The breakthrough came in a week in which Republicans were pushing to confirm four judicial nominees, and threatened to keep the Senate in over the weekend to get that done, if necessary. Under the current rules, nominees get 30 hours of debate, and to slow down the works, Democrats have been insisting on the use of all 30 hours.
Republicans also threatened to change the rule unilaterally to reduce the number of hours available for debate, unless Democrats agreed to speed things up. But one key Democrat indicated it was the threat of weekend work that made them agree to shorten the debate time and allow faster votes on President Trump's judges.
"We did a calculation," Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin told the Washington Examiner. "We could stay through the weekend and by Monday have the same result we are going to achieve. There was nothing to be gained by staying."
But Republicans were chalking it up as a victory.
"They completely caved," one GOP aide said of the Democrats.
The Senate confirmed Amy Barrett to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Seventh Circuit on Tuesday, and confirmed Joan Larsen for the Sixth Circuit on Wednesday. The Senate is expected to confirm Allison Eid for the Tenth Circuit and Stephanos Bibas to the 3rd Circuit by the end of the week, and possibly as early as Thursday.
Republicans believe their threat to change the rules is something that has Democrats thinking twice about dragging out the debate any longer. Democrats can't block any of Trump's nominees, as long as Republicans are united, thanks to a rule change Democrats imposed in 2013 that allows confirmations with just 51 votes, instead of 60.
But their decision to drag out the votes has been a thorn in the side of Senate Republicans. It has slowed Senate work to a crawl, leading some conservative groups to push Republican leaders to find a way to speed up the process.
The Republican answer last week was to try to renew a deal the two parties had in 2013 to shorten debate time for judges. And if Democrats don't agree, the GOP has said it would simply impose that rule on its own.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, said that threat is real.
"We can change the precedents of the Senate," he said. "If they keep abusing this 30-hour [debate] requirement, things are going to change."
Durbin indicated that Democrats would only do a deal to short debate time if Republicans drop their plans to circumvent the filibuster on tax reform legislation through reconciliation. Reconciliation allows legislation to pass with just 51 votes cuts out the leverage of Democrats, who are in the minority, and it's something Republicans are unlikely to give up.
"If the majority leader is talking about a more cooperative, bipartisan arrangement, he can start by eliminating the reconciliation approach," Durbin said.
Republicans say that's just bluster, and Cornyn said Durbin's explanation for resisting a deal is "bogus."
Still, it's not clear Democrats feel any urgency to cut a deal with the GOP. Other Democrats interviewed by the Washington Examiner who sit on the Senate Rules panel, which would coordinate an agreement, seemed uninterested or unaware of the effort.
"I've heard about it," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the Rules panel ranking Democrat. "I'll talk to [Majority Leader Mitch McConnell] about it."
Durbin, who also sits on the Rules Committee, said he is not aware of any negotiations to shorten debate time. In contrast, Rules Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said the talks are happening but did not disclose the details.
That could mean Democrats are content for now to shorten debate on a week-by-week basis, although Durbin made no promises they would agree to that, and said it depends on which nominees are on the floor.
"We'll see," he told the Washington Examiner.
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter