Mediaboss Marketing

New York Times

Democrats' Best Bet for House Control Is Following the Sun New York Times There is no guarantee that the Democrats can put the House in play, even if Mr. Trump's approval ratings remain as low as they are now or slip further. The Republicans have so many safe seats that they could even survive a so-called wave election like ... What are Democrats' chances for a House majority in 2018?American Enterprise Institute How Democrats can rebuild a winning, multiracial coalitionThe Hill (blog) Senate Democrats could hit Trump with government shutdownLA Daily News AlterNet -Daily Kos -Fairfield Daily Republic all 45 news articles »

See more here:
Democrats' Best Bet for House Control Is Following the Sun - New York Times

One of things I talked with him [Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch] about is the standard which every other Supreme Court nominee has had to meet, and that is earning 60 bipartisan votes in the United States Senate. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), interview with UpFront with Mike Gousha, Feb. 18, 2017

A reader pointed out this statement by Baldwin, noting that it appeared to be a repeat of the misleading Democratic talking point in the battle over President Trumps nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Time for a refresher course!

As we have noted before, there is no Senate standard that a nominee must have 60 votes for confirmation. But, under current Senate rules, it takes 60 votes (three-fifths of the Senate) to end debate on most legislation. Until Democrats changed the rules in 2013, it also took 60 votes to end debate on executive branch and most judicial nominations.

The Democratic rule change did not include Supreme Court nominations. But that would be a rare maneuver.

(A filibuster generally refers to extended debate that delays a vote on a pending matter, while cloture is a device to end debate. Filibusters are used by opponents of a nominee or legislation, while cloture is filed by supporters to end debate.)

The last Supreme Court nominee who faced a cloture vote was Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2006. He won it handily, 72 to 25. After the cloture vote, senators voted on whether to confirm Alito. The vote was 58 to 42. (He earned the support of four Democrats, but was opposed by one Republican and one Republican-turned-Independent.)

Although the effort to filibuster Alito failed miserably, it served as a vehicle for potential White House contenders (such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden) to demonstrate their liberal credentials. Obama, as president, later regrettedsupporting the filibuster of Alito, what his spokesman called a symbolic vote.

There have been three other cloture votes concerning the Supreme Court, two involving William H. Rehnquist, the late chief justice. In 1971, a motion to invoke cloture for his initial appointment to the court failed by a vote of 52 to 42, but he was nevertheless confirmed later that day, 68 to 26. When Rehnquistwas nominated to become chief justice in 1986, he was confirmed 65 to 33 after cloture was also invoked by a vote of 68 to 31.

The only other cloture vote concerned Lyndon B. Johnsons 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas, at the time an associate justice, to be chief justice. The Fortas nomination eventually ran aground on ethics issues and his close relationship with Johnson, alreadya lame duck, and he eventually withdrew after his nomination failed a cloture vote. At the time, Senate rules required approval of two-thirds of the Senate to end debate and Fortas could achieve only a vote of 45 to 43.

Here are the final votes for the current members of the court. We have noted in bold the two sitting justices who did not receive 60 votes for confirmation.

Elena Kagan: 63 to 37 (2010) Sonia Sotomayor: 68 to 31 (2009) Samuel A. Alito Jr.: 58 to 42 (2006) John G. Roberts Jr.: 78 to 22 (2005) Stephen G. Breyer: 87 to 9 (1994) Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 96 to 3 (1993) Clarence Thomas: 52 to 48 (1991) Anthony M. Kennedy: 97 to 0 (1988)

John Kraus, communications director for Baldwin, said: While it wasnt explicit, she was referring to Supreme Court justices appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, the last six of which earned 60 votes, including the most recent Obama nominees, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

Democrats such as Baldwin appear to be arguing that because Alito received more than 60 votes on the vote to end debate, he met the 60-vote standard, even though he did not receive 60 votes for confirmation. But Baldwin, in her interview, referred to earning 60 bipartisan votes in the United States Senate, which certainly sounds different from a mere cloture vote.

Democrats continue to be slippery with their language. Sixty votes is not a standard for Supreme Court confirmations, as two of the current justices on the court did not meet that supposed standard to get on the court.

Baldwin earns Two Pinocchios.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

How would you rate this claim? (The check mark means you think the statement is true, not that you agree with the rating.)

We need to verify that you are an actual person.

This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post users as a group or the general population.

Share the Facts

2

5

There "is the standard which every other Supreme Court nominee has had to meet, and that is earning 60 bipartisan votes in the United States Senate.

Tammy Baldwin

Senator (D-Wisc.)

in an interview on "Upfront with Mike Gousha"

Saturday, February 18, 2017

02/18/2017

View post:
Democrats persist with the slippery claim of a '60-vote standard' for Supreme Court nominees - Washington Post

From the start of our campaign for DNC chair, we've asked ourselves and our fellow Democrats a simple but fundamental question: How do we come together as a team to rebuild our party and fight Donald Trump?

The Democratic party is a big and diverse tent. But my mentor Ted Kennedy often said, "What divides us pales in comparison to what unites us." As Democrats, we don't just share common views on issues - we are united by common values: inclusion, opportunity, justice, equality.

But today those core values are under attack. Immigrants are being torn apart from their families. Workers' rights and women's rights are under siege. Millions are at risk of losing their health coverage.

Across the country, Donald Trump and Republicans have targeted our most vulnerable communities and threatened to turn back the clock on decades of progress.

We're the only line of defense they've got, and they're counting on us to succeed. Those struggling for opportunity want Democrats to fight for them, not against each other.

Those living in the shadows want Democrats to stand up to the Republican agenda, not splinter off into competing silos. For these families, a united Democratic party isn't a luxury - it's a necessity.

Those aren't just talking points. Over the last three months, my campaign has already begun forging that unity by bringing together people from all wings of our party. Our staff have worked for Senator Sanders, Secretary Clinton and President Obama, and we've earned support from people on all sides of last year's Democratic primary.

In shaping an inclusive vision for our party, I've also traveled the country to hear directly from folks in every corner of our big tent. Earlier this month, I embarked on a rural listening tour through Wisconsin and Kansas to hear from voters about how we can earn back the trust of their communities. And on Monday night, I met with Democrats in Seattle both supporters and non-supporters alike to talk about how our party can join with young activists to be at the forefront of some of our toughest battles - from raising wages to cracking down on police misconduct. These conversations are necessary.

RELATED: Tom Perez Unleashes Inner Pit Bull Against Trump in Bid to Lead Democrats

When it comes to building unity, this isn't my first rodeo. I decided to run my campaign the same way I've taken on challenges my whole career by listening to people, bridging divisions and bringing everyone to the table.

That's why I was President Obama's first call when he needed someone to resolve major disputes at Verizon and the West Coast Ports, and why I've worked with Democrats throughout the country to bring about progressive change. I've worked hand in hand with Elizabeth Warren to protect the retirement of millions of Americans. I've worked with Bernie Sanders to highlight companies that treat their workers fairly. And I've worked under President Obama to protect the right to vote, enforce our civil rights laws, and make economic opportunity a reality.

RELATED: DNC Race Shakeup: Ray Buckley to Exit, Endorse Keith Ellison

So no matter who wins in Atlanta, my first priority will be to help unite our party around the values of inclusion and opportunity. And if I have the privilege of being elected chair, I promise to make sure everyone's voice is heard because I believe that everyone in this race has so much to offer when rebuilding our party.

We can't afford to leave anyone on the sidelines; we need their ideas, their experience, and their energy to build the best party we can be. As chair, I'll facilitate the tough conversations we need to have about how to move our party forward, and I'll work each and every day to be a leader for all Democrats.

RELATED: Democrats Are Eager to See the End of the Race for DNC Chair

If the party chooses one of the other great Democrats in this race, I will be as ready as ever to fight alongside them. In fact, I will join the next chair on a unity tour across the country, so we can begin building our team and fighting together to protect the values we all share.

With so much at stake, there's nothing Donald Trump would love more than for Democrats to fall apart. We will not give him that satisfaction. What we will do is rally around our common values. Because a united Democratic team is both our best strategy and Donald Trump's worst nightmare.

I've often said that this is a "where were you moment," and I'm ready to work with everyone to unite the Democratic team against Donald Trump and the Republican agenda.

That's my commitment win or lose.

Tom Perez is the former Secretary of Labor under Pres. Barack Obama.

Follow NBC News Latino on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

See more here:
Opinion: Win or Lose, I Will Work to Unite the Democratic Party - NBCNews.com

Kansas City Star

Allow expansion of family leave, Democrats urge Gov. Greitens Kansas City Star Democrats are urging Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens to allow rules to go into effect that would expand family leave options for state executive branch employees. State Auditor Nicole Galloway, a Democrat, sent a letter to Greitens Tuesday in support of ... Democrats ask Greitens to allow expanded family leavefox2now.com all 3 news articles »

Read more from the original source:
Allow expansion of family leave, Democrats urge Gov. Greitens - Kansas City Star

It must be hard to be a Democrat these days. They have been decapitated and overwhelmingly repudiated, and they are fit to be tied. But dont expect them to come to themselves as did the prodigal, and repent. Thats not in their nature.

If there is one scripture that describes the inane hostility of Democrats toward righteousness and the rule of law, it is Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:22). It never ceases to amaze me how eager Democrats are to put their woeful ignorance on public display.

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Sign up today and get a 2017 Pizza Card ($80 Value) with your new subscription!

7-Day Delivery + Unlimited Digital Access

13 Weeks = $50.05 26 Weeks = $99.84 52 Weeks = $185.64

What's included?You'll get delivery of The Roanoke Times every day and access to all of our digital content, including roanoke.com and the eTimes at no additional charge.

Plus for a limited time get 2017 Pizza Card ($80 Value) with your new subscription!

NEW SUBSCRIBERS: You'll get delivery of The Roanoke Times every day and access to all of our digital content, including roanoke.com and the eTimes at no additional charge.

The first month's payment for your All Access package will be billed immediately to your credit card by PayPalPro, and you will receive instant digital access. Home delivery of the newspaper will begin within three to five business days, and The Roanoke Times will contact you to arrange future payment.

NEW SUBSCRIBERS:As a weekend subscriber, you'll get the paper three days a week plus digital access for $14.08 per month for the first month. Digital access includes unlimited access to roanoke.com and the eTimes. After the first month, your total subscription price will be $16.90 per month.

The first month's payment for your All Access package will be billed immediately to your credit card by PayPalPro, and you will receive instant digital access. Home delivery of the newspaper will begin within three to five business days, and The Roanoke Times will contact you to arrange future payment.

NEW SUBSCRIBERS:As a Sunday subscriber, you'll get the week's largest paper plus digital access for $9.79 for the first month. Digital access includes unlimited access to roanoke.com and the eTimes. After the first month, your total subscription price will be $16.90 per month.

The first month's payment for your All Access package will be billed immediately to your credit card by PayPalPro, and you will receive instant digital access. Home delivery of the newspaper will begin within three to five business days, and The Roanoke Times will contact you to arrange future payment.

NEW SUBSCRIBERS:This service allows you unlimited access to our digital content, including roanoke.com and the eTimes.The Digital-Only Access plan is available for $17 per month.

NEW SUBSCRIBERS:This service allows you unlimited access to our digital content, including roanoke.com and the eTimes.The Digital-Only Access annual subscription is available for $204 per year.

7-Day Delivery + Unlimited Digital Access

13 Weeks = $40.30 26 Weeks = $80.60 52 Weeks = $161.20

What's included?You'll get delivery of The Roanoke Times every day and access to all of our digital content, including roanoke.com and the eTimes at no additional charge.

Sunday Only Delivery

13 Weeks = $22.75 26 Weeks = $45.50 52 Weeks = $91.00

What's included?You'll get delivery of The Roanoke Times every Sunday.

Weekend Delivery

13 Weeks = $32.50 26 Weeks = $65.00 52 Weeks = $130.00

What's included?As a weekend subscriber, you'll get delivery of The Roanoke Times every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

CURRENT SUBSCRIBERS: Add unlimited access to our digital content, including roanoke.com and our eTimes, to your current print subscription for just $1.99 for the first month.

The $1.99 will be billed to your credit card immediately by PayPalPro. After the first month, yourtotal susbscription price will be $16.90 per month.

CURRENT SUBSCRIBERS: As a seven-day home delivery subscriber, you have unlimited access to our digital content, including roanoke.com and the eTimes, at no additional cost.

Simply login with your existing roanoke.com account or create a new account to link it to your print subscription. Be sure to use the email address we have on file with your print subscription.

Need an account? Create one now.

kAmp7E6C C6=6?E=6DD 9JDE6C:42= 4@?56>?2E:@? @7 s@?2=5 %CF>A 7@C C67FD:?8 E@ 25>:E 56762E AC:@C E@ t=64E:@? s2J 3J AC@>:D:?8 E@ 2446AE E96 C6DF=ED 367@C6 E96 7:CDE G@E6 925 366? 42DE[ E96D6 D2>6 s6>@4C2ED 92G6 D:?46 >@F?E65 6?5=6DD 492==6?86D E@ E96 @FE4@>6]k^Am

kAm(6 H:E?6DD65 AC@E6DED 2?5 G:@=6?46 😕 4:EJ DEC66ED[ 2?5 3@8FD C64@F?E 492==6?86D 3J s6>@4C2E DFCC@82E6[ y:== $E6:? @7 E96 vC66? A2CEJ] s6>@4C2ED 2?5 E96:C 24E:G:DED 92G6 E9C62E6?65 2?5 :?E:>:52E65 %CF>A 6=64E@CD[ 2D E96 72<6 ?6HD >65:2 2?5 E96 (9:E6 w@FD6 25G2?46 32D6=6DD 2?5 52?86C@FD DA64F=2E:@?D E92E #FDD:2? 924<6CD :?7=F6?465 E96 AC6D:56?E:2= 6=64E:@?]k^Am

kAmu@C E96 A2DE 6:89E J62CD[ r9C:DE:2?D 2?5 4@?D6CG2E:G6D 92G6 A2E:6?E=J 6?5FC65 2? :?6IA6C:6?465[ :?4@>A6E6?E &]$] D6?2E@C 7C@> x==:?@:D[ H9@ 3642>6 AC6D:56?E 2?5 :>>65:2E6=J 6>32C<65 FA@? 2 H@C=5 E@FC E@ 4@?56>? E96> 2?5 2A@=@8:K6 7@C E96:C 36=@G65 ?2E:@?] q2C24< ~32>2 925 ?@ A@=:4J :562D @C A@D:E:G6 8@2=D] w:D E6?FC6 92D 366? 2? 23JD>2= 72:=FC6 3J 6G6CJ >6EC:4] p>6C:42 92D DF776C65 6:89E J62CD @7 =2H=6DD?6DD[ 64@?@>:4 564=:?6 2?5 >:D6CJ] %96 6=64E:@? @7 s@?2=5 %CF>A H2D E96 A6@A=6 AC@4=2:>:?8[ t?@F89Pk^Am

kAmu@==@H:?8 ~32>2[ w:==2CJ r=:?E@? C2? 2 D:>:=2C 42>A2:8?[ 56G@:5 @7 D@=FE:@?D[ A@=:4J 8@2=D 2?5 H:E9@FE 6IA6C:6?46[ BF2=:7:42E:@?D @C 6G6? 2 A=2?] $96 925 E96 25565 H6:89E @7 >@C2= 32?6?E 😕 2 4C:>:?2= 4@?DA:C24J[ A@=:E:42= 4@CCFAE:@? 2?5 D6==:?8@FE E96 ?2E:@? 7@C D6=76?C:49>6?E] $96 72:=65 E@ AC@E64E &]$] 4:E:K6?D F?56C 96C 492C86[ 2?5 72:=65 E@ AC@E64E 4=2DD:7:65 :?7@C>2E:@?] %92?6C:42? A6@A=6 >6C4:7F==J 6?565 96C C6:8? @7 72:=FC6]k^Am

kAm%96 s6>@4C2E:4 !2CEJD ?2>6 😀 :C@?:4[ D:?46 E96J 244@>A=:D9 G:CEF2==J ?@E9:?8 3J 4@?D6?E @7 E96 A6@A=6[ AC676CC:?8 :?DE625[ ;F5:4:2= 24E:G:D>[ A2C=:2>6?E2CJ EC:42E6 6I64FE:G6 @C56CD] }6G6CE96=6DD[ E96J C@FE:?6=J C676C E@ p>6C:42? 8@G6C?>6?E 2D @FC 56>@4C24J 56DA:E6 E96 724E E92E p>6C:42 😀 ?@E ?@H[ ?@C 6G6C 92D 366?[ 2 56>@4C24J]k^Am

kAmp>2K:?8=J[ s6>@4C2E A@=:E:4:2?D 2?5 E96:C DFAA@CE6CD D66 9JA@4C:DJ 6G6CJH96C6 @FED:56 @7 E96>D6=G6D[ @7E6? H96C6 :E 5@6D?E 6I:DE[ C67FD:?8 E@ C64@8?:K6 E92E E96J 4@?DE2?E=J H62C :E] ~?6 6I2>A=6 @7 E96 E:C65 @=5 =:6D @7 E96 =67E 😀 E92E E96C6 😀 D@>6E9:?8 :?4@?D:DE6?E H:E9 AC@=:76 r9C:DE:2?D H9@ DFAA@CE E96 $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E C:89E E@ 5676?5 E96>D6=G6D 2?5 E96:C 72>:=:6D] %96C6 :D[ 9@H6G6C[ ?@ 5:49@E@>J 36EH66? 5676?5:?8 =:76 H:E9:? E96 H@>3[ 2?5 AC@E64E:?8 :??@46?E =:76 H:E9@FE :E[ 6I46AE 2>@?8 D>2==>:?565 =:36C2=D]k^Am

kAm(92E 4@F=5 36 >@C6 9@CC:7J:?8 7@C 2?J >2? E92? E@ DE2?5 3J 96=A=6DD=J 2D 9:D H:76 @C 49:=5 😀 42==@FD=J 8F??65 5@H? 3J D@>6@?6 56G@E65 E@ 6G:=n %96 ACF56?E[ E9@F89E7F= 2?5 H:D6 >2? 2446AED C6DA@?D:3:=:EJ 7@C E96 D64FC:EJ @7 9:D 72>:=J 2?5 9:>D6=7] xED 2? :?5:DAFE23=6 724E E92E ?6:E96C 5C24@?:2? 8F? =2HD ?@C 3C2:?=6DD 8F? 32?D 42? 6G6C AC6G6?E 8@5=6DD 4C:>:?2=D 7C@> @3E2:?:?8 7:C62C>D 2?5 <:==:?8 @E96CD H:E9 E96>] s6DA:E6 E9:D 724E[ :8?@C2?E 2?5 E9@F89E=6DD =67E:DED D4C6649@? 😕 4@?56>?2E:@? @7 E96 @?=J 67764E:G6 C6>65J D9@CE @7 C6A62=:?8 @C:8:?2= D:?]k^Am

kAm%96C6 😀 ?@E9:?8 ?@3=6 😕 E96 =67ED 25G@424J 7@C <:==:?8 E96 AC63@C?[ H9:=6 @AA@D:?8 E96 562E9 A6?2=EJ 7@C D2G286 <:==6CD] %96C6 :D ?@ :?E68C:EJ :? 32??:?8 v@5 7C@> AF3=:4 D49@@=D H9:=6 =6EE:?8 p==29 😕 E96 324< 5@@C] p?5 E96C6 :D ?@E9:?8 C6>@E6=J AC@8C6DD:G6 😕 2 a___J62C >@C2= 7C6672== E92E AC@>@E6D D6IF2= 56AC2G:EJ 2?5 6IE@=D A6CG6CD:@? 2D 2 >@C2= 6BF:G2=6?E E@ >2CC:286] %96D6 2C6 3FE 2 76H 6I2>A=6D @7 C2H 9JA@4C:DJ 2?5 E96J 2C6 s6>@4C2E A@D:E:@?D]k^Am

kAm%96 F?AC64656?E65 =:6D[ >:D:?7@C>2E:@? 2?5 5:DE@CE:@? @7 E96 ECFE9 7C@> 2?E:%CF>A s6>@4C2ED 2?5 E96:C >65:2 2==:6D[ C6G62= 2 A2E9@=@8:42= 36==:86C6?46 F?D66? 😕 >@56C? E:>6D] s@?2=5 %CF>AD 6=64E:@? H2D ?@E 2 #6AF3=:42? G:4E@CJ] xE H2D 2 G:4E@CJ 7@C =2H 2?5 @C56C[ ECFE9 2?5 ;FDE:46[ 7C665@> 2?5 =:36CEJ 2?5 C:89E6@FD?6DD 2?5 5:8?:EJ]k^Am

kAm%96D6 2C6 E:>6=6DD p>6C:42? G2=F6D 2?5 E96J 42? ?6G6C 36 4@?46565 3J 2? 9@?@C23=6 A6@A=6]k^Am

Continue reading here:
Buchanan: Democrats put their ignorance on public display - Roanoke Times