Trump seeks to ramp up pressure on Grassley over ‘blue slip’ controversy

The Hill ^ | 08/24/25 11:02 PM ET | by Sarah Fortinsky

[RandFan]

President Trump on Sunday sought to ramp up pressure on Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) over his defense of the “blue slip” practice that allows home-state senators to veto nominees to district courts and U.S. attorneys’ offices.

“I have a Constitutional Right to appoint Judges and U.S. Attorneys, but that RIGHT has been completely taken away from me in States that have just one Democrat United States Senator,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform.

“This is because of an old and outdated ‘custom’ known as a BLUE SLIP, that Senator Chuck Grassley, of the Great State of Iowa, refuses to overturn, even though the Democrats, including Crooked Joe Biden (Twice!), have done so on numerous occasions,” Trump continued.

“Chuck Grassley should allow strong Republican candidates to ascend to these very vital and powerful roles, and tell the Democrats, as they often tell us, to go to HELL!”

Trump last month was forced to withdraw the nomination of his former defense lawyer, Alina Habba, to serve as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey after the state’s Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, opposed her nomination.

[RandFan]

This is crazy. Grassley wont give up a Senate tradition. He's been there forever and won't do it. He's also popular and not sure why Trump is going after him

[rottweiller_inc]

I wonder what would happen if they sued the senators with the blue slips for depriving them of their constitutional right to serve in government. Presidential rights to appoint are in the Constitution but blue slips are not.

[Bob Wills is still the king]

The Senate makes its own rules under the Constitution, and has the constitutional responsibility to be an actual check on presidential appointments under its obligation to provide the president with “advice and consent” on appointments.

[rllngrk33]

Trump needs his nominees confirmed and Grassley is too chickensh!t to stand up to the democrats. Time for Grassley to retire, isn't he like 90 years old?

Term limits and age limits for Congress. If it's good enough for the president, it's good enough for Congress.

[MinorityRepublican]

If he refuses to play ball, do recess appointments.

[higgmeister]

Libertarianism isn't the be all and end all.

Pragmatism can be the exception that proves the rule.

[RandFan]

That’s right he’s 90 but he is popular and is retiring soon I believe.

He has been there for as long as I have been alive!

[lee martell]

Grassley’s term does not end until January 3rd of 2029!
We are stuck with him, unless or until ‘nature’ decides to intervene.

FunFact: Sen. Chuck Grassely is in the position of
Senate President Pro Tempore, meaning
Grassley is 3rd in line to succeed the president, behind the Vice President and House Speaker. The position goes to the longest serving senator in the party with a majority in the chamber. Grassley has served in the U.S. Senate since 1981.

[RandFan]

Interesting !

[wiseprince]

Because giving Democrats a veto on Trump nominees is just stupid. Grassley is useless and Trump should never endorse this stiff again

[FLT-bird]

Blue slips need to go away. There’s no reason why a Senator should have veto power over a judicial appointment.

[wiseprince]

And the President can go to the people and let them know that their Senators should not be re elected. He can also let the donors know

[wiseprince]

They refuse to recess. Trump needs to get the house to adjourn and force the Congress into adjournment

[Texas_Jarhead]

This is short sighted IMHO. Trump is going to war with Grassley who has been at the forefront on the Russia hoax for almost a decade and is desirous of eliminating a Senate tradition that has served Republicans in the past. Why are the House & Senate being kept in session in order to avoid recess appointments? Why isn't Trump pissed about that?

Honestly, I'm unsure of the strategy on either counts here. Can anyone explain?

[Leaning Right]

Attacking the “blue slip” tradition: Good idea.
Attacking Chuck Grassley: Practically speaking, not such a good idea.

[Leaning Right]

> Grassley is 3rd in line to succeed the president <

And that’s crazy. The current method pretty much guarantees that the person 3rd in line will be very old.

The presidential line of succession should run through the executive branch only. Vice President, then Secretary of State, etc.

And that’s the way it was for a time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession#

[nathanbedford]

Presidential rights to appoint are in the Constitution but blue slips are not.

Actually the president has no right to appoint in the Constitution, rather, he has a right to nominate.

The Senate has a right to advise and consent, that is to reject president's nomination as it sees fit. Blue slip practice has been devised as a means of increasing Senate (article 1) power versus presidential (article II) power.

The Constitution does not specify the means by which the Senate may confirm or deny a nomination nor does it prohibit side agreements such as the blue slip.

Those are the constitutional considerations, but, should the practice be continued?

The old bulls in the Senate have observed this practice even as it might frustrate there own party's President because they value the balance of power it effects more. Naturally, senators want to maintain as much power as possible and that means maintaining the power of their institution vis-à-vis the president.

But recent history tells us that when the Democrats regain control of the Senate, as eventually they will, it is entirely possible that they will do away the blue slip practice just as they did away with the filibuster concerning the confirmation process of inferior court judges.

In other words Republicans might well be handicapping themselves and their own president now only to find that the Democrats will change the policy to suit their convenience the next time around.

It is becoming increasingly clear that as a party the Democrats have simply abandoned allegiance to the Constitution, Senate traditions, and allegiance to America. To continue the practice is akin to unilateral disarmament that the enemy despises because they are untethered to any constitutional process.

[PubliusMM]

Well, Bob Wills is still king, the Constitution requires the advice and consent of the SENATE, not just two Senators...

[Sirius Lee]

Grassley has served in the U.S. Senate since 1981.

I think I see one of the problems.

These sleazebags should only serve a couple terms and then go home. Term limits: Four in Congress max, and two in the Senate.

And then GTFO!

[Fury]

So you believe that Merrick Garland should have received a vote in the Senate, no matter what? It wasn’t blue slips that stopped that vote but just one Senator.