Tag Archives: Senate Majority Leader

national news

What happened to bipartisanship, Mr. Majority Leader?

Hey, hold on a minute. Maybe for two or three.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pledged to work toward a more “bipartisan” atmosphere in the Senate. So, what does Mr. Bipartisan do? He blocked a “bipartisan” bill that seeks to protect special counsel Robert Mueller from the whims and foolish acts of a president under siege.

McConnell said the bill is not necessary. Why? Because he takes Donald Trump at his word that the president won’t fire Mueller, who’s up to his eyeballs investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives who attacked our electoral system in 2016.

Yes, McConnell believes the president. He takes him at his word. He says that, by golly, if the president pledges something that he’s true to his word.

Is the majority leader serious? Has he swilled one mouthful too many of the Trump Kool-Aid?

Well, it appears that not all GOP senators are on board. Lame-duck Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona has promised to block every judicial appointment that comes to the Senate for as long as he continues to serve in that congressional chamber.

McConnell’s pledge to seek a more bipartisan approach — which seemed hollow when he made it — now has been exposed as just another political platitude.

Imagine that.

national news

Whether to protect Mueller … or not

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wields plenty of political clout, but he cannot dictate to all key Senate committee chairs how to run their affairs.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is one who is bristling at McConnell’s reluctance to allow consideration of a bill to protect special counsel Robert Mueller.

I’m with Chairman Grassley on this one.

McConnell said he sees “no indication” that Donald Trump is going to fire Mueller, appointed by the Justice Department to lead a probe into alleged collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russians who meddled in our 2016 election.

No indication? How does he know what the president will do? Trump’s own staff doesn’t know what he thinks from one hour to the next, let alone from day to day, or week to week.

Grassley, meanwhile, wants his committee to vote on a bill to protect Mueller from any whims that might cross the president’s mind to fire him. According to The Hill:

“That’s not necessary. There’s no indication that Mueller’s going to be fired. I don’t think the president’s going to do that, and just as a practical matter even if we passed it, why would he sign it,” McConnell told Fox News. 

When Fox News’s Neil Cavuto noted that some Republicans “fear” that Trump will ax Mueller, the GOP leader fired back: “I’m the one who decides what we take to the floor, that’s my responsibility as the majority leader, and we will not be having this on the floor of the Senate.”

Grassley responded: “Obviously the views of the majority leader are important to consider, but they do not govern what happens here in the Judiciary Committee. … If consideration on the floor was a standard for approving a bill, we wouldn’t be moving any bills out of this committee.”

Mueller is doing the people’s work in seeking to learn the truth behind whatever, if any, relationship the president had with Russian government oligarchs or others who wanted to interfere in our electoral process.

There can be little doubt about the explosion that would occur if Trump were to do something so foolish as firing Mueller or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who selected the special counsel.

So, perhaps Trump ought to consider a bill protecting Mueller a bit of a gift. Thus, he might want to tell the Senate majority leader to let this bill reach the floor and allow senators to approve it.

If there’s nothing to the allegation of collusion — as Trump keeps telling us — let Mueller make that determination all by himself without concern that the president will fire him.

legal news, national news, political news

GOP lawmaker: Wrong to block Garland

garlandmerrick_031716hj3

Dan Donovan’s opinion on a critical judicial appointment might matter if he actually were to play a tangible role in determining its outcome.

It’s too bad the thoughts of a back-bench Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives will be relegated to the back of the closet.

Donovan is a New York member of Congress who said it is wrong for the Republican Senate leadership to block the appointment of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. If Donovan were king of Capitol Hill, he’d let Garland have a hearing and a vote.

He’s right, of course. President Obama appointed Garland to the high court after the shocking death of conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year.

Within hours of Scalia’s death, though, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared that the president’s nominee wouldn’t get a hearing. The president’s pick would be tossed aside. Why? Barack Obama is a lame duck, said McConnell, and the appointment should come from the next president of the United States.

It’s an absolute crock of crap.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/281000-gop-lawmaker-republicans-were-wrong-to-block-garland

“I’ve never thought that was a good idea,” Donovan told reporters in Staten Island. “I’ve always thought that the Republicans were wrong, that they should see who the nominee was — actually, the president nominated Judge Garland — and judge him on his abilities, his jurisprudence.”

Gosh. Do you think?

The irony of McConnell’s refusal is too rich to dismiss. He accuses the president of playing politics by seeking to force the Senate to hold hearings and then a vote. The ironic part is that McConnell’s obstruction of this appointment is the classic example of “playing politics” with a key provision in the constitutional authority of the legislative and executive branches of government.

The only reason McConnell is blocking this appointment process from going ahead is because the appointment might change the balance of power on the court, which was a narrowly conservative panel with Scalia. Garland is more of a mainstream moderate judge who, I should note, won overwhelming Senate approval to the D.C. Circuit Court.

Who’s playing politics, Mr. Majority Leader?

One of McConnell’s fellow GOP lawmakers is making some sense. It’s a shame his voice won’t be heard at the other end of the Capitol Building.

 

national news, political news

McConnell pledges more judicial gridlock

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell laid it out there.

Talking to conservative radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt, McConnell said the Senate “likely” won’t approve any more high-level circuit court or Supreme Court judges during the Obama administration.

So … if I understand it correctly, if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs, say, in the next 24 hours — and it can happen, given the ages of some of the court’s senior justices — the Senate won’t confirm anyone appointed by President Obama, even though Obama has another 18 months to go before he leaves office.

That’s what the Kentucky Republican senator said, right?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/244107-mcconnell-highly-likely-senate-wont-appoint-new-judges-for

I surely understand the politics of these appointments. The highest court in America comprises a slim conservative majority. Should one of the court’s conservative justices suddenly no longer be on the court, that would send the Republican majority in the Senate into sheer apoplexy. GOP senators would go ballistic at the knowledge that the “socialist/Marxist/terrorist-appeaser” president would be empowered to appoint a justice who would swing the balance of power on the court.

And oh yes, the reverse would be true if we had a conservative president appointing a justice who then might have to face confirmation by a Democratic-majority Senate.

But that’s what we have.

McConnell seemed to offer himself some cover in his radio interview by noting the “bipartisan” votes the Senate has had and the bills it has approved with bipartisan majorities. So, it’s OK then to stall these appointments because, as McConnell said, the Senate is up and running like a well-oiled machine.

What a crock!

It’s fair to remind everyone — the Senate majority leader included — that Barack Obama has been elected twice by clear majorities of American voters. Part of the president’s authority rests with his ability to appoint federal judges with whom he feels comfortable. It’s in the Constitution. He can do that!

Yes, the Constitution also gives the Senate the power to “advise and consent” to the appointments. But is it truly within the Senate’s purview to obstruct qualified jurists to these posts purely on political grounds, because senators can’t stomach the notion of the high court comprising judges with whom they are uncomfortable?

Before you accuse me of being a partisan hack, I’ve noted this very thing when we’ve had GOP presidents’ high court appointments stymied by Democrats employing the same logic in seeking to block qualified judicial appointees.

I happen to be a strong believer in “presidential prerogative,” and that belief swings in both directions.

Welcome back, gridlock.

national news, political news

President has chance to 'pivot,' says GOP

The next-to-last State of the Union speech by Barack Obama is coming up.

It’s important. Heck, they’re all important. But this one seems more important than most. Why? For the first time in his presidency, Obama is going to make his speech before a joint congressional session controlled completely by politicians of the other party.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/17/

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made an interesting observation: “Tuesday can be a new day,” McConnell said. “This can be the moment the president pivots to a positive posture, this can be a day when he promotes serious realistic reforms that focus on economic growth and don’t just spend more money we don’t have. We’re eager for him to do so.”

“Pivots to a positive posture,” he said. Positive posture? I think that means he wants the president to turn sharply rightward in his policy, heading right into the teeth of Republican orthodoxy.

Well, do not hold your breath, Mr. Majority Leader.

However, look for the president to “focus on economic growth.” We’ve seen plenty of it during the past five years or so.

The president has sought to scarf up the bulk of the credit for it. Republicans are fighting back, saying, “Hey, we deserve the credit.”

I don’t expect Barack Obama is going to cede much, if any, ground to Republicans on the state of the economy.

He’ll declare, though, that the state of our union is in good shape. Will he say “strong,” or “sound” or “resilient”? All of those descriptions?

Allow me this final observation. Barack Obama’s speech is going to give Republicans plenty of fodder with which to argue with him and his team.

The 44th president is heading toward a rocky and raucous home stretch. On Tuesday night, standing before a Congress controlled by Republicans, he’s going to make the turn.

 

national news, political news

Is Ted Cruz anti-NASA?

Ted Cruz worked tirelessly in 2013 to shut the federal government down, shuttering agencies throughout the vast federal bureaucracy for 16 days.

One of them was the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Well, talk about bad karma.

The freshman Texas Republican senator is going to chair a subcommittee with oversight of NASA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/ted-cruz-nasa_n_6456270.html?

This will be fun to watch. It might be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s way of placating the TEA party wing of the GOP, of which The Cruz Missile is one of the team co-captains.

Cruz will chair the subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness. The chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will be Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.

It’s going to be a new day in the Senate for the next two years, maybe longer.

Cruz isn’t known to be friendly to science, let alone to NASA. His insistence on shutting the government down to make some kind of political point likely didn’t go over well with the dedicated employees at the space agency.

He’s also shown a bit of nerve in blaming the Obama administration for cutting funds for NASA, suggesting that the president is de-emphasizing space travel.

I’m going to reserve judgment on the young senator’s stewardship of this panel. I’ll need to await some actual legislation that passes before his eyes for review.

Suffice to say that I am not hopeful for a good result.