Harry Reid eliminating the filibuster for judicial appointments worked out poorly for Democrats, Kamala Harris tells Wisconsin Public Radio she'd eliminate the filibuster to get a national right to abortion back

 It doesn't occur to these people that Republicans would retaliate in kind when they regain control of both chambers of Congress, passing their biggest ideas on simple majorities.

Retiring Senator Joe Manchin said ending the filibuster would turn the Senate into "the House on steroids," which is exactly right.

Retiring Senator Kyrsten Sinema said Republicans would use the new power "to ban all abortion nationwide", which is unlikely but possible.

But still Kamala persists, because she's not too bright.

 

 

Judge Ann M. Donnelly, appointed by Obama in 2015, sentences "Ricky Vaughn" to 7 months in jail for trying to dupe stupid people on Twitter to vote for Hillary by text message

 The New York Daily News.

In the immortal words of Harry Reid, Hillary didn't win, did she. 

Thank you, Ricky.

Lindsey Grahamnesty basically tells Democrats that if it weren't for Dingy Harry Reid changing Senate rules Roe would still be the law of the land

 This is an odd argument for a conservative to make, hinting at nostalgia as it does for the status quo ante, but Lindsey isn't one, so there it is and here we are.

Democrats are squealing like pigs over Cocaine Mitch's supposed Supreme Court hypocrisy, but there isn't any

Americans put Republicans in control of the US Senate again in 2018, with Trump in the White House, so Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for what's about to happen, and Harry Reid in particular for trashing the filibuster rule for judicial appointments.  

From the story here, which explains it all:

The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lameduck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. Republicans should not create a brand-new precedent to deviate from them.

Yeah like Harry Reid getting rid of the Senate filibuster rule for "Obama judges" wasn't called "the nuclear option" BY EVERYONE

Democrats easily had stopped Kavanaugh had Senator Reid not deep sixed the filibuster rule

We'll see if Kavanaugh is truly the strong borders judge some have touted him to be.

Given the enthusiasm for him from the Bush camp, I'm not optimistic.

I would consider it a victory if at the very least Kavanaugh abandoned Justice Kennedy's radical libertarianism, but only time will tell.

Reid junked judicial filibuster, Grassley junks "blue slip" tradition, Trump to pack the courts

Jake Novak provides the good news, here.

The way to Obamacare repeal is through repeal of the filibuster

Harry Reid's fateful end of the filibuster in 2013 for lower court and executive branch nominees looks set to be ended also for the higher court.

Once accomplished, nothing in principle stands in the way of removing the filibuster rule for legislation.

And that means Obamacare can be repealed with a simple majority of Republicans.

From the story here:

And now, with political polarization at an extreme, the Senate is on the verge of killing off the Supreme Court filibuster, the one remaining vestige of bipartisanship on presidential appointments. For now the filibuster barrier on legislation will remain, though many fear it could be the next to go.

Those who lament this development should look to themselves.

Popular election of Senators from 1913 has made the Senate little more than a Super House, where the filibuster ended in 1842. The continuance of the filibuster in the Senate is thus an anachronism and a farce in an age of rule by 535 demagogues.

If anyone wishes to imbue the Senate with the supposed august character of its past, start by rescinding the popular election of its membership, thus making the Senate once again the creature of the states the constitution meant it to be.

For such a Senate the filibuster might once again become appropriate, but not for this one. 

Ross Douthat might as well write for The New Republic instead of The New York Times

Here, sounding just like Brian Beutler:

[R]ight now [Trump's] presidency is in danger of being very swiftly Carterized — ending up so unpopular, ineffectual and fractious that even with Congress controlled by its own party, it can’t get anything of substance done. ... [T]he more the Trump White House remains mired in its own melodramas, the more plausible it becomes that the Trump-era House and Senate set a record for risk avoidance and legislative inactivity.

Yeah, 23 days in and he's already a failure because there's no . . . wait for it . . . [infrastructure] spending bill and a tax cut bill, the two great incompatibles which Gallup says most people want.

Isn't The New York Times supposed to be wiser than that, admonishing that you can't have your cake and eat it too? Well, its so-called conservatives at least should be so wise.

The fact of the matter is the Gallup poll result, which is the same as the Douthat wish list, reveals the bipartisan nature of Trump's support. The people who support increased spending and the people who want tax cuts populate two different political parties. Perhaps Douthat has heard of them? Getting them to agree on this stuff is going to take a lot more time than 23 days. It took Barack Obama over four years to come up with his tax cut. Unfortunately for Obama it was Bush's tax cut, not delivered by Dingy Harry and San Fran Nan but by John Boehner at the dawn of 2013. What Harry and Nancy did immediately deliver was jacked up "infrastructure" spending within a month of 44's inauguration, adding a $700 billion increase to Bush 2009 fiscal year spending, making the one time stimulus a permanent part of the budget.

It is the biggest untold scandal since the Fed secretly lent trillions and trillions of dollars to the world at rock bottom prices on questionable collateral during the financial crisis from 2008-2010.

Because Republicans took the House in 2010, that additional $700 billion got no higher, but what do we have to show for it after increasing outlays $700 billion in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016?

Where's the infrastructure after eight years and $5.6 trillion in increased spending?

Another trillion dollars will accomplish nothing.

Meanwhile Trump is delivering to his base, which is the first thing he must do, rescinding Obama executive orders, undercutting the ObamaCare mandate as Congress prepares its repeal, actually laying the groundwork to build The Wall (infrastructure!), rounding up criminal aliens (the horror) and trying to reduce terrorism threats which exist because of a chaotic immigration system, except the courts the enemy is trying to stop him.

He's also vilifying the media whom we also hate every chance he gets, and now the judiciary, the tag team which advances liberalism against the will of the people who overwhelmingly support Trump 2600 counties to 500 counties for the enemy.

And most of all, he's not being Hillary.

It's been a great 23 days. 

The best headline of the day addresses outgoing Sen. Harry Reid and the horse he rode in on, but they can hardly give the paper away

Iraq War vote, October 11, 2002: Hillary lied (along with Biden, Kerry, Reid and Schumer), people died

New York Times: "Remarkable rebuke to the president"

Here:

WASHINGTON — Congress on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to override a veto by President Obama for the first time, passing into law a bill that would allow the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot.

Democrats in large numbers joined with Republicans to deliver a remarkable rebuke to the president. The 97-to-1 vote in the Senate and the 348-to-77 vote in the House displayed the enduring power of the Sept. 11 families in Washington and the diminishing influence here of the Saudi government. ...

Only one senator, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, sided with the president. 

Eighteen House Republicans couldn't find it in themselves to override the president's veto (roll call here):

Benishek Buck Chaffetz Conaway DesJarlais

Grothman Hartzler Issa Jolly King (IA) Kline Nunes

Ribble Sessions Stewart Thornberry Turner Young (AK)

Loretta Lynch would never say to the Tea Party what she said to her precious protesters: "Don't be discouraged"

Here:

[S]he urged peaceful protesters not to give up.

“I want you to know that your voice is important,” Lynch said Friday during a news conference at the Justice Department. “Do not be discouraged by those who would use your lawful actions as cover for their heinous violence. We will continue to safeguard your constitutional rights and to work with you in the difficult mission of building a better nation and a brighter future.”

For a two-faced lying phony, you can't beat badly aging Michael Medved and his smear job of Trump

From the story here:

In 2012, Medved called Sen. Harry Reid a scumbag the worst man in politics for using Romney's tax returns as an attack on the candidate. Medved said Reid was using the tax return attack as a "distraction" from President Obama's failed administration. 

"This attempt to smear and distract, and what is this all about?" Medved rhetorically asked.

P.O.S. Mitt Romney does a Dirty Harry Reid on Donald Trump . . .

. . . says there may be something hiding in Trump's tax returns.

Must be payback for eventually saying Romney was a lousy candidate even though at the time Trump supported Romney and even defended him against Reid.

Story here.

Cruz to Hannity in April 2013: Citizenship is designed to be a poison pill to scuttle the whole Gang of Eight bill

The Hill reported on it here at the time:

"The part that I’ve got deep concerns about is any path to citizenship for those who are here illegally," Cruz said during an interview with Sean Hannity. "I think that is profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who have followed the rules, who have waited in line.

"I think the reason that President Obama is insisting on a path to citizenship is that it is designed to be a poison pill to scuttle the whole bill, so he can have a political issue in 2014 and 2016. I think that's really unfortunate," continued Cruz. ...

"If he actually really wanted to get something passed, he wouldn't be rolling this out as a partisan attack issue," Cruz said. "You look at the State of the Union, that was a divisive speech, that was in your face. And he knows full well that a path to citizenship won't pass the House."

"He knows that it's a partisan, divisive issue and he holds everything else hostage to that wedge issue," Cruz added. ...

"I think that it is likely that there could be some bipartisan solution to those who are here illegally if a path to citizenship were taken off the table," Cruz continued. "But as long as the president and [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)] insist on a path to citizenship they know full well it will never pass the House of Representatives and then it's just a political football rather than actually trying to fix the problem." ...

"Look, they have the votes to force something through the Senate. I think whatever mess comes out of the so-called Gang of Eight, all or virtually all of the Democrats will vote for it and it's likely they'll get a fair number of Republicans to vote for it to so they can probably get it through the Senate," Cruz added. "If it includes a path to citizenship, I don't think it'll pass the House, and I think that's exactly what the Obama White House wants."

Cruz is crazy now to characterize his amendment to the bill at the time as "the poison pill" when he was calling the citizenship provisions of the Gang of Eight bill the poison pill.

If anyone has become unhinged in this race Jeb, it's Ted Cruz. Even Mona Charen thinks Ted Cruz meant to come off as sincere in 2013. We aren't left wondering only what Marco Rubio believes about the issue, but also what Ted Cruz really believes.

Safe to say few wonder what Donald Trump really believes about illegal immigration.

Obama and McCain reverting to type, calling their respective opponents crazies

John McCain quoted here in Politico in July:

“It’s very bad,” the Republican senator said. “This performance with our friend [Trump] out in Phoenix is very hurtful to me,” McCain said. “Because what he did was he fired up the crazies.”

And here's Barack Obama now at the end of August, also quoted in Politico:

Ruddy from the sun, Obama described himself as “refreshed, renewed, recharged — a little feisty.” And he delivered, recounting the ride he and [Senator Harry] Reid had just taken from the conference to the fundraiser in his up-armored presidential limo, where they talked about old times and getting back to Washington to “deal with the crazies in terms of managing some problems.”

If anyone should know crazy, it's Barack Obama and John McCain.

The 10 Idiot Senate Republicans who voted to confirm Loretta Lynch as Attorney General

The 10 Republicans who think being in the majority is a sin:

Ayotte (R-NH) oh yes she votes. just. like. a. woman.

Cochran (R-MS) senile old codger

Collins (R-ME) gender before party

Flake (R-AZ) aptly named

Graham (R-SC) McCain's errand boy

Hatch (R-UT) competing with Harry Reid for Mormon infamy

Johnson (R-WI) used to be the Tea Party's Senator! Go Feingold! Go Feingold! Go Feingold!

Kirk (R-IL) soon to be replaced by another disabled person of the same political party

McConnell (R-KY) recently had unsuccessful testicle transplant surgery

Portman (R-OH) has never had any testicles according to anonymous sources 

The roll call vote is here.  

Best thing to happen in the US Senate in years: Dingy Harry won't run for reelection in 2016

Don't get injured on the way out the door, Harry.

Dick Durbin knows all about the back of the bus: He and 12 other Democrats voted against the first African-American woman Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State in 2005

The Washington Post reported here at the time:

The Senate voted 85 to 13 to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, providing the most negative votes cast against a nominee for that post in 180 years.

Maybe if Dick and Dirty Harry had gotten their shit together last fall Loretta Lynch could already have been confirmed as the first African-American female Attorney General.

From the AP story here:

Lynch was nominated last fall and Democrats are growing increasingly agitated over the holdup in confirming her, although they were in control of the Senate for some of that time. "Loretta Lynch, the first African-American woman nominated to be attorney general, is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar," Durbin said. "That is unfair. It's unjust. It is beneath the decorum and dignity of the United States Senate."

It's not like Obama didn't have plenty of time to fill the position while Democrats still had control of the Senate. Eric Holder resigned in late September 2014, and Obama didn't nominate Lynch until after Democrats had taken a good thrashing at the polls on November 4th.