Judicial nominations: Have Dem leaders rolled over and conceded another issue?

[usregimechange]

Dec 1st: “The across the board stalling of judicial nominations continues, with many noncontroversial nominations being delayed and obstructed for no good reason." -Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)

A few days prior to this Senator Whitehouse indicated that the Senate would vote on stalled nominees during the lame-duck congress.

Today: Crickets.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. If the Repulbicans use Senate rules to stop nominations from a vote, how is that a concession? n/t

[Renew Deal]

2. Along those lines.... The rules may change for the next session.

Which should help clear lots of them.

[usregimechange]

3. It is the Dems concession, they won't force a vote

[Ozymanithrax]

4. The Senate rules don't allow them to force a vote in these cases.

So, should they just throw the rules to the wind, toss the Republicans out of the Senate Chamber, nail shut the doors and hold a vote? Of course, that would not be legal.

They can establish new Senate rules at the beginning of the next congress with a simple majority vote. but short of finding 66 votes to change the rules now, this is not a concession. It is called following the established rules. And this is a game that has been played with nominations going back to Marbury Vs. Madison.

I understand you are angry, but perhaps your anger is misplaced. The Republican intransigence is historical. This was never done before in the history of the Republic.

[usregimechange]

5. They file for cloture and vote on it, they need 60 votes, it worked with the Hamilton nomination

but they have only used it once. My anger is well placed thank you.

[Ozymanithrax]

6. And they don't have 60 votes.

So what you want is a symbolic vote.

[BzaDem]

7. No, they do have 60 votes.

The problem is time, not 60 votes here. District court nominations are usually unanimously confirmed. But if they forced 60 votes, that would take about a week per judge (meaning they couldn't even try to repeal DADT, enact the START treaty, have a vote on the DREAM act, fund the government, etc).

[usregimechange]

9. Can't they file a number of them at once?

[Better Believe It]

10. Because Democrats let them. They could use their power to stop Republican obstructionism and don't

[mazzarro]

8. And Dems will always be counted to roll over again, and again...

And when GWB (shrub) was in the WH, all we kept getting from Dems about being unable to stop most of his radical judicial nominations were all sorts of namby-pamby reasons why it was impossible to block them. Dems are so pathetic whether in majority or not - it so shameful.