Tag Archives: US Senate

legal news, national news, political news

GOP erects fortress of obstruction

garland

Merrick Garland should be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to take a seat on the Supreme Court.

Why? He’s qualified in the extreme. He is a model of judicial restraint. Garland is held in high regard by his peers and even by politicians of both parties.

So, what’s the trouble?

He happens to have been nominated by a Democratic president inĀ his final full year in office. Senate Republicans, the folks in charge of the body who must confirm these nominees, say that Barack Obama doesn’t deserve to name the next justice.

And why is that? Well, it’s because the next nominee is going to succeed a conservative judicial titan on the court. Antonin Scalia went hunting in West Texas and then died suddenly earlier this year.

The Supreme Court’s balance has been narrowly conservative. Scalia’s death occurring during the presidency of a progressive politician means that the politician — Barack Obama — should get to select the next person to serve on the nation’s highest court.

But, no-o-o-o-o, say Republicans. He can’t do that.

The nomination must wait for the election to occur and for the next president to take office, say Republicans. Their hope, as if it’s not clear, is that one of the Republicans running for the White House will win the election.

Garland has launched what some are calling a “charm offensive” against some targeted Republican senators.

It hasn’t worked. The GOP lawmakers thought to be vulnerable to Garland’s judicial brilliance aren’t budging. They’re standing by their own man, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has said — laughingly, in my view — that “the people deserve to have a voice” in choosing the next Supreme Court justice.

It’s a crock of horse manure. The people’s voice was heard in November 2012 when voters re-elected Barack Obama as president.

Oh, but wait! Didn’t the people speak in 2014 when they voted to hand control of the Senate over to the GOP? Sure they did.

However, as one who believes in presidential prerogative, I also am of a mind to place greater value on the votes collected by the one individual who is elected head of government and head of state than on the votes earned collectively by the legislative branch of government.

Garland’s charm offensive likely won’t — by itself — change enough minds to earn him a confirmation hearing before Barack Obama leaves office.

However, it very well could awaken the people once again this election, who in turn might seek to have their “voices heard” when they toss asideĀ the Senate Republican majority while electing a Democrat to assume the presidency.

Obstruction can be difficult to disguise.

 

national news, political news, State news

Cruz and Cornyn: an uneasy Senate team?

cornyn and cruz

Every state is represented in the U.S. Senate by two individuals who, under an unwritten rule of good government, would seek to work in close political partnership.

The Texas Tribune has published an interesting analysis of the relationship of Texas’s two Republican senators, one of whom is running for president of the United States.

Ted Cruz andĀ John Cornyn, according to the Tribune, aren’t exactly close. They aren’t joined at the hip. You don’t see them singing each other’s praises.

Is it a metaphor for what we’ve heardĀ about Cruz?

It’s been stated repeatedly during this Republican primary campaign that Cruz hasn’t made many “friends” in the Senate. He doesn’t “play well with others,” the saying goes. He called the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, a “liar” in a Senate floor speech and then just this past week said he had no intention to take back what he said.

It might be a big deal — in a normal election cycle. This one isn’t normal. As the Tribune reports: “In any other circumstance, it would be curious that a viable presidential candidate did not have the support of his fellow state Republican. But each man in this case represents the visceral divide raging in the party: Cornyn is the consummate establishment team player, while Cruz is the TEA Party insurgent.”

Cruz has been a senator for slightly more than three years. Cornyn was elected in 2002. What’s more, the Senate is Cruz’s first elected office; Cornyn, on the other hand, served as Texas attorney general and, before that, as a member of the Texas Supreme Court.

Cornyn knows how to play the political game in Texas. He’s good at it. Is he exactly my kind of senator? Hardly, but I do respect the man’s political skill.

Cruz brings another element to this game. I would consider it his amazing degree of hubris and utter fearlessness.

It’s long been said that the U.S. Senate is a 100-member club that requires a bit of time for members to feel comfortable. It took young Ted Cruz no time at all to grab a microphone on the Senate floor and begin blasting away at his rivals.

It’s only a hunch on my part but it might be that the Texas rookie’s rush to theĀ centerĀ of the stage could have been a bit off-putting to the more senior legislator.

It used to be said that the “most dangerous place in Washington” was the space between Sen. Phil Gramm and a microphone. Gramm left the Senate some years ago. Ted Cruz has taken up that new — apparently with great gusto.

Is he a team player? Are Texas’s two senators — Cornyn and Cruz — on the same page all the time? Consider this from the Tribune:

“There are no whispered tales in Senate circles about heated arguments between the two men or icy glares on the Senate floor. Instead, the most frequently used word observers use to describe the relationship is ‘disconnected.’ā€

 

 

legal news, national news, political news

Imagine this breakfast chit-chat

grassley

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is going to have breakfast next Tuesday with Merrick Garland.

Yep, he’s going to break bread with the Supreme Court nominee whose nomination he intends to block.

I’m trying to imagine how this conversation will proceed. Here’s what I have come up with:

Grassley: Welcome, Judge. I’m glad you could find time to meet me for breakfast.

Garland: Thank you, Mr. Chair …

Grassley: Oh, call me Chuck.

Garland: Sure thing … Chuck. (laughter)

Grassley: Let’s get down to brass tacks. I don’t think the committee I chair should consider your nomination. In fact, I’m on board as saying that the next president should make the nomination. The current president is a lame duck, you know. This election could change everything.

Garland: I get that. But why are we meeting? I’ve read the papers. I know what you’ve said.

Grassley: I just wanted to get together so I could explain in detail …

Garland: Detail? What detail? You don’t support President Obama. You’ve never supported him. Look, he sought to pick someone who wouldn’t rock the court. He looked for a moderate judge. He found one. Me. My time on the D.C. Circuit Court has been the model of moderation.

Grassley: But theĀ Supreme CourtĀ balance is, well, in the balance. Antonin Scalia was a stalwart conservative justice. We need to maintain that balance on the court.

Garland: Why the need? Didn’t a majority of voters re-elect Obama three years ago? Didn’t they do so knowing full well what kind of judge he’d appoint if given the chance. I mourn Scalia’s death, too. He was a brilliant jurist. He had a seriously rigid point of view. But I’m no slouch, either. I just don’t lean nearly as far to the left as Scalia did to the right. He could have picked a flaming lefty activist. I’m neither a lefty or an activist.

Grassley: I get that, Judge. You do understand that we on the committee are politicians, correct? We’ve got political interests. I happen to like my job as a senator from Iowa. I’ve been doing it for some time. I’d like to keep doing it. We’ve got this faction within our party that won’t tolerate compromise. It won’t tolerate me or any other of my Republican ilk from compromising with those Democrats.

Garland: So, you’re not going to allow the president, who has another nine months in office, to fulfill his duty because you’re getting pressure from constituent groups and political action organizations?

Grassley: I wouldn’t put it quite that way.

Garland: But that’s what it sounds like to me. You know what? I just lost my appetite. Thanks for the invitation, Chuck.

Grassley: Uh, judge? On second thought, you nowĀ may call me “Mr. Chairman.”

 

 

legal news, national news, political news

Sen. Moran reneges on call for Garland hearing

4 Comments

jerrymoran

I hereby take back all the nice things I said about U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan.

Moran had earned my praise after he said that Supreme Court justice nominee Merrick Garland deserves a hearing and a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate.

Then what does the senator do? He reneges on his earlier call, which I thought when he said it illustrated great courage from the conservative Republican lawmaker.

I hate that I have to retract those things I wrote. I always enjoy watching politicians go against the tide, buck the trend, go with their gut.

Now it turns out that Moran — who’s in zero danger of losing his Senate seat this fall — has joined with other Senate Republicans in resisting Garland’s nomination. Moran said Garland is too weak on Second Amendment issues.

My question is this: Didn’t he know that when he expressed his desire for the Senate to proceed with confirmation hearings and then an up-down vote?

Here is what I wrote the first time about Sen. Moran:

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/03/sen-moran-stands-up-for-integrity/

I’m taking it all back.

 

legal news

Can POTUS interpret Senate silence as ‘consent’?

checks balance

Who is Frederick W. Ford?

Never heard of him? Neither had I until I saw an article posted on LinkedIn. He’s a lawyer and mediator. I guess he’s pretty knowledgeable about constitutional law and related matters.

He has posited a fascinating idea for President Obama to consider.

Let silence be your guide. That’s his notion that the president ought to follow with regard to placing Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court.

The article is attached to this blog post. I encourage you to read it all of it. The crux of his argument is that the Senate has the constitutional duty to “advise and consent” to the nomination of federal judges. But what if the Senate remains silent on the issue? What if senators don’t hold hearings and don’t debate the nomination fully?

Ford said the president can take their silence as a form of tacit “consent.” He lays it out there in a lot legal mumbo-jumbo that, frankly, I don’t get; a lot of it is in Latin and I don’t speak the language.

I get the sense that Ford thinks Obama ought to do it. Just call a swearing-in ceremony and have the man take his oath — and then take his seat on the bench when it reconvenes this October.

Senate Republicans want to wait for the next president to make the appointment.

The current president doesn’t want to wait.

Wouldn’t that simply send the Senate into apoplectic shock if Barack Obama follows the advice offered by someone named Frederick W. Ford?

 

 

national news, political news

Sen. Moran stands up for integrity

1 Comment

jerrymoran

I’m now going to salute a Republican member of used to be considered — maybe some folks still think it is — the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.

Stand up, U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas. Take a bow.

You, sir, are standing on a critical principle, which is that Kansans sent you to the Senate to do your job and you are insisting that your senatorial leadership follows your lead.

Good luck with that.

Moran told a town hall gathering earlier this week that he wants the Senate to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. He is bucking the edict handed down by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who says the Senate should wait until after the election this November to consider an appointment made by the next president of the United States.

Moran, a conservative Republican representing a blood-red Republican state, is in no serious danger of losing his Senate seat this fall. Still, to hear him say that his party’s Senate leader is wrong is, well, uplifting.

Moran isn’t endorsing Garland’s nomination. He told the town hall group that he cannot imagine President Obama ever nominating someone to his liking.

But he said he is obligated to do his job as a U.S. senator.Ā  “I think the process ought to go forward,” he said.

He said it’s better for his constituents to tell him he “voted wrong on nominatingĀ  somebody thanĀ saying I’m not doing my job.”

Moran joins two other GOP senators

It’s one thing for a senator such as Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire or Mark Kirk of Illinois — who also have called for hearingsĀ and a confirmation vote — to say they’ll meet with Garland and want to consider his nomination.

It’s quite another for someone representing a safe Republican state — whose re-election this fall is a virtual certainty — to weigh in on the side of senatorial responsibility.

If only the obstructionist who leads the Senate would follow suit.

legal news, national news, political news

Listen to the VP, senators, about doing your job

6 Comments

biden

Vice President Joe Biden is going to lecture the U.S. Senate on something about which knows a thing or two.

He wants his former colleagues to do the job they took an oath to do, which is vote on whether to approve a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Biden will deliver his messageĀ in remarks at Georgetown University.

At issue is the nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia. Senate Republicans — many of them, anyway — are digging in on the nomination. They don’t want to consider a Barack Obama appointment, contending that it’s too late in the president’s second term. He’s a “lame duck,” therefore, the task of appointing a justice should fall on the next president.

That, of course, is pure malarkey.

Barack Obama is president until Jan. 20, 2017. He wants to fulfill his constitutional duty and he’s urging the Senate to do so as well.

Oh sure. The balance of the court is hanging here. Scalia was a devout conservative ideologue — and a brilliant legal scholar. Garland is a judicial moderate; he’s also a scholar; a man viewed widely as supremely qualified.

How does Biden — who served in the Senate for 36 years before being elected vice president — figure in this?

As vice president, he’s the presiding officer of the Senate. Of course, he votes only to break ties. He doesn’t actually run the place. That task falls on the majority leader, who happens to be a Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

It’s been McConnell’s call to obstruct this nomination.

Biden, though, does have a number of friends in both parties who serve in the Senate. Is there any hope that he can get through to them? Probably not, but when you’re vice president of the United States, you have the bully pulpit from which to preach an important message to those who need to hear it.

 

national news, political news

Who will join Cruz in stopping Trump?

cruz

Ted Cruz has a problem.

He wants to become the “anti-Trump” candidate for president of the United States. He’s seeking a way to get Ohio Gov. John Kasich to bow out. He believes he can coalesce enough “true conservatives” behind him to derail Donald J. Trump’s march to the Republican Party presidential nomination.

The junior U.S. senator from Texas, though, needs some help from his colleagues in the Senate. But as Politico reports, he is nearly universally detested by his fellow senators. And that’s just the Republicans with whom he serves.

Cruz needs to build some relationships.Ā I don’t mean “rebuild.” He’s got to start from scratch.

He’s been in the Senate for slightly more than three years. He’s halfway through his very first term in the very first elected public office he’s ever held.

As Politico reports: “Cruzā€™s relationship with his colleagues is now a central paradox of his campaign: Heā€™s openly arguing for the party to rally behind him, but Republican senators are plainly wary of going anywhere near him. Those who feel burned by Cruz in the past say heā€™ll come to them only if he decides itā€™s in his self-interest. ”

The man who leads the Senate — the body’s top Republican — once was on the receiving end of a barrage that Cruz leveled at him. Remember when the Cruz Missile called Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a “liar” in a speech on the floor of the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body?

How does McConnell put that epithet behind him? How does McConnell gather the forces to help one of their own take down this “interloper” named Trump.

Moreover, Sen. John McCain — the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee — has taken Cruz to task in public for his intemperate remarks about a couple of fellow Vietnam War combat veterans, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel.

Finally, he’s been campaigning against the very “Washington establishment” where he works these days. He’s an “outsider,” he says.

Something tells me Cruz’s efforts to put distance between himself and his Senate colleagues ain’t going well with the ladies and gents with whom he serves.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Garland gets nod; let’s act on it, senators

2 Comments

BBqxe1o

I’veĀ written already about why I believe President Obama deserves to have his Supreme Court appointment considered by the U.S. Senate.

It’s his prerogative to appoint someone; it’s the Senate’s prerogative to approve or reject it. The Constitution lays it out there. I understand the idea of “advise and consent.”

If senators object, then they should say so on the record. The idea of obstructing a nomination by refusing to consider it is offensive on its face … at least in my view.

The president today nominated D.C. Circuit Court chief judge Merrick Garland to the high court, replacing the late Antonin Scalia.

The politics of this fight overshadows everything else. It overshadows Garland’s impeccable credentials, his immense standing among legal scholars, his compelling personal story.

Scalia was the court’s leading conservative voice. He was an ideologue. Garland is a moderate. He’s known to be a non-ideologue, but according to conservatives, well, that makes him a flaming liberal.

The court’s balance would shift with Garland joining the court.

And that’s why the Senate Republican leadership is vowing to block the nomination by refusing even to consider it. The GOP won’t even allow a hearing. Hell, GOP senators say they won’t even meet with Garland.

The Republican leadership that says it wants the next president to make the appointment.

What happens, though, if the next president happens to be, oh, Hillary Rodham Clinton? Are they then willing to put this selection in the hands of a president who could appoint a true-life flaming liberal? Or should they give Merrick Garland the hearing he deserves and cut their losses?

Garland’s intelligence and legal knowledge are beyond reproach. Even Republicans said as much when they approved his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court. If he’s as smart and scholarly now as he was then, it makes sense — or so it seems — that he’d be a fitting choice for the Supreme Court.

The fight has been joined.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the people should have a say in filling this court seat. Mr. Leader, the people have spoken on it — by re-electing Barack Obama as president of the United States.

 

national news, political news

Government is not a vacuum-sealed profession

IMG_0631_JPG_312x1000_q100

Ted Cruz knows as well as any of the 100 men and women who work in the U.S. Senate that politicians don’t operate in a vacuum.

The freshman Republican from Texas wants to become president. Were he to stroll into the Oval Office next January, he’ll have a serious issue to resolve.

How is he going to work with the individuals who seem to despise him?

Cruz stands alone in the Senate among those who think highly of him. Or so it appears.

As they say: The president proposes but Congress disposes. The Senate comprises half of the Capitol Building. The overwhelming consensus so far in this presidential campaign has been that Cruz — elected to the Senate in 2012 — has precious few friends and political allies in that body.

So the question persists on my mind: How does this guy expect to get a single thing done while working with a legislative body comprising individuals who can’t stand him?

Presidents don’t work in a vacuum. The most successful of them know how to legislate, know that to get anything done requires them to compromise.

Cruz keeps yapping about never yielding to the other side, never cutting deals, never forsaking his strong conservative principles.

I take that to mean that it’s going to be his way or the highway.

Strange. Isn’t that what Republicans have been saying about President Barack Obama?