"It's called precedent," the Senate Judiciary Committee chair said of violating the same rule that Republicans ignored to move forward with judicial nominees.

“It’s called precedent,” the Senate Judiciary Committee chair said of violating the same rule that Republicans ignored to move forward with judicial nominees.

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    13·
    1 year ago

    after Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) held votes on two of President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees without allowing debate on them

    Were these two opportunities for other nominees? You know that different people aren’t interchangeable, right? 🤦

    • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
      8·
      1 year ago

      That is an impressive selective reading of the article. One could be left to wonder how, in good faith, you could have possibly missed all of this:

      Durbin went straight to their votes, saying senators already had two chances to debate their nominations.
      …
      “I understand what you’d like to do, but I’m saying, in fairness, we’ve debated these nominees twice,” Durbin said. “I ask the clerk to call the roll.”
      …
      Through all this, Durbin sat expressionless, waiting for breaks in the attacks to quietly direct the clerk to continue the roll call. He periodically reminded Republicans that they’d already had two chances to debate both nominees in two separate hearings.
      …
      “This is the third time they were brought up,” he added of the two nominees at the center of Thursday’s hearing. “That’s the reason the ruling was made by the chair.”
      …
      A committee spokesperson noted that Kennedy spoke on Kasubhai in a Nov. 2 hearing and again in a Nov. 19 hearing, for a total of 12 minutes.
      …
      Graham spoke on both nominees in the Nov. 2 hearing, for about two minutes, too. And Cotton spoke on Kasubhai in the Nov. 9 hearing for about six minutes.