Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON - Now that Democrats have the votes to sustain a filibuster, moderate Republican senators are preparing themselves to vote for the controversial rule change known as the "nuclear option" in order to get Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court. It's a vote they say they don't want to make, but feel that Democrats are forcing their hand.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who previously stopped short of saying how she would vote on the nuclear option, argued that both parties "will rue the day" that led to the likely rule change.

"If it's necessary in order to get him confirmed, I may have to vote that way, but I certainly don't want to," Collins told reporters Monday night.

The nuclear option would lower the threshold for breaking a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee from 60 to 51, meaning the majority party could approve a nominee on a party line vote.

Democrats and some Republicans acknowledge it will drastically change the Senate into a more partisan institution, even though Democrats themselves used the nuclear option in 2013 over the protests of Republicans to make a similar rule change for all other presidential nominations.

By permanently nixing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in the future, critics say it will give the party in power all the leverage and eliminate the Senate's tradition of needing at least some bipartisanship to advance nominees.

Collins said she was "very troubled" that Democrats "put us in the situation" and that they'll regret it one day because the rule change will make it easier for presidents to get more ideological justices approved for the Supreme Court down the road.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, should he proceed to the nuclear option, needs only a simple majority of 51 to vote for a change in rules. It's possible McConnell will have his whole party -- 52 votes -- behind him, but not all Republicans have explicitly said they will back him in the effort.

He can only afford to lose two Republican senators, in which case Vice President Mike Pence would be needed to break a tie. If McConnell loses more than three Republicans, the rule change would not pass.

Collins said Gorsuch deserves to be on the high court and that she's "committed" to making sure he gets confirmed. While she said she worked with Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin to try and hammer out a deal between the two parties, she said it was "not successful" and doubts there is any other option left but to go nuclear.

"And I think that is truly tragic," she said. "It gets bad for the Senate as an institution, and I think it is bad for the court, as well."

Other moderate Republicans didn't want to directly confirm they would vote for the rule change, even as they suggested they would if it was needed to get Gorsuch confirmed.

"I'm going to vote for Judge Gorsuch," was all Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, would say when asked if she would vote for the change in rules.

Pressed again if that meant she would vote for the rule change, she would not directly answer the question. "Meaning I'm going to support Judge Gorsuch," Murkowski replied.

When a reporter noted again that she had not actually answered the question, Murkowski responded: "I am working to get Judge Gorsuch confirmed to Supreme Court. That' s my interest," perhaps hinting that she would support nuclear option but perhaps not.

She's not the only Republican declining to directly answer the question.

Senators don't exactly want to go on the record saying they're in support of the rule change -- in fact, many of them personally aren't. Rather, they're only using language saying they'll confirm Gorsuch, one way or the other, and blaming Democrats for putting them in the situation.

Moderates are concerned about how voters in their states -- including Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans -- will react to them voting for the nuclear option.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, was equally vague when it came to saying if he would vote for the nuclear option. When a reporter asked why he was being coy, he denied it.

"I'm not being coy at all. Of course, I'm going to vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch. I'm absolutely outraged about what the Democrats are doing," Alexander said, again without directly answering the question. "I will vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch one way or another. One way or the other I'll vote for him. I've said everything I've got to say about it."

Conservative Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi was part of bipartisan talks in 2013 to avert the nuclear option when Democrats were considering -- and ultimately used -- the rule change on lower court judges.

On Gorsuch, he says Republicans will do whatever it takes.

"The Senate will confirm Judge Gorsuch despite the filibuster," he told CNN.

Democrats, meanwhile, push back by saying Republicans launched the ultimate filibuster last year by blocking President Barack Obama's pick of Merrick Garland from getting a hearing or committee vote, keeping the seat vacant until a new president was sworn in.

Pressed by reporters on whether he will vote for the nuclear option, Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley refused to say yes. But he insisted that he is "going to do whatever it takes" to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.

Read more:
Frustrated Republicans prepare for the nuclear option - ABC15 Arizona

Kellyanne Conway attended an event at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building Tuesday in Washington, D.C.

Kellyanne Conway, a White House adviser to President Trump, will travel to New Hampshire next month to speak at a fund-raiser for the state Republican Party.

Conway is scheduled to address a Spring to Victory dinner on May 18 in Nashua.

Advertisement

During her time at the White House, she has been a regular presence on television. Conway has often fueled controversy during these appearance, such as saying the administration was offering alternative facts.

Still, as the first successful female manager of a presidential campaign in US history, she has support among Republicans.

She is also the second former Trump campaign manager to raise money for New Hampshire Republicans. Corey Lewandowski, Trumps first campaign manager, is scheduled to keynote the Rockingham County Republican annual dinner on April 20.

Read the original post:
Kellyanne Conway to address New Hampshire Republicans - The Boston Globe

A push to offer in-state college tuition rates to students whose parents brought them into the country illegally is picking up unlikely momentum from some Republicans in Tennessee, a deeply conservative state that voted overwhelmingly for President Donald Trump and his tough stance on immigration.

If they succeed, Tennessee would join the overwhelmingly left-leaning Washington, D.C., as the only locations where such ordinances have been passed since Trump took office in January. Twenty other states already allow the in-state tuition.

To sell the idea, the bill's supporters have had to maneuver carefully, steering the debate away from illegal immigration policy whenever possible.

Instead, they are promoting the measure as an economic driver and an educational opportunity for students who didn't have a choice about crossing into the United States at a young age. They say the students are innocent victims of decades of political deadlock on immigration at the national level.

"I'm all for building the wall and U.S. sovereignty, closing our borders," said Rep. Mark White, a Memphis Republican and a bill sponsor. "But we didn't, and now we're damaging innocent people."

At the state Capitol, dozens of students whose parents crossed into the U.S. illegally and brought them along have gone lawmaker to lawmaker to share their personal stories. Republican Gov. Bill Haslam took time to meet and snap photos with them last month, and he has thrown his support behind the bill.

A House and Senate panel each have passed the proposal so far, and another House committee was scheduled to vote on it Tuesday.

Two years ago, when President Obama was still in office, the proposal passed in the Senate and came one vote shy of passing in the House. The Senate may wait for the House to act first this year, Republican Speaker Randy McNally said.

Trump has spoken of mass deportations and building a U.S.-Mexico border wall. Nonetheless, White is optimistic the Tennessee bill has a chance.

"I'm just trying to protect Tennessee in the long run, because they're here," White said. "And if anybody thinks that we're going to send children who grew up here back out of this country, they're not living in the real world. We need to do what's the next best thing, and that's help them assimilate into our society."

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, about 20 states offer in-state tuition to students who are either in the United States illegally or here under Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protects them from deportation for two years and lets them work. A half-dozen or so of those states tilt Republican.

The Tennessee legislation would apply to students who have attended a state high school or home school program for two years.

Even if the bill passes, the students would not qualify for federal financial aid. Nor would they be eligible for state programs that offer students free tuition at community and technical colleges, said Ginger Hausser, director of external affairs for the Tennessee Board of Regents.

Sen. Todd Gardenhire, a Chattanooga Republican and the bill's sponsor in the Senate, notes that the state has already invested in the students by paying for their K-12 education, and that some have lived in Tennessee as long as their counterparts who are U.S. citizens. Yet they are required to pay three times what other in-state students pay to attend college, he said.

The bill's opponents are framing their arguments around illegal immigration. The same legislature continues to advance a bill that would cut funding to immigrant-protecting sanctuary cities.

"I don't think anybody in this room blames [the students]," Rep. Dawn White, a Republican from Murfreesboro, said in a committee meeting. "But, as a representative, I owe the state taxpayers the right to say, 'Why are we subsidizing illegal students?'"

ALSO

Glendale police vow not to enforce federal immigration laws

'Dreamer' threatened with deportation in Seattle is released after weeks of detention

More immigration judges are sent to California and other states amid Trump deportation crackdown

More:
A tuition break for immigrants is gaining support from some Republicans in Tennessee - Los Angeles Times

Gov. Scott Walker and fellow Republicans who control the Legislature are clashing over key parts of his $76 billion state budget that runs from July 1 through the end of June 2019. Those areas include:

Roads: Walker wants to borrow half a billion dollars and delay major road projects instead of raising taxes to deal with a projected $1 billion shortfall. Republican lawmakers, together with Democrats, are urging Walker to consider raising the gas tax and vehicle fees. Walker, who is up for re-election next year, is threatening a veto, and Republicans in the Assembly and Senate disagree on whether theyd override.

UW: Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said questions over the relationship between private foundations and University of Wisconsin campuses have cast a dark cloud over budget negotiations, while Assembly Speaker Robin Vos has said an examination of that shouldnt affect debate over higher education funding. University leaders are hopeful lawmakers go along with Walkers call for about a $100 million increase.

Tuition cut: Walker wants to cut UW and technical college tuition by 5 percent for all in-state students in the second year of the budget after five years of holding it flat. Vos and others say the money would be better spent on aid targeting poor students.

Self-insurance: Walker projects that $60 million could be saved if the state insured 250,000 state workers, rather than contracting with HMOs. Lawmakers are questioning whether that much could be saved and balking at Walkers using those savings to help fund his increases for K-12 schools and the UW System.

Read the original here:
Key areas where Republicans disagree with Walker on budget - Madison.com

Neil Gorsuch is on the cusp of becoming the ninth U.S. Supreme Court justice.

Still, Gorsuch, who was tapped by President Trump in January to join the high court, could face a partisan tug-of-war this week in the Senate.

A day after the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a party-line vote, sent his nomination to the full Senate for a vote, Democrats were still considering a filibuster of the nominee.

What, perhaps, could that ignite? Well, its called the nuclear option a move in which Republicans, who have control of the Senate, change voting rules and confirm Gorsuch by a simple majority.

Conservative media and Trump have endorsed such an option.

Here are some headlines:

Defend the Constitution, Confirm Gorsuch (Weekly Standard)

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has a decision: To filibuster or not to filibuster? It appears he is leaning toward the former -- a move that would infuriateRepublicans, who view Gorsuch, a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge, as a worthy successor to the late Antonin Scalia

This piece calls on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to go nuclear.

We trust that if Democrats choose to filibuster, Republicans will be smart enough and tough enough to confirm Gorsuch with a simple majority vote, writes the Weekly Standard. This is nonsense: Any Republican who would let 41 Democrats keep the Scalia seat empty would not be protecting the institution of the Senate.

Democrats think they can force Trump from office (Rush Limbaugh)

Is Trump the focus of a witch hunt?

Well, the president saysyes -- regularly castigating inquiries into, among other things, his ties to Russia as a tactical assault led by Democrats upset about the results of last years election.

Rush Limbaugh seems to agree.

They are losing elections. They know it. Look, this is all leading somewhere. I think a lot of the energy that the media and the Democrats are bringing to this is rooted in a belief that they can get rid of him, Limbaugh said on his radio show. I really think that thats something they think they can do. Because in their minds theyve done it before. They got rid of Nixon and they rendered Bush irrelevant.

I worked for Mike Pence. Being a woman never held me back(Washington Post)

So, apparently, Vice President Mike Pence does not dine alone with women who are not his wife. That was according to a profile of Pences wife, Karen, the Washington Post did last week.

Those on the left assailed the vice president for leaving his female employees at a disadvantage.

Not true, says Mary Vought, a Republican, who at one time served as Pences press secretary when he was in Congress.

My work product determined my success not private dinners with the congressman. When looking back on my time in the office of the man who is now vice president, I dont consider it to be a period of missed opportunities, she writes in this op-ed piece. The fact of the matter is, its not as though then-Congressman Pence was out having private dinners with male staffers and I was excluded. He wasnt having private dinners muchat all.

Read more from the original source:
Should Republicans use the 'nuclear option' in Gorsuch vote? Yes, say those on the right - Los Angeles Times