McConnell will keep the senate in session for October

Mar 2012
49,546
32,631
New Hampshire
#1
Very unusual..

Traditionally, the Senate hits the road in October of an election year. But the Senate is throwing tradition out the window this year.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is planning to keep the chamber in session for a significant portion of October if not four entire weeks, costing Democrats key campaign trail days and allowing the Senate to continue its work into the fall, according to five Republican officials. The Kentucky Republican wants to keep cranking through as many lifetime judicial nominations and executive nominations as he can with his majority in the balance and the GOP still with the unilateral ability to confirm President Donald Trump’s picks.

The proposed work schedule also could give the GOP leverage over Senate Democrats and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer; if they are eager enough to return to the campaign trail, they may strike a deal with the GOP leader to swiftly confirm some nominees. But McConnell has to worry about attendance among his own ranks after a poor showing in August.

McConnell screws Dems ahead of election with October session
 
Nov 2010
22,801
14,457
#2
Of course, he's a scumbag. Trying to rig the system, prevent dems from campaigning

republican voters can go F themselves, they don't care how scummy republicans are. They would throw fits if democrats pulled this shit. They have stolen several presidencies and plenty of seats in congress, plus state representation, now SCOTUS. Liberals are going to get violent if they keep trying to pull this shit, and I don't blame them
 
Apr 2015
655
215
Mid ATL
#3
Very unusual..

Traditionally, the Senate hits the road in October of an election year. But the Senate is throwing tradition out the window this year.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is planning to keep the chamber in session for a significant portion of October if not four entire weeks, costing Democrats key campaign trail days and allowing the Senate to continue its work into the fall, according to five Republican officials. The Kentucky Republican wants to keep cranking through as many lifetime judicial nominations and executive nominations as he can with his majority in the balance and the GOP still with the unilateral ability to confirm President Donald Trump’s picks.

The proposed work schedule also could give the GOP leverage over Senate Democrats and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer; if they are eager enough to return to the campaign trail, they may strike a deal with the GOP leader to swiftly confirm some nominees. But McConnell has to worry about attendance among his own ranks after a poor showing in August.

McConnell screws Dems ahead of election with October session
Voting on judges that Democrats continue to want to hold up?
How dare he.
 
Apr 2015
655
215
Mid ATL
#5
How unfair, the GOP never held up any of Obama's judicial picks....:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Gee, and where would such obstruction stem from??

Since Bush took office, there have been 128 vacancies on the 862-member Article III courts. To date, Bush has nominated 65 candidates to fill those vacancies. Only 28 have been confirmed, leaving 100 empty seats, 39 of which are judicial emergency vacancies according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. ON the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, half the seats today are empty.
In fact, the stall is most evident at the circuit level. Only six of Bush’s 29 circuit court nominees have been confirmed, and two of those were Clinton holdovers, re-nominated as a gesture to the Democrats. More telling still, 11 of those nominees have been hanging since May, never having had a hearing, much less a vote.


Bench Politics: Senate Stalls on Judges Who Would Uphold the Constitution

You think I was unprepared for such an infantile response?
 
Likes: Wonderer

Singularity

Former Staff
Oct 2009
28,963
21,633
Kansas
#7
To be serious, I sincerely doubt this kind of tactic is going to have much effect on the campaign.

Trump's popularity is cratering, the Democratic advantage on the generic ballot is expanding. 52/38 this morning.

We're still two months out, but if those trends don't reverse, the Senate is in play. Nothing McConnell can do.

Also, the races that could decide control of the chamber, Texas, Arizona and Tennessee, aren't going to be affected by the Senate calendar.
 
Likes: MaryAnne
Mar 2012
49,546
32,631
New Hampshire
#8
To be serious, I sincerely doubt this kind of tactic is going to have much effect on the campaign.

Trump's popularity is cratering, the Democratic advantage on the generic ballot is expanding. 52/38 this morning.

We're still two months out, but if those trends don't reverse, the Senate is in play. Nothing McConnell can do.

Also, the races that could decide control of the chamber, Texas, Arizona and Tennessee, aren't going to be affected by the Senate calendar.
I think actually the elections may be a secondary thought. I assume the judges are number one priority for McConnell. If the GOP loses the senate those judges could be gone. So he wants that above else. Plus as the link said, some dems may just be willing to approve these judges quickly in exchange for leaving early and campaigning. Republicans under Trumpism, are single focused with the courts these days. There is little else to focus on in the era of Trump for them.
 
Likes: MaryAnne
Nov 2010
22,801
14,457
#9
Gee, and where would such obstruction stem from??

Since Bush took office, there have been 128 vacancies on the 862-member Article III courts. To date, Bush has nominated 65 candidates to fill those vacancies. Only 28 have been confirmed, leaving 100 empty seats, 39 of which are judicial emergency vacancies according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. ON the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, half the seats today are empty.
In fact, the stall is most evident at the circuit level. Only six of Bush’s 29 circuit court nominees have been confirmed, and two of those were Clinton holdovers, re-nominated as a gesture to the Democrats. More telling still, 11 of those nominees have been hanging since May, never having had a hearing, much less a vote.


Bench Politics: Senate Stalls on Judges Who Would Uphold the Constitution

You think I was unprepared for such an infantile response?
Infantile? Like copy and pasting stuff but conveniently ignoring before Bush?

Oh, lets go back to Clinton, republicans did the same thing they did with Obama, refused to even have hearings

During President Bill Clinton's first and second terms of office, he nominated 24 people for 20 federal appellate judgeships but the nominees were not processed by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee. Three of the nominees who were not processed (Christine Arguello, Andre M. Davis and S. Elizabeth Gibson) were nominated after July 1, 2000, the traditional start date of the unofficial Thurmond Rule during a presidential election year. Democrats claim that Senate Republicans of the 106th Congress purposely tried to keep open particular judgeships as a political maneuver to allow a future Republican president to fill them
Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia

And then you can go back to before Clinton and democrats held things up waiting for Clinton

Stealing a SCOTUS seat, that's as scummy as it gets. And you right wing hacks love saying the idiotic "elections have consequence" of course, not when a dem was elected
 
Apr 2015
655
215
Mid ATL
#10
Infantile? Like copy and pasting stuff but conveniently ignoring before Bush?

Oh, lets go back to Clinton, republicans did the same thing they did with Obama, refused to even have hearings

Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia

And then you can go back to before Clinton and democrats held things up waiting for Clinton

Stealing a SCOTUS seat, that's as scummy as it gets. And you right wing hacks love saying the idiotic "elections have consequence" of course, not when a dem was elected
You start off solid, then lapse into nuttiness.
The epitome of infantile behavior is pretending a Supreme Court seat was "stolen". That's pure crybaby talk. There's so much wrong with that claim in that it is so singularly selective and partisan and flies in the face of precedent and in the voices of even Democrats' own opinions during the Bush presidency. Or should I repeat the quotes of Joe Biden, Schumer, and Harry Reid?
 

Similar Discussions