Main page    Nov. 20

Pres map
Previous | Next | Senate page | Menu

New polls: (None)
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: AZ GA MI NV PA WI

Today's Appointments News

There was all kinds of news on the appointments front, so we're going to run it all down in capsule form. Away we go:

That's the latest; undoubtedly there will be much more news tomorrow, as the incoming administration tries to squeeze things in before the Thanksgiving Holiday. (Z)

Hard To Believe It Took Two Whole Weeks

Here are a couple of news items that will gladden many Democrats' hearts: There is already serious infighting breaking out between the incoming Trump White House and the incoming Senate Republican majority.

To start with, Donald Trump and his team are convinced that the National Republican Senatorial Committee and its main super PAC (the Senate Leadership Fund) are being controlled by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and other NeverTrump Republicans. They are probably right about that. So, Trump and his people are preparing to launch their own, competing PACs that will take orders from Trump.

Maybe this is a big game of chicken. Or maybe there will be a round of "kumbayah" at some point in the future, and everyone on the red team will get on the same page. But don't bet too much on that. And if the House Divided (well, really, the Senate Divided) setup goes forward, it sets the stage for another round of Senate primaries where a nutty Trumper and a normal Republican beat the tar out of each other, while the Democrats enjoy their popcorn.

Meanwhile (and this is VERY tentative), a loose NeverTrump coalition is emerging in the Senate. It potentially includes Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), John Cornyn (R-TX), and possibly others. At the moment, their focus is on getting the nominations of Matt Gaetz (and possibly Pete Hegseth) withdrawn. However, if that does not happen, they could band together and vote to torpedo the nominations. As we have pointed out several times, this is very rare, but it does happen. And when it's one or two apostates, then they're easier to ostracize. If it's four or five or six, that's much harder. On top of that, the more frequently that senators get away with defying Trump, the easier it is to do it again in the future.

We say again, the "rebellion" in the Senate is very tentative, and may very well not come to pass. However, it bears watching. At very least, it's a reminder that governing is way, way harder than just running for office. (Z)

Here Come De Judges

While there is dissension in the ranks of the Senate Republican Conference, the Senate Democratic Caucus is exceedingly unified. That will happen when you're in your last 6 weeks of having power, before having to give up the reins for 2, or 4, or more years.

The main focus, of course, is judges. The Senate just confirmed Embry Kidd to Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, making him just the second Black man appointed to a federal appeals court in the past decade. Senate Majority Leader (for now!) Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is literally burning the midnight oil in order to work through as many appointments as is possible.

The Republicans, not surprisingly, are up in arms. In part, they are complaining that Schumer is holding so many sessions, since so many Republican members are currently missing (e.g., Sens. Marco Rubio, R-FL, and J.D. Vance, R-OH). In part, they think that the Senate should be working on other business, like the budget. Oh, and Donald Trump doesn't want ANY more judges confirmed until he's sworn in.

Schumer's response to all of this, in so many words: Shove it. He and everyone in Washington, everyone who reads this blog, everyone who did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday, etc., know full well that if the shoe was on the other foot, the GOP would be doing the same thing. In fact, they did do the same thing, back in 2020. That's how the game is played these days. Actually, come to think of it, that's how the game has always been played. Remember, the critically important case Marbury v. Madison (1803) was triggered by John Adams' attempts to ram through a bunch of "midnight judges."

Exactly how the numbers will shake out is... unknowable at this point. Thus far, the Democrats have confirmed 217 judges during Biden's term; they need 17 more to equal the number from Trump's first term. At the appeals courts level, there are four nominees awaiting confirmation, two vacancies without a nominee, and three more potential vacancies depending on when announced retirements kick in. At the district court level, there are 21 nominees awaiting confirmation, 40 vacancies without a nominee, and 12 more potential vacancies depending on when announced retirements kick in.

This means that, if absolutely everything were to break Biden's way, he could seat nine more appellate judges and 73 more district judges. He'll never come close to that, of course. First, the Senate only has so much time left before January 3. Second, the blue-slip tradition is still in place. Although appellate judges like Kidd are not subject to blue slips (since they represent multiple states), district court judges are. Soon-to-be Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) says he will continue to observe the tradition when he retakes the reins. If Democrats believe him (and he's built up a LOT of institutional goodwill), then they'll probably keep the blue slips in place, significantly reducing the number of seats they can fill. That said, the blue team probably can get to the 17 judges needed to tie Trump v1.0, and the one additional judge needed to exceed Trump v1.0. Beyond that, it's anyone's guess. (Z)

Trump Legal News: Slow Ride

Lawyer-reader A.R. in Los Angeles, CA has consented to do an update on the various legal situations involving Donald Trump and his acolytes:

Thanks for the update, A.R.! (Z)

Harris Campaign's Spending Comes Under Scrutiny

That headline is copied, word for word, from the item published by The Hill that serves as the basis for this item.

Now, consider if the headline had been this:

Trump Campaign's Spending Comes Under Scrutiny

Would you expect to read the exact same kind of story, except with Donald Trump instead of Kamala Harris?

Truth be told, when we clicked on it, we assumed—for lack of a better explanation—that it would be the same kind of story. That is to say, a story about some sort of misappropriation or mishandling of campaign funds. And we were very surprised, because Democrats tend to be very fastidious about these things, given that if they so much as sneeze without filling out the four FEC-required forms, it becomes the basis for three days' programming at Fox.

As it turns out, it is not the kind of story we expected. It's focused on Democrats who are carping about the fact that Harris raised $1 billion, and where did it all go, and what do the Democrats have to show for it? These seem like dumb questions to us. As to the first, we saw hundreds and hundreds of Harris commercials, and we read about thousands and thousands of paid workers. As to the second, perhaps these folks don't know that either one candidate or the other is going to get zilch for the nine—or ten—figure outlay they put out.

In any event, we were struck by the fact that "Harris' Campaign's Spending Comes Under Scrutiny" and "Trump Campaign's Spending Comes Under Scrutiny" are nearly identical headlines, but announce very different kinds of stories. And there is relatively little chance of the polarity flipping. That is to say, we have already noted that we would be shocked by a story about a Democratic presidential candidate using funds in an unethical or illegal way. And we do not recall seeing any stories this cycle about whether or not Trump was getting enough bang for his buck out of his donations (nor in 2020, when it was HIS outlay that went for naught).

Perhaps your mileage will vary, but this struck us as a pretty clear example of the different standards the media applies to Democrats and Republicans. Or maybe it's the different expectations that Democratic voters have for their leaders, as opposed to those that Republicans have for THEIR leaders. Or maybe it's that Trump is allowed to play by a set of rules that's only applied to him. Or maybe it's all of the above. (Z)

Abortion Is Legal Again in Wyoming (For Now)

Wyoming might be the reddest state in the nation. And, not coincidentally, it might have been the first state to impose a total ban on all abortion procedures, including abortifacient pills. But, at least for now, abortion is again permissible there, thanks to a ruling this week from Teton County District Judge Melissa Owens.

Owens has been handling a trio of cases involving The Cowboy State's abortion laws, as anti-choice forces argue that the bans are legal, and pro-choice forces argue that the laws violate women's rights under the state constitution. Owens' ruling, in which she sided with the latter faction, will be the last to come from her court, as it is final (as opposed to being an injunction).

Of course, her ruling is appealable to the Wyoming Supreme Court, and Gov. Mark Gordon (R-WY) said his administration plans to do just that. And ultimately, this fight is never going to end, not in Wyoming, not in the United States. This despite the fact that outlawing abortions in one state just compels women to go to another state, and outlawing them nationwide just leads to the rise of a back-alley illegal abortion industry. The U.S. learned a lesson with Prohibition, but not with this issue, it would seem. (Z)

Today Is Transgender Day of Remembrance

In 1999, a group of trans activists established the Transgender Day of Remembrance, which is set aside to memorialize those who have been killed as a result of transphobia. We think this day is particularly germane this year (and for the next four), because—as we have noted on other occasions—we think the rhetoric of people like J.D. Vance and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) could very well encourage fanatical Trumpers to take matters into their own hands.

Reader S.B. in Winslow, ME wrote in with a few thoughts, and we thought it would be appropriate to share them:

Imagine the one thing that defines you—an immutable aspect of your identity—suddenly made illegal. Now imagine that not only is this essence of who you are illegal, it's more than just a fine. The government is going out of its way to erase you from society. If you are a person of color, an indigenous American, or a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, you've felt that in the past and you likely still feel the ramifications of it now.

As a transgender woman, I feel that more now than ever.

I always knew the conservative factions had a problem with trans people. I was a member of conservative churches for many of my younger years and I work in the nuclear power industry—a field saturated with conservative politics. My decision to "come out" and live my authentic life cost me my only child, a marriage, many friendships, and to some extent "being heard" in the workplace. Women will understand what I mean by the latter.

(V) and (Z) learned that only two people in federal prison had gender-confirmation surgery, and yet literally millions of dollars were spent to create a millstone to hang around Kamala Harris' neck. To my knowledge, there have been zero incidents of a trans person (specifically a trans female) assaulting someone in a women's restroom. If I'm wrong on this, I have to believe the number is able to be counted on one hand.

And yet, transgender people, especially transgender women, have become the new face of moral/liberal evil in America. Every year, 20 to 60 trans women are murdered simply for existing. Think about this: More trans women are murdered every month than received gender confirmation surgery in prison in the entire time since the operation was allowed.

As a friendly acquaintance of Rep. Sarah McBride (D-DE), I both root for her and fear for her. Prior to this election, people like she and I were disdained by an angry minority of people. With the upcoming change in government, this angry minority has shown itself to be a pervasive majority and will again have power to implement laws that will harm us. I am grateful that she will be a representative for all transgender people in the House of Representatives. I am fearful that she will also be a target. It is my sincere prayer that we never read her name on a future Transgender Day of Remembrance.

What's different about you? How would you feel if that difference was made in the face of moral evil? How would you feel if others like you were being murdered solely because that's who you are? How would you feel if the new administration has a proven track record and has clearly voiced their intention to eliminate you?

I don't like closing messages of darkness on a note of darkness. I am a child of Light. While my LGBTQIA+ friends and allies are deleting social media accounts, setting up "safe houses," and otherwise preparing for a targeted attack from the government fomented in anger and the people who elected it, I am choosing to be light. I recently published a novel featuring a sparrow named Wren who undergoes an inner transformation toward light in her search for truth. I plan to promote that. I plan to create Instagram videos encouraging hope. I plan to speak where I can to speak hope. Even one candle can overcome perfect darkness. I am one such candle, and I refuse to be extinguished. And should it be so that my voice is silenced because of who I am, know that I am not the one who lit my wick. It was the Divine Light within me, and that Light is never fully overcome.

Thanks so much, S.B., and good for you! (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones

Main page for tablets and computers