This Senate Rule Could Stop Democrats
From Confirming Biden’s SCOTUS Nominee
The Federalist,
by
Rachel Bovard
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
1/28/2022 6:24:32 PM
With Justice Stephen Breyer officially announcing his retirement on Thursday (a full 24 hours after the White House announced it for him), Senate Democrats will have a chance to fill a Supreme Court seat, likely before the 2022 midterm elections in November.
But ever since 2017, when Senate Republicans invoked the nuclear option to confirm Supreme Court justices at a simple majority, instead of at the usual 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster, there has been procedurally little minorities can do to prevent a nomination from moving forward (the outright lies, smears, and chaos tactics Senate Democrats employed against Justice Brett Kavanaugh notwithstanding).
Reply 1 - Posted by:
LanceLink1 1/28/2022 6:32:00 PM (No. 1054217)
Three words: Murkowski, Collins and Romney.
74 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 1/28/2022 6:43:09 PM (No. 1054226)
Unfortunately, Congress has conclusively demonstrated that rules are to be broken.
56 people like this.
#1, while you have a valid point, not one of those three sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. So, Rule 26 will still apply if the Republicans wish to use it for a Supreme Court nomination.
49 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
SALady 1/28/2022 6:52:57 PM (No. 1054231)
Demon-Rats could care less about rules if they hurt them. It's only if a rule helps the Demon-Rats that it is suddenly all holy and powerful!!!
But the Demon-Rats could care less who is appointed to the SCOTUS as long as they are a far-left moonbat!!! But they want to use a black female to try to make Republicans look like a bunch of racists for opposing her. They think the Republi-Cant's will fold and "play nice" out of fear of being branded "racists", but the Republicans need to grow a pair of cajones and call their bluff!!!
37 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
sanspeur 1/28/2022 6:54:57 PM (No. 1054233)
true dat but never “misunderestimate “ the desire of pibbies to “reach across the aisle in consanguinational bliss
21 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Lake Dweller 1/28/2022 7:10:56 PM (No. 1054245)
Wishful thinking. Graham will fold like a cheap suit—heck, he will probably vote for the most radical nominee Dementia Joe puts up.
41 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
EJKrausJr 1/28/2022 7:38:09 PM (No. 1054261)
Rules, rules, rules - when have Democrats cared about rules? Only when it suits their purpose. To be hoisted on Rule 26, the irony imposed upon the Democrats is sweet.
20 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
stablemoney 1/28/2022 7:44:42 PM (No. 1054273)
I don't think the SC nominee will be Candace Owens.
22 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Geoman 1/28/2022 8:12:51 PM (No. 1054299)
Give them their liberal but hold out on a communist.
13 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
DVC 1/28/2022 10:07:29 PM (No. 1054363)
Very interesting.
No, #1, none of them are on the Judiciary Committee. Only Sasse is seriously suspect, or possibly Cornyn of the Repubs on the Judiciary Committee. If they can keep Sasse and Cornyn in line the others, Grassely, Graham, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, Kennedy, and Blackburn are all pretty solid. I don't know anything about Sen. Tillis.....may be a wild card, I just don't know.
11 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
MDConservative 1/28/2022 11:08:56 PM (No. 1054392)
Great threat, but politically impractical unless Biden nominates Angela Davis or, maybe, Michele Obama. Graham would stand on his principle that the President has a right to nominate anyone of his choosing, and the Senate an obligation to confirm if qualified. He voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson a year ago to a seat on the circuit court.
14 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
smokincol 1/29/2022 1:05:22 AM (No. 1054425)
1.) the mid-term elections and 2022 can't get here and get done fast enough and 2.) these repubs had better pull through on their predictions that they will decimate the demcommies and take over the house and senate and 3.) they should have learned by now to never put the "win" in the WIN column before the game is played
18 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
NotaBene 1/29/2022 2:45:22 AM (No. 1054459)
The nominee will be a Black female or Transgender. It will be Ketanji (what king of American name is that?) Brown Jackson. Replaced Merrick Garland in the DV appeals court and was recently confirmed with the eager to please votes of Lindsey Traitor Graham, Mukowsky, and the idiot woman with a speech impediment from Maine.
14 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
mifla 1/29/2022 4:47:57 AM (No. 1054480)
The nominee will be Jackson (I suspect Breyer requested that his former clerk be seriously considered), and a majority of the committee will support her. That being said, there are far worse candidates and the balance of power in the SC would not change.
7 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
DCGIRL 1/29/2022 5:12:06 AM (No. 1054489)
#1, you forgot Linsey Graham.
5 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Amoeba 1/29/2022 5:48:03 AM (No. 1054509)
#10, tillis is just like Burr, a reach across the isle RINO who wants money and power.
7 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
privateer 1/29/2022 6:29:02 AM (No. 1054527)
I can only have low expectations for the oily Linseed Graham. Perhaps the most astonishing feature of today's political scene is the two Dems who, most uncharacteristically, are deviating from the typical unified front.
6 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 1/29/2022 6:49:12 AM (No. 1054540)
Sounds good, but, what do we about Pierre Delecto, Collins, and Murkie from Alaska if this rule gets pulled back in committee thus clearing the way for a confirmation vote of the full senate. Pubbies, (yes, Sen. Graham, that especially means you) in the Judiciary Committee, get ready to play hardball with the dims and keep Rule 26 intact as is. Sen. Grassley, as ranking member, make sure you keep your thumb on Graham.
9 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
maryann4629 1/29/2022 7:48:21 AM (No. 1054570)
This would be a really stupid move. Invoking Rule 26 to block a Black woman nominee would energize their base, right before the mid-terms. Remember what happened to EX-Senators Donnelly, McCaskill, and Heitkamp after they voted against Brett Kavanaugh? THAT'S why they are EX Senators, and Joe Manchin, who voted to confirm, is still in the Senate.
Like it or not, legit or not, Biden is the sitting President, and has the Constitutional authority to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. Whomever he appoints won't change the balance of the court. Failing to approve his nominee under these circumstances would throw a monkey wrench into what should be a red tidal wave in November.
14 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
Kafka2 1/29/2022 8:15:48 AM (No. 1054588)
If I remember correctly, most of these rules were put in place by Democrats. Now it seems possible that they could bite the Democrats in the arse.
8 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Zigrid 1/29/2022 8:34:25 AM (No. 1054613)
If the obama/soros' cabal in Washington refused to honor the supremes when it came to the southern border ruling that Mexicans must stay in Mexico till they can be vetted...what makes you think the swamp will follow the law...they thumb their noses at the court and do what they want....
5 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
udanja99 1/29/2022 8:59:20 AM (No. 1054640)
Miss Lindsey might surprise us this time. I live in SC and he came a little too close to losing his last election for comfort. He may have finally seen the writing on the wall.
11 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
bigfatslob 1/29/2022 10:05:12 AM (No. 1054707)
If in time the Republicans had shown total unity like democrats do, I would have faith not so much in these days. The three suspect republicans can screw this whole maneuver with rules. I trust Manchin and Siena more. We'll have to see.
3 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
janjan 1/29/2022 10:16:05 AM (No. 1054724)
I don’t see the point. We have 3 years left of Biden or some other equally horrible Democrat in the WH. The seat is going to be filled with a black female no matter what. As long as she’s not a registered communist or former head of BLM accept it and move on. The Democrats would welcome this fight going into the midterms. They are quickly losing black voters.
7 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 1/29/2022 10:29:22 AM (No. 1054745)
Please pardon second comment, but also keep in mind that it is biden who already decided to weaponize this SCOTUS nomination by blurting out that his nominee will have sufficient melanin and will be female. Qualifications appear to be secondary. Since he chose to weaponize his appointment, I don't have any problem with the pubbies counter-weaponizing and demanding that Rule 26 be kept intact.
5 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
marlon 1/29/2022 10:45:07 AM (No. 1054766)
There must be a lawyer out there who will bring a suit that the process is unconstitutional on it's face. Brandon already publicly announced that 94% of the population are ineligible to be considered for the job based on gender, race, ethnicity, the only group not affected is apparently sexual preference as I assume a female black lesbian or perhaps trannie may apply.
3 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
Dino Sayer 1/29/2022 11:17:58 AM (No. 1054804)
If he sends Kamala Harris to the Supreme Court, then Congress selects Michelle Obama as VP, what an interesting world that would be.
1 person likes this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
Zumkopf 1/29/2022 11:18:04 AM (No. 1054805)
There are at least two major flaws with this argument. The first is noted by the first poster -- RINO squishes. To the trio one could easily add Miss Graham, whose flexible predilections have supported many an insupportable leftist judicial nominee. Just because Graham used Senate rules to get ACB across the line doesn't mean he'd fail to cooperate with Democrats to get Kamala or a black Sotomayor clone approved.
Second, anyone who counts on the Democrats obeying rules when their survival is on the line has clearly never met a Democrat. BBB and the pro-Dem voting bill failed in large part because not even every Democrat supported them. [Moreover, if Manchin and Sinema hadn't been such obvious and rigorous spoilers, other Democrats who quietly agreed might well have publicly agreed to save their own careers [cough Kelly cough Tester cough]). Whatever their quotes for MSNBC reporters may have been, some Democrats clearly did not want these pieces of legislation to pass. When it costs their constituents money or interferes with their rights, their constituents pay attention, and therefore so do the legislators. That dynamic is not applicable to a Court nomination. Nobody's pocketbook or rights are directly and imminently threatened by any judicial nominee, and I'm unaware of any legislator whose subsequent loss was attributable to a vote to confirm a judicial nominee. So the Democrats can be expected to vote in lockstep. The applicable "rules" are guided by the Nuclear Option, which has already been applied to all judicial nominees, meaning that whatever rules allowed minorities to block judicial nominations before, they don't anymore. And none of the Democrats are going to allow a procedural rule, and only a procedural rule, to stand in their way in their march towards Utopia.
3 people like this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
earlybird 1/29/2022 11:42:57 AM (No. 1054837)
There seems to be some misunderstanding of Rule 26. It is about the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the nomination goes first. If it doesn’t get out of that committee, it is desd. There would be no full Senate vote.
3 people like this.
Reply 30 - Posted by:
udanja99 1/29/2022 12:40:12 PM (No. 1054898)
#27, why would Mooch want a job where she would actually have to show up and work when she could be lunching with Oprah in Paris or Beyoncé in London?
4 people like this.
Reply 31 - Posted by:
danu 1/29/2022 5:06:14 PM (No. 1055119)
To get his seat back, gramnesty blubbed and whinged for $-and mercy.
Upon receipt of same, he raced to backstab Trump and 81 M Trump voters..
Our Rx is--No surprises!
Start now, early and often, to drown this rat in recalls, primaries, strict demands
-and a whole lot of lack of $.
Prancing git.
1 person likes this.
Reply 32 - Posted by:
privateer 1/29/2022 5:07:45 PM (No. 1055121)
I wish Peter Doocy or some other honest, courageous reporter---is there even one?---would say: Mr. President, will you be satisfied if your nominee just 'identifies' as a woman? Or would you insist on a 'actual' woman?
4 people like this.
Reply 33 - Posted by:
smokincol 1/29/2022 7:28:30 PM (No. 1055246)
in keeping with the demcommies lawless attitude, the repubs can invoke all the Senate rules they want but it won't stop the demcommies from confirming the nominee from being seated on the court and actually placing this nominee on the bench, with the willing approval of diapers, mattressback and the rest of the traitorous bunch in DC. and ... of course, the demcommie media outlets.
1 person likes this.
Reply 34 - Posted by:
curious1 1/29/2022 9:06:49 PM (No. 1055310)
#24, in a sane world, the senate and house will be depopulated of most democrats. The pubbies would then impeach biteMe and Mattress-Mo, putting the Speaker in the WH. If they were really thinking ahead, President Trump would be elected speaker next year after the demo-commie depopulation in Congress, before the impeachment in the house and removal from office in the senate..
That's in a sane world. Unfortunately the corruption is so deep I think the probabilities are slim and none.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Rule 26. Described in article.