Democrats to boycott committee vote on Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will boycott Thursday's committee vote on Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination.

The plan comes as the 10 Democratic senators on the panel have been discussing how to protest the GOP plan to confirm Barrett next week to the seat held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and the Democrats on the committee said in a joint statement that the push to confirm Barrett was a "sham process" and accused Republicans of breaking "the promises and rules" established by refusing to give Merrick Garland, former President Obama's final Supreme Court nominee, a hearing or a vote.

"Fearing a loss at the ballot box, Republicans are showing that they do not care about the rules or what the American people want, but are concerned only with raw political power," they said.

"We will not grant this process any further legitimacy by participating in a committee markup of this nomination just twelve days before the culmination of an election that is already underway," they added.

Democrats, instead, are expected to hold two press conferences on Thursday.

Under Judiciary Committee rules, 12 members have to be present in order to report a nomination to the floor — a requirement Republicans can meet on their own if every GOP senator is present.

But the rules also require two members of the minority party to be present in order to transact business.

"We will not grant this process any further legitimacy by participating in a committee markup of this nomination just twelve days before the culmination of an election that is already underway," they added.

Unfortunately, there is NOTHING illegitimate about what this committee is doing. They are following the letter of the Constitution. Doesn't matter when the election is being held - Trump remains president until January. The president has a right to fill an empty slot on the court as long as the Senate approves. Everything else is just noise. This is a useless display for the faithful.

This makes the dems look like they only agree with the constitution when it is advantageous to them.

If you don't agree with the Constitution, work on changing it, but don't simply ignore it.

The Constitution is silent about the obligation of the minority party to attend committee meetings.

It's a political ploy, no different than the ploy used to deny Obama's nominee a hearing and vote. The reasons behind the tactics don't matter, there's nothing unconstitutional in either ploy -- who said there was?

Short of illegality, I support any and every step Dems can take to oppose this nomination, and confirmation vote.
Graham has made it clear he doesn't care about the rules, he's already broken them in the current committee. So ultimately I don't think this will work but even the symbolic protest is important.

Keep the messaging that the GOP are the one changing the rules to stack the court in their favor.

This is the moral high ground for changes down the road.

Quote
Lemon Drop
Graham has made it clear he doesn't care about the rules, he's already broken them in the current committee.

Wait, that can't be right, Senator Feinstein told us, "This is one of the best set of hearings I've participated in."

Quote
Lemon Drop
Short of illegality, I support any and every step Dems can take to oppose this nomination, and confirmation vote.
Graham has made it clear he doesn't care about the rules, he's already broken them in the current committee. So ultimately I don't think this will work but even the symbolic protest is important.

Agreed, but rules in committee are often ignored without repercussions.

It will be more interesting to see if the Democrats would boycott the floor vote, which would force at least 50 GOP senators to appear on the floor in person (plus a Democrat to make the quorum call).

Edit: though it would be an interesting parliamentary gambit, I doubt most Democratic senators are willing to risk their vote AGAINST Barrett being recorded on a dice toss like this.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2020 06:11PM by rjmacs.

Quote
Ted King

Quote
Lemon Drop
Graham has made it clear he doesn't care about the rules, he's already broken them in the current committee.

Wait, that can't be right, Senator Feinstein told us, "This is one of the best set of hearings I've participated in."

I know. Bless her heart. That was something.

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Ted King

Quote
Lemon Drop
Graham has made it clear he doesn't care about the rules, he's already broken them in the current committee.

Wait, that can't be right, Senator Feinstein told us, "This is one of the best set of hearings I've participated in."

I know. Bless her heart. That was something.

I like to think that she was just on old person autopilot and was doing the usual niceties without thinking.

DiFi's one of the prime example of the reasons most folks don't like either politics or politicians, she's an anachronism who's way past her use by date. It's always a bit sad to watch someone with a long career behind them, slide into irrelevance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2020 06:38PM by RgrF.

Here in Oregon, where we have a Democrat governor and majorities in both houses, the Repugs simply flee the state and deny the legislature a quorum.

[www.nbcnews.com]

Quote
hal
The president has a right to fill an empty slot on the court as long as the Senate approves.

So it's OK for a single scheming senator to take away the president's right to fill an empty slot by blocking the Senate from evaluating or voting on approval of the president's appointee?

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

Good, then her confirmation will be unanimous............

Quote
testcase
Good, then her confirmation will be unanimous............

A judge with 3 years experience under her belt ought to be appointed for life, is that how you see it?

Quote
davester

Quote
hal
The president has a right to fill an empty slot on the court as long as the Senate approves.

So it's OK for a single scheming senator to take away the president's right to fill an empty slot by blocking the Senate from evaluating or voting on approval of the president's appointee?

It's within the bounds of the Constitution - perhaps it should be changed so he can't do that again.

Quote
Lemon Drop
Short of illegality, I support any and every step Dems can take to oppose this nomination, and confirmation vote.
Graham has made it clear he doesn't care about the rules, he's already broken them in the current committee. So ultimately I don't think this will work but even the symbolic protest is important.

I completely agree with LD on this one. There was no chance that Orange Dump would be convicted by the Senate, but did that mean that Congress shouldn't still have gone ahead with the impeachment proceedings? They did what they should have done as patriots and statesmen/women.

The Dems should do everything in their power to prevent this nomination from going forward, because it is the right thing to do.

It would be one thing if the nominee had been nominated by someone even half-sane, but we have a dictator in the WH right now who is hopefully on the verge of being booted out, and he and the GOP senators are going against the will of the majority of people on this one. Also, their hypocrisy is breathtaking and the fact that they're trying to ram this through while people are dying, losing their jobs, and are (in some cases) risking their health in order to vote the Dump out, is a disgrace.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

Quote
RgrF
DiFi's one of the prime example of the reasons most folks don't like either politics or politicians, she's an anachronism who's way past her use by date. It's always a bit sad to watch someone with a long career behind them, slide into irrelevance.

She's a great Senator. You don't even know what real problems you have with her. You literally can't point out anything specific. What's the point of her posturing? Why do you want theater?

Why don't you and everyone else here immediately remember that this woman, Barrett was confirmed on Nov 3, 2016? Did something change that I'm not aware of?

This woman is probably the most accomplished Senator in the Senate. She wiped the floor to win 2 years ago. Republicans voted for Kevin DeLeon to try to stop her.

Life ain't the way you want it. Life is the way it is.

Quote
hal

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Ted King

Quote
Lemon Drop
Graham has made it clear he doesn't care about the rules, he's already broken them in the current committee.

Wait, that can't be right, Senator Feinstein told us, "This is one of the best set of hearings I've participated in."

I know. Bless her heart. That was something.

I like to think that she was just on old person autopilot and was doing the usual niceties without thinking.

This statement is ageist and sexist fyi. She is ferociously intelligent.

Quote
vision63

Quote
hal

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Ted King

Quote
Lemon Drop
Graham has made it clear he doesn't care about the rules, he's already broken them in the current committee.

Wait, that can't be right, Senator Feinstein told us, "This is one of the best set of hearings I've participated in."

I know. Bless her heart. That was something.

I like to think that she was just on old person autopilot and was doing the usual niceties without thinking.

This statement is ageist and sexist fyi. She WAS ferociously intelligent.

Word on Capitol Hill is she now sometimes gets lost in the corridors of the Senate Office Building, she no longer leaves her office without an escort. Like it or not this is the sort of rumor mill DC runs on and this is the current on DiFi. Your defenses are noted. You're a loyal soldier.

Quote
RgrF

Quote
vision63

Quote
hal

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Ted King

Quote
Lemon Drop
Graham has made it clear he doesn't care about the rules, he's already broken them in the current committee.

Wait, that can't be right, Senator Feinstein told us, "This is one of the best set of hearings I've participated in."

I know. Bless her heart. That was something.

I like to think that she was just on old person autopilot and was doing the usual niceties without thinking.

This statement is ageist and sexist fyi. She WAS ferociously intelligent.

Word on Capitol Hill is she now sometimes gets lost in the corridors of the Senate Office Building, she no longer leaves her office without an escort. Like it or not this is the sort of rumor mill DC runs on and this is the current on DiFi. Your defenses are noted. You're a loyal soldier.

I'm a soldier of the truth. I'm not saying people can't come "at" her, but make it about something real. She's certainly have done things that I wouldn't prefer. Legislators legislate. That's what they should be judged on. Another thing is tons of legislators take credit for policy she's created. She doesn't even sweat it.

I will dust-off and repeat one of my problems with DiFi - as her work on the intelligence committee has shown, she seems to be fine with any and all spying on Americans...but if/when she herself is spied upon, she is wont to pitch a fit.

Quote
RgrF
Word on Capitol Hill is she now sometimes gets lost in the corridors of the Senate Office Building, she no longer leaves her office without an escort. Like it or not this is the sort of rumor mill DC runs on and this is the current on DiFi. Your defenses are noted. You're a loyal soldier.

With all of the endless character-assassination going on in DC, you actually think you can trust "word on Capitol Hill" ...?

Watch carefully when she does interviews and judge for yourself how sharp she seems.

...Best I've got is that she seems to have trouble reading without her glasses and she's clinging to civility in extremely adverse conditions.

---

Quote
pdq
I will dust-off and repeat one of my problems with DiFi - as her work on the intelligence committee has shown, she seems to be fine with any and all spying on Americans...but if/when she herself is spied upon, she is wont to pitch a fit.

At least that's a critique based on her work.

Quote
vision63
Why don't you and everyone else here immediately remember that this woman, Barrett was confirmed on Nov 3, 2016? Did something change that I'm not aware of?

Obama was president in Nov 2016, but "something" did change around that time that led to her confirmation in 2017.

#1 Turning the Barrett nomination fiasco into Democrats attacking Democrats for being civil is a true win for the GOP.

#2 Of all the issues to have with Sen. Feinstein, this can't possibly be in anyone's top 10.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote
rjmacs
#1 Turning the Barrett nomination fiasco into Democrats attacking Democrats for being civil is a true win for the GOP.

#2 Of all the issues to have with Sen. Feinstein, this can't possibly be in anyone's top 10.

This, 1000x this.

Quote
hal

Quote
davester

Quote
hal
The president has a right to fill an empty slot on the court as long as the Senate approves.

So it's OK for a single scheming senator to take away the president's right to fill an empty slot by blocking the Senate from evaluating or voting on approval of the president's appointee?

It's within the bounds of the Constitution - perhaps it should be changed so he can't do that again.

C’mon hal, you know how hard it is to change the constitution… The constitution is written loosely in terms of specifics, we have gotten by on rules, customs, and norms. I am afraid this group of Republicans are willing to break all those simply for power. Makes me sad…

---

=wr=

Quote
rjmacs
#1 Turning the Barrett nomination fiasco into Democrats attacking Democrats for being civil is a true win for the GOP.

#2 Of all the issues to have with Sen. Feinstein, this can't possibly be in anyone's top 10.

She could have been civil without saying something that was not true.

If criticizing Feinstein for this is a "win" for the GOP, it doesn't make the top 1000 of "wins".

Feinstein is better for liberals than any Republican she has run against, but California (where I lived for most of her time in the Senate - now a Portlandia-ite) could and I think should have replaced her with a more liberal person at least one or two terms ago. Like pdq, I've been unhappy with her ready acceptance of the level of surveillance by the government, but she also has a long string of lesser things that irk me - like advocacy of a Constitutional amendment to make it illegal to burn or deface an American flag (which happens to be a pet peeve of mine).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2020 11:15AM by Ted King.

Quote
GGD

Quote
vision63
Why don't you and everyone else here immediately remember that this woman, Barrett was confirmed on Nov 3, 2016? Did something change that I'm not aware of?

Obama was president in Nov 2016, but "something" did change around that time that led to her confirmation in 2017.

What happened?

Quote
vision63

Quote
GGD

Quote
vision63
Why don't you and everyone else here immediately remember that this woman, Barrett was confirmed on Nov 3, 2016? Did something change that I'm not aware of?

Obama was president in Nov 2016, but "something" did change around that time that led to her confirmation in 2017.

What happened?

Trump nominated her to the Seventh Circuit on May 8, 2017, and the Senate held a confirmation vote on October 31, 2017.

Quote
RgrF

Quote
vision63

Quote
GGD

Quote
vision63
Why don't you and everyone else here immediately remember that this woman, Barrett was confirmed on Nov 3, 2016? Did something change that I'm not aware of?

Obama was president in Nov 2016, but "something" did change around that time that led to her confirmation in 2017.

What happened?

Trump nominated her to the Seventh Circuit on May 8, 2017, and the Senate held a confirmation vote on October 31, 2017.

Oh, how is that more relevant than Trump himself being elected?