And the beat goes on: Republicans on Tuesday voted–with a tiebreaking assist from Vice President Mike Pence–to move forward and debate health care legislation. Next up in the seven-year Republican crusade against Obamacare: hours of debate, possibly dozens of amendments, and, eventually, a floor vote. But the ultimate trophy of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act with a Republican-backed alternative remains elusive. Here is what comes next:

Debate then Vote-o-Rama

With the 51-50 vote Tuesday night on the motion to proceed, Senate Republicans are in for a long couple of days. First, they will debate for dozens of hours the various versions of the bill that have been proposed in the House and the Senate. Senators will also debate what will likely amount to dozens of amendments.

A so-called “vote-o-rama” will commence after the debate. Lawmakers from both parties will be permitted to introduce amendments to the health bill–Democratic aides have hinted the party will flood Republicans with amendments to trip up their efforts. Each amendment will be allotted one minute of debate before a vote, and the entire process can go on as long as is needed.

Option 1: Repeal and Replace

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been leading the repeal-and-replace charge over the past seven years, and it falls to him to corral his fellow Republican senators to agree on a bill. McConnell’s ideal scenario would be to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a health law that suits Republican priorities.

But the majority leader has so far struggled to align moderate GOP lawmakers and the Senate’s most conservative members behind a single bill. Several Senators have stated their opposition to prior health care legislation either because of Medicaid cuts or its insufficient conservative bona fides. McConnell scored a small victory with Tuesday’s motion to proceed vote, but can he rally enough of his troops to agree on a common strategy?

The first attempt at passing comprehensive legislation failed on Tuesday evening, as nine Republicans broke ranks and opposed the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) by a 43-57 margin in a crucial procedural vote. That bill was Republicans’ primary choice to repeal and replace Obamacare and included two amendments to try to reconcile the party’s disparate corners.

The first, introduced by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), would add $100 billion to a stability fund to help offset slashed Medicaid funds. A second amendment, introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), would allow insurers to sell pared down plans as long as they concurrently sell more comprehensive plans that meet certain Obamacare requirements. Further votes on various versions of the BCRA or alternative bills could happen later this week.

Option 2: Repeal Only

A number of Republican Senators have already stated they will not support a repeal bill in the absence of replacement legislation. As early as Wednesday afternoon, a vote could be held on a repeal bill similar to one vetoed by President Barack Obama in 2016. According to the Congressional Budget Office, that bill would lead to 32 million more uninsured Americans within 10 years.

Another idea that has been floated is known as a “skinny repeal,” which would eliminate a few of Obamacare’s provisions while still leaving intact others. The narrow repeal would get rid of Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates, which required individuals to have health insurance coverage and employers to provide insurance or pay a penalty. It may also repeal Obamacare’s medical device tax. It’s possible that the “skinny repeal” bill could dramatically change when the House and Senate meet to reconcile each chamber’s respective bills.

The road ahead is still long and filled with potentially unbridgeable divides. Immediately following Tuesday’s vote, a number of Republicans suggested they would not support a bill that is not significantly different than what has already been presented.

Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) said: “If the final product isn’t improved for the state of Nevada, then I will not vote for it; if it is improved, I will support it.” And Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who returned from his week-long absence on Tuesday to cast a “yea” vote on the motion to proceed, said: “Asking us to swallow our doubts and force it past a unified opposition–I don’t think that’s going to work in the end, and probably shouldn’t.” McCain, who was recently diagnosed with brain cancer, said it “seems likely” the effort would fail.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Next in the Republicans’ Effort to Repeal and Replace Obamacare? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The Senate is Voting on…Something?

Today, the Senate will vote on something to do with health care, but it’s not clear exactly what. The Senate has been working to pass, or at least debate, some sort of bill to repeal and replace Obamacare for weeks, but the most recent efforts were derailed when senators couldn’t agree on the “replace” portion. After that, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell started pushing for a “repeal now, replace later” approach.

One of the challenges for Senate Republican leadership is that no more than two Republican senators can defect. Senator Susan Collins of Maine has made it clear that she intends to vote “no.” While Senator John McCain, who was diagnosed with brain cancer last week, is reportedly returning to Capitol Hill to cast his vote, other defections could stop McConnell’s plan to move any sort of action forward. All eyes are now on two senators who seem likely to join Collins in dissension–Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Regardless of what happens today, the secretive nature of the procedures have frustrated many:

Health care vote today.

– No final text
– No final Byrd guidance
– No final CBO score
– No public hearingshttps://t.co/SCxwL0g5Ev

— Dylan Scott (@dylanlscott) July 25, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 25, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The Health Care Bill Goes from Dying to Dead

The outlook for the Senate Republican health care bill hasn’t been particularly rosy since its introduction. But things got even worse for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last night, when two more senators said they wouldn’t be voting for it. Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Jerry Moran of Kansas both said they oppose moving forward with the bill, joining Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky in their opposition.

After the news broke, McConnell said he would call for a vote to repeal Obamacare now, and come up with a replacement later. While that may appeal to far-right defectors like Paul, Lee, and Moran, it is sure to concern more moderate Republicans who want to ensure that things like Medicaid funding stay in place. For example, Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia–often cited as a potential to vote against the Senate health care bill in the first place–has already said she’s not in favor of that strategy. And President Donald Trump is blaming the Democrats for the bill’s failure…despite the fact that had all the Republicans in the Senate banded together, the bill could have passed.

We were let down by all of the Democrats and a few Republicans. Most Republicans were loyal, terrific & worked really hard. We will return!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 18, 2017

With only a very small majority, the Republicans in the House & Senate need more victories next year since Dems totally obstruct, no votes!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 18, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 18, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Republicans unveiled a revised draft of their new health care bill Thursday, the chamber’s second crack at repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act. The new draft, released at a closed-door, Republican-only meeting Thursday morning by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), contains an amendment aimed at the Senate’s most conservative members. Only two Republicans can oppose the bill for it to still pass, though as of Thursday, a handful have expressed deep reservations about the proposal.

The revised legislation largely resembles the initial Senate plan which was released last month. Medicaid would still face steep cuts, a provision that has led many moderate Republicans from states that recently expanded Medicaid to oppose the bill.

Perhaps the most striking change to the bill is an amendment courtesy of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), one of the Senate’s most conservative members. The so-called Cruz Amendment would permit insurance companies to offer plans that fail to meet certain Obamacare regulations, as long as they concurrently sell plans that do. Critics of the amendment, which was presented in the document in brackets–meaning it is liable to change–say it would hike care costs for sick people.

Under the revised plan, two taxes on the wealthy imposed by Obamacare would remain in place, as would a tax on health executives’ pay. The measure would also infuse a $112 billion “stability fund,” aimed at lowering premiums, with an additional $70 billion. Addressing lawmakers’ concerns about the ongoing opioid crisis, the bill earmarks $45 billion toward combating drug addiction.

Still, McConnell and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the majority whip, must corral enough “yea” votes in a caucus with a cacophony of competing voices. There are moderates, like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who have objected to the Republican bill at every turn. On Thursday afternoon, Collins tweeted, “Still deep cuts to Medicaid in Senate bill. Will vote no on MTP. Ready to work w/ GOP & Dem colleagues to fix flaws in ACA.”

And then there are heels-dug-in conservatives who viewed the initial bill as not being far enough to the right, like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT). Lee, who previously advocated for the Cruz Amendment, would like to see more details before signing off on the revised bill, according to a spokesman. The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan budget analysis agency, is reviewing two versions of the bill–one with the Cruz Amendment, one without.

Many senators have expressed reservations that the bill, which will likely be debated next week, will even be considered.

“I don’t even know that it’s going to get to a vote,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told Politico. Appearing on Fox News on Thursday morning, Cornyn, the man responsible for ensuring the bill garners the requisite number of votes, said: “If you vote ‘no’ on this bill, it essentially is a vote for Obamacare because that’s what we’re going to be left with.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Republicans Release Revised Health Care Plan appeared first on Law Street.

As Republican Senators prepared to release a version of their new health care legislation on Thursday, a group of protesters gathered outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office. But many of them were eventually physically removed from the scene.

The rally was organized by ADAPT, a national disability rights organization, according to CNN. In their statement, the protesters said that they are “demanding [McConnell] bring an end to attacks on disabled people’s freedom which are expected in the bill.”

So, the majority of protesters were either advocates for those with disabilities or those directly impacted by a handicap, according to USA Today. Instead of calling their protest a “sit-in” they referred to it as a “die-in,” demonstrating their belief that the GOP health care bill would put many Americans in grave danger without dependable health care.

ADAPT’s statement also noted that the protest took place on the 18th anniversary of Olmstead v. L.C. – the Supreme Court decision that recognized disabled people’s right to live in communities rather than institutions.

After President Donald Trump took office and vowed to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, the Republicans have been trying to craft their own version of the bill. They faced harsh criticism from both sides of the aisle for their secrecy regarding the bill’s contents before unveiling it on Thursday.

Citizens nationwide were offended by both the process surrounding the creation of the bill and the contents of the bill itself. So, the protesters felt it was incumbent to voice their concerns to one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress.

While the protests remained mostly peaceful, Capitol Police were called in at some point and began to forcefully remove protesters despite their constitutional right to protest the government.

Capitol Police are physically removing protesters who are staging a “die-in” in front of McConnell’s office pic.twitter.com/8BU0dW63VI

— Andrew Desiderio (@desiderioDC) June 22, 2017

The police force ultimately arrested around 20 people, many of whom were either on respirators or confined to wheelchairs, according to the Huffington Post. Custodians also had to be sent to the hallway in order to clean up blood, according to Daily Beast reporter Andrew Desiderio.

The group took particular exception to the proposed cuts to Medicaid. At one point the crowd began chanting: “No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty!”

“No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty.” Group chants in front of @SenateMajLdr‘s office. pic.twitter.com/fVJpufMDgC

— Jessica Smith (@JessicaASmith8) June 22, 2017

The health care bill has to be voted on by the Senate and go back to the House, so it will likely be modified. But the violence that these protesters faced at the hands of Capitol Police is upsetting. Instead of having their voices heard, they had their free speech stymied and were physically injured.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters Physically Removed from Outside Mitch McConnell’s Office appeared first on Law Street.

Following their failed effort to pass health care legislation in March, House Republicans are set to vote on a bill Thursday that would repeal and replace large chunks of the Affordable Care Act. According to House Majority Leader, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the bill has secured enough votes to pass. “We have enough votes,” he said on Wednesday night. “It’ll pass.”

The renewed push for a Republican health care overhaul began in mid-April when Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) introduced an amendment aimed at attracting the more conservative congressmen who balked at the initial bill. The so-called MacArthur amendment needed a boost, however, and Rep. Fred Upton, a Republican from Michigan, recently introduced another addition to the law: an $8 billion infusion for insurers to cover patients with pre-existing conditions.

“It’s our understanding that the $8 billion over the five years will more than cover those that might be impacted and, as a consequence, keeps our pledge for those that, in fact, would be otherwise denied [coverage] because of pre-existing illnesses,” Upton said at the White House on Wednesday.

Even if the bill passes the House, Republicans in the Senate could gum it up and give it a major facelift to attract Democratic support and make it more palatable to members of their own party. With a 52-48 majority in the Senate, Republicans have a much narrower margin of error. In order for the bill to pass the Senate, it would need 60 votes–eight Democrats would need to support it.

Republican Senators in states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare–like Ohio and West Virginia–would likely take issue with the Republican bill’s squeeze on Medicaid payments. And hard-line conservatives like Mike Lee (UT) and Ted Cruz (TX), could nudge the bill more to the right. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told reporters passing the bill will “be a real big challenge on the Senate side as well.”

Meanwhile, the top ranking Democrats in the House and Senate, Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Chuck Schumer (NY) respectively, strongly rejected the new Republican bill. Schumer tweeted that Upton’s amendment is “like trying to cure stage 4 cancer with cough medicine.” Pelosi, in public remarks on Thursday morning from Capitol Hill, said “Republicans are in a lose-lose situation.” She added that for Republicans supporting the Obamacare replacement bill, “This is a scar that they will carry.”

A number of health industry organizations, including the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and AARP, have expressed their opposition to the bill. Andrew Gurman, president of the American Medical Association, said Upton’s amendment and other changes “tinker at the edges without remedying the fundamental failing of the bill–that millions of Americans will lose their health insurance as a direct result of this proposal.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If the Health Care Bill Passes the House, Will it Pass the Senate? appeared first on Law Street.

The year-long scuffle over the Supreme Court’s ninth seat ended Friday morning, when the Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last February. Voting largely along party lines–save for three Democrats–the 54-45 vote capped weeks of fierce debate, culminating in a historic rule change that could further deepen the partisan rancor in the Senate.

After failing to secure the 60 votes needed to break a Democratic filibuster, Senate Republicans on Thursday triggered the so-called “nuclear option,” effectively disposing of the filibuster option for Supreme Court nominees. As a result, the 60-vote threshold dropped to a simple majority which, with 52 members in the 100-member chamber, Republicans had no trouble reaching.

“[Gorsuch] has sterling credentials, an excellent record and an ideal judicial temperament,” Sen. Mitch McConnell said after the vote. “He has the independence of mind for fairness.” Throughout 20 hours of questioning from the Senate during his confirmation hearings last month, Gorsuch was predictably elusive, neglecting to say where he would stand on specific issues.

Democrats said his strict interpretation of the Constitution put him out of the “mainstream,” and argued he too often ruled in favor of big corporations. But from the beginning, the fight was a referendum on the man who nominated Gorsuch, President Donald Trump. It was also retribution for McConnell’s refusal to give Merrick Garland–who President Barack Obama nominated to the seat–a hearing. McConnell argued a sitting-duck president should not have the authority to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court.

But despite weeks of mostly uniform Democratic resistance to Gorsuch, three Democrats, all from states that Trump captured in the election, supported him: Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin III (WV), and Joe Donnelly (IN). Republican Johnny Isakson of Georgia did not cast a vote.

With an immovable Democratic resistance threatening to derail the nomination of a candidate who, by many metrics, was qualified, Republicans took the extreme step of pursuing the “nuclear option.” For legislative votes, however, the filibuster will remain in place. The move was not without precedent. In 2013, then-Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid dismantled the filibuster option for lower federal court picks and cabinet appointees.

After leading the resistance against Gorsuch, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the minority leader, said he hopes Gorsuch will not be beholden to the man who nominated him to the court. “I hope Judge Gorsuch has listened to our debate here in the Senate, particularly about our concerns about the Supreme Court increasingly drifting towards becoming a more pro-corporate court that favors employers, corporations and special interests over working Americans,” Schumer said, imploring Gorsuch to be “the independent and fair-minded justice that America badly needs.” Gorsuch will be sworn in on Monday.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Day After the Rule Change, Senate Confirms Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

Neil Gorsuch will likely face an uphill battle in securing the Supreme Court’s vacant ninth seat. On Thursday, the last day of Gorsuch’s Senate confirmation hearings, Democrats signaled they would filibuster President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court. That would leave Republicans with two options: introduce a new nominee, or pursue the so-called “nuclear option,” and obliterate the filibuster possibility for Supreme Court nominees.

In a speech on the Senate floor Thursday morning, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Minority Leader, said Gorsuch “will have to earn 60 votes for confirmation,” adding: “My vote will be no.” As the rules stand, Gorsuch would require 60 votes–eight Democrats along with the 52 Republican Senators–to pass. If Republicans decide to scrap the filibuster option, a simple majority would be sufficient.

Voicing a common concern among Democrats and liberal groups, Schumer said he fears Gorsuch would interpret the law in an ultra-conservative manner. “His career and judicial record suggest not a neutral legal mind but someone with a deep-seated conservative ideology,” Schumer said, adding that if Gorsuch cannot clear the 60-vote mark, “the answer isn’t to change the rules,” but “to change the nominee.”

If Republicans, led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), choose to scrap the filibuster–something Trump has expressed support for–they would not be without precedent. In 2013, Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader at the time, changed the rules for most presidential appointments, including federal judiciary nominees and cabinet appointees, to require simple majorities instead of the 60-vote threshold. Reid, who recently retired, kept the filibuster in place for Supreme Court nominees.

In undoing the filibuster, Reid and most Democrats (a few opposed the move) said it was a necessary response to what they saw as unprecedented Republican obstruction. Republicans saw it as a gross abuse of power that would come back to haunt Reid. McConnell called it a “power grab.” Indeed, many of Trump’s less-popular cabinet appointments narrowly passed the Senate, and likely would have been thwarted had the ability to filibuster been in place.

Gorsuch’s best chance at securing the nomination could come through the handful of Democrats who will be up for re-election next year in states that Trump won. But if Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), who is up for re-election next year, is a harbinger of how his colleagues will vote, Gorsuch would fall short of 60 votes. “I have serious concerns about Judge Gorsuch’s rigid and restrictive judicial philosophy,” Casey, said on Thursday. Gorsuch, he said, “employs the narrowest possible reading of federal law and exercises extreme skepticism, even hostility, toward executive branch agencies.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Democrats Signal That They Will Filibuster The Gorsuch Vote appeared first on Law Street.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is apparently fed up with the outspoken and plucky Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. Tuesday evening, McConnell invoked an obscure, and rarely-used rule which effectively silenced Warren. Here’s what happened:

In a Senate debate about Wednesday’s confirmation vote for Attorney General Nominee Jeff Sessions, Warren began to read a letter written by Coretta Scott King in 1986. Warren quoted King, whose letter addressed Sessions’ record on civil rights as a U.S. attorney, saying that Sessions used “the awesome power of his office to chill the pre-exercise of the vote by black citizens.” King was writing to oppose Sessions’ nomination to a federal judgeship in Alabama, a position he was ultimately denied.

A US Senator isn’t allowed to read a letter by a civil rights icon but our President is allowed to attack one. #LetLizSpeak. #StopSessions pic.twitter.com/Up4H4NWDII

— Tracy Wehringer (@twehringer) February 8, 2017

McConnell, the Senate majority leader, responded to Warren’s letter reading by citing Rule 19, saying: “The senator has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama, as warned by the chair.” Voting along party lines, the Senate agreed with McConnell 49 to 43. So, what exactly is Rule 19, and where does it come from?

It’s an old one: in February 1902, a quarrel broke out between two Democratic Senators from Alabama, Benjamin Tillman and John McLaurin. Tillman was angry that McLaurin seemed to be swayed by the Republicans on certain issues, namely on the question of annexing the Philippines. Tillman accused McLaurin of treachery and corruption, and what happened next is what led directly to the creation of Rule 19.

“The 54-year-old Tillman jumped from his place and physically attacked McLaurin, who was 41, with a series of stinging blows,” according to Senate history. “Efforts to separate the two combatants resulted in misdirected punches landing on other members.” A few months later, the Senate enacted Rule 19, with the goal of tidying up decorum on the Senate floor.

Now, had Warren continued, it’s unlikely she and McConnell would have had a physical altercation. But Rule 19’s language is not just about deterring physical conflict. The rule states: “No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.” Basically, don’t undermine a fellow senator by questioning his or her ability to govern.

The last time the Senate even came close to using Rule 19 to silence a senator was in 1979, when a heated debate between Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-CT) and Sen. John Heinz (R-PA) became heated. Heinz reportedly showed Weicker Rule 19, the two shook hands, and the situation was resolved. Last year, McConnell might have had cause to invoke Rule 19 against a fellow Republican, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz accused McConnell of lying “over and over and over again.”

According to McConnell, Warren has repeatedly brushed with breaking Rule 19. Reading a letter written by King, it seems, was the final straw. “Sen. Warren was giving a lengthy speech,” McConnell told reporters after the incident. “She had appeared to violate the rule. She was warned. She was given an explanation,” He added: “Nevertheless, she persisted.” Later Tuesday evening, Warren read the letter in full on Facebook. Two million people watched–and listened.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mitch McConnell vs. Elizabeth Warren: What is Rule 19? appeared first on Law Street.

It all began almost exactly one year ago: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead in his hunting lodge in Texas. We all know what happened next. President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill Scalia’s seat. Republicans, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, refused to allow Garland a hearing. The stonewalling paid off when Donald Trump won the presidential election in November. On Tuesday, President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch, a federal appeals court judge in Denver, to fill the vacant post. But Gorsuch has a number of hurdles to clear before he can take a seat on the most coveted bench in the land.

First, he must complete a questionnaire that can run up to a few hundred pages long. Gorsuch will have to cite every opinion he has written. He will also have to divulge all of his sources of income–including speaking fees–and any essays and other documents he has written. The Senate will examine his answers, the FBI will conduct a background check, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct investigations of their own.

Next, after procedural obstacles are cleared, the long and arduous journey to the confirmation hearing will begin. Gorsuch will meet privately with Senators of both parties. Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans will hash out the details of the confirmation hearing, such as when it will be held, and how many witnesses will be allowed to participate. To prepare for the hearing, which can last three to four days, Gorsuch will undergo a mock hearing with his advisers, where they will try to foresee any questions that might be hurled his way.

The final step, a Senate vote, is where things can get really interesting. This is no ordinary vote. Many Democrats vividly remember how Republicans treated Garland; others seem ready to support Gorsuch. Confirmation, as the rules currently stand, requires 60 Senate votes. There are 52 Republican Senators and 46 Democrats (and two Independents). Therefore, if the GOP unanimously backs Gorsuch, they would need eight Democrats to push him through.

But the chorus of Democrats who wish to obstruct Trump’s nominee as the Republicans did Obama’s nominee is growing. As the rules stand, they do have that ability: Democrats could choose to filibuster and effectively refuse to give Gorsuch the 60 votes he needs to pass. There are signs, however, that McConnell is willing to change the rules to lower the threshold of votes needed to pass to 51, or a simple majority vote. If that happens, Gorsuch would sail through the confirmation vote.

In a meeting with McConnell and other Republicans, Trump seemed to support a rule change if it comes to that. “If we end up with that gridlock, I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear,'” he said. In 2013, Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate majority leader at the time who has since retired, provided a blueprint for a rule change. Responding to Republican opposition to Obama’s agenda, Reid slashed the filibuster option for cabinet positions and other presidential nominations, including judicial nominees. If McConnell embraces the same route, the rule change would affect Supreme Court nominations beyond Gorsuch, beyond Trump’s presidency, and beyond the current Republican hold on Congress.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happens Next for SCOTUS Nominee Neil Gorsuch? appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Democrats chose their next leader on Wednesday: Chuck Schumer of New York. He will be succeeding Harry Reid (NV), who will be retiring after the current term. Republicans stuck with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Both struck a conciliatory tone, in regard to working with the opposing party and President-elect Donald Trump, in interviews with reporters after the closed-door vote.

“It’s time to accept the results of the election, to lower the tone and to see what we can do together to make progress for the country,” McConnell, 74, said. Schumer, when asked about collaborating with Trump said, “Where we can work together we will,” adding: “On issues where we disagree, you can expect a strong and tough fight.”

Honored & humbled by the support of my colleagues to be the next leader of our caucus & by the support from so many of you. Thank you.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) November 16, 2016

Schumer, 65, also announced a 10-member Senate leadership team, comprised of lawmakers that run the left-leaning ideological gamut, including progressives like Bernie Sanders (VT) and Elizabeth Warren (MA), and moderates like Joe Manchin (WV). Aides said that Schumer and the members of his leadership team were chosen unanimously.

Majority Leader McConnell is not exactly known for acquiescing to the opposing party. He spent much of the spring and summer refusing to allow Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, a confirmation vote from Senate Republicans. He has shown some signs of collaboration, however. In 2013, he worked with Vice President Joe Biden to raise taxes on the rich.

McConnell will have more leverage this time around, and Senate Democrats will likely be under pressure to cooperate with Republicans, as 23 of the 33 seats up in the 2018 midterms belong to incumbent Democrats. Schumer shares certain priorities with Trump, like investing in infrastructure projects, that could bode well for avoiding a gridlocked Senate, much like the Republicans have been under President Obama.

In his remarks after Wednesday’s vote, Schumer seemed ready to move on from last week’s surprising outcome. “We heard the American people loud and clear,” he said. “They felt that the government wasn’t working for them. They felt that the economy was rigged against them in many places and that the government was too beholden to big money and special interests.” He added that Democrats will pursue a “bigger, bolder, sharper-edged economic message” in the future.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Schumer and McConnell Named as Senate Leaders appeared first on Law Street.

As Donald Trump continues his rise in the presidential election–from a businessman joking about running for president to the man who will almost certainly be the Republican Party nominee–several Republican leaders have had to decide whether or not they are going to suck it up and support him. While some Republicans have refused to support Trump or have withdrawn their endorsements because of his repeatedly racist rhetoric, many leaders have given him their political blessing as it has become apparent that he is all they have left.

In the beginning, there was obvious hesitation to support trump. Around a month ago, Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House and highest ranking GOP official, was nowhere near willing to commit to the Donald Trump bandwagon. Ryan had slammed Trump for his plan to ban Muslims from entering the country, pointing out the plan’s unconstitutionality and inherent lack of conservatism. And when Trump refused to disavow David Duke in February, Ryan responded by saying,

If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not prey on people’s prejudices.

It seems that Ryan and others have decided to weaken the Republican Party stance on bigotry, however, as several party leaders have now readily accepted Trump as their nominee, brushing off his inappropriate behavior and rhetoric as accidental.

A recent example of this hypocrisy? This week Trump has been under fire for inherently racist comments against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In an attack add, Hillary Clinton’s campaign capitalized on Trump’s statement and some Republican Party members’ decision to speak out against him.

The video shows clips of Trump’s racist interview claims that Judge Curiel could not fairly judge his case because of his Mexican heritage. His statements are then followed by different clips of prominent Republicans disapproving of his racist claims.

Paul Ryan admitted that Trump’s statements were textbook examples of racism and that he regretted the comments. Mitch McConnell criticized Trump’s statements as stupid inappropriate. Newt Gingrich labeled the comments inexcusable and Trump an amateur. But, while these Republican leaders are disavowing Trump’s remarks on TV or in the news, the sad thing is they and the rest of the party are continuing to support him nonetheless. Party leaders have repeatedly acknowledged Trump’s blatant bigotry, inappropriate rhetoric, and repeated racism, but they still stand behind him and continue pushing for him to be our next President.

At best, Republican support of Donald Trump is some kind of misguided attempt to hold the party together. At worst, the support is grounded in a firm belief in Trump’s plan to destroy all racial diversity and cultural variety in America. GOP leaders need to wake up and realize that the remarks that Donald Trump keeps making on air and in interviews, time and time again, aren’t just silly mistakes–they are who he is. And, then, if party leaders really want to put the force of their party behind the bigoted monster Trump has become (or has always been), they need to accept the consequences that decision will have for their future as a political party and our future as Americans.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Republican Party Leaders Acknowledge They’re Backing a Racist appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Since Scalia’s death, Senate Republicans have been vowing that they will not hold hearings on whoever Obama nominates, because he’s in the last year of his office. But with Garland as his choice, Obama is essentially calling their bluff–Garland is by most accounts a moderate, and has received Republican support in the past. So, will the Senate Republicans continue to block Garland? Or will they “do their job?”

The news that Obama had chosen Garland as his nominee led to predictably mixed reactions around Washington. As expected, Republican leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Grassley, who chairs the Senate judiciary committee, both stuck to their lines that a new justice shouldn’t be chosen until the next President is in office.

A few Senate Republicans did acknowledge that the Senators should at least meet with Garland and vet him–Senator Susan Collins of Maine said:

I believe that we should follow the regular order in considering this nominee. The Constitution’s very clear that the president has every right to make this nomination, and then the Senate can either consent or withhold its consent.

A few other Republicans, including Senator Jeff Flake, admitted that they would consider nominating Garland in a lame duck session if Hillary Clinton (or another Democrat) is elected in November.

As expected, most Democrats responded to the Republican blockade with frustration. The senior-most Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy stated:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Americans Tell the Senate: #DoYourJob appeared first on Law Street.

After the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, President Obama announced that he would nominate an “indisputably qualified” candidate to take Scalia’s place. Apparently to many House republicans, “indisputable” is indeed, disputable. And while it’s all well and good to take your time evaluating the credentials of a person who could feasibly be making important decisions for the country for the next forty-plus years, refusing outright to look at any nominees is obstructionist nonsense. As with most political nonsense, members of Congress are finding excuses for their actions. Here are a few of their “reasons” behind that un-constitutional garbage, each dumber than the last:

1. The Thurmond Rule

Several GOP candidates have cited “The Thurmond Rule” as a reason to avoid appointing a new justice in an election year. For the unfamiliar, here’s a recap on the person behind The Thurmond rule:

Strom Thurmond, a South Carolina senator, was one of the most aggressive segregationists in modern American history. This is a man who never fully renounced his belief in segregation all the way to his death in 2003. That’s right, iPods existed, and this influential man still didn’t dial back his position that black people and white people should use separate bathrooms. This is a man who impregnated his family’s sixteen year-old black maid, fathered an illegitimate mixed-race daughter, and secretly paid for her schooling while railing against her right to share a bus seat with a white person.  This is a man who makes George Wallace look like Beyoncé Knowles.

So now that we’ve gotten a quick re-cap on the historically heinous opinions of Mr. Thurmond, we can understand just how much weight we should give his opinion on Supreme Court Nominations. And while people refer to Thurmond’s argument as a “rule,” it’s really just one guy’s suggestion. That suggestion is that the Senate should not nominate a Supreme Court justice. And even if we were to take this rule of thumb as the letter of the law, we’d need to look at Thurmond’s exact quote. In a moment where he wasn’t disparaging ethnic minorities, he said: “No lifetime judicial appointments should move in the last six months or so of a lame-duck presidency.”

Barack Obama has over eleven months left in his presidency, and nine months until the presidential election. By any measure, that’s more than six months, and this rule of thumb shouldn’t apply.

2. “Conflict of Interest”

In a cart-before-the-horse argument, Rand Paul said that Obama should not be allowed to appoint a justice, because potential nominees would support the Presidents’ own issues facing the Supreme Court, such as his executive actions concerning immigration, and his climate change regulations.

There will always be a potential for a president to choose a nominee who supports the same interpretation of the law as they do. In fact, the court’s more conservatives justices; Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and formerly Scalia, were all appointed by Republican presidents. The more liberal justices, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer were all appointed by Democratic presidents. That’s kind of just how it works. Obviously it works in the President’s own favor to elect a similarly-minded justice. That’s why we democratically elect a president whose political ideologies align best with the majority of Americans–so that his political decisions won’t be subject to an arbitrary whim.

Here’s the thing: if Obama picks a strongly biased or crony nominee, that person won’t make it through the Senate’s approval. That’s the check on Obama’s power that already exists, and which should be used regardless of political affiliation to make sure that the person nominated is qualified, and not unduly biased.

Thankfully, Paul qualified his argument to be less resolute “It’s going to be very, very, very difficult to get me to vote for a presidential nomination from this president,” he said. “I will look at it if it comes down, but my threshold for voting for somebody is going to be very, very high.” I’d hope that his threshold would he high regardless, and not exceptionally high simply because a Democrat is in office. We’ll have to see how he ends up voting.

3. We Owe It To Scalia / There’s No Precedent

We’ve heard a lot from GOP presidential candidates about honoring Justice Scalia’s legacy, How do you best honor the passing of a strict originalist? By ignoring the text of the constitution, of course.

Senate Majority Leader and alleged turtle Mitch McConnell responded to Scalia’s death by saying “This vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” But Scalia was known for his very literal reading of the constitution.

If Scalia had been asked about the nomination for his successor, he’d pull out his pocket-sized (but never abridged) copy of the Constitution, and zero-in on article II, Section 2. That section says “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint … judges of the Supreme Court.” Then Justice Scalia could slap Mitch McConnell across the face with that Constitution for misrepresenting the founders’ original intent.

Unfortunately in his absence, we have candidates decrying that there’s no precedent for a Supreme Court appointment in an election year, and that there’s no time for a candidate to be vetted. The only trouble with those arguments are that they are just not true. For one, there have indeed been Supreme Court appointments during an election year, as NPR explains brilliantly in its rundown of SCOTUS history.

And the notion that there’s no time is also unfounded. The longest Supreme Court Justice nomination took 125 days, after Louis D. Brandeis was confirmed in 1916. Actually, if the Senate waited until our 45th president nominated a Supreme Court Justice, the country would endure the longest vacancy on the court in the last thirty years: well above the earlier record of 237 days.

No matter how you slice it, President Obama is well within his constitutional rights to appoint a Supreme Court Justice of his choosing, so long as the Senate fulfills its constitutional obligation to fairly assess and vet the nominee. All of the reasons presented by these legislators are simply excuses for being deliberately obstructive to the legal procedure mandated by the Constitution.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The 3 Dumbest Reasons To Block Obama’s SCOTUS Pick appeared first on Law Street.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead at 79 today at Cibolo Creek Ranch, in Texas. A conservative fixture on the court since he was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia’s death leaves a hole in the bench–filling it already promises to be contentious in today’s hostile political environment.

According to sources, Scalia was in Texas at a resort this weekend. He complained that he did not feel well last night, went to bed, and didn’t show up for breakfast this morning, so his hunting party left without him. He was later found to have passed away in his sleep, from natural causes.

His colleagues, as well as other top political voices, mourned his passing. Chief Justice John Roberts stated:

He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by his colleagues. His passing is a great loss to the Court and the country he so loyally served. We extend our deepest condolences to his wife Maureen and his family.

Additionally, 2016 candidates weighed in on Scalia’s legacy:

My thoughts and prayers are with Justice Scalia’s family and his colleagues on the court who mourn his passing. pic.twitter.com/Y51xUMMEId

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 13, 2016

The totally unexpected loss of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a massive setback for the Conservative movement and our COUNTRY! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 13, 2016

Statement on the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: pic.twitter.com/xazj9dDd5c

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 14, 2016

Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement. — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) February 13, 2016

Jeanette & I mourn the loss of Justice Scalia, and our thoughts & prayers are with his wife Maureen & his family. pic.twitter.com/e03KRZRM6q

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 13, 2016

President Barack Obama stated:

Obviously, today is a time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy. I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. These are responsibilities I take seriously, as should everyone.

However, the arguably most controversial statement came from Senator Mitch McConnell, who stated: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

Given President Obama’s sitting duck status, the fight to replace Scalia will probably be incredibly controversial, especially given McConnell’s fighting words. But for now, the United States mourns a leading legal mind.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Found Dead appeared first on Law Street.

Vermonters really like Bernie Sanders, and Kentuckians aren’t too fond of Mitch McConnell, according to a recent survey from the polling firm Morning Consultant.

According to the survey–which was conducted over a period of several months polling over 75,000 people in total–83 percent of Vermonters approved of Bernie Sanders’ job performance while only 38 percent of Mitch McConnell’s constituents approved of his performance. McConnell, the Senate Majority leader, was the only Senator whose disapproval rating is higher than his approval rating–38 percent and 52 percent, respectively. The poll’s full results are at the bottom of the article, click here to jump there now.

There are currently five senators running for president, and after Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz is the next most popular with an approval rating of 52 percent.

The poll’s findings suggest that Senators from small states tend to be more popular among their constituents. The five most popular senators come from Vermont (with two in the top five), Maine, Wyoming, and North Dakota, all of which are also among the states with the smallest populations. While an important part of Bernie Sanders’ popularity is likely his ongoing presidential campaign, the relative popularity of small-state senators indicate that his campaign is probably not the only factor at play. One possible explanation is that in states with the fewest people, it may be easier for senators to hold views that more closely align with their constituents.

It’s also interesting to look at the senators with the lowest approval ratings. At the bottom of the pack are Senators Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Gary Peters of Michigan, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Menendez is currently facing a federal indictment for corruption charges, Peters was very recently elected, and McConnell holds a particularly polarizing position as the Senate Majority leader and recently finished a very contentious reelection campaign. This also isn’t McConnell’s first time with a  low rating; a 2012 poll found similar results. And while Peters’ approval rating was just 37 percent, his disapproval rating was also low (27 percent), indicating that a large number of respondents didn’t have enough information to evaluate him.

While most Americans have a very negative view of Congress in general, opinions of individual senators are typically much higher. Overall, the average job approval among Democrats and Republicans are pretty close, as each sits just above 50 percent. According to the Morning Consultant data, Democratic senators average a job performance approval rating of 54 percent while Republicans have an approval rating of about 51 percent. The two independent Senators–Bernie Sanders and Angus King–have a considerably higher average approval rating, about 74 percent.

The table below provides the full data from the Morning Consultant poll. In total, the firm polled 76,569 Americans. The median sample size was 1,172 people, varying from 198 registered voters in Wyoming to 6,696 voters in California. When looking at the data it is important to take the margin of error into account, as states with a much smaller sample have a wider corresponding margin of error. For example, the margin of error in the Vermont poll was +/- 6.5 percent, which means that Bernie Sanders’ approval can be somewhere between 89.5 and 76.5.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who are the Most Popular Senators? appeared first on Law Street.

One of the markers of the current political climate is the animosity between President Obama and Congress. One of the manifestations of this climate can be seen in the fact that Loretta Lynch’s nomination for Attorney General has continued to languish in the halls of the Senate. If his remarks at a recent press conference are any indication, President Obama has had enough.

Loretta Lynch was nominated for the position of Attorney General nearly six months ago on November 8, 2014, but her nomination has been held up in the Senate since that point. There aren’t really any substantive reasons though, as no one seems to have any objections to Lynch’s qualifications for the job. While there are some concerns over her opinions on President Obama’s immigration reform, it seems like she’ll eventually be confirmed. It’s just a matter of when at this point.

The when is difficult though, as her nomination is being held up until a bill on human trafficking is settled, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Democrats, however, object to the bill because it contains a provision that prevents any money from the crime victims’ compensation fund from being spent on abortion services. Not only do many Senate Democrats object to the provision on moral grounds, they also claim that the Republicans surprised them by adding that provision to the bill without consulting them. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) stated,

I don’t know how that happened or who was the author of it. But the fact is, the bill that is on the floor today has a provision in it that we were told would not be included.

However, until this matter is solved, McConnell has said that they won’t vote on Lynch’s nomination. He’s framed it as a matter of priority–it’s important to finish a bill that will help trafficking victims before moving on to Lynch’s nomination. But it’s become a game of political chicken, and her nomination is caught right in the middle.

A sense of frustration and exasperation is exactly what the President expressed in a press conference Froday when speaking about the hold ups to the Lynch nomination. He emphatically stated,

Enough. Enough. Call Loretta Lynch for a vote, get her confirmed, let her do her job. This is embarrassing. There are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far. This is an example of it.

Regardless of Obama’s impassioned statements, it’s highly doubtful that his remarks will have any effect on the GOP Senators’ actions. Especially after the fights over the Iran deal and Obama’s immigration reform, there’s no real lost love between the executive and legislative branches. Lynch’s nomination will probably remain in limbo, at least for now.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Lashes Out at Senate Over Loretta Lynch Confirmation Hold Up appeared first on Law Street.

In 1858, then-Senator Abraham Lincoln made one of his most famous speeches. In this particular speech he referenced the bible in stating, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” At that time, of course, Lincoln was referring to the schism that divided the nation, namely should we be a free country or a slave-owning country? While the slavery question has been answered, the idea of a divided nation has continued and seemingly grown as time passed. The problem now is not over any singular issue, but the conduct of various branches of the government. In short, what effect does public disagreement over foreign policy issues have on the United States in presenting a unified front when trying to implement some type of cohesive strategy?

History of Disagreement

With the two most recent high-profile episodes of dissension in federal government–the Senate Republicans’ letter to Iran and the House Republicans’ invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress without executive consent–it may appear as though these events were particularly egregious; however, disagreement between members of the government is certainly not something new. For that matter, this level of disagreement is not even that extraordinary. In fact, at various times throughout the nation’s history members or former members of the government have engaged in literal duels where one of the parties was actually killed. Of course those are the extreem examples of disagreement, but they are part of our history nonetheless.

The 1980s seemed like an especially appropriate time to publicly undermine the president and his foreign policy, as evidenced by two specific events. In 1983, Senator Ted Kennedy allegedly secretly conspired with the then-premier of the USSR to help him defeat Ronald Reagan and win the presidency. Just a year later, in 1984, Democrats wrote a letter to the leader of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua that was critical of the president and forgave the rebel regime’s many atrocities.

Another episode occurred in 1990 when former president Jimmy Carter wrote to the members of the United Nations Security Council denouncing President Bush’s efforts to authorize the Gulf War. In 2002, several democratic senators went to Iraq on a trip financed by late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and actually actively campaigned for his government. This was also aimed at undermining support for the second president Bush’s Iraq War. And the most recent example came in 2007 when newly elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with President Basher Assad. Even before he had launched a civil war on his own people, Assad had already made enemies of the Bush Administration by supporting insurgents in Iraq.

This is the context in which Congress’ most recent acts of defiance should be considered. When Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak to congress without the consent of the president, he knew perfectly well that Netanyahu would come to urge the use of force in preventing a nuclear armed Iran. This strategy is the complete opposite of the one pursued by the Obama Administration, which has centered on negotiation, give and take. The video below explains why this invitation was so controversial.

The second most recent act of dissent also comes in relation to a nuclear deal with Iran. In this case, 47 senators signed a letter to Iran stating that any agreement between President Obama and the Ayatollah will be considered as an executive agreement only and subject to being overturned when a new president is elected. The video below explores the ramifications of the letter.

Taken alone these efforts by Republicans appear outrageous and indeed even treasonous. But they are actually just two more in a series of moves from both parties to undermine the other. The main difference this time is that it was the Republicans doing the undermining of a Democratic President.

Roles in Foreign policy for Each Branch of the Government

The three branches of the government–the judicial, legislative, and executive branches–each play a role in determining foreign policy. While the courts are instrumental in determining the constitutionality, and therefore legality, of agreements, the legislative and executive branches are the real driving forces behind United States’ foreign policy. So what then are their roles?

Executive

As the saying goes, on paper the President’s foreign policy powers seem limited. According to the Constitution, he is limited to his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and nominating and appointing officials. However, the president has several unofficial powers that are more encompassing. First is the executive agreement, which basically allows the president to make an accord without the consent of Congress. This is what Obama did, for example, in relation to immigration in Fall 2014, as well as the situation to which Republicans referred in their letter to Iran.

This power is perhaps the most important as the president is able to pursue his agenda without needing Congressional support, which is often hostile to his ambitions. Along this same track, the president has the ability to determine the foreign policy agenda, and by doing so making it the agenda for the entire nation.

The executive branch also controls the means to carry out foreign policy through its various agencies. Of particular importance are the Department of State, which handles foreign affairs, and the Department of Defense, which is in charge of military operations. The intelligence community is also a key cog in this branch of government.

Legislative

The role of this branch has traditionally been three-fold: advising the president, approving/disapproving the president’s foreign policy agreements, and confirming appointments to the State Department. Recently these powers have come under challenge as Obama himself has conducted military actions in Libya without getting war powers consent from Congress first.

Like everything else, the roles taken on by the particular branches with regard to foreign policy have expanded far beyond those originally outlined in the Constitution. Nevertheless, because the president, as mentioned previously, serves as both the face of policy and its catalyst, it is generally assumed that he will take the lead in those matters. However, a certain gray area still exists as to specifically who has the right to do what. This role was supposed to be more clearly defined through legislation, namely the Logan Act; however, perpetually changing circumstances, such as the role of the media, have continued to make the boundaries for conduct less clear.

What Happens Next

So what is to be done about these quarrelsome representatives and senators? When Pelosi made her infamous trip to visit Assad in 2007, the Bush Administration was extremely angry and reacted accordingly, deeming her actions as criminal and possibly treasonous. If this rhetoric sounds familiar that is because these are the same types of phrases being hurled at the Congresspeople who invited Netanyahu to speak and condemned Iran with their signatures.

The Logan Act

The real issue here is with who is conducting foreign policy as opposed to who is supposed to, according to the Logan Act. The act was passed in 1799 in response to its namesake’s efforts to single-handedly end the quasi-war with the French by engaging in a solo journey to the country. The basic outline of the act is that no unauthorized person is allowed to negotiate on behalf of the United States with a foreign government during a dispute. Thus, while in theory this was meant to resolve the issue as to who was qualified to represent U.S. foreign policy, the video below explains that is far from what actually occurred.

Along with the damning words being thrown about, critics of the Republican actions also call for their prosecution under this relatively obscure law; however, no such indictments are likely to take place as no one has even been charged under it, not even the man for whom it was named. In addition, the language itself is unclear. For example, wouldn’t congresspeople be considered authorized persons? These threats of prosecution, along with the strong language being thrown about hide another important factor in this whole mess: the role of the media.

Media’s Role

In the tumult following the Iranian letter, a somewhat important piece of evidence has been overlooked. While the senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, indeed signed a letter, the letter was not actually sent anywhere. In fact, after getting 46 other senators to sign the letter, Senator Cotton posted it to his own website and social media accounts. Similarly with the Netanyahu speech, while it is odd for a foreign leader to speak to Congress without approval of the president, the significance of the whole thing can be attributed as much to the stage it was broadcast on as its peculiarity.

There is a history of government officials undermining the White House’s foreign policy. However, in 2015 there are so many avenues to openly and very publicly express dissent that when it does occur it is a bigger deal now than ever. Information is so accessible now, thus when someone posts something to social media anyone all over the world can see it. This is different than if something were broadcast 20 years ago on network news.

Conclusion

In 1951, President Truman removed General MacArthur from command in the Korean War. While MacArthur was one of the most renowned war heroes of WWII, his threats to invade China and expand the war undermined Truman’s efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict. While Truman was able to dismiss MacArthur, this is not true for the current case of branches of government undermining others.Unlike MacArthur who was a general and beholden to the president, these representatives and senators are beholden to the people and cannot be as easily removed. Nor should they, not only because the precedent for this type of disagreement has been set, but also because the president should not have the ability to dismiss everyone who disagrees with him. People voicing their opinions after all, is the whole idea behind representative government.

While recent Republican actions can certainly be termed at least as ill-advised, the question of illegality is much less clear. The Iranians for their part took the letter as well as can be expected, acknowledging its obvious political nature.

Sources

Washington Examiner: 5 Times Democrats Undermined Republican Presidents With Foreign Governments

Foreign Policy Association: How Foreign Policy is Made.

Politico: John Boehner’s Bibi Invite Sets Up Showdown With White House

Intercept: The Parties Role Reversal on Interfering With the Commander-in-Chief’s Foreign Policy

Politico: Iran, Tom Cotton and the Bizarre History of the Logan Act

National Review: The Cotton Letter Was Not Sent Anywhere, Especially Not to Iran

LA Times: Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress Has Politics Written All Over it

The New York Times: Iranian Officials Ask Kerry about Republicans’ Letter

CNN: Did 47 Republican Senators Break the Law in Plain Sight?

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The U.S. Government: A House Divided on Foreign Policy appeared first on Law Street.

The Class of 2018 is having an exciting summer. They get to figure out which dorms they will live in, which intro classes they will take, and, most importantly, which loans they will take out to pay for the next four years. Meanwhile, the Class of 2014 is experiencing some discomfort as they figure out how exactly to pay for those loans they took out four summers ago. Student loans burden a reported 40 million Americans. Read on to learn all about how these people and their finances are impacted by politics.

What is a student loan?

A student loan is pretty self-explanatory. It is a type of loan specifically meant to pay for university tuition and all other costs associated with going to college. This can include books, computers, and housing. Student loans differ greatly from other types of loans. For example, federal student loans do not have to be paid back until graduation. People obtain student loans by filling out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), a form that gives students access to all sorts of financial aid, including Pell Grants and Federal Work Study.

Who provides these student loans?

While some students obtain these loans from private banks, many of them obtain loans from the federal government. Federal loans are all backed and funded by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), which means that the interest rate is often lower than those provided by a private bank.

What are some problems with the student loan system?

The big problem is that so many students need them. Twelve million students each year, 60 percent of all college students, pay some portion of their tuition with student loans. This is partly because college is more expensive than it used to be. Over the last 24 years, the average cost of in-state public college education rose by $5,470. And that’s just in-state public school. Tuition at some private institutions is staggering.

This contrast illustrates it best: the overall consumer price index has risen 115 percent since 1985. How high has the college education inflation rate risen? Nearly 500 percent. It’s no wonder that more Americans than ever have student loan debt. Here’s President Barack Obama decrying skyrocketing tuition:

Interest rates used to be a problem. In previous years, the interest rate on student loans would be set permanently by Congress. However, these rates were set up so that, unless Congress reauthorized them, they would double. There was a fight to keep these rates low in 2012 and 2013. That’s why this weird clip from Late Night With Jimmy Fallon with Obama exists:

Congress quickly realized that going through this battle every year was not good for anyone. That’s why they passed the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013. This law tied student loans to the 10-year Treasury note and locked in individual rates for life. This means that, while your own rate will never rise, the rates of future students will raise independent of action from Congress.

The bigger problem is that student loans have saddled 37 million graduates with serious debt. It takes years, sometimes decades, to pay off these loans. Worse, these debts have been steadily rising over the past few decades.

Why does it take so long to pay back student loans?

Simply put, graduates just aren’t very good at paying these loans back. Somewhere between a quarter and a third of borrowers are late on their payments. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 35 percent of American student loan borrowers were delinquent on payments in the third quarter of 2012. This local news broadcast called the situation an “economic crisis.”

Graduating students are also struggling to pay back these loans because they are entering an awful job market. For example, 6.7 percent of students who graduated in 2008 were still unemployed in 2012. How are these young people expected to start paying down this debt when they have little or no income?

Many graduates also do not know how to correctly pay these loans back. This advice column from The New York Times shows just how complicated paying back student loans can be.

If so many graduates cannot quickly pay off their debts, they may be left out of certain opportunities, like buying a house. Student loan debt is a drag on the economy.

PBS NewsHour has more on that issue here:

What assistance is available to those with student loan debt?

Not much. Some politicians are attempting to reform the system to help graduates (we’ll get to that later), but there are only a few ways the government can currently help.

Loan consolidation is one such option. This is when the government lets you combine all of your loans into one. Graduates who are having trouble paying off multiple loans consider this option so that they can only have one manageable monthly payment. There are also some instances in which debt holders can defer their payments on principle and interest. Find out if your student loan payments can be deferred here.

Private companies exist that offer to help lower monthly payments, but these companies have recently come under fire from federal and state regulators for using predatory practices and charging graduates hefty upfront fees for services that the DOE offers for free. Illinois has sued some of these companies and more states are likely to follow.

In the past, those looking for forgiveness of their debt were out luck. Even today, graduates who want an immediate forgiveness of their debts will have trouble doing so. This table shows just how hard it is to get student loan debt forgiven. Even bankruptcy does not always result in a forgiveness of student debt. However, action taken by President Obama made forgiveness a little easier. Read on to the next section to find out how.

How is President Obama trying to fix student loans?

Obama has used his executive power to bypass Congress and expand the Pay As You Earn program. Pay As You Earn is a federal program that allows borrowers to cap their monthly payments at 10 percent of their income and forgives remaining debt after 20 years. This program was previously only available to new students. Obama expanded the program to a majority of loan holders, who can begin to take advantage of it in 2015.

Obama also supports the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. This bill, introduced this May by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), would allow those with outstanding debt to refinance their loans based on newer and lower interest rates.

What does Congress think about these reforms?

As noted in the last section, Democrats are on board with Warren’s plan. Every single Democratic Senator voted for the bill when it was brought to the Senate floor. This is most likely because it is a targeted demographic of the Democratic Party’s base — young adults — and that it is paid for by a tax that that has been a part of their platform for years.

Republicans in Congress are not a fan of Warren’s bill, mainly because it would be funded by the Buffett Rule. The Buffett Rule, proposed by Obama before the 2012 election, is a plan to tax millionaires so that they are not paying a lower share of their wealth in taxes compared to middle-class Americans. Even Senate Republicans, often seen as more moderate than House Republicans, rejected the bill, calling it a “political stunt.” Only three Republicans voted for the bill.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a possible 2016 candidate, has introduced a bill that looks nearly identical to the Pay As You Earn program, but applies the same logic to every single student loan. It caps payments as a percentage of income and allows for debt forgiveness. However, while Pay As You Earn forgives all debt after 20 years, Rubio’s bill would only forgive that debt if it were less than $57,500. The debt would be forgiven in 30 years if it were any higher than that figure. Still, there is a lot of common ground between conservatives and Democrats. Common sense would dictate that this bill has a real chance of being passed.

Yet, as those who follow Congress know all too well, common sense rarely impacts Congressional results. The main obstacle for Rubio’s reform bill is that not all conservatives are the same. There are significant divisions in the Republican party on this issue. Many conservatives do not even believe that the federal government should be in the business of paying for young people to go to college. When asked about his vote against Warren’s bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that it is not Congress’ job to forgive “obligations that have been voluntarily incurred.” He also said “not everybody needs to go to Yale,” presumably arguing that students who cannot afford college should look for cheaper options instead of depending on the government. There are certainly cheaper options than Yale, such as for-profit college. McConnell believes that students should consider these less-expensive options before depending on the government.

How do Americans feel about student loan reform?

There has not been much polling done on the issue of student loan reform; however, one 2013 Public Policy Polling poll shows that all Americans are unsurprisingly unified on one issue: 83 percent of all Americans want Congress to either keep rates on student loans the way they are or lower them. This poll was taken back when rates could have potentially doubled, so it does not reflect feelings toward current reform packages, but it does show that the American people are in favor of Congress acting to keep interest rates low.

Americans are much more divided when it comes to opinions on the worthiness of their own loans. A poll by the National Foundation for Credit Counseling shows that, by a two-to-one margin, most Americans believe that their own student loan was worth the cost. However, most would not recommend taking out student loans to finance an education and some claimed they would not have taken a loan out if they were aware of how much it would cost them in the long run.

Congress would be wise to spend time on this issue, regardless of which reform plan they support. According to a Harvard University Institute of Politics poll, 57 percent of Millennials believe that student debt is a major problem. That concern is consistent across party lines. This statistic will likely keep the student loan issue on the Congressional agenda for quite some time.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Senate: S 1241 The Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act

Additional

U.S. Department of Education: FAFSA

College Board: Average Net Price Over Time for Full-Time Students at Public Four-Year Institutions

Forbes: College Costs Out of Control

Huffington Post: Elizabeth Warren Slams Mitch McConnell: He Wants ‘Students to Dream a Little Smaller’

U.S. News & World Report: Congress Approves Student Loan Deal

Huffington Post: How Millennials and Students Won a Massive Victory on Loan Rates

Huffington Post: Why the Student Loan Deal is Bad News for Students

Vox: 2008 Was a Terrible Year to Graduate College

The New York Times: A Beginner’s Guide to Repaying Student Loans

U.S. News & World Report: Obama Sidesteps Congress to Expand Student Loan Repayment Program

CBS: Senate Republicans Block Consideration of Student Loan Bill

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Student Loans Burden a Generation appeared first on Law Street.