Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination — with no Democrats present

The committee vote on Barrett’s nomination underscored Republicans’ disregard for the rules.

US-VOTE-COURT
US-VOTE-COURT
Portraits of people who rely on the Affordable Care Act are placed in the seats of Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee as they boycott the vote on Amy Coney Barrett.
Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call/AFP/Getty Images
Li Zhou
Li Zhou is a former politics reporter at Vox, where she covers Congress and elections. Previously, she was a tech policy reporter at Politico and an editorial fellow at the Atlantic.

The unusual nature of Thursday’s committee vote on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett underscored just how willing Senate Republicans are to continue disregarding established rules. Not a single Democratic senator was present — and Republicans moved forward anyway.

The panel approved Barrett’s nomination 12-10 along party lines, bringing her one step closer to a confirmation vote expected to happen next Monday. But they did so despite a Democratic boycott of the meeting, which meant they didn’t have the required number of minority members that’s usually needed to conduct business.

Per the panel’s rules, two Democratic members need to be present in order to take votes on nominees, but Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) simply disregarded this requirement on Thursday — much like he has with similar norms in the past.

As a result, the 12 Republican members who were at the vote unanimously approved Barrett, whose nomination now heads to the Senate floor for a procedural vote on Sunday. That vote, which would end debate on her nomination, sets Barrett up for a final Senate floor vote on Monday.

Why Democrats boycotted the committee vote, briefly explained

Senate Democrats boycotted the committee vote on Thursday in order to question the legitimacy of Barrett’s confirmation process, which they argue was rushed and contrary to past precedent Republicans had set regarding a nomination during an election year.

“This has been a sham process from the beginning,” Judiciary Democrats and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer argued in a statement. “Republicans broke the promises they made and rules they created when they blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination for eight months under President Obama.”

In 2016, Senate Republicans argued that the people should have a voice in the process and refused to consider a nominee until after the presidential election. This year, with just over a month until the election, they moved forward with Barrett’s confirmation.

According to polling by Data For Progress, likely voters are split along party lines regarding whether Barrett should be approved before the election: 19 percent of Democrats think she should be, while 38 percent of independents do, and 82 percent of Republicans feel the same. Meanwhile, 75 percent of likely Democratic voters think this entire process has been rushed, while 38 percent of independents and 30 percent of Republicans agree.

Schumer previously said that Senate Democrats could also boycott the Senate floor vote for Barrett’s nomination and force Republicans to provide the 51-member quorum needed for it to take place. If they end up doing that — Republicans will likely move ahead with the nomination as planned, but Democrats will have, at the very least, sent a message.

More in Politics

The Logoff
Trump’s DOJ wants to undo January 6 convictionsTrump’s DOJ wants to undo January 6 convictions
The Logoff

How the Trump administration is still trying to rewrite January 6 history.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Donald Trump messed with the wrong popeDonald Trump messed with the wrong pope
Politics

Trump fought with Pope Francis before. He’s finding Pope Leo XIV to be a tougher foil.

By Christian Paz
Podcasts
A cautionary tale about tax cutsA cautionary tale about tax cuts
Podcast
Podcasts

California cut property taxes in the 1970s. It didn’t go so well.

By Miles Bryan and Noel King
Podcasts
Obama’s top Iran negotiator on Trump’s screwupsObama’s top Iran negotiator on Trump’s screwups
Podcast
Podcasts

Wendy Sherman helped Obama reach a deal with Iran. Here’s what she thinks Trump is doing wrong.

By Kelli Wessinger and Noel King
Politics
The Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything elseThe Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything else
Politics

McNutt v. DOJ could allow the justices to seize tremendous power over the US economy.

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
The new Hormuz blockade, briefly explainedThe new Hormuz blockade, briefly explained
The Logoff

Trump tries Iran’s playbook.

By Cameron Peters