The Republican Party's Grassley-McConnell Blockade Of The Supreme Court Continues

Iowa Republicans obstructing the Supreme Court

If I was a senator, I'd be predisposed to vote against Merrick Garland. He's just too conservative. I wrote about it on the day President Obama nominated him. But I would have not the slightest reticence about speaking with him and examining him in an open hearing. Anything less is strictly anti-democratic, hyper-partisan obstructionism, disrespect for the Constitution and for the American voters who elected Barack Obama. If I remember correctly, Obama's approval rating is 53% (45% disapprove) whereas the Congress is barely in double digits and Mitch McConnell, the Republican who came up with the No Hearings strategy has a 15% approval rating.

Monday's Des Moines Register published another editorial on Chuck Grassley's role in the Republican obstructionist strategy. Grassley, whose seat is up in November, is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and has refused to agree to hearings on the president's nominee, something I don't remember ever have happened before in history.

The Supreme Court will continue to function, but not to its full effectiveness as a third branch of government. There are already signs that the pace of rulings has slowed in the last two months.

How long should the nation’s highest court be weakened, and in some situations, effectively neutered? For more than a year, according to Grassley and other Republicans.'

Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has argued that the appointment should be delayed until a new president is sworn in 2017-- even if Democrat Hillary Clinton wins in November.

He calls it a waste of time to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee for the court, Merrick Garland. Even though few disagree that Garland's resume is superb. Grassley even said so in 1997, when the Senate was considering Garland for an appeals court nomination: “He seems to be well-qualified. He would probably make a good judge in some other court … where the seat needs to be filled."

Senator, this seat needs to be filled, regardless of whether the presidency and your own seat is up for grabs in November.

We have admired Grassley’s principled stands on issues in his 35-year tenure as U.S. senator. In most cases, these stands have ensured government works more effectively and efficiently for his constituents and taxpayers.

But refusing to hold hearings on Garland is pure partisanship-- and simple stubbornness.

Grassley won’t give Garland a chance, to even let him in the game.

That’s unsatisfying. And un-American.

If I remember correctly, the Des Moines Register is not just the biggest newspaper in Iowa, it is also a newspaper that regularly endorses Chuck Grassley for reelection. One of the few Republicans who have rejected the McConnell-Grassley strategy is Maine's senior senator, Susan Collins. And she thinks the strategy stinks. Unlike Mark Kirk, who is fighting for his political life, Collins' seat isn't up this year. But yesterday she was the second Republican senator to meet with Garland. Afterwards she told the media that she's "more convinced than ever that the process should proceed. The next step, in my view, should be public hearings before the Judiciary Committee so that the issues that we explored in my office can be publicly aired... He has a humility about him. He has clearly thought very deeply about the issues confronting the courts, there was not any question he could not handle, and he has a long record of accomplishment."

Collins said Tuesday that it was “premature” to say whether she would support Garland in a floor vote but said she “found the judge to be extremely straightforward” during a lengthy conversation that touched on the Second Amendment, the limits of executive power and the role of the court in American life.

“He gave very thorough, impressive responses to all of my questions,” she said.

Asked about the blockade favored by Grassley and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Collins said the Senate is “best served by following the regular order” but added that she was “not optimistic that I will be changing minds on this issue.”

She added: “It would be ironic if the next president happens to be a Democrat and chooses someone who is far to Judge Garland’s left.”

McConnell's strategy is working... to decimate the Senate Republicans

Another Republican up for reelection in November is John Boozman of Arkansas and he was pressured into taking a meeting as well. He's not bright enough to follow Collin's logic about someone "far to Judge Garland's left." After his 20 minute long meeting, he couldn't wait to tell the media that he still opposes holding Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination. Boozman has been pressured by right-wing extremist groups who he normally counts on for support.

Garland deserves a serious hearing and senators owe it to their constituents to vote yes or no based on the merits, although perhaps some-- Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, I guess-- would prefer a Donald Trump nominee. I suggest that if you don't, you consider any or all of the Blue America Senate candidates by tapping on the thermometer below:

Since 1990 Oil Companies Have Paid Republicans $163,773,719 To Not Believe In Climate Change

My grandfather was a Socialist who was proud to have voted for FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944. A couple of decades after his last vote for Roosevelt, I had come on the scene and he told me too never trust the Democrats. No, he hadn't turned Republican, of course, he just saw how the corporate warmongers and Southern racists were able to extort effective control over the party on crucial issues. I've usually taken his advice to heart. And even though there were relatively plausible Republicans in office and in contention back then-- Jacob Javits (R-NY), Mark Hatfield (R-OR), Chuck Percy (R-IL), Nelson Rockefeller (R-NY), Charles Mathias (R-MD), Edward Brooke (R-MA), Kenneth Keating (R-NY), Clifford Case (R-NJ), John Lindsay (NY), Ray Shafer (R-PA), even President Eisenhower were actual GOP moderates-- I never voted for any of them.

More recently there have been a few moderates, although they have been more aberrations than part of a realistic movement: Connie Morella (R-MD), Jim Jeffords (R-VT), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI).. This year, the only House Republicans with more "progressive" voting records than right-wing Blue Dog Democrats are libertarians like Walter Jones (R-NC), Justin Amash (R-MI), Tom Massie (R-KY), Jimmy Duncan (R-TN)-- all very conservative Republicans on most matters-- plus a single actual moderate, Chris Gibson (R-NY), who has a more progressive voting record than 9 of the worst conservative Democrats-- from bad to worse, Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY), Bill Owens (New Dem-NY), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC), Ron Barber (Blue Dog-AZ), John Barrow (Blue Dog (GA) and Jim Mathson (Blue Dog-UT). Gibson is really the only Republican in the House who earned the sobriquet "RINO." And not one has in the Senate, where the most right-wing Democrat, Joe Manchin, has a crucial vote score (61.84) that is massively more progressive than the 3 Republicans from blue states with the least right-wing scores-- Susan Collins (27.91), Dean Heller (21.71) and Mark Kirk (13.77).

In the NY Times this morning, Paul Krugman spoke of The Loneliness of the Non-Crazy Republican. Hank Paulson??? OK, he is correct (a lonely, non-crazy Republican) on climate change: "A tax on carbon emissions will unleash a wave of innovation to develop technologies, lower the costs of clean energy and create jobs as we and other nations develop new energy products and infrastructure. This would strengthen national security by reducing the world’s dependence on governments like Russia and Iran. Climate change is the challenge of our time. Each of us must recognize that the risks are personal. We’ve seen and felt the costs of underestimating the financial bubble. Let’s not ignore the climate bubble." But Paulson's premise, that we act to solve the climate change crisis "in the same way we acted to contain the financial crisis," removes him from the Krugman construct of "non-crazy Republican." And Krugman says as much himself:

It’s a dubious analogy: the 2008 crisis was fast-moving, and people like Paulson could credibly warn that unless we acted the whole world economy would fall apart in a matter of days. Meanwhile, climate change is slow but inexorable, with enormous momentum; by the time it becomes undeniable that there’s a crisis, it will be too late to avoid catastrophe.

But that’s not the sad part about Paulson’s piece; no, what’s sad is that he imagines that anyone in the party he still claims as his own is listening. Earth to Paulson: the GOP you imagine, which respects science and is willing to consider even market-friendly government interventions like carbon taxes, no longer exists. The reins of power now rest firmly, irreversibly, in the hands of men who believe that climate change is a hoax concocted by liberal scientists to justify Big Government, who refuse to acknowledge that government intervention to correct market failures can ever be justified.

Given the state of U.S. politics today, climate action is entirely dependent on Democrats, With a Democrat in the White House, we got some movement through executive action; if Democrats eventually regain the House, there could be more. If Paulson believes that he can support Republicans while still pushing for climate action, he’s just delusional.

So how is delusional the same as non-crazy? As individual politicians, Republicans still deny either climate change itself or-- I guess this is the "moderate" position-- that man has played any role in it and therefore can't play any role in ameliorating it. As a party dependent on the Koch brothers and the oil industry in general-- the industry has spent $163,773,719 on GOP congressional candidates since 1990 (and another $48,981,024 on corrupt conservative Democrats willing to vote with the Republicans, like Mary Landrieu and Jim Matheson)-- part of Republican Party canon is to utterly and aggressively deny climate change. And, as wikipedia points out, "manufactured uncertainty over climate change, the fundamental strategy of the "denial machine," has been very effective, particularly in the U.S. It has contributed to low levels of public concern and to government inaction.

And keep in mind, that when the House voted on the American Clean Energy and Security Act exactly 5 years ago this week, only 8 Republicans voted for it, while an astounding 44 Democrats crossed the aisle in the other direction to let their voters know they are also climate change deniers. The bill passed 219-212 and of the 44 Dem-deniers, almost all were subsequently kicked out of office, Democratic bass voters refusing to cast ballots for them. Only 10 remain in Congress and 2 are retiring rather than face sure defeat in November, while 3 more are likely to lose their seats because of Democratic disappointment with their conservatism):

• John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Pete DeFazio (OR)
• Senator Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)
• Bill Foster (New Dem-IL)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ)
• Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
• Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC)
• Nick Rahall (Blue Dog-WV)
• Pete Visclosky (IN)

All of the Blue America candidates believe in an activist approach to climate change based on solid science. Take Michigan's Paul Clements for example. Paul is running against the #1 climate change denier in Congress, corporate whore Fred Upton, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Paul:

Climate change is the greatest threat to Michigan and to the world in the 21st century. We need to keep global warming under two degrees Celsius, but this takes a strong international agreement limiting greenhouse gas emissions in each country. Such an agreement can only be reached with American leadership.

Recently Michigan has seen failures of apple and cherry crops, Lake Michigan at historic lows, some of the hottest and driest summers in our history, and increased flooding from stronger storms and heavier rainfall. These and other influences from climate change are likely to get worse. With runaway climate change we could lose half our species of plants, trees, animals and birds. West Michigan could have a climate similar to West Texas by the end of the century, with summers seven degrees Fahrenheit hotter than today. But around the world it would be even more disastrous. Runaway climate change is likely to cause droughts and floods that drive millions from their homes, collapsing governments, and wars over water and other resources.

The technology exists to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius. Southwest Michigan must lead in manufacturing based on this technology. America must take the lead to negotiate an international agreement, address the harms from climate change, and develop the technologies for a clean energy future.