Mediaboss Marketing

Judge Neil Gorsuch speaks during the first day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday in Washington, D.C.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

It is an article of faith among Senate Republicans that everything liberals do is just goddamn awful, from the unelected left-wing justices who legislate from the bench to the blocking of Robert Bork in 1987 to the lame cries for equal treatment of everyone under the law. Indeed, Senate Republicans have so mastered the art of outsize umbrage that at Mondays hearing for Judge Merrick Garland Neil Gorsuch, to fill a Supreme Court seat they themselves blocked and obstructed for over a year, the one note of agreement they sounded was an angry one. They are angry that Democrats believe an Obama nominee should have been afforded the courtesy of a hearing and a vote. They are angry that their nomineewho was picked by the president with promises about how he would vote in abortion and gun caseswill surely be asked about how he will vote in abortion and gun cases. But mostly they are really just incredibly steamed that Senate Democrats are even a little bit mad. Because anger is sort of the Republicans thing.

Dahlia Lithwick writes about the courts and the law for Slate, and hosts the podcast Amicus.

Get your own thing, Democrats.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was furious that the cardinal principles of separation of powers and respect for an independent judicial branch are not being honored by Senate Democrats. This is the same Chuck Grassley who pre-emptively attacked the Supreme Court and its chief justice last spring for any attempts to politicize the court vacancy. GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch lectured the Judiciary Committee about the fact that the Senate owes the president deference over his judicial nominees. Hearing this, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont about fell out of his chair.

Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, mournfully warned the nominee that the duplicity of Mondays politicized confirmation hearings would be unfair and unfamiliar to him. Evidently the duplicity and politicization to which Merrick Garland Neil Gorsuch will be subjected is altogether unparalleled in modern history. And Sen. Ted Cruz, who is doubtless capable of hacking up a hairball of outrage over hangnails and the existence of Velcro, was affronted that a Democratic president had the temerity to even attempt to fill the chair vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia on an activist Supreme Court that is dominated by unelected lawyers.

The presidents audacity in seeking to fill that seat with a justice of his choosing was indeed so outrageous, Cruz argued in the fall, that if Hillary Clinton were to be elected the Senate should leave Scalias seat open indefinitely. After Trumps victory, Cruz is still enraged, but now its because Democrats are ignoring the fact that since a Republican won, the election was actually a referendum on the kind of justice that should replace Justice Scalia. Cruz is beside himself with fury about questions regarding Merrick Garland Neil Gorsuchs legitimacy. Dont these Democrats know that only Ted Cruz gets to question a jurists legitimacy? To ensure that this is so, Cruz officially declares that effective, like right now, Judge Gorsuch is no ordinary nominee. His nomination carries with it a super legitimacy. Super legitimacy, for the uninitiated, is the power to outrun your own speeding hypocrisy.

One angry senator after another cautioned the nominee not to answer any question about anything ever. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is mainly just angry that everyone in the Senate isnt Lindsey Graham, said he is post-anger. He isnt even angry that Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan vote with the liberals 100 percent of the time (they dont) because what else can you really expect from liberal judges. Senate Republicans took turns being angry that anything other than Scalia-era originalism be given voice in the jurisprudential universe, despite the fact that there is maybe only one originalist sitting on the Supreme Court. They were enraged that any nominee should have to sit and have his record scrutinized given that 10 years agobefore he was a judgethis Gorsuch fellow was confirmed with flying colors. Its all too obscene to countenance.

In the glare of all this furious umbrage, some of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee responded with the standard toolkit of those who have been lifelong victims of abusive rage disorder. They expressed some dismay. They promised to try harder. They occasionally invoked the words Merrick Garland, but because they have no words to express fury or betrayal, they quickly reverted to showy performances of temperate reasonableness at which Senate Democrats excel. Doctrine was reasonably invoked. Chevron was fussed at. Some of the Democratic senators actually managed a creditable display of genuine frustration about GOP hypocrisy. This reached its high point with the metaphorical unfreezing of the frozen truckera plaintiff in a case whose plight the nominee once cruelly dismissed. In an epic hurling of shade, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said, It was 14 degrees below. So cold, but not as cold as your dissent, Judge Gorsuch.

A few of the Democrats appeared ready to rumble, if rumbling involves offering up many case citations. The Republicans fury, by contrast, was unbridled: How dare Democrats put their nice nominee through the indignity of a hearing on the merits when they could instead just lie down on the Senate floor and form a human red carpet for the judge to walk?

The nominee was very emotional and eloquent about his daughters, black robes, and farm animals. He is extremely likeable. He named little guys he has, in the past, supported. That seemed to make the GOPs rage burn even hotter. Who would dare attack a guy who likes chickens and original public meaning?

If youre keeping score after Day 1: Senate Democrats have now defrosted a trucker, name-checked Merrick Garland, and been lectured that Senate Republicans have no choice but to be mean because Democrats have no judicial theory, no coherent strategy, and no intellectual right to fill Scalias seat. On the other side of the aisle, the GOP has nothing but bottomless umbrage. Its taken them this far. Why would they stop now?

Read the original post:
How Dare You Question Our Precious Nominee? - Slate Magazine

Legendary Reporter Carl Bernstein Calls Out Republicans For Stunning Hypocrisy Over Leaks The Daily Banter Democrats wanted to get to the bottom of Russian involvement in the election and possible connections to Donald Trump, while Republicans were much more interested in where leaked information about investigations of Russian interference has been ...

See the original post:
Legendary Reporter Carl Bernstein Calls Out Republicans For Stunning Hypocrisy Over Leaks - The Daily Banter

The acknowledgment comes just days out from an expected House vote on the GOP legislation to gut Obamacare, and puts further pressure on undecided conservatives to take an official stance on their party's landmark proposal.

Conservative senators hoping for changes to the Republican health care bill emerged from a meeting at the White House Monday afternoon disappointed, with Sen. Mike Lee describing the meeting as "terribly frustrating."

President Donald Trump, GOP leaders and White House officials have been working furiously to try to win over dissatisfied lawmakers in recent days, and even made some last-minute legislative concessions to move the bill to the right. The effective conclusion of negotiations means that it is now time for House Republicans to get in line or vote against a bill that has the President's seal of approval.

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows will be voting against the bill, his spokesman Ben Williamson told CNN.

"We've gotten the vibe that the negotiations have closed," Williamson said.

Meadows told reporters Monday that the caucus will not take "official positions" on the health care vote -- which could signal that leadership is picking off some votes from members of the conservative group.

But after a meeting with the group Monday night, Meadows insisted there were enough "no" votes to sink the bill.

"I'm confident that we have still enough concerns that a vote of 216 votes in the House would not happen today," Meadows said.

GOP Rep. Raul Labrador said that now that leaders and the White House are indicating that no major changes will be added to the bill, "it means the bill is going to fail." Asked if he was confident it couldn't pass on Thursday, he responded: "I'm confident."

"We don't believe that they have 216 votes in fact we know that they don't have 216 votes," Labrador said flatly.

Lee, a Utah Republican, and other conservatives were making a last-minute pitch to Trump officials and House leaders to revise the bill. But the White House made it clear the bill is closed, a Lee aide said.

Thursday's vote to repeal and replace Obamacare will be one of the most consequential moments for the GOP this year as well as for Trump's first months in the White House.

Trump will personally rally the troops Tuesday morning, attending a closed-door House GOP conference meeting on Capitol Hill to make a final pitch to his colleagues.

Final changes from House Republican leaders are expected to be unveiled Monday night.

The GOP leadership's most urgent priority: Make sure they have the votes, changing the bill if necessary.

The whip count operation is now in "full motion," a senior GOP aide told CNN Monday morning.

In the final days leading up to the vote, leaders are hashing out adjustments to the bill that they unveiled two weeks ago. These modifications are a crucial aspect of the whipping process -- possible concessions are being carefully considered to try to win over lawmakers who are still on the fence.

One change that a senior GOP source said is likely to be included: language that would immediately prevent states from expanding Medicaid.

Under the first version of the legislation, enhanced funding for Medicaid would be repealed as of January 1, 2020. But senior Republicans are now preparing to include language that would explicitly prevent states from expanding the program before that time -- a concession to conservative lawmakers.

Another change that's being worked on: Expanding tax credits to older Americans. The details are still unclear, but it is an effort to calm worried GOP lawmakers who fear that the GOP health care bill would result in a spike of premiums for their constituents in their 50s and early 60s.

Last week, the White House also announced after Trump's meeting with members of the conservative Republican Study Committee that they had agreed to include in the House legislation optional Medicaid work requirements as well as the choice for states to block grant the program.

These changes are expected to be included in a package of amendments to be considered before the House Rules Committee on Wednesday.

"It's a fine needle that needs to be thread. There's no doubt about it," he said.

CNN's Phil Mattingly and Sara Murray contributed to this report.

See the article here:
Conservatives on health care bill: Negotiations are over - CNN

A classroom at Double Diamond Elementary School(Photo: provided to the RGJ)

Republicans on Monday rolled out their revamped school voucher plan after the Nevada Supreme Court found the 2015 version unconstitutional.

State Sen. Scott Hammond, R-Las Vegas, is carrying the bill that would revive the education savings account or ESA program. ESAs passed the 2015 Legislature along party lines when Republicans controlled both chambers. The program would have given parents around $5,100 if they pulled their children from the public school system.

Education savings accounts - the school voucher program passed in 2015 - are shaping up to be the divisive issue during the Nevada Legislature. Seth A. Richardson/RGJ

However, the Supreme Court ruled in 2016 the program needed dedicated funding and ruled it unconstitutional.

The new bill addresses that matter, and would create a line item for $60 million toward the program, the number Gov. Brian Sandoval requested. Thats lower than the $80 million Treasurer Dan Schwartz said the program needed.

Control of the new program would be pulled from Schwartzs office and moved to the Office of Educational Choice, a newly formed entity within the Department of Education.

The bill would also limit vouchers to 5 percent of a districts enrollment in a given school year. The vouchers would also be awarded on a first come, first serve basis.

Related::Washoe County School Districts $30 million deficit could mean larger class sizes

Related::WCSD out of options for $40M deficit

Homeschoolchildren would also not be included in the program. The voucher would automatically be terminated for any child who either moves or attends a school out of state.

Soon, Nevadans will have the most expansive school choice options of any state in the country and we must work to ensure the processes and opportunities are as streamlined as possible, Hammond said in a statement.

Schwartz said in a statement Hammond had his full backing.

We fully support his efforts to continue providing Nevada families with educational choice options that will set the stage for their childs success, Schwartz said. We hope the Nevada Legislature will pass funding for the program so that families can start receiving funding in August.

Related:13 reasons for WCSD $40 million deficit

All nine Republican senators are sponsors on the bill, as are all Assembly members save for Assemblyman Richard McArthur, R-Las Vegas.

However, the bill faces an uphill struggle in a Legislature where Democrats control both chambers. Many have already made public statements against the vouchers, including both Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford and Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson, both Las Vegas Democrats.

Activists and organizations opposed to the plan held a rally outside the Legislature before the bill was introduced that included several lawmakers, including Assemblyman Tyrone Thompson, a Las Vegas Democrat and chair of the education committee, and state Sen. Julia Ratti, D-Sparks.

More:Partisan fight brews over Nevada Education Savings Accounts

Assemblywoman Olivia Diaz, D-Las Vegas, said the public education system still has critical funding problems that need to be addressed first.

We need more pre-K. I think you can put more money into that, said Diaz, who sits on the education committee. I was just lobbied this morning on the need for librarians to remain at the schools. How about that concept? We have many a need in our public education system that need more funding.

Democrats are also weary of giving money to private schools who dont have to adhere to state standards. Some are also concerned about discrimination based on religion, race or income.

Sandoval, a Republican, has said ESA funding is one of his top priorities for the session. Democrats do not have enough votes to override a veto of the budget without Republican votes, and several Republicans have said they are willing to go past the June deadline for the Legislature if ESAs are not included.

Republicans have also said they want to keep the program as-is without means testing based on income, race or other demographics.

Schwartzs office released numbers Monday showing there are currently around 6,700 pending applications, with 914 complete. More than 750 of the pending applications and around 100 completed applications are from the Reno-Sparks area.

Seth A. Richardson covers politics for the Reno Gazette-Journal. Like him onFacebook hereor follow him on Twitter at@SethARichardson.

Read or Share this story: http://on.rgj.com/2nu44MO

Original post:
Republicans unveil new education savings account bill - Reno Gazette Journal

JEFFERSON CITY Before leaving town for a weeklong spring break, Missouri Republicans checked another box on their aggressive pro-business agenda last week when they sent a proposed law to Gov. Eric Greitens establishing new courtroom standards for expert witnesses.

The measure, one piece of a series of long-sought and controversial changes to the states legal system, attempts to make sure an expert witness meets certain criteria to provide testimony at jury trials.

For business groups such as the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the proposal now on the governors desk is designed to make the state more friendly to businesses looking to relocate to the Show-Me State.

For far too long, Missouris lax witness standards have allowed junk evidence into our courtrooms, a situation that has contributed to our states status as having one of the worst legal climates in the nation, said Chamber President Daniel Mehan.

The proposal, which was approved in the Senate on Wednesday by a 21-11 vote, would allow judges to weigh whether an experts testimony would be reliable and based on sufficient facts and reliable principles and methods, as well as being reliably applied to the facts of the case.

Thats a higher standard than is currently used, in which judges can admit expert testimony if it is based on facts reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.

Opponents argue the standards will make cases more expensive because of the added time needed by lawyers to find witnesses who will pass judicial muster.

Previous attempts to alter the standard were blocked by former Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat who served as attorney general before his eight years as chief executive.

In vetoing the 2016 version, Nixon said the tightened criteria would clog the court system and put an unfair burden on trial judges who make the determinations, forcing them to conduct unnecessary hearings and become quasi-experts on complex subjects.

Supporters counter that its a standard used by 42 other states and in the federal court system.

But with Nixon now working in the private sector and Greitens serving his first months in office, Republicans who control the House and Senate have made a strong push to enact what they describe as business-friendly legislation.

They also have the backing of a political action committee that will be running advertisements on St. Louis television in support of the changes.

Missouri Rising, which is an offshoot of the America Rising super PAC, earlier announced an ad campaign seeking to draw attention to Missouris legal system.

In response, the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, which opposes the changes, is backing an organization called Balance the Scales. In a recent email, the group mocked America Rising for using a picture in one of its ads of a Capitol building that is not Missouris.

For Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard, the goal of changing the laws regarding lawsuits and courtrooms would allow businesses to expand and grow without worrying about legal costs.

In January, we pledged to make Missouri more competitive with our neighbors, said Richard, R-Joplin. Every piece of legislation the Senate has passed so far has been an effort to make the Show-Me State more attractive to investments. We are focused on legislation that will help facilitate economic growth and build stronger communities across the state.

Senate Majority Floor Leader Mike Kehoe, R-Jefferson City, said the states civil court system is outdated and is forcing businesses out of the state.

These reforms create a better business climate, so businesses can hire employees rather than waste money on frivolous lawsuits, Kehoe said.

Opponents say the measures will limit a citizens access to the court and potentially reduce damage amounts for people who are injured or defrauded.

House Minority Leader Gail McCann Beatty, D-Kansas City, said the first half of the Legislatures session has been dominated by special interest legislation favored by wealthy GOP supporters.

A few mega-donors spent millions of dollars to elect Republican lawmakers to do their bidding, and they are getting everything they paid for, McCann Beatty said. Unless you have a fat wallet and a willingness to open it, you have no say in the Missouri Capitol.

In addition to the expert witness proposal, lawmakers also are expected to head into the final months of the legislative session continuing to push for changes that would alter the states employment discrimination law and workers compensation statutes.

Excerpt from:
At midway point of session, Missouri Republicans on track with changes to legal system - STLtoday.com