General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCant a bonafide Liberal senator just place "a hold" on Kennedys replacement?
Why doesn`t a senate hold apply to SCOTUS judges? SURELY, there are 40 Dem senators willing to vote to uphold an hold?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_hold
Can someone explain why we are unlikely to use this very simple procedure to block the SOCTUS nomination? The one plausible explanation I can see of why leadership doesn`t want is this because they think it will get all of the hillbillies to crawl out of their holes to vote in November, where otherwise they seem likely to stay at home.
LonePirate
(13,448 posts)NewsCenter28
(1,835 posts)Several Trump nominees are under hold even at this moment.
BumRushDaShow
(130,122 posts)https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43563.pdf
Although nowadays, Turtle can pretty much ignore a hold.
Durbin has come out insisting on a delay -
Link to tweet
TEXT
CNN
✔
@CNN
Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin has called on the Senate to wait to consider Trump's nominee to replace Justice Kennedy until the new Congress is seated in January. He cited precedent set by GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell's refusal to hold a vote on Merrick Garland. https://cnn.it/2tyKfpv
3:21 PM - Jun 27, 2018
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10798292
NewsCenter28
(1,835 posts)That's the question. That article, which was incredibly helpful by the way, that you posted, doesn't say but I tend to infer from it that he may only need 50+ Pence?
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Now all Turtle need is a majority, 50+1.
BumRushDaShow
(130,122 posts)BumRushDaShow
(130,122 posts)It's more of a Senate "courtesy" rule to allow some amount of time to pass so that a Senator "can get more information" about a particular subject or nominee (or so that was the original intent).
But what has happened is that the rules allow for the Majority Leader to decide whether to "accept it" or not and in the past, in order to show "courtesy" and "bipartisanship", the "hold" was permitted to go forward as there was a definite potential threat of a filibuster, so there was some leverage from the side doing the "hold" (usually the minority party but not always).
However now that nominees can be approved by simple majority, the "hold" doesn't have as much power as it used to. Although note that Elizabeth Warren currently has a "hold" on the next CFPB nominee and apparently Turtle has allowed the "hold" to go forward.
You have this issue - and I have posted this before - This system of government is operating under an "honor system". The GOP has now started breaking that down and if Turtle starts ignoring or waving away a "hold" as the Majority Leader, then when the tables turned, he might be screwed. This is why they tried to allow the rules to play out, but things are so fragile nowadays, and with this SCOTUS thing being the gold ring on their merry-go-round, they may be willing to destroy the Senate to get what they want... although a few GOP Senators might disagree with changing a rule and thus there would not be enough votes to change such.