Mediaboss Marketing

31st March 2017

Yesterday Republicans in the United States Senate thanks to a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence votedto give states the authority to strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood.

Today Connecticut Democrats are standing up and promising to defend Planned Parenthood funding from constant GOP attacks.

For so many women, Planned Parenthood is their only resource for mammograms;clinical breast, pap,and pelvic exams;and other lifesaving health services, said State Senator Marilyn Moore (D-Bridgeport).Generally, a visit to Planned Parenthood is the only time that women especially young women may use any type of health screenings that may identify other reproductive health issues that could be treated at a preventative stage.

The Republicans vote in the United States Senate to deny funding for Planned Parenthood will put womens lives at risk, Sen. Moorecontinued.Democrats in Connecticut will hold true to our values and fight back against this malicious assault on womens health care.

The Republican-led assault on womens health and Planned Parenthood will fail in Connecticut, if we have anything to say about it, said Rep. Cathy Abercrombie (D-Meriden), the House chair of the legislatures Human Services Committee. Governor Malloy has already vowed to make sure that Connecticut makes up the difference in funding if Congress defunds Planned Parenthood, and I am also fighting to preserve critical funding for womens health and welfare.

Connecticut Democrats have a long history of supporting Planned Parenthood and womens health services. Meanwhile, Connecticut Republicans have remained silent, refusing to stand up to President Trump or the congressional GOP majorities.

On issue after issue from stripping health care from 24 million people, to eliminating heating assistance for low-income Connecticut residents, to yet another attempt to dismantle womens health services Connecticut Republicans have failed to stand up for the people of this state, said Connecticut Democratic Party Vice Chairwoman Dita Bhargava.State and local governments are the last line of defense against the Trump administrations backwards agenda. Thats why were working so hard to elect Democrats to defend Connecticuts values.

This is not just Democrats talking.Editorial boards agreethat Connecticut Republicans need to grow a backbone and stand up to the Trump agenda.

Read this article:
Connecticut Democratic Party

They just don't care.

"The filibuster is such a silly, non-intuitive tactic that most people don't even believe it exists," Markos Moulitsas, founder of the liberal blog DailyKos.com, told CNN in an email.

Inside the Senate, some red-state Democrats and longtime institutionalists have fretted that mounting an all-out battle to stop Gorsuch will hurt the party's chances of winning future fights and further degrade the more deliberative chamber of Congress. The 'nuclear option' would lower the bar from 60 senators needed to break a filibuster to 51, and Republicans currently control the chamber with a 52-48 margin.

But off Capitol Hill, Democrats -- from Washington insiders to progressive activists across the country -- are sick of hearing about those precautions.

Fueled by the base's anti-Trump energy, Democrats across the spectrum don't want to hand Trump any easy victories. They are insisting on showing Republicans that blocking Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination in President Barack Obama's final year won't go without retaliation.

And they see the filibuster -- which McConnell could erase at any point -- as a gun with no ammunition.

"The filibuster is effectively gone. If you don't filibuster Gorsuch, McConnell will just get rid of it next time," said Adam Jentleson, a former Harry Reid aide who's now a senior strategic adviser for the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Many Democrats were frustrated by senators' initial openness to supporting Gorsuch, but the nominee bungled the opportunity to win many of them over with what Democratic senators viewed as dismissive answers to questions during his confirmation hearing and to written follow-ups, Jentleson said.

Contrary to some institutionalists' hopes, McConnell would be even more likely to invoke the nuclear option to get the next Supreme Court nominee confirmed, he argued.

"Next time, the balance of the court would be at stake, so the motivation to go nuclear is even stronger. It goes both ways," he said. "It's false to say Democrats don't care. But I think it's just not their choice."

"Reid put up with years and years of incredible amounts of obstruction, and pressure from his base, before he finally went nuclear," Jentleson said. "McConnell, by sort of signaling he's going to do it beforehand -- literally the very first opportunity to go nuclear, he's pulling the trigger."

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, was the 41st Democrat to pledge to oppose Gorsuch, guaranteeing a filibuster. He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he is open to negotiating with Republicans to find an agreement on avoiding the nuclear option -- so long as the GOP doesn't invoke it on the next confirmation battle.

"I said, 'I will vote against closure unless the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can somehow find an agreement that is trustworthy and reliable, where on the next Supreme Court nominee they won't change the rules and we will have input, and a more confirmable, consensus nominee will be put in front of the Senate,'" Coons said. "I'm not saying that I'm insisting that we force the Republican majority to break the rules. That's a choice they're going to have to make."

Like Coons, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, publicly agonized over his decision. But on Monday, he said he would filibuster Gorsuch, saying he "cannot vote solely to protect an institution."

Campaigning Friday in New Jersey, Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez and deputy chair Keith Ellison, a Minnesota congressman, both called for a filibuster of Gorsuch, knowing it would likely lead McConnell to invoke the nuclear option.

"If you do not have enough support, we should not change the rules for you," Ellison told Democrats in Asbury Park. "We should change the nominee."

Perez made the point again in a statement Monday, after it became clear Democrats would filibuster Gorsuch.

"It's plain and simple: Gorsuch has not earned the votes in the Senate to join the Supreme Court," he said. "Republicans can't fix Gorsuch by changing the rules. They need to change the nominee."

Other Democrats directly called for the filibuster's elimination, taking the long view that it could help the party if and when it regains Senate control.

Moulitsas mocked the hand-wringing about the loss of the 60-vote threshold, saying "it's mostly been a tool used by conservatives" and noting that the Heritage Foundation and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas had talked about keeping an eight-seat Supreme Court through the entire tenure of a President Hillary Clinton before the election.

"Majority rule means accountability to the voters," he said. "It also means that elections really do matter, since the losers can't hide behind parliamentary maneuvers. So if McConnell really has the votes to kill it, good riddance."

Read the original here:
Why Democrats aren't worried about the 'nuclear option ...

Senate Republicans and Democrats on Wednesday will continue a floor debate on President Trumps Supreme Court pick to replace the conservative Antonin Scalia.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.,took the floor of the Senate on Tuesday nightand started a marathon session to protest the Republican blockade of President Obamas nominee for the seat, Merrick Garland.

"Make no mistake: this is a stolen seat & if this theft is completed, it will undermine the integrity of the court for decades," Merkley tweeted as he began.

Merkley's speech wasn't expected to delay Wednesday's debate on President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch or Thursday's votes.

The Senate voted on Tuesday afternoon to formally start debate, leading up to the expected vote later in the week.

Senate Democrats have secured enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch. Forty-two Democrats have said they will vote to block his nomination. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., one of Gorsuch's most vocal critics, said the nominee did little to win support during his confirmation hearings.

The facts in this case are simple:Gorsuch counts 55 supporters in the Senate: the 52 Republicans, along with three moderate Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana.

As long as Republicans enact a rule changefamously called the nuclear optionit would lower the threshold to confirm Gorsuch from 60 to a simple majority. Republicans would have the votes and Gorsuch would be confirmed.

The divide on Gorsuch's nomination is deep. Senate Republicans see him as a fair jurist, while Democrats see him as in the pockets of big companies.

Gorsuch, 49, is a 10-year veteran of a federal appeals court in Denver, where he's compiled a highly conservative record.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News The First 100 Days Monday that Gorsuch is going to be on the Supreme Court by midnight Friday night. I can assure you that. One way or the other, hes going to get the necessary votes to get there."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday said Democrats have hit a new low in their obstruction. He still has said that he would employ the nuclear option and has filed a motion for cloture-- the first step in invoking the nuclear option.

He reportedly said he would not end the 60-vote threshold on legislation while majority leader.The Senate will vote to invoke cloture on Thursday. Sixty votes are needed to invoke cloture, and McConnell will likely come up short.

Senate Democrats have continued to hit the Trump pick.

Theres a reason they call it the nuclear option, and that is that theres fallout. And this fallout will be dangerously and perhaps disastrously radioactive for the Senate in years to come, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told The Washington Post.

Edmund DeMarche is a news editor for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @EDeMarche.

Read the original post:
Senate Republicans, Democrats set for floor debate on ...

New York Times

GOP and Democrats Set to Collide on Filibuster and Supreme Court New York Times Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, at a news conference in Washington on Tuesday. The American people will be watching, he said of a Democratic plan to filibuster the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. With Gorsuch filibuster, Democrats embrace a 'political' Supreme CourtWashington Post In history-making showdown, Senate GOP breaks Democratic filibuster of Trump's Supreme Court pickLos Angeles Times Let the Filibuster Burn! Democrats Are Better Off Without It.Slate Magazine The Boston Globe -Chicago Tribune -Reuters all 4,396 news articles »

Continued here:
GOP and Democrats Set to Collide on Filibuster and Supreme Court - New York Times

Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Trump would need a war authorization to bomb Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Like the Obama administration, the Trump administration has launched airstrikes against ISIS using legal justification from the 2001 war authorization that passed after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. But that would not cover Assad, Cardin argued.

"If we decide to do military in Syria, he really needs to come to Congress," Cardin said. "In regards to an attack against the Assad government, there is no authorization."

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat who has pushed for a war authorization against ISIS, also argued Trump would not have the authority to attack the Assad regime.

"Dropping bombs inside a civil war was a bad idea in 2013, it's a worse idea in 2017," Murphy said. "It will make some Americans feel better, but it will make that battle space more chaotic and end up with more people getting killed, not less. And again, he doesn't have the authorization from Congress to do this."

Rep. Jackie Speier, a Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee, told CNN's Erin Burnett that Congress should evaluate and decide on a war in Syria before Trump moved in on his own.

"I think if we are going to put boots on the ground, we have to authorize the use of force," Speier said. "That should be something debated by the Armed Services Committee and by the full House. We must engage in wars first by evaluating them and Congress taking action, not by allowing the President to act independently, which has been going on now for two decades."

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, said in the short-term, the President has the authority to take action without getting congressional approval first.

"The prudent course of action would be for him to go to Congress and consult, discuss privately what he is going to do," Corker said. "I'm sure they will take that course of action, or at least I hope they would. So, they have the authority without that, but my sense is that they will come to us."

When Obama tried to get authorization to strike Assad, Republicans were reluctant to get on board to vote for it, Cardin said.

This time, he added, there could be an easier path, especially if it's tailored specifically to respond to the chemical attack.

"Certainly if it's well tailored toward the chemical weapons violations, you might be able to do it," he said.

It's not just Democrats who want Trump to come to Congress. Sen. Rand Paul, known for his libertarian ideology, told Fox News Radio, "Short of Congress voting on it, I'm opposed to illegal and unconstitutional wars."

"The first thing we ought to do is probably obey the Constitution," Paul said on "Kilmeade and Friends."

At the same time, the situation on the ground in Syria is more complicated for Trump now than it was back in 2013, as Russia has gotten involved militarily to bolster the Assad regime.

Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said he was most concerned about a large US ground force deploying to Syria, but noted that Russia makes even trying to ground Syria's air force difficult.

"It gets complicated because it's not only Assad's air force, it's Russia's air force," King said.

CNN's Ted Barrett, Eli Watkins and Dana Bash contributed to this report.

See the rest here:
Democrats: Trump 'really needs to come to Congress' to approve strikes on Assad - CNN