She'll take Dick Durbin's seat (and good riddance to Dick) if she wins over whoever her Republican challenger will be in November. I expect she will. Her fellow primary candidates were Raja Krishnamoorthi - a well-known Democratic Congressman who outspent her by about 5 times and might have been expected to win - and Robin Kelly.
Horrified bystanders filmed as a vehicle driven by immigration police crashed into a car before agents dragged a woman out by her legs and arrested her.
The US citizen, later identified as Dayanne Figueroa, had guns pointed at her by the agents. She says she was moved between multiple undisclosed locations and was not allowed to contact her family or a lawyer.
She was later released without charges. This is the latest violent ICE arrest to shock the US. Reports from the scene suggest that the ICE agents had been trying to escape protestors when the crash happened.
Ms Figueroa was on her way to get coffee before work when she came across an immigration raid in Chicago's West Town neighborhood. People were yelling and honking their horns to alert people of the raid as enforcement agents tried to detain several landscaper workers.
MSN
Thank God Dick Durbin is bowing out in November. But I'm assuming there are many Democrats staying in who think they're walking in tall cotton on the healthcare issue.
If we even have an election in 2026.
From Elie Mystal's newsletter:
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, who has been in Congress or the Senate for nearly my entire life, has announced that he will not seek reelection in 2026. The 80-year-old’s retirement will touch off a firestorm of a Democratic primary in Illinois, and I’m already dreading the prospect of a heap of progressives jumping into the race, cannibalizing each other, and clearing the path for the wealthiest available moderate white man to buy the nomination. If progressives could just coalesce around one candidate and stick together, they’d win this thing. Then again, if I had wheels, I’d be a wagon.
In any event, Durbin’s long overdue retirement is more important to what I cover than the primary, because Durbin is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which controls the judicial nomination process. He was the head of the committee during Joe Biden’s presidency—a job he got by literally pulling rank over the guy who was best suited for the post (according to me), Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.
[...]
The last four Democratic leaders on Judiciary have been, pretty much, a disaster. Durbin was preceded by Diane Feinstein, who was preceded by Patrick Leahy, who was preceded by Joe Biden. All four of these people were establishment moderates who were more concerned with formalities and courtesies than fighting for control of the courts. It was during their watch that the Federalist Society was able to overrun the judiciary with Republican judges who have literally taken away constitutional rights and redefined the law as a tool of the Republican political agenda.
Too bad he sided with Chuck Schumer on going along with the Senate Republicans to thwart the House Democrats solidarity stance against the Republican funding bill. Democratic voters did not appreciate it.
Okay, Illinois, what have we got to replace him? Give us a young progressive to vote with our great Senator Tammy Duckworth.
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.Democratic voters expect their representatives in Congress to fight for them and against Trumpism. One of the most frightening dangers the country currently faces is an unaccountable Supreme Court majority that’s willing to shred precedent and the Constitution in its pursuit of a far right agenda. Alito and Thomas have demonstrated egregious corruption, bias, and disrespect for the Constitution and American people. Democrats have a responsibility to do everything in their power to hold the Court accountable.
[...]
[Senate Judiciary Chair Dick] Durbin’s sad tactic of just begging the justices to do better has not worked. Why won’t he use the tools he has? It’s unclear; his explanations (like arguing Thomas wouldn’t show up anyway) don’t make a lot of sense. Maybe he’s conflict averse. Maybe he’s leery of undermining the legitimacy of the court. Maybe he’s afraid of GOP backlash.
Whatever his reasons, though, the result is the same. The GOP uses its control of the gavel in the House to boost their narratives and directly exert pressure in an effort to subvert the justice system. Democrats, meanwhile, let their gavel in the Senate sit there, refusing to use it to focus national attention, and decline to even use it to protect the integrity of the judiciary or Constitution.
[...]
Jim Jordan is horrible in just about every way, but he’s willing to use the tools he’s got to push for the (evil) policy outcomes he prefers. Democrats in Congress should be every bit as willing to use the resources they have to defend democracy. If they aren’t, what are they even there for?
Public Notice
Recently, Justice Samuel Alito dared to speak out against so-called "ethics" reforms targeting the U.S. Supreme Court, pointing out that Congress doesn't actually have the authority to regulate the Court, "period." That didn't sit too well with many Democrats, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL).
Townhall
I wouldn't bet against the Supreme Court.Texas billionaire Harlan Crow seldom misses an opportunity to do favors for his “dear friend” Clarence Thomas. So it was hardly surprising when he declined an invitation from the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide the details of his decades-long financial entanglement with the Supreme Court justice and his wife.
Crow no doubt believed he was helping the Thomases by rejecting the committee’s request, but it turns out that he might have unwittingly created an even bigger problem for the Supreme Court itself. If pursued in litigation, the reasoning behind Crow’s refusal may end up unraveling the justices’ coy deflection of their legal obligation to comply with federal ethics legislation.
The Hill
If they can decide Congress doesn't have the power, then there's nothing to check the Court.Crow’s rebuff, submitted by his attorney, bordered on frivolous, claiming that the Senate lacks “the authority to investigate” his personal friendship with Thomas. According to Crow, the committee’s request, therefore, violated the separation of powers because “Congress does not have the constitutional power to impose ethics rules and standards on the Supreme Court.”
As many others have pointed out, Congress has often enacted laws that create requirements or set standards for the Supreme Court, beginning with the Judiciary Act of 1789. Congress determines the number of justices, which has fluctuated over the years, prescribes the oath of office, establishes the quorum requirement, sets the time and place of meetings, provides staffing levels and has even required the justices to “ride circuit” (although not since 1911.)
[...]
For the past 30 years, the justices have continually waffled on whether they are bound by federal ethics laws. In 1991, they announced that they would voluntarily comply with certain provisions of the Ethics Reform Act, while specifically declining to concede “the validity of the act . . . in whole or in part.”
In his 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts pointedly noted that the court “has never addressed whether Congress may impose [financial reporting, gift, and recusal] requirements on the Supreme Court.”
We are in serious need of court reform.Until now, Congress has been unable to test or challenge the justices’ prickly refusal to acknowledge the binding authority of ethics legislation. There is no way to sue the Supreme Court for ethical equivocation.
[...]
If Crow attempts to quash an eventual subpoena, raising the claims he asserted in his letter to the Judiciary Committee, the courts will have no choice but to adjudicate the Senate’s authority to legislate regarding the Supreme Court’s “ethics rules and standards.”
[...]
And earlier this year, the justices’ Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices again stressed the voluntary nature of their compliance with ethics legislation.
[...]
Crow’s obduracy, however, has created an opening for clarifying litigation. In a follow-up letter, Durbin warned Crow that his arguments “lack merit and are insufficient bases on which to decline to provide the information the committee has requested.” He subsequently cautioned Crow that “all options” including a subpoena, “are on the table moving forward,” if the documents are not forthcoming. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued the same warning on behalf of the Finance Committee.
You think anybody but Thomas is on that list? I wouldn't be surprised. Crow contributed half a million dollars to campaigns for W Bush's Supreme Court nominees. Chief Justice Roberts was one of those. No wonder he doesn't want to come down on Crow's largesse to Clarence Thomas.The Senate Judiciary Committee wants GOP mega donor Harlan Crow to list the gifts he has given to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and others on the court.
In a letter on Monday signed by the committee’s Democratic members, the panel asked the billionaire to provide a full accounting of gifts worth more than $415 that he has provided free of cost to Supreme Court justices or their family members.
Politico
Don't hold your breath.The Judiciary Committee also sent letters to a trio of companies associated with Crow on Monday, including those that were involved in Thomas’ and Crow’s time spent at a private resort and on a private jet and superyacht. Those companies were also called upon to list any guests who overlapped with Thomas, or other justices, at those locations.
[...]
“If the Supreme Court won’t implement ethics reform itself, @JudiciaryDems will,” [said Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin.]
Harlan Crow rebuffed a request from the Senate Finance Committee to turn over a list of gifts he gave to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, according to a letter obtained by The Hil
The Hill
A tweet from Scotusblog, a respected news and analysis site, said it was “impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.”
Guardian
A sketchy, knee-jerk concern. And here's what really bothers me about this attitude: it means that in order for some people to have the life they enjoy, they believe other people have to be forced to work for peanuts. Is that much different from the attitude that allowed slavery to exist?The package, which still must pass the House before it heads to Mr. Biden’s desk to be signed into law, is the first major legislative initiative of his presidency.
[...]
Beyond the immediate aid, the measure, titled the American Rescue Plan, would also have a huge effect in combating poverty in the United States. It would potentially cut child poverty in half, through a generous expansion of tax credits for low-income Americans with children, increases in subsidies for child care, a broadening of eligibility under the Affordable Care Act and an expansion of food stamps and rental assistance.
[...]
Its eye-popping cost is just shy of the $2.2 trillion stimulus measure that became law last March, just as the devastating public health and economic impact of the coronavirus crisis was coming into view. It is the sixth in a series of substantial spending bills Congress has enacted since then, and the only one to pass without bipartisan support, although it is broadly popular with members of both parties outside Washington.
[...]
Republican efforts to change the bill, and scaled back the jobless aid to placate moderates in their own ranks who were concerned that an overly generous federal payment would keep Americans from returning to work, stifling the recovery.
NYT
Maybe it will give Democrats a little boost in their belief in themselves so they'll tackle other problems. Or, perhaps more likely, it will make them feel guilty so they'll buckle on another problem in order to make amends.The marathon session featured the longest vote in modern Senate history, as Democratic leaders stalled for time amid last-ditch negotiations with Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a moderate holdout, to trim the unemployment benefits so the measure could proceed.
[...]
The legislation would send another round of $1,400 direct payments to American taxpayers making $75,000 or less and extend $300 weekly unemployment benefits through Labor Day, making a large portion of jobless aid from last year tax-free. It would provide $350 billion for state, local and tribal governments, $130 billion to primary and secondary schools, $14 billion for the distribution of a vaccine, $12 billion to nutrition assistance and money for reopening businesses around the country.
It would also provide a benefit of $300 per child for those age 5 and younger — and $250 per child ages 6 to 17, increasing the value of the so-called child tax credit in an effort to significantly reduce child poverty. The bill also includes $45 billion in rental, utility and mortgage assistance, $30 billion for transit agencies, and billions more for small businesses and live venues.
The measure also would provide federal subsidies for people to keep the health insurance they had from work if they lost their jobs.
[...]
The resulting package was a narrower version of Mr. Biden’s original plan, with major progressive priorities either dropped or curtailed to accommodate Mr. Manchin and other moderate Democrats. Unlike the president’s plan and a version passed by the House last weekend, it omits an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15. It also narrows eligibility for stimulus checks and reduces weekly unemployment payments, which Mr. Biden and Democrats had hoped to increase to $400 from their current $300 level.
Still, the pandemic aid bill was one of the most far-reaching federal relief efforts ever to pass Congress, and represented a bid by Mr. Biden to use the power of the government to tackle the pandemic and invigorate the economic recovery.
I wasn't aware Durbin needed an agreement to set the schedule.The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a confirmation hearing in two weeks for President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Justice Department, Merrick Garland.
The hearing, scheduled for Feb. 22 and 23, sets Garland up for a March 1 vote out of committee and comes after Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) reached an agreement for the schedule.
Politico
Why?Top Senate Republicans said Wednesday that there are unlikely to be additional votes on Biden Cabinet picks until after the impeachment trial.
[...]
“We're not intentionally trying to slow it down but the Democrats have chosen the agenda, and they've chosen to do the budget resolution, so if there's a delay in nominations, it's because of their choice,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).
Cornyn added that Democrats also won’t be able to confirm nominees during the impeachment trial. Though the trial won’t start until the afternoon, Republicans have warned that they won’t provide consent to allow for additional legislation or nominations to be taken up during the morning.
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) pointed to Monday as a potential day when, with cooperation, an additional nominee could be confirmed. Tom Vilsack, Biden’s pick to lead the Department of Agriculture, was one pick Thune said there was wide bipartisan support for.
But otherwise Thune said that while trial negotiations are ongoing, “I think most of our members feel like until impeachment is done other business probably shouldn't get done now.”
The Hill
Yeah, good luck. Durbin, as of yesterday's organizing agreement, is now chair of the Judicial Committee. He should be able to call for a hearing and vote at his discretion.“There might be a window like on Monday before impeachment kicks in on Tuesday, when we can do a couple that are teed up."
[...]
Thune also confirmed that absent GOP consent additional nominations will not be taken up on the Senate floor during the budget debate.
[...]
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters that he will try to set up a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland, Biden's attorney general nominee, in the Judiciary Committee for Feb. 8, squeezing it in before the trial starts Tuesday.
