"No unanimous consent" doesn't mean "no UCs on nominations," it means no unanimous consent on anything. They do several every day. Most aren't on confirming a particular nominee as such. They're mundane procedures. Adjournments. Letting the 'morning hour' be deemed expired. Approving the journal. - ThreadSky

andycraig.bsky.social • 16 days ago

"No unanimous consent" doesn't mean "no UCs on nominations," it means no unanimous consent on anything. They do several every day. Most aren't on confirming a particular nominee as such. They're mundane procedures. Adjournments. Letting the 'morning hour' be deemed expired. Approving the journal.

Comments

ryannorthmiller.com•16 days ago

Honest question: what is the internal explanation for why this is not happening? What's the argument against it?

josephusbrown.bsky.social•16 days ago

They’re fucking lazy

avidscroller.bsky.social•16 days ago

I don't know for certain, but my suspicion is that they worry that they'll get the same treatment the next time they're the majority - whether such measures are justified or not.

msderohanes.bsky.social•15 days ago

I think so too, pros vs cons thing.

Nothing is gained from unanimous consent when not on nominations or legislation. Dems will be the story & Repubs will do the same when Dems need to do housekeeping.

& Time is better used with Dems doing protests & events with People.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5129353-gop-support-for-musk-influence-with-trump-falls-dramatically-poll/

hunnybun100.bsky.social•16 days ago

Trying to make some side deal with the hostage takers not kill my pet issue, aka largest donors govt money

mefcorv.bsky.social•15 days ago

Because it pisses off literally every Senator and they still think they might find a friendly.

wrycke.bsky.social•15 days ago

Of course, they aren't even implementing their strategy properly. You need two or three "crazies" to shut everything down so a "reasonable" person can approach Collins, Murkowski, etc.

jacksquatto.bsky.social•15 days ago

At some point don't they just change the Senate rules to streamline and steamroll the Dems on everything? All of those techniques go away as well as the filibuster and they'll feel good doing it in response to such gear grinding on everything. No?

essaywells.bsky.social•15 days ago

Then *make them do that*. The current tactic of letting them win without even fighting is not giving results.

bobsyouruncle.bsky.social•15 days ago

I don’t know but I would expect it would take a super majority or something to change the rules

mefcorv.bsky.social•15 days ago

They would have to change the rules to a new, non Robert’s version.

jacksquatto.bsky.social•15 days ago

It's a simple majority to change the rules.

mefcorv.bsky.social•15 days ago

Sure, but they would have to change the rules to something else. Either they change to another established set of parliamentary rules, or they have to sit and make up a set of rules

zachthefowle.bsky.social•15 days ago

Democrats should do everything Republicans did to impede the work of the majority party, and then some. Deny unanimous consent. Filibuster every bill. Call for a quorum constantly. Knock their books out of their hands in the hallway. Hit them with spitballs while they're speaking. Whatever it takes.

oaklandishdude.bsky.social•10 days ago

📌

lenoxus.bsky.social•15 days ago

Given the word "unanimous", does this mean literally just one senator can do all of that?

hopstache.bsky.social•16 days ago

ritamoore.bsky.social•15 days ago

📌

profhalloran.bsky.social•15 days ago

It is sooo easy to grind the Senate to an absolute halt and make life *miserable* for every single Senator (but, especially, for the senators of the majority party who need to attend to that majority in every single quotidian transaction).

It would put an enormous amount of pressure on Republicans.

benhosp.bsky.social•16 days ago

A problem here is that it is not entirely clear to me how rendering the Senate at least temporarily incapable of conducting business is a good strategy for the pro-Congressional power side in an impoundment crisis.

sadieheartsclyde.bsky.social•16 days ago

For one thing it give the courts a chance to catch and if they had slow rolled Pam bondi wouldn’t be in DOJ before Elon lied to a federal judge. Keep Kash Patel as far away from this for as long as you can

benhosp.bsky.social•15 days ago

But what would actually be the practical effect of DOJ not having its confirmed AG in place when that happened?

mefcorv.bsky.social•15 days ago

She wouldn’t be in a position to fire people for having ethics.

benhosp.bsky.social•15 days ago

Do you think the people wouldn’t be getting fired somehow?

mefcorv.bsky.social•15 days ago

Less legitimacy for it.

shaulabrent.bsky.social•16 days ago

DO IT!!!!!

ruviewer.bsky.social•16 days ago

📌

ejcrotty.bsky.social•16 days ago

Damn it @schiff.senate.gov @schatz.bsky.social @schumer.senate.gov - BRING IT ALL TO A HALT. You can slow the carnage. Why aren't you?

kyleiphd.bsky.social•16 days ago

Grind everything to a damn halt! We are in a RUN OUT THE CLOCK situation!!

msderohanes.bsky.social•15 days ago

Run out the clock on what tho?

What is the gain from grinding down the Senate to a stop when there is no nomination or legislation to consider?

Republicans are STILL sticking with Trump & Musk, even with this horrendous polling ⬇️ they nonetheless confirmed Vought today.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5129353-gop-support-for-musk-influence-with-trump-falls-dramatically-poll/

younodonk.bsky.social•15 days ago

Based on the article you posted, running out the clock on Elon & Donald's narcissistic friendship.

berndtpetersen.bsky.social•15 days ago

If dem senators did this, it would dramatically raise public awareness about how not normal this is…

mefcorv.bsky.social•15 days ago

While they aren’t confirmed, they have less power to act.

mikeytsi.bsky.social•15 days ago

The point is "you don't get to push any of these nominations forward. Absolutely no business gets done."

andycraig.bsky.social•16 days ago

Granting no UCs on nominations draws those out somewhat, but is distinctly not the same thing and not going nearly as far as a true "grind the Senate to a halt" strategy would.

andycraig.bsky.social•16 days ago

And beyond that, it wouldn't just be objecting to UCs. It would also be making all the possible motions you could and demanding recorded votes on them.

andycraig.bsky.social•16 days ago

You can, to pick just one example, offer amendments to the journal every day. It doesn't matter if they're bullshit, the journal as prepared obviously isn't inaccurate. Hell, you can then vote against your own proposed amendment. But you can still waste time with having a vote.

andycraig.bsky.social•16 days ago

If your goal is to waste as much time as possible, and that *should* be the goal here, then you don't limit yourself to objections and motions and recorded votes where you actually oppose that particular thing on the merits. It's about forcing delay in every possible way you can, on everything.

phoenicopter7.bsky.social•15 days ago

Scorched-earth weaponization of bureaucratic procedure, LFG

memphis11.bsky.social•15 days ago

Is there to be a stated resolution to no longer doing this (or start)?

memphis11.bsky.social•15 days ago

Like public facing can be all the reasons, but I'd assume institutionally you'd probs need a reason for the procedural stance. Is it Trump (he should have already been impeached!), Musk (he's doing dangerous constitutional crisis w approval of Trump), GOP no longer a valid counterparty broadly.

andycraig.bsky.social•16 days ago

For example, don't just object to UC on an adjournment and then also request a recorded vote. Offer an amendment, too. Change the time to reconvene by ten minutes! And then a recorded vote on that, too. There you go, you've just burned the better part of an hour. There are still only 24 in day.

andycraig.bsky.social•16 days ago

There are vast amounts of things that go by where it's just pro forma floor management housekeeping stuff, where normally nobody would ever bother offering an amendment. But it is still in order to do so, you *can* make motions and amendments and points of order on that stuff.

chasmat.bsky.social•16 days ago

If you vote against it can't you then move to reconsider the motion?

andycraig.bsky.social•16 days ago

I'm not sure offhand if that would apply to that example, but in general yes.

schroedinger.bsky.social•16 days ago

It's Robert's rules of order in the Senate right? I know several local politicians who I've seen make better use of them than any Senate Dem.

jamsbg.bsky.social•15 days ago

It blows my mind that the GOP has literally given a class in how to obstruct everything over the last number of decades, and the Dems can't seem to figure it out.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply