Mitch McConnell on the Kavanuagh Confirmation

Devin Nunes and the Collapse of the US Senate

A nadir of the Kavanaugh Circus was some Democrat Judiciary Committee members shifting their questioning of Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh from uncorroborated allegations by Christine Blasey Ford to the 1983 Georgetown Prep's Yearbook. 

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) obsessed about entries in Brett Kavanaugh's senior bio, including inquiries about "Renete Alumnius",  "boofing" and "the devil's triangle".

Brett Kavanaugh on the Confirmation Circus

Joe Biden on the Ginsburg Rule

On Applying the Nuclear Option and Comity

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution gives the United States Senate the prerogative to give "Advice and Consent" in confirming Executive Branch nominations, especially the judiciary. For most of the Republic, confirmations of Supreme Court justices were not voted on in a markedly partisan manner. 

The Senate, which liked to consider itself as the world's greatest deliberative body, usually operated in a manner which vetted high court nominees in a conscientiously deferential manner to the President.  For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been chief counsel of the ACLU and a noted feminist attorney, yet she garnered a 93-3 confirmation vote in 1993. 

Admittedly, this was not always the case. President George H.W. Bush's nominee of Clarence Thomas endured a contentious confirmation hearings  in 1991 which he likened to a "high tech lynching for uppity blacks".  

And  of course the vitriolic attacks on Robert Bork, President Ronald Reagan's 1987 pick to fill a Supreme Court opening, resulted in the verb "to Bork" to be added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2002.  But the adamant opposition from the left stemmed, however peripherally, to nitpicking "flaws" in the nominees.

Much of the comity that the Senate enjoyed was due to Cloture Rule (Senate Rule XXII) which was instituted in 1917.  In order to end debate on a filibuster, three-fifths of Senators (today 60 votes) is required.  Applying that to judicial nominees, Presidents often picked less stridently partisan or controversial candidates, as some Senate Minority votes were needed in order to advance to the confirmation vote.  

Former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) found this 3/5ths Cloture requirement to be inconvenient in his effort to aid President Barack Obama in packing the judiciary (particularly changing the balance in the 4th Circuit, a.k.a. "The Rocket Docket").  Thus, in 2013 Reid exercised "The Nuclear Option" which abrogated Senate Rule XXII for judicial confirmations save Supreme Court nominees. 

 Reid was warned on the Senate floor by then Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that you will regret using the nuclear option.   In the 115th Congress, when Senate Democrats became openly obstructionistic about any nominations made by President Donald Trump, Majority Leader McConnell extended the "nuclear option" to include Supreme Court nominees, which resulted in Neil Gorsuch being confirmed by a 54-45 vote.

After Justice Anthony Kennedy's announced retirement from the Nation's High Court, Democrats have campaigned for the Senate to delay confirmation hearings for the SCOTUS opening until after the 2018 midterm elections.  Their facile rationalization is that Republicans ought to follow the same standard used to deny Merritt Garland a confirmation hearing in 2016 because it was an election year.  Of course, this partisan plea ignores that it was a Presidential election year and had over 70 years of precedent.  In addition, Democrats are not in the majority and they set the agenda. Elections do have consequences.  

So does changing and exploiting rules.  Democrats might have some gravitas to their suggestion to stall SCOTUS confirmation hearing until after the midterms if they were not already slow walking nearly all Trump confirmations.   Senate rules allow for 30 hours of debate on each nominee.  Democrats have been routinely requiring the entire 30 hours of debate, which would mean that President Trump's picks could receive senatorial "advise and consent" in nine years. So the threat that Democrats will further slow walk Senate proceedings in retaliation or to forestall a SCOTUS confirmation vote is meaningless. 

The recalcitrant response of Democrats should be a cue to Majority Leader McConnell on how to react to the diminution of comity in the Senate.  If Democrats are going to slow walk everything in retaliation or retribution for the Senate leadership for exercising their "advice and consent" on Supreme Court nominees in a timely manner, then keep them in session.  McConnell already effectively cancelled the traditional long summer recess so they can meet their budgetary duties. So they get to spend the dog days of summer on Capital Hill and enjoy the swampy weather in the District of Calamity (sic).

But the lack of comity and the need for elected officials to do their job might mean spending more time on Capitol Hill.  Since Democrats seem to relish filibusters and slowing the process down, the Majority Leader should change how filibutsters are treated.  Instead of the failure of a cloture vote resulting in the legislation (or the nomination) being pulled, let the debate continue.  If legislators want to invoke "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and talk until they are hoarse and drop from exhaustion, that is their prerogative.  But just as the nuclear option changed things in unexpected ways, tinkering with the filibuster might have adverse effects on Senate minority rights in the future.

Moreover, so that the Senate is not simply the place where legislation goes to and dies, remain in session through October instead of taking the election break.  From an objective standpoint, they will be doing their jobs (instead of concentrating on getting re-elected).  Politically, this hurts Senate Democrats (as they have 25 of 33 seats up, including 10 in states where Mr. Trump won).  And it might make obstructionism less appealing and allow incumbents to give comity a chance.

Ted Cruz on Social Media Censorship

Mark Zuckerberg on Hate Speech

About Senator Joe Manchin and a Victory for the Swamp

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has been representing West Virginia in the Senate since the death of Senator Robert Byrd in 2010.  Manchin ran on a pledge protect Second Amendment rights as well as to to take dead aim of Barack Obama's Cap and Trade policy, which severely threatened the coal industry.  

While he may call himself a centrist or perhaps a conservative Democrat, in modern terms he ran as a Republican.  But now Mountain State voters may well wonder if Manchin was just blowing smoke around election season.

As Manchin vies for a second full term, he is considered the most vulnerable Senate incumbent for Election 20118.  Manchin's refusal to drift to the left endangers himself with the progressive drift of Democrats, yet he is chary about crossing the aisle to the Republican side.

So in a bid to save his seat, Senator Manchin took the the Senate floor to promote a pledge of bipartisan cooperation and agreement.  While that sounds noble and constructive, the reality is that Manchin was coercing his colleagues not to campaign against him or raise money against him.

 An incumbent wants to ensure that notable opposition can not criticize him on the hustings because of a supposed pledge of bipartisan cooperation.  How convenient! No wonder pundits and comedians are so critical of anything labeled bipartisan. 

Radio commentator Larry O'Connor surmises that Manchin is trying to obscure the fact that he votes with Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) regarding the tax reform. Manchin also campaigned hard for Hillary Clinton in 2016, which proved quite out of step with his West Virginia constituents.  

The Republican National Committee used Twitter to expose Senator Manchin's Janus faced campaigning, as the supposed maverick conservative Democrat posed with both Planned Parenthood as well as Pro Life activists.  

Manchin laughed off this apparent hypocrisy saying that he'd pose for pictures with anyone.  Larry O'Connor laments that this was one more victory for the swamp co-opting a maverick.  

 It may be better to think of this as  sort of a pyrrhic victory which salts the swamp and causes the District of Calamity to be drained of unviable swamp creatures and Congress critters.

H/T: Washington Times

Martha McSally on Courage

Today Rep. Martha McSally announces her candidacy for the U.S. Senate to replace Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ). 

The Republican field is already populated by Dr. Kelli Ward, a candidate endorsed by Steve Bannon, and Joe Arpaio, the 85 year old long-time ex Maricopa County sheriff renowned for his tough treatment of criminal aliens who was recently pardoned by President Trump.

[L] Dr. Kelli Ward [R] Ex Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Arizon GOP candidates for US Senate

Although Democrats need to defend 25 of 33 Senate seats in the 2018 election cycle, including in 10 states in which President Trump carried in 2016, Republicans are worried about losing their slender control of the Senate.  Senator Jeff Flake's (R-AZ) decision not to stand for re-election puts another "safe" GOP seat up for grabs.

In some respects, the GOP primary might be made up of voters with trollish Trump-eteer tendencies (infamously redubbed by Hillary Clinton as the "Basket of Deplorables") who think that strong immigration stances are the way to win via Arpaio's reputation and rhetoric.  Kelli Ward had positioned herself to be a Bannon disruptor of the GOP Establishment,  but now is backing away from "Sloppy Steve" after his fall from grace in the "Fire and Fury" fiasco.  

Establishment Republicans hoping to avoid a repeat defeat akin to the Alabama special election, seem to favor McSally to keep the seat as she has legislative experience and is not an agitating lightning rod. However, when an ex fighter pilot urged her colleagues to "grow a pair of ovaries and get the job done", such a candidate might not be exactly safe for the go along to get along in the so called Senate country club in the District of Calamity (sic).

Senator Al Franken on Allegations of Inappropriateness

The national attention was drawn to the Senate floor for remarks by Senator Al Franken (D-MN).  After the eight woman accused Franken of inappropriate sexual misconduct, with a damning photo from a 2005 USO tour, much of the Senate Democrat caucus urged him to resign. 

Al Franken on 2005 USO Tour

Yet during Franken's speech, he neither sounded contrite nor did he really resign

Franken's joke resignation was promised to be in a few weeks. Franken then proceeded to cudgel Republican President Donald Trump and Roy Moore over unproven allegations of sexual misconduct as well as as touting his progressive feminist political stances. 

Perhaps Franken's decision depends on whether Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore (R-AL) wins the December 12th special election and is seated in the Senate.  When the heat is off, Franken may choose not to hurl himself into the fire. 

Franken's resignation was intended to give Democrats the high ground and to echo Fox News' Brit Hume: "Make Roy Moore into a Republican hood ornament".   But will offering a scrappy defense and not immediately resigning accomplish that political objective? 

Franken insisted that he would be vindicated of wrongdoing during his service in the Senate by the Senate Ethics Committee.  That is a good bet because that body never expels members. It is a place to bury allegations of wrongdoing. 

Time will tell if the delayed departure will accomplish the Democrat political objectives or it will cloud their campaigns against their electoral opponents. 

When Swamp Rats are Dirty Rats

The revelation of sexual misconduct by Hollywood's Harvey Weinstein has transitioned to the District of Calamity.  Accusations of sexual impropriety threatens to swing two Senate seats and effect the balance of power on Capitol Hill.

Much has been made about  allegations of skivvy conduct by Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore (R-AL).  These accusations stem from conduct nearly four decades ago that were unreported to authorities, but came to light in the closing days of a special election to fill the seat vacated by now Trump Administration Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  The alluvia of allegations sound bad, but are past the statute of limitations, based she-said-he-said allegations with little to no corroborating evidence and relies upon the court of public opinion. 

From a political standpoint, Democrats are anxious to make Roy Moore a poster child for Republicans in 2018 and use the hermaneutic that Republicans condone sexual harassment as a cudgel to impeach President Donald Trump if Democrats regain the House of Representatives.  In the near term, the muck about Moore put the White House in a box.  On the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, establishment Republicans did not like a loose cannon like Judge Moore to be in the Senate chambers, when it endangers the clubby atmosphere of the Upper Chamber and he could help shake up the leadership.  So many GOP party loyalists were quick to condemn Moore for the alleged but unproven misconduct.

There are concerns that Republicans might lose this previously considered "safe" seat, as Moore is polling with a double digit deficit after these allegations have been publicized.  Since candidate Moore refuses to step aside due to this scandal, the DC GOP suggested writing in another Republican. Apparently, this did not test well and was dropped.  After a careful reading of the Alabama state statutes, centrist Republican Hugh Hewitt claims that the problem could go away if   Senator Luke Strange (R-AL) resigned, creating a new vacancy which would cancel the shaky December 12th election, and Governor Kay Ivey (R-AL) could appoint another caretaker Senator until the next general election (in November 2018).  Considering the shaky ground Jeff Sessions is in at the Department of Justice, it is possible that Sessions be appointed back to his own seat.

[L] Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) attending [R] Senator Luther Strange (R-AL) swearing in

Recently, after a pleasant Sunday brunch, we chatted about the troubling news about Roy Moore. As the topic expanded to include sexual harassment by elected officials, two ardent feminists insisted that Congress needed to do something about it and make offenders on Capitol Hill as accountable as the rest of us.  I asked who were their bosses.  The obvious answer was the people.  I maintained that voters get to fire their elected officials periodically and they should decide rather than an insider committee.  That viewpoint was not well received.

Well, it seems that when Congress pushed to make the same rules apply to them as their constituents, there were a few quirks.  Regarding charges of sexual harassment with members of staffers, there is 30 day waiting period before pressing charges.  In addition, the victim making the accusation must undergo mandatory counseling.  That sounds munificent, except the counseling comes from the employer whom someone is accusing.  It would seem that it could be made clear to accusers that going public would not be in anyone's best interests.   If I recall correctly, John Batchelor's news-maker interview indicated that this system has paid out $15 million since its advent in the 105th Congress with nary a word making the press.

Congressional Sexual Misconduct payout ledger

What took party hacks off their sexual harassment game plan was the revelation by a Los Angeles radio personality of Al Franken's inappropriate conduct during a USO mission to the Middle East in 2006, before he was elected as Senator from Minnesota.  The woman reported that she was supposed to do a skit written by Franken that involved a kiss and wanted to rehearse-- she demurred but eventually consented.  During the practice, she alleged that Franken put his tongue halfway down her throat and grabbed her head.  She immediately insisted "Don't do that again!", and she deflected his approach during the skit.

The problem with sexual conduct and Al Franken is about the contemporaneous  photographic evidence. The woman in question wanted to grab some rack time during the 36 hour military flight.  When she was asleep, Franken was seen with a coprophagic grin cupping at her breasts.  No doubt, Franken thought this was funny at the time (and probably a great way to get back at her).  Franken has been known to take outrageous photos for laughs (but the infamous Franken diaper photo was a fake).

Citizen Al Franken takes a picture with a sleeping beauty during a 2016 USO tour.

But this Al Franken moment  was captured on camera. Oops. And the accuser is Leeane Tweeden, a KABC-AM radio personality. Tweeden initially posted #MeToo, but she decided to come forth after hearing Congresswoman Speier's (D-CA 14th)  allegations that members on both side of the aisle have thrust sexual advances while in Congress.

Now this puts a kink into progressive partisans' plans. One of their prominent members stands accused. The public has been primed to always accept the word of victims.  In addition, there is photographic proof. This takes away from the rip the GOP as blanket sexual predator smear.  Rush Limbaugh points out that in this environment, Democrats will have to proverbially throw Senator Franken (D-MN) under the bus to not to seem hypocritical and prospectively use it against their ideological opponents. 

Franken publicly apologized to his victim, claiming that he thought that it was funny.  In addition, Franken submitted himself to scrutiny from his peers.  Maybe this gets it out of the headlines and it gets buried by the press.  If push comes to shove, Minnesota has a Democrat Governor Mark Dayton (D-MN), so Franken would undoubtedly be replaced by another Democrat. 

While justice is a noble pursuit, in this charged environment, the court of public opinion may well condemn non-guilty people just based on innuendo or unproven accusations which are promptly swept under the rug out of convenience.   The reform from the 105th Congress seems to allow members to slide, in a process intended to apply the peoples' law to Congress.  Although there are Ethics Committees to punish members egregious actions, I suspect that the ballot box is still the most efficacious way to punish when swamp rats act like dirty rats. 

Patrick Leahy on Bacon and Judges

On Weiner Leaks

During FBI Director James Comey's latest appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Lindsey Graham needled him about prosecuting Clinton Email leaks by stemming from First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's aide de camp Huma Abedin to her estranged and publicly shamed  husband Anthony Weiner (a.k.a. Carlos Danger) .

Senator Ed Markey on Reversing the Nuclear Option

Senator Markey's promise to overturn the nuclear option is a marked departure from the partisan gamesmanship strategy that Democrat Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has been using against the Trump Administration. 

It should be noted, however, that Senator Markey's (D-MA) anti- Nuclear Option promise is a chimera.  The vow of overturning the nuclear option precedent anticipates the same conditions that former Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) when the Reid Rule blew up Senate precedent by changing the rules mid session and making the upper chamber a majority rules body. 

Considering the leftward swing of the Democrat Party and number of vulnerable Democrat Senators in the 2018 election cycle, Markey's promise rings as true as the Obamacare: "If you like your doctor than you can keep him'. 

John McCain Denounces Rand Paul as Putin Apparatchik

Patrick Leahy on the Proposed Gorsuch Filibuster

Even though Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has reiterated his intent to invoke a filibuster on the cloture vote for President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, not all of his colleagues are on board.  Veteran Senator Patrick Leahy, who offered vigorous invigilation during Gorsuch's Senate Judiciary Committee appearance, indicated that he is not inclined to filibuster the nominee.

Schumer's intransigence is no surprise, as he requires President Trump to abandon his Republican colleagues to gain his support. But perhaps Leahy recognizes that Senate Democrats lack the ability to ultimately block Gorsuch's eventual ascent to the High Court.  Or maybe the long time member of the world's oldest deliberative body frets that blocking the cloture vote would inspire Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to "go nuclear" and extend the Reid Rule's application to Advice and Consent for Supreme Court nominees.  

Primary Concerns for Senate Democrats Supporting Gorsuch Cloture Vote

Now that they are relegated to minority political status in the District of Calamity, the progressive wing of the Democrat party feel free to impose purity tests and try to effectively take over the party.

One of the litmus tests for a Senate Democrat to show their loyalty towards liberalism is to oppose President Trump's choice for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch.  

Senate Democrats may stew over a "stolen" SCOTUS pick, because the Senate Majority in the 114th Congress refused to hold hearings and scuttled former President Obama's lame duck Supreme Court pick Merrick Garland. This Senate Advice and Consent through inaction followed a 70 year precedent of not confirming SCOTUS picks in the last year of an Administration so as to let voters decide.

However some Democrats are so obstreperous that they will not meet with Judge Gorsuch, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).  Those who consented to meet Judge Gorsuch have been charmed by him and his impeccable legal credentials.

Liberal advocacy groups like Credo Action felt emboldened by Schumer's antipathy approach thus they warned wavering Senate Democrats that if they so much even consented to a Cloture vote for Judge Gorsuch that they will face primary opposition in the 2018 cycle.

So Democrats opposed Republicans effectively filibustering Garland through a no vote yet they want to do the same thing to Judge Gorsuch.  As Chris Plante is wont to say, if it wasn't for double standards, liberals would not have any at all.  Ironically, filibustering will be futile thanks to the legacy of  former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who invoked the nuclear option in 2013.  Now all the current Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) needs to do is expand the rule change in medias res to include Supreme Court nominations. 

From an objective standpoint, Democrats threatening to primary vulnerable Senate Democrats to just allow a vote for a Supreme Court Associate Justice seems counter-intuitive.  The Scalia replacement would not drastically change the balance of the court, so why come out with guns blazing against your own for a goal which is note a game changer.  

Although Democrats only need to garner three net seats to regain control of the Senate, they face a tough election cycle in 2018 with 23 of 33 seats up.  Incumbents have a much easier time fund raising and winning general elections, so why take out your own (even if they stray from the party line on some issues)?  Furthermore, ten of the Senate races are Democrats in states that voted strongly for President Trump.  Threatening to primary Democrat incumbents pushes them further to the left, which was not were the vox populi seems to be in those states.

If opposition from the left seems too strident, some incumbents like Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)  might conclude that the grass is greener on the other side of the aisle. Even if they do not politically defect, they may be emboldened to vote their conscience to keep their integrity or burnish their independence from a progressive purge to keep their seat.

It would seem prudent for progressives to not play hardball on this Supreme Court nomination but fight like hell if a senior liberal Associate Justice (like 83 year old Ruth Ginsburg or 78 year old Stephen Breyer) or majority maker 80 year old Anthony Kennedy decided to retire.  But it seems that progressives do not want to leave any powder in reserve for such a contingency.  

Even though objections to the Scalia replacement were packaged as being objections to Garland's no vote or automatically opposing President Trump's pick, it seems that progressives are concerned that reversing Roe v. Wade and throwing the adjudication of abortion back to the states is at stake. 

Smart SCOTUS Oppo Strategerie (sic)

As sagacious of a strategist Committee for Justice President Curt Levey may be, it seems that Democrats in the District of Calamity have taken a different tact.

Senator Jeff Markey has declared that there must be payback for the 114th Congress not approving lame duck former President Obama's pick of Merrick  Garland.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer )D-NY) has declared that he will not work with President Trump unless he utterly does the Democrats' bidding.

In years past, protestations of non-cooperation might have caused Senate Republicans to buckle and moderate.  But thanks to former Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Reid Rule, cooperation for cloture on appointments is now moot.

Democrats may bluster that only needing a majority was not intended to be for Supreme Court nominees, but that is after the fact dicta.  Per Hugh Hewitt and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), the Reid Rule is about the Senate only requiring a majority to change the rules mid-session. Besides, Reid himself intimated that he showed his Democrat Senate colleagues how to steamroll the GOP with this rule, even for High Court picks Even liberal Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) admits that the filibuster is no longer an emergency brake on nominations.

Under normal circumstances, a newly elected President has little opposition to his first Supreme Court nominee, especially early in his first term.  But these are not ordinary times.  Democrats are wont to hyperventilate about anything that the Trump Administration does, and seem happy to escalate any altercation to the extreme.  Democrats have sought to slow walk Trump Administration confirmation hearings, going so far as to not show up at Senate Committee Hearing votes.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been chary to confirm that Republicans will invoke what was once called "the nuclear option", but he has been steadfast in assuring the public that Trump Administration will be confirmed.  The same is true regarding  President  Trump's pick for the Supreme Court.

The dangera that Democrats have in protesting so vehemently to everything in the early Trump Administration and calling supporters out to the ramparts is three fold.

 First, they risk over-exhausting their partisans.  You can only cry "the sky is falling" only so often before it loses its desired effect.

Secondly, Democrats are not picking their battles wisely.  It is not only the incoherence of opposing everything, but in going to the mat for losing causes.  Because of the Reid Rule, President Trump will get his Cabinet appointments and most likely the first Supreme Court pick.  By fighting so hard on the nominations, it may serve to demoralize their partisans.

Thirdly, the hyperventilating opposition may play well for the progressive base of the Democrat Party but it may serve to alienate white, working class Democrats who voted for Trump in 2016 on positions and personnel with which they agree.

Historically, Democrats do not turn out in mid-term elections.  In the 2018 election cycle, Democrats have 23 seats up in the Senate, including in states which voted for Trump.  Such strident opposition, epitomized by an obstructionist approach to Trump's first Supreme Court pick (even before he is announced) may solidify a one time "what have you got to lose" vote to a realigning "my party has left me" metanoia, thereby making  Blue Dogs and DC Democrats politically endangered species. 

Chris Coons on Filibusters

Senator Coons may pine for the past -- alas "Dirty Harry" Reid change the Senate rules in 2013 and now confirmations can pass on just 51 votes. 

Senate Majority Leader Minimizes Democrat Delays on Trump Nominees