Tag: senate confirmation
Poll: Americans Reject Senate Republican Assault On Judge Jackson

Poll: Americans Reject Senate Republican Assault On Judge Jackson

If you watched any of the Supreme Court hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson and found yourself repulsed by Republicans, you weren't alone. In a Quinnipiac University poll released late last week, 52 percent of Americans disapproved of the way GOP senators were handling the historic confirmation process for Judge Jackson's nomination, while just 27 percent approved of it (21 percent didn't offer an opinion).

In contrast, a 42 percent plurality of Americans approved of the way Democrats handled the process, while 34 percent disapproved (23 percent offered no opinion).

Americans also support confirming Jackson to the high court 51 percent to 30 percent, according to the poll.

As The Washington Post's Aaron Blake pointed out, Republicans fared worse in their handling of Jackson's confirmation than Democrats did in their handling of the contentious hearings for Brett Kavanaugh—who faced a credible sexual assault allegation amid his confirmation.

Republicans received a 25-point net negative rating from the public (27 percent--52 percent) for the way they comported themselves during Jackson's process, while a CNN/SSRS poll in October 2018 found Democrats received a 20-point net negative rating from the public (36 percent--56 percent) during the Kavanaugh confirmation.

The public also opposed confirming Kavanaugh by 51 percent--41 percent. In fact, the place where Kavanaugh really excelled with the public was in the 33 percent who held a "very negative" view of him. For comparison, eight percent of Americans had a very negative view of Neil Gorsuch and seven percent held a very negative view of John Roberts in CNN polls during confirmation for the two eventual justices.

In any case, the main differences between the Jackson and Kavanaugh confirmations is the fact Jackson is substantially more popular and that during consideration of Kavanaugh, neither party fared particularly well in the public's estimation of their handling of the confirmation process. In fact, Republicans also received a 20-point net negative rating from Americans—35 percent--55 percent—for the way they handled Kavanaugh's confirmation, whereas Democrats won plurality support for their handling of Jackson’s confirmation.

But Republicans clearly aren't concerned one bit that a majority of Americans disapprove of the way they conducted themselves during consideration of a nominee who will likely become the Supreme Court's first Black female justice. In fact, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is currently pressuring his caucus to vote against Judge Jackson’s confirmation.

The only audience Republicans ever really care about—particularly in a pre-midterm environment—is the 27 percent who said they approved of how the GOP has handled the Jackson hearings. It's always about juicing the base for Republicans, who continue to be out of step with the majority of Americans on most issues concerning voters. But it's who shows up at the polls that matters, and Republicans will continue to ignore American majorities as long as they don't face any real electoral consequences for their extreme positions.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

USPS

Biden Nominees Poised To Take Control Of Postal Service, Oust DeJoy

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

A Senate committee voted in favor of President Joe Biden's three nominees for governing board overseeing the U.S. Postal Service (USPS).

According to the Associated Press, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday approved the president's three nominees: "Ron Stroman, a former deputy postmaster general; Amber McReynolds, who leads the nonprofit National Vote at Home Institute; and Anton Hajjar, the former general counsel of the American Postal Workers Union."

The vote comes as lawmakers train their focus on restoring public confidence and trust in the U.S. Postal Service. Since last year, the postal service has undergone a number of drastic changes under the leadership of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a known supporter of President Donald Trump and a major donor for the Republican Party.

In a matter of months, DeJoy implemented a number of overhauls that subsequently led to weeks-long delays in mail processing and transit. If Biden's nominees are approved, they would give Democrats a majority on the board. Amid the announcement of Biden's nominees, Democratic lawmakers are pushing back against the ten-year strategy introduced last month by DeJoy and board Chairman Ron Bloom.

While DeJoy and Bloom insist their plan would save the postal service from substantial losses of approximately $160 billion loss over course of the next decade, Democrats strongly disagree.

The sweeping plan would relax the current first-class letter delivery standard of one to three days to a benchmark of one to five days for mail going to the farthest reaches of the postal network. Postal leaders have said 70% of mail would still be delivered within three days. The plan also includes investments in a new fleet of delivery vehicles and a proposal to consolidate underused post offices and hints at a potential postage rate increase.

The controversial strategy has led to renewed calls for DeJoy's resignation. Last summer, those calls began when DeJoy's drastic policy changes led to slowed mail in the midst of the election. As a staggering number of American voters across the country prepared to vote by mail, there were widespread concerns about ballots being received and processed in a timely fashion.

Once Biden's nominees are confirmed by the full Senate, they can officially take their positions.

Neera Tanden

Covering Tanden Drama, Press Plays Dumb On Sexism (And Racism)

Reprinted with permission from Press Run

The easiest way for the media to deal with the menacing role gender and race play in American politics, is to simply ignore the topics.

We're watching that dynamic play out this week as President Joe Biden's nominee to become the director of the OMB, Neera Tanden, faces roadblocks from key U.S. senators who are using an unprecedented standard to vote against her. Specifically, they're citing her 'mean tweets' from the past.

"I believe her overtly partisan statements will have a toxic and detrimental impact on the important working relationship between members of Congress and the next director of the Office of Management and Budget," announced Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV).

With that, Manchin likely became the first United States senator in history to vote against a cabinet-level nominee from his own party because that person was deemed to be too partisan. Because her tone was wrong. That stunning bout of illogical concern barely drew a second look from Beltway pundits, many of whom nodded their heads in agreement, as if the uncharted move made perfect sense.

What Manchin's unheard-of claim should have prompted from the press was a search for the real reason behind his objections, and why it's possible all 50 Republican senators will vote against Tanden, when no previous Biden nominee has faced that kind of uniform GOP opposition. It should have sparked a searing and widespread look at whether women, and particularly women of color, are held to a different standard when they throw some partisan elbows around. (In 2018, Manchin voted to confirm right-wing Twitter troll Richard Grenell to become U.S. Ambassador to Germany.)

But the Beltway press doesn't want to dwell on prejudice. Anxious to turn the Tanden story into a procedural one, the news media stress the Biden White House is to blame for the possibly failed nominee; for "miscalculating."

Why play dumb? Because if you ignore or downplay sexism — if you ignore the ugly whiff of misogyny and white privilege in the air — you can treat the Tanden story as a process one. You can pretend that the White House bungled the nomination, and that Biden aides are the ones to blame. That's the easy route, and that's the one so many news outlets have taken.

A recent Associated Press report on the nomination waited until the 24th paragraph to even bring up the idea that sexism might be in play. The AP suggested poor White House planning was by far a bigger factor.

This CNN report never bothered to address the idea that Tanden is being held to a higher standard. Instead, it claimed her precarious nomination simply reflects the challenges the Biden White House faces with a Senate that's split 50-50.

The Washington Post actually did a piece about the "Tanden standard" for nominees, yet the article did not include a single sentence about the role gender or race plays in U.S. politics. Additionally, the Post dinged the White House for the "rocky rollout of Tanden's nomination" and how it has sparked an administration-wide "controversy" — not about sexism, but about vote counting.

Over at Politico, a recent, hysterical report portrayed the Tanden nomination as a colossal, unmitigated political disaster for the White House. Her bid "appeared to spectacularly collapse this week," and had become a "major political stumble" for Biden. The problem with the "ham-handed" handling of the nomination is that Tanden is an ally of Hillary Clinton who's "grasping for power" inside the new White House.

Even more breathless Politico insights:

If Tanden's struggles have exposed anything, it's that Democrats have been holding onto a myth that the team who wrestled the presidential nomination away from dozens of primary competitors, then beat President DONALD TRUMP, would move into the White House and execute with a high level of precision and sophistication.

Oh my! Suddenly Tanden represents a window into the world of Democratic incompetence. ("Dems in Disarray," anybody?)

To tell that tall tale, Politico obviously ignored all traces of prejudice in the story. Because acknowledging that ugly specter ruins the preferred narrative about White House bungling.

By the way, most of the news coverage of Tanden's nomination makes passing reference to her previous "controversial" and "harsh" tweets that are supposedly so damning, but very few news organizations detail what they looked like. I suspect that's because, in truth, they weren't that bad and certainly were not out of bounds for mainstream, partisan commentary in the hot house environment of Twitter. (She once claimed vampires have "more heart" than Sen. Ted Cruz.)

It's not surprising the Beltway press is ducking the sexism story, specifically. There still hasn't been an open and honest media discussion about how the political press mistreated Hillary Clinton when she ran in 2016, and in 2008. Instead, the press remains committed to the idea that Clinton was a uniquely flawed candidate. That way journalists don't have to acknowledge their sexist sins of the past.

New York Times political editor Patrick Healy last year: "I don't think we applied double standards to Clinton." This, from the newspaper that for 16 months treated Clinton's private emails is if they were Iran Contra + Watergate.

Why does the Times remain in denial about 2016? Because admitting that the paper engaged in deeply sexist behavior would damage how the Times likes tomarket itself, as being a fair, open-minded, and forward-thinking enterprise.

Democratic women of color continue to be held to a different Beltway set of rules in public life. That's just not a story the press wants to tell.

Judge Merrick Garland

At Judiciary Hearing, Garland Vows Tough Prosecution Of ‘Heinous’ Jan. 6 Insurrection

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Merrick Garland finally got his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Monday. Not for the original position for which he was nominated by President Barack Obama—the Supreme Court—back in 2016, but for attorney general under President Joe Biden. The chair and ranking member of the committee, Democrat Dick Durbin and Republican Chuck Grassley, each brought up that contemptible episode when Republicans under Mitch McConnell refused, for eight months, to consider his nomination. "I want to welcome you back to the Senate Judiciary Committee," Durbin said. "I know this return trip has been a long time in planning and you're here, finally."

Grassley was, let's say, less gracious. "It was an election year with a divided Congress," Grassley said, excusing the blockade. Then the nasty. "Yes, it's true I didn't give Judge Garland a hearing. […] I also didn't mischaracterize his record. I didn't attack his character. I didn't go through his high school yearbook." Given that there aren't multiple allegations of rape against Garland going back decades, no, that would not have been appropriate. Ah, unity.

At the outset of the hearing, Durbin acknowledged Garland's unique qualifications for this particular moment in time: his service as a top official in the Clinton Justice Department investigating the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people. "When you are confirmed, Judge Garland, you, along with the rest of this nation, will continue to grapple with the January 6th attacks," Durbin said. "As nation's chief law enforcement officer, you will be tasked with the solemn duty to responsibly investigate the events of that day, to prosecute all of the individuals responsible and to prevent future attacks driven by hate, inflammatory words, and bizarre conspiracy theories," Durbin continued, not really asking a question.

Garland responded that he believes the current situation is "more dangerous" than Oklahoma City, and that the investigation in the attempted coup and insurrection will be his "first priority." He elaboratedon that in answer to a question from Sen. Dianne Feinstein. He called the insurrection "the most heinous attack on the Democratic processes that I have ever seen and one I never expected to see in my lifetime." He said that he will ensure that career prosecutors working on the investigation "all the resources they could possibly require." Garland also pledged to cooperate with congressional probes into the family separation policy from the previous administration. "I think that the policy was shameful. I can't imagine anything worse than tearing parents from their children. And we will provide all the cooperation that we possibly can," he told Durbin.

Grassley had one major concern: was Garland going to keep on with the Trump-era probes by John Durham, the special counsel into that other special counsel investigation by Robert Mueller on Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the investigation by Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who is heading an investigation involving Hunter Biden's taxes. Garland was noncommittal in response. He told Grassley "I don't have any information about the [Durham] investigation," and said of the existence of the Durham probe, "I have no reason to think that was not the correct decision. […] I don't have any reason to think he should not be in place." He said he had not spoken with Durham and would only dismiss Durham and the probe for cause. As for whether he might have talked with President Biden about the Hunter Biden probe? "The answer to your question is no." Garland told Grassley that he would leave decisions regarding the Hunter Biden probe to others in the department.

The attacks on the Congress and the rise of the white supremacist insurrectionists are key. In his opening statement Garland pledged "If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6th, a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government." He's well positioned to do so. "This almost feels like a precursor. How much more experience could you possibly have in domestic terrorism?" said Donna Bucella, a former Justice Department official who also worked on the Oklahoma City case. "He'll be very methodical. I think he'll demand it's being done the right way."