Previous | Next
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Note: We have published the blog every day for the past 2407 days, so we decided to take this weekend off. We'll be back on Monday as usual.
Will Jackson Get Any Republican Votes?
The Washington Post's Henry Olsen, a conservative columnist, opposes the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson. That part is not surprising. What is surprising is that he spoke the quiet part (which everyone knows) out loud. He said the Supreme Court is a political football that often overrules the executive and legislative branches. In effect, it is a mini-legislature, so he wants it to be populated by people who agree with his worldview. Jackson doesn't make the cut, so she should be rejected. He's completely right about how it works and everyone knows it, but nobody else dares to say this in public. The jackass-ery of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) wasn't on display during the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh because Cruz expected Kavanaugh to rule the way Cruz wants him to rule. That's all there is. The rest is all make believe.
Nevertheless, sometimes a handful of senators want to give the appearance that they believe justices will rule based on the merits of the case and on the Constitution and the law. That might actually happen from time to time in, say, cases where one giant multinational corporation is suing another giant multinational corporation for patent infringement and there are no political implications. But on hot-button political issues, most of the time most of the justices rule the way the party of the president who nominated them wants them to rule. That's hardly a secret. Al Gore might even call it an inconvenient truth.
The full Senate will vote on Jackson on April 4. The Democrats are hoping to get at least one Republican vote so they can brag that Jackson had bipartisan approval. But they aren't really fooling anyone by saying a 51-49 vote is really different from a 51-50 vote. Nonetheless, they are trying hard to land one Republican. Here are the most likely Republican senators to vote for confirmation. We have listed them in our best guess of "most likely" to "least likely," but still possible." The other Republican senators are probably not gettable.
- Susan Collins: Collins styles herself as something of a moderate. That means she can't
vote the party line all the time and have any credibility. So once in a while she does defect, especially when her vote
doesn't matter. She's no John McCain, who killed the Republicans' dream of getting rid of the ACA, and was proud of it
to boot. She was "concerned" about the allegations swirling around Brett Kavanaugh but in the end she voted for him
because her vote could have been the deciding one. He was ultimately confirmed 50-48. If she had voted nay, it would
have been a tie, but then the pressure on Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) to vote with the Democrats would have been immense.
Collins couldn't take that risk. She did vote against Amy Coney Barrett, but only because the vote was so close to the
election. Since Jackson is a woman and her confirmation will just replace an old liberal with a younger one, this could
be an easy and painless way to show her independence, without it having any consequences.
- Lisa Murkowski: Murkowski is by all accounts a decent person who is somewhat trapped in
the Republican Party because her state's only industry is oil. She also has no problem voting to confirm women as a
matter of principle, as some Republicans seem to. She voted to confirm Jackson to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last
year. It would be tough to argue that Jackson is appeals-court-level good but not Supreme-Court-level good. And again,
Murkowski's vote doesn't matter (because Jackson can be confirmed with only Democratic votes if need be) and Jackson's
confirmation would just maintain the 6-3 status quo on the Supreme Court. Also, Alaskans like people who are a bit
mavericky and somewhat independent. In addition, Alaska's new top-four primary system probably means Murkowski will need
Democratic votes in the end, so a vote to confirm Jackson might help her with the blue team.
- Mitt Romney: Now it gets tougher. Romney has criticized the nonsense from Sens. Ted Cruz
and Josh Hawley (R-MO) that Jackson's sentencing record disqualifies her. He even said "my heart would like to be able
to vote for her confirmation." So what is preventing him from doing so? Basically, the fact that he is scared of his own
shadow. It is hard to understand why he ran for the Senate in the first place. He certainly doesn't need the $174,000
salary. At first, people thought he wanted to get the Republican Party back on track, but when push comes to shove, most
of the time he does what Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) orders him to do. The Ukrainians are sure lucky they
have Volodymyr Zelenskyy as their leader and not Romney; Romney probably would have surrendered to Vladimir Putin weeks
ago. Still, since his vote is irrelevant for the confirmation and Jackson just maintains the status quo on the Court, he
might yet screw his courage to the sticking place and vote to confirm.
- Roy Blunt: Since Blunt is retiring, he has nothing to lose by voting to confirm Jackson.
He has already noted that her uncle was chief of police in Miami and her brother was also in law enforcement so there is
no reason to think she is weak on crime. He also said he would like to vote for the first Black woman justice. On the
other hand, he is a conservative and she is not, so he is probably genuinely torn and could go either way.
- Rob Portman: Portman has said that Jackson is perfectly qualified and when he met her, he
liked her. And like Blunt, he is retiring (because he can't stand the fact that the Senate is totally dysfunctional).
But Portman has also said there are differences in philosophy between him and Jackson. This is a slightly more obscure
way of agreeing with Henry Olsen: "She's a nice person and a fine lawyer, but I don't like the way I expect her to vote
on the nine-person mini-legislature." Still, if Portman votes against a perfectly qualified nominee on account of
partisan politics, then he is contributing to the dysfunction he so hates.
- Richard Burr: Normally, no one would see Burr as a swing vote, but there are two factors
that probably play a role here. First, he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar (insider trading when he first
learned about how the pandemic was going to hurt certain industries) and his reputation was forever sullied on account
of that. A vote for Jackson might add a footnote to his obituary saying "but at least he voted for the first Black woman
nominated to the Supreme Court." Second, he did vote to convict Donald Trump in his second trial, so his impending
retirement has freed him to do what he thinks is right, regardless of the consequences. In the end, we think he will
vote "nay," but there is at least a chance he will vote to confirm.
- Lindsey Graham: There are a lot of cowards in the Republican Senate caucus, but Graham is the coward-in-chief. He clearly hates Donald Trump and said that many times before he was elected, but then became bootlicker-in-chief after Trump took office. He is also someone who bears a grudge. He wanted Biden to nominate a judge from his home state, namely Michelle Childs, and Biden didn't. That alone is probably enough reason for Graham to vote against Jackson. He certainly gave her a tough time during the hearing. We're not sure why Politico even put him on the list of swing votes. It's presumably because he voted to confirm Jackson to the D.C. Court of Appeals, but he's already expended much oxygen making clear that this situation is totally different. We think he is a definite "nay."
We'll know how this plays out in about 10 days. There is a fair chance Jackson will get one or two Republican votes, most likely from the two women. But getting half a dozen Republican votes is almost certainly out of the question, since in most states, a vote for Jackson would cause half a dozen state senators to start thinking about a promotion.
One vote that Jackson will not get is that of McConnell. He announced yesterday that he will vote to reject her nomination. That could be a signal to other Republicans that a vote to confirm will not be appreciated.
Some Republicans have floated the idea of boycotting the Judiciary Committee when it votes, in order to prevent it from having a quorum, but several Republican members have shot down that idea. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), a close ally of the Minority Leader, said Republicans should "show up and try to be on our best behavior and treat the nominee respectfully." That means McConnell does not want to turn this into a circus for fear of the political blowback. If Cornyn shows up, there will be a quorum and a vote will be taken. It could be a tie, though. Nevertheless, in those circumstances the full Senate can vote on the nominee and she is almost certain to be confirmed, even if it is 51-50. (V)
Russian Military Leaders Won't Talk to Milley and Austin
With a lot of people worried about a possible nuclear war in Europe, it would be comforting to know that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was in constant contact with Russian Minister of Defense Sergey Shoigu in an attempt to prevent that, especially since Shoigu's mother was born in Ukraine and might not want a nuclear war there. Absent that, if Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley were in contact with Russian General of the Army Valery Gerasimov, maybe they could at least prevent a misunderstanding from starting World War III.
But no such luck. Austin and Milley keep calling their Russian counterparts but they keep getting a busy signal. The Russians don't want to talk to their American counterparts. Whether they are too busy running a war to talk or are under orders from Russian President Vladimir Putin not to answer the phone isn't known. What is known is that despite Russian military operations near Poland and Romania and NATO military operations over the Baltic Sea, the top defense officials, both civilian and military, are not in communication.
In the U.S. the hierarchy is clear: Austin is Milley's boss because civilian control of the military is a key principle of the U.S. government. But, of course, the president outranks both of them and is the commander-in-chief. In Russia, the hierarchy is less clear. The czars were generally high-ranking military officers and there is no general principle of civilian control of the military. In practice, though, Shoigu can boss Gerasimov around, albeit not on account of his office. His power comes because he is a close personal friend of Vladimir Putin and Putin is the commander-in-chief in Russia. If Putin is deposed, Shoigu is likely to be his successor, and he is as much pro-war as Putin. Unlike Austin, who is a 4-star general (ret.), Shoigu has never served in the Russian armed forces. He was governor of Moscow oblast (province) though, so he does have some executive experience.
James Stavridis, who served as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from 2009 to 2013, is worried about the lack of direct communication between Austin and Shoigu. He said there are young officers flying jets and commanding warships in Ukraine and in the heat of battle, one of them could do something that could be misinterpreted and lead to war between NATO and Russia. An obvious example is that a young NATO pilot flying exercises along the 100-mile long Latvian-Russian border could encounter a Russian jet right on the Russian side of the border. He could mistakenly think it was attacking Latvia, and shoot it down. WW III, here we come. If the top defense officials were in direct contact, they could try to defuse this before other jets on both sides began shooting at each other. While Stavridis was commander of NATO, he could call his Russian counterpart at any time and occasionally did. Sometimes calling and explaining that your side is about to do a training exercise and tell when it will be done and where can avoid the impression that you are about to attack.
There is a "deconfliction phone line," but that is more tactical whereas an Austin-Shoigu line would be more strategic and deal with broader issues than a single accidental shooting or bombing. This is especially important since Russia appears to be stalled and Putin may start using more dangerous weapons. If a powerful long-range missile wiped out a U.S. base just on the Polish side of the Polish-Ukrainian border and the local commander responded in kind, that could lead to rapid escalation absent high-level communication.
Actually, the lack of communication is even more than this. Secretary of State Antony Blinken hasn't talked to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov since the start of the war, so not only are there no military lines of communication open, but also no diplomatic ones. Again, there is a good chance that Putin has ordered all the top Russian officials to avoid contact with NATO and America on the grounds that if something is to be said, he will be the one to say it. (V)
Biden Wants to Kick Russia Out of the G-20
It's déjà vu all over again. From 1997-2014, there was a group of eight nations known as the G-8, whose leaders got together periodically to drink coffee, tell jokes, and discuss world affairs. After Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, the other seven countries in the G-8 kicked out Russia, turning it into the current G-7. The countries in the G-7 are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the U.K., and the U.S. The European Union is also a member, even though it is not a country.
However, there is also a bigger club called the G-20. It includes the G-7 members and also some other countries that are not represented in the G-7, but are also important internationally, including Australia, Brazil, China, Russia, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. The E.U. is also a member there. Yesterday Joe Biden said he wanted to repeat 2014 and turn the G-20 into the G-19 by kicking Russia out of it. The other members have to agree to this, but the only one that might object is China.
If Russia is kicked out, it will be more isolated than ever and won't even have a seat at the table when the big boys, like Argentina and South Africa, get together to talk about world affairs. If this goes through, Vladimir Putin is going to be extremely angry. He sees Russia as one of the most important and powerful countries in the world, and not to make it into the top 19 would be a huge insult to him. Other people see Russia as "a gas station with nukes," and that really upsets him. To some extent, his invasion of Ukraine was intended to be the first step in restoring the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union, depending on how he deals with the Central Asian republics. In any event, he is not going to like being booted out of the G-20 and could lash out.
Of course, Biden knows this very well and is trying to send Putin a message that he is an international pariah and it is Russia against the entire rest of the world. The message that not only does Russia not dominate the world, it barely counts at all, is intended to demonstrate to Putin that he is going down the wrong road and if he continues, it won't work out well for him.
Biden's steady stream of moves tightening the screws on Russia are politically popular. A new AP/NORC poll shows that the public approves of the sanctions Biden has placed on Russia. In fact, 56% think he hasn't been tough enough. As he does more and more, day by day, there is little political downside. The only risk is that he doesn't do enough fast enough. Democrats are generally fine with his approach, but it is Republicans who think he should be even tougher. Biden's problem is that he doesn't want to start WW III. Republican voters don't seem to be worrying about that too much. (V)
Biden: U.S. Will Accept 100,000 Ukrainian Refugees
The Biden administration has announced it will welcome 100,000 Ukrainian refugees. It also announced another $1 billion in humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and its neighbors. A senior administration official said that it is expected most refugees will want to go to a country not too far from Ukraine in the hope that they can return to Ukraine quickly when the fighting has stopped. But some refugees may have family or friends in the U.S. and might prefer to go there. Another factor might be which languages the refugees speak.
Different legal pathways will be used, each with its own characteristics. For example, official refugee status offers more protections and can eventually lead to citizenship. Humanitarian parole allows the person to work in the U.S. but does not lead to eventual citizenship. But this program has less red tape associated with it. There are also other programs available that will be used.
The White House has made a priority list for who gets to come to the U.S. People who have family in the U.S. get first dibs. Also high on the list are LGBTQ people, journalists, dissidents, and activists. All of these have been targeted by the Russians. People with special medical needs also get priority. So far, only 7,888 refugees have been accepted. The annual limit is 125,000, but Biden wants to revise that upward. It is a hypothetical question, but one can wonder how Donald Trump would have responded to hundreds of thousands of requests for asylum coming from white Christians, but white Christians whose country is considerably more sh*thole-adjacent than Norway or Sweden.
Taking in 100,000 refugees across multiple programs would be one of the largest resettlements in U.S. history. It entails finding housing for them, helping them negotiate the bureaucracy, and helping them find jobs, schools, health care, etc. People who speak English (or maybe Spanish, although few Ukrainians speak Spanish) will probably find it easier to get a job. Fortunately, the economy is booming now and there are plenty of jobs available.
The administration is determined to spread the refugees over multiple countries to avoid overburdening the nations that border Ukraine. In some cases the preferences of the refugees may not align with the capacity of the various countries to absorb them, so that will have to be dealt with. Poland, with a population of 38 million, has taken in 2 million people so far. That is equivalent to the U.S. taking in 17 million people. That is clearly not sustainable, even if the refugees want to stay in Poland close to the border so they can get back easily when the war ends. Telling a refugee family that it has been assigned to Los Angeles rather than the Polish border area near home may not go over well initially until it is explained that Los Angeles has better beaches than eastern Poland.
This is not the only wave of refugees in recent years. So far 76,000 Afghans have been relocated to the U.S. after the departure of U.S. troops there. Nearly all have the status of humanitarian parolees rather than refugees. This makes them temporary, rather than permanent. However, thousands of Afghans with connections to the U.S. presence there didn't make it. (V)
Virginia Thomas Pushed Meadows to Overturn the 2020 Election
When we were looking at the Washington Post last night, a bright red banner appeared on the page saying: "BREAKING: Virginia Thomas urged Trump's White House chief of staff to pursue unrelenting efforts to overturn the 2020 election, texts show." Sounds like that is news.
The gist of the story is that the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Virginia Thomas, exchanged 29 text messages with then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows between November 2020 and January 2021 urging him to fight to overturn the election. If Clarence Thomas had done this, it would be grounds to impeach him, but his wife is just a private citizen and there is no rule or law saying she can't get involved in partisan politics.
Of course, this is far beyond merely campaigning for Trump, which is certainly legal, even for a justice's wife, however bad it may look. Actively trying to overturn an election gets much closer to "conspiracy against the United States" territory. One of the things Thomas wanted was for Sidney Powell to lead Trump's legal team. Powell made numerous incendiary and false statements about the election for months, which got her sued for defamation multiple times. In her messages to Meadows, Thomas made many false statements. She also urged harsh punishments for staffers and members of Congress who resisted arguments that the election was stolen.
Thomas may also have had contact with other Trump insiders. One of the text messages mentioned her outreach to "Jared." Maybe that was a reference to Gov. Jared Polis (D-CO), but we have our doubts.
Her views were so extreme that David Bossie, one of Trump's closest and most aggressive supporters, called her stories "concocted B.S."
It is not known if Thomas' husband knew about any of this or whether he approved if he did know about it. If he knew about it and approved of it, he is on thin ice. Judges and justices are allowed to vote and even donate money to candidates, but advocating the overthrow of the lawfully elected president because you don't like him is definitely a no-no for a Supreme Court justice who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Also a big issue here is conflict of interest. Clarence Thomas has had to rule multiple times on cases involving Trump. Can he do that in an impartial way when his wife is an over-the-top Trump supporter to the extent that she is actively trying to subvert the Constitution to keep him in power even though he lost?
Virginia Thomas' activism isn't something that just started in Nov. 2020. She has been active in right-wing politics for a long time. For example, she is a member of the board of the political arm of the Council for National Policy, which brings together old-school Republicans, the Federalist Society, tea party activists, Christian conservatives, the NRA, the Family Research Council, and plenty of MAGA types. Among other things, it pressured Republican members of Congress to reject the 2020 presidential election results. If that had succeeded, the case would certainly have landed before the Supreme Court, where the other half of the Thomas family would have taken the ball and run with it.
Will this story have legs or will be it forgotten by Sunday? One small hint here is who the lead author of the article is. It's a guy named Bob Woodward. Heard that name before somewhere, but we forget where. It's been a while. (V)
Prosecutor Who Left the Manhattan D.A.'s Office Says Trump Committed Felonies
When veteran prosecutor Mark Pomerantz abruptly left the Manhattan D.A.'s office on Feb. 23 in a dispute with D.A. Alvin Bragg over what to do about Donald Trump, he wrote a letter of resignation. The Washington Post somehow got a hold of a copy of the letter. In situations like this, sometimes the author of the letter simply gave it to the paper, rather than the paper's star reporters digging it out of a dumpster somewhere. In any event, Pomerantz' letter states: "The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes—he did." It goes on to say that Trump repeatedly lied to banks, which is bank fraud. He also committed "numerous felony violations." Pomerantz also wrote: "In my view, the public interest warrants the criminal prosecution of Mr. Trump, and such a prosecution should be brought without any further delay."
Bragg didn't kill the case altogether, but assigned Susan Hoffinger to lead the case going forward. At the very least, this leak is going to put a lot of pressure on Bragg to do something and not just quietly kill the case. It could well be that Pomerantz was afraid that Bragg was not going to pursue Trump, so he decided to turn up the heat by leaking his letter.
If Bragg decides to drag it out, reporters are going to be asking Bragg: "Since one of your most experienced prosecutors flatly said Trump committed multiple felonies and there is no reason to delay prosecution, why are you stalling?" This puts Bragg on the spot. He campaigned for the D.A. posiition on a platform of thoroughly investigating Trump, and he won. To suddenly lose interest when one of the investigators says there is more than enough evidence already is going to put Bragg in a tough spot. He is not up for reelection until 2025, but if he drops the case, this is certain to be a huge campaign issue for his primary opponents—especially if Trump is president and Bragg's opponents say Trump would have been in prison were it not for Bragg's letting him off the hook. Things might heat up a bit now. (V)
Arizona Legislature Passes Abortion Bill Copied from the Mississippi Law
Yesterday, the Arizona House passed a bill banning all abortions after 15 weeks, the same as the Mississippi law the Supreme Court will soon rule on. The state Senate has already passed the same bill. Gov. Doug Ducey (R-AZ) has said he will sign the bill. The bill bans all abortions in the state, including those requested by women who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest. The only exception is abortions after 15 weeks may be performed to save the life of the woman or prevent irreversible bodily harm to her. If the Supreme Court holds that the Mississippi law is constitutional, then the Arizona law will be, too, since it is a carbon copy of the Mississippi law.
The Arizona bill states that doctors who perform the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy are guilty of a felony and can have their medical licenses revoked. In 2020, 636 women obtained abortions in Arizona after 15 weeks.
Bills banning abortion at some early point have been introduced in 30 states this year, all in anticipation of the Supreme Court either overturning Roe v. Wade or simply ruling that the Mississippi law is constitutional. In addition to Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, and West Virginia have identical laws in the pipeline. Of these, Florida's is the furthest along, having passed the legislature already. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) hasn't signed it yet, but has said that he will soon do so.
If the Supreme Court either overturns Roe or approves the Mississippi law, abortion could easily become the top issue in the midterms, especially if 30 states pass tough new laws banning it. Polls show that about 70% of Americans think it should be legal, at least in many cases. Republican candidates will be forced to defend a position that is very unpopular, which is never good for candidates.
While they were at it, Arizona lawmakers also passed a law banning gender reassignment surgery for minors and for the recipients of such surgery from playing on girls' sports teams. Ducey has not said whether he will sign those bills. (V)
Supreme Court Delivers for Republicans in Wisconsin
Wisconsin is one of the handful of states in which the Republicans control the state legislature but the governor is a Democrat. This is a formula for open warfare when it comes to drawing the congressional and state legislative maps. And, of course, that happened. The legislature drew up maps and Gov. Tony Evers (D-WI) vetoed them. So, naturally, everybody sued.
The legislature and the governor each submitted maps to the courts. On March 3, the state Supreme Court accepted Evers' plan for the state Assembly, which increased the number of majority-minority districts from six to seven. It rejected the legislature's map, which reduced the number of majority-minority districts from six to five. Basically, the state Supreme Court agreed with Evers that his map was needed to avoid violating what is left of the Voting Rights Act.
The losers didn't like this result so they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 7. On Wednesday, in an unsigned ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling, and rejected Evers' map. It sent the case back to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, telling it that to justify race-based districting, it had better have a good reason. That Evers was able squeeze in another majority-minority district is not a good reason.
But the Assembly map is not the only contentious one. There is also the congressional map. In that case, the Court accepted Evers' map. However, that was apparently more acceptable because it still favors the Republicans. Republicans objected to the map because they said it should have either 736,714 or 736,715 people in each district because all districts are required to have the same population. In some of Evers' districts there are 736,716 people. The Republicans said this is illegal. The Supreme Court didn't agree with them and let the map stand. (V)
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry Is Headed from the House to the Big House
In 2016, the campaign of Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) accepted illegal contributions. Last October, following an investigation, he was charged with one count of scheming to falsify and conceal material facts and two counts of making false statements to federal investigators. Those are all felonies.
Fortenberry denied any wrongdoing, making him the rare defendant who claims he didn't do it. The court did not buy what he was selling, and so yesterday he was convicted on all three counts. He'll be sentenced on June 28, and faces a maximum penalty of 15 years. It's not likely that he'll get the full 15, of course, but he's not going to get off with probation or some other slap on the wrist. Nope, he's going to have to trade in that pinstriped suit for, well, another kind of striped suit.
The Representative will not automatically be booted out of Congress, though there will be much pressure upon him to fall on his sword and resign, and if he refuses, he may be expelled. Even if he tries to hang on, it's not so easy to run for office from prison, Eugene V. Debs notwithstanding. So, he's done for, either "soon" or "very soon." His district is R+11, so it doesn't figure to be a flip possibility, in either the special election that will be called, or in the general election. (Z)
Previous | Next
Back to the main page