Tag Archives: US Senate

legal news

Next up: Supreme Court nomination

2 Comments

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has thrown down the gauntlet: He is prepared to fight to keep the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court unfilled for the next year, maybe longer.

Don’t do it, Mr. Leader.

The president is going to nominate someone to fill the vacancy created nearly a year ago by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Scalia, but Senate Republicans blocked the nomination in a brazen display of petty partisanship by refusing to give Judge Garland a hearing and a vote.

They were as wrong and petty as could be.

We now have a new president and Donald J. Trump is as entitled to make his selection as Barack Obama was entitled. Thus, the Senate should proceed with confirmation hearings and then a vote.

I’ve noted many times already on this blog about my belief in presidential prerogative. Yes, the Constitution also grants the Senate the right to “advise and consent” to whomever the president nominates.

Schumer, though, should at least wait to see who the president nominates before deciding whether to block an appointment.

I agree with Schumer and Senate Democrats on this point: Trump should select a mainstream candidate. The president need not pick a fight with Democrats just for the sake of picking a fight. If he presents a nominee who is considered to come from the right-wing fringe of the judicial/political spectrum, then perhaps the Senate has grounds to protest the nomination.

Blocking a Trump nominee just for the sake of blocking someone — or to exact revenge — is no more acceptable than the idiotic effort to block an Obama nominee.

national news, political news

Don’t delay confirmation hearings

Senate Democrats want to delay the confirmation hearings for several of Donald J. Trump’s Cabinet nominees.

Interesting, yes? Sure. Democrats say they need more time to “vet” the nominees, meaning they need more time to find dirt on them.

Do they need that time? I don’t think so.

Trump has had ample opportunity to vet these folks, to learn about possible conflicts of interests or to determine whether they are truly qualified to hold the positions he is seeking for them.

So, let the president-elect submit his nominees to the appropriate Senate committees for the roughing up they can expect to get, particularly from Senate Democrats who are pretty miffed that Trump got elected president over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ethics-official-warns-against-confirmations-before-reviews-are-complete/ar-BBy1eW9?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Ethics officials are issuing warnings about proceeding without conducting thorough reviews of the nominees. Indeed, some of them are serious eyebrow-raisers.

— Rex Tillerson at State is a friend of Russian president Vladimir Putin, who has been accused by the CIA and other intelligence agencies of trying to influence the U.S. presidential election.

— Betsy DeVos is an ardent critic of public education, but she’s now being asked to serve as the secretary of (public) education.

— Ben Carson once declared himself “not qualified” to run a federal agency, but Trump picked him as secretary of housing and urban development; go figure.

— Rick “Oops” Perry, the former Texas governor, once declared his intention to get rid of the energy department. But wait! He’s been picked as the next energy secretary.

— Jeff Sessions was rejected for a federal judgeship because of alleged racist remarks he made; he has been asked to become attorney general. Sheesh!

Hey, let’s proceed with these nomination hearings and see what happens next.

legal news, national news, political news

SCOTUS fight drips with irony

I cannot resist commenting on the irony that envelops the upcoming fight over filling the ninth seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Donald J. Trump is going to nominate someone to fill the seat vacated by the death of conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia. U.S. Senate Democrats are vowing to fight whoever the new president nominates.

For the record, I’ll stipulate once again that I believe strongly in presidential prerogative on these appointments. I believe the president deserves to select whoever he wants to sit on the highest court; I also believe in the Senate’s “advise and consent” role in deciding whether to approve these nominations.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-supreme-court-fight-mitch-mcconnell-chuck-schumer-233194

But here’s where the irony covers this discussion.

Senate Republicans blocked President Barack Obama’s effort to nominate a centrist jurist, Merrick Garland, to the seat after Scalia died. They denied Garland a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. They said within hours of Scalia’s death that Obama must not be allowed to fill the seat; that task, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, belonged to the new president.

Senate Republicans denied Barack Obama the opportunity to fulfill his constitutional responsibility. They engaged in a shameless — and shameful — game of politics.

Their response now? Why, they just cannot believe that Democrats might vote en masse against anyone Trump nominates. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer vows that Democrats are going to dig in against anyone Trump picks for the court.

Revenge, anyone?

Senate Democrats likely cannot do what Republicans did when they denied Merrick Garland even a hearing to determine whether he should take a seat on the Supreme Court.

Indeed, the court needs a ninth vote to avoid deadlocked decisions. For that matter, the court should have welcomed the ninth justice long ago when President Obama nominated Merrick Garland.

Ahh, the irony is rich. Isn’t it?

legal news

Note to AG pick: expect a rough ride before Senate inquisitors

Donald J. Trump perhaps selected Jeff Sessions to be the next U.S. attorney general expecting him to get a smooth ride through the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I believe he would be mistaken if that is the case.

Sessions has served in the Senate as a Republican from Alabama. However, he brings some heavy baggage along as he preps for what I think will be a rough confirmation hearing.

You see, he once was rebuffed by the Senate when President Reagan nominated him for a federal judgeship. Why? It seems the then-U.S. attorney had said some highly insensitive things about African-Americans — and about an infamous organization known to hate black people.

Sessions once said he believed the Ku Klux Klan was OK until he learned that one of its leaders “had smoked pot.” Sessions said he was joking. Damn, I haven’t stopped laughing at that one!

The Senate couldn’t abide by what Sessions said so it rejected his nomination to the federal bench.

Voters back home, though, apparently didn’t hold that rejection against Sessions when they elected him to the same Senate that had turned him away from his cherished judgeship.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump%e2%80%99s-pick-for-attorney-general-is-shadowed-by-race-and-history/ar-BBxxdpm?li=BBnb7Kz

As the Washington Post has reported, Sessions’s views are at odds with a lot of mainstream political thought across the nation. For example, according to the Post: “At a 2006 congressional hearing, Sessions said that an entire group of people wouldn’t thrive in America. ‘Fundamentally, almost no one coming from the Dominican Republic to the United States is coming because they have a skill that would benefit us and would indicate their likely success in our society,’ he said.

“In 2009, he voted against a hate crimes bill named after Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming student murdered in 1998, that extended federal hate crime protections to people victimized because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

“As state attorney general in 1995, he argued against a decision by the Alabama Circuit Court to order the state to remedy funding inequities between the poorest school districts, which were heavily black, and their wealthiest, which were predominantly white. He did so on the grounds that taxing and spending power lay with the legislature, not the courts.”

The president-elect could do a lot better than Jeff Sessions in seeking an attorney general. I don’t expect the Senate to reject Sessions.

I do, though, expect senators to demand that the AG-designate answer some direct and probing questions about his views relating to equal treatment for all Americans.

legal news, national news, political news

What about a ‘consensus candidate’ for high court, GOP?

Americans are going to get a good look — probably fairly soon — at just how duplicitous many of our politicians can be.

Let’s consider the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly early this year while vacationing in Texas. President Obama then had to find someone to nominate to replace the longtime conservative icon. He found a centrist in Federal Judge Merrick Garland.

Republicans said before Garland got the nod that they would block anyone the president nominated. No hearing. No testimony. No vote. Nothing, man.

Throughout the president’s two terms in office, GOP senators had insisted that the Democratic president nominate “consensus” jurists to the nation’s highest court. He managed to get two justices confirmed: Sonja Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Garland was confirmable — had he been given the chance to make his case. Except for one thing: Confirming a centrist such as Garland would change the political balance of power on the Supreme Court, which held a slim conservative majority with Scalia.

A Republican now has been elected president. Will the new man, Donald J. Trump, nominate a “consensus” jurist for the high court? Will he find someone who splits the difference between liberals and conservatives?

Something tells me he’s going to tack to the far right as a sop to those who stood by him on the campaign trail.

Consensus? Who needs consensus when you and your political party control the White House and the Senate.

The upcoming Supreme Court appointment process is going to get ugly. Real ugly.

International news, national news, political news

No select panel, but let’s get to heart of hacking matter

bbhcr1a

Mitch McConnell says he won’t appoint a select Senate committee to examine the impact of alleged Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.

OK. Fair enough, Mr. Majority Leader.

But let’s not allow these questions to wither and die now that your fellow Republican, Donald J. Trump, is about to become president of the United States.

We’ve got some questions that need clear, declarative answers.

What did the Russians do? How did they do it? Did their computer hacking efforts have a tangible impact on the election outcome? How in the world does the United States prevent this kind of computer hacking in the future?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mcconnell-rejects-calls-for-select-panel-on-russian-meddling/ar-BBxmZzP

If the majority leader were to ask for my opinion, I’d suggest that we need an independent commission that doesn’t answer to Senate Republicans or Democrats. We formed one of those after the 9/11 attacks and it came out with some serious findings about what went wrong and how we can prevent future terrorist attacks.

McConnell’s decision to nix a select committee is at odds with many Republicans — such as Sen. John McCain — along with Democrats are demanding. They want a select panel that would be tasked solely with looking at this most disturbing matter.

The new Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, said this, according to The Associated Press: “We don’t want this investigation to be political like the Benghazi investigation,” he said. “We don’t want it to just be finger pointing at one person or another.” Schumer added: “We want to find out what the Russians are doing to our political system and what other foreign governments might do to our political system. And then figure out a way to stop it.”

McConnell wants to hand this over to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Fine. Then allow them to clear the decks and concentrate on getting to the heart of what the Russians have done.

Seventeen intelligence agencies have concluded the same thing: The Russians intended to influence the presidential election. The president-elect has dismissed their conclusion, opening up a serious rift between his office and the intelligence community.

Trump and his team are virtually all alone in their view of this disturbing matter. Congress needs to get busy and tell us what the Russians did and when they did it.

International news, national news, political news

Secretary of State Tillerson? We’ll see about that one

90

Rex Tillerson will get the nod from the president-elect as the next secretary of state.

Let’s hand it to Donald J. Trump: He appears unafraid to pick a major fight with the U.S. senators who will be asked to confirm his appointment.

Tillerson’s pending nomination troubles a lot of senators, Republicans and Democrats alike.

He has zero diplomatic experience. Tillerson is a 40-year employee of ExxonMobil, the oil giant he now runs as CEO. He is friends with Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom he has worked in cutting big deals on behalf of his company. Oh, and Putin’s government now has been fingered by the CIA as seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election in Trump’s favor.

Gosh, do you think Tillerson brings some serious baggage to this job at Foggy Bottom?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/12/trump-to-name-secretary-of-state-pick-tuesday-232544

Donald Trump has selected a number of unconventional nominees for various Cabinet posts. The Tillerson pick likely takes the cake.

His friendship with Putin is going to drive Senate Republicans nuts. One of them, John McCain, is emerging as the top GOP lawmaker who is set to become the inquisitor in chief of this selection.

McCain calls Putin a “thug” and a “butcher.” He is in no mood to reset our nation’s relationship with the former head of the KGB, the Soviet Union’s dreaded spy agency.

Then we have this ongoing discussion about what role Russia played in seeking to undermine the U.S. presidential election. The CIA says the Russians interfered with the electoral process. Trump’s reaction? He said the intelligence pros at the CIA are wrong, that they don’t know what they’re talking about. He said he doesn’t believe the CIA’s analysis.

So, we have a Putin pal getting the call from the president-elect to serve as secretary of state and the CIA saying that Russia — which Putin rules — has sought to interfere with our election.

I believe Tillerson and his political benefactor — Donald Trump — are going to get roughed up big time by the U.S. Senate.

national news, political news

Time to admit real reason Hillary lost

aaltlfm

Harry Reid isn’t long for the U.S. Senate. He’s retiring in a few weeks from his role as Democratic leader, but he’s going out with a bang.

I believe it’s time that Reid and his fellow Democrats realize what some of us out here — yours truly included — are beginning to understand.

Hillary Rodham Clinton lost the presidential election because Donald J. Trump outhustled her in the waning days of a bitter campaign. FBI Director James Comey’s 11th-hour letter to Congress declaring he was looking into more e-mails might have had some effect on the outcome. However, I do not believe he fired the kill shot at her campaign. Reid blames Comey almost entirely for Clinton’s loss.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/reid-blames-comey-for-hillary-clintons-loss/ar-AAlsVPy?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Trump took the fight to Clinton in those so-called “swing states” and grabbed them from Clinton’s column. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan should have voted for Clinton. Voters there went the other way because she didn’t pay enough attention to them at the end of the campaign.

It’s called “retail politics,” which describes how candidates show up to shake hands, kiss babies, eat rotten “food” at fairgrounds. In other words, voters like to believe the candidate feels for them.

She didn’t do that.

As for Trump, well, he had those yuuuuge rallies that got all kinds of air time and newspaper print space.

Does any of this mean the better person won the presidency this past month? It only means the better candidate did.

I will not accept that Trump is suited temperamentally — or any other way, for that matter — for the office he is about to assume. However, I am willing to accept that he and his campaign team outsmarted their opponents down the stretch.

Trump, therefore, delivered the final shock to many of us in a campaign full of shocking moments.

national news, political news

Glenn tributes take note of his political decency

glenns

John Glenn was a bona bide American hero. An icon. A legendary figure.

He earned all of that mostly through his exploits as a wartime Marine Corps pilot and, a test pilot then as an astronaut. Glenn was the first American to orbit the planet. He came home and accepted the nation’s gratitude for helping it keep pace with the Soviet Union in the bilateral space race that had commenced.

Glenn died today at the age of 95 and observers are looking back at another part of this great man’s life: his political career.

Ohio voters elected him to the U.S. Senate in 1974. And throughout the day — and likely for the days and weeks to follow — I’ve been hearing folks talk about his decency as a politician. Yes, I know, it’s difficult to see the words “decency” and “politician” written in the same sentence.

“Why don’t we have people like this in the Senate any longer?” That’s a question I’ve heard asked.

Glenn was known to stand up for former foes because it was the right thing to do. I’ve heard statements today about how this hero/icon never surrendered his small-town values. Some of his colleagues and political pals talked about how he sought to do what was right for the country, that he didn’t seek the easy political solution.

MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews noted today that Glenn’s most endearing quality arguably was that he was “a square.” He wasn’t flashy. He wasn’t flamboyant. Sen. Glenn and his childhood sweetheart Annie were married for 73 years.

Glitz and glamor were not his gig.

Political life has taken a seriously grim turn since the days when John Glenn served in the Senate. Every so often, one can hear politicians praise each other from across the aisle that separates them. Some of them did so Wednesday when Vice President Joe Biden said farewell to his former Senate colleagues. Republicans and Democrats all sang from the same sheet in praise of the vice president. So, it’s good to ask: Why is that such a big deal? My answer: Because it’s so damn rare!

John Glenn embodied a kinder, gentler time in American politics, and from what I’ve been able to glean from the tributes today, that is how he served his beloved state of Ohio and the nation.

legal news

Sessions pick for AG is the most galling of all

sessions-trump

Jeff Sessions is likely to be confirmed as the nation’s next attorney general.

It’s been said that “to the victors go the spoils.” In Sessions’ case, the victor happens to be a U.S. senator who was among Donald J. Trump’s earliest and most vocal supporters in his winning bid for the presidency.

Trump has rewarded the Alabama Republican with a nomination to become the nation’s top lawyer, its top law enforcement officer, its primary legal eagle.

The irony — not to mention the potential consequence — of this appointment is too rich to overlook.

Sessions has served in the Senate since 1997. For nearly a decade he’s been a member of the very “club” that once rejected an earlier nomination for Sessions to become a federal judge.

President Reagan nominated Sessions to the federal bench in 1986. Sessions, though, seemed to have this thing about African-Americans. He allegedly made some racist comments while serving as a federal prosecutor. He once said something akin to endorsing the Ku Klux Klan until he learned that some KKKers “smoked pot.” Sessions declared that to be a “joke,” that he was just kiddin’ around.

Well, the Senate rejected his judicial nomination. Sessions, though, decided to join the club. He was elected in 1996 and since then has been passing judgment on other judicial nominees who’ve come before the Judiciary Committee, where he serves.

Thus, the irony.

Sessions will be confirmed eventually, but only because senators are deeply resistant to rejecting one of their own, no matter how repulsive he may be.

The Justice Department has made great strides in recent years — under Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch — in ensuring equal protection under the law for all Americans. Does one really expect an Attorney General Jeff Sessions to continue that trend?

I fear that the attorney general’s office is going to take a decidedly less-aggressive posture in enforcing civil rights violations when they occur. I also am wary of anything Jeff Sessions says about his commitment to ensuring equal justice for all Americans.

His buddies in the Senate will confirm this nomination. I am hoping, though, for a thorough going-over regarding his record as a prosecutor and that silly rejection to the federal judgeship over things he said about many of our fellow citizens.

Perhaps one of his inquisitors will ask: “Sen. Sessions, if the Senate deemed you unfit to be a federal judge, why should it confirm you now as attorney general?”