Mediaboss Marketing

Holden is chairman of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce.

Six years ago when journalists were writing that federal judicial vacancies were reaching a crisis point there were 101 empty seats in the district and appellate courts. Today that number is more than 130. The crisis has not abated, but the desire to address it has, at least in some corners. Where once there was urgency, now progressive pundits contend that President Donald Trump is moving at an unprecedented pace to fill judicial vacancies.

Despite such concerns, aggressive action to address the lack of a fully functioning judiciary, as envisioned by the Founders in Article III of the Constitution, is good for all Americans. Voters want action on judges, and they want judges who respect the Constitution. The presidents judicial nominees are giving them both.

Progressives seem to be upset that the process is working. The president is selecting highly qualified nominees who respect the rule of law and eschew political agendas, and the Senate is considering them thats consistent with the constitutional process. But Senate Democrats have been standing in the way, for overt political reasons. Stressing urgency around the left's judicial obstruction, one progressive columnist openly wrote, "nothing is more important than taking back the Senate in 2018 ."

Who are these rapid-fire, right-wing nominees the left is speaking of, anyway? Here is a sampling of them:

David Stras , nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, is an associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court and a former clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He served as editor-in-chief of his law review and was teacher of the year at the University of Minnesota Law School. Minnesota Bar Association President Robin Wolpert called Stras a "person who everyone can get behind.

Stephanos Bibas, nominated to the Third Circuit, is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, clerked for centrist Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, and served as an assistant U.S. attorney during the Clinton administration.

Joan Larsen is a justice on the Michigan Supreme Court. She graduated first in her class at Northwestern University School of Law and clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. She also taught at the University of Michigan Law School, where 32 of her colleagues wrote a letter supporting her nomination. Not all of us share Justice Larsen's views on judicial methodology, they wrote to Michigans two Democratic senators, Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters. But every single one of us agrees that she will be an outstanding federal judge, and we are unanimous in urging you to support her nomination. After stalling for months, Peters and Stabenow finally cleared the way for Larsen last week.

Those bipartisan credentials do not exactly match the fearful rhetoric coming from the left, but Democratic senators have held up all three and likely wont stop there.

It wasnt so long ago that the progressive American Constitution Society was praising Obama White House Counsel Robert F. Bauer for being earnest and urgent about filling vacancies. For good measure, they also complained about the unprecedented obstruction of the presidents judicial nominations.

They were so upset, in fact, that they supported and claimed credit for changing the Senate rules to do away with the filibuster on lower court nominations. Having dispensed with that tool when alacrity suited their purposes, theyre now left with fewer options when obstruction is apparently once again the purest form of patriotism.

Fearing the majority might give Democrats a taste of their own medicine by removing another major roadblock to majority-vote confirmation the arcane blue-slip process Senate Democrats are urged to contest every procedural change the Republicans are making to speed Trumps nominees.

Unique to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the century-old blue-slip process allows senators to block judicial, U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal nominees from their home states.

But if the original intent of the senatorial courtesy was benign to encourage presidents to seek input about judicial nominees the process has evolved into just another way for outnumbered lawmakers to stifle the will of the Senate. Stabenow and Peters, for example, were blocking Larsen by refusing to return blue slips on her nomination. And their reach extends beyond Michigan. The Sixth Circuit also serves Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. No single senator should be permitted to block qualified judges from a court that covers multiple states, especially when there remains a judicial crisis due to the lack of judges.

Both parties have been guilty of this tactic. Republicans did it to President Obama, so Democrats now feel justified in doing it to President Trump. Its this sort of tit-for-tat that needs to be dispensed with.

It makes no sense to say that 41 senators can no longer stop a judicial nominee, but one senator still can.

People are frustrated with how Washington operates, and this kind of upside-down logic is a large part of the problem. If we want to change the culture, treating the judicial nomination and confirmation process with the constitutional seriousness and respect it deserves would be a good place to start.

Original post:
The Democrats' Logic Is Upside-Down on Judicial Confirmations - TIME

The four Democratic and Republican legislative leaders said Thursday that they have reached a tentative agreement with Gov. Bruce Rauner on a plan to fund schools, though the sides warn a deal is not yet final.

The leaders recently held several closed-door meetings in search of a compromise after the Republican governor vetoed Democrats' plan to change the way state money is distributed to local school districts. Rauner said the bill unfairly benefited the financially struggling Chicago Public Schools, and he rewrote it, setting up a standoff with Democrats.

Top lawmakers were unwilling to discuss the details Thursday before the agreement is formally written into a bill that can actually be voted on, as it can fall apart if one side doesn't think the technical language of the legislation accurately reflects what was agreed to in private.

Talks, though, have included a variety of issues, including letting some schools stop offering daily physical education classes and letting CPS raise property taxes above a state cap. Asked if the tentative deal included all the funding increases for CPS that were in the original Democratic bill, Mayor Rahm Emanuel responded, "That and more."

News of the breakthrough broke late Thursday afternoon in a short statement issued by House Republican Leader Jim Durkin of Western Springs and incoming Senate Republican leader Bill Brady of Bloomington.

"This afternoon, the four legislative leaders and the governor reached an agreement in principle on historic school funding reform," the statement read.

Brian Cassella / Chicago Tribune

That was soon followed by a statement from Democratic Senate President John Cullerton and House Speaker Michael Madigan. The pair of Chicago Democrats said "the legislative leaders appear to have reached a bipartisan agreement in concept."

The legislative leaders are set to meet again in Springfield on Sunday. If the agreement stands, the House could take up the measure when lawmakers return to the Capitol on Monday. If not, that runs up against the deadline to attempt to override Rauner's veto though it's unlikely there would be enough support to do so.

Rauner's office issued a statement saying the governor "applauds" the leaders for reaching a consensus.

"He thanks them for their leadership and looks forward to the coming days when the legislation is passed by both chambers," the statement said.

Without a new funding formula in place, the state can't send checks to schools. Districts already have missed two regular payments and warn of major program cuts or closures should a resolution not be reached.

According to lawmakers of both parties familiar with talks, much of the underlying bill before Rauner's rewrite would remain intact. The legislation is designed to help direct more money to impoverished schools but without taking dollars from other districts.

Discussions have included giving CPS the authority to raise its property tax levy above a state cap, which limits an increase to 5 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. The state granted similar power last year, paving the way for a $250 million tax increase to boost contributions to the CPS teacher pension fund. The state also has given CPS the authority to levy an additional property tax, the proceeds of which are meant to be spent on construction projects.

In addition, a new program would be created to provide tax credits for those who donate money toward scholarships for private schools. Under the plan, $75 million a year would be set aside, and participants could qualify for a tax credit of 75 cents for every dollar that is donated. The program would expire in five years.

The idea has drawn criticism from unions.

"Rahm has failed to secure revenue at both the city and state levels, and is now supporting a plan that will give money to private schools that could be directed to our public school classrooms," Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis said in a statement earlier this week.

CPS also would receive help in the form of the state picking up costs related to teacher pensions, which Illinois already covers for school districts outside the city. However, that change might not be written into the school code but instead included with laws governing the state's retirement systems reflecting a change Rauner wanted.

Meanwhile, voters in school districts with a surplus of education money may be allowed to determine via a referendum if they want to cut property taxes. This would apply predominately to communities in the suburbs and collar counties, and a decrease would likely be limited to no more than 10 percent.

Another possible change would require the property value in any new TIF districts to be counted toward a school district's ability to generate property taxes. It's a nod to an issue pushed by Rauner, who has contended that Chicago is using a large number of TIF districts to hide property wealth and is therefore getting more than its fair share of state money.

Also on the table is rolling back various requirements the state has for local districts that it doesn't help pay for. Among them is the state's requirement for daily physical education classes and driver's education courses. Lawmakers also could streamline the process for districts to get waivers from the Illinois State Board of Education to get out of those requirements.

At a hastily arranged news conference at City Hall on Thursday, Emanuel was asked by a reporter if Chicago taxpayers, after seeing record property tax increases in the past couple of years, should prepare for more. "Yes," the mayor said.

Afterward, mayoral spokesman Matt McGrath sought to clarify the mayor's statement, saying that the "yes" response was an acknowledgment of the increased property tax burden already faced by city residents, not that they would face more.

"We are not announcing a tax increase today," McGrath said. "He was not responding to that question."

Whatever the mayor meant, he pivoted from the tax talk to praising an agreement he said would see the state provide significantly more funding to CPS, particularly in pension contributions.

"I think they were hit hard a long time ago," Emanuel said of Chicago taxpayers. "When you're paying for everybody else's teacher pension and you don't get anything back, and for the first time you're money's coming back to your 606 ZIP code, I think that's a big step forward. ... We have actually gotten our Chicago taxpayers a fair shake for the first time from Springfield."

Despite that praise, the district still needs to borrow more than $1.5 billion to have enough cash to pay its bills this year.

The Chicago Board of Education, in addition to taking up the school district's $5.7 billion budget "framework" on Monday, also is expected to authorize borrowing slightly more than $1.9 billion worth of short- and long-term debt.

That includes close to $1.6 billion worth of tax anticipation notes a maneuver akin to a payday loan because the district borrows cash off the value of property tax money that eventually will arrive in its coffers.

This year, that borrowing alone is expected to carry massive interest costs of roughly $79 million.

mcgarcia@chicagotribune.com

hdardick@chicagotribune.com

jjperez@chicagotribune.com

More here:
Democrats, Republicans say a tentative deal reached on school funding - Chicago Tribune

Congressional Democrats already had leverage in two of the big impending legislative battles this fall. Congress cant raise the debt limit or pass must-pass appropriations through the reconciliation keyhole, so Republicans will be forced to muster 60 Senate votes to avoid a Democratic filibuster. The strong possibility of conservative GOP defections especially in the House makes some Democratic support even more essential.

At the moment, it seems no significant bloc in Congress wants to play games with a debt-limit increase and risk a debt default. So a clean debt-limit bill, perhaps attached to some noncontroversial legislation, is currently the best bet. But the appropriations bill needed to avoid a government shutdown is another matter altogether. And the presidents explicit threat in Phoenix earlier this week to shut down the government (presumably by vetoing an appropriations measure) if he doesnt get what he wants in the way of funding for his border wall raises the stakes even higher.

Democratic leverage over appropriations is fortified by the broadly accepted understanding that as the party controlling both Congress and the White House, Republicans are likely to get the lions share of public blame for a government shutdown. Thats all the more true if a demand of the presidents is perceived as precipitating the crisis.

But in exercising their leverage, Democrats need a clear understanding of what they are willing to accept in exchange for whatever they demand. Remarks by House leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate leader Chuck Schumer in response to Trumps government shutdown threat came pretty close to saying that they will not negotiate on a border wall. If thats the case, the goal for congressional Democrats is pretty clear: inflicting a definitive legislative defeat on Trump while depicting him as irresponsibly pursuing a demagogic and divisive policy. Splitting the congressional GOP, much of which is lukewarm about the border wall, is a bonus.

If, on the other hand, the Democrats will accept some sort of border-wall funding for the right price, the Democrats have a menu of options available to them:

1) A larger bargain on immigration policy in which Trump agrees to such measures as statutory protection of Dreamers (currently threatened by the temporary nature of Obamas DACA executive order, which could get struck down in the courts even if Trump doesnt rescind it) or even the shelving of proposals to restrict legal immigration, in exchange for border-wall money.

2) A deal that brings in some key side issues like Obamacare stabilization (especially cost-sharing reduction subsidies), CHIP reauthorization, or even voting rights.

3)A really grand bargain on fiscal issues that includes binding assurances affecting the budget and tax measures the White House and congressional Republicans are pursuing on aseparate track (e.g., no Medicare or Medicaid cuts, a limit on upper-end tax cuts).

Complicating the picture is that aside from the border-wall issue, most congressional Republicans very badly want defense-spending increases that will involve a waiver on the spending caps that have been in place since 2011. In the past Democrats have been willing to go along with such waivers in exchange for corresponding waivers in caps on non-defense spending. That could represent a deal within a deal.

And beyond all these issues, there are conservative demands that could be as aggressively advanced as Trumps, including the House Freedom Caucuss chronic temper tantrums for domestic spending cuts, and the powerful anti-abortion lobbys demands for a defunding of Planned Parenthood, a goal so widely binding on Republicans that it made it into the last-gasp, bare-bones skinny repeal GOP health-care proposal. Even if Democrats reject such demands out of hand (which they have done in the past), they will affect negotiations on the other side of the table.

All in all, so long as they dont let themselves look like the sole culprits in a government-shutdown threat, Democrats are in the catbird seat in this scenario. Republicans cant keep the government open without them, and the Democrats have fewer internal divisions on the key issues than the GOP. If they choose a strategy and stick to it, either Republicans will take the country over the cliff, or a deal dictated by Democrats will be struck, or most likely of all Congress will kick the can down the road a few months with a continuing resolution that leaves things where they are right now, with the GOPs many promises to its base still unfulfilled. The Donkey Party can live with that.

Convicted killer Mark James Asay lost his last appeal, and was executed on Thursday night.

Weeks ago, nearly 50 counties had no insurer selling Obamacare plans. Despite Trumps many acts of sabotage, that number is now zero.

So long as the president has an internet connection, hes bound to read and, occasionally retweet all manner of far-right wing nuts.

Weve had the time of our lives, and we owe it all to him.

If Trump were to be removed from office via impeachment, the GOP would continue to rule with much the same policies. So why all the talk of a coup?

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke says hes recommending changes to a handful of national monuments.

Its an acknowledgement that the sailors are not expected to be found alive.

History shows the party in the White House struggles to knock off incumbent senators in midterms. Its one of many cross-cutting factors for 2018.

Fix the Debt is now fixin to get paid.

Police are reporting that one person died, and the suspect was shot and taken to the hospital.

It could become a Category 3 storm and cause potentially devastating floods by dumping close to two feet of rain in some areas.

Now that the president has put a government shutdown squarely on the table, Democrats must decide if they want a deal, or just a Trump defeat.

A primer on how the Houses struggle to pass a 2018 budget could blow up tax reform and Americas credit rating.

The White House chief of staff is controlling the flow of information to the president and presenting him with decision memos.

The president plays backseat Majority Leader, as relations between the White House and Capitol Hill continue to sour.

Progressives have taken up a conservative principle as a shield against the federal government. But is it just a marriage of convenience?

Rick Dearborn, who is now deputy chief of staff, reportedly passed along information about someone trying to connect Trump officials with Putin.

The charges stem from his use of pepper spray at the rally in Charlottesville, which he says was justified.

They said his words have given succor to those who advocate anti-Semitism, racism, and xenophobia.

The reported plan gives Mattis six months to figure out what Trumps tweets mean for service members and by then the courts may have weighed in.

Link:
If Trump Keeps Threatening Government Shutdown, Democrats Will Have Some Leverage and Some Options - New York Magazine

Sacramento Bee

California Democrats OK bill to help senator facing recall Sacramento Bee California Democrats fast-tracked a bill Thursday that could help protect one of their own lawmakers facing a recall and preserve their Senate supermajority after a court put their first attempt on hold. Republicans hope to recall freshman Sen. Josh ... Another effort by Democrats to revamp California's recall elections is signed by Gov. Jerry BrownLos Angeles Times all 5 news articles »

See the article here:
California Democrats OK bill to help senator facing recall - Sacramento Bee

Republican leaders may hope to get some Democrats to vote for their tax legislation, but don't expect that to happen if it winds up just being tax cuts, Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., told CNBC on Thursday.

"We are not going to support simply tax cuts. We've been through that game before, and we're not going to do it again," he said in an interview with "Closing Bell."

"We want the middle class to really feel that the government is on their side. And in order to do that, you need comprehensive reform."

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told CNBC on Thursday that he believes he can get some lawmakers from across the aisle to support the tax reform legislation, which he said will get passed this year.

However, Republicans have yet to agree on a plan. And adding to the tension within the party is President Donald Trump, who has been publicly shaming GOP leaders for the lack of action.

Meanwhile, Wall Street is beginning to think true reform is pretty much dead and instead sees tax cuts as more likely.

Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., said Republicans would ideally like comprehensive tax reform but acknowledged that one of the options may wind up being tax cuts.

"My preference and I think all of our preference, Republican and Democrat alike, is to get to real reform that would be as close to fully paid for as possible. That's easier said than done," he said.

CNBC's Jeff Cox contributed to this report.

Read this article:
Democratic congressman: Tax reform is good, but we're not going to support only tax cuts - CNBC