this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
101 points (95.5% liked)

politics

18966 readers
1 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

cross-posted from: https://dubvee.org/post/190613

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is poised to confirm a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Wednesday as Democrats try to maneuver around holds placed on hundreds of nominations by Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville over the Pentagon’s abortion policy.

Tuberville has been blocking the Senate from approving military nominations in groups, frustrating Democrats who had said they would not go through the time-consuming process of bringing up individual nominations for a vote.

But Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., reversed course on Wednesday and moved to force votes on three of the most senior nominees: Gen. CQ Brown to replace Gen. Mark Milley as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when Milley resigns on Sept. 30, as is required by law; Gen. Randy George to be Army Chief of Staff and Gen. Eric Smith, who is nominated to be commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.

Tuberville did not object to the confirmation votes, saying he will maintain his holds but is fine with bringing up the nominations individually for roll call votes — a process that could take months and delay other priorities.

“Senator Tuberville is forcing us to face his obstruction head on,” Schumer said. “I want to make clear to my Republican colleagues — this cannot continue.”

Brown’s confirmation is expected Wednesday evening, and confirmation votes on Smith and George are expected this week.

White House national security spokesman John Kirby said that while the likely confirmation of the three nominees is positive news, “we should have never been in this position.”

“While good for these three officers, it doesn’t fix the problem or provide a path forward for the 316 other general and flag officers that are held up by this ridiculous hold,” Kirby told reporters.

Tuberville said on Wednesday that he will continue to hold up the other nominations unless the Pentagon ends its policy of paying for travel when a service member has to go out of state to get an abortion or other reproductive care. The Biden administration instituted the policy after the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to an abortion and some states have limited or banned the procedure.

“Let’s do one at a time or change the policy back,” Tuberville said after Schumer put the three nominations up for a vote. “Let’s vote on it.”

In an effort to force Tuberville’s hand, Democrats had said previously that they would not put individual nominations on the floor, since it would take months to confirm them all individually. “There’s an old saying in the military, leave no one behind,” Senate Armed Services Chairman Jack Reed said in July.

But in a frustrated speech on the Senate floor, Schumer said Wednesday he was left with no other choice.

“Senator Tuberville is using them as pawns,” Schumer said of the nominees.

The holds have frustrated members on both sides of the aisle, and it is still unclear how the larger standoff will be resolved. Schumer did not say if he will put additional nominations on the floor.

The monthslong holds have devolved into a convoluted procedural back and forth in recent days.

Tuberville claimed victory after Schumer’s move, even though the Pentagon policy remains unchanged.

“We called them out, and they blinked,” he told reporters of Schumer.

no comments (yet)
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here