476
submitted 1 year ago by ATQ@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

https://archive.li/uexvJ

Tuberville, who's singlehandedly blocked hundreds of military promotions in protest over the Pentagon's abortion policies, said he's not going to change his mind and doesn't care that people aren't being promoted.

After the US Supreme Court reversed decades of precedent in overturning its decision in the Roe v. Wade abortion access case in 2022, the Pentagon announced its plan to reimburse service members who need to travel out-of-state to receive abortion services.

Tuberville, a Republican senator out of Alabama, took exception to the decision and said he'd use his power to stymie any military nominations and promotions he could. Since February, he's blocked more than 300 promotions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] knotthatone@lemmy.one 70 points 1 year ago

He's an ass, but this isn't single-handed. He only has this power because his fellow Republicans (and Manchin, and probably Sinema) are allowing it. If a handful of Republicans wanted to fix this, they absolutely could.

[-] teft@startrek.website 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

From an NPR article:

Why don't the Senate leaders stop him?

The current Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has made it clear he considers Tuberville's blockade an abuse and an outrage. The GOP's McConnell has also said he does not support the "blanket hold" on military nominations. Both have acknowledged the pleas coming from the Pentagon and from the ranks, and they have done what they could to encourage Tuberville to stand down.

But the leaders cannot simply bulldoze the senator from Alabama. Their power is restrained by Senate rules and traditions and by the sentiments of their respective caucuses.

If the issue here were an ordinary piece of legislation, the leaders would seek a unanimous consent agreement that would bring that matter to the floor. Individual senators may object to that with a notice that they seek "extended debate" on that legislation. This is an implicit threat to filibuster, and the majority leader routinely files a cloture petition and holds a vote.

If cloture fails, the legislation does not go to the floor. If three-fifths of the Senate supports cloture, the legislation can be brought to the floor with time limits on debate.

Presidential nominations have been largely exempt from this since 2013 when a Democratic Senate majority decided only nominations to the Supreme Court would be subject to filibusters. In 2017, a Republican majority decided to extend that exemption to include Supreme Court nominations.

Nonetheless, Tuberville's maneuver has the effect of freezing confirmations for the current backlog presidential nominations because they are submitted in batches for group consideration and approval. The batching procedure itself requires unanimous consent, allowing even one senator to stand in the way.

The Senate majority leader could bring the nominations to the floor one by one for consideration by regular procedure, but that would require two to three days for each. Had the Senate tried to individually process even the first 150 promotions Tuberville blocked back in February, it could have done little else in the months since – and it would still be far behind on confirmations. That is scarcely practical when the military alone submits hundreds a year and the larger executive branch far more.

Moreover, just as the Pentagon bristles at having a single senator dictate its personnel policy, so the Senate leaders are loath to have individual senators deciding when and if the Senate can proceed with normal business using its usual procedures – such as the batching of nominations.

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 39 points 1 year ago

Translation: there's nothing really stopping us from going around Tuberville, but we feel the senate's stupid arcane rules are more important than national security and having responsible people in charge if Trump tries to do a coup again.

[-] GivingEuropeASpook@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago

Literally. Oh, it's too long to do it one by one? Maybe prioritize then? Confirm 2-3 of the biggest promotions in order to prevent the Senate from abdicating it's Constitutional responsibility and ceding control of the military entirely to the executive.

I really don't care about US military readiness but I do value checks and balances, and right now the Senate is refusing to serve as one.

[-] evatronic@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

You know what happens when I have a lot of work to do and not enough time in the workday? I stay late. I work weekends. I drink a lot of coffee and get that shit done.

"It takes too long"? Fuck you, keep the Senate in session and do nomination after nomination until these geriatric fucks pass out.

[-] JackiesFridge@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Seriously! If I worked the same way these idiots do, my entire organization would grind to a halt.

.......oooohhhhhhhhhh

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
476 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3069 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS