POL Dick Durbin: Democrats are looking at how to change the Senate rules to prevent a future SC nominee from being nominated/appointed

[thompson]

Dick Durbin: We Can't Prevent Barrett From Being Confirmed But...

Hmm.

townhall.com

Dick Durbin: We Can't Prevent Barrett From Being Confirmed But...

Beth Baumann
Posted: Sep 27, 2020 12:45 PM

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) on Sunday told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that Democrats are looking at how to change the Senate rules to prevent a future Supreme Court nominee from being nominated – and potentially appointed – during an election year.

"If Democrats are successful in November and you increase your numbers in the Senate, your colleague, Ed Markey, has suggested that if Republicans confirm Judge Barrett, you should end the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court," Stephanopoulos said. "Is that on the table?"

"Well, I can say that the future of the Senate rules is on the table and I'm part of it. And the reason is this: we have seen under Mitch McConnell the kind of destruction, denigration of the United States Senate," he explained. "George, last year in the Senate, in 2019, we had 22 amendments voted on in the entire year in the United States Senate."

"Mitch McConnell has taken the Senate and turned it into something that's not even close to a deliberative and legislative body. We need to make sure that whatever the procedure is in the future, we get down to business, roll up our sleeves and address the issues that affect this country," Durbin explained. "Sen. McConnell's approach, I think, has been a failure."

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1310211550767190016

View: https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/1310211550767190016?s=20

54 seconds

Although Democrats, like Durbin, want to change the Senate rules to help them in the future, he admitted that there's no possible way to block Amy Coney Barrett from being confirmed.

"There are two Republicans who have already spoken out already, Sens. Murkowski and Collins, that said they won't support this procedure before the election," Durbin explained. "If two others decide, in the course of the debate, to stand up and take the same position, then we could have a different timing, perhaps a different outcome."

Durbin said that there's really no way around Barrett's confirmation unless two other Republicans decide the decision should be made after the election.

"We can slow it down, perhaps a matter of hours, days at the most, you can't stop the outcome," he explained. "What we should do now is address this respectfully."

The Senate Majority Whip takes issue with McConnell's stance, saying he changed course from his beliefs in 2016.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1310205718323232768

View: https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1310205718323232768?s=20

1:40 run time

 

[TheSearcher]

There is no Constitutional rationale. Until a President is out of office, they have the right and duty to appoint SCJ vacancies. Geebus.

 

[rbt]

The guy is an idiot, Harry Reid made this possible another fine Democrat. Two idiots same party.

 

[night driver]

You want to make the Senate back into a "deliberative body"??

Go back to having the State Legislatures elect their Senators again.

 

[mikeabn]

As someone (Kurt Schlichter?) once wrote 'we play by the rules but the other side doesn't accept the results and wants to change the rules'

 

[Melodi]

Even if the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and the White House (unlikely but anything can happen in politics) and they change the rules they would have to live with the consequences (as they are now).

Not only that but it would simply mean whatever "deadline" they pick say after January first of any given election year or something, it simply means that anyone who wants the President to appoint someone will likely step down right before that time.

Justices who don't, like Ginsburg will simply feel less pressured about retiring early in the year because they know that the President they don't like can't replace them until he or she wins reelection.

Rather than try to run-out-the-clock when their health declines, and that would leave the court with only eight or however many members the next President and/or congress (I'd have to look up all the rules) decided to appoint - it is almost always an odd number to avoid ties.

 

[ArisenCarcass]

Even if the Democrats took over both houses of Congress and the White House (unlikely but anything can happen in politics) and they change the rules they would have to live with the consequences (as they are now).

I heard a plan to only change the rules when the Dems have the majority and change them back if they lose (if they ever could with the demographic and gerrymandering changes the Dems have in store for us).
They would then attempt to keep the GOP from changing the rules back .

Most people are clueless about the Parliamentary Procedures and Rules that are used in legislative bodies and would believe the Commie media when they say that the GOP is doing "unprecedented" things, and turn against them.
I mean, look at how many idiots actually believe the worst about PDJT because of American Pravda.

A Dem majority can refuse to vote to confirm a Presidential SCOTUS nominee in an election year (but wouldn't if the President were a "D"......ala Garland), but IDK how they can tie the opposite party to that.