This deal was an incredibly bad one. Schumer got almost nothing for killing the nominations of 4 appellate nominees for lifetime seats on the bench. Even if Park and Mangi didn't have the votes and Schumer couldn't figure out how to ensure enough absences to get them through, it's more than likely that he could have gotten Campbell and L…
This deal was an incredibly bad one. Schumer got almost nothing for killing the nominations of 4 appellate nominees for lifetime seats on the bench. Even if Park and Mangi didn't have the votes and Schumer couldn't figure out how to ensure enough absences to get them through, it's more than likely that he could have gotten Campbell and Lipez. He should have forced Collins to vote yes or use it as an issue in 2026 ("Sen. Collins killed the nomination of a moderate nominee to give the seat to Donald Trump").
Schumer could have--should have--gotten so much more from this deal. He should have demanded unanimous consent on all the remaining district nominees--no more wasting time on unnecessary cloture votes. He should have demanded an SJC hearing on the remaining district nominees, and to go to an immediate SJC vote the following day, as was done in the past. No messing around with "a week for written questions" and "a week to holdover." Then move them to the floor as soon as possible. That means Farhadi Weinstein, Kanter, Shaw-Wilder, and Jackson--no exceptions.
Schumer is so bad at this he's going to leave 2 SDNY seats open for Trump to fill. That's in his backyard. He had leverage--he has the majority, and only Mangi and Park were questionable as to whether they'd get all 51 Democratic votes. Did he think Thune is going to play nice since they got what they wanted from Schumer? It is to laugh. The sooner we get a new Dem Leader in the Senate, the better.
That makes no sense. Schumer had the majority--"what was available" were a series of votes where Democrats outvoted Republicans each time. I agree that some of the nominees wouldn't have made it--Mangi and Park seemed the most vulnerable, and something happened with Kanter that she never got an ABA evaluation--but Democrats had the votes for the others. Campbell would have been a party line vote, and as I said, Collins should have been forced to take a stand one way or the other on Lipez. As it is, it's questionable that they get Murillo and Cheeks, who should have been part of the deal.
not an ad hominem attack; an honest evaluation; but I am sure you will keep responding but that's ok cause I'm done reading any more of your inane posts; Cheers🍻
This deal was an incredibly bad one. Schumer got almost nothing for killing the nominations of 4 appellate nominees for lifetime seats on the bench. Even if Park and Mangi didn't have the votes and Schumer couldn't figure out how to ensure enough absences to get them through, it's more than likely that he could have gotten Campbell and Lipez. He should have forced Collins to vote yes or use it as an issue in 2026 ("Sen. Collins killed the nomination of a moderate nominee to give the seat to Donald Trump").
Schumer could have--should have--gotten so much more from this deal. He should have demanded unanimous consent on all the remaining district nominees--no more wasting time on unnecessary cloture votes. He should have demanded an SJC hearing on the remaining district nominees, and to go to an immediate SJC vote the following day, as was done in the past. No messing around with "a week for written questions" and "a week to holdover." Then move them to the floor as soon as possible. That means Farhadi Weinstein, Kanter, Shaw-Wilder, and Jackson--no exceptions.
Schumer is so bad at this he's going to leave 2 SDNY seats open for Trump to fill. That's in his backyard. He had leverage--he has the majority, and only Mangi and Park were questionable as to whether they'd get all 51 Democratic votes. Did he think Thune is going to play nice since they got what they wanted from Schumer? It is to laugh. The sooner we get a new Dem Leader in the Senate, the better.
"Schumer ... should have demanded unanimous consent on all the remaining district nominees – no more wasting time on unnecessary cloture votes."
How true! En bloc confirmation by unanimous consent.
wrong again; it's what was available
That makes no sense. Schumer had the majority--"what was available" were a series of votes where Democrats outvoted Republicans each time. I agree that some of the nominees wouldn't have made it--Mangi and Park seemed the most vulnerable, and something happened with Kanter that she never got an ABA evaluation--but Democrats had the votes for the others. Campbell would have been a party line vote, and as I said, Collins should have been forced to take a stand one way or the other on Lipez. As it is, it's questionable that they get Murillo and Cheeks, who should have been part of the deal.
As usual, you make no sense; your naivete of how actual politics works is sad or laughable depending on ones sense of humor
Ad hominem attacks are usually a sign that someone doesn't have a good argument.
not an ad hominem attack; an honest evaluation; but I am sure you will keep responding but that's ok cause I'm done reading any more of your inane posts; Cheers🍻
Schumer has a nominal majority. But do we know whether Manchin and Sinema would have gone along?
Of course not.that deal was as good as it gets. our side lost, reality should set in, but with this poser above, unicorns I guess must be real
Collins survived voting for ACB, I dont think forcing her to vote on a lower court nominee would matter at all.