Tag Archives: Senate GOP

national news, political news

Speak up, Mr. Leader, about your party’s nominee

mitch

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s tongue is tied up in knots.

Ask him a question about the Republican Party’s presumed presidential nominee Donald J. Trump and McConnell clams up.

He can’t speak. He won’t speak.

For two straight weeks, McConnell — the man who runs the upper legislative chamber on Capitol Hill, the guy who’s orchestrating the blockage of President Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court — just can’t bring himself to talk about Trump.

Good grief, dude. You talk about everything else.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/mitch-mcconnell-trump-no-answers-224617#ixzz4CFUjLicQ

Trump twisted off this past week about President Obama and whether the president might be in cahoots secretly with Muslim terror groups. What do you think about that, Mr. Majority Leader?

He dummied up.

This week, the Federal Election Commission reported that Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has 40 times the amount of money that Trump has in the bank. What are your thoughts on Trump’s empty war chest, Mr. Leader?

He said he doesn’t want to “critique” the presidential campaigns.

C’mon, Mr. Leader. You’re a politician. You’re a national leader. You’re leading a Republican caucus in the Senate that might be in mortal danger of losing its majority status because your presidential candidate might cost some key GOP senators their seats this fall. Aren’t politicians, by definition, supposed to talk a lot about whatever is asked of them?

Leaders, well, lead by telling us what’s in their hearts and minds.

Surely you haven’t lost either of them, Mr. Leader.

Surely …

 

national news, Uncategorized

Filibuster provides a rare Senate ‘victory’

Chris Murphy was incensed at his U.S. Senate colleagues.

Four years after his Connecticut constituents suffered the unspeakable grief from the Newtown school massacre, Congress hadn’t done anything to curb gun violence.

So, the Democratic lawmaker took the Senate floor the other day and began filibustering.

He was spurred to talk and talk and talk by the latest mass slaughter, of 49 individuals in Orlando, Fla., this past weekend.

I want to applaud Sen. Murphy for something he achieved from his 15-hour gabfest. He persuaded the Senate Republicans who run the place to hold votes on at least a couple of key bills that proponents say will help curb gun violence.

Hey, it’s a big deal. As big a deal is that it came about by a senator persuading his colleagues to schedule these votes by talking the issue to death.

Filibusters are unique to the Senate. The House doesn’t allow it.

A filibuster allows senators to talk about whatever they want. They can use the procedure to stall legislation. Some prominent lawmakers have used the filibuster to obtain legendary status. The late Sen. Strom Thurmond holds the record for non-stop Senate blabbing. My former senator, the late Wayne Morse of Oregon, was another well-known blowhard who knew how to use the filibuster to maximum advantage.

Sometimes senators’ use of the filibuster backfires. Ted Cruz of Texas sought to filibuster the Affordable Care Act to death in 2013. He failed.

Murphy, though, managed to get a vote on one of the knottiest issues of our time: gun control.

I am not sure where it will go. There are some interesting compromises to what Murphy favors, dealing with disallowing suspected terrorists from obtaining a firearm.

I won’t comment further here on the merits of what Murphy desires.

However, I applaud the senator for talking long enough to get the Senate leadership to at least put this issue to a vote.

local news, national news, political news, State news

Now, Sen. Cruz, get to work on behalf of Texas

04bruniWeb-1462323117067-master768

I’m not sad to see U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz bow out of the Republican Party presidential primary contest.

He got shellacked Tuesday in Indiana, which would have been his last chance at derailing Donald J. Trump’s march to the GOP nomination.

As New York Times columnist Frank Bruni notes, the Cruz Missile likely will make another run for the presidency down the road. He’ll now “rest in peevishness,” Bruni writes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/opinion/ted-cruzs-bitter-end.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

Here’s a thought for Cruz to consider, though, as he licks his wounds and ponders the future.

He ought to simply go back to work in the U.S. Senate and start governing on behalf of those who sent him to Washington in the first place.

Cruz might not be wired to actually legislate. He ran against the institution in which he has served since January 2013. He has burned a bridge or three among his colleagues. He called himself an “outsider” despite working from the “inside” the legislative branch of government.

The state has some issues that need federal attention. Cruz pulls down 175 grand annually to represent the state. Taxpayers aren’t paying his salary to grandstand and promote his next search for higher political office.

The coastline needs protection against hurricanes. We need to invest in alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar; surely, Sen. Cruz is aware of the abundant quantities of both of those commodities out here on the High Plains of his state. Our highway infrastructure needs attention. Oh, yes, we need to shore up our border against illegal immigrants.

This is going to require Sen. Cruz to try a new tactic. He’s going to have to learn how to legislate and actually govern.

Cruz has had his shot at stardom. He fell short.

However, he’s got a pretty good, well-paying day job awaiting him on Capitol Hill.

Get back to work, Sen. Cruz.

***

PS: Here’s an interesting Texas Tribune analysis on how Cruz might seek to resume his actual job.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/03/how-does-ted-cruz-return-senate/

 

national news, political news

GOP nomination fight becomes hazardous … for GOP

wickerwickerroger_072815gn

This story just knocks me out.

U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker is a Mississippi Republican who heads the Senate’s GOP campaign committee.

His advice to senators facing tough re-election battles? Don’t go to Cleveland this summer for your party’s presidential nominating convention.

What in the world … ?

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/276910-gop-campaign-chief-to-vulnerables-stay-away-from-convention

U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona — the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee — is staying away. Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire aren’t planning to go, either. And get this. Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, in whose state the convention will occur, isn’t sure he’s going to attend.

Does this say something about what lies ahead for the GOP combatants and the delegates who’ll select the next party nominee?

I’m wondering now if it means that the nomination for president of the United States will even be worth the fight.

What in the world is keeping all these folks away? It might the threat leveled by GOP candidate Donald J. Trump that there will be “riots” if the convention chooses someone else to be the nominee. Who wants to be a part of such a melee?

Chaos reigns supreme in this year’s GOP nominating fight.

Tonight, to be sure, Trump did take a big step toward securing the nomination by scoring the big win in the New York Republican primary. He’s still a ways away from getting the required delegates he’ll need to win the nomination on the first ballot.

If the fight goes to a second ballot or beyond, well, then the chaos is likely to erupt.

Meanwhile, the head of the Senate’s GOP campaign committee has issued fair warning to senators who might be in trouble: Stay away or you, too, may become a victim of the fallout.

national news, political news

McConnell wants Cruz to be nominated?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky. gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, March 3, 2010. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

It must take a lot — as in a whole lot — to make Mitch McConnell angry.

Consider what he has said about the prospects of a contested Republican National Convention this summer.

The U.S. Senate majority leader said he is “optimistic” that the convention will go to a second ballot or even longer as it tries to nominate someone to be the GOP’s next presidential candidate.

What does that mean? It means that Sen. Ted Cruz’s chances of being nominated over Donald J. Trump might be enhanced.

So, why speculate on McConnell’s anger level?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/18/jab-at-trump-mcconnell-optimistic-about-contested-convention.html

Cruz has called McConnell a “liar.” Moreover, he recently said he has no intention of taking back that bit of name-calling. He means what he says, Cruz said.

So, it now seems that McConnell is lining up behind his Senate colleague in his fight against Trump.

The Republican presidential primary fight is getting down to brass tacks. Trump and Cruz are running first and second in the fight for the GOP prize. Meanwhile, Ohio Gov. John Kasich is hanging on, hoping that polls that show him as the only GOP contender who can beat Hillary Clinton this fall somehow will persuade convention delegates to defect to his side.

But the Senate’s leading Republican is saying he is “increasingly optimistic” that the convention will turn into a donnybrook.

From where I sit, an expression of optimism means the individual making it wants something to happen.

I guess it can be no secret that McConnell would detest a Trump nomination this fall. It would doom the Republicans’ quest for the White House, not to mention greatly jeopardize the GOP’s control of the Senate.

If, however, the most plausible alternative is Ted Cruz, then that must mean McConnell is ready to forget that Cruz has insulted the majority leader’s character as a human being.

I guess the enemy of one’s enemy really is a friend.

 

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 the Supreme Court 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 now 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.  “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 nominating  somebody than 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 hearings 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

If only the VP hadn’t said what he said …

Supreme-Court-blue-sky

Vice President Joe Biden delivered a stern message today to some university students and faculty members

about the obstruction occurring in the U.S. Senate.

It’s threatening the core of our republic, he said. Senate Republicans must not obstruct President Obama’s effort to fill a Supreme Court vacancy; they must allow nominee Merrick Garland to have a hearing, then they must debate the merits of his nomination and they must then vote on it.

True enough, Mr. Vice President.

But what about those remarks you made in 1992 about whether President George H.W. Bush should be able to nominate someone to the high court in an election year? Today’s Republicans are seeking to block Obama’s pick because this, too, is an election year and they want the next president to make the selection.

The GOP has beaten the vice president over his remarks then.

What they don’t say is that Biden also declared that he would support a “consensus candidate” in an election if one were to be presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Biden chaired at the time.

Biden told the Georgetown law students and faculty members: “Dysfunction and partisanship are bad enough on Capitol Hill. But we can’t let the Senate spread that dysfunction to another branch of government, to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

It’s fascinating to me that then-Sen. Biden’s remarks now have become known as the “Biden Rule,” which has never existed.

I won’t defend Biden for making his remarks in 1992. He was wrong to suggest that a sitting president shouldn’t be allowed to perform his job if he had been given the chance to do so. President Bush did select a Supreme Court justice in 1991, when he nominated Clarence Thomas to take the seat vacated by the death of Thurgood Marshall.

However, I won’t condemn Biden for holding that view. He did, after all, add the caveat that he would support a consensus candidate for the Supreme Court.

The here and now stands on its own.

The vice president is correct to insist that today’s Senate should stop its obstruction and allow the president to fulfill his constitutional duty — and do its own duty to give an eminently qualified nominee the fair hearing he deserves.