Senate Invokes "Nuclear Option" to Confirm 48 Trump Nominees Long Delayed By Insurrectionist Democrats

You get what you deserve.

Late last week, Senate Republicans invoked the "nuclear option" to push through President Trump's nominees, after Senate Democrats dragged their feet on votes. In discussions prior to this, Senate Majority Leader John Thune noted, "It's time to take steps to restore Senate precedent and codify in Senate rules what once was understood to be standard practice -- and that is the Senate acting expeditiously on presidential nominations to allow a president to get his team into place."

Democrats complained, of course, with Chuck Schumer using this as an opportunity to claim Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat.

Today, the Senate voted under those new rules to confirm a group of 48 nominees in one fell swoop.

Here's more:

The U.S. Senate voted Thursday to approve dozens of nominees, acting on a rule change GOP leadership made last week that allows the chamber to confirm some of the president's appointees in large batches instead of one at a time.

The 51-47 vote followed weeks of debate over whether senators could work out a deal on groups of nominees, with Democrats warning along the way that any changes to Senate procedures that benefit the Trump administration now will likely aid a future Democratic president.

"What Republicans have done is chip away at the Senate even more to give Donald Trump more power and to rubber-stamp whomever he wants, whenever he wants them, no questions asked," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said last week after Republicans initiated the rule change.

Oh -- so you do understand that once a precedent is established, it both binds and empowers both parties.

I thought you didn't understand this because you're still crying that Carr "jawboned" ABC just like Biden jawboned the media and banks.

Meanwhile, Schumer has promised the Democrat base that he will block any new spending bill and shut down the government to force the GOP to do what he wants.

Gee I remember when Ted Cruz suggested using that power as leverage against the Democrats, and Schumer said that was the worst betrayal of our precious democracy ever.

But Democrats are fearful of a shutdown -- because they know, in the end, they'll just surrender, and Schumer's tough talk will end up hurting the party.

Congressional Democrats are understandably unhappy with what happened last time they faced a government-shutdown crisis. In March, Republicans forced them into a trap where they either had to vote for another GOP-sponsored stopgap-spending measure, which offered Democrats zero concessions, or obstruct it and trigger a shutdown, punishing the government employees who were already being besieged by Elon Musk's DOGE and other Trump administration attacks. In the House, where Democrats had no power at all, it was an easy choice: They all voted against the GOP measure. But in the Senate, where a filibuster could have very definitely stopped the bill, Democratic leader Chuck Schumer did a lot of saber-rattling but then caved, rounding up enough votes to end the filibuster and ensure the government stayed open.

Democratic activists were infuriated, and House Democrats suggested Senate Democrats were gutless. The whole episode accomplished nothing other than underlining Democratic Party fecklessness, the lack of unified party leadership, and the whip hand held by the bully Donald Trump and his subalterns in Congress.

Now they're back to a near-identical point as the spending authority approved in March runs out on September 30. Republicans are again offering an extension of current spending levels -- this one a short-term measure until November 20 -- with zero concessions to the Democrats whose votes are necessary to keep the government open.

...

In recognition of their leverage, Democrats began talking weeks ago about conditions that needed to be met to earn their votes to head off a shutdown. Some wanted the Trump administration to rein in budget director Russell Vought's highly provocative and probably unconstitutional spending clawbacks; why agree to spending levels if the people running the country felt free to ignore them? Others were interested in getting a grip on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s ravaging of U.S. science, medicine, and public-health infrastructure. But the main focus among Democrats was the issue they've long considered their strongest heading toward the 2026 midterms: the damage being done to Americans' access to health insurance. That meant demanding at a minimum the continuation of Obamacare premium subsidies due to expire at the end of the year, which were omitted from Trump's megabill because of their cost and the hatred of many Republicans of the president's signature policy accomplishment.

"You'll get nothing and like it." -- Smails, J.

I hope they do shut down the government. For one thing, it establishes this as a legitimate point of leverage, something GOPers can use later. When the Democrats cry, we'll just point out they did it.

Precedent. What a concept.

But the other thing is... when there's a shutdown, and the government has no funds, doesn't the president gain the incredible power to decide what spending is absolutely necessary and which can be suspended? Who will be kept on the payroll and who will be furloughed -- this time, without pay?

I think that is how it works.

That's a Briar Patch Trump definitely doesn't want to be thrown into.

When are they going to man up and kick this superannuated pansy out of leadership?

Right Angle News Network @Rightanglenews

BREAKING -- It has been revealed Senator Chuck Schumer received $4,000 in campaign donations from Jeffrey Epstein between 1992 and 1997, according to OpenSecrets records.

Unrelated: Trump shows the effete pansies of Europe what actual men are like.

posted by Ace at 12:00 PM

| Access Comments