Harry Reid Will Force Vote on Loretta Lynch if GOP Delays Any Longer

[highplainsdem]

Source: Mediaite

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) says he will force a vote on Loretta Lynch‘s attorney general nomination if it is delayed any longer by Senate Republicans, Mediaite has learned. Reid, the outgoing Senate minority leader, will call for the vote in an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow set to air on Thursday night.

“We’ve put up with this far too long and we’re going to need to have a vote on her very soon that’s created by Mitch McConnell or I’ll create one,” Reid will say. “I can still do that. I know parliamentary procedure around here and we’re going to put up with this for a little while longer but not much.”

When Maddow questioned whether Reid has the power to override Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Reid will say he “absolutely” has the power to force votes.

“If we don’t get something done soon I will force a vote,” the minority leader will say. “I had a conversation today with a number of republicans and told them really to get her done or I will make sure they will have an opportunity to vote against her.”

-snip-

Read more: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harry-reid-will-force-vote-on-loretta-lynch-if-gop-delays-any-longer/

[Kelvin Mace]

1. So, if he has the power to "force votes"

why has this power lain fallow for long?

[PoliticAverse]

6. Because he doesn't want to disturb the collegial atmosphere of the senate... n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

9. Collegial atmosphere? LOL. The Senate is a mess.

He could call for an executive session, but I'm pretty sure that either requires unanimous consent or a majority vote.

His other option is shutting down everything until there's a vote on Lynch.

[onenote]

11. No. Because it's not as easy as you think it is.

In this particular situation, Reid believes he can pull it off. I am unconvinced, but this is probably a unique situation.

The rules of the Senate are pretty arcane and your assumptions about how easy it would be to force a vote from a minority position is evidence that you aren't all that familiar with the.

Let me put it this way: if it was that easy to do, why didn't the Repubs force votes when they were in the minority. Reid successfully bottled up a lot of legislation that got through the House but never got a vote in the Senate.

[PoliticAverse]

12. Just because something isn't used more doesn't mean it isn't 'easy'. Case in point

the 'nuclear option'. Reid didn't invoke it until he got fed up with the Republicans
lack of action on nominations. He could have easily invoked it any time before that.

[staggerleem]

18. But there is a reason that they refer to it as the "nuclear option"!

Because you can blow YOURSELF up with it, too. And only the MAJORITY can use that anyway, so it's denied to the Democrats now.

If Harry has an Ace up his sleeve, he doesn't want to tip it too early, because the majority party makes the rules, and can it change them whenever they want.

Chances are this is a well you can only go to once, and then it runs dry - so you have to pick your opportunity carefully.

[awoke_in_2003]

19. Because he is, either accidentally or purposely

an ineffective leader, whether majority in the past or minority now. He is a joke.

[jwirr]

2. Something has to be done.

[benld74]

3. Quit saying you will and JUST Do It!

[Phlem]

28. No shit.

Yesterday already, we've got a full load, git er done. Oh wait it must be tea time.

[lamp_shade]

4. According to this article from Politico...

"To force a vote on Lynch, the Nevada Democrat would have to get at least four Republicans to join with Democrats on a procedural vote to begin the process of calling up Lynch’s nomination, a steep but not impossible hurdle given that five GOP senators publicly support Lynch."


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/sex-trafficking-bill-abortion-loretta-lynch-dispute-117049.html

[Calista241]

5. Just because they support Lynch doesn't mean they're going to go along with humiliating McConnell.

They can say they support Lynch, and can ultimately vote for her when she comes up.

You have to wonder though, she's got what 18 months on the job before the next President takes over. At what point does she say "it's not worth it" and bow out of contention?

[PoliticAverse]

7. It could take awhile until the next president gets an AG confirmed as well. n/t

[Calista241]

8. I dunno, AG is a pretty important position

Most President's have that named picked out before the end of November after their election on the 4th. Those names could be submitted asap. John Ashcroft was confirmed on Feb 2, 2001, and Holder was confirmed on Feb 9th 2009.

I learned that Holder actually served as the acting AG for 13 days, from January 20th, 2001 to Feb 2, 2001. I never knew that before looking up the info for this post.

[PoliticAverse]

10. It certainly will be quick if the President's party also wins the Senate in 2016. n/t

[Cal33]

13. Yes, more Democrats will vote in 2016 than they did in 2014.

[riqster]

17. Damn well better.

Our 2014 turnout was a disgrace.

[geek tragedy]

15. They should just keep Holder and send him into

oversight hearings flipping the double bird.

[Calista241]

16. I suspect the GOP is more than happy to keep a weakened Holder there.

According to the LA Times, non-urgent decisions are not being made, and the department is in "limbo."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-lynch-confirmation-20150413-story.html

[freshwest]

14. He's doing it because he just arm twisted those GOP votes. It took time, but there it is!

Hope to see more cracks in their wall of obstruction. If one of the reports I read on DU today comes to pass, the GOP will lose their majority in 2016. We a Demcratic POTUS to work with them and not obstruct.

[calimary]

20. I like MY idea better.

Last edited Fri Apr 17, 2015, 10:27 PM - Edit history (1)

That handful of GOPers he's counting on - CANNOT be counted on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026523619

And I turned out to be correct on this, too. It's Friday night, and I heard in the news earlier this evening that two CONS Harry Reid was counting among the handful who he'd expected to act reasonably - have backed out on that and have joined their party's obstruction. I'm not surprised. I hope Harry Reid wasn't, either. Seriously. He should know, by now, who he's dealing with.

[Owl]

21. So DO it already!

[TeamPooka]

22. It's very easy. Here's how Harry Reid could force a vote for anything he wants in the Senate....

Organize the Democrats in the Senate to FILIBUSTER EVERY FUCKING BILL the GOP puts up for a vote.
EVERY FUCKING BILL.
Then they will have to deal with it like we did for the last 6 years.

Fuck the GOP and their fucking vision for a tax free life for the richest folks in the country while cutting every service the nation should provide for its citizens.

[ejbr]

23. +1 n/t

[redruddyred]

29. can't wait for the inevitable comparisons to hitler, etc.

rethugs have no sense of irony.

[Gman]

24. The thing is, there would probably only be

20-something votes against her.

[Javaman]

25. the elephant in the room asks...

why wasn't she voted on BEFORE the rebukes took power?

just more kabuki theater.

[hughee99]

30. Apparently Harry had no power to force a vote

When he was majority leader.

[Gothmog]

26. I hope that Harry Reid forces this vote

[William769]

27. Kick & highly recommended.