There is a reason the Left went all in to stop the election of Sen. JD Vance in Ohio. Like that other Republican son of the Buckeye State, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, this man knows how to fight. His plan is to vote against unanimous consent resolutions on virtually all DOJ nominees. A filibuster will follow, which will force a cloture vote.
Vance plans to be the sand in the gears that slows Attorney General Merrick Garland and President Joe Biden’s Justice Department to a snail’s pace in the Senate nominating process. He is vowing to be a one-man version of a factory labor slowdown. In this case, the factory is the U.S. Senate, and its product is left-leaning judges and prosecutors who will aid and abet Merrick Garland’s persecution of Christian pro-lifers and political enemies of the Democratic Party like Donald Trump.
“Donald Trump is merely the latest victim of a Department of Justice that cares more about politics than law enforcement. Merrick Garland’s department harasses Christians for pro-life advocacy but allows hardened criminals to walk our streets unpunished. This must stop, and I will do everything in my ability to ensure it does. Starting today, I will hold all Department of Justice nominations. If Merrick Garland wants to use these officials to harass Joe Biden’s political opponents, we will grind his department to a halt.”
Vance said he would make an exception for U.S. Marshals Service appointments. But he will vote no on all unanimous consent resolutions. These resolutions are the normal way the Senate moves groups of nominations forward. Now for every single nominee, there must be an individual floor vote in the Senate. It means every vote would require a quorum with members of the Senate present and voting. All procedural resolutions and speaking opportunities would have to be respected and gone through before a nomination could be put to a vote. In short, every nominee could face the type of Sente maneuvering usually reserved for Supreme Court nominees. S-L-O-W, deliberative, and ever so annoying.
Related: Ohio Democrats Play the Race Card Twice and Lose Both Times
According to Senate Rules on Filibuster and Cloture, a filibuster can only be ended if 60 of 100 Senators vote to stop it in a cloture vote. Truly, the wheels of justice will grind slowly but exceedingly fine.
“The Senate tradition of unlimited debate has allowed for the use of the filibuster, a loosely defined term for action designed to prolong debate and delay or prevent a vote on a bill, resolution, amendment, or other debatable question,” explains the Senate on its website. “Prior to 1917 the Senate rules did not provide for a way to end debate and force a vote on a measure. That year, the Senate adopted a rule to allow a two-thirds majority to end a filibuster, a procedure known as “cloture.” In 1975 the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds of senators voting to three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 of the 100-member Senate.”
Vance believes dramatic pushback is needed after numerous reports of the DOJ targeting conservatives. He understands the field of battle and knows that the fewer troops Merrick Garland has to persecute Christians and political enemies, the harder it will be for him to take political vengeance on his foes.
Vance cited three examples of the kind of abuse of power going on in Garland’s DOJ:
New York Post: States sue Biden admin over FBI surveillance of parents protesting school boards (Mar. 4, 2022)
Fox News: DOJ, FBI targeting Catholics as ‘violent extremists’ under scrutiny by state AGs (Feb. 10, 2023)
Washington Examiner: Vandalized pregnancy centers cry for justice one year after Dobbs leak (May 2, 2023)
Sen. Vance plans a well-thought-out and stubborn defense of religious and political freedom. Filibuster and cloture are the tools he has chosen to fight DOJ overreach. Democrats will not be happy. The next question is how Republican leadership will respond to this scorched earth counterattack. Will they support Sen. Vance or Attorney General Merrick Garland and his reckless policy decisions?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member