Wondering on Wednesday (v166)

I'm wondering, tonight, for sure, about the new gang in the House and the old gang in the Senate, too.

For example, I'm wondering (and worrying) how many more open judge seats president Trump is going to be able to fill in the next two years, or (dare I say it) in the next six? I read today that Trump has now filled one in six judges on the US circuit courts - one in six!

One, just approved by the Senate, has only been a lawyer for nine years, is only 37 years old, and has only tried four cases to verdict, none as the lead attorney.  Like others Trump has nominated, she fits the mold designed by the Federalist Society, which looks for anti-abortion, anti-same-sex marriage, lawyers who can get on the bench early. Voting rights are also in the cross-hairs of these folks, who get lifetime seats, remember.

I'm also wondering, on the chance that the Dems take the White House in 2020 , if they'll have any openings to fill, given the rate that Trump is getting judges seated. And, pretending that they will take the Senate in 2020 (also not assured by any stretch of the imagination) but not the White House, I wonder how much influence they'll be able exert to get moderates appointed - you know, people who think gays deserve exactly the same rights as the rest of us, for example.

And the last thing on this - is Chuck Schumer the guy who can do for the Dems what Mitch McConnell did for the Republicans on judges, if he gets the chance?  I really wonder about that.

I'm wondering, too, why it is that the House of Representatives is considering, for the second time this session, some kind of resolution stating that anti-Semitism is wrong? In both cases, the issues have stemmed from comments made by Rep. Ilhan Omar, one of the new progressives in the Democratic majority.

Last month, it was an addition to legislation that it's in our national security interest to "combat anti-Semitism around the world" and that "there has been a significant amount of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hatred that must be most strongly condemned." This week, possibly tomorrow, they'll do it again; a draft version of the resolution "acknowledges the dangerous consequences of perpetuating anti-Semitic stereotypes" and more, but at least for now doesn't mention Rep. Omar by name. And that's really what I'm wondering about.

If the issue is solely Rep. Omar, deal with her. If the issue is broad anti-Semitism in Congress, show us and tell us what's going on, and then deal with that. But what it looks like now is that the Rs are going to call out every single issue they can find that is raised by the new crop of progressives - and that the Dems are trying to make everyone happy by not addressing the issue where the issue is.

I'd love to be wrong on this. but if not, we need the leadership to get on this, yesterday. The last thing they can afford to do is waste precious time that would be much better spent working on critical agenda items.

Finally, tonight, we're going to end up back where we started - with Mitch McConnell. He's already gleefully declared that he's planning on holding a vote on the Green New Deal resolution this year, which is a perfect ploy to put the Democratic Senators who are interested in the 2020 presidential race on record on something that is getting a lot of negative talk from all corners, left and right.

Now, he's on record as saying that he's not going to entertain a vote on the reform bill that's making its way over from the House. The bill, HR-1, includes a number of provisions and reforms related to voting, campaign financing, and ethics.  McConnell refers to it as the Democrat Politician Protection  Act, and says it's dead on arrival:

This sprawling 622-page doorstop is never going to become law. I certainly don't plan to even bring it to the floor here in the Senate. 

So, I can't wonder why McConnell's doing this -- he's the Majority Leader and he's doing exactly what he wants, and getting his members to go along with him. And, of course, he's also doing what the president wants. I don't like him, but he's doing what he's supposed to do.

What I do wonder about is the need to come out of the gate with a massive bill that addresses all of the ills that the Dems have been dealing with and feeling frustrated with - and that we have been dealing with and feeling frustrated with, too - instead of  focusing on one or two highest priorities that have some chance of getting considered in the Senate? Things that all of the Dems in both houses, and collaborative Republicans (maybe the Problem Solvers Caucus?) can speak to in a way that puts pressure on McConnell and other hardliners to at least allow debate and even defeat in the Senate?

What's wrong with putting the other guys on the record as refusing to entertain reforms that the majority of Americans want? That the Courts have chimed in on, like overly partisan gerrymandering, for example? I don't understand why they make it an all-or-nothing-at-all scenario.

Am I the only one who thinks this, I wonder?