The Coalition of the Swilling

One might almost consider this senatorial malfeasance

Who the hell is she, anyway? How dare she hold up the business of the country? Censure time, baby... not that it will ever happen, because the Senate as a whole doesn't have the huevos, but this is really something.

Making big points back home, y'all.

Hey, we got a lot of levees out here too - 2,300 miles of 'em that are gonna cost from $1 billion to $3 billion - and it's still raining, and we're overdue for an earthquake...
Arnold should go over there and give Mary a big kiss, then take all her money.

Oh, those break and flood the beejeebus out of everything every El Niño, Keith ~ you guys are so predictable. And everyone knows Californians are loaded.

And IF Ahnold kissed Mary? I'd never forgive him.

Any of the appointees from Loosiana?

No? Then it's a bluff. She can't put holds on nominees from outside her state.

That was my thought, mojo; one single senator has no power, as I don't think they'd have trouble finding the votes to shut her up.

Likely it's just posturing for the voters. The Democrats are already guilty of throwing tantrums in public, so I doubt that people will be upset when Mary's face turns blue from holding her breath.

But it's still incredibly crass. I imagine the Reverend Jesse Jackson is coaching the good senator.

I do believe a senator can hold up just about any appointment. Somebody check, I'm working.

Oh, I'm sure she could try and filibuster, but she ain't made of the stuff her predessessor was:

"During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for fifteen hours."

I think they could get 66 votes to shut her up.

Not a filibuster. Major Dad's right (of course), but I can't find the precise mechanism. We'll have to wait for Dave to come onboard and educate us.

(Shortened my original comment thanks to Dave J's timely and erudite intervention.)
More stuff.

Dang. The idiots have it again.

Major Dad is correct. A senatorial hold is, indeed, different from a filibuster. It is a tradition and "privilege" of being part of the World's Most Prestigious Debate Club, which has no actual legal foundation and is even more anti-democratic than the filibuster:

Senators can even place a "hold" on a measure or nomination, although this practice is not recognized in Senate rules. "Holds" are requests by Senators to their party's floor leader to object on their behalf to any request to consider a matter, at least until they have been consulted. The majority leader will usually not even request consent to consider a measure if there is a hold on it.

(My emphasis added.) Senators allow holds because they then know that their fellow Senators will let THEM use holds in the future. Theoretically, the procedural way to break a hold would be for a Senator to move to proceed to the business (bill or nomination) being held, the Majority or Minority Leader objecting on behalf the Senator who placed the hold, and then someone raising a point of order that the objection is out of order (because it's not premised on something with any basis in the Rules). The Presiding Officer would then have to rule on the point of order, and the Parliamentarian would almost certainly advise the Presiding Officer that the point is well-taken.

I say "theoretically" because there's no way in hell I ever see that happening.

Bless you, Dave! I knew you'd come through.

Nicely done Dave.

Kiss ass.