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 Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

ElkeH

(105 posts)
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 10:49 PM Feb 2017

Could a Sessions confirmation have stopped DeVos?

I have read a few times now that if Sessions had been confirmed as AG ahead of the DeVos vote, she would have lost 49-50 because Sessions would have resigned as Senator by then and would have been ineligible to vote in favor of her.

If that is true, why did Democrats not try to get his confirmation out of the way? Even though I think he is a horrible choice for AG, he was always more likely to be confirmed than DeVos anyway, so this seems like a squandered chance to stop at least one Trumpling.

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Could a Sessions confirmation have stopped DeVos? (Original Post) ElkeH Feb 2017 OP
DeVos is totally unqualified to be Education Secretary. One vote is irrelevant. Trust Buster Feb 2017 #1
ElKeh is saying one vote would not have Ilsa Feb 2017 #5
I understand that. My point us that 49 other nit wits voted for her because she bribed them. Trust Buster Feb 2017 #8
So you think having her in this position is the same as not having confirmed? Ms. Toad Feb 2017 #13
Rob Peter to pay Paul ? No thank you. Rubber stamping a racist to stop a dope is not logical. Trust Buster Feb 2017 #15
pick your poison - or both of them. Sessions will be confirmed, too Blaukraut Feb 2017 #2
McConnell held Sessions back so he could vote grantcart Feb 2017 #3
The Republicans are in charge and they DURHAM D Feb 2017 #4
It's too bad senators make their votes known before the vote meadowlark5 Feb 2017 #6
I suspect Collins, if not Murkowski too, would have voted for her if that had happened. Denzil_DC Feb 2017 #12
Yeah, probably - they look good to their constituents knowing that she'd still get confirmed meadowlark5 Feb 2017 #17
Unfortunately the Democrats are not always the best avebury Feb 2017 #7
They would have waited for Alabama to appoint a successor. tritsofme Feb 2017 #9
Collins or Murkowski would have flipped MattP Feb 2017 #10
If Sessions had been out of the senate, one or the other of.. 3catwoman3 Feb 2017 #11
Thank you ElkeH Feb 2017 #16
Democrats don't set hearings or confirmation votes. Period. SaschaHM Feb 2017 #14

Ilsa

(63,781 posts)
5. ElKeh is saying one vote would not have
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 10:55 PM
Feb 2017

been irrelevant, it would have denied DeVos because Sessions would have been out of the Senate.

 

Trust Buster

(7,299 posts)
8. I understand that. My point us that 49 other nit wits voted for her because she bribed them.
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 10:58 PM
Feb 2017

Ms. Toad

(38,099 posts)
13. So you think having her in this position is the same as not having confirmed?
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 11:04 PM
Feb 2017

I don't care how many nitwits voted for her. I care that she is now in a position to do serious damage to public education in this country - and might not have been if we could have eliminated one nitwit.

 

Trust Buster

(7,299 posts)
15. Rob Peter to pay Paul ? No thank you. Rubber stamping a racist to stop a dope is not logical.
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 11:07 PM
Feb 2017

The racist wants to take away your right to vote.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
3. McConnell held Sessions back so he could vote
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 10:53 PM
Feb 2017

Sessions vote was scheduled for last week.

There is no way for the Democrats to "get his confirmation out of the way".

meadowlark5

(2,795 posts)
6. It's too bad senators make their votes known before the vote
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 10:55 PM
Feb 2017

Had Collins and Murkowski not said they'd vote no, they might have stuck with Sessions and voted him in then De Vos would not have been confirmed. But because they said they wouldn't vote for her, they delayed Sessions so he could vote and tie it up and let Pence break the tie

Denzil_DC

(8,906 posts)
12. I suspect Collins, if not Murkowski too, would have voted for her if that had happened.
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 11:04 PM
Feb 2017

What did Harry Reid say? Something like "You can rely on Collins's vote except when it matters."

meadowlark5

(2,795 posts)
17. Yeah, probably - they look good to their constituents knowing that she'd still get confirmed
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 11:26 PM
Feb 2017

Win win for them.

avebury

(11,186 posts)
7. Unfortunately the Democrats are not always the best
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 10:57 PM
Feb 2017

chess players when it comes to politics. There is not much that they can realistically stop but they probably blew the one opportunity that might have actually worked in denying one cabinet choice - DeVos.

The Democrats really need to learn how to play multi-dimensional chess in order to be able to lay out steps that might actually move things towards a desierd end game.

They should be required to watch the movie Miss Sloane. What I loved about the character was her ability to play a multi-dimensional chess game against her opponents and they never saw it coming.

tritsofme

(19,766 posts)
9. They would have waited for Alabama to appoint a successor.
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 11:00 PM
Feb 2017

Who would surely vote to confirm. Or they wouldn't have let Murkowski off the reservation.

MattP

(3,304 posts)
10. Collins or Murkowski would have flipped
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 11:03 PM
Feb 2017

They will stand with us when it doesn't cost the right wing anything at least the hard core tell you to your face

3catwoman3

(28,487 posts)
11. If Sessions had been out of the senate, one or the other of..
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 11:04 PM
Feb 2017

Last edited Wed Feb 8, 2017, 01:09 AM - Edit history (1)

...Collins or Murkowski, if not both, probably would not have voted against DeVos. Theirs were effectively hollow gestures.

 

ElkeH

(105 posts)
16. Thank you
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 11:26 PM
Feb 2017

That seems like the most reasonable explanation. I get the sense they were allowed to vote against DeVos because Republicans knew there were enough votes anyway. Plus Trump got to push himself into the spotlight again by having Pence cast a historic tie-breaking vote.

SaschaHM

(2,897 posts)
14. Democrats don't set hearings or confirmation votes. Period.
Tue Feb 7, 2017, 11:05 PM
Feb 2017

The moment Devos became less assured of passage, the schedule was changed.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Could a Sessions confirma...