Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) set off alarm bells around the Capitol on Wednesday when he told Politico that there’s a strong possibility Senate Republicans would refuse to fill the vacancy on the Judiciary Committee even if Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) were to resign. A senior aide to a Democratic senator said Tester’s comments generated intense speculation around the Capitol.
However, there’s one reason the dramatic scenario Tester warned of is highly unlikely: It would be a massive break with precedent.
Oh, you mean like refusing to confirm (or even meet) a SCOTUS nomination almost a year before the election?
Correction: Almost a year to go in Obama’s term. Seven or so months before the election.
(I apologize; I know that’s not a cat picture, or even close … though he does look like he just ate the canary.)
Breaking with precedent??!! Perish the thought. The Republicans would never do that.
The Democratic Senate leadership is worthless: zero foresight, zero strategic acumen.
It is said that Democrats treat politics as if it were a sport, while Republicans treat politics as war.
This wouldn’t be a break from precedent, it follows precedent that Mitch has set since forever.
However, there’s one reason the dramatic scenario Tester warned of is highly unlikely: It would be a massive break with precedent.
Oooh, precedent! I know that one, isn’t it like refusing to even hold a hearing on a supreme court nomination for 10 months until the term of the senate expires?
If a replacement for DF is sworn in, the Dem caucus returns to 51 Senators (+VP=52), and dems can change the rules for filling a vacant committee seat
By now the Senate GOP has pretty thoroughly established precedents for dramatic breaks from precedent.
In this context, it’s well past time to reconsider the term “break from precedent.”
But that would be a break from precedent, which, as all serious pundits know, is only OKIYAR.
There’s a glaring omission in this article: cloture. If, a committee replacement does not pass by unanimous consent (takes only one senator to block), it goes to a floor vote that may be filibustered. It would take at least 9 GOP votes to invoke cloture to break the filibuster. I didn’t see 9 GOP senators in the article even saying they would do the right thing, let alone having to trust them to follow through.
Dems have changed Senate rules before. And for similar reasons. Seems in keeping with precedent, IMO
“It’s the temporary substitution which is the unprecedented ask,” Cornyn said.
“If she were no longer a senator, yes,” he added, indicating he would vote to fill the empty committee seat.
This is a rather different quote from what Cornyn was saying Monday:
Cornyn, a former member of leadership, said he did not expect there to be 10 Republican votes to invoke cloture on replacing Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee. Cornyn was also asked whether Republicans would agree to assign a replacement for Feinstein if she were to resign early.
“We’ll cross that bridge … when we come to it,” Cornyn said. “We look forward to seeing her back.” Replacing Feinstein can be complicated, Senate history shows - Roll Call
That requires changing the rules to make it unfilibusterable, and manchinema have not gone along with those sort of rules changes in the past.
So,it’s on Newsom and Khanna Feinstein, k.
However, there’s one reason the dramatic scenario Tester warned of is highly unlikely: It would be a massive break with precedent.
Look up Mitch McConnell and after his name is the phrase “massive break with precedent.”
These guys are not going to play nice. That’s been clearly proven.
Hmm. Seems like this [refusing to fill a vacant seat] is an invitation for senators to start taking each other out willy nilly. Gotta deprive the other party of all their plum seats, right? A little blow dart here, a little nudge down the stairs there…
What should they do?
You don’t need to apologize, but goddammit, man, how about a trigger warning. Sheesh.
Hence my point about the 52.
We can absolutely trust Lindsey Graham to be consistent on what he says and does.
He’d never, for example, have one standard for appointing a Supreme Court justice under one president, boldly declare that you could quote him on it, and then go the complete opposite direction with another president in office.
He’d also certainly never be two faced enough to courageously declare himself to be done with a certain president forever only to go crawling back two weeks later.
By golly, he’s a man of integrity. If he says that Feinstein’s seat on the committee would be filled in the event that she retired, then his word is as good as gold. Just like that parent of the star QB prospect in the Jerry Mcguire movie, it is as strong as an oak.