The WSJ has this editorial on a move by Senate Republicans to speed up confirmations. The rule would eliminate the requirement for 30 hours of debate for a cloture vote for lower-level nominees, excluding cabinet secretaries and appellate court nominees. The WSJ notes that in 2013, when the shoe was on the other foot and the Democrats had both the White House and a Senate majority, Senator McConnell agreed to only 8 hours. For the last two years, though, Democrats have required the full 30 hours even for unopposed nominees to such uncontroversial offices as the Federal Railroad Administration and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Obstructing these nominees is nothing but governmental vandalism.
We at C&C are particularly interested in the long-delayed nominations to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
I am pretty sure, Kent, that the USSC nominations you reference expired as of the end of the last Congress and that we are all now awaiting Prez Trump putting up a new (or old) slate of nominees. And there are now FIVE open slots on the USSC.
I have heard rumors about possible nominees, and perhaps the new confirmation rules can prompt faster nominations as well as faster confirmations. But, of course, folks need to be officially nominated before they can be confirmed.
In light of the passage of the FIRST STEP Act, and the obviously eagerness of the White House to see it is implemented well (as evidenced by a celebration event earlier this week), I am hopeful that nominations to the USSC will be coming very soon. But the considerable opposition that was generated in the wake of the prior nomination of Bill Otis has me somewhat concerned that there could be a political stalemate afoot in this arena.
I wasn't aware that the President hadn't reissued the nominations for USSC. That is curious. But they should have been voted on in the previous Congress, so when the nominations are made we should not have that long a delay.
As for the nominees, there was an equal and opposite controversial nominee, you know.
Well, FAMM formally came out against Bill Otis, the first time in its history it opposed a nominee, and I did not see any comparable formal opposition for any other nominee. You may be right that reissued nominations may be forthcoming, but we are now 3 months into a new Congress and there is still formally nothing for the new Senate to act on when it comes to the USSC. I surmise we both hope that will change soon.
I would regard opposition by FAMM as an endorsement.
Well, FAMM was keen on the FIRST STEP Act and that garnered the support of the Prez and 87 members of the Senate. So FAMM's view on these matters seem more in line with Prez Trump and with a super-majority of the Senate.
And ... ?
The fact that FAMM was on the winning side of a political battle does not change my view of them. They are still a good contrarian indicator. If they are opposed to something or someone, that makes it more likely that what or who they oppose is good policy or a good nomination.