Senate heads home with no deal to speed confirmations as irate Trump tells Schumer to ‘go to hell'
Without a deal in hand, Republicans say they may try to change Senate rules when they return in September to speed up the pace of confirmations. Trump has been pressuring senators to move quickly as Democrats blocked more nominees than usual this year, denying any fast unanimous consent votes and forcing roll calls on each one, a lengthy process that can take several days per nominee.
'I think they're desperately in need of change,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune said of Senate rules Saturday after negotiations with Schumer and Trump broke down. 'I think that the last six months have demonstrated that this process, nominations is broken. And so I expect there will be some good robust conversations about that.'
The latest standoff comes as Democrats and Republicans have gradually escalated their obstruction of the other party's executive branch and judicial nominees over the last two decades, and as Senate leaders have incrementally changed Senate rules to speed up confirmations — and make them less bipartisan.
In 2013, Democrats changed Senate rules for lower court judicial nominees to remove the 60-vote threshold for confirmations as Republicans blocked President Barack Obama's judicial picks. In 2017, Republicans did the same for Supreme Court nominees as Democrats tried to block Trump's nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Trump has been pressuring Senate Republicans for weeks to cancel the August recess and grind through dozens of his nominations as Democrats have slowed the process. But Republicans hoped to make a deal with Democrats instead, and came close several times over the last few days as the two parties and the White House negotiated over moving a large tranche of nominees in exchange for reversing some of the Trump administration's spending cuts on foreign aid, among other issues.
But it was clear that there would be no agreement when Trump attacked Schumer on social media Saturday evening and told them to pack it up and go home.
'Tell Schumer, who is under tremendous political pressure from within his own party, the Radical Left Lunatics, to GO TO HELL!' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'Do not accept the offer, go home and explain to your constituents what bad people the Democrats are, and what a great job the Republicans are doing, and have done, for our Country.'
Thune said afterward that there were 'several different times' when the two sides thought they had a deal, but in the end 'we didn't close it out.'
It's the first time in recent history that the minority party hasn't allowed at least some quick confirmations. Thune has already kept the Senate in session for more days, and with longer hours, this year to try and confirm as many of Trump's nominees as possible.
But Democrats had little desire to give in without the spending cut reversals or some other incentive, even though they too were eager to skip town after several long months of work and bitter partisan fights over legislation.
'We have never seen nominees as flawed, as compromised, as unqualified as we have right now,' Schumer said Saturday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
39 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Disguising taxes as tariffs to pay for military spending has always been Trump's plan
Donald Trump's approach to negotiating as outlined in his book 'The Art of the Deal,' is to only show the cards that you are going to discard and keep hidden those you are actually going to play. When it comes to tariffs, Trump is framing them as needed to control fentanyl, illegal immigration and build up the U.S. manufacturing industry, while claiming foreign countries are going to pay for tariffs. But these are carrots being dangled in front of the U.S. public to divert attention away from what Trump intends to pursue behind the scenes. I suspect the card that he is hiding and wants to play is to fund a huge increase in military spending. However, the U.S. has the largest absolute debt among G7 nations — about $37 trillion in 2025. In fact, its deficit this year will be more than three times that of Canada as a percentage of GDP. Many economists will tell you that U.S. debt is at critical levels and deficit increases are unsustainable.
Toronto Star
39 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Russia says it no longer will abide by its self-imposed moratorium on intermediate-range missiles
MOSCOW (AP) — Russia has declared that it no longer considers itself bound by a self-imposed moratorium on the deployment of nuclear-capable intermediate range missiles, a warning that potentially sets the stage for a new arms race as tensions between Moscow and Washington rise again over Ukraine. In a statement Monday, the Russian Foreign Ministry linked the decision to efforts by the U.S. and its allies to develop intermediate range weapons and preparations for their deployment in Europe and other parts of the world. It specifically cited U.S. plans to deploy Typhoon and Dark Eagle missiles in Germany starting next year.
Montreal Gazette
39 minutes ago
- Montreal Gazette
Opinion: Will the Supreme Court throw Legault a lifeline?
Op Eds A decision from the Supreme Court this fall could potentially reshape Quebec and Canadian politics for years to come. It could also be the political lifeline François Legault was secretly praying for. Canada's top court has announced it will begin public hearings on the legal challenge to Bill 21 in September. A record 38 groups are to testify before the justices, most of them publicly opposed to Quebec's secularism law. With his Coalition Avenir Québec trailing far behind in the polls, Legault couldn't have wished for better timing. The clock is ticking on next fall's general election, and he desperately needs a drastic shift in public opinion. It's unlikely the cabinet shuffle he promised at the beginning of summer will be enough to revive his government's fortunes. He needs much more than that. A constitutional showdown with Ottawa could be the catalyst Legault is looking for. A strong majority of Quebecers support the principle of separating state and religions. This debate has been simmering for over two decades now — remember Hérouxville, Bouchard-Taylor and the 'reasonable accommodations' crisis under Jean Charest? For many voters, especially francophones, secularism has become over the years a fundamental, non-negotiable value. When it was first adopted in 2019, Bill 21 was supported by nearly two-thirds of Quebecers. If the Supreme Court rules against it, the backlash could be fierce — and Legault may try to harness the public's anger to his advantage. In his position, a smart move might be to call a snap general election, asking for a strong mandate to defend Quebec's core values and fight for the right to legislate without federal interference. At this stage, it could be his last remaining wild card — both to save face and to salvage his party's future. At the heart of the case lies an important legal question: Can a province invoke pre-emptively Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — the so-called 'notwithstanding clause' — in order to shield legislation from future court challenges? But the clause exists for a good reason. As former Quebec minister and respected constitutional scholar Benoît Pelletier once wrote: 'Contrary to what some have argued, the notwithstanding power does not undermine the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Rather, it is part of it. It is intended to ensure that collective interests are fairly taken into account.' A ruling against Bill 21 could spark a constitutional crisis the likes of which Canada hasn't seen since the failure of the Meech Lake Accord 35 years ago. For many Quebecers, it would be seen as blatant and abusive federal overreach into the province's internal affairs — a move that could even reignite debates over Quebec's place in Canada and bolster support for sovereignty. Aside from Legault, Parti Québécois Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon is likely watching with anticipation. A nationalist surge in response to the court's ruling could benefit both the CAQ and PQ — potentially at the expense of Pablo Rodriguez's Quebec Liberal Party. So it seems the Supreme Court is walking a political tightrope. There's reason to be wary when unelected judges appear poised to tell millions of people — and their democratically elected National Assembly — that they are wrong on an issue as emotionally, historically and culturally charged as secularism in Quebec — a society which, even 60 years after the Quiet Revolution, still bears the scars of centuries of domination by the then all-powerful Catholic Church. If nationalists play their cards right, the consequences of this ruling could extend far beyond the specific legal question, potentially pushing more Quebecers to seek greater autonomy or even independence from the rest of country. With just a year to go before the next provincial election, the Supreme Court's decision could prove to be a major — and risky — political turning point. The stakes are high, and Canada's unity now rests in the hands of its nine Justices.
