@danepps and I discussed this yesterdayhttps://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1041398862714470400 …
-
-
-
I was mercifully away from Twitter for most of yesterday
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Sure. Nothing wrong with that. Totally reasonable to confirm during a lame duck. OTOH, if they don't act soon, it's going to be a tight squeeze.
-
Only reason they'd have to vote in lame duck is if they lose Senate. Given red state Dems might bail post Nov, it actually might help hold Collins/Murkowski on a Barrett vote. If they *hold* Senate, they could vote next Congress, but Collins/Murkowksi might have more leverage.
-
I wonder if post-midterms, Collins (and maybe others like Gardner?) start to think of it as their reelection year and so are more reluctant to take an unpopular vote.
-
I suspect that whatever happens in the midterms McConnell will be eager to move on a hypothetical Kavanaugh replacement as quickly as he can.
-
I just think confirmation in the lame duck is a long way from a slam dunk *if* the GOP fails to hold the Senate (which would require a BIG wave).
-
There would be enormous pressure on them from the right to confirm *someone*, because the threat of the Dems holding the seat open for 2 years---or worse, possibly striking a bargain with Trump for a moderate nominee--would be a dead serious concern.
-
OK but if the GOP loses 45 House seats and also loses the Senate, and they have lots of vulnerable Senators up for re-election in 2020....they're going to be terrified. And confirmation in the lame duck would be a *really* unpopular move.
-
Eh. I do think some panic is possible, but I'm skeptical it would be an election issue two years on. And they would still have to worry that the only people who would remember it would be intense GOP party actors. No slam dunk, but there's plenty of incentive to confirm quickly.
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Might the D's respond by dispensing with unanimous consent, forcing the reading of amendments, calling for roll calls, etc.? (Not sure how long that would run the clock in this hypo.)
-
Yep, that option has always been there. And yet, they haven't done it.
-
The politics of grinding the Senate to a halt in general are different from the politics of doing so within a specific time frame and over a specific grievance.
-
True. But Maj Ldr can do a number of creative things to make this not as daunting as it might seem. Plus, it's not as if this Senate has been considering lots of amendments & passing lots of bills. In a lame duck, how many bills would McConnell really want to pass? \_(?)_/
-
Right. That's why I said I'm not sure it would work.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No question. Quick back of the napkin math from my
@scotuscast colleague (and Senate rules guru)@AdamShah1972 suggests there’s plenty of time to push another nom through even with a post-election Day nomination. Hypothetically. -
Yes. Here are the things that the rules require: 1) Senate Rule XXXI states a nominee is automatically referred to the committee of jurisdictions unless there it is ordered otherwise, but such motion would be 60-vote filibusterable. 2) Senate Judiciary Committee Rule 1 states
-
that any business can be delayed by one week by any member of the Judiciary Committee, meaning that the minority can force the Committee to take at least seven days to vote on whether to report the nomination to the full Senate (seven days from nomination to Committee vote).
-
3) Senate Rule XXXI also states that no nominee can be considered on the same day she is reported to the full Senate by the Committee (one day from Committee vote to floor consideration). 4) Senate Rule XXII says that a cloture motion on pending business cannot be voted on until
-
the second day after it was filed (two days from the beginning of floor consideration until cloture vote) 5) Senate Rule XXII allows 30 hours of debate from the time cloture is invoked until the up-or-down vote (1.25 days from cloture vote to confirmation vote).
-
The absolute minimum under Senate rules is therefore 11.25 days. And that would be with no background check and no hearing, which even under Sen. McConnell's leadership is extremely unlikely.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.