Tweeting to Jeanne Shaheen (II)

My state's senior US Senator, Jeanne Shaheen, tweets on the just-invoked Nuclear Option to get Neil Gorsuch onto the Supreme Court:

Note: She deplores the "unprecedented tactics" and "changing this long-standing Senate rule".

It took about 15 seconds with the Google to find a relevant DailyKos article from 2013: NH-Sen: Jeanne Shaheen (D) Calls For Real Filibuster Reform. Containing

I support filibuster reform because you deserve better. It doesn’t matter if the president is a Democrat or a Republican, he or she deserves to have qualified nominees confirmed. That’s true of President Obama, whether Republicans like it or not.

The Senate’s role is “advise and consent,” not obstruct and delay.

She urged petition-signing at "http://www.reformthefilibusternow.com/". That site, of course, has long since been memory-holed.

Hence my reply (using the probably too-tired Ferris Bueller Nationwide Insurance meme):

I don't expect a response.


Last Modified 2017-04-08 6:32 AM EDT

URLs du Jour

2017-04-07

■ Proverbs 27:2 is just plain old good advice:

Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth; an outsider, and not your own lips.

Of course, you could always try doing something praiseworthy and see what happens.

■ David French had advice for Trump yesterday afternoon (4:03pm EDT): Rand Paul Is Right; Don’t Launch War in Syria Without Congressional Approval

If Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution means anything, it means that the president must obtain congressional approval before taking us to war against a sovereign nation that has not attacked the U.S. or its allies and is not threatening to attack the U.S. or its allies. Senator Rand Paul said as much in an interview today, and I agree with him. As Senator Paul said, “The first thing we ought to do is probably obey the Constitution.”

But (as you may have heard) that decision had probably already been made by 4:03, and it wasn't Constitution-respectful. If you would like to read French's three quick (post-attack) thoughts, go ahead. Trump probably won't. Summary: (1) a single strike like this probably won't affect the overall situation much; (2) the long term impact is unknowable; (3) it's even more unclear what US policy is toward Syria.

But I got a chuckle out of the headline of George Neumayr's American Spectator analysis: Trump Tears Up Obama’s Half-Assad Policy.

■ At the Federalist, Sean Davis notes the effectiveness of the current anti-Bill O'Reilly campaign: 7 Companies That Pulled Bill O’Reilly Ads Gave Money To Bill Clinton’s Tax-Free Group.

Seven of the companies that announced they would not run advertisements on Bill O’Reilly’s show on Fox News in the wake of sexual harassment allegations nonetheless donated up to $6.6 million to Bill Clinton’s personal tax-free foundation.

Why, it's almost as if this is not a principled campaign against powerful males getting away with lechery, but a simple partisan hit job.

■ At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey writes (to someone named Virginia) about the curious lack of curiosity in our major media outlets: Yes, Virginia, there might be two scandals worth pursuing.

Suddenly, the media has become very, very worried about distractions rather than covering the news. When Bloomberg’s Eli Lake reported that former national security adviser Susan Rice had a pattern of requesting the names of US persons redacted in surveillance transcripts, media outlets rushed to assure viewers, listeners, and readers that “there’s nothing to see … move along, move along,” as Joe Scarborough mockingly characterized the reaction. Within hours of Lake’s reporting, more media outlets expressed anger over Lake than curiosity about Rice.

■ The "Yes, Virginia,…" chestnut should be retired, by the way. I know I have Virginia Postrel's support in this.

■ But returning to the Rice thing, David Harsanyi suggests: These Are the Questions Susan Rice Needs to Answer (under oath)

For instance: Why did you lie to PBS about having no knowledge of the unmasking of Trump officials or family?

"Congressman, I have a long history of lying about stuff when (a) I think it might be to my advantage to do so, and (b) I don't think I'll get caught."

■ And Megan McArdle has had it with Perfectly Nice Policies, With Less-Nice Side Effects.

What happens when you suddenly offer parents generous family leave benefits, paid at the expense of the government? You can probably think of dozens of outcomes. But here’s one you might not have been expecting: people die.

Here's the abstract of the paper Megan links to:

Nurses comprise the largest health profession. In this paper, we measure the effect of nurses on health care delivery and patient health outcomes across sectors. Our empirical strategy takes advantage of a parental leave program, which led to a sudden, unintended, and persistent 12% reduction in nurse employment. Our findings indicate detrimental effects on hospital care delivery as indicated by an increase in 30-day readmission rates and a distortion of technology utilization. The effects for nursing home care are more drastic. We estimate a persistent 13% increase in nursing home mortality among the elderly aged 85 and older. Our results also highlight an unintended negative consequence of parental leave programs borne by providers and patients.

Sorry, gramps!

I don't think this will make much of an impact on advocates for mandatory parental leave. Because their primary question seems to be: "Will taking this position make me feel morally superior?"