United States Congress

[RoseWilder]

I don't have the word to describe how much I loathe Mitch McConnell. 

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/thats-an-absurd-question-mitch-mcconnell-melts-down-as-chuck-todd-grills-him-for-blocking-merrick-garland/?comments=disqus

Quote

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Sunday blamed the American people for the decision of Senate Republicans not to grant President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick, Judge Merrick Garland, a hearing.

“The tradition had been not to confirm vacancies in the middle of a presidential [election] year,” McConnell told Meet the Press host Chuck Todd. “You’d have to go back 80 years to find the last time it happened… Everyone knew, including President Obama’s former White House counsel, that if the shoe had been on the other foot, [Democrats] wouldn’t have filled a Republican president’s vacancy in the middle of a presidential election.”

What a repulsive piece of shit. 

Chuck Todd didn't let him get away with this bullshit. He pressed further: 

Quote

“You say it’s been litigated, the Garland situation,” Todd replied. “For a lot of Senate Democrats, they’re not done litigating this… What was wrong with allowing Merrick Garland to have an up or down vote?”

“I already told you!” McConnell exclaimed. “You don’t fill Supreme Court vacancies in the middle of a presidential election.”

“Should that be the policy going forward?” Todd interrupted. “Are you prepared to pass a resolution that says in election years any Supreme Court vacancy [will not be filled] and let it be a sense of the Senate resolution, that says no Supreme Court nominations will be considered in any even numbered year? Is that where we’re headed?”

“That’s an absurd question,” McConnell complained. “We were right in the middle of a presidential election year. Every body knew that either side — had the shoe been on the other foot — wouldn’t have filled it. But that has nothing to do with what we’re voting on this year.”

I try so hard not to hate people, but I hate this man. He's a worthless piece of shit who has done nothing but make the country a worse place. 

[RoseWilder]

 

[RoseWilder]

I feel like I spend all my time posting negative things that politicians are doing. So I'm going to try to post more good things that people are doing. There are a lot of people in Congress quietly working to make people's lives better, but they don't seem to get much press for it. 

Here's one: 

 

[RoseWilder]

Well that didn't last long. I was trying so hard to be positive and then I read this: 

Fuck you, Mitch McConnell. 

I loathe this man so much. 

[RoseWilder]

 

[Childless]

1 hour ago, RoseWilder said:

 

I wonder if McConnell running his mouth turned the few Dems and moderate Repubs willing to give Gorsuch a yes vote.

[RoseWilder]

42 minutes ago, Childless said:

I wonder if McConnell running his mouth turned the few Dems and moderate Repubs willing to give Gorsuch a yes vote.

Orin Hatch has also been behaving like an ass on TV today in regards to the Gorsuch vote. He and McConnell's interviews have been stomach-turning. Wouldn't it be ironic if you were right and they were also vote-turning. It would be such beautiful karma. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Republicans’ 2018 doomsday scenario"

Quote

Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report writes that “if you look back at the last four midterm elections where the party in the White House lost control of one or both houses of Congress, you see that they share the following traits in common: the president has approval ratings among his own partisans under 85 percent and approval ratings among independents in the 30’s or low 40s.” She adds, “Moreover, there’s also empirical evidence that Democrats are more energized in their dislike of Trump than Republicans are in their support of him. . . . We’ve got a long way to go before the 2018 midterms. But, the current situation of Republican-infighting, a lack of legislative accomplishments and a President determined to keep stoking political divisions is a very dangerous path for the GOP.”

There are other factors that play into a nationalized election. (Nationalizing an election should be seen as a predicate to the wave, which requires unifying principles to build momentum and engage the base and donors.)

First, scandal often helps fuel a wave. The House banking scandal provided fodder for the GOP sweep in 1994. The House scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) helped bring the Democrats back into the majority in 2006. While the Russia debacle does not implicate the House GOP in wrongdoing, its indifferent investigating and the antics of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) give the appearance that the House GOP is enabling Trump to avoid scrutiny. Likewise, indifference to taking on conflicts of interest and potential emoluments clause violations in the White House gives Democrats room to argue that without a Democratic majority, corruption will spread.

Second, Trump himself has suggested that he could find it easier to strike a deal with Democrats than with his own Republicans, who are divided between moderates and the Freedom Caucus. Rather than Republicans arguing that a Democratic majority would bring gridlock, Democrats should be able to argue that the House GOP is dysfunctional and incapable of governing. Given the GOP’s performance on health care, Democrats may have a point. (A government shutdown or failure on tax reform would surely strengthen Democrats’ hand in this regard.)

Third, Democrats start with a ready-made target: 23 House Republicans who sit in congressional districts carried by Hillary Clinton. A few already voted in committee for the much-maligned Republican health-care bill; others will be pressed to take hard votes on a favor-the-rich tax plan or on budgets that slash popular programs.

Finally, Trump’s and the Republicans’ stumbles so far are entirely self-induced. They have yet to experience an external crisis over which they have little control but full responsibility. Kyle Kondick writing for Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball asks, “What happens to Trump if/when there is a crisis that is not of his or his party’s own making? What happens if there is an economic downturn? The United States has experienced 77 straight months of positive job growth, a record — isn’t it likely that a record-long streak will not continue in perpetuity?”

We have a long, long way to go before the 2018 elections. But Republicans should get prepared. Should the House flip to Democratic control, and with it control of committees and the power of subpoena, get ready for a battle royal over Trump’s finances and the Russia scandal. If the Democrats do win back the House majority it would not be crazy, or even improbable, to expect impeachment proceedings to rev up.

...

Oh please, I keep praying that the Dems retake at least one of the houses of Congress next year. Oh, and that we are still standing until then.

[GreyhoundFan]

I thought this was an interesting perspective: "I told Paul Ryan what it’s like to be poor. I wonder if he remembers me now."

Quote

In 2014, I testified before U.S. Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), now the House Speaker, at a congressional hearing about poverty in America. Every other person who testified that day knew about poverty because they had studied it. I was the only one there actually living it.

As people who live in poverty, we are rarely invited to be part of the policy discussions that end up affecting us the most. The day I testified, I felt the weight of my entire community bearing down on me. Who knew when (or if) this opportunity would come again?

Back then, I wanted Ryan and his colleagues on the House Budget Committee to understand that poverty isn’t about laziness or a lack of intelligence. Poverty is not a situation anyone wants. I don’t know a single person who looks forward to standing in line at the food bank, using an EBT card at the grocery store or explaining to their kids why the electricity was shut off. These are not choices anyone would make.

I also wanted the panel to understand that most people who live in poverty work hard, often at multiple jobs. I work as a security guard at an office building in Philadelphia, for example, and I do hair on the side for extra money. My husband works several jobs. But minimum wage, even on a full-time schedule when we can get it, simply isn’t enough to live on. It’s not enough to provide for our three children, all of whom have special needs.

Without federal programs to help us put food on the table and get affordable medical care — like SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) and Medicaid — I don’t know what we’d do. Even now, I wake up every morning worrying about how my kids will get enough to eat. It’s a constant, overwhelming stress. But it could be so much worse.

Last month, one of those worst-case scenarios almost happened. Medicaid almost lost $880 billion in federal funding. This would have been disastrous for millions of families like mine.

I was so relieved when the House health-care plan failed, but it also took me back to my experience testifying on Capitol Hill. At the time, I thought that if Ryan could just hear my story, if he could see me as a human being instead of a statistic, he might change his mind about “restructuring” the programs my family needs to survive. That’s why, when he came over to shake my hand at the end of the hearing, I asked for a hug instead. For me, this was personal. I wanted him to remember me.

Now, almost three years later, I have no idea if my testimony (or the hug) made any difference to him at all. He hasn’t altered his plans of structural changes to federal anti-poverty programs; it was only a matter of luck that his recent attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act failed, and with it, the restructuring of Medicaid.

...

I'm sorry, I can't believe someone thought that Ryan had a heart.

 

 

"Ryan says rekindled health-care talks in ‘conceptual stage’"

Quote

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said Tuesday that Republicans are in the preliminary phase of an effort to restart talks over a stalled health-care bill, but he did not commit to a timeline for resolving the differences that sank the measure last month.

“Right now, we’re just at that conceptual stage about how to move forward in a way that can get everybody to 216,” Ryan told reporters, referring to the number of votes needed to pass legislation in the House. “It’s important that we don’t just win the votes of one caucus or one group.”

Speaking cautiously, Ryan explained that negotiators have yet to produce text of a new or revised bill. He did not offer a target deadline for working out disagreements, nor did he detail what issues the talks hinge upon now.

“Now we’re throwing around concepts to improve the bill,” he said. “That’s occurring right now. But that is not to say that we are ready to go.”

Ryan’s comments came as Republican lawmakers seeking to revive efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act prepared for a busy day of negotiations on Capitol Hill. White House officials jump-started the process with a new proposal that they were expected to detail on Tuesday.

Vice President Pence, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and budget director Mick Mulvaney came to Capitol Hill late Monday to attend a meeting of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, where they offered a “solid idea” that could form the basis of an intraparty compromise, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, told reporters Monday night.

Administration officials described the possible deal only in broad outlines, Meadows said, but legislative text reflecting the proposal was expected to be drafted by Tuesday.

“We’re certainly encouraged by the progress that we seem to be making,” Meadows said, although he cautioned reporters that there was no deal in place to modify and proceed with the bill that was pulled from the House floor last month.

...

 

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I thought this was an interesting perspective: "I told Paul Ryan what it’s like to be poor. I wonder if he remembers me now."

I'm sorry, I can't believe someone thought that Ryan had a heart.

"Ryan says rekindled health-care talks in ‘conceptual stage’"

Something tells me that the Republican deliberations currently going on are similar to this:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is pitiful, but true: "The one thing these senators can agree on: They’re about to do something very bad"

Quote

It was half past noon Monday when Chuck Grassley, the genial chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked for a show of hands: Did senators debating the Neil Gorsuch nomination to the Supreme Court want to break for lunch?

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) interjected with a parliamentary inquiry: “Could the majority cater this lunch?”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) spoke in the affirmative: “I vote for plowing right through, Mr. Chairman.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) gave the proposition bipartisan support.

Grassley was flummoxed. “Actually the people who wanted to adjourn for half an hour had the most votes,” the Iowa Republican reported. The committee dissolved into confusion and side conversations.

Observed Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the top Democrat on the panel: “We can’t even agree on lunch.”

These are indeed grim times for the committee — which approved Gorsuch’s nomination on a party-line vote Monday — and for the Senate, for Washington and for America. This week, the problems are going to get noticeably worse.

The government has in many ways ceased to function, because of a cycle of partisan rancor and retaliation culminating in the ascent of Donald Trump. Now Democrats, justifiably furious that Republicans essentially stole a Supreme Court seat by refusing for nearly a year to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee, are threatening to block President Trump’s nominee. And Republicans are threatening to respond with worse — abolishing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees (and before long, most likely everything else). That “nuclear option” would destroy what’s left of the Senate as a deliberative body, eliminating a staple of American democracy that has existed in some form since 1789 to forge consensus.

“The damage done to the Senate is going to be real,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told his colleagues Monday, saying it would undermine “the traditions that have been in existence for 200 years.” Judges are going to be more ideological, presidents will be able to appoint justices only when their party controls the Senate, and every Senate election will be a “referendum” on the court, he said.

Graham, a frequent Trump critic and the rare Republican who voted for both of Obama’s Supreme Court nominees, found culpability on both sides. “We can all look in a mirror, find some blame,” he said — and he’s right. Though Republicans’ conversion into a far-right, anti-government party is responsible for most current dysfunction, the Democrats opened the door to ending the filibuster, changing the chamber’s rules in 2013 to abolish filibusters for lower court appointments.

I wrote at the time that Democrats eventually would “deeply regret what they have done.” True, GOP obstruction had been intolerable: Half of the filibusters of executive and judicial nominations in the nation’s history up to that point had occurred during the Obama presidency. But, predictably, chipping away at the filibuster — an institution that has existed in some form since the founding — now haunts Democrats.

...

“I wish,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), an anti-Trump Republican, “that we would instead change the behavior of senators rather than change the rules of the Senate.”

Said Graham: “If we have to, we will change the rules, and it looks like we’re going to have to. I hate that. I really, really do.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), noting that his 42 years in the chamber made him dean of the Senate, lamented that “I cannot vote solely to protect an institution,” because “the Senate I would be defending no longer exists.”

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) correctly observed that “it is obvious that the Senate is not a healthy institution.”

And Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) offered an emotional appeal to all combatants. “The reality we are in requires us . . . to consider what both Republicans and Democrats have done to erode the trust that has long lasted between us and consider whether we can stop the undeniable momentum towards abolishing the traditions that make the Senate unique and important.”

But can they? Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat in the body and a 20-year veteran, didn’t sound hopeful. “It breaks my heart to find us in this position,” he said, recalling “what it used to be like” and “the pride we took” in the Senate. “Senate traditions will change this week. In honesty they started changing a long time ago. I hope, I just hope, at the end of the day we can resurrect what this institution was all about.”

 

"‘I’m now a political therapist’: Rep. Karen Bass on hosting town halls in the Trump era"

Quote

“It was like working with a celebrity that’s in charge of government. Doesn’t that sound familiar?”

In President Trump, Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.) has seen this movie before. The four-term Los Angeles progressive was a member of the California Assembly when action star Arnold Schwarzenegger became the Golden State’s governor. And when Bass became speaker of the assembly (2008 to 2010), the first African American woman in the nation to reach such legislative heights, she was in constant contact with him.

“He was a celebrity,” Bass said of Schwarzenegger in the latest episode of “Cape Up,” “but you didn’t feel he was unstable.”

Bass was so concerned by what she saw on the campaign trail last year that she started a petition in August calling on Trump to undergo a mental-health evaluation. As of this writing, it has garnered 36,773 supporters. Now that Trump is president, Bass said her town halls have turned into psych sessions.

“I’m now a political therapist,” Bass said about the role thrust upon her at her town halls. “It is deep, the level of fear, panic. … People are seriously frightened by this man … People are way more frightened by this guy than they are mad that [Hillary Clinton] didn’t win.”

...

 

[formergothardite]

Timid Thom Tillis is holding a FB live chat tomorrow so he can pretend he is listening to his constituents. This time he gave almost a 24 hour notices. Last time he did it he gave almost no notice. He is holding it at 12 when most people will be working and unable to get on FB. Asshole. 

[RoseWilder]

I love Senator Chris Murphy: 

 

[RoseWilder]

Senator Jeff Merkley took the senate floor last night at 6:46 pm, with the plan to talk as long as he was physically able to, in protest of Gorsuch's nomination. 

He's still talking!

 

[sawasdee]

I can't access the live coverage here in Thailand - but - WOW! 16 hours? Is he repeating himself? Reciting poetry? Or making arguments?

[RoseWilder]

11 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

I can't access the live coverage here in Thailand - but - WOW! 16 hours? Is he repeating himself? Reciting poetry? Or making arguments?

I haven't had a chance to watch the live coverage today. But last night, he was speaking exclusively about Gorsuch and the Republicans obstruction of Merrick Garland. He talked about Gorsuch's terrible record of siding with corporations. He also spoke about how the supreme court seat was stolen last year by the Republicans who are trying to stack the court in their favor. 

[AnywhereButHere]

It's been great.  He's got posters and everything.  It's sort of a pre-filibuster and more of a protest as it won't actually delay any vote, but I think he's making a lot of great points. Too bad the ones who need to hear it aren't listening...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/senator-jeff-merkley-protest-gorsuch-nomination.html?_r=0

Quote

“I’m here on the floor at 4:20 in the morning,” he said at one point, nearing 10 hours in, “because so much is at stake.”

Since seizing the Senate floor around 6:45 p.m., Mr. Merkley railed against Judge Gorsuch’s record on workers’ rights, holding to a Democratic argument that the nominee has ruled disproportionately in favor of the privileged.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

He has suggested that the Senate should not confirm a lifetime appointee of President Trump’s amid investigations into ties between Mr. Trump’s orbit and Russia.

He has quoted George Washington and lamented creeping commercialism and an erosion of civic participation.

 

[Cartmann99]

7 minutes ago, AnywhereButHere said:

It's been great.  He's got posters and everything.  It's sort of a pre-filibuster and more of a protest as it won't actually delay any vote, but I think he's making a lot of great points. Too bad the ones who need to hear it aren't listening...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/senator-jeff-merkley-protest-gorsuch-nomination.html?_r=0

 

Just finished reading the article. I love that chart from the first picture showing what happened to SCOTUS nominees who were put up for consideration during an election year! 

[sawasdee]

Merkley for 2020?

[GreyhoundFan]

I thought this was an interesting opinion piece: "Republicans will ‘go nuclear’ to confirm Gorsuch. They should worry about what happens next."

Quote

As of now, Sen. Jeff Merkley continues to speak on the Senate floor, in an effort to prevent Neil Gorsuch from getting confirmed to the Supreme Court. But despite the Oregon Democrat’s valiant effort, which has lasted at least 14 hours, Gorsuch’s confirmation appears inevitable. This week the Senate will vote on Gorsuch; Democrats will filibuster; and Republicans will subsequently eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, allowing Gorsuch to get through.

The question is what happens next. The New York Times reports Wednesday that senators on both sides are worried that this could ultimately lead to the elimination of the filibuster on legislation. The scenario that each side fears is that the other will have unchecked power in the majority to pass its full agenda:

Without the current filibuster rule on legislation, Democrats, should they dominate Washington again one day, could seek a large increase in the minimum wage, increased Social Security benefits, paid family leave or Medicare for all. And they would need only a simple majority to do it.

Similarly, Republicans could pass large permanent tax cuts, oil drilling in the Arctic or a national concealed-carry gun law. Such power is something that President Trump might see as quite delicious, and something that he may well push for if Republicans confirm Judge Neil M. Gorsuch for the Supreme Court without meaningful support from Democrats.

One might think that, because Republicans are currently in the majority, Democrats have more to fear from such an outcome. In fact, there are reasons to suspect Republicans may have more to fear from it than Democrats do.

The story of the moment is that Republicans are struggling to create consensus among themselves to pass their agenda. After spending seven years vowing to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have failed to agree on a measure for doing that even in the House, which of course requires only a simple majority for passing things.

...

It’s true that Republicans could likely pass some things by simple majorities, such as large tax cuts by themselves, a national concealed carry standard, increased border security, or various deregulatory measures. But, while Democrats will also struggle with divisions in their ranks if they take back total control, it is somewhat easier to see them uniting behind things like Medicare for all, or at least an expansion of the ACA and a shoring up of the exchanges; immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship; a large infrastructure package that constitutes a genuine public expenditure (unlike what Trump is mulling); and a minimum wage hike.

Yes, Republicans would theoretically be able to undo such things by simple majorities once they took back control. But as the health-care debate is showing us, it’s a lot harder for Republicans to roll back progressive advances once it becomes clear to the public that so doing will extract a major human toll — in other words, once it becomes clear what Republicans are actually proposing to do in concrete human terms. A new Gallup poll finds that support for the ACA is up to 55 percent, now that Americans got a look at a specific, massively regressive GOP alternative, and a new Kaiser poll finds that 75 percent of Americans now want Republicans to make the law work.

To be clear, I am not advocating for an end to the filibuster for legislation. I think it should probably be preserved, at least in some form. But it seems clear that over the long haul, Republicans have more to fear from such an outcome than Democrats do. And if GOP divisions continue to frustrate Trump’s agenda, and Democratic opposition continues to slow its advance, it is not hard to imagine an increasingly frustrated Trump demanding an end to it.

...

 

[Cartmann99]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Similarly, Republicans could pass large permanent tax cuts, oil drilling in the Arctic or a national concealed-carry gun law. Such power is something that President Trump might see as quite delicious, and something that he may well push for if Republicans confirm Judge Neil M. Gorsuch for the Supreme Court without meaningful support from Democrats.

As a resident of Texas, my gut says they would try to get open constitutional carry passed, but might settle for concealed constitutional carry. The second amendment absolutists hate that some states require you to get a permit or license to carry firearms. 

[GreyhoundFan]

I got excited when I read the title of this article, but then was so disappointed when I read the whole story. "McConnell: ‘Nuclear option’ helps Senate. McCain: ‘Whoever says that is a stupid idiot.’"

Quote

The “nuclear” showdown in the Senate has split the chamber’s most senior Republicans over how bad the fallout will be.

On one side is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who says that once Democrats filibuster Judge Neil Gorsuch, the GOP’s unilateral response to confirm him on a simple majority vote will take senators “back to what was the tradition in the Senate” for confirming Supreme Court justices.

It will be, McConnell says, a good thing for the Senate.

“Look at the Senate through the long history of the body, the practical effect of all this will be to take us back to where we were,” McConnell, 75, told reporters Tuesday.

On the other side is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the fiery 80-year-old who sees this move as the next step in the inexorable slide to crushing the chamber’s bipartisan traditions. He thinks senators who view this as a good step are, well, not fully in command of their faculties.

“Idiot, whoever says that is a stupid idiot, who has not been here and seen what I’ve been through and how we were able to avoid that on several occasions,” McCain said Wednesday, recalling past efforts to defuse these judicial confirmation wars. “And they are stupid and they’ve deceived their voters because they are so stupid.”

Even so, McCain will support McConnell’s move to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for reaching a final vote on approving Supreme Court justices to lifetime appointments. That will come after Democrats, as expected, formally block Gorsuch’s nomination on Thursday.

...

I used to admire McCain for standing up for the right thing to do. Once he folded and endorsed Agent Orange, I lost so much respect. And now, this. He thinks it's a bad step, yet he supports it. Seriously?

[onekidanddone]

Go away Barbra. Just go!  I wish Loudoun County luck.  I never get how people split their vote when it comes to presidential elections. You mean to tell me people voted against Agent but for this twit?  Really? I just don't understand people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/democrats-clamor-to-take-on-rep-comstock-in-northern-virginia/2017/04/05/a67d40da-132e-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_vacomstock-650pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f4b31afbaae4

[VixenToast]

I guess we need to call our republican senators and ask them to vote NO on nuclear option. But like en masse, similar to the weeks preceding the DeVos confirmation vote.

[onekidanddone]

37 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I got excited when I read the title of this article, but then was so disappointed when I read the whole story. "McConnell: ‘Nuclear option’ helps Senate. McCain: ‘Whoever says that is a stupid idiot.’"

I used to admire McCain for standing up for the right thing to do. Once he folded and endorsed Agent Orange, I lost so much respect. And now, this. He thinks it's a bad step, yet he supports it. Seriously?

I wonder what Bitch McTurtle  would think when (notice I said when not if) the Democrats take back control of the Senate in two years.