With a Shutdown Looming, the GOP Wastes Time Trying to Mess with the Courts. Which Dems Joined?

A government shutdown seems very likely to occur, but that doesn't stop the House GOP from wasting time on bills that will not go anywhere.

Thursday, the House voted to pass the so-called Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015.
The bill would require courts to impose sanctions on parties that violate the prohibition on the filing of frivolous lawsuits, taking away the discretionary power that judges currently have.

It would overburden the court system by causing a proliferation of new cases (contrary to the stated intent) and could have a detrimental impact on civil rights litigation:

This bill represents a reinstatement of discredited rules that were previously in effect, from 1983 – 1993, and triggered almost 7,000 Rule 11 filings, compared with just 19 such filings from 1938 to 1983, when sanctions were not required. Reenactment of these rules would do the exact opposite of their claimed intent, leading to further litigation that is spurred by the prospect of mandatory sanctions and monetary compensation for attorneys’ fees.

The bill specifies that sanctions against parties that file frivolous lawsuits must include monetary payments to the other party for that party's expenses, including attorneys' fees and other costs, discrediting the judicial system by assuming judges are incapable of appropriately punishing abusive lawsuits. The bill would also eliminate the “safe harbor” provisions of Rule 11, under which a motion for sanctions will not be pursued if the challenged filing is withdrawn or corrected within 21 days of service of the motion for sanctions.

This bill would have a wide-ranging impact on civil rights cases, which often involve an "argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of a new law," and often have relied upon novel legal theories that are particularly susceptible to abusive claims of frivolity by defendants.  Had the provisions in H.R. 758 been in place at the time, they could have discouraged a number of landmark civil rights cases, including Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, and they could prevent new cases from ever being considered.

It passed 241 to 185. 

Three Democrats joined Republicans in voting for it:
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)

Five Republicans joined Democrats in voting against it:

Carlos Curbelo (FL-26)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Ted Poe (TX-02)
Steve Russell (OK-05)

No, the 11 Republicans who Put Forth a Handwaving Resolution on Climate Do Not Deserve a Gold Star

Yesterday, Chris Gibson (NY-19) led a group of 10 other House Republicans in putting forth a resolution on "conservative environmental stewardship" that vaguely calls for climate action.

Here is the core part of the resolution:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives commits to working constructively, using our tradition of American ingenuity, innovation, and exceptionalism, to create and support economically viable, and broadly supported private and public solutions to study and address the causes and effects of measured changes to our global and regional climates, including mitigation efforts and efforts to balance human activities that have been found to have an impact.

We don't need resolutions; we need legislation. As such, this resolution doesn't rise beyond handwaving. It also even seems to imply that we still need more research to determine what is causing climate change, which--in context--just seems like a typical deflection. 

It is important to note that Chris Gibson is retiring at the end of his term. He does represent a light blue (D+2) district, though, that Democrats have proven incompetent at winning back.

The 10 colleagues that joined him all represent swingy districts or districts that Democrats should have won and will likely win back. (Partisan voting indexes are included after each name.)

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (FL-26) R+4
Rep. David Reichert (WA-8) R+2
Rep. Robert Dold (IL-10) D+8
Rep. Richard Hanna (NY-22) R+3
Rep. Patrick Meehan (PA-7) EVEN
Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (PA-8) R+1
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27) R+2
Rep. Ryan Costello (PA-6) R+1
Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY-21) EVEN
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2) D+1

Mike Fitzpatrick, like Chris Gibson, will be retiring. David Reichert might be running for governor in Washington.

All of the GOPers in that list, with the exception of Gibson, voted for their party's anti-environment budget back in March. They all voted to increase industry power over federal regulations via the REINS Act in July. All but Gibson voted for fast-track, and all have voted repeatedly for the Keystone XL pipeline. And most of them joined their Republican colleagues in voting against the climate-friendly amendments to the Interior/EPA appropriations bill.

This was timed to coincide with Pope Francis's visit to DC, as the pope is expected to include a call for climate action in his address. Gibson, Curbelo, Meehan, Fitzpatrick, Stefanik, and LoBiondo are all Roman Catholic.

72 House Dems: US Should Take in At Least 100,000 Syrian Refugees

Today, a group of 72 House Democrats, led by Rep. David Cicilline (RI-01), wrote to President Obama urging him to increase State Department quotas so that the US can admit at least 100,000 refugees from Syria.

Here are the 71 additional signers:

Karen Bass (CA-37)
Don Beyer (VA-08)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Madeleine Bordallo (Guam)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Judy Chu (CA-32)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Joe Crowley (NY-14)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
Debbie Dingell (MI-12)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Lois Frankel (FL-22)
Ruben Gallego (AZ-07)
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Joe Kennedy (MA-04)
Dan Kildee (MI-05)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
Sandy Levin (MI-09)
Ted Lieu (CA-33)
Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Anne McLane Kuster (NH-02)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Bill Pascrell (NJ-09)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Mark Pocan (WI-02)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
Tim Ryan (OH-13)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Mark Takano (CA-41)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Chris Van Hollen (MD-08)
Juan Vargas (CA_51)
Marc Veasey (TX-35)
Nydia Velazquez (NY-07)
Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Frederica Wilson (FL-24)
And here is the text of the letter:

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing because we are concerned about the dire circumstances of the increasing number of refugees fleeing the chaos in the Middle East. This month the image of 3-year old Aylan Kurdi’s body shocked the conscience of people around the world. Aylan, his 5-year-old brother Galip, and their mother Rehan all perished during an attempted crossing to Europe. The image of Aylan’s body washed up on shore has made its way across the internet and throughout the media, calling attention to the increasingly dire situation for refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria and throughout the region. Journeys like this are not new. Refugees have historically endured countless hurdles to reach places of safety, but what has changed is the sheer magnitude of the crisis.

There are currently more refugees, asylum-seekers, and internally displaced persons—nearly 60 million—than at any time since World War II. Indeed, the plight of refugees around the globe is garnering significant media attention with stories and poignant images of dangerous journeys, tragic deaths, unwelcoming refugee policies, and the particular challenges faced by women and children fleeing violence.

The number of Syrian refugees that the United States has resettled since the start of the conflict—approximately 1,500—is insufficient in light of the current crisis. We appreciate the recent announcement that your Administration plans to increase quota for 2016 and we strongly feel that such an increase must be bold, and take into account the enormity of the current crisis.

More than four million Syrian refugees have been forced to flee the country, and the conflict shows no sign of abating. Of these refugees, 76%—over 3 million—are women and children. Lebanon has absorbed more than a million refugees, increasing their population by a quarter Turkey has taken in more than 2 million; Jordan half a million. The neighbors of Syria are maxed out, and thousands of refugees risking death by taking treacherous journeys by land or water have demonstrated the desperation felt by the people who have left with virtually nothing and see no lifelines.

We agree with Refugee Council USA’s recent recommendation that the United States resettle a minimum of 200,000 refugees by the end of 2016, including 100,000 Syrian refugees. RCUSA is a coalition of 20 of the country’s premiere refugee protection organizations. Due to the expanding scope of the crisis, this recommendation is an increase over the community’s previous recommendation that the U.S. take 65,000 additional refugees from Syria.

The U.S. has historically taken the largest number of refugees in the world; last year we took almost 70% of all refugees globally. Other countries look to the United States to lead when it comes to refugee resettlement, and so it is absolutely critical that the U.S. lead by example. The U.S. should use its considerable global influence to encourage other nations, including within the European Union, to accept additional refugees and increase the resources available to support them.

There are those who will oppose taking additional refugees. They will say it is a security risk, or will hurt the economy. This criticism ignores the fact that the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program subjects applicants to more thorough security vetting than any other traveler or immigrant to the United States. We recognize the importance of security checks and will continue to support your Administration’s strong background checks for all refugees. This criticism also ignores the reality that refugee populations, such as the Vietnamese and those from the former Soviet Union, have prospered and brought economic growth and innovation to our country.

We pledge that we will do everything we can to ensure that, if steps are taken to accommodate additional refugees, there will be adequate additional resources for U.S. resettlement agencies, and for security checks, in order to meet increased demand. The United States is home to 320 million people. Allowing an additional 130,000 refugees into our country would make up less than a quarter of one percent of our population. Lebanon’s population by contrast has grown 25% with the influx of refugees in its borders. How can we tell little Aylan’s family that we simply can’t manage to welcome them, and that it would be too dangerous, or take away jobs? Surely we can do better.

The United States has a long history of helping the world’s most vulnerable people, but we have also faltered when faced with difficult decisions to allow refugees into the country. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past. It is our moral duty, as nation founded on the principles of equality and freedom, to do what we can to assist our brethren who are in desperate turmoil, and are searching for the slightest gesture of goodwill. As Americans and Members of Congress, we believe it is our duty to do the right thing and offer protection to those fleeing violence and turmoil in the Middle East.

Thank you for your consideration.

Which 25 War-Mongering House Democrats Just Voted against the Iran Deal?

Yesterday, the House took a party line vote accusing Obama of withholding documents related to the deal with Iran, and 42 Senate Democrats succeeded at blocking a disapproval resolution. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) voted with the GOP, and should be shamed accordingly.

Today, the House rejected a resolution approving the deal with Iran 269 to 162, with one abstention. The abstention was from Republican Tom Massie (KY-04).

All other Republicans voted against the approval resolution. They were joined by the following war-mongering Democrats:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Brendan Boyle (PA-13)
Tony Cárdenas (CA-29)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Lois Frankel (FL-22)
Gwen Graham (FL-02)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Ted Lieu (CA-33)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Nita Lowey (NY-17)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Grace Meng (NY-06)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Donald Norcross (NJ-01)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kathleen Rice (NY-04)  
David Scott (GA-13)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)

After that, the House cast a vote to prevent Obama from suspending sanctions on Iran. It passed on a mostly party line vote of 247 to 186.

Two Democrats joined the GOP here: Gwen Graham (FL-02) and Juan Vargas (CA-51). Graham will likely be redistricted out of her seat, and, frankly, I'd say, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

If you are represented by any of the 4 Democratic senators or 25 Democratic representatives who voted against the deal, they deserve to hear from you, and they should face consequences for their vote.

But regardless of the efforts of this group war-mongering Democrats and their Republican allies, the deal survives, a win for diplomacy.

Mary Landrieu Open to Donating Leftover Campaign Funds to Republicans

Former senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) was one of the worst members of the Democratic caucus, as many of us remember. I wrote about that here, here, and here.

And she's been just as bad in her post-Senate career.

Back in April, she took a job as a "strategic advisor" to the Walton Family Foundation to help them lobby for charter schools and other ways of privatizing our public education system.

Then in May, she (surprise!) began working for a lobbying firm that serves clients in the Oil & Gas industry.

In July, she joined the advisory board of the AIPAC-created "Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran," a group designed to lobby against the Iran deal. She joined other horrible former colleagues like Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, and Mark Begich.

But, remember, Mary Landrieu still raised a lot of money for her race last year, and some of that money (roughly $150,000) is still with her.

What does she plan to do with that money? She is hosting some fundraisers for former Democratic colleagues like Ron Wyden and Amy Klobuchar. (Wyden doesn't face that competitive of a race this cycle, and Klobuchar isn't up until 2018 and won with 65% of the vote in 2012).

But that, of course, is not all:

Landrieu said she also will contribute some leftover campaign money to Republicans. “I’m not opposed to helping one or two of my Republican friends that have helped Louisiana — if they ask,’’ Landrieu said. “They haven’t asked yet.’’

She specifically named Rob Portman of Ohio, who is up for re-election next year, and Susan Collins of Maine, who is up in 2020.

Other recipients may include lawmakers who have pushed issues Landrieu has championed, including legislation to lift the cap on shared revenue under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA). Under the 2006 act, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas and certain counties in those states receive 37.5 percent of revenue from offshore oil and gas drilling.

So, yes, my friends, if you donated to Mary Landrieu's campaign last year, your money may end up going toward helping Republicans keep the Senate.

WaPo: Debbie Wasserman Schultz Blocked a DNC Resolution Supporting the Iran Deal

At the DNC's annual meeting in Minneapolis, party delegates passed resolutions calling for a $15 minimum wage and expressing support for the #BlackLivesMatter movement. (How the party's actions will translate into the actions of policymakers remains to be seen.) However, one resolution did not make it to a vote.

Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz prevented consideration of a resolution at the party’s summer meeting here that praised President Obama and offered backing for the nuclear agreement with Iran, according to knowledgeable Democrats.

The resolution was drafted with the intention of putting the national committee on record in support of the agreement as Congress prepares to take up the issue when members return from their August recess.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz remains formally "undecided" on the Iran Deal, although I wouldn't be shocked if she voted against it based on past statements. 

Rather than standing with the president when he is right and breaking with him when he is wrong, Debbie Wasserman Schultz--a noted supporter of fast-track for the disastrous, corporate-friendly trade deals the president wants and an opponent of easing travel restrictions to Cuba--does the opposite.

However, it's not just her voting record that makes Debbie Wasserman Schulz a bad chairwoman of the DNC. There's also her record of failure at the DNC's main goal: electing Democrats.

She has been chairwoman of the DNC since May of 2011. Since then, the Democrats saw one of their most disastrous elections ever, an even worse rout than that of 2010. The Democrats hold few state legislatures or governorships and hold neither house of Congress. In 2012, Democrats failed to translate the president's electoral fortune into a strong down-ballot effect. This was, in part, due to Republican gerrymandering after the 2010 census, but it was also the result of selecting bad candidates or, in some cases, not even fielding them.

Moreover, Debbie Wasserman Schultz already has a job: representing the voters of Florida's 23rd district. Being chair of a national party should be a full-time position because party building is hard work--if it's done right.

Wasserman Schultz has been chairwoman of the DNC for 4 years and almost 4 months, longer than any other DNC chair since 1968. Most past chairs served 1, 2, maybe 3 years. It's well past time for Democrats to choose a new party leader.

What Do Americans Think of the Iran Deal? It's All in How You Ask the Question.

On Monday, two different polls about American attitudes toward the deal between the P5+1 and Iran came out, but with rather divergent results.

What explains the divergence? When you look at the polls themselves, it's easy to figure out: it's all in how you ask the question.

Let's look at the Quinnipac poll first. It found that Americans opposed the deal 57% to 28%.

What question did Quinnipac ask?

67. Do you support or oppose the nuclear deal with Iran?

Does the average voter--or even most voters--know a lot about what the "nuclear deal with Iran" does? Probably not. If you didn't know much about it, you might see "nuclear deal" and think it was a deal about Iran getting a nuclear weapon. 

 

The 85% of surveyed voters that claimed to have an opinion one way or the other seems far higher than the percentage that actually knows about the deal (or could even approximately place Iran on a map).

The Quinnipac poll found an unsurprising partisan divide. Republicans opposed the deal 86% to 3%, whereas Democrats supported it 52% to 32%.

Quinnipac asked another question that, if it directly preceded this one, was clearly trying to prime respondents.

47. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling - the situation in Iran?  

To be quite honest, I'm not even sure what this question means. What is the "situation" in Iran? Normally, this is the language used for a civil war, an eruption of protests, or a natural disaster in another country. 

However, unsurprisingly, responses cleaved on partisan lines. Republicans disapproved of Obama's handling of the "situation" in Iran 93% to 3%, and Democrats approved 67% to 23%.

The WSJ/NBC poll offers a striking contrast with the Quinnipac one. When they asked people about their opinions about the deal with Iran, they gave people some context to know what they were being asked:

As you may know, an agreement has been reached between Iran and a group of six other nations, including the U.S. The agreement attempts to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon by limiting Iran’s ability to produce nuclear material and allowing inspections into Iran’s nuclear sites in exchange for reducing economic sanctions that are currently in place. Do you support or oppose this agreement or do you not know enough to have an opinion?

In response to this question, 35% said they supported it, and 33% said they opposed it. Another 32% said that they didn't know enough to have an opinion. 

 

Those numbers intuitively make sense. Democrats will support it (for partisan and ideological reasons), Republicans will oppose it (for partisan and ideological reasons), but a lot of people won't have an opinion because they haven't been paying much attention.

Looking below the top lines, the partisan divide is as expected: Democrats support the deal 58% to 8%, while Republicans oppose it 60% to 15%.

When people are asked about specific points about policy, details matter.