#2 won't work either because Mitch sets the agenda/procedure for votes.

work that way.

would happen.

I'd further back-date matters to losing the Senate in 2014, actually. And the writing was on the wall even before then.

Still does not make giving up now a good idea in the least.

-app

possible..which at the moment is getting babies out of jail, and winning at least the house in 18 ...maybe the Senate...a groundswell of committed Democrats working to flip Republicans seats would be fighting back. Screaming about Democratic leaders not 'fighting' when we have given them no way to do so is merely self -defeating and lessons our chance at the ballot box in 18.

The female D senators need to reach out to female R senators - have round table discussions. Also, reach out to any moderate or retiring senators, convince them that their legacy is on the line, convince them to be a profile in courage.

Susan Collins, etc. on the female-R side disappoint fairly consistently, but maybe even they have a limit of decency somewhere.

And like you said, retiring Senators, both male and female, especially those with daughters or granddaughters of reproductive age. It's time for courage and honesty.

Democratic Senators need to grab every lever that's out there.

Thanks, OhioBlue. I spent the better part of five years in the little blue corner of Yellow Springs...

-app

I am in my 40s but remember at a tea with Dem activists celebrating Seneca Falls in '08, the conversation among the older women drifted to women they had known that lost their lives from unsafe abortions. The older Senators must remember.

Yellow Springs sounds delightful. I've never been there tho. It is a few hours from me.

If trump puts up Roy Moore type nominee, then I think you could easily see 3-4 say no. But if he nominates another qualified and respected(on their side at least) candidate like Gorsuch, then I doubt any would budge.

to stop judges...we had a chance in 14 and 16 and blew it.

After that, they have their 51

Are you saying that if McCain doesn't show, they don't have 51 to have a quorum? Wouldn't Pence just step in as President of Senate for 51?

He is not part of a quorum

So... without McCain, they cannot approve a nominee without at least one Dem?

As the link elaborates, yes, the Repubs need McCain to obtain quorum. But they need ALL of them (including McCain) to obtain quorum. Than means no campaign stops for Repubs, no visits to their home states, no evening fundraising calls... if Mitchy-boy wants something, he needs ALL of them. Meanwhile, Dems can (and should) be doing all of those things with their new-found free time.

-app

talked about a week or so ago...after all he only has to worry about a few Senators this year,

A quorum is presumed to be present unless someone demands a quorum call. No republican will do that, so it would have to be a Democrat and that would make 51.
It's possible that if no quorum call is made and a vote is held and only 50 Senators vote, the vote would be evidence of a lack of a quorum. Even if that's the case, all it would take is 26 of the Senators present to call for the Senate Sgt at Arms to go out and compel one of the missing senators to appear. Doing so would make everyone look bad and the odds that Manchin or Heitkamp would wait around for the Sgt at Arms are zero.

Then runs out of the building before it starts?

I am seriously grasping at straws lol

So, if the Democrat leaves, a republican asks that the quorum call be rescinded, no republican objects and its back to the presumption that a quorum is present.

So really, Repubs need only 49 Senators present, as there needs to be one Dem to object to quorum.

When posting the Vox link above, neither I nor (apparently) the author had thought about the need to call the question of quorum, which of course a group of solely Repubs would not do.

Thanks for the clarification.

-app

The President of the Senate can compel attendance

then the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol police would drag them back, cuffed if necessary. The President of the Senate can compel attendance and the Sergeant at Arms and Capitol police would go out and arrest any Senator trying to avoid quorum.

Congress is the only government body possessing the constitutional authority to make the law of the land. Yet, a SC decision becomes “the law of the land” even though Congress has had no role in the court’s decision-making process. In its present-day form, Roe v. Wade reads nothing like the original decision, and each subsequent decision to Roe by the SC has resulted in a new law of the land even though the power of the SC is limited solely to interpreting the constitutionality and applicability of laws passed by Congress.

I suggest that Congress create a committee empowered to review decisions of the SC to ensure that the SC has not and does do not go beyond their constitutional powers and has not infringed on Congress’ constitutional duty as the only body that can make the laws.

If the committee finds that the SC has not stayed within the scope of their constitutional powers, the committee can recommend that Congress repeal the present law and pass a new law and declare that the new law is to be the law of the land on the issue. This would nullify all prior SC decisions on the issue.

There are bumps to this idea as the passage of any such laws would still be subject to the same procedures currently required to pass laws. However, in the case of Roe v. Wade, perhaps voters may stay with Dems for the long haul if voters realize that the Dems are working to protect their rights from conservative judges on the SC.

There are other legal considerations to consider including to ensure that this process would not repeal a Roe v. Wade law passed by Congress should Dems not retain a majority in Congress.