Republicans block effort to replace Feinstein on Judiciary panel

A contentious battle was underway on Capitol Hill Thursday to replace Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who has served on the judiciary committee for three decades. Republicans had been trying to move forward on their alternative to President Obama's judicial nominee for the seat, but to no avail. The fight spilled into the evening, with Republicans accusing Democrats of trying to steal a Supreme Court justice and delaying a vote on multiple fronts.

An Effort To Replace Feinstein

Freshman Sen. Josh Hawley introduced a motion to proceed with a debate on Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court. The legislation needed a simple majority to advance, but fell short by just one vote. Without a vote to spare, the motion failed. The vote revealed how closely the Republicans' position mirrored that of President Trump, who had previously weighed in on Twitter to push for Barrett's confirmation.

Supreme Court Battle

The same side of the Capitol also witnessed a high-stakes argument between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer over the judiciary committee's vote to debate and potentially confirm Judge Barrett. Schumer had tried to delay the vote for as long as possible, demanding a recorded debate and more time for committee members to review Judge Barrett's record. McConnell accused Schumer of playing politics with the Supreme Court's future and threatened to invoke parliamentary rules to bring the debate to a close.

Fight Over SCOTUS Nominee Continues

The back-and-forth continued well into the evening. First, Sen. Richard Blumenthal introduced a bill that would have blocked Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court, calling it a threat to the country. The legislation was designed to prevent the Senate from going into a recess during the middle of the term, so the high court would still have a full year to decide cases. The legislation needed at least 60 votes to advance, which is one more than the yeas required to end the filibuster on any bill.

Then came word that the Senate would not be permitted into a recess during the middle of the current term, throwing the debate over the Supreme Court nominee into even more chaos. If a senator wants to avoid a conflict of interest, he or she must step down from any committee on which the nomination was pending and recused himself or herself from any votes related to the nomination. In the aftermath, many Democrats were furious that Republicans had blocked a vote on any Supreme Court nominee. Some even called for McConnell's head. Others just wanted to see the debate and vote on Judge Barrett as scheduled. The turmoil had lasted well into Thursday night on both sides of the Capitol. (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/us/politics/judge-barrett-supreme-court-nominee-trump.html)

Democrats' Response

After the chaotic night on the judiciary committee, Senate Democrats held a press conference, with Minority Whip Steny Hoyer saying, "There will be a vote tomorrow." Hoyer went on to say that, with a majority of Democrats in the Senate, they intended to confirm Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court. But first, he said, they would try and find a compromise with Republicans on an alternative nominee.

The Democrats had some surprising support for their proposed alternative. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he would back the bill, while other high-ranking Democrats like Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Tim Kaine have also voiced support for the idea. (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/us/politics/judge-barrett-supreme-court-nominee-trump.html)

Why Is This An Issue?

This is an issue because it touches on one of the most sensitive issue in American politics: the Supreme Court. For more than half a century, the court's decisions have been a major point of contention between the political parties. Democrats want to ensure that the court moves to the left while Republicans want the opposite.

Throughout the campaign, Trump made clear that he would nominate judges who would “reverse” the court's 5-4 decisions in favor of LGBT rights, reproductive freedom and gun control. In an interview with The New York Times, he said that he thought it would be “great” if the court went “back to the days of when it was a classical court” and decided cases based on “the text of the Constitution.”

To some extent, these comments made it easier for Republicans to oppose Trump's nominee. After all, they would be replacing a justice who would be likely to vote in favor of expanding LGBT rights, as she did in her 2015 decision in favor of a Hawaii marriage equality lawsuit. Or, they could look at Barrett's record and decide that, because she had a relatively light caseload as a circuit judge in her native Michigan, she was not the right fit for the Supreme Court.

Barrett's Confirmation Hearing

The following day, the Senate held a confirmation hearing for Barrett. The Republicans' proposed alternative had not been accepted, but the discussion had nonetheless spurred a fierce debate. Schumer was on hand to support Barrett's nomination. The nominee defended herself against allegations from some Democrats that she was insufficiently conservative and, at times, seemed to court the political right. (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/21/heres-how-clarify-proposed-alternative-to-obama-s-court-nominee-barrett.html)

When it was McConnell's turn to question Barrett, he accused her of committing “a sin” by remaining on the bench without a political agenda. In an effort to defend herself, she said that her decisions were “not based on any preconceived judgment or bias” and that she was “honest and open” in the cases she handled. When pressed about whether or not she would be a “rubber stamp” for Trump's agenda, Barrett said that she would not. She also said that she did not believe the president was “above the law.” (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/21/heres-how-clarify-proposed-alternative-to-obama-s-court-nominee-barrett.html)

More Issues

While the battle over the Supreme Court is arguably the most high-profile fight brewing on Capitol Hill, it is far from the only one. Multiple other committees are also holding hearings on judicial nominees, including the Energy, Environment and Public Works Committee for Andrew Wheeler, Trump's nominee for EPA administrator. (https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0920/84056-trump-administration-court-nominations-judges-235520.html)

Conservatives are also concerned that the Senate will not hold a confirmation vote on a number of Trump's nominees. The White House has yet to set a vote schedule for many of its nominees, which has led to a groundswell of opposition from Democrats and Republicans alike. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-nominees-awaiting-a-vote/2017/09/21/5bbf97b8-c8fb-11e7-b1fa-79f3fadca02_story.html)

Who Will Be Affected?

Multiple courts and court-related entities could be affected by the bickering on Capitol Hill. The Supreme Court, which decides the most important cases, could see its annual term begin on October 1. Depending on the outcome of the upcoming battle, the court could end up with as few as three justices, or it could be as many as eight.

To date, the most prominent battle has been over the replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is nearing the end of her career. If Trump is able to nominate a replacement for Ginsburg and that person is confirmed by the Senate, it would reshape American jurisprudence. If, however, the GOP is unable to move forward with Trump's nominee, it would, at the very least, throw the Supreme Court's decision-making into chaos.