Posted on 01/28/2019 3:13:03 PM PST by jazusamo
Senate Republicans are planning to advance a proposal that would dramatically reduce the amount of time it takes to advance hundreds of Trump nominees by the end of March.
Sen. Roy Blunt (Mo.), a member of GOP leadership, said the Rules Committee, which he oversees, would take up the proposal.
“I’m looking at the first quarter of the year,” Blunt said, asked about a timeline for taking up the change.
The timeline, which was first reported by Politico, is the latest sign that Republicans are feeling bullish about changing the rules for President Trump’s nominees after discussing the idea at a retreat earlier this month.
Currently nominations face up to an additional 30 hours of debate time even after they’ve cleared an initial vote that shows they have the simple majority support needed to pass.
But the proposal being discussed by Republicans, which was introduced by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) during the previous Congress, would cut the debate time down to eight hours. It would further cap post-cloture debate time for district court nominations at two hours.
The proposal, which hasn’t formally been reintroduced in the 116th Congress, would not apply to Supreme Court nominees, circuit court nominees or most Cabinet picks.
Republicans have been fuming for years over the slow pace of confirmation votes on Trump’s pick, accusing Democrats of misusing the chamber rulebook to drag out otherwise uncontroversial nominees.
Republicans are expected to try to implement the the rules change as a standing order, which would require 60 votes. But nominations have become increasingly partisan during the Trump administration and it’s unlikely they would be able to get enough support from Democrats.
If they can’t get Democratic support, Republicans are publicly floating using the “nuclear option”— which would let them change the rules with only a simple majority.
Republicans held only a 51-seat majority last year, leaving them unable to push through the proposal because of opposition from some moderate members. But a larger 53-seat majority during the current Congress gives them more leeway to muscle through the change.
Sen. Todd Young (Ind.), the chairman of the Senate GOP campaign arm, told radio host Hugh Hewitt earlier this month that he thought Senate Republicans could quickly take up the maneuver.
“This needs to happen for the good of the country. And I think there’ll be some Democrats who’ll be warm to this idea as well,” he said at the time.
For one happy moment, I misread that as Senator Charles Schumer who was caned.
I think you need to wake up because we've already been there and done that with Justice Gorsuch - which is the only reason he and Justice Kavanaugh are currently on the bench of the SCOTUS.
The current dispute arises from the Democrats forcing the full 30 hours of debate on every single nominee after cloture is invoked.
Is that anything like your stuff is s@#t, and my s@#t is stuff?
You wake up, the 60 vote cloture rule FOR ANYTHING is stupid and not in the Constitution.
We’d have wall funding by now.
We’d have wall funding by now.I don't believe that to be true.
I don't believe there's 50 Senators that would vote to approve a border wall. That's why the Majority Leader refuses to call a vote without cloture.
He realizes if the truth were known, the Republicans would lose their majority...perhaps permanently.
Disagree. Trump would have more leverage. If my old Sen. Corker (good riddance and die) or current Alexander (please hurry up a die and just resign instead of sucking off Romney for the next two years before you “retire”) even dared to vote “NO’ they’d be hogtied and lynched back here in TN.
My recommendation would be to institute a running clock. Okay Dems, you still have 30 hours starting now.
Now that we have heard from the Dumbass Brigade, lets hear from the Rational FReepers.
Republicans supporting their POTUS? What a marvel.
The GOP had better plan on making sure they have at least 26 reliably solid red states in the future or else this will backfire on them.
What do you all think of these “Solid Red State” US Senators? Doug Jones of Alabama, Jon Tester of Montana, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia?
Trump won 30 States in 2016. But how many of them are vulnerable to him and GOP losing in 2020? Hmmmm - Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona could turn “blue” and make it practically impossible for any Dem to get less than 270 EV’s in the future. The Senate seems like the surest GOP firewall to stop the National Socialism movement of the 2020’s that could bring us the Third American Reich - i.e. Articles of Confederation ratified in 1781, Constitution ratified in 1788, and the “We ignore the Constitution” leadership of AOC & others in the 2020s.
Those last 4 saw crucial statewide races won by Democrats in Nov 2018. The GOP’s future is fragile unless they can win the hearts and minds of Americans to keep the new Third Reich from happening. The GOP has 53 seats right now because Susan Collins of Maine, Corey Gardner of Colorado, and seats held by Republicans in some very purple states.
McConnell and his RINO’s will let this happen when hell freezes over. If they are going to do this why wait tell March? That tells you it is all BS. Wait, given the weather hell may have frozen over in the Liberal north.
What bothers me about this whole ‘debate’ business is that if you really had something significant to say, then I’d be all for open four-star debate. But these ‘chats’ that occur and ranked as ‘debate’ are one-star moments of glory, and without much value. In some cases, it’d be like dragging in some barber from Tulsa to gab for fifteen minutes on the value of $15 haircuts. Worthless chatter....ought to be banned.
Maybe we ought to authorize a panel of five people to sit in the Senate chamber with a buzzer, and if you are inflicting marginal talk on something....once you had three of the five witnesses buzz you....you get taken down from the debate.
My apologies - I thought you were commenting on the article that is the subject of this thread.
Tax reform didn't occur? Repeal of the individual mandate? Gorsuch and Kavanaugh aren't on the Supreme Court?
My bad
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.