Question

in 2019, debate time in the senate was reduced to expedite some of president trump’s judicial appointments. this was the so-called nuclear option--what had to happen for this to occur?

Answer 1

The Senate reduced debate time in 2019 to expedite some of President Trump's judicial appointments, which was called the nuclear option. This required certain conditions to be met, including the Republicans controlling the Senate and invoking the nuclear option.

Step-by-step explanation:

The so-called nuclear option of reducing debate time in the Senate for expedited judicial appointments happened in 2019. To occur, certain conditions had to be met. First, the Senate had to be controlled by the party supporting the president, in this case, the Republicans. Second, the Republicans needed to have a majority of seats in the Senate. Lastly, they had to invoke the nuclear option, which is a parliamentary procedure that allows them to change the rules and reduce the debate time required for confirming judicial nominees by a simple majority vote instead of the usual 60 votes.

Answer 2

To expedite President Trump's judicial appointments in 2019, the Senate invoked the nuclear option, allowing cloture of debate on nominees with a simple majority vote. This followed a pattern of partisanship and obstruction, notably evident in the refusal to hold hearings for Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, in 2016.

Step-by-step explanation:

In 2019, to expedite some of President Trump’s judicial appointments, the Senate invoked the nuclear option. This parliamentary procedure changed the number of votes required to end a filibuster against judicial nominees, which was traditionally three-fifths of the Senate (60 votes). By employing the nuclear option, the Senate allowed the cloture of debate on judicial nominees with a simple majority (51 votes) instead of the previous supermajority. This action particularly affected the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch in April 2017, following the political dynamics reflective of increasing partisanship and conflict during the nomination procedures.

Previously, this approach of malign neglect, a tactic of refusing to hold hearings, was exemplified by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's refusal to allow hearings for Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. This set a precedent that political strategy could override the conventional process for considering judicial nominees. The activation of the nuclear option and similar strategies have highlighted the degree to which judicial nominations have become contentious and highly politicized, further amplifying the political sandstorm of obstruction and accusations within the Senate around Supreme Court endorsements.