Posted on 11/29/2018 11:25:08 AM PST by Liberty7732
Senate Republicans on Thursday delayed a vote on one of President Trump's judicial nominees after a determination that they don't yet have to vote to confirm him.
The Senate was set to vote at noon on Thomas Farr, who was nominated by President Trump to serve on the federal bench in North Carolina's Eastern District. But that vote was moved until some time next week.
Sens. Tim Scott, R-S.C., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, are still deciding whether to support Farr, a former campaign lawyer for the late Sen. Jesse Helms who has been accused participating in a scheme to suppress black votes in the 1990s.
Republicans need both senators to support Farr, or he can't be confirmed. The GOP has a 51-49 margin, and Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., has already said he's voting against all of Trump's judicial picks until the Senate votes on his bill to protect special counsel Robert Mueller.
In addition, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., was attending a funeral Thursday and would not have been present for the planned vote on Farr.
Scott told reporters on Wednesday he is investigating a newly unearthed Justice Department memo that said Farr was involved decades ago in the sending of 120,000 postcards to mostly minority voters that appeared to discourage them from turning out at the polls.
Scott had not issued a statement on Thursday on Farr, but he said Wednesday he wanted to look into the allegations against him before voting.
Scott said then he had not found evidence that Farr was the architect of the postcard scheme, which was initiated in the 1990s by the campaign of then-Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and the North Carolina Republican Committee. He also told Fox News that he heard from Obama administration character witnesses who stood up for Farr.
Farr served as a top campaign lawyer for Helms. Democrats oppose his nomination because they believe he will not support voting rights for minorities.
Scott's vote is critical because Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said he'll vote against Farr, in part because he wants a vote on an unrelated bill that would prevent President Trump from firing special counsel Bob Mueller.
With a slim 51-49 majority and Flake's opposition, Scott's "no" vote would sink Farr's nomination.
Sasse was trouble past 2 years with judges?
I see nothing in the article that indicates he has had any experience in the judiciary. To me, having been a campaign manager does not indicate in itself that he’s qualified.
Yep
Voter Suppression: Refusing to go along with ballot stuffing.
Primary this idiot .
Never impressed by this pick .
Wasn’t this Scott someone who attended that (not-so) secret meeting on an island during the 2016 campaign one weekend, to plot a strategy to take down DJT? I seem to recall this, but may be mistaken.
In any case, most of the Senators are owned by their global-donor-owners, and, as POTUS says, should be forced to wear big badges with the names of their largest donors who control them!
No, and he won’t be a problem here either, there are some people who just like to throw his name into the mix to sound all gloom-and-doomy.
I doubt Romney would have any trouble with the Farr pick either. The evidence pretty clearly is flawed.
Scott decided to believe some Democrat senators who told him about this “new evidence’, he looked at it and found it was wrong, and has found that democrats who are NOT trying to trash all nominees have actually said Farr is a good person, so I expect him to vote yes later.
But there is zero benefit in holding a vote that might end up “no”, as you can’t come back from that.
They don’t want to wait until next year, because he’ll have to be nominated again. Although if the Senate adjourns, Trump could appoint him in the interim.
Tribalism strikes, yet again. It’s NEVER country-first with these people.
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.