Even When They Manage To Steal Control Of Government, Conservatives Don't Do Anything But Obstruct

Ohio reactionary, Gym Jordan (R-OH) is a leading Republican on two committees: Oversight and Government Reform ,where he is the ranking member, and Judiciary. That's it. He's not on any committees that deal with passing actual laws, just committees that most deal with bad behavior. So when he goes on Fox every other day to warn about how Democrats don't deal with anything substantive, he's referring to his own committees-- and he's lying. Democrats have passed dozens of bills to make life better for the American people but they can't move forward because Senate Majority Leader, #MoscowMitch, refuses to allow then to be debated and voted on.

In the first 5 months alone, the House passed over 50 bills that McConnell refused to allow to reach the Senate floor-- all of which were opposed by Jordan-- from lowering prescription drug prices (HR 987, HR 1520 and HR 1503), protecting people with preexisting conditions (HR 986), the Paycheck Fairness Act (HR 7), two background check bills (HR 1112 and HR 8), bills to deal with Climate Change and environmental degradation (HR 9, HR 1331, and HR 2578), a resolution to end U.S, involvement in the Saudi genocide in Yemen (SJ Res. 7), Violence against Women Act (HR 1585) to bills to protect consumers (HR 1500), abused children (HR 2480), and government employees (HR 790)... and dozens more.

But there was Jordan-- who only wants to protect child molesters-- on Fox again yesterday, whining-- falsely-- that "the push for impeachment from House Democrats is taking away from Congress’s ability to fulfill the needs of the American people."

McConnell's self-proclaimed role as "the Grim Reaper" for all House-passed legislation is the problem-- and, of course, McConnell's is just the hideously ugly face of that problem. There isn't one Republican in the Senate, or anywhere in Congress, who has complained about it. And that's why I decided to post the video above from the latest John Oliver show. I urge you to watch it.

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 Defeats Fast Track Filibuster; Final Passage Almost Certain

"Yes We Can pass a corporate-written 'trade' agreement. My congressional brothers and sisters, with your help ... yes we can."

by Gaius Publius

By a narrow vote (but not as narrow as it looked), the Senate passed a standalone Fast Track bill 60–37. As explained by the floor leaders, three senators had trouble getting to the floor, but their votes were known and announced, so there were no undecideds.

Five Republicans voted to uphold the filibuster for reasons that can be examined later:

• Susan Collins (R-ME)
• Ted Cruz (R-TX)
• Rand Paul (R-KY)
• Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
• Richard Shelby (R-AL)

On the Democratic side, because three senators didn't show up to vote, the pro-TPP forces needed 13 Democrats to join with Republicans to defeat the filibuster. And surprise — 13 Democrats showed up:

• Michael Bennet (D-CO)
• Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
• Tom Carper (D-DE)
• Chris Coons (D-DE)
• Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
• Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
• Tim Kaine (D-VA)
• Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
• Patty Murray (D-WA)
• Bill Nelson (D-FL)
• Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
• Mark Warner (D-VA)
• Ron Wyden (D-OR)

There's actually a 14th pro-TPP Democrat who was too afraid to vote until the 60th vote was cast:

•  Ben Cardin (MD)

 Huff Post explains:

Senate Gives Obama Huge Win On Trade

... Still, the razor-thin margin of the final vote count masks the fact that McConnell had slightly broader support at his disposal. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) stood by the table in the well of the Senate for most of the vote, waiting for the measure to get across the threshold of 60. As soon as it did, with a vote by Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Cardin voted no, suggesting he had been willing to vote yes if needed.

Ben Cardin voted Yes on Fast Track on May 22, once the filibuster was broken, a vote that helped send the Fast Track–and–Trade Assistance bill to the House. So Cardin's preferences are clear. He's a quiet Yes — he just doesn't want people to know that if he can help it. If you care, Cardin's up for reelection in 2018.

After the vote, McConnell announced that of the three absent senators, Corker, a Republican, was a Yes. Sherrod Brown then announced that the other two absent senators, Lee (R-UT) and Menendez (D-NJ), were both No votes.

With Cardin, Lee and Menendez factored in, the actual count would have been a still-tight 61–39. Two more Republican defections would have swung it the other way, but I strongly suspect there was an additional very quiet (but obvious if you think about it) Democratic Yes vote in the wings, if it was needed.

So the list of Democratic perps is the 13 above plus Ben Cardin. Perhaps they'll hold a reunion on some K Street–financed yacht once they're all turned out of office. They'll probably have the cash for it. They won't have Obama-money — he'll have surpassed Bill Clinton in parting gifts by that point — but K Street is not known for its poor people either.

GP

Warren Tells Obama To Put Up Or Shut Up On Trade

by Gaius Publius

Your Open Rebellion Caucus at work, featuring Dem-on-Dem violence on trade. As usual, the press is enjoying this, and those opposed to TPP appreciate the spotlight. Thanks are due to President Obama for being so obvious about what he wants, and for not downplaying Sen. Warren's fierce objections to this next-NAFTA job-killing "trade" deal.

First, the setup — President Obama has been unusually aggressive with members of his own party on trade and his eagerly sought TPP deal. My ongoing coverage of TPP is here; click if you'd like some background. Now the latest, per Zach Carter at Huffington Post (my emphasis):

Elizabeth Warren Tells Obama To Put Up Or Shut Up On Trade

Progressive Democrats have been hoping to see a showdown between Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton for years. Instead, they're getting a public feud between the senator from Massachusetts and President Barack Obama.

Obama accused Warren and congressional Democrats on Friday of being "dishonest" and spreading "misinformation" about the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- a trade pact the administration is negotiating among 12 nations. The overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress oppose TPP, while Republican leaders support it.

It was an unusually aggressive attack for the president -- accusing members of his own party not of having misplaced priorities, but of actively working to deceive the public. Obama is rarely so severe even with his Republican opponents. Obama said that the Democratic criticism that "gets on [his] nerves the most" is the notion that his TPP pact is "secret," and went on to insist that the terms of TPP will help American workers.

As many have recently discovered, perhaps to their surprise, when Obama really wants something, he really tries to get it. (Does this give the lie to progressive excuses, that the president wants more progressive policies than he settles for, but is too timid to negotiate for them? I'll let you decide.)

The current battle is between Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown, the once-again leaders of "open rebellion" in the Senate — in-your-face rejection of pro-wealth policies pushed by Democratic Party leaders. Warren and Brown's position? Mr. Obama, you say the TPP deal isn't a "secret." Put up or shut up — show the public the treaty before we vote on Fast Track. Or, as Huffington Post put it:

On Saturday, Warren and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) responded with a letter essentially telling Obama to put up or shut up. If the deal is so great, Warren and Brown wrote, the administration should make the full negotiation texts public before Congress votes on a "fast track" bill that would strip the legislative branch of its authority to amend it.

"Members of Congress should be able to discuss the agreement with our constituents and to participate in a robust public debate, instead of being muzzled by classification rules," Warren and Brown wrote in the letter obtained by The Huffington Post. ...

"Your Administration has deemed the draft text of the agreement classified and kept it hidden from public view, thereby making it a secret deal," the letter reads. "It is currently illegal for the press, experts, advocates, or the general public to review the text of this agreement. And while you noted that Members of Congress may 'walk over ... and read the text of the agreement' -- as we have done -- you neglected to mention that we are prohibited by law from discussing the specifics of that text in public."

Obama has been aggressive in defending this billionaires' dream, perhaps because of this:

Obama’s Presidential Library as envisaged by the Chicago firm HOK (view 1). Like Star Fleet Academy, but with corporate funding. (Discussed here.)

Regardless, the next move is his. If past is prologue, it will be coming soon. His robotic OFA forces (that's not an unfair characterization on this issue, unfortunately) are out in number, throwing up Obama's disingenuous defense of this treaty in many progressive forums. (For a prime instance, see comment threads like this at Daily Kos. There are many such examples of OFA pushback in progressive discussion spaces.)

A question for OFA defenders of TPP: You've shown your loyalty — it's to Obama and his future earnings, not your own as progressives in the "Warren wing" of the Democratic Party. What will you do when Obama is off living his future, and you're left behind to seek your own among the progressives you're now disingenuously attacking? Do you think they'll remember you the way Ro Khanna is remembered, for example?

Did "progressive" ex-OFA media shop 270 Strategies help Ro Khanna craft this message? (Click to enlarge; source)

Dem-on-Dem Violence: What Will Happen in the Senate?

Fast Track is coming to the Senate floor. Regardless of what Obama does, Democratic senators are going to have to show, once again, who they stand for — the richest of the rich, or American workers, small business, and, yes, national sovereignty. We've seen a lot of these opportunities for the Democratic Party to define itself. Fast Track is yet another.

Here are your corporate Democrats so far, based on their pro–Fast Track votes in the Senate Finance Committee:

• Ron Wyden — Ranking Member and lead perp
• Michael Bennet — former head of DSCC
• Maria Cantwell
• Ben Cardin
• Tom Carper
• Bill Nelson
• Mark Warner

The current Senate holds 54 Republicans, 44 Democrats and 2 Independents (Sanders and King, the latter of whom often votes "corporate"). One Republican, Richard Burr (N.C.), voted No on Fast Track in committee. Let's assume all remaining Republicans vote Yes, and Burr holds firm as a No. That makes 53 Republicans plus seven Democrats voting Yes — so, 60 votes for Fast Track on the floor. Enough to break a filibuster, with zero margin for error or defection.

Your questions of the remaining Democrats:

1. Who will join the filibuster and vote No on cloture, when the TV lights are off?
    
2. Who will vote No on the floor vote, when the TV lights are on?
    
3. Who will vote both ways — Yes to help end the filibuster, but No in a public-but-losing attempt to prevent the inevitable passage?

The real vote will be on cloture, a vote to end the Warren- and Brown-led filibuster. Any Democratic senator who votes to end the filibuster (where the threshold is 60 votes), yet votes No on the bill (where the threshold is 51 votes) ... is not your progressive friend. A Yes to end the filibuster means a No on the floor vote is "for show." Watch the voting, then make a list.

Watch also for Democrats voting with Republicans even when their votes aren't needed to pass Fast Track. Those could be early applications for corporate funding in their own next election.

After this, the circus moves to the House, where the Paul Ryan–led Ways and Means Committee takes up the Fast Track bill. In the House, many Republicans are opposed. Will it pass? Stay tuned.

What About Wyden?

In my humble estimation, Wyden needs to be dealt with, whether TPP ultimately passes or not. Some votes are regrettable but forgivable, some are very regrettable but forgivable, and some, like this one, should never be forgiven. Similar to NAFTA, TPP will devastate American workers (and line CEO silk pockets) for the next 20 years, after your children have children.

Sen. Ron Wyden, the designated Democratic perp on TPP

Wyden's seat is up in 2016. Many progressives in Oregon will not vote for Wyden, even in the general election. Others are actively looking to replace him in the primary. Care to tell Ron Wyden which side of either of those fences you're on? Here where to send a message:

Senator Ron Wyden
221 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C., 20510
tel (202) 224-5244
fax (202) 228-2717

Be polite, but be honest. And if you're from Oregon, tell him you vote.

GP

Is The Senate Actually Starting To Function Again?

Monday there were two votes in the Senate on Presdient Obama's nomination of Jeh Johnson to be Secretary of Homeland Security. First came a cloture vote. There were 57 ayes and 37 nays, with 6 Republicans not voting. Under the bad old rules, that would have ended the chance to confirm the first African-American ever nominated to that position. The only Republicans who broke with McConnell and crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats were Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). That was at 5:59 pm.

Because shutting down a filibuster on most nominations no longer requires 60 votes, 21 minutes later, the Senate voted 78-16 to confirm Johnson. Confused? Here's what happened. The hard core obstructions and racists-- your Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, Ted Cruzes, James Inhofes, Miss McConnells, Mike Lees, etc-- still voted no. But 19 Republicans joined Colins and Murkowski in voting to confirm… 5 more than voted against confirming. 21 minutes before they were playing their childish games to prevent the smooth functioning of government for no apparent reason.

19 of them had every intention of voting to confirm a non-controversial candidate-- unless you consider skin color controversial-- but given the opportunity to filibuster the nomination so it would never come up for a vote… well, isn't that the Republican way! These are the 16 assholes who voted against both cloture and against the final nomination, the worst of the worst:

• John Boozman (R-AR)
• John Cornyn (R-TX)
• Jim Crapo (R-ID)
• Ted Cruz (R-TX)
• Nan Fischer (R-NE)
• Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
• John Hoeven (R-ND)
• James Inhofe (R-OK)
• Mike Lee (R-UT)
• Miss McConnell (R-KY)
• Rob Portman (R-OH)
• Jim Risch (R-ID)
• Marco Rubio (R-FL)
• Mike Scott (R-SC)
• Jefferson B. Sessions III (R-AL)
• Dick Shelby (R-AL)

The Republicans are dysfunctional jerks and don't deserve to be part of government. Harry Reid has also filed for cloture on another 10 nominees the GOP is blocking for no substantive reasons, just to gum up the works and prevent the government from operating efficiently:

• Alejandro Mayorkas, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security
• John Koskinen, of the District of Columbia, to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service.
• Brian Davis, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the District of Florida
• Janet Yellen, of Callifornia, to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
• Sloan Gibson, of the District of Columbia, to be Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs
• Sarah Sewall, of Massachusetts, to be an Under Secretary of State (Civility Security, Democracy, and Human Rights)
• Michael Connor, of New Mexico, to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior
• Sarah Bloom Raskin, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of the Treasury
• Jessica Garfola Wright, of Pennsylvania, to be Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
• Richard Engler, of New Jersey, to be a Member of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

 

Right-wingers on the filibuster -- it's the old Ralph Kramden con: "Heads I win, tails you lose"

"If a Senate majority demonstrates it can make such a change once, there are no rules which binds a majority, and all future majorities will feel free to exercise the same power, not just on judges and executive appointments but on legislation."

-- Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

"You will no doubt come to regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think."

-- Sen. "Miss Mitch" McConnell (R-KY)

by Ken

You do see the difference between what Senator Levin and Miss Mitch are saying, don't you?

Senator Levin is talking about the real prospect of a "tyranny of the majority," not to be confused with what a piece of lying filth like George Will throws the phrase around. When Lying George says it, what he means is, "Those goddamn Democrats will get away with murder." You know, like when he discovered that Barack Obama was working feverishly to concentrate as much power as possible in the executive branch, which was an out-and-out lie, even forgetting for a moment that at that very time congressional Republicans were working day and night to strip the president of as much power as they could. Miraculously, Lying George discovered this nonexistent executive-branch power grab after eight years of failing to utter a peep while "Chimpy the Prez" Bush and the lowlifes around him were doing exactly that. Either Georgie was too stupid to notice, or too dishonest to tell the truth about either Bush or Obama. Take your pick.

Now, as to what Miss Mitch is saying, fortunately it has moments of candor every now and then, like when it openly acknowledged that Republicans' number-one priority during the Obama first term was to make sure that he was a one-term president. When it tells Senate Democrats, "You will no doubt come to regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think," what it's really saying is, "You had a chance to stop me before I kill."

I wrote the other day that whatever happened with the filibuster rule, the Republicans would win, for the simple reason that they have no principles except winning. Oh, in their heads they imagine they have principles, but that's just the detritus glopping up their brains. They're so persuaded of the virtue of that glop, however, that in some niche of their diseased brains, they really believe they're justified in doing whatever they have to do to win. And so we have Miss Mitch announcing that it and its kind will now do whatever they damned feel like.

There's another way of looking at Senator Levin's opposition to the way the Democrats made their rule change: as one of the last remaining Senate "Old Bulls" holding out against newer Senate Dems' reform-mindedness, a case that the Washington Post's Paul Kane makes in "In filibuster vote, 'Old Bull' Democrats in Senate take back seat to young bucks." But I think it's worth listening to the senator's warning in more detailed form:

We need to change the rules, but to change it in the way we changed it today means there are no rules except as the majority wants them. This precedent is going to be used, I fear, to change the rules on consideration of legislation, and down the road -- we don’t know how far down the road; we never know that in a democracy -- but, down the road, the hard-won protections and benefits for our people's health and welfare will be lost.

Here again is Miss Mitch: "You will no doubt come to regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think." Right-o, Dems will regret it as soon as the Miss can make them. It's the old Ralph Kramden gambit: Heads I win, tails you lose.

Most of the above quotes come from Dana Milbank's Washington Post column "The Democrats' naked power grab." The title doesn't seem to me to totally represent Dana's argument, though we'll see in a moment where it comes from. Notably, he's pretty clear about the provocation presented by the Senate Republicans.

[1]
Certainly, Republicans have abused the dilatory tactics that Senate minorities have, for centuries, used with greater responsibility; they seem intent on bringing government to a halt. And the Senate in 2013 is hardly a healthy institution.

[2]
[Majority Leader Harry] Reid was right that Republican obstruction has been intolerable; half of the 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominations in the nation’s history, he noted, have come during the Obama presidency.

It's true, though, that both of the above statements come with "but" qualifiers.

To the first, about the Senate now being "hardly a healthy institution" (links onsite):

Yet it has achieved far more than the House — passing bipartisan immigration legislation and a farm bill and working out deals to avoid default and to end the federal government shutdown — largely because, until Thursday, Senate rules required the majority party to win votes from the minority.>

To the second, about the majority leader's diagnosis of Republican obstruction as intolerable:

But Reid's remedy -- calling a simple-majority vote to undo more than two centuries of custom -- has created a situation in which the minority leader, Mitch McConnell (Ky.), is expected to use the minority's remaining powers to gum up the works, and to get revenge when Republicans regain the majority.

Dana also quotes then-Sen. Joe Biden from the time of the Republicans' 2005 threat to deploy the nuclear option on the filibuster:

The nuclear option abandons America's sense of fair play . . . tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.

Joe was probably right. The only thing is, the playing field is never level when one side considers itself empowered to do whatever it can get away with to win.

Remember, heads I win, tails you lose.

#

For a "Sunday Classics" fix anytime, visit the stand-alone "Sunday Classics with Ken."

Sen. Pat Leahy, on the latest GOP judicial filibuster: "I've never seen anything like this"

NYT caption: Robert L. Wilkins, left, with President Obama and other nominees in June, was picked to fill one of three vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

"The American people and our judicial system deserve better."

-- President Obama

"Appointing judges to fill vacant judicial seats is not court-packing. It's a president's right as well as his duty."

-- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

"I've never seen anything like this."

-- Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy

by Ken

I realize the latest Senate Republican judicial filibuster yesterday was totally expected, and at this point can be thought of as simply "yet another one." Nevertheless, I think attention must be paid.

The Republicans do this because they believe that there is no price to be paid, or that any piddling cost can be easily absorbed and will pay back dividends many times over. At this point you have to wonder if it isn't their goal to goad Senate Democrats to resort to the nuclear option and overthrow the filibuster. And then, just as Republicans are warning now, Democrats will rue the day.

Look at the quantity of human filth with which George W. Bush infested the federal courts with the option of the filibuster -- people of such degraded vileness that they should be living in cages under strict hazardous-waste quarantine. Now that Republicans have made themselves officially the party of mental disease and degradation, put a Republican in the White House and a Republican majority in the Senate, and there will be truly no limit.

As Fred Wertheimer points out at the end of the NYT piece below, not only are the Republicans quite prepared to exercise the nuclear option themselves if and when it suits them, they know how to make it a win-win situation -- winning if they go nuclear or merely threaten to do so. "The reality," says Fred, "is that the Republicans were willing to do this before and gained enormous advantage in the deal that was made to prevent it."

Obama Pick for Court Is 3rd in a Row Blocked by Republicans

By JEREMY W. PETERS
Published: November 18, 2013

WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans on Monday blocked President Obama's third consecutive nominee to the country's most powerful and prestigious appeals court and insisted they would not back down, inflaming a bitter debate over a president's right to shape the judiciary.

By a vote of 53 to 38, the Senate failed to break a filibuster of Robert L. Wilkins, a federal judge who was nominated to fill one of three vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, falling seven votes short of the 60 needed. Two Republicans -- Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine -- voted with the Democrats.

The impasse over Mr. Wilkins followed Republican blockades of two other candidates for the court since Oct. 31. Unlike previous fights over judicial nominees, the dispute is not as much about the judges' individual political leanings as it is about the overall ideological makeup of the court. Republicans have raised few objections to the three candidates' qualifications or legal positions.

Rather, Republicans are seeking to prevent Mr. Obama from filling any of the three existing vacancies on the 11-seat court, fearing that he will alter its conservative tilt. The court has immense political importance because it often rules on questions involving White House and federal agency policy.

Democrats accused Republicans of exercising a nakedly political double standard for confirming presidential nominees.

"Appointing judges to fill vacant judicial seats is not court-packing," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, said Monday. "It's a president's right as well as his duty."

After the vote, Mr. Obama issued a statement saying he was being held to an unfair standard. "Four of my predecessor's six nominees to the D.C. Circuit were confirmed," he said. "Four of my five nominees to this court have been obstructed."

Mr. Obama added, "The American people and our judicial system deserve better."

Republicans have argued that the court does not have a caseload large enough to merit filling the vacancies, and they have proposed legislation to shrink it by three seats. But that has no chance of becoming law in a Democratic-controlled Senate, so instead they have vowed to block any nominees for that court.

For one day at least, business on Capitol Hill shifted away from the problematic effort to carry out the president's health care law, prompting Republicans to accuse Democrats of trying to change the subject.

"Unfortunately, the Senate will not be voting on legislation to allow Americans to keep their health insurance if they like it," said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. "Rather, we will be voting on another nominee to a court that doesn't have enough work to do. The Senate ought to be spending its time dealing with a real crisis, not a manufactured one."

Republicans are making a bold gamble: Hold firm and allow no more judges to get through while hoping that Democrats do not alter filibuster rules so that the minority can no longer block judges. At times, they have dared Democrats to change the rules, saying that any move to stop filibusters will haunt them if the Senate and the White House ever flip back to Republican control and a seat opens on the Supreme Court.

Senate aides said Monday that members of the Democratic leadership had started to gauge support for a rules change inside its caucus. Any changes would require 51 of the 55 members aligned with Democrats.

Mr. Reid can bring the stalled nominees back up again at any time, individually or all at once.

Judge Wilkins became the fourth of Mr. Obama's choices for the District of Columbia court to be blocked by Republicans this year. Angry Democrats, noting that Judge Wilkins is African-American and that the three other nominees are women, said Republicans were stifling diversity.

Democrats have sought to portray Republicans as callous to the concerns of women and minorities.

Judge Wilkins, who serves on the United States District Court and was confirmed three years ago in a unanimous voice vote, gained national prominence in a case that helped popularize the term "driving while black" when he sued the Maryland State Police after they pulled him over in the 1990s.

Patricia Ann Millett, who was filibustered late last month, has argued nearly three dozen cases before the Supreme Court. To bolster Ms. Millett, whose husband serves in the military, friends from military spouse support groups have come to the Capitol to plead her case.

Cornelia T. L. Pillard, rejected last week, is a law professor at Georgetown who litigated racial discrimination cases for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc.

Caitlin J. Halligan, who went down in a filibuster earlier this year, is the general counsel for the Manhattan district attorney. She has withdrawn her nomination.

Republicans are on the verge of exhausting the last bit of tolerance Democrats have shown for such regular use of the filibuster on nominations. Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the Senate's longest-serving current member, who has fought to safeguard the institution's traditions, said Monday that momentum was building toward a rules change -- a move so controversial that it is referred to as the nuclear option.

"I've never seen anything like this," Mr. Leahy said.

By the Republicans' own count, the cases scheduled for oral argument per active judge on the court has declined, but not by a large amount. They have said there were 90 per judge in 2006 compared with 81 this year. The Senate has confirmed only one of Mr. Obama's nominees for the court, Srikanth Srinivasan, in May.

Democrats do not have entirely clean hands on the subject of filibustering nominees to the District of Columbia court. In 2003, when Democrats were a minority in the Senate, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York persuaded initially reluctant members of his party to take what was considered an extreme step at the time: blocking a confirmation vote on Miguel Estrada, a lawyer nominated by President George W. Bush to fill a vacant seat on the court. Altogether that year, Democrats blocked six judicial nominees by using the filibuster.

Republicans eventually threatened to make the same rule change Democrats are considering now. But they backed down after a bipartisan group of 14 senators agreed to approve the circuit court judicial nominees awaiting confirmation. Mr. Estrada had withdrawn, but another conservative judge, Janice Rogers Brown, was put on the District of Columbia appeals court.

Many senators and outside advocates have begun to ask whether the atmosphere has grown so poisoned that Democrats see little reason to hold back.

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group that advocates transparency in government and campaign finance, said Republicans would be likely to exercise the nuclear option themselves if they ever faced a Democratic blockade of important nominees.

"The reality is that the Republicans were willing to do this before and gained enormous advantage in the deal that was made to prevent it," he said, referring to the compromise by the group of 14 senators. "We're not in a situation where the tradition and rules and history of the Senate are being recognized today. We're in a situation where politics and partisan reasons have overridden the sense that there are rules of fair play that must be maintained."

#

GOP War on Women Combines With GOP War On The Judiciary For Another Successful Filibuster

A few months ago, Senate Republicans agreed to start behaving and stop the ritual obstruction of all the president's judicial nominations. Basically, a handful of Republicans agreed they would help Democrats break the filibusters of routine nominees and only filibuster obviously really, really bad ones. A bunch of nominees got passed and then… the Republicans went back on the agreement. Tuesday, they successfully filibustered Cornelia Pillard for an appointment to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The cloture attempt, which needed 60 votes, went down 56-41, only Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME) living up to their promise to stop the obstructionism. (Orrin Hatch voted "present.")

Jennifer Bendery at HuffPo pointed out that blatant sexism in the Republican's latest obstructionist onslaught.

Democrats have noted that Republicans keep filibustering female nominees to the D.C. Circuit. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) wondered aloud on the Senate floor "whether there is a double standard" when it comes to putting women on that court. Before Pillard, Republicans also blocked Patricia Millett and Caitlin Halligan.

"Caitlin Halligan, who practiced before the U.S. Supreme Court, was the Solicitor General for the State of New York, why block her? Why block Patty Millett, who worked in the Solicitor General's office under both administrations?" Kaine asked Thursday. "Why block Nina Pillard? Nina Pillard was the appellate attorney before the United States Supreme Court to argue for the need to admit women students to the Virginia Military Institute."

"Another woman filibustered... another woman stopped in her tracks," Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said after Millett's blocked vote. "This has to end. We've been making so much progress for women in the judicial system."

Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who claimed the vote against Pillard is not part of the Republican War Against Women, dared the Democrats to invoke "the nuclear option," which would end the automated filibuster Republicans have been using. What it looks like is the GOP taking advantage of Obama's falling popularity and an ability to question his legitimacy as a president. They equate filing judicial vacancies with "packing the court." It was their third vote to block a nominee in 2 weeks.

Looming underneath their disagreements about Ms. Pillard is the likelihood — which appeared to grow considerably on Tuesday — that the fight will escalate and result in a change to the Senate rules to limit the minority party’s ability to filibuster judicial nominees.

Senator Richard J. Durbin, the chamber’s No. 2 Democrat, warned Republicans that they were pushing the Senate dangerously close to a tipping point.

“There reaches a point where we can’t allow this type of injustice to occur,” he said, all but threatening that Democrats would be forced to change the rules. “It’s not fair to these nominees,” he added, “to be given the back of the hand by a Republican filibuster on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who is a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, dared Democrats to change the rules, saying it would come back to haunt them if they lost the majority.

“Go ahead,” Mr. Grassley said. “There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases that we’d love to put on the bench,” referring to Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court.

Democrats have made much of the fact that two of the three nominees whom Republicans have rejected recently-- and three of the filibustered nominees the president has submitted for the District of Columbia appeals court over the last year-- were women. Mr. Grassley rejected the idea that sex played any role in opposition to the nominees.

“When the other side runs out of legitimate arguments, their last line of defense is to accuse Republicans of opposing nominees based upon gender or race,” he said. “It’s a well-worn card. And they play it every time.”

The nomination of one more judge to the appeals court could move to the Senate floor soon. Robert L. Wilkins, a Federal District Court judge for the District of Columbia, has already cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and is awaiting a floor vote.

But Republicans have shown no willingness to approve him, either.

Yesterday, Elizabeth Warren weighed in on the pattern of Republican obstructionism against Obama's nominees. "The powerful interests that work to rig the Supreme Court also want to rig the lower courts. The D.C. Circuit is a particular target because that court has the power to overturn agency regulations." She noted that nine of the fourteen judges on the D.C. Circuit were appointed by Republicans, and that the court has been busy striking down federal agency regulations and protections.



"Republicans may not like Wall Street Reform. They may not like Obamacare. But Congress passed those laws. President Obama signed those laws. President Obama ran for reelection on those laws, while his opponent pledged to repeal them-- and his opponent lost by nearly five million votes. It is not up to judges to overturn those laws or their associated regulations just because they don't fit those judges' policy preferences.

"

Senator Warren called Republicans efforts to rig the D.C. Circuit by blocking the President's highly qualified judicial nominees "naked attempts to nullify the results of the last Presidential election" and argued that if the filibusters continue, "then Senators not only have a right to change the filibuster rules-- Senators have a duty to change the filibuster rules. We cannot turn our backs on the Constitution. We cannot abdicate our oath of office. We have a responsibility to protect and defend our democracy, and that includes protecting the neutrality of our courts-- and preserving the Constitutional power of the President to nominate highly qualified people to fill their vacancies."

Bad Day For The Gun Nuts

It was very close-- and dramatic, with at least one senator, Lisa Murkowski, changing her vote at the last second, and another, Heidi Heitkamp, flying in from a North Dakota sickbed while Harry Reid held the vote open-- but the Senate shut down the Republican/NRA filibuster of Todd Jones to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). The GOP and NRA have managed to prevent the appointment of a director for 7 years! "For the past seven years," wrote Gabby Giffords to her followers on Friday, "the gun lobby has cowed Congress into blocking nomination after nomination to the post-- all part of their decades long effort to systematically erode law enforcement's ability to keep our communities safe from gun violence."

ATF has a broad mandate to combat illegal firearms and investigate arson. The Republicans have guaranteed no one would be confirmed, even while Bush was president! Jones, a former US Marine with law enforcement experience as a U.S. Attorney for Minnesota has been Acting Director.

Although Mark Kirk (R-IL) was the only Republican to vote to confirm him, Susan Collins (R-ME), twisted Lisa Murkowski's arm to change her vote on the filibuster and allow an up or down vote. Jones was confirmed 53-42 but it was the cloture vote to shut down the obstructionists' filibuster that mattered most. And for that Kirk, Collins and Murkowski were joined by 3 other Republicans who have decided to stop routinely supporting the extremists' obstructionist filibusters-- Kelly Ayotte (NH), John McCain (AZ) and Lindsey Graham (SC). Cloture passed by the narrowest possible margin, 60-40, leaving radicals and gun-loons like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, Chuck Grassley and Miss McConnell fuming and sputtering in frustration.

Republican Obstructionist Caucus Forced To Eat Their Own Feces On NLRB Confirmation Votes

anger and frustration from the peanut gallery

I don't know much about the Obama nominees-- not the new ones and not the discarded ones (Sharon Block and Richard Griffin)-- to the empty seats on the National Labor Relations Board. But I do know that the mindless Republican filibusters against their confirmations were all shut down Tuesday and all the nominees were confirmed. It's the first time there has been a full board since Bush was president.

The status of two of President Obama’s choices for the panel, which is charged with hearing disputes between unionized private-sector workers and management, was a key component of a bipartisan agreement reached this month. Under the agreement, Republicans dropped objections to a slate of executive branch nominations and Democrats backed off threatened changes to Senate filibuster rules.

As part of the agreement, the White House agreed to appoint two new candidates to replace ones that Obama had attempted to install through his recess appointment power before federal courts struck down the move.

The new nominees, Kent Hirozawa [who served as chief counsel to NLRB head Pearce] and Nancy Schiffer [a former associate general counsel to the AFL-CIO], each were confirmed, 54 to 44, with just one Republican vote. Mark Gaston Pearce, the NLRB chairman, was confirmed for a new term, 59 to 38.

Two Republican members, Harry I. Johnson III and Philip A. Miscimarra, were confirmed by voice votes.

Without the agreement, the NLRB would have lost of its quorum of three members late next month, jeopardizing its ability to function. All five new members will serve for the remainder of Obama’s term [actually, they serve for 5 years, so Hillary will be president when their terms expire].

“Today’s votes are another reminder that making the Senate work means real things to real people,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), one of the lead advocates for changing Senate filibuster rules, said in a statement after the votes. “Timely up or down votes on executive nominations should be the new normal.”

Before the votes, Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Ranking Republican on the The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, explained he wouldn't vote to confirm either Hirozawa or Schiffer because they are pro-union. But, with a Democratic majority in the Senate, it didn't matter if Alexander wanted to cater to the worst anti-worker instincts in his plutocratic party. All that mattered were the filibusters against the nominees by the obstructionist hardliners like Cruz, Rubio, Lee, Paul, Sessions, etc. And that's where Alexander and several other Republicans departed company with the radicals. Alexander voted for cloture-- shutting down the filibusters. Here's how the votes that mattered went.

First up was Hirozawa and his filibuster ended 64-34 with yes votes from every Democrat plus Alexander, Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ), Miss McConnell (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

Nancy Schiffer came next and her cloture vote passed 65-33, again, all the Democrats plus all the Republicans who had voted to end the Hirozawa with the addition of Mark Kirk (R-IL).

And the third filibuster forced to a close was for Mark Pearce, the reappointed chairman, and the vote on that was 69-29-- all the Democrats, all the Republicans who voted to end the Schiffer filibuster (except Miss McConnell) plus Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Rob Portman (R-OH), John Thune (R-SD) and Pat Toomey (R-PA). That's how the deal played out, with the radical, anti-working family wing of the Senate Republicans isolated and fuming. Today the Senate is grappling with Republican judicial filibustering and that's a much more serious problem.

Suddenly it turns out that the Senate CAN confirm administration nominations after all

So Young Johnny McCranky is the "hero" of today's compromise in which Senate Republicans averted the threatened Democratic filibuster nuclear option. Whattaguy! Why, he's contributed so much to Senate "bipartisanship" all through these first four and a half years of the Obama presidency.

by Ken

So it turns out that sometimes, at least, if you push back against sociopathic, America-hating Republican obstructionists, they give way.

Today by a 71-29 vote the Senate voted to proceed with the nomination of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray is already serving as the bureau's first director, on a recess appointment that would have expired next January.

The Cordray nomination, you'll recall, had been pending for two years, with a sizable cadre of Republicans committed to never confirming a director for the CFPB while they continue their efforts to destroy it. To those Republicans, the very idea of protecting consumers is anathema. The role of consumers to the corporatist stooges, is to be bent, mutilated, and where possible raped. In the corporatist system those slimeballs are paid well to set consumers up as patsies.

And now after those two years, the implacable opposition to allowing a vote on the Cordray nomination dissolves in a 71-29 vote, in which 17 Republicans joined the 54 Democrats and independents. I suppose there is some sentiment that those 17 GOP-ers are to be congratulated. I would suggest that rather they should be forced to return every penny in salary and perks, not to mention fund-raising, collected over every day that they prevented the Cordray nomination from moving forward, now that they have acknowledged that instead of doing their job they were suing some toxic, rapacious agenda.

The Cordray unblockage was made possible by a deal arrived at early today between the warring Senate parties. The Washington Post's Aaron Blake reported:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) credited Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) with crafting the deal. "John McCain is the reason we're at the point that we are," Reid said. "Nobody was able to break through but for him. And he does it at his own peril."

Yeah, Harry, a real hero is Young Johnny McCranky. Never mind that he's one of those doody-sucking stiffs who's been sitting on his fat ass all this time. If he had any sense of decency or history, he would have accompanied his heroic peacemaking today by putting a bullet in his brain, to more fairly sum up his time in public life.

It's not entirely a return to sanity, because the same worthless-garbage affronts to sanity remain on the job, ready to resume their role as America-hating obstructionists at any second. Still, it does seem finally to have occurred to them that they have something to lose after all these years of behaving like tin-pot Latin American oligarchs.

Here's how ThinkProgress's Progress Report reported the deal:

GOP Blockade of Nominees Collapses

Today was supposed to be D-Day when it came to the so-called nuclear option in the Senate -- a relatively minor change in the Senate rules to stop a minority of senators from using the filibuster as a means of nullifying democratically created government agencies and functions that they object to purely for ideological reasons.

After a three and a half hour meeting last night and ongoing negotiations through this morning, senators announced a deal to avert changing the Senate rules. Nevertheless, the deal represents a huge victory for Democrats and an almost unconditional surrender on the part of Senate Republicans.

Here’s the main elements of the deal:

• The president’s nominees to head the Department of Labor, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Export-Import Bank, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will be confirmed without delay.
• Two of the president’s current nominees to the National Labor Relations Board will be withdrawn; however, Republicans agree in advance to confirm any two nominees of the president’s choosing before the Senate recesses in August.
• Democrats retain the right to revisit changing the filibuster rules on executive branch nominees at any time should Republicans once again begin a blockade.

Interestingly, Senate Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY) had offered a deal last night that would have also confirmed the current group of seven nominees, but would’ve required Democrats to promise to never again threaten to change the rules. Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) wisely rejected this offer in favor of the offer outlined above made by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and a group of breakaway Republicans.

Real progress has already been made as a result of this deal. CFPB nominee Richard Cordray had been prevented from receiving an up-or-down vote by Senate Republicans for 730 days. Following today’s deal, a cloture motion on his nomination passed 71-29 and a final confirmation vote is expected later today.

Hopefully this new spirit of cooperation from Senate Republicans will also extend to other areas. The president deserves up-or-down votes on his judicial nominations, which have also faced unprecedented levels of obstruction and delay from some Senate Republicans. In particular, we look forward to timely votes on the president’s three nominations to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

BOTTOM LINE: Today’s deal does not fix all of the problems with the Senate, but it represents a huge victory for consumers, workers, and anyone who cares about clean air and water. In addition, the deal underscores that a unified Democrat caucus can stand up to unprecedented Republican obstructionism and get results.

I'll go along that it's a better day than the Senate has had in a while, and certainly one of the better days during the Obama presidency. But that's saying so little that I'm inclined to go easy on the hosannas. Let's wait and see what happens if the weeks and months to come.

#

For a "Sunday Classics" fix anytime, visit the stand-alone "Sunday Classics with Ken."

Whether "Miss Mitch" McConnell is simply lying its head off or is actually mentally incompetent, it has become a clear-and-present danger to the Republic

Now that the slimeball Senate minority leader has abandoned even the pretense of any obligation to reality or truth, he really has become a danger to everyone in the country.

by Ken

Now that "Miss Mitch" McConnell has established itself as the most dishonest and incompetent creature ever to occupy a position of authority in the U.S. government, something really needs to be done about it.

Was it yesterday that it said on the floor of the Senate that the idea that there's a filibuster crisis is a "fantasy"?

It's time for reporters to demand an answer: Did it say that (a) because it's a pathological liar or (b) because it's really too stupid to understand that every word out of its mouth is a lie, or (c) it's insane? And it shouldn't be allowed to say another word -- for the rest of its miserable life -- until it answers this question. And on the basis of that answer it should eitther (a) be given a gun with which to blow its own diseased brain out on national TV or (b) be involuntarily committed to a mental institution until such time as it can demonstrate a higher degree of mental competence.

Miss Mitch and its staff of liars are pretending that this year they didn't reject any Obama nominations. (Note that even they are speaking only about this year.) Is this sheer effrontery or pathological imbecility? Is this toxic turd really too stupid to know that the way it has used the filibuster as a weapon of terror is by threatening a filibuster, making believe that any damn thing going through the Senate requires a 60-vote majority, in flagrant contradiction of the U.S. Constitution?

Do Miss Mitch's cockamamie figures include the number of votes that have been cast before the bill or nomination ever got anywhere near a yes-or-no vote? Of course not. The actual number of Senate votes taken that "failed" because they failed to reach the 60-vote threshhold -- more often than not on a procedural vote long before an actual vote on the issue -- is a small fraction of the number of bills and nominations scuttled by the threat of the unconstitutional filibuster.

This creature is a cancer, and it has to be removed immediately. I think its assisted suicide would be the most elegant solution, but permanent commitment to a loony bin would accomplish the goal.

I mean, where does a worthless sack of toxic fecal matter come off make a claim like the one in this washingtonpost.com headline from yesterday? (For that matter, where does Aaron Blake come off failing to make clear the total fraudulence of the bullshit spewing forth from the doodybrain's maw? "Objective" reporting doesn't mean passing off arrant lies as "one side" of a debate.)

McConnell: Reid could be worst Senate leader ever

By Aaron Blake, Published: July 11 at 4:41 pm

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) engaged in a heated hour-long exchange over filibuster rules on the Senate floor Thursday, and by the end of the day, McConnell said Reid risked becoming the worst Senate leader in history.

If Reid goes through with the so-called nuclear option, McConnell said, “our friend the majority leader is going to be remembered as the worst leader here ever.”

It wasn’t the first allusion to Reid ruining his legacy. Thursday morning, McConnell quoted Reid’s previous opposition to filibuster rule changes from when Reid was in the minority in 2005, and suggested making them now would be on his political tombstone.
“‘Breaking the rules to change the rules is un-American’ – his words, not mine,”
McConnell said. “I just hope the majority leader thinks about his legacy, the future of his party and, most importantly, the future of our country before he acts.”

The two went back and forth for about an hour, with both referring to each other’s past comments on filibuster changes.

Reid said that such changes should only be made in extraordinary circumstances — and argued that the current Republican obstructionism of nominees represents just such a circumstance. Reid is only seeking to change filibuster rules on Cabinet and agency nominations — not for all Senate business.

“It could be said Sen. McConnell broke his word,” Reid said, referring to McConnell pledging to allow votes on nominees through regular order of the Senate. “The Republican leader has failed to live up to his commitments. He has failed to do what he said he would do, move nominations by regular order except in extraordinary circumstances. I refuse to unilaterally surrender my right to respond to this breach of faith.”

By Thursday afternoon, McConnell’s staff tweeted an image suggesting the move would be on Reid’s tombstone:

(See the witty drawing at the top of this post.)

#

For a "Sunday Classics" fix anytime, visit the stand-alone "Sunday Classics with Ken."

Nuggets-- Mostly Gun Control

Good news: Ken is out of the hospital and his operation was a complete success. Hopefully, he'll be back in this slot soon. Meanwhile: bit and pieces I missed the last couple of days

Arkansas ConservaDem Mike Ross Is Back

Corrupt Blue Dog Mike Ross is throwing his hat into the ring in Arkansas' gubernatorial race. The Republican in the race is right-wing fanatic Asa Hutchinson and the Democrat running is former Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. Ross hopes to position himself in between, just like his entire sordid career in Congress was, where he had the distinction of voting more frequently with the GOP than with the Democrats-- and doing that more often than almost any other Democrat in history. Why doesn't he run as an independent?

Bipartisan Background Checks Defeated

Maybe if 92% of Americans supported the bill, instead of a mere 91%, it would have passed. But the NRA triumphed over the American people in the Senate yesterday. Democrats Mark Begich AK), Mark Pryor (AR), Heidi Heitkamp (ND) and Max Baucus (MT) joined the NRA voters and abandoned their own constituents. Voters in Arkansas, Alaska and Montana will have a chance to react in 2014. The amendment, which needed 60 to get through the GOP filibuster, only wound up with 54 votes (55 if you include Reid). I might add, that in 2008 Blue America endorsed Mark Begich and helped him raise money. Blue America won't be endorsing him for reelection and will leave him to the corporations and right wing interest groups he's been sucking up to to help him raise money. We'll look closely at any Democrat who decides to primary him (and Pryor and Baucus). The Blue America-backed Senate candidates for 2014 all favor serious gun control.

And Speaking Of Obstructionist Filibusters...

This was 2009 gem dug up by Ed Kilgore a couple days ago: "My personal feeling is that supporting a filibuster against your own party and your own party’s president should be treated as a serious and rare measure on major issues of conscience where the sacrifice of some of the prerogatives of seniority are a small price to pay. So maybe that price really should be paid. But at a minimum, the practice of thinking of cloture votes as identical to substantive votes, and tolerating defections on the former as just the same as the latter, needs to come to an end. There is no sixty-Senate-vote requirement for the enactment of regular legislation in the Constitution or in the Senate rules. We don’t need lockstep Democratic unity on policy initiatives. We just need unity on the simple matter of allowing the Senate to vote." Will there be any consequences? From Senate Majority Leader Reid? From the DSCC? From Obama? No, no, no. But from voters? We'll see, won't we?

DCCC Perfidy... Again

Moments after the 4 Democrats voted with most of the Republicans to kill background checks, the DCCC tweeted "GOP just blocked background checks. Disgusting. We can't let this stand. Stand with us now." They are hoping to make money on the vote-- money they will use to help reelect devoted NRA allies and gun control opponents on their Front Line list, particularly Blue Dogs Jim Matheson and Mike McIntyre, each of whom is expecting $2 million from the DCCC this cycle. If you contribute a dollar to the DCCC most of it will be skimmed off the top for the corrupt hacks who run it the operation from year to year. Most of the rest will go to support Democrats who voted with the GOP on issues like gun control, women's Choice, marriage equality, war, and economic justice.

Last Words On Senate Gun Votes

Gabby Giffords wrote a powerful OpEd for the NY Times immediately after the vote yesterday. She started like this:

Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.

On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms-- a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count.

Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents-- who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.

And she ends ominously: "Mark my words: if we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress, one that puts communities’ interests ahead of the gun lobby’s. To do nothing while others are in danger is not the American way."


The most serious bill was Dianne Feinstein's amendment to get military-style assault weapons off the streets. It failed 40-60; the GOP didn't even have to filibuster that one because the NRA controls enough Democrats so it had no chance. Every Republican except Mark Kirk (IL) opposed it; the Democrats who crossed the aisle into NRA-land on that one:

• Max Baucus (MT)
• Mark Begich (AK)
• Michael Bennet (CO)
• Joe Donnelly (IN)
• Kay Hagan (NC)
• Martin Heinrich (NM)
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND)
• Tim Johnson (SD)
• Angus King (I-ME)
• Mary Landrieu (LA)
• Joe Manchin (WV)
• Mark Pryor (AR)
• John Tester (MT)
• Mark Udall (CO)
• Tom Udall (NM)
• Mark Warner (VA)

Kind of takes your breath away, huh? The anti-democratic, anachronistic Senate should be abolished or turned into an advisory body like the House of Lords. Members should wear powdered wigs.