McConnell made clear that tomorrow he'll seek consent to adjourn for ~2 weeks. Before a bunch of Rs got Covid a big benefit to keeping the floor open was the ability to force Rs off the trail & onto the floor. But that’s dangerous when we don’t know how many of them are infected.
By adjourning to pro formas Dems lock in that there'll be no floor vote on ACB for the next 2 weeks. It deprives them of tactics like forcing live quorums but also increases the chances they don’t get covid. With a real covid outbreak among Senate Rs, the pros outweigh the cons.
On quorums: To vote or conduct any business in the Senate you need a quorum of 51 senators physically present on the floor. It appears Dems can deny a quorum right now, but the real question is whether they can do so when Republicans are ready to vote on Barrett. That’s TBD.
In the meantime: Judiciary Committee rules state that 2 members of the minority must be present for the committee to vote. Whether or not Dems participate in the hearings, they should deny Judiciary a quorum to vote on ACB's nomination. They have the power to do this and should.
What does that do? If Republicans still control a majority within Judiciary, they can change or suspend the committee's rules and vote ACB out favorably even if Dems deny a quorum in committee. Republicans did this in the EPW committee with Pruitt. washingtonpost.com/news/energy-en…
But even if Republicans can do it, forcing them to change Judiciary's rules just to force Barrett's nomination to the floor would be unprecedented. It would taint the process and ACB's legitimacy with actions, not just words. It is very clearly worth the effort by Democrats.
This is a big moment for Feinstein. While she can't control what other Democrats on the Judiciary committee do, she can call for them to deny a quorum for the committee's vote on Barrett's nomination. If she did, there's little question that Dems would rally behind her.
To sum up: there’s not much lost by adjourning for 2 weeks and much to be gained in safety and knowing there’ll be no floor vote on ACB. Dems should deny quorums - in Judiciary, where they can no matter what; and on the floor if Rs cannot command 51 when it's time to vote on ACB.
This is an important point. If you keep the floor open you have to police it. If Dems leave the floor for a minute, Rs can pass whatever they want by UC. Before we knew a sizeable chunk of the GOP conference had covid, that could be done safely. But...
...Now that we know covid is racing through their ranks, Dems face the gnarly choice of either being on the floor near Rs to force live quorums and block them from passing things by UC or keeping the floor open but letting Rs pass things. Better to lock in no votes for 2 wks.
To this point: I've advocated for Dems to force Rs off the trail. But the tactics have to serve the strategy. Post-multiple covid disagnoses, if Dems force live quorums etc, the press will understandably turn on them. Better to lock in no votes for 2 wks.
This is legit, but the problem is that they have to keep doing it constantly: physically on the floor every minute of every day that it's open. Staff too. When health was not at risk and they could force Rs off the trail, it was worth it. Probably not now.
This is a Copernican moment. Democrats are realizing the old ways no longer apply. Our democracy has tilted to minority rule by white conservatives who are imposing their will on the diverse majority. That’s unsustainable and it is Dems’ responsibility to rebalance our democracy.
Republicans are imposing minority rule by white conservatives through the most undemocratic elements of our system, many of which have mutated far beyond anything the framers envisioned. Reforming those elements & bringing our democracy back into balance is absolutely essential.
This generation of elected Democrats is being called on to reform the system so it can continue to function. Minority rule by white conservative judges and senators wielding veto power over the will of a diverse majority is not a healthy or sustainable dynamic for democracy.
🚨 It's not just Mark Kelly who could be seated in November: if Dems win the GA special election for Loeffler's seat the winner could be seated in Nov, too. @ReverendWarnock is the guy but Joe Lieberman's son @LiebermanForGa is playing spoiler. Drop out. ajc.com/politics/polit…
This is an uphill battle: Warnock has to win *with* 50% in November to avoid a Jan runoff. But if he does, GA elex law says the winner can be seated immediately. In a fight like this, with these stakes, being in position to win every seat and catch every break is critical.
@ReverendWarnock is the pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta - Martin Luther King Jr.'s former congregation. DSCC endorsed. He's clearly the right candidate for this race and Lieberman has no business except as a spoiler. Give to Warnock here: secure.actblue.com/donate/wfg_ads…
If a whistleblower filed a formal complaint with an Inspector General about women in prison camps getting forced hysterectomies but the victims were predominantly white women, there would be a lot more coverage.
Letters to IGs often generate news, but in this case there’s a formal whistleblower complaint. One study found: “news about murder is the product of journalistic assessments of newsworthiness firmly grounded in long-standing race and gender typifications.” jstor.org/stable/3648888
Judgments about newsworthiness are made mostly by white reporters and editors. Historically, they have judged news about white victims to be more “newsworthy” than news about black or brown victims. We appear to be watching an example of this play out on the ICE hysterectomies.
Reading @anneapplebaum's book, it's striking how easy it is to see what's happening in the US. We are hampered by our belief that the onset of neo-fascism occurring in many other western nations can't happen here. Right now we have a leader unaccountable to the law. So why not?
For me this is what the debate over press. coverage is about. The press covers (and uncovers) Trump scandals aggressively. But on balance, there is an editorial desire to shoehorn it all into normal two-party politics ("rough edges," etc). That can lead to missing the real story.
There is a dangerous tendency to get tunnel-visioned. Everything has to be “uniquely American,” with reference points more rooted in What It Takes than global trends. At a time when fascism is on the rise across western democracies, a wider lens and broader vocabulary are needed.
This op-ed is a good roadmap laying out the relatively limited arguments that remain for defenders of the filibuster. It's worth taking a minute to break them down. thehill.com/opinion/white-…
First there's a statement that eliminating the filibuster will create more gridlock and partisanship. No evidence is provided nor is any attempt made to address the body of work showing the opposite is true: the filibuster contributes to partisan gridlock. legbranch.org/2018-9-12-how-…
Then the piece argues the rules should not bear the sin of their prior use. But the filibuster was *only* used to block civil rights during the Jim Crow era; no other issue was repeatedly stopped by filibusters. There's a reason white supremacists found the filibuster so useful.
When senators like Manchin defend the filibuster by invoking Senate tradition, they should be pressed on what they mean. The filibuster was not created by the Framers, it was forged later for the "tradition" of preserving slavery & blocking civil rights... news.yahoo.com/manchin-counte…
Today the filibuster blocks progress on every issue under the sun including civil rights. While it blocks some conservative bills, it disadvantages progressives far more, in keeping with its tradition of empowering a minority of reactionary whites to impose their will on America.
The filibuster is the tradition of reactionaries. The Framers favored limited minority protections but at every decision point, the majority was to rule. Henry Clay railed against the filibuster in the 1840s. It's the "tradition" of Calhoun, Russell & McConnell, not the Framers.