My (admittedly limited) understanding is that he isn't actually putting "holds" on the nominations. Instead, he is withholding his approval for nominations by unanimous consent. Thus, each nomination has to have a hearing, which takes time, and the Senate calendar is already pretty busy. So it's more like a delay than a hold, but the end effect is basically the same.
My (admittedly limited) understanding is that he isn't actually putting "holds" on the nominations. Instead, he is withholding his approval for nominations by unanimous consent. Thus, each nomination has to have a hearing, which takes time, and the Senate calendar is already pretty busy. So it's more like a delay than a hold, but the end effect is basically the same.
My (admittedly limited) understanding is that he isn't actually putting "holds" on the nominations. Instead, he is withholding his approval for nominations by unanimous consent. Thus, each nomination has to have a hearing, which takes time, and the Senate calendar is already pretty busy. So it's more like a delay than a hold, but the end effect is basically the same.
Same thing. The entire concept of a hold is by withholding unanimous consent under the Senate rules.