans may try to inflict. I'm certainly not going to advocate for the Democrats to get rid of it when they aren't in charge. However, I actually expect the Republicans to eliminate it at some point when they view it as necessary to enact a priority (right now they don't need to do that because Trump is bypassing everything via executive orders, but I expect that will have to end at some point.) If and when the Republicans eliminate it, you won't hear me crying foul because I don't think it should really exist to begin with, plus I know that when the Democrats are back in charge they can actually enact a bunch of policies which enjoy major public support without needing 60 votes in the Senate.

[kelly1mm]

54. Thanks for the detailed response. I am similar but come tom the other conclusion that the filibuster

should be maintained. The reason is that, at least in theory, it can reduce and or severely limit the wild swings in federal la based on the most recent election. Slow changes to major US policy is good for medium/long term planning. If every 2/4/6 years the law in the US radically changes there is no way for anyone to plan for the future.

[Wiz Imp]

56. I completely respect your position on this. Your reasoning is very logical.

The main reason for my position is that the filibuster as it exists now, gives too much power to the minority. If the founders had thought legislation should require more than 50% approval in the Senate, they would have written it into the Constitution that way. But your reasoning for keeping it is why I'm open to keeping it as well but in more limited situations so that it isn't used on 95% of bills introduced like it seems to be now.

[Wiz Imp]

43. Not a filibuster

[EarthFirst]

27. This should have been Day One shit...

…but here we go!

[WyLoochka]

28. Yes Block Vought

Was hoping they would do this on Vought!

[Wiz Imp]

41. Not possible to block. At best this will delay final confirmation by a day or 2 but it's still a good thing to do.

Last edited Wed Feb 5, 2025, 11:39 PM - Edit history (1)

[egduj]

29. And some were advocating for the end of the filibuster just a few years previous.

[Wiz Imp]

40. This is not a filibuster. There is no filibuster allowed on nominees.

This is part of the debate which is mandated to take place after cloture.

[FloridaBlues]

34. They should include the gang of 3 misfits trying to get confirmed.

[Wiz Imp]

39. FYI, they've had the cloture vote on Vought already and the vote was 53-47

All Democrats voted NO (including Fetterman) and all Republicans voted YES. So the final floor vote when it happens will almost certainly be the same: 53-47.

Eric Turner was also confirmed for HUD by a 55-45 vote. We are now up to 11 or 12 confirmations and there has still been a grand total of just 3 NO votes from Republicans across all nominations. All 3 on Hegseth. I believe Democrats collectively have already had more NO votes against nominees than any group of nominees ever. Unfortunately, the Democrats are powerless to stop these confirmations as long as Republicans are willing to put party above country and vote FOR FASCISM.

Given not a single Republican was willing to vote against Vought who explicitly refused to agree to follow the constitution in his Confirmation hearing, I expect Gabbard, Kennedy & Patel may get 1 or 2 Republican NO votes but will certainly be confirmed. At this point, they may all be unanimous for Republicans which has to be the most shameful display of voting in the history of Congress.

[Hotler]

46. Don't count on Bennett or Hickenlooper. nt

[Polybius]

51. What about for RFK, Tulsi, and Kash?

Their votes are coming up soon.

[Wiz Imp]

53. Now that they've done this for Vought, I expect there's a good chance they will try it

with each of those 3 as well. It won't stop anything, but it could delay things a little bit.

[Hotler]

55. Thank you to the democrats showing gumption and fight. Shame on those that vote along side the fascist. nt