US Senate | Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion - Part 46
Accessibility by WAH
Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Senate Tag

Posted by Mary Chastain on August 23, 2016 58 Comments
I've been keeping an eye on the tough Congress elections headed into November, especially since the GOP could easily loses its majority in the Senate. North Carolina could lose one of its GOP senators while New Hampshire could lose its only GOP senator in Kelly Ayotte. The tough reelection has led her to distance herself from GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump. Ayotte said she would vote for Trump, but stopped before giving him her full endorsement. This has frustrated the independent voters she needs to win. She didn't even attend a rally attended by Vice President candidate Mike Pence where he told the crowd they need her "back in the U.S. Senate." As The Washington Post described it, she "is stuck between Donald Trump and a hard place."

Posted by Mary Chastain on August 22, 2016 14 Comments
The GOP has panicked lately about their majority in Congress, especially in the Senate, as the party divides over Donald Trump and the lack of fundraising. Their worst fears appear to becoming true in North Carolina, once seen as a lock for the GOP. The Wall Street Journal reports that Democrat Deborah Ross may beat two term GOP Senator Richard Burr. The Democrats also gained a rise because Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has placed North Carolina high on her priority list. Ross tends to climb the polls as Clinton does the same. When Clinton went up nine points, Ross found herself up two points on Burr for the first time in the election.

Posted by Mike LaChance on August 20, 2016 9 Comments
A young woman who is a Republican apparently tried to infiltrate the Russ Feingold campaign but she was sniffed out through profiling. Aren't Democrats against that sort of thing? Ashe Schow reports at the Washington Examiner:
Feingold campaign outs an infiltrator by profiling her A young Republican attempted to infiltrate the Russ Feingold campaign but was quickly discovered. The reason she first raised suspicion, however, appeared to be due to profiling.

Posted by New Neo on July 02, 2016 10 Comments
Even though his official campaign for the presidency is over, Ted Cruz isn't taking a vacation. Last Tuesday Cruz began conducting a hearing:
...investigating...“Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts To Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism.”... This hearing will likely focus on which figures within the federal government worked to squelch any research connecting the dots between local Muslim Brotherhood officials, these individual terrorists, and foreign terror networks. Senators on the committee now have an opportunity to expose the Muslim Brotherhood influence within DHS and the FBI, their invidious “Countering Violent Extremism” Agenda, and their hand in covering up counter-terrorism investigations. They can demonstrate how the federal government has hamstrung local law enforcement by refusing to cooperate and share information regarding jihadists living in their communities.
One question is whether anyone's listening except those already disposed to be concerned about how the Obama administration is handling the problem.

Posted by Mike LaChance on June 30, 2016 45 Comments
You may have read Andrew McCarthy's excellent work at National Review, but you might not be aware that McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor and expert on Islamic terrorism. McCarthy offered some very enlightening and chilling testimony this week at a Senate hearing on Islamic terrorism which was led by Senator Ted Cruz. He described his testimony in vivid detail in a column at PJ Media:
Willful Blindness and Radical Islam: My Testimony On Tuesday, I was a panelist at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts to Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism.” The hearing was held by the Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts,” chaired by Senator Ted Cruz (R. Tex.).

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 21, 2016 16 Comments
Four gun control measures—two sponsored by Democrats, two by Republicans—failed in the Senate on Monday. USA Today provides a brief overview of each amendment (to a DOJ spending bill):
► An amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would allow the attorney general to deny a gun sale to anyone if she has a "reasonable belief" — a lesser standard than "probable cause" — that the buyer was likely to engage in terrorism. The proposal is popularly known as the "no-fly, no-buy" amendment, but wouldn't just apply to people on the "no fly" terrorist watch list. ► An Republican alternative by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, which would require that law enforcement be alerted when anyone on the terror watch list attempts to buy a weapon from a licensed dealer. If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism within the past five years, the attorney general could block a sale for up to three days while a court reviews the sale. ► An amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would make it more difficult to add mentally ill people to the background check database, giving people suspected of serious mental illness a process to challenge that determination.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 19, 2016 12 Comments
Last month, I wrote about Harry Reid's statement that he is "fairly certain" the Democrats will retake the Senate this year, and as I noted, it is a very real possibility given a number of factors.  The Democrats need win only five seats to retake the Senate (four if Hillary wins the WH), the Republicans are defending 24 seats to the Democrats' 10, and many of the states in play—Florida, Wisconsin, Illinois, New Hampshire—went to Obama in both 2008 and 2012. As we consider and discuss the importance of the Supreme Court and who will be nominating the next Justice who will replace Justice Scalia—and potentially two (or more) others—during his or her term, it may be a good idea to think about the Senate races across the country and to do what we can to ensure that the Senate is not lost to Democrats. No matter who wins the general and nominates the next Justice/s, the Senate is still the body that confirms a presidential nomination to the Court.  A Democrat-controlled Senate, I think we can all agree, would be a disaster on many levels, but particularly so in light of the upcoming Supreme Court nominee/s.

Posted by Taryn O'Neill on May 05, 2016 44 Comments
As we've seen for months, the burning question thrown at Republican candidates around the nation has been, "Will you support Donald Trump if he's the nominee?" Democrats and media alike have worked to tie republican candidates to the newly declared presumptive GOP presidential nominee, who is arguably the most despised political candidate in modern U.S. history. Unfortunately, 24 GOP Senate seats are up for election in November, many of which the Democrats see as ripe for the plucking. Due in part to the Tea Party effect in 2010, the Democrats are only defending 10 seats. Even worse, as the Huffington Post points out, is the fact that 6 of the Republican senators are in states that President Obama won twice. The Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee has wasted little time, launching its "Party of Trump" campaign back in March. The effort seeks to scorn vulnerable Senate Republicans with their prior remarks, including those promising that they would support the Republican presidential nominee, whoever he or she turns out to be.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on May 01, 2016 22 Comments
As he has repeatedly stated, Obama is confident that a Democrat will win the White House in November, and now Harry Reid is expressing that he is "fairly certain" that Democrats will take back the Senate this year. The Hill reports:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Sunday that he thinks his party will win back the majority in the Senate this year. During a radio interview with John Catsimatidis, Reid detailed the Democratic efforts against several vulnerable GOP senators up for reelection this year.
Considering that Democrats need win only five Senate seats (they currently have 46 seats, including the two Independents who caucus with them) to accomplish this goal and given the disarray on the right, Reid's prediction seems far less laughable than it would have only a year ago. The Hill continues:
“We only need four [seats] to take the majority,” he said. “With the numbers I’ve given you, it’s going to be a fairly certain thing that we can do that.”

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on April 10, 2016 10 Comments
Apparently, Mitch McConnell is trying to undermine the senate run of a conservative candidate from Indiana that he sees as a potential disruptive force like Ted Cruz. CNN reports:
Rep. Marlin Stutzman is a member of the anti-leadership House Freedom Caucus, a conservative in the mold of Ted Cruz and a three-term Indiana congressman who voted against John Boehner as speaker. Now, he wants a promotion to the Senate -- and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his allies want to stop that. Privately, McConnell has made clear to his confidantes that he wants to bolster the candidacy of Stutzman's chief GOP rival, Rep. Todd Young, and push him over-the-top in the May 3 primary, according to sources familiar with the conversations.
This move is purportedly motivated, at least in part, by Stutzman's vote against John Boehner. CNN continues:

Posted by Amy Miller on November 08, 2015 26 Comments
The Senate is known for its well-prepared speeches and high-profile filibusters; what it's not known for is for those speeches to have any real or lasting effect on long-term policymaking in Washington. A freshman senator may have changed all that this week (okay, this is bluster, but bear with me) with his "maiden" floor speech, in which he spent a great deal of time offering the perspective he gained from over a year's worth of observation. Ben Sasse (R-NE) waited until this week to address his colleagues in the Senate chamber---and boy did he make the most of it. He used his time at the mic to criticize the partisanship, grandstanding, and public bickering that defines the culture of "the greatest deliberative body in the world." Watch:

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on October 24, 2015 7 Comments
Rand Paul's disappointing poll numbers and fundraising for his presidential campaign are reportedly a cause for concern among the GOP both in his home state of Kentucky and in Washington. Last week, reports indicated that donors and the Kentucky GOP were urging Rand to focus on his senate reelection bid rather than on his flailing presidential campaign. The AP reported:
A defiant Rand Paul is brushing off weak fundraising and weaker poll numbers as would-be donors and home state Republicans push him to abandon an uphill presidential bid to focus on his Senate re-election. . . . . But back in Kentucky, a growing chorus of Republicans suggested that Paul's Senate re-election was by no means guaranteed, despite the state's strong GOP leanings and the lack of a clear Democratic challenger. "He could lose both positions," said Patricia Vincent, chairwoman of the Graves County Republican Party. "He just needs to work a little bit more to make sure he still has a seat in the Senate."

Posted by Amy Miller on October 22, 2015 3 Comments
Today, a controversial cybersecurity bill aimed at making it easier for corporations to prevent hacking attacks advanced in the Senate with bipartisan support. The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) in its current form would make it possible for corporations to share information about cyberattacks with each other---or the goverment---without having to worry about fielding privacy-based lawsuits. The bill enjoys bipartisan support in the Senate---and has languished under bipartisan opposition, led by Kentucky Senator and Presidential hopeful Rand Paul. From Reuters:
But many privacy activists and a few lawmakers, including Republican Senator Rand Paul and Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, vehemently oppose it. Several big tech companies also have come out against the measure, arguing that it fails to protect users' privacy and does too little to prevent cyber attacks.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on October 07, 2015 32 Comments
Tuesday, Senator Cruz chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts titled “Opportunity Denied: How Overregulation Harms Minorities” that investigated the harmful effects of government overregulation on people and businesses who lack the resources and political connections to deal effectively with mountains of red tape. According to his office, Cruz invited Harry Alford, president and CEO, National Black Chamber of Commerce; Michael Barrera, national economic prosperity manager, The LIBRE Institute; Sabina Loving, owner and operator, Loving Tax Services, Inc.; and Timothy Sandefur, principal attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation. Their testimony focused on the harmful effects of government overregulation on the African-American and Hispanic communities and on the experience of small businesses within these communities. Democrat witnesses included Aaron Mair, president of the Sierra Club; Amit Narang, regulation policy advocate at Public Citizen; and William Scott, CEO of Tristatz, LLC. “Fifty-five years ago, there were 13 regulatory federal government agencies. Today, there are over 70," said Senator Cruz. This is where Cruz shines his brightest. Questioning Sierra Club President Aaron Mair, Senator Cruz challenged Mair to name one instance harmful government regulation:

Posted by Amy Miller on September 09, 2015 11 Comments
Today I attended the much-anticipated Cruz-Trump Iran deal protest on Capitol Hill. It was a scorcher---97 degrees when I finally surrendered to an air conditioned cab---but the rally boasted an impressive turnout. The crowd, for the most part, was focused on protesting not only the specific Iranian nuclear deal, but the path down which Obama's foreign policy has taken us. 100% of the attendees I talked to see the deal as one more foolish, stupid, naive move by the Obama Administration. For most, opposition was apolitical; I spoke to many people who were grateful for the protest votes of Chuck Schumer and other Democrats, even if those announcements came too little and too late to give the White House pause. These signs were floating around everywhere, and for the most part sum up the mood in the crowd: death to america iran rally sign

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 05, 2015 8 Comments
Republican South Carolina senator Tim Scott appeared on CNN yesterday and was questioned by host Brianna Keilar for saying all lives matter. His response was brilliant. Josh Feldman of Mediaite has a partial transcript:
Sen. Tim Scott: If ‘All Lives Matter’ Really Offends You, That’s Your Problem Senator Tim Scott said tonight that if people are honestly offended by him or anyone else saying “all lives matter,” that’s their problem. On CNN tonight, Scott told Brianna Keilar, “If it causes offense to say that all lives matter, black lives, white lives, police officers… if that is somehow offensive to someone, that’s their issue, not mine.”

Posted by Amy Miller on September 02, 2015 43 Comments
Today Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski committed her vote in support of the controversial Iran nuclear deal, bringing the total number of Senators backing the deal to 34---the magic number needed to ensure Democrats can sustain President Obama's veto should Senators opposed to the deal bring forward a resolution of disapproval. More from the AP:
Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland became the crucial 34th vote in favor of the agreement. "No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian regime," Mikulski said in a statement. She called the accord "the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb. For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this deal." The backing from Mikulski, who is retiring next year, gives supporters the margin they need to uphold an Obama veto of a congressional resolution of disapproval if Republicans pass such a measure later this month. And it spells failure for opponents of the international agreement who sought to foil it by turning Congress against it. Leading that effort were Israel and its allies in the U.S., who failed to get traction after spending millions of dollars trying.
Reaction on both sides, of course, exploded:

Posted by Amy Miller on August 27, 2015 6 Comments
As the vote on the controversial Iran nuclear deal looms, democrats on Capitol Hill and in the White House are pushing forward with their efforts to ensure that their caucus stands as intact as possible against Republican attacks. Thus far, their efforts have produced results, if not perfect ones. The defection of powerful Senate democrat Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and the high profile split of two freshman House dems, has dinged the optic surrounding the deal, but overall, the White House has every reason to be optimistic. Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that she has more than enough votes to sustain a veto in the House (fewer than 60 House dems have announced their opposition,) and in the Senate, Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) has cast doubts about the future success of opposition efforts. Still, the White House is nervous. Invoking the veto on such a high-profile issue could move voter confidence in the wrong direction, and destroy what little credibility Obama has left on the international stage. More from Politico: