Sen. Lindsey Graham says he will block Democrats' effort to unanimously pass Supreme Court ethics bill
Source: Yahoo! News/NBC News
Updated Wed, June 12, 2024 at 12:01 AM EDT
Sen. Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, plans to block an effort by Senate Democrats to unanimously pass a Supreme Court ethics bill Wednesday on the Senate floor. “I will object,” Graham, R-S.C., told NBC News. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said earlier Tuesday that he would make a unanimous consent request to pass Supreme Court ethics legislation that the panel advanced last July.
Graham's objection means the bill won't be able to move forward, because any senator can block a request. It isn't clear whether the measure will come up for a vote under the normal process, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he’s considering it.
Even before Graham made his comments, Democrats doubted the legislation would advance. “I think I know the outcome, but we’re going to go through the exercise to make sure that both parties are in the record,” Durbin told reporters Tuesday afternoon.
The Democratic-led Judiciary Committee advanced the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act on a party-line vote nearly a year ago, but it can't break a filibuster on the Senate floor without 60 votes. Democrats have 51 members, and no Republican is on board with the bill.
Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-lindsey-graham-says-will-block-democrats-effort-unanimously-pass-s-rcna156669
Blocking a "unanimous consent" motion for legislation means that it would have to go through the "regular" process - cloture vote, then debate, and then final up or down vote.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Lindsey, I'll gladly donate $20 to you if you tell us what dirt on you that Trump told you he has that made you completely reverse course on hating/now loving him.
is that a unanimous consent motion was going to be offered TODAY, not "last year", for this bill by Democrats, regardless of what the outcome would be, and that one (or more) Senators would object to the motion, setting it up for regular order handling. 
You DO realize after someone does a "unanimous consent" motion and if there's an objection, then, as I wrote previously, the legislation "goes through the regular process".
I even included that in the OP comments (that I suppose you missed) -
The "motion" for agreeing unanimously is a "statement" in itself and quite a few pieces of legislation get passed that way in any case.
To basically ask "why now?", I think shows you forgot about what happened and got escalated just over the past couple months about Alito. E.g. -
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143241739
And his wife is now rolled into the controversy.
And of course Thomas' record goes way back (as well as his wife's involvement in various things), but more recently -
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143241724
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143253229
here is another describing what is going on in there (I.e., there is a LIST of "policy votes" that are being put forward for this election season).
Why is that hard to figure out?
Schumer's 2024 "show vote" strategy targets GOP
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is leaning hard into his political instincts in a bid to preserve his party's tenuous hold on the chamber — and provide election talking points for Democrats in Congress and beyond.
Why it matters: With Democrats' razor-thin, 51-49 majority on the line in November, Schumer is relying on a barrage of "show votes" on issues such as immigration and abortion to draw a sharp contrast with Republicans.
The approach provided political cover for President Biden, who unveiled an executive order cracking down on illegal border crossings only after Schumer forced Republicans to reject a bipartisan border bill for a second time. Biden's handling of immigration at the border has become one of his biggest vulnerabilities this election cycle.
Schumer now is running an offensive to make Republicans take a series of uncomfortable votes on reproductive rights.
Republicans blocked a bill on Wednesday that would guarantee access to birth control measures, and Schumer set up another vote next week on protecting in vitro fertilization (IVF) access — an issue many Republicans have rallied around. Abortion and reproductive rights have proved to be a powerful issue for Democrats at the polls since the Supreme Court struck down abortion rights under Roe v. Wade. Schumer and Democrats hope that reminding voters of Republicans' opposition to abortion rights will help juice the party's turnout in November.
(snip)
https://www.axios.com/2024/06/06/schumer-abortion-reproductive-health-immigration
Each of these require some "X" amount of hours of debate, equally divided, and will use up time. In some cases, depending on the Rules voted on for a piece of legislation, there may be amendments added (AND debate time that goes with each amendment, etc).
And since the expectation to bring this one up for a "unanimous consent" was what the OP was about, this IS (or may be) "next on the list".
Heed my words, Lemmiwinks, your time is running out
