Archive for the ‘Harry Reid’ Category

The only way to characterize this article is to call it Democrat spin from another planet. How else would you characterize this BS?

Supreme Court reform has entered the public debate, with legal luminaries like former Attorney General Eric Holder and constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe supporting adding justices to the Supreme Court, and a number of 2020 presidential candidates expressing openness to the idea.

Regardless of your views on proposals to reform the Supreme Court, there is important context to this discussion that is often missed: Conservatives are already packing the courts. Senate Republicans have been changing the rules and ignoring long-standing practices in order to fill the judiciary with narrow-minded conservative elitists. Their goal is to use the courts to implement conservative policies, regardless of their popular support. The issue we face now is how to respond to this power grab.

Conservatives have done everything they can to keep their years-long court packing efforts under the radar. Rather than start by adding new judges, they instead subtracted them, quietly refusing to let President Barack Obama appoint judges. Then, under President Donald Trump, they have changed the rules to fill those seats with ultra-right wing judges at breakneck speed.

First, it’s BS to say that conservatives quietly refused “to let President Barack Obama appoint judges.” They stood in the way of Judge Merrick Garland. That’s the only one. Period. That’s judge (singular), not judges (plural.)

Next, conservatives aren’t “packing” any court. They’re doing a fantastic job of confirming judges appointed by President Trump, just like Harry Reid did when he was the Senate Majority Leader and President Obama did the nominating. The difference is that Sen. Reid threw out the rulebook (and the filibuster) on district court and appellate court judges.

The other difference is that Sen. Mitch McConnell is doing a far better job of confirming President Trump’s judicial nominees than Reid did with confirming President Obama’s judicial appointees. That falls under the category of “Elections have consequences. I won.” Only presidents get to nominate judges. Congress’s role is advise and consent. They play a roll but their role is well-defined and limited.

Packing the court has always meant that a president has tried adding judges to a court when it’s already full. This idiot spinmeister is attempting to tell people that a president filling vacancies on the district courts, appellate courts and the Supreme Court, which is the president’s responsibility, is somehow a constitutional crisis. Hint to the author: Presidents have been doing this since the late 1700s. They’ve done it because it’s part of their job.

This week, I failed to write a Thanksgiving Day post. Consider this my belated Thanksgiving Day post. Mostly, I’m thankful for my friends. I’m thankful for politicians, too, partially because they do some of the dumbest things imaginable. Thanks to this article, I’ve gained a new appreciation for a pair of U.S. senators. Specifically, I appreciate Sen. Grassley, (R-IA), and Sen. Reid, (D-NV).

Before he retired, Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster. President Trump is thanking him all the way to the Supreme Court to the appeals courts. Sen. Grassley took away the Democrats’ hidden filibuster ‘tool’, aka “the blue slip courtesy.”

The article states the “growing rift between [President Trump] and Republican Senators John McCain, Jeff Flake, and Bob Corker alone has made headlines for months.” Those stories have buried something much more important. According to the article, “that story ignores a bigger and longer-lasting development in the federal judiciary. That brings us first to naming the Republican gift giver: Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa. The longtime member of Congress has big time clout as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And Grassley has just used that clout to eliminate one of the final hurdles in the already furious pace of Trump administration judicial appointments to the federal bench.”

The article continues:

Late last week, Grassley decided not to honor a Senate tradition of holding up hearings for judicial nominees who aren’t cleared by their own home state senators. That tradition is known as the “blue slip courtesy” born out of time before nationwide communication technology when a given state’s senators had access to much more information about nominees than their colleagues from the rest of the country. Grassley correctly noted that Democrats were now trying to use the blue slips tradition to replace the filibuster, and he’s having none of that. As recently as last month, the Democrats and much of the news media’s punditry were expecting Grassley, who is no fan of the president, to keep the blue slip tradition in place. But Grassley gave Trump this very special gift instead.

And that brings us to the Democrat who provided the initial generous source of President Trump’s solid triumph: Former Senate Majority Leader, and Democrat, Harry Reid. Reid is a major reason this good fortune has befallen President Trump because Reid was the one who killed the filibuster rule for judicial nominees in 2013. And when he killed it, it was gone for good.

This is why all this matters:

Consider that as of November 3rd, 13 Trump nominees to the courts have been confirmed this year. The big name is Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, but we also have eight new federal appeals court judges, and four new U.S. district court judges. President Trump has now already surpassed the last four presidents’ records for first-year judicial confirmations. And he’s even tied President Ronald Reagan number of appeals court confirmations in year one.

But this isn’t just about sheer numbers, it’s about ideology too. While President Trump and conservatives have diverged in matters of policy several times over the past year, the judicial nomination process is decidedly not one of them. The nominees sent to the Senate from the White House are more conservative and even younger than what we saw during President George W. Bush’s two terms in office.

This wouldn’t be possible if not for Harry Reid’s short-sighted decision to eliminate the filibuster. Thanks Harry. I finally found something that he’s responsible for that I’m thankful for.

Don Davis’ article about the Thursday night vote on health care contains quotes from Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar. Specifically, both senators talk about the importance of bipartisanship.

For instance, Sen. Franken said “Tonight’s vote will go down in the history books. But we can’t rest easy; the fight is far from over. My message to Republicans is come back to the table … and work with us in a bipartisan way to improve health care for all Americans. If we want to do this the right way, it’s the only path forward.”

Sen. Franken, the Senate just debated health care. Lots of amendments were offered. Why didn’t you offer amendments to improve the bill? It isn’t like you didn’t have the opportunity. Was it because you didn’t want to defend your proposals on the Senate floor? It’s one thing to insist on bipartisanship. It’s another to not offer any substantive amendments that would fix the ACA.

By comparison, Sen. Klobuchar is quoted as saying “Time to work across the aisle…” Again, Sen. Klobuchar didn’t offer any substantive amendments. She just spewed happy talk about working across the aisle. That sounds nice but it isn’t a solution. Further, it was the Democrats’ ideas that created this crisis. At least she didn’t celebrate like Sen. Franken:

While Americans suffer from limited options and high prices, Sen. Franken and Sen. Warren celebrated. Left unanswered in all this is a simple question that the MSM intentionally hasn’t asked. When iPads first hit the stores, they flew off the shelves. When Microsoft Office first came out, it flew off the shelves. When FedEx first opened, it didn’t take long for Fred Smith to become a billionaire. Here’s the unasked question that Democrats haven’t answered: if Obamacare policies are so good, why is the individual mandate required to get people to buy health insurance policies? Is it because the product stinks? Is it because the product’s price is too expensive?

Democrats have frequently said that the ACA “isn’t perfect.” (That’s understatement.) They’re pretending that it’s only 1-2 minor tweaks away from being a hot-selling commodity. It isn’t. It’s a total mess. Democrats have said that insurance companies are bailing from the exchanges because Republicans are trying to destabilize them. They’re bailing because they’re losing tens of millions of dollars. Thursday night, I sent this constituent email to Sen. Klobuchar:

Sen. Klobuchar, I wish I could say I was surprised that you voted against each Republican health care reform proposal. Unfortunately, your votes were entirely predictable.

On Facebook, you said “We can still put aside partisanship and instead work together on bipartisan solutions that will help every American. That’s utterly insulting. When Democrats passed the ACA, Democrats displayed nothing but partisanship. In fact, Harry Reid didn’t allow Republican amendments to the bill. At the time, I don’t remember you criticizing Sen. Reid for this blatant act of partisanship. Now that Obamacare is a failure and insurance companies are either pulling out of the exchanges or they’re demanding huge premium increases, we’re being told that bipartisanship is a must.

Why do I think that talk of bipartisanship will disappear the minute Democrats retake the majority? Honestly, I don’t care if there’s bipartisanship if either party gets this reform right. Right now, I’ve seen that the Democrats’ plan has failed pretty much everyone except those with pre-existing conditions.

It’s time you admitted that your ideas failed. Further, it’s time for you to move in the Republicans’ direction to solve this crisis. That means voting for Republican ideas. The ACA has caused dramatic spikes in premiums while barely increasing the number of people insured.

In short, you’ve failed. It’s time for you to vote with Republicans. Period.

In summarization, the Democrats’ plan is failing. That’s because Democrats didn’t listen to the consumer on what the consumers wanted. Instead, Democrats told their constituents what they’d be forced into getting. Predictably, that top-down approach has failed. People want to have options. The ACA hasn’t given people the options that they’ve had prior to the ACA.

Technorati: Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar, Obamacare, Harry Reid, Elizabeth Warren, Partisanship, Obamacare Exchanges, Democrats

John Hinderaker’s post doesn’t mince words. John questions whether Republicans have acted as disgustingly as Democrats have. Here’s a hint: they haven’t. John writes “when has a Republican proudly displayed the severed, bloody head of Nancy Pelosi? Or Chuck Schumer? Or Barack Obama? When have Republicans thrown bricks through store windows or assaulted Democrats on the street? When have Republicans rioted to prevent Democrats from speaking on college campuses? When have Republicans accused Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer of treason? When have Republicans sent provocateurs into Democratic presidential rallies to start fights? When have Republicans urged ‘Resistance’ against a Democratic president who they claim is a Nazi?”

The answer to John’s questions is simple. It’s never happened. Period. Everyone remembers Kathy Griffin’s blood-drenched head. Some people have seen the video of Donald Trump being assassinated (as Caesar). How many people remember Alan Grayson’s speech displaying the Republicans’ health care plan:

Lots of youngsters don’t remember Ted Kennedy’s speech that started the term Borking:

That’s before considering how nasty Harry Reid was on multiple occasions over several years.

Technorati: Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Kathy Griffin, Alan Grayson, Die Quick, Die Quick

Eugene Robinson’s latest article is proof that there aren’t many great strategists left in the Democratic Party. A topnotch political strategist wouldn’t say “In the two weeks since, Trump has only piled outrage upon outrage, as far as progressives are concerned. He took the first steps toward building his ridiculous wall along the southern border, but with U.S. taxpayers’ dollars, not Mexico’s. He squelched government experts who work on climate change. He weakened the Affordable Care Act in the hope that it would begin to collapse, which would make it easier for Congress to kill it.”

That’s because they’d know that the ACA started collapsing a year ago. Its collapse is inevitable because it’s terrible legislation. A relatively healthy person is better off not buying insurance because the ACA’s out-of-pocket expenses (premiums plus deductibles) in some states are so high that families are better off paying the penalty rather than buying the insurance. As I’ve written before, the ACA is catastrophic coverage at Cadillac plan prices.

And I can’t help thinking back to 2009. Republicans made an all-out effort to stop the Affordable Care Act. Their motives were purely political; some GOP senators railed against policies they had favored in the past. Ultimately, they failed.  Obamacare became law.

But this losing battle gave tremendous energy and passion to the tea party movement — which propelled Republicans to a sweeping victory in the 2010 midterm election. It is hard not to see an analogous situation on the Democratic side right now.

Democrats haven’t learned the TEA Party lesson, which is that politicians better listen to We The People or else. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi didn’t listen to people and lost 12 seats and 63 seats respectively. Chuck Schumer isn’t listening to the people, either. The chances of Democrats picking up Senate seats is remote at best.

Democrats cannot stop Gorsuch from being confirmed. But they can hearten and animate the party’s base by fighting this nomination tooth and nail, even if it means giving up some of the backslapping comity of the Senate cloakroom. They can inspire grass-roots activists to fight just as hard to win back state legislatures and governorships. They can help make 2018 a Democratic year.

This is delusional thinking. Democrats will lose more governorships and legislative seats because they’re owned by special interests. They haven’t talked about doing what’s best for the people. President Trump constantly talks about putting people first. Democrats reflexively side with environmental activists, which has alienated blue collar union rank-and-file.

Democrats in Illinois haven’t pressured Rahm Emanuel to actually crack down on Chicago’s crime-infested streets. New York City’s City Council hasn’t blasted Bill De Blasio’s sanctuary city policies. In both cities, people don’t feel safe. Former President Obama insisted that terrorism wasn’t a threat while ISIS killed people in shopping malls and at Christmas parties. The Obama administration insisted, too, that the borders were secured. Voters knew that wasn’t true.

Voters won’t vote for the party that won’t protect them. Right now, people don’t trust Democrats to handle the basic government functions. Until that happens, people won’t trust Democrats.

One of the questions that the supposedly MSM isn’t asking of Democrats concerns Judge Gorsuch is exceptionally straightforward. First, let’s inform people who’ve been comatose for the last 10 years that Judge Gorsuch was confirmed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals with a 95-0 vote. That means Chuck Schumer voted for his confirmation. That means Joe Biden voted for him. That means Ted Kennedy voted to confirm him. That means Harry Reid voted for him.

One of the silliest arguments being made against confirming Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court was made by Nan Aron, the founder of the Alliance for Justice. She told FNC’s Tucker Carlson that this time it’s different because the appointment to the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Ms. Aron’s reply is silly because appointments to all appellate courts are lifetime appointments. But I digress.

The questions that the MSM should ask Democrats that voted for Judge Gorsuch then and who are still in the Senate is this: Are you being dishonest now in calling Judge Gorsuch names? Were you that stupid when you voted to confirm him in 2006? If you’re being dishonest now, why should people trust your criticisms? If you were hoodwinked in 2006, why should people think that you aren’t getting it wrong this time?

Nan Aron’s opposition to Judge Gorsuch is simple: he wasn’t appointed by a Democratic president and because he’s wrong, in Nan’s opinion, on abortion. Aron’s litmus test, her religion really, is that everyone should ‘support a woman’s right to choose.’ Anyone who doesn’t hold that view is outside Ms. Aron’s mainstream.

Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker and Bernie Sanders won’t hesitate in filibustering Judge Gorsuch. That’s because they’re thinking about running for president in 2020. If they don’t filibuster, they’re toast in 2020. What’s still in question, though, is whether red state Democrats up for re-election in 2018 will filibuster, too. Sherrod Brown has announced he’ll vote against confirming Judge Gorsuch. The rest of the vulnerable Democrats are sitting silent.

Eventually, they’ll face a moment of truth. I don’t expect to see lots of profiles in courage at that point.

The Democratic Party of Hubert Humphrey, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Scoop Jackson is ancient history. The Democratic Party of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, aka The One-Man Pocket Veto, and (especially) Chuck Schumer can be described succinctly. They party of Obama, Reid and Schumer is all obstruction, all the time.

This article highlights just how unhinged today’s Democratic Party is. The article opens by saying “Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Monday predicted that Democrats would launch a filibuster against whoever President Trump picks for the Supreme Court. ‘This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,’ Merkley told Politico. ‘We will use every lever in our power to stop this. … I will definitely object to a simple majority.'”

This isn’t surprising. Democrats are upset because they thought they’d get former President Obama’s third term. They thought they’d win back the majority in the Senate, too, so they could confirm lots of liberal justices. Instead, they nominated a corrupt politician who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead, they gained 2 seats in the Senate when they needed 5.

The important point, though, is that today’s Democratic Party isn’t interested in being public servants who listen to their constituents. Today’s Democratic Party isn’t interested in putting America first. Today’s Democratic Party is mostly about complaining when they don’t get their way. Today’s Democratic Party is about obstruction when people say no to their ideological wish list.

Simply put, Sen. Merkley has passionately and emphatically stated that his fidelity is to the Democratic Party, not the people he was elected to represent or the Constitution he swore an oath to defend.

The Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), which has ties to McConnell, quickly sent out emails questioning whether the red-state Democrats would back Merkley’s filibuster.

Of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), the group said: “Will he stand with the people of his state who overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump to be able to pick a Supreme Court nominee? Or will he stand with [Sens.] Elizabeth Warren [Mass.], Bernie Sanders [Vt.], and the rest of the Democratic caucus that only cares about its far left base of permanent protesters?”

If Democrats want to filibuster President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, let them. That will expose them as obstructionists who obstruct for the sake of appeasing their political base. Democrats don’t care about this:

Democrats only care about maintaining power.

Technorati: Jeff Merkley, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, One Man Pocket Veto, Obstructionists, Hubert Humphrey, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Scoop Jackson, Patriots, Donald Trump, Supreme Court Nominee, Constitution, Mitch McConnell, Senate Leadership Fund

This Washington Post article didn’t highlight what’s actually happening. Abby Phillip’s article starts by saying “A public feud between Donald Trump and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) seemed to jettison any lingering hopes that the inauguration would temporarily ease partisanship in Washington and instead threatened to widen the rift between the two parties.”

What’s actually happening is that the most hyper-partisan parts of the Democratic Party have jettisoned any spirit of bipartisanship. People like Sen. Manchin will be just fine. In Washington, DC, Rep. Lewis is seen exclusively as a civil rights hero. He’s certainly earned that distinction. Outside the Beltway, though, he’s seen as a partisan hack with a short list of accomplishments. When he told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he didn’t think that Mr. Trump was a legitimate president and that he wouldn’t attend Mr. Trump’s inauguration, he solidified that image. He did nothing to soften his image as a partisan. This video will become what a new generation of Americans will think of Rep. Lewis:

The truth is that the hardline left (think Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Harry Reid, Keith Ellison, John Lewis, John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi) has become totally unhinged. They aren’t capable of rational thinking at this point. When that’s the leadership of the Democratic Party, bipartisanship is virtually impossible. What’s yet to be determined is whether the DLC wing of the Democratic Party will reassert itself and save the Democratic Party from itself. At this point, I’ll predict that will happen but not until after a lengthy civil war for the soul of the Democratic Party.

Technorati: John Lewis, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Keith Ellison, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, DNC, Donald Trump, Bipartisanship, Meet the Press

Keith Ellison is hoping to turn his support of Bernie Sanders, then Hillary Clinton, into a winning message in his bid to become the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). At this point, outsiders think Rep. Ellison is the leader to succeed Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as the full-time chair of the DNC. Whether DNC insiders think that is another matter.

Outsiders think that he’s the leader because he’s been endorsed by “Harry M. Reid (NV), who announced his support on Sunday, and Reid’s expected successor, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY). On Monday, Ellison’s list of endorsers also included Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.”

The article portrays Ellison as a team player, saying “Longtime Clinton aide Neera Tanden, who runs the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, worked with Ellison to help draft the Democratic Party’s platform in meetings where she represented Clinton and he Sanders. “I saw him as a very constructive voice in the platform process. And it was very apparent he was working hard to unite the party,” said Tanden, who is staying neutral in the DNC Chair race and not endorsing any candidate.”

I don’t doubt that Ellison has the ability to unite the Democratic Party. That isn’t the Democratic Party’s problem. The Democrats’ biggest problem is that they’re far off the left end. Their other major problem is that they’ll do anything that the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party wants. That why they’ve alienated blue collar workers like miners and pipeline builders. Until blue collar Democrats insist that the Democratic Party incorporate their agenda into the Party’s agenda, they should make clear that their votes will go to the party that listens to them. Period.

Politics should be, to a certain extent, about which party has actually listened to that constituent group. On that note, it’s impossible to picture Keith Ellison guiding the Democratic Party to be ideologically inclusive. It isn’t difficult picturing the DNC being more ideologically rigid under Ellison, though.

Technorati: Keith Ellison, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Raul Grijalva, Hillary Clinton, Neera Tanden, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, DNC

The perfect Democrat is a toothless Democrat. These days, there’s lots of toothless Democrats in DC. House Democrats have been toothless since January, 2011. Now it’s the Senate Democrats’ turn to feel impotent. They’re feeling impotent because outgoing Democrat Leader Harry Reid went nuclear in 2013. Now that there’s a Republican administration forming, Democrats are finding out that they can complain a lot and little else.

For instance, Sen. Joe Donnelly, (D-IN), said “Tom Price has led the charge to privatize Medicare, and for this reason, I cannot support his nomination” this past week. His statement sounds tough but Price’s confirmation is all but official. Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would love to stop Jeff Sessions’ confirmation as Attorney General because Sen. Sessions will shut down illegal immigration. Thanks to Sen. Reid invoking the nuclear option, he’s toothless.

The best Sen. Schumer, (D-NY), can do is say that Sen. Sessions will get lots of touch questions during his confirmation hearing. It’s impossible to picture Sen. Sessions worrying much about the hearings. It’s difficult to picture any of Trump’s nominees worrying about the Democrats’ toothless trio:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., seemed to acknowledge that the only real weapon for Democrats is to try to make a good public case against Sessions, and hope the public starts calling for a new nominee. “We’ll be as persuasive as possible in what we say about it, hoping to reach and arouse as many people as possible.”

Good luck with that.

Technorati: Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, Illegal Immigration, Tom Price, Obamacare Repeal and Replace, Republicans, Chuck Schumer, Richard Blumenthal, Harry Reid, Joe Donnelly, Confirmation Hearings, Nuclear Option, Democrats, Elections Have Consequences