Democrats Complicit in Advancing Christopher Wray Confirmation as FBI Director

Constituents giving Hero of the Resistance Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse a piece of their minds after his vote to confirm pro-torture Mike Pompeo as CIA director

by Gaius Publius

It seems "our" Democrats never learn.

During the earlier rounds of confirmation on Trump cabinet nominees, a group of early votes to confirm some of the worst and least qualified included far too many Democrats saying Yes.

One of the worst votes was the confirmation of torture advocate Mike Pompeo as CIA director 66-32-2, with such Heroes of the Resistance as these...

• Diane Feinstein
• Maggie Hassan
• Tim Kaine (Clinton's VP nominee)
• Amy Klobuchar
• Brian Schatz
• Chuck Schumer
• Jean Shaheen
• Sheldon Whitehouse
• Angus King

...voting to install him. (See "Mike Pompeo, Torture, and the Future of the Democratic Party" for more.)

For their trouble, Democratic senators like Sheldon Whitehouse were subject to their own angry town halls. (See "Democrat-Supported CIA Chief Hires a Torturer of Muslims as Deputy" for more.)

Now our Heroes of the Resistance (including Sens. Whitehouse and Franken; see below) are at it again, this time on the recent vote to confirm Trump nominee Christopher Wray to replace James Comey as FBI Director.

From Huffington Post and Reuters:

Senate Panel Unanimously Approves Chris Wray's Nomination As FBI Director

All 20 members of the committee voted to advance the nomination.

WASHINGTON, July 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday unanimously approved the nomination of Christopher Wray to be FBI director following the dismissal of the agency’s former chief, James Comey, by President Donald Trump.

All 20 members of the committee voted to approve Wray, a white-collar crime lawyer and former assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush, sending his nomination to the full Senate for a vote.

Trump nominated Wray last month after firing Comey during an FBI investigation into whether Trump campaign associates colluded with the Russians to help him with the 2016 presidential election.

Needless to say, Trump would not have chosen Wray in the first place if Wray were going to operate in the recent James Comey mode, meaning independent of White House direction.

Who Is Christopher Wray?

According to Reuters, Christopher Wray is lawyer who specializes in prosecuting and defending white collar crime. He's also Chris Christie's personal lawyer "in a political scandal."

As a bonus, Wray also has a nice connection to the Russian energy giant Gazprom: "Wray works as a King & Spalding litigation partner and represents companies and individuals in a white-collar criminal and regulatory enforcement matters. King & Spalding has represented Russian companies including state gas monopoly Gazprom, according to its website. According to the website, the firm's energy practice also has represented businesses taking part in deals involving Russian entities including state-owned oil major Rosneft."

In other words, Wray is connected to all the right right-wing people. As we'll discuss at another time, part — or maybe most — of the Trump-Russia battle over sanctions may well be related to the U.S. attempt to corner the E.U. LNG (liquified natural gas) market for struggling U.S. suppliers and freeze out Russian suppliers and pipelines that would deliver Russian LNG to the West.

That may be good or bad, depending on whether you think U.S. military policy should protect U.S. fossil fuel corporations. But with Trump and Tillerson firmly in the "let Russia sell their natural gas" camp, you can be pretty sure which side Christopher Wray will be on — Trump's.

A Loyal Trumpie?

Do you think Trump will expect the same "loyalty" from Wray that he expected from Comey? Reuters again:

In written testimony released by the panel on Wednesday, Comey said Trump told him on Jan. 27 that "I expect loyalty," and in a Feb. 14 meeting asked him to back off from a probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn's ties with Russia. ... In a statement, Trump called Wray "an impeccably qualified individual" who will serve "as a fierce guardian of the law and model of integrity."

I think it would be foolish to think otherwise.

"Heroes of the Resistance"

And these fine members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted (pdf) to send the nomination to the Republican-dominated Senate floor, making confirmation a bipartisan certainty:

• Al Franken
• Sheldon Whitehouse (again)
• Amy Klobuchar
• Patrick Leahy
• Dick Durbin
• Richard Blumenthal
• Mazie Hirono

As CREDO Political Director Murshed Zaheed put it, "Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee just failed the resistance. ... Every Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee should be ashamed of themselves for rewarding Trump by rubber-stamping his pick to fill the role. If Senate Democrats don’t have the backbone to stand up to Trump’s dangerous regime they might as well go home and find a new line of work."

A New Leaf, or the Old One?

They never learn. How do they expect us to think they've turned a new leaf if they keep showing us the old one?

So we're back to the question we asked earlier — how much Democratic complicity is too much? It seems that Democratic senators are determined to help us find out.

GP
 

It's Not About Gorsuch, It's About the Democrats

The largest political bloc in the United States, "radical independents" (discussion here; click to enlarge).

by Gaius Publius

Update: Various news outlets are reporting that because Chris Coons now says he'll support the filibuster, the Democrats have 41 votes and can block the nomination, at least until filibuster rules are changed. The Hill:

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) announced on Monday that he will oppose President Trump's pick on a procedural vote where he will need the support of eight Democrats to cross a 60-vote threshold to end debate on Gorsuch. Coons is the 41st Democrat to back the filibuster.

“Throughout this process, I have kept an open mind. … I have decided that I will not support Judge Grouch's nomination in the Judiciary Committee meeting today," Coons said.

"I am not ready to end debate on this issue. So I will be voting against cloture," Coons said, absent a deal to avoid the nuclear option. [emphasis added]

The Hill adds, "Unless one of the 41 Democrats changes their vote, the filibuster of Gorsuch will be sustained in a vote later this week." Note the qualification (bolded) next to the Coons quote. That's the writer's voice, but it reads like a paraphrase from Coons. From this, it seems likely they're still negotiating to "preserve the filibuster," as the Democrats might put it. We won't know until the votes are cast how things actually do or did play out.

Bottom line first — Democrats are in luck. They now have a fourth opportunity to make a new first impression on voters — especially those in Rust Belt and economically suffering states — yet another opportunity to bring disaffected voters back into the fold in 2018 and 2020.

The first attempt was the nomination of Hillary Clinton in an obvious, 2008-style "change election" year, despite the fact that an actual "change" candidate, Bernie Sanders, was an option they could have chosen. Clinton ran as "Obama's third term"; she won where Democrats and the economy were strongest — the coastal states of California and New York, for example — and she lost where Democrats used to be strong but the economy was terrible — Michigan and Wisconsin, for example, which she also lost in the primary to Bernie Sanders, a telling sign.

The second attempt was, in the aggregate, the numerous, terrible votes on the numerous, terrible Trump nominees — like torture-loving Mike Pompeo as director of the CIA, who passed the Senate 66-32-2; utterly unqualified Nikki Haley for UN Ambassador, who passed 96-4; anti-public school evangelist Betsy DeVos for Education Secretary, who passed her cloture vote 52-48 before being confirmed on a 50-50 vote; or perhaps most significantly, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State, who passed the Senate 56-43-1. Mark Warner and Angus King were among the Democrats voted for Tillerson; Chris Coons didn't vote.

The third attempt was was the proxy battle between the Obama forces, who wanted their man, Tom Perez, to be named DNC chair ahead of Sanders-supporter Keith Ellison. Perez won, with Obama, among others, actively whipping for him (our write-up of that battle is here).

Now comes the highly pro-corporate, pro-religious-rights nominee Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacant Supreme Court justice seat. As you will read below, according to Mitch McConnell, he's going to be nominated one way or the other — with the filibuster in place or with it removed.

The only real question is about the Democrats. What will they do — permit enough of their members to "preserve the filibuster" (until the next time Republicans threaten it) by voting the interests of their donors and passing Gorsuch with Democratic support, or show some Party spine in defeat?

And the only real issues at stake are the 2018 and 2020 elections. Will the Democratic Party, in the aggregate, begin to look like a party the largest voting bloc in the country — "radical" (pro-change) independents — can support? Or will they continue to look like the party of only the comfortably well off?

We're about to find out.

The Gorsuch Nomination — All You Need to Know

As of the latest reports, on Friday, April 7, just prior to a two-week recess, the full Senate will take up the nomination of Neil Gorsuch for justice of the Supreme Court, filling the vacancy left by the death, more than a year ago, of Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016. (As anyone following this story knows, then-President Barack Obama had shortly thereafter nominated Merrick Garland for the seat, but in an unprecedented move, the Senate under Mitch McConnell refused even to hold hearings, in a apparent — or obvious — attempt to hold the nomination for a potential Republican president after the November 2016 election.)

Because of the makeup of the current Senate — 52 Republicans, 46 Democrats, 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and the "centrist" Angus King) — Republican have enough votes to confirm Gorsuch (51 votes needed), but not enough to break a filibuster on the vote to close debate and proceed to a vote to confirm (60 votes needed).

This means that the Republicans, if they vote as a bloc, need eight Democrats/Independents to vote with them to close debate (the so-called "cloture" vote).

What to watch for — The cloture vote will determine whether Gorsuch will be confirmed (unless, as noted below, the Republicans vote later to kill the filibuster rule for SC nominees). Thus, any Democrat who votes Yes on cloture but No on Gorsuch is a hypocrite — is merely pretending to be opposed after helping to settle the matter the other way.

That's true of almost all Democrats when it comes to cloture votes, by the way. A vote to close debate, when a bill or nomination could be stopped, followed by a "principled" vote against a bill or nomination means the vote to oppose is a "show vote" only.

The Democratic "Deal" and the Democratic "Filibuster"

In response to the possibility of a Democratic filibuster of Gorsuch, McConnell has threatened a so-called "nuclear option" — that the Senate would change the rules if a filibuster succeeds in a way that would remove the 60-vote threshold for cloture votes on Supreme Court nomination.

Most recently, we find this:

President Donald Trump's Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch, will be confirmed this week one way or the other, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Sunday, suggesting he'll trigger the so-called nuclear option if Democrats attempt to filibuster Gorsuch.

"Judge Gorsuch is going to be confirmed," McConnell said on "Fox News Sunday." "The way in which that occurs is in the hands of the Democratic minority."

McConnell did not say directly that he would trigger the nuclear option, in which the chamber's rules would be changed to allow the Senate to cut off filibusters on Supreme Court nominations with a simple majority, instead of the current 60-vote threshold. But he said the week "will end with [Gorsuch's] confirmation" whether or not Democrats attempt to filibuster him.

Democrats say that if the filibuster remains in place, they have the votes to torpedo Gorsuch’s nomination.

“It’s highly, highly unlikely that he’ll get to 60,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

As the Gorsuch nomination moved through the Republican-controlled Senate, news leaked that some Democratic senators were considering offering a deal to Republicans — "we'll vote for Gorsuch if you don't eliminate the filibuster for the next Supreme Court nominee.

Since first hearing about the threat to the filibuster, "some" Democrats were said to be considering a deal that would preserve the filibuster (until it was next threatened, it must be said) in exchange for Democratic votes for Gorsuch. The uproar among the public against that was immediate.

In apparent response, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer promised a filibuster — meaning, he announced his own intention to vote no on Gorsuch, and he "asked" other Democrats to do the same. (Those details are here: "Senate Democrats Will Filibuster Gorsuch...Maybe".)

The Decision for Democrats: Well-Paid Minority or "Party of the People"? 

Keep in mind these things:

• The Democrats need millionaire, billionaire and corporate money to stay "in business," since they've rejected Bernie Sanders' fundraising model.
   
• Big money and pro-corporate forces really really want a strong pro-corporate majority back on the Roberts Supreme Court.
   
• Gorsuch will likely be confirmed regardless of what the Democrats do.
   
• If Democrats help break the filibuster, Republicans will claim the confirmation was "bipartisan," and corporate Democrats like Schumer can go into private donor meetings and claim his party helped "deliver."

So what the Democratic Party vote on Gorsuch comes down to is a public show of support for one of two constituencies — either the public and their interests, or corporate and big money donors and their interests. The public is watching — which puts Democratic Party prospects at risk; and the donors are watching — which puts Democratic Party funding at risk.

Which leads straight into the Gorsuch vote on April 7. What will the Democrats do?

The Gorsuch Whip List

According to The Hill, here's where we stand with Gorsuch.

    ▪ Three votes to break the filibuster and approve the nomination — Joe Donnelly (IN), Joe Manchin (WV), Heidi Heitkamp (ND). (Update: Michael Bennet will vote to end the filibuster.)

    ▪ 38 votes to block the nomination, including the surprising Claire McCaskill (MO), but perhaps not including Richard Blumenthal (see below). Most of these say they will also support the filibuster, but not all.

    ▪ Five votes "undecided" in the vote to approve the nomination — Michael Bennet (CO), Chris Coons (DE), Angus King (Maine), Jon Tester (VT), Mark Warner (VA). Tester was in Senate Democratic leadership; he's the outgoing chair of the DSCC. Mark Warner is in leadership now and a Schumer ally. This may indicate how strongly (or weakly) Schumer is whipping against Gorsuch. Watch Bennet, Coons and King, for example.

CNN's count adds Richard Blumenthal (CT) as undecided in approving Gorsuch and includes Ben Cardin (MD) and Patrick Leahy (VT) as undecided in supporting the filibuster. (Yes, Leahy, who was accommodating to so many Bush II lower court appointees.)

    ▪ Two votes "unclear" — Dianne Feinstein (CA), Bob Menendez (NJ). "Unclear" may mean "negotiating for favors" if the vote is close and one of the two sides can give them something they want. (CNN has Feinstein supporting the filibuster and also opposed to the nomination.)

If you're counting, the three firm yes votes and the five, six or seven undecides alone could break the filibuster.

The Hill, of course, is maintaining the pretense that Democrats in red states can't win without acting like Republicans. Note that Trump did win in red states by not acting like a Republican. Trump won, if you've forgotten, by acting like ... Bernie Sanders.

A New First Impression, or a Permanent, Well-Paid Minority?

Remember, if the Democrats don't manage one of the days to make a new first impression on voters, they'll be a permanent electoral minority, albeit very well paid for their efforts. "Permanent" means that their minority will last until one of these nearly inevitable events occur...

• An economic revolt against the ruling elite far angrier than we saw in 2008 and 20016, or
• A widespread, panicky recognition that we're really really screwed on climate 

...both of which will make the country nearly ungovernable and elections, frankly, moot.

And from an independent voter's perspective, if Democrats don't care if they are always in the minority, regardless of their words, why vote for them? It's a vicious cycle, downwardly spiraling. 

Will a successful cloture vote slow the flow of big-donor money to the Democratic Party? If not, they can filibuster freely, knowing nomination is secure in any case.

Or will a failure to block the nomination be enough to show both the donors and the public that Democratic Party hearts are "in the right place" after all — even if those two "right places" are simultaneously opposite to each other?

What will Democrats do? I can't wait to find out.

GP
 

Senate Democrats Will Filibuster Gorsuch...Maybe

Demos President Heather McGhee on Neil Gorsuch and his corporatist policies (cued partway into the presentation)

by Gaius Publius

There a long litany of reasons why Neil Gorsuch is a terrible choice for the Supreme Court, including and especially his strong "corporatist" leanings. Demos President Heather McGhee speaks about that in the brief video above. Needless to say, continuing the Roberts Court pattern of enabling corporate rule over rule by the people will have dangerous consequences for those so ruled, as well as for the Republic, when that rule is overthrown. Make no mistake — when corporate rule finally go too far, takes one step too many, it will be overthrown. When that occurs, the moment will be neither pretty nor comfortable.

Another in that litany of reasons, of course, is to deny to the Republicans the fruits of a stolen seat.

Yet a third has to do with his relationship with religion, as shown in the Hobby Lobby case. As the invaluable Dahlia Lithwick points out, "Our current religious-liberty jurisprudence, as laid out by the Supreme Court in its Hobby Lobby opinion, is extremely deferential toward religious believers. What believers assert about their faith must not be questioned or even assessed. Religious dissenters who seek to be exempted from neutral and generally applicable laws are given the benefit of the doubt, even when others are harmed. Sometimes those harms are not even taken into account." She adds, "Gorsuch agrees with all of this and then some. His record reflects a pattern of systematically privileging the rights of religious believers over those of religious minorities and nonbelievers."

And a fourth, related to the first, is that, as Lithwick has elsewhere pointed out [corrected: it was Eric Segall] that the Supreme Court, unlike the other two branches of government, has no compelling force to guarantee its legitimacy — no army, in other words; no police force. Its legitimacy rests on agreement only.

Consider: You may think Executive Branch decisions are illegitimate, but its officers can nevertheless have you arrested or worse. The Executive Branch, in other words, can force, can compel, your submission. The same with Congress, should it decide someday to advance its prerogatives. Congress can pass laws and, if it wishes, compel the Executive Branch to enforce them. The Supreme Court, in contrast, has no way to compel any citizen to obey its decrees.

When a court, any court, which by definition should be impartial, is widely considered illegitimate — captured and corrupted by partisan or minority forces — the community governed by that court enters "you can submit or rebel" territory. This is Segall's warning. In my view we are very close to that time when the Supreme Court, in the eyes of most of its citizens, has shed the last of its legitimacy. The process started in earnest with the partisan theft, by the Court, of the 2000 presidential election. The shredding of its cloak of legitimacy continues to this day.

This suggest a larger question, of course — what happens when a government loses the "consent of the governed"? — but that's a subject for another day. Nevertheless, with all that's going on around us, can that consideration, something much to be feared by anyone hoping to live in a just and orderly society, ever be far from our minds?

A "Deal" on Gorsuch?

But I want here to look at one political aspect of the Gorsuch nomination — the fact that the Democrats, one of the abused parties in this saga, seem to have offered Republicans, or are considering offering to them, a "deal" that would allow Gorsuch to be confirmed. Then, when the deal became known, they appear to have reversed themselves. But have they?

First, the deal (my emphasis):

Democrats weigh deal to let Gorsuch through

Lawmakers are mulling an offer to Republicans that would keep the filibuster intact for the next Supreme Court nominee.

A group of Senate Democrats is beginning to explore trying to extract concessions from Republicans in return for allowing Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. ... The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue, the sources said, would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term.

This report, like many such reports from places like Politico, also contains the "cover story," the "reasonable explanation" (in sales terms) that the guilty parties would like you to believe are their motives. "The lawmakers worry that Gorsuch could be confirmed whether Democrats try to block him or not — and Democrats would be left with nothing to show for it."

The real reason corporatist Democrats — a group that includes Chuck Schumer, remember, if it is not led by him — want Gorsuch confirmed is that their corporate paymasters (sorry, campaign contributors) want Democratic Senators to help confirm him, and may shut off the flow of money if they don't.

Who are the Democrats who want to cut a deal to get Gorsuch confirmed? The article wouldn't name them, but does say, "The current talks are limited to about a half-dozen Democratic lawmakers." While the article says the senators looking to cut a deal on Gorsuch requested anonymity, it adds, "Some liberals are aiming to block Gorsuch, while others are worried about the electoral prospects for 10 senators up for reelection next year in states won by Trump if they’re seen as obstructing the president’s court pick" (my emphasis).

A look at Democrats up for reelection in 2018 includes these, culled from a list of those whose votes for Trump nominees are among the worst:

• Cantwell
• Cardin
• Carper
• Casey
• Donnelly
• Heinrich
• Heitkamp
• Kaine
• King (Independent)
• Klobuchar
• Manchin
• McCaskill
• Menendez
• Nelson
• Stabenow
• Tester

All of these senators will face the voters in 2018. Care to pick a "half dozen" from that list who may have been on Politico's "anonymous" list? Joe Manchin is named in the Politico piece as being especially concerned about preserving the filibuster, as is Chris Coons, who is not up for reelection until 2020.

Remember, it will take just eight Democrats to break a filibuster and confirm Neil Gorsuch.

Reaction to News of the "Deal"

After a strong negative reaction to news of this "deal," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that the Democrats would filibuster the nomination. The Washington Post headline announced:

"Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch nomination"

The implication is that all Democratic senators, or a sufficient number of them, would indeed block this nomination, thus clearing the Party as a whole of the suspicion of complicity. But the Post article itself was more circumspect: "Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he will vote no on President Trump’s nominee and asked other Democrats to join him in blocking an up-or-down vote on Gorsuch" (my emphasis). Note — he "asked" other Democrats to join him.

The Post adds to the uncertainty, noting:

The Democrats’ liberal base has been pressuring senators to block Trump’s nominees across the government. But Schumer stopped short of saying that his entire Democratic caucus would join him in opposition to Gorsuch, leaving political space for some Democrats to find ways to work with Republicans.

Will the Gorsuch nomination be filibustered, or "filibustered"? Democrats have the numbers to block this, and Schumer is strong enough to whip his caucus into line — if he wants to. Will we watch the Schumer-led Democratic Party block Neil Gorsuch from a lifetime seat on the Court, or just pretend to?

Bottom Line — Who Will Step Up for Gorsuch So Others Don't Have To?

Privately, I think there are easily more than eight corporatists in the Democratic Senate caucus who would eagerly put paid to their obligations to the very very wealthy, who want this nomination to succeed very very much. If the Gorsuch vote were secret — or entirely unnoticed, as most Monsanto Senate votes are — you'd see them all vote yes without a backward glance. Even "liberal lion" Al Franken votes with Monsanto when the spotlights are off. Same with MSNBC darling Amy Klobuchar, who is on the list above, by the way.

The list of possible pro-Gorsuch senators includes the obvious names above — Manchin, Heitkamp to name just two — but also includes these so-called "undecided" senators:

• Kaine (Clinton's veep pick)
• Klobuchar (her again)
• Warner (a Schumer ally in Senate leadership)
• Coons
• Hassan
• Donnelly
• Nelson
• Tester

The chips are down and most of the cards have been played. The Democrats have heard from their other base — people who vote — and have announced a filibuster. It's in their power to win, during this round anyway. What will they do?

This test is a very big deal. It will tell voters once again who the Democratic Party, in the aggregate, represents. Will eight Democrats (including the Democratic-caucusing Angus King) cross the line and vote with Republicans so others don't have to? Or will Senate Democrats realize that the path to irrelevance in the Age of Trump, well paid though it be, leads through this door, and stand up to the money that funds them?

I can't wait to find out what happens. Either way, it will be consequential (meaning, have consequences).

GP
 

What Democrats Failed to Do on January 3

Yes. I, for one, think of this daily.

by Gaius Publius

It's widely understood, even in Republican circles, that a Supreme Court nomination that should have fallen to a Democratic president was stolen from him by Senate Republicans and will be handed instead to a Republican president, Donald Trump. (In Republican circles, it's not just understood, it's celebrated.)

Democratic Party leadership have four ways they can respond — Not at all, Weakly, Strongly, or Very strongly. "Responding not at all" is not an option, since Senate Democrats (and frankly, institutional Democrats in general) must at least appear to have "seen the Sanders light" and started to stand up for the people — and more frankly, themselves — in this newborn Age of Trump.

Responding with words and not deeds would qualify as "responding weakly." Some actions in opposition and retaliation could be considered "responding strongly," depending on the action, though when you consider that Trump's SCOTUS nominee will serve for life, even the strongest of oppositions — save the full Mitch McConnell response ("oppose everything all the time") — still seems not strong enough by comparison.

Any "very strong" response would necessarily be one that actually "resteals" the nomination back into Democratic Party control and prevents the Trump nomination entirely. Happily, there is such a response — or was. The clock on that response started on January 3 at the very open of the new session of Congress, and ran out just a few minutes after that.

Yet that response would have worked, which is why I'm presenting it to you now. This is your first example of Senate Democrats not choosing a "very strong response" to Republican and Trumpian provocation. For the details, read on.

David Waldman's Plan to Steal Back the Obama's SCOTUS Nomination

This piece was written in December, and it distills thinking by David Waldman (KagroX as was) on how the Democrats can use (manipulate) Senate rules to deny Trump the right to nominate his own candidate for the Supreme Court in place of Merrick Garland. This plan, in other words, puts Merrick Garland on the bench.

I know from personal experience that Waldman knows his Senate rules; he's my goto person when I have questions myself, and I'm not alone in relying on him this way.

From Karoli Kuns at Crooks and Liars, here's the distillation of Waldman's plan (emphasis in original):

Senate Democrats Have One Shot At Saving SCOTUS - Will They?

It is now time for Senate Democrats to take their shot at saving this country from fascists assuming the reins of power in January. It can be done, but it will require them to be courageous and aggressive.

David Waldman (KagroX on Twitter) has outlined how they can confirm Judge Merrick Garland on January 3rd for the few minutes that they will be the majority in the Senate. Waldman is a long-standing expert on Senate procedure and political plays. He was one of the first to call for passage of the ACA via reconciliation in the Senate after Scott Brown was elected.

Here it is, in a nutshell.

On January 3, 2017, Democrats will hold the majority in the Senate for a few minutes, until the newly-elected Senators are sworn in. Biden could convene the Senate in those few minutes and call for a vote. The majority could then suspend the rules and vote in Merrick Garland.

The key here is that VP Biden would have to be willing to convene the Senate and recognize Senator Dick Durbin instead of Mitch McConnell. Durbin moves to re-nominate Garland, and Senate Democrats then vote to confirm him. They will have a quorum for those few minutes.

Kuns appropriately adds:

It's bold. Garland would be confirmed by 34 Democrats and no Republicans. It will certainly enrage Republicans, but they're already enraged and full of hubris about how they're going to screw Democrats anyway, so what do they really have to lose?

Not much. It takes courage. It takes a resolve to do what's right for this country, to reclaim the Supreme Court nomination Republicans think they stole from us. It takes backbone.

Here's where the rubber meets the road. We're not talking about "comity" anymore. We're talking about conviction and confirmation.

Is this a legitimate use of Senate rules? Yes. Using the rules within the rules is legitimate (legal) by definition. Would the Republicans pitch a total fit if this happened? Of course, but they do that anytime they lose and some times even when they win.

Should Democrats care about Republican objections? No. But are they bold enough to do this? Of course not. We know that because they didn't do this.

I kind of hate to say this as early as I'm saying it, but "Ladies and gentlemen, these are your Senate Democrats in action." Or inaction, as the case may be. This counts as responding "not at all." Get ready for weak, but ineffective, responses later to show they have a pulse.

Why This Matters

This matters for two reasons, not just one. First, it's a fairly damning, in my opinion, indication of what to look for from the rump Clinton-Obama leadership team in the Senate. Will they act boldly in the Age of Trump, or just appear to? Jury's out, but it doesn't look promising.

And second, as Clinton, Obama and every institutional Democrat with a voice and a microphone reminded us constantly during the campaign — The Supreme Court Matters. But enough to do anything about, or or anything effective? Apparently not, despite the campaign season hysterics.

Remember the rule: The role of money in politics is to neuter Democrats and enable Republicans. I'm afraid we're about to see a string of examples of this, starting with the one just cited.

GP
 

Reid Surrenders His Sword to Schumer; Caucus Concurs

Harry Reid (left, in red) surrenders control of Senate Democratic
caucus to Chuck Schumer (right, back to the camera)

by Gaius Publius

This is what happens when "party unity" or "caucus unity" trumps policy. We get Chuck "Wall Street" Schumer as the next Minority Leader — because Harry "But I promoted Elizabeth Warren" Reid helped put him there. So did "progressive" Patty Murray. And according to reports, so did nearly every other Democratic senator. (Does this mean Jeff Merkley? Sherrod Brown? Al Franken? Who knows — they haven't raised their heads.)

Washington Post a few days ago (my emphasis throughout):

Harry Reid endorses Chuck Schumer to succeed him as Senate Democratic leader

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has endorsed Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to succeed him after he retires at the end of 2016.

"I think Schumer should be able to succeed me," Reid said in a Friday morning interview at his home in Washington's West End.

Reid predicted that Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democrat in leadership and a close friend, would win the Democratic leader post without opposition. He said that the other likely contender, Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), would stand down for Schumer. ...

But what about that "Warren Wing"?

Seemingly comfortable with his decision to not run for re-election, Reid said the liberal wing of the Democratic Party should have faith in Schumer, whose ties to Wall Street fueled his fundraising prowess and helped Democrats win the majority in 2006 and expand it to a super-majority in 2009. Those ties have some liberals questioning whether Schumer should lead the party, but Reid said that Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would serve as the torch bearers for the populist wing and hold the caucus's feet to the fire.

No snark from me; it's already in the quotes (look for the word "faith"). Reid wants to elevate the enemy of economic populists so the populists can be "torch bearers." But not to worry; they can "have faith" in Schumer while they hold those torches — and Schumer looks the other way.

Durbin and Murray Also Endorse Schumer

Dick Durbin is the ostensible number-two person in the caucus, after Reid, which means he's getting leapfrogged. Apparently he's fine with that:

But by mid-afternoon, Reid had endorsed New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, no. 3 in the current hierarchy, as his chosen successor — and Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin’s office made it clear that the Illinois senator would also back his colleague and former Capitol Hill roommate. ...

Durbin, according to his spokesman, also has the support of Reid to seek another term as the party’s whip.

What about Patty Murray? She's the only woman in the Senate in a strong leadership position, and a senator who sometimes votes progressive (and sometimes not; she's an anti–Glass-Steagall senator after all).

[D]uring the budget session, Reid, for a time or two, appeared to be looking on as his three longtime lieutenants —Durbin, Schumer and Patty Murray of Washington — worked through the process of wrangling over amendments.

Turns out Murray is also a Schumer-enabler; she endorses Schumer and will not run against him:

Patty Murray Backs Schumer for Leader

Having won the backing of the entire leadership team, New York’s Charles E. Schumer might become the next Senate Democratic leader by acclamation.

Conference Secretary Patty Murray, D-Wash., has joined in endorsing Schumer for the top job when Nevada Democrat Harry Reid retires at the beginning of 2017, according to a Murray aide.

“Senator Murray spoke to Senator Schumer several times over the past few days and told him that she planned to support him for leader next Congress and looks forward to continuing to be his partner in Senate Democratic leadership,” the aide told CQ Roll Call.

Murray has long had a large portfolio within the Democratic caucus, and she’s likely to only expand on those responsibilities in the next Congress.

Thus Murray makes three. Any objection from anyone else? Hearing none — done deal. Don't worry about Murray, though. She has "long had a large portfolio" within the caucus, is "likely to only expand on those responsibilities." So there's that. Fair trade perhaps? She'd likely say yes.

Where's the Rest of the Caucus?

But don't let the rest of the Democrats off the hook. The same piece linked at the top tells us that Schumer "might become the next Senate Democratic leader by acclamation." And the Post earlier told us that Schumer "already has secured overwhelming support of members of the caucus." So it's on them all until one of them raises her objecting head and says, "But ... wait."

Party Capture by Insiders, Thanks to Harry Reid

This is what we get when we vote for Democrats. Party unity and hyper-"collegiality" way too much of the time. Women and men eager to sell out progressives and play "Follow the Neo-Liberal Party Leader." So long as their "personal portfolio" is expanded, of course. Good for Patty Murray. Not so good for us.

Democratic Senator Patty Murray (WA)
playing "Follow the Neo-Liberal Leader"

Color me pained to be saying this, but there it is. Insiders helping insiders keep outsiders out — meaning us. It feels like progressives have just lost the Senate, thanks to Harry Reid. Is this "our" party? Doesn't look like it from here.

GP

Some good people get good Dem Senate committee slots -- but then there are also those other people

Yes, Senator Warren is getting that Banking Committee slot!

by Ken

It reminds me of nothing so much as the day when solons of college fraternities break the good news to such of their incoming hopefuls which of them have made the grade and will be received unto the elect. With, maybe a few differences.

(1) When it comes to apportioning committee slots to Senate Democrats for the 114th Congress, there's only one solon: Majority Leader Harry Reid. Today, as you probably know, was the day when Leader Harry Reid manned the phones spreading the good news. I don't know how many of these calls he actually makes himself, but I'm guessing he probably gravitates toward the ones that will be perceived by the recipients as good news -- i.e., committee assignments that they actually want. Except maybe in cases where he's trying to deliver not so much bad news as a "message" -- you know, the way the House Republicans did the other day to some of their stunned minions. But that doesn't sound so much like our Harry, does it?

(2) Those fraternity pledge results aren't usually accompanied by press releases. I had this idea earlier that I would get hold of some master list of the new committee assignments, but I couldn't find any such list. Instead what I found was mostly press releases, and news "stories" apparently based on the press releases, trumpeting the happy news of senators-elect as well as sitting senators (Leader Harry's Majority Megaphone also spread word of reshuffled committee assignments for present members of the team).

(3) There's also the associated caution that today's tidings aren't exactly final. First, it's always noted that the actual committee assignments are made by vote of the Senate Democratic caucus. These are, presumably just Leader Harry's "recommendations." Second, it's pointed out that committee assignments can't be considered final because the Dem-to-R committee ratios based on the new alignment of the Senate have yet to be worked out. (I assume this is accomplished via a series of grueling team challenges, like three-legged races, tugs of war, and so on.)

Meanwhile, let's not soft-pedal the good news. You probably also got this e-mail via Daily Kos earlier today:

Just moments ago, I received a call from Sen. Harry Reid’s office, confirming my position on the Senate Banking Committee in January.

I appreciate the faith that Leader Reid has put in me to take this assignment, and I am looking so forward to playing a role in Congressional oversight over big banks on Wall Street and the banking agencies in Washington. Middle class families need more watchdogs in Washington that will try to hold the big guys accountable and to stop bad deals for the American people. I’m ready to help.

Please join me in thanking Leader Harry Reid for this incredible opportunity.

Over the years, your faith in my work has strengthened me. You donated to my election campaign, you made phone calls to help identify volunteers and get out the vote in Massachusetts, and you pushed hard again and again to put wind in my sails in every way imaginable so that I could take on the big guys.

Against the odds, you helped give me a real shot at winning.

You’ve been there for me since the beginning, and I’m so grateful. This is how real change happens – we do it together.

Of course, fighting for the middle class means more than talk or strongly worded emails. It means across-the-board, consistent accountability for anyone who breaks the law — no matter where they work or who their friends are. And that’s what we’re going to work hard to accomplish.

But before we get started, please join me in thanking Leader Reid for his giving me this incredible opportunity.

I’ve taken on Wall Street banks and other powerful interests for years, and, with your help, I’ll continue to do so for many years to come.

Thank you for being a part of this, and keep fighting!

Elizabeth

There are things I don't understand about this e-mail, like why it's so important that we click on the links to pay homage to Leader Harry. Is the idea that he will be so impressed as to revise his opinion that all those far-left cyberkooks are pawns of Satan, and are really well-brung-up citizens who know how to write a "thank you" note, or anyways click into one? That's not going to happen, is it? My only other theory is that it's mostly a Daily Kos list-building exercise. (I also wonder about the DONATE button that follows the signature "Elizabeth." I chose not to pursue this question.)

But the news is the real thing: that MA Sen.-elect Elizabeth Warren is indeed getting that slot on the Senate Banking Committee that we all wanted her to have, that spoke after all to the reason we thought it so important that she be elected, over the vociferous objection of the Wall Street crowd. How often do we get to see them get their worst nightmare?

For the record, Senator Warren will also have "positions on committees dealing with health and aging."

Other good news: WI's new senator, Tammy Baldwin, is headed for Health, Education, Labor & Pensions; Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs; the Special Committee on Aging; and Budget -- committees that seem to fit her interests well.

But then there are announcements like the plum assignments for Maine's "Independent" senator, Angus King. Are we supposed to cheer the good news for that slug?

Or there's news that WV's Joe Manchin is also headed for Banking. (Small technical point: When the D-to-R ratio is established, which side does he count on?) Fortunately, it doesn't exactly offset the Elizabeth Warren news. After all, when palookas like Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner and his to-be-named successor are forced to bear witness before the committee, will they reflect more on having to face Senator Joe or Senator Elizabeth?


MAYBE WE CAN APPROACH THIS MORE RATIONALLY . . .

. . . when we have the actual committee assignment list.

Or maybe not.

#

It's time for all 60 senators who caucus with the Dems to adopt the Sanders Rule: EVERYONE in the caucus votes against GOP filibusters

Cenk makes his case for the Sanders Rule: "It's genius."

by Ken

We've been talking, of course, about the implications of the Democrats reaching, more or less, the magic 60 threshhold in the Senate. The consensus is that there aren't any implication, considering the lack of cohesiveness of those 60 senators the 58 nominal Democrats and the two Independents who caucus with the Democrats.

Why, just look at those two Independents. You've got probably the most upright person in the Senate, Vermont's Bernie Sanders, and perhsps the most lowdown, Connecticut's Holy Joe Lieberman. Both New Englanders, but it's hard to think of much of anything else they have in common.

It turns out that Senator Sanders has been thinking along the lines of our friend Lane Hudson, whose thinking we passed on in one of our ponderings of the Democratic supermajority. Beyond the importance of making sure that we make Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid aware of our hopes and expectations,

he makes the eminently practical point that at the very least the leadership should be held to mustering its voting clout on cloture votes, requiring caucus members to toe the line on them. They would still be free to vote their conscience in the final vote on a bill, but they shouldn't be allowed to aid the opposition in preventing a final vote from happening.

The filibuster, which in all its configurations has always been understood as a last resort, reserved for matters of do-or-die principle, has been transformed by the new Republican minority into a strategy of first resort. Having no program of their own, except to screech "Hell no" at any proposal made by Democrats, they now threaten it routinely, indeed automatically. What they have wrought is a substantial transformation of the way the Senate does business, so that the most routine Senate business now requires 60 votes.

Our friend Cenk Uygur (of the Young Turks) wants everybody to know about "The Sanders Rule: All Bills Get Up or Down Votes." He first quotes the senator:

"I think that with Al Franken coming on board, you have effectively 60 Democrats in the caucus, 58 and two Independents. I think the strategy should be to say, it doesn't take 60 votes to pass a piece of legislation. It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster. I think the strategy should be that every Democrat, no matter whether or not they ultimately end up voting for the final bill, is to say we are going to vote together to stop a Republican filibuster. And if somebody who votes for that ends up saying, 'I'm not gonna vote for this bill, it's too radical, blah, blah, blah, that's fine.'" (emphasis added)

and then comments:

I love this Sanders Rule. It makes perfect sense. This is the whole point of having 60 senators in your caucus. I don't need or want ideological rigidity on the Democratic side. I believe in the Big Tent. So, how people vote is up to them. But getting these bills to the floor to get up or down votes is absolutely necessary. This is part and parcel of being in the caucus. Not just in healthcare, but all of the bills must have up or down votes (but by far the most important thing right now is to include a public option in the healthcare bill that gets an up or down vote).

I know Democrats bend over backwards to accommodate the Republicans and appeal to bipartisanship. Although the Republicans never, ever seem to reciprocate, that is all fine and dandy, as long as we get to vote on the legislative proposals. They can have bipartisan proposals come up. They can have progressive or conservative proposals come up. But no matter what they should all get a vote, as long as there are sixty senators in the Democratic caucus.

If the Democrats don't use their 60 seat majority to break filibusters, then they are absolutely complicit. There are no excuses left. It's one thing to say you're voting your conscience on a bill (though a great majority of the time they are in fact voting their pocketbook by voting with the lobbyists), it's another to say that you will join the Republicans in upholding a filibuster. That is not acceptable.

Everyone who voted for a Democrat in the country should absolutely insist that they follow the Sanders Rule. All bills must get up or down votes. That's the least they can do with the overwhelming mandate they have been given to get us real change.

If they squander this - with control of the White House, a huge majority in the House, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and all of the national polls behind them - then they were lying. They never intended to bring us change in the first place. The lobbyists will have won. And Obama's presidency will be like all of the others. A lot of bullshit promises and no change despite every conceivable advantage. If they can't get it done under these circumstances, then they can never get it done - nor did they ever want to.

A chorus of Senate Dems cries out, "Welcome Back, Joe!" (And thanks, President-elect Obama!)

Is that Sen. Barbara Boxer finishing up preparations

for the Dem Senate caucus's "Welcome Back, Joe" bash?

by Ken

An online list colleague was venting suspicion as to the absolute solidarity of our friend Senator Lieberman now that he's been so happily restored to the bosom of the Senate Democratic caucus. Specifically, he was casting doubt as to our Joe's absolute reliability as a clinching 60th vote. Actually, what he said was:

"I will bet my now substantially reduced life savings on this: Joe will never, ever be the 60th vote."

Shocked by this cynicism, I tried to set him straight:

I bet "The 60" are going to have, like, a group photo taken, which they'll all autograph with wacky little in-jokes (that DiFi can be such a cut-up!), and they'll all hang theirs on the walls of their Senate cubicles (I bet those U.S. senators have the real big ones, with room for, like, pictures of their pets in funny hats), and they'll all hang out together and always buy each other goofy little gifts just to show they care, and they'll make each other hot cocoa late at night while telling legislative horror stories (you just know Joey L will bring the tiny marshmallows), and if somebody needs a kidney they'll all line up to be tested, and they'll just generally be BFFs.

(Okay, well, there might be only 47 people in the photo -- the other 13 being listed as officially "camera-shy.")

#

Big Winner In The Lieberman Charade: Me and Holy Joe

As you know, I rarely venture Inside the Beltway. I'm always worried that my wish for that area could be fulfilled while I'm there. But last year I was visiting a friend in Virginia and she invited a houseful of Inside the Beltwayites over. One, who works for a Senate leader assured 3 or 4 of us, privately and in confidence, that Lieberman would be dealt with appropriately after the election. I was wondering if he was just lying to us or was far more naive than I ever imagined. It certainly didn't prevent me from taking 7 one hundred dollar bets this week that Lieberman would get to retain his gavel at the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. And I certainly hope that the staffer's boss was one of the 13 Democrats worthy of the "D" next to their names. I guess we'll never know; it was a secret vote. But I made $700-- well, $600 and a $100 meal on the fortuitous bets against what I was hoping for but knew was never to be.

Instead Chris Dodd and Ken Salazar offered an insulting-- not insulting to Lieberman, insulting to progressives-- proposal that Lieberman be relieved of the chairmanship of a global warming subcomittee on the Environment and Public Works Committee, a joke and a deliberate rebuke to the party's base. Not even the apology reactionary Lieberman apologist Evan Bayh "demanded." Good luck on Jim Martin, assholes!



I was wrong. They didn't spontaneously burst out into a chorus of "For He's The Jolly Good Fellow." But maybe they are going to go on Fox News and do it there later. At least they didn't elect him Majority Leader. Listening to NPR a few minutes ago I heard some really slimy scumbag-- I'll find out his name later-- defending Lieberman and attacking progressives claiming, in fact, that Bernie Sanders, who voted to take away Lieberman's gavel, isn't a Democrat; he's a socialist. Yeah? And Lieberman? He's not a Democrat either; he's a Republican viper in their midst. But let no one ever say they don't deserve him.