The Senate on Tuesday morning put forward a massive spending package to shell out some $1.7 trillion in the next fiscal year.
The bill totaled 4,155 pages. By Tuesday evening, the Senate advanced the legislation by a 70-25 vote.
So who read it? Well, no one. Certainly not any of the senators. This <a href="https://basmo.app/how-long-does-it-take-to-read-100-pages/#:~:text=While%20a%20slow%20reader%20will,60%20pages%20in%20one%20hour.">site</a> says the average reader can get through 40 pages an hour, so it&#8217;d take 103 hours &#8212; 4.3 days if you read for 24 hours a day &#8212; to get through the whole bill.
But lawmakers wouldn&#8217;t have read it, anyway. It&#8217;s congressional staffers who get the order to skim the bill as fast as they can and then inform their bosses what&#8217;s in it.
The last week before the winter holiday break is really the one week lawmakers do the job they were elected to do: run the government. Only when they&#8217;re faced with having to work over Christmas do they buckle down.
The legislation is known as an &#8220;omnibus&#8221; bill. Not that long ago, Congress used to consider appropriations bills for a dozen various government agencies separately, debating them for days or weeks before passing each solo. Now, they&#8217;re all jammed together into one unreadable bill.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) rightly says the process &#8220;stinks.&#8221;
&#8220;I brought along the 1.7 trillion, 4,000+ page Pelosi-Schumer omnibus spending bill that&#8217;s being fast-tracked through the Senate,&#8221; Paul wrote on Twitter. &#8220;This process stinks. It&#8217;s an abomination. It&#8217;s a no good rotten way to run government. We&#8217;re standing up and saying NO.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I brought along the 1.7 trillion, 4,000+ page Pelosi-Schumer omnibus spending bill that&#39;s being fast-tracked through the Senate. This process stinks. It&#39;s an abomination. It&#39;s a no good rotten way to run government. We&#39;re standing up and saying NO. <a href="https://t.co/Wom6xKEeQh">pic.twitter.com/Wom6xKEeQh</a>
&mdash; Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenRandPaul/status/1605295030305816576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 20, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The bill is also packed with pork &#8212; special interest projects pushed by various lawmakers.
The Heritage Foundation said the bill includes:
<ul>
<li>$1 million for Zora’s House in Ohio, a “coworking and community space” for “women and gender-expansive people of color.”</li>
<li>$3 million for the American LGBTQ+ Museum in New York City.</li>
<li>$3.6 million for a Michelle Obama Trail in Georgia.</li>
</ul>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
💸 $1 million for Zora’s House in Ohio, a “coworking and community space” for “women and gender-expansive people of color.” 💸 $3 million for the American LGBTQ+ Museum in New York City. 💸 $3.6 million for a Michelle Obama Trail in Georgia.
&mdash; Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) <a href="https://twitter.com/Heritage/status/1605233874019438595?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 20, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The bill also honors departing speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) by renaming a federal building in San Francisco the &#8220;Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building.&#8221; And the legislation names a $2 million foreign service grant program the &#8220;Nancy Pelosi Fellowship Program.&#8221;
Everything gets stuffed into a bill like this. <a href="https://justthenews.com/government/congress/17t-omnibus-bill-stuffed-pork-and-gop-lawmakers-should-oppose-it-conservatives">According</a> to Just The News, it includes &#8220;a waiver allowing Boeing to miss its Dec. 27 legal deadline for fixing defective 737 Max airliners.&#8221; The outlet also noted new regulations on cosmetics, horse racing, and 401k reforms such as &#8220;delaying mandatory withdrawals to age 75.&#8221;
The legislation includes $772.5 billion for non-defense discretionary spending and $858 billion in defense funding, according to a bill summary from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
Not coincidentally, the bill also names some stuff after the 82-year-old senator, who is retiring.
The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act&#8217;s &#8220;Access to Local Foods: Farm to School Program&#8221; will become the &#8220;Access to Local Foods: Patrick Leahy Farm to School Program.&#8221; The &#8220;Lake Champlain Basin Program&#8221; will become the &#8220;Patrick Leahy Lake Champlain Basin Program.&#8221; And the bill provides $30 million for the &#8220;Patrick Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program.&#8221;
In an omnibus bill, everybody gets their beak wet. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) requested at least 19 earmarks totaling more than $60 million in the $1.7 trillion bill. That includes $2 million for the &#8220;rehabilitation of Bering Sea Women’s Shelter for Bering Sea Women’s Group,&#8221; Breitbart News <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/12/20/lisa-murkowski-granted-least-19-earmarks-totaling-60-million-omnibus-bill/">reported</a>.
In total, there are more than 3,200 special project earmarks from lawmakers, with a total cost topping $5 billion.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) took to Twitter to say that not every senator will help congressional leadership “ram” the omnibus through the Senate.
“This bill has been written in large measure by two retiring senators, one Republican and one Democrat. Why should we move heaven and earth trying to force their priorities on the very people they keep in the dark—all according to two senators’ contrived, manipulative timeline?”
A good question, Mike. But it didn&#8217;t matter. In the end, 21 Republicans voted to pass the bill.
Same as it ever was.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Joseph Curl has covered politics for 35 years, including 12 years as White House correspondent for a national newspaper. He was also the a.m. editor of the Drudge Report for four years. Send tips to josephcurl@dailywire.com and follow him on Twitter @josephcurl.

Gloucester Old Spot Pig, UK

Packed With Pork: Senate Advances $1.7 Trillion 4,155-Page Bill That No One Read

Congress

Nancy Pelosi

Patrick Leahy

Politics

Spending Bill

Sen. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/patrick-leahy">Patrick Leahy</a> (D-VT) wrote in his recent memoir that as the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/u-s-senate" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senate</a> debated <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/iraq-war" target="_blank" rel="noopener">war in Iraq</a> in 2002 he was given a tip about security information by two joggers that ended up influencing his vote on the war. 
Leahy’s claims, first published in his August 2022 memoir “The Road Taken,” were <a href="https://twitter.com/vermontgmg/status/1580949214594404352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1580949220575453186%7Ctwgr%5Eca842b2f3072354cf4c1274c8392102912eca217%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediaite.com%2Fpolitics%2Fpatrick-leahy-reveals-he-voted-against-iraq-war-after-visit-from-mysterious-joggers-who-showed-him-intel-proving-bush-wrong%2F" target="_blank" rel="noopener">highlighted</a> Friday by journalist and historian Garrett M. Graff, who said the senator&#8217;s claims provided “a rare glimpse into the shadowy way that the intel agencies interact with Members of Congress.”
The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/vermont" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Vermont</a> senator, who was skeptical of the move toward war in Iraq, <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/politics/patrick-leahy-reveals-he-voted-against-iraq-war-after-visit-from-mysterious-joggers-who-showed-him-intel-proving-bush-wrong/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in his book that he was contacted by two runners who told him to check specific intelligence briefings while out on a walk with his wife Marcelle. 
“Two joggers trailed behind us. They stopped and asked what I thought of the intelligence briefings I’d been getting. Marcelle realized this was a conversation she would normally not be involved in and kept on walking ahead,” Leahy wrote. 
He said that he was told by the joggers to ask for “File Eight” and “File Twelve,” both files which related to intelligence on Iraq. 
“Quickly thereafter, I arranged to see File Eight and it contradicted much of what I had heard from the Bush administration,” Leahy claimed. The Democrat would go on to be on of 21 senators to vote against the authorization of war in Iraq. 
He called the alleged encounter with the joggers the most “eerie” experience he had in Washington, D.C.
“It was the eeriest conversation I’d ever experienced in Washington. I felt like a sensational version of of Bob Woodward meeting Deep Throat — only in broad daylight,” he wrote. 
Leahy, the third longest-serving U.S. senator of all time, was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/top-senate-democrat-patrick-leahy-hospitalized-office-calls-it-a-precaution" target="_blank" rel="noopener">briefly hospitalized</a> on Thursday after feeling unwell. The 82-year-old was discharged the following day after an overnight stay in the hospital for observation. 
As Senate president pro tempore, Leahy is third in the line of presidential succession, after Vice President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). He was first elected in 1975, but has been facing health problems in recent years. 
Leahy is not seeking re-election, having announced in 2021 that he would <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/time-to-pass-the-torch-senate-democrat-elected-during-vietnam-war-says-he-wont-seek-re-election" target="_blank" rel="noopener">retire from the Senate</a> in 2023.
His retirement announcement opened up a Senate seat that has stayed Democrat since the Vietnam War, although Democrat Peter Welch was up 35 points over the Republican candidate during the last <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/senate/vt/vermont_senate_nolan_vs_welch-7533.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">RealClearPolitics</a> poll, which was taken in April. Democratic-socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is the other senator from Vermont.
Eric Quintanar contributed to this report.

Secretary Austin Testifies To The Senate On Next Year’s Budget

Dem Senator Says Mystery Joggers Gave Him ‘Eerie’ National Intelligence Tip In Early 2000s

Dem Senator Says Joggers Gave Him With Mysterious National Intelligence Tip In Early 2000s

Iraq War

U.S. Senate

Vermont

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/patrick-leahy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Senator Patrick Leahy</a> (D-VT), the third longest-serving <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/u-s-senate" target="_blank" rel="noopener">U.S. senator</a> of all time, was hospitalized Thursday near Washington D.C. after feeling unwell, his office said.
Leahy, 82, was expected to stay overnight as a &#8220;precaution,&#8221; his office said Thursday evening. “At the recommendation of his doctors, he is expected to remain overnight for observation,” the statement said.
As Senate president pro tempore, Leahy is third in the line of presidential succession, after Vice President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). He was first elected in 1975, but has been facing health problems in recent years.
Leahy, who presided over the second impeachment of former <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donald-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">President Donald Trump</a>, was briefly hospitalized during the trial for what his office described as a precaution.
Over the summer, Leahy broke his hip after falling at his Vermont home and required hip surgery. His office attributed the fall to his poor depth perception, which is a result of him having been born blind in one eye. “He has taken some remarkable dingers over the years, but this one finally caught up with him,&#8221; his office said.
Leahy is not seeking re-election, having announced in 2021 that he would <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/time-to-pass-the-torch-senate-democrat-elected-during-vietnam-war-says-he-wont-seek-re-election" target="_blank" rel="noopener">retire from the Senate</a> in 2023.
His retirement announcement opened up a senate seat that has stayed Democrat since the Vietnam War, although Democrat Peter Welch was up 35 points over the Republican candidate during the last <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/senate/vt/vermont_senate_nolan_vs_welch-7533.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">RealClearPolitics</a> poll, which was taken in April. Democratic-socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is the other senator from Vermont.

FBI Director Wray Testifies Before Senate Appropriations Subcommittee

Top Senate Democrat Patrick Leahy Hospitalized; Office Calls It A ‘Precaution’

Senator Patrick Leahy Hospitalized As A 'Precaution,' Office Says

Democratic Party

Virginia

Washington D.C.

Vermont Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, who was first elected to the Senate in 1974 during the Vietnam War, after the U.S. withdrawal but before the Fall of Saigon, announced on Monday that he would not be seeking reelection. 
&#8220;It is time to pass the torch to the next Vermonter who will carry on this work for our great state. It’s time to come home,&#8221; <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-patrick-leahy-announces-he-won-t-run-re-election-n1283870">the</a> 81-year-old senator announced from the Vermont State House. 
“I know I have been there for my state when I was needed most. I know I have taken our best ideas and helped them grow. I brought Vermont’s voice to the United States Senate and Vermont values across the world,” he <a href="https://www.wcax.com/2021/11/15/sen-leahy-discuss-political-future-event-vermont/">added</a>. 
Leahy, who will complete his eighth term as U.S. senator, was first elected in 1974 when the Vietnam War was ongoing. According to reports, he will retire as <a href="https://www.senate.gov/senators/longest_serving_senators.htm">one</a> of the longest-serving senators in American history, behind three others including Robert C. Byrd and Strom Thurmond. 
According to Roll Call, Leahy&#8217;s Senate career is older than several current senators.
“His tenure in the chamber means Leahy was a U.S. senator before four of his colleagues were born: Sens. <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/members/44728?utm_source=memberLinks&amp;utm_medium=memberlinks&amp;personid=44728">Tom Cotton</a>, R-Ark.; <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/members/118396?utm_source=memberLinks&amp;utm_medium=memberlinks&amp;personid=118396">Josh Hawley</a>, R-Mo.; <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/members/107947?utm_source=memberLinks&amp;utm_medium=memberlinks&amp;personid=107947">Jon Ossoff</a>, D-Ga.; and <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/members/46230?utm_source=memberLinks&amp;utm_medium=memberlinks&amp;personid=46230">Kyrsten Sinema</a>, D-Ariz,” the outlet <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2021/11/15/leahy-longest-serving-sitting-senator-to-retire/">noted</a>. 
President Biden, who had the 18 longest senate career in American history, was elected in 1972, two years before Leahy, only to step away in 2009 when he became vice president. 
Six years behind Leahy in terms of time served, is Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley who announced earlier this year that he would seek an eight senate term. If elected, Grassley would then be the longest-serving current senator. 
NBC reported, “[Leahy] currently chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee chair and is third in the line of succession to the presidency as president pro tempore of the Senate, after the vice president and the Speaker of the House. He was last re-elected in 2016.”
Leahy’s retirement opens up a senate race where no Republicans or Democrats have officially declared candidacy for the seat. On the Democrat side, there is speculation that several statewide officeholders, like the current lieutenant governor or the senate president, might make a run. 
With the Senate currently split 50-50, Leahy’s retirement might open up a chance for a Republican to fill the vacancy although the state <a href="https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/vermont/">went</a> about two-thirds for Biden in 2020 with Trump only winning one county in the state. 
Some have floated the possibility of current Republican Governor Phil Scott making a run for the open seat. Scott, who has been governor since 2017, often is at odds with the Republican Party.  This year he signed a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/vermont-becomes-first-state-to-give-access-to-free-condoms-for-middle-schoolers">law</a> allowing for condoms to be distributed to middle schoolers and last year touted his vote for Biden in the 2020 election. 
“As many of you knew, I didn’t support President Trump. I wasn’t going to vote for him,” he <a href="https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2020/11/03/vermont-election-gov-phil-scott-votes-biden-trump/6150471002/">said</a> at the time. “But then I came to the conclusion that it wasn’t enough for me to just not vote. I had to vote against.”
However, as recently <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2021/11/15/leahy-longest-serving-sitting-senator-to-retire/">as</a> May, Scott has said that he was not interested in running for senate. Independent Senator Bernie Sanders holds Vermont&#8217;s other seat.

US-POLITICS-CONGRESS-POLICY

‘Time To Pass The Torch’: Senate Democrat Elected During Vietnam War Says He Won’t Seek Re-Election

On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) claimed that the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump would be “fair and honest.”
&#8220;All parties have agreed to a structure that will ensure a fair and honest Senate impeachment trial of the former president,&#8221; he said, adding, &#8220;The structure we have agreed to is eminently fair. It will allow for the trial to reach its purpose: truth and accountability.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Sen. Chuck Schumer: &quot;All parties have agreed to a structure that will ensure a fair and honest Senate impeachment trial of the former president.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/QlQXkpwwu5">https://t.co/QlQXkpwwu5</a> <a href="https://t.co/caVjB3cjgu">pic.twitter.com/caVjB3cjgu</a>
&mdash; The Hill (@thehill) <a href="https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1358889796026986501?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On January 25, Vermont Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, who is serving as president pro tempore of the Senate for the third time in 46 years, promised that he would ensure “impartial justice” as he presided over the impeachment trial, writing:
<blockquote>The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents. When presiding over an impeachment trial, the president pro tempore takes an additional special oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws. It is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously.
I consider holding the office of the president pro tempore and the responsibilities that come with it to be one of the highest honors and most serious responsibilities of my career. When I preside over the impeachment of former President Donald Trump, I will not waver from my constitutional and sworn obligations to administer the trial with fairness, in accordance with the Constitution and the laws.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
When presiding over an impeachment trial, the president pro tempore takes a special oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution &amp; the laws. It is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously. My comment here on presiding over Pres. Trump&#39;s impeachment trial: <a href="https://t.co/Y93RedVb8w">pic.twitter.com/Y93RedVb8w</a>
&mdash; Sen. Patrick Leahy (@SenatorLeahy) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorLeahy/status/1353797733111443457?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 25, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Roughly two weeks before that, Leahy had this to say: &#8220;Nixon committed crimes nowhere near as serious as those by President Trump, and yet Nixon knew he had to resign. Trump&#8217;s crimes trying to overturn our elections and openly instigating a riot causing deaths warrant his immediate resignation or removal.&#8221;
He added: &#8220;Pres. Trump has not simply failed to uphold his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which itself would be sufficient to warrant impeachment and removal. He has emerged as the *greatest threat* to the Constitution and to American democracy in a generation. … I hope that Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans will stand with our constitutional republic, as did 10 Republicans in the House today. For the good of the country, he must lead his party in voting to convict Pres. Trump and to prevent him from holding future office.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Nixon committed crimes nowhere near as serious as those by President Trump, and yet Nixon knew he had to resign. Trump&#39;s crimes trying to overturn our elections and openly instigating a riot causing deaths warrant his immediate resignation or removal. <a href="https://t.co/R0KPH6px7C">https://t.co/R0KPH6px7C</a>
&mdash; Sen. Patrick Leahy (@SenatorLeahy) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorLeahy/status/1349131794621353984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 12, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I hope that Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans will stand with our constitutional republic, as did 10 Republicans in the House today. For the good of the country, he must lead his party in voting to convict Pres. Trump and to prevent him from holding future office.
&mdash; Sen. Patrick Leahy (@SenatorLeahy) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorLeahy/status/1349483177602129926?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 13, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Leahy’s harshly partisan history was documented in a 2001 <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2004/07/nastiest-democrat-jay-nordlinger/">piece in National Review</a> by Jay Nordlinger, which told the stories of Leahy&#8217;s actions targeting conservative politicians; his attacks during the confirmation hearings of attorney-general nominee John Ashcroft; his attempt to paint former Solicitor General Ted Olson (whose wife Barbara was killed on 9/11 when terrorists flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon) as lacking integrity during Olson’s nomination hearings; and this:
<blockquote>And he was a major tormentor of Robert Bork during those awful hearings of 1987. In fact, he was responsible for one of their moments of highest drama. He scolded Bork for doing insufficient charity work while a professor at Yale, and recited the fees he earned as an outside consultant during the years 1979 to 1981. Responded Bork, “Those are the only years I ever made any money in consulting.” He continued, emotional, “There was a reason to get money, and I don’t want to get into it here.” Leahy acknowledged that the judge had his reasons. Then Sen. Gordon Humphrey, a Republican, broke in, saying, “Judge Bork, this is a very personal question, and if you prefer not to answer it, by all means do not–but were those years [ones that] coincided with heavy medical bills in your family?” Bork spoke one syllable: “Yeah.” The bills to which Humphrey had referred were for Bork’s first wife, Claire, who died in December 1980.</blockquote>

Senate Leadership Hold News Conferences Following Luncheons

Schumer: Impeachment Trial Will Be ‘Fair And Honest.’ Here’s A Look At Who’s Running It.

Charles Schumer

Donald Trump

Impeachment

Unlike the first Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, over which Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts presided, the second Senate impeachment trial, which is scheduled to commence on February 8, will not see Roberts presiding — Vermont Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, who is the Senate President Pro Tempore, will preside.
On Monday, Leahy, who voted to impeach Trump in the first impeachment trial, said he would administer “impartial justice,” according to <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/535700-leahy-roberts-to-preside-over-impeachment-trial">The Hill</a>.
Leahy released a <a href="https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/comment-on-presiding-over-the-impeachment-trial-of-president-donald-trump">statement</a> in which he said:
<blockquote>The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents.  When presiding over an impeachment trial, the president pro tempore takes an additional special oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws.  It is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously. 
I consider holding the office of the president pro tempore and the responsibilities that come with it to be one of the highest honors and most serious responsibilities of my career.  When I preside over the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump, I will not waver from my constitutional and sworn obligations to administer the trial with fairness, in accordance with the Constitution and the laws.</blockquote>
Longtime Texas GOP Sen. <a href="https://thehill.com/people/john-cornyn">John Cornyn</a>, a member of the Judiciary Committee, criticized the idea of Leahy presiding, saying:
<blockquote>The Constitution requires that the chief justice preside over the impeachment trial of a president but that’s not what we’re doing. To me that’s indicative of the fact that we’re in uncharted waters. I just think it looks very petty and vindictive and I understand there are a lot of people who are mad but the process itself already looks like a railroad job.</blockquote>
Cornyn added that a Democrat presiding “really undermines the legitimacy.”
Kentucky GOP Senator Rand Paul echoed, “If the chief justice doesn’t preside, I think it’s an illegitimate hearing and really goes to show that it’s not really constitutional to impeach someone who’s not president.”
Leahy bristled, “I have presided over hundreds of hours in my time in the Senate. I don’t think anybody has ever suggested I was anything but impartial in those hundreds of hours. … I’m not presenting the evidence. I’m making sure that procedures are followed. I don’t think there’s any senator who over the 40-plus years I’ve been here that would say that I am anything but impartial in voting on procedure.”
Last week, the day before Joe Biden was inaugurated as President of the United States, <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/01/19/the-washington-trump-leaves-behind-491443">Politico</a> reported, “We’re hearing that Roberts, who for years has sought to keep the courts apolitical, was not happy he became a top target of the left during Trump’s first impeachment trial. ‘He wants no further part of this,’ one of our Hill sources says.”
In the midst of Trump’s first impeachment trial, New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer <a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/02/01/chief-justice-john-roberts-vote-break-tie-schumer-trump-impeachment-trial-vpx.cnn">asked Roberts</a> if he would break a tie vote if there were one. Roberts answered, “If the members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to them, divide equally on a motion, the normal rule is that the motion fails. I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed.”

Chief Justice John Roberts

Dem Senator, Not Roberts, To Preside Over Trump’s Impeachment Trial

John Roberts

Only a handful of Democrats were able to make opening statements Monday, leading into confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett, whom President Donald Trump nominated to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) made the most of his precious few minutes.
In a statement made directly to Barrett, Leahy told the Supreme Court nominee &#8212; a law professor, federal Circuit Court judge, wife, and mother &#8212; that confirming her to the highest court in the land would be &#8220;harmful&#8221; to women.
“I’ve heard from them often and loudly since Justice Ginsburg’s passing,” Leahy began “They’re scared that your confirmation would rip the healthcare protections that millions of Americans have fought to maintain and which Congress has repeatedly rejected. They are scared that the clock will be turned back to a time when women had no right to control their own bodies and when it was acceptable to discriminate against women in the workplace.”
“They’re scared that a time we’re facing the perilous impacts of climate change, bedrock protections will be eviscerated,&#8221; he railed. &#8220;And they are scared that your confirmation will result in the rolling back of voting rights, workers&#8217; rights, and the rights of the LGBTQ community to equal treatment.”
Leahy was one of the few Senators to take aim at Barrett&#8217;s potential positions on issues like abortion and gay marriage; most Democrats, fearing that Republicans might use public complaints about Barrett&#8217;s faith and family as political fodder, tried to steer the conversation towards the Affordable Care Act, which they&#8217;re convinced Barrett could help gut in her first weeks on the court.
Sen. Kamala Harris, the current vice presidential candidate railed at Senate Republicans rather than Barrett, taking them to task for allegedly skipping negotiations on a coronavirus relief package in order to hold confirmation hearings. Of course, Democrats have long since filibustered Senate Republicans coronavirus relief efforts, and negotiations are now taking place largely between the White House and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), not the Senate.
Others demanded that Barrett either reveal how she would vote on issues of healthcare &#8212; something judges typically do not do &#8212; or pledge to recuse herself from upcoming oral arguments on the constitutionality of certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act.
Although he seemed pleased with his criticism, Leahy quickly met with resistance online. Leaders of conservative women&#8217;s organizations were quick to point out that Leahy was accusing Barrett of turning back the clock on women&#8217;s rights while ignoring that she is a successful jurist and mother of seven.
&#8220;Sen. Leahy says he&#8217;s worried if Judge Barrett is confirmed, we&#8217;ll go back to a time where women can be discriminated against in the workplace,&#8221; Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser tweeted. &#8220;Is he unaware of who he is interviewing to fill the vacant seat? A highly-successful working mom of school-age children.&#8221;
<div class="embed-media twitter">
<div class="tweet-embed">
</div>
</div>

Amy Coney Barrett

Sen. Patrick Leahy Tells Amy Coney Barrett That Her Confirmation To SCOTUS Would Be ‘Harmful’ To Women

Abortion

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) must have thought he had Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh over a barrel Wednesday when he began asking him about &#8220;stolen&#8221; memos. But in doing so, Leahy has reminded people that Democrats have long sought to impede Republican judicial nominees &#8212; sometimes for racist reasons.
Leahy tried to set a trap for Kavanaugh through his leading questions and claims of having evidence that contradicts the nominee&#8217;s testimony from a decade ago. Leahy brought up a forgotten incident known as &#8220;Memogate&#8221; from 2003, in which a GOP staffer noticed that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee hadn&#8217;t secured their server from Republicans. The staffer exploited this and turned over documents to Republican groups.
Naturally, media coverage at the time focused on how unethically the documents were obtained, instead of on the explosive content. We all know that when the tables are turned and it is Republican info that has been unethically obtained, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/18/mitt-romney-secret-video">focus is on the content</a>, not how the information was obtained.
Leahy just reminded everyone of the content of &#8220;Memogate,&#8221; something he probably should have avoided. My former colleague, Tim Carney, lays out in the Washington Examiner what Democrats <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/most-of-bushs-nominees-are-nazis-those-memos-patrick-leahy-griped-about-were-damning-to-the-democrats">were revealed to be saying</a> about President George W. Bush judicial nominees. The most damning information from the leaked documents was the racist reasons Democrats refused to confirm Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court. One of the leaked memos was from a staffer to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), who wrote that liberal groups &#8220;identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.&#8221;
Those memos also revealed that Democrats throwing around the term &#8220;Nazi&#8221; is nothing new, as one memo claimed that &#8220;most of Bush&#8217;s nominees are Nazis.&#8221;
Democrats are desperate to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court because he would cement a conservative majority. They were also desperate to keep a Republican president from nominating the first Latino Supreme Court nominee. When desperate, they resort to petty antics, like demanding more and more records that aren&#8217;t asked of other nominees, insisting that without those documents they can&#8217;t make a decision &#8212; even though they made their decision long before, based on partisan politics.
Thanks for reminding everyone about this, Sen. Leahy.

SCHOW: Democrat At Kavanaugh Hearing Reminds Everyone Of Democrats’ Racist Past

Racism

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) nearly had a panic attack on the floor of Congress Wednesday when a White House nominee for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals revealed he&#8217;d joked on social media about &#8220;marrying bacon.&#8221;
Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett is a well-known Twitter user who frequently jokes about current events and even legal cases. His social media presence is likely what put him on the White House&#8217;s list for such a plum appointment. Willett is also a solid conservative and respected judge who could integrate nicely into a higher-level appeals court.
But Leahy, and his co-panelists Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), were all deeply concerned about Willett&#8217;s qualifications because, as it turns out, the judicial nominee once joked, around the time that same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide through the Obergfell decision, that he believed it should be legal to marry bacon.
THE HORROR. THE HORROR.
[[{&#8220;fid&#8221;:&#8221;27057&#8243;,&#8221;view_mode&#8221;:&#8221;default&#8221;,&#8221;fields&#8221;:{&#8220;format&#8221;:&#8221;default&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:false,&#8221;field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Screenshot/Twitter&#8221;},&#8221;type&#8221;:&#8221;media&#8221;,&#8221;field_deltas&#8221;:{&#8220;1&#8221;:{&#8220;format&#8221;:&#8221;default&#8221;,&#8221;field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:false,&#8221;field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]&#8221;:&#8221;Screenshot/Twitter&#8221;}},&#8221;attributes&#8221;:{&#8220;title&#8221;:&#8221;Screenshot/Twitter&#8221;,&#8221;class&#8221;:&#8221;media-element file-default&#8221;,&#8221;data-delta&#8221;:&#8221;1&#8243;}}]]
According to Leahy, Willett&#8217;s tweet expressed a certain flippancy in regards to the Very Serious Question of whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry legally, and, Leahy claimed, the tweet made it evident &#8212; somehow &#8212; that Willett did not approve of the &#8220;settled law&#8221; of Obergfell.
&#8220;I don&#8217;t think one would see that as praising the Supreme Court decisions,&#8221; Leahy told the nominee.
Fortunately, Willett was prepared with an answer. &#8220;Senator, as for the bacon tweet, that was the day after the Obergfell decision was issued and it was my attempt to inject a bit of levity,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The country was filled with rancor and polarization. It was a divisive time in the nation.&#8221;
Leahy shot back, &#8220;And you think that cut back the divisiveness with a comment like that?&#8221;
Willett, somehow resisting the urge to answer, quite simply, &#8220;yes,&#8221; tried to calm Leahy back to a place of sanity. &#8220;Senator, I believe every American is entitled to equal worth and dignity,&#8221; Willett noted. &#8220;I&#8217;ve never intended to disparage anyone and would never do so. That&#8217;s not where my heart is.&#8221;

Sen. Patrick Leahy Panics Over Judicial Nominee’s Joke Tweet About ‘Marrying Bacon’

On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee started its confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Naturally, the Senate Democrats on the committee decided to make it a spectacle to appease their base and virtue-signal in front of the camera. Here are some of the worst instances where Democrats made complete fools of themselves:
1. Democrats did not shut up about Merrick Garland
While Republicans talked about how they look forward to asking Judge Gorsuch substantive questions of law, many Senate Democrats wasted no time in lamenting over the failed nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to replace Scalia during President Obama&#8217;s last year in office. Several Democrats mentioned Judge Garland in their opening statements:
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA):
<blockquote>
We&#8217;re here today under unusual circumstances. It was almost a year ago today that President Obama nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland for this seat. Unfortunately, due to unprecedented treatment, Judge Garland was denied a hearing and this vacancy has been in place for well over a year. I just want to say I&#8217;m deeply disappointed that it is under these circumstances that we begin our hearings.
</blockquote>
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT):
<blockquote>
Today marks the first time the Senate Judiciary Committee has met publicly to take action on the Supreme Court vacancy that resulted from Justice Scalia&#8217;s death thirteen months ago because just hours after we learned of Justice Scalia&#8217;s sudden passing, the Republican majority leader [McConnell] declared that the Senate would not provide any process to any nominee selected by President Obama, despite the President having a year left in his term. This was an extraordinary blockade. It was totally unprecedented in our country&#8217;s whole history&#8230; Now Republicans are guilty of their own court unpacking scheme, and the blocking of Chief Judge Merrick Garland was never grounded in principle or precedent.
</blockquote>
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE):
<blockquote>
I cannot let this moment, in commenting on the best tradition of the Senate, pass without expressing my deep regret that Chief Judge Merrick Garland was treated with profound and historic disrespect. The disrespect shown by Senate Republicans to Chief Judge Merrick Garland and to President Obama and to our institutitons was unprecedented and deeply damaging. For nearly 300 days, longer than any other nominee, Chief Judge Garland&#8217;s nomination to the Supreme Court sat without action. My Republican colleagues did not afford him a hearing and would not give him a vote.
</blockquote>
It is important to note, however, that Leahy&#8217;s claim that the blockade was &#8220;unprecedented&#8221; is not accurate. On December 17, 1828, President John Quincy Adams <a href="https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm">nominated</a> John Crittenden to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Robert Trimble. However, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=izYXWfC1FbEC&amp;pg=PA5#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false">according</a> to Richard Beth of the Congressional Research Service, the Jacksonian Democrat-controlled Senate postponed a vote on his confirmation, effectively killing Crittenden&#8217;s nomination upon Andrew Jackson&#8217;s inauguration to the presidency. Nevertheless, the modern Democrats love beating the same dead horse to rally up their base.
One can hope this confirmation hearing will be the end of the Garland saga. 
2. Sen. Dianne Feinstein beat the straw man on &#8220;originalism&#8221;
The senior senator from California has a penchant for <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dianne-feinstein-proposed-gun-law-would-have-caught-orlando-shooter/">arguing</a> for gun control laws that would violate both the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It was no surprise that she spent her opening statement on Gorsuch&#8217;s first day of confirmation hearings <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14594/feinstein-constitution-living-document-originalism-robert-kraychik">misconstruing</a> constitutional originalism. She said:
<blockquote>
Judge Gorsuch has also stated that he believes judges should look to the original public meaning of the Constitution when they decide what a provision of the Constitution means. This is personal, but I find this originalist judicial philosophy to be really troubling. In essence, it means that judges and courts should evaluate our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789. However, to do so would so would not only ignore the intent of the Framers, that the Constitution would be a framework on which to build, but it severely limits the genius of what our Constitution upholds.
</blockquote>
She also <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/03/20/grassley-tells-gorsuch-not-to-worry-about-dems-recycled-attacks-n2301551">stated</a> that believing in originalism means wanting to go back to the days where &#8220;we would still have segregated schools and women wouldn&#8217;t be equally protected under the law&#8221; and that originalists want to see slavery again. Subsequently, she implied that the Constitution is a &#8220;living document&#8221; intended to be changed at the will of those who do not agree with the supposedly &#8220;outdated&#8221; views of the supreme Law of the Land. This is asinine because originalism also accepts the various amendments to the Constitution outlawing slavery and discrimination against women at the voting booth, as the text of the amendments clearly state. It is also living insofar as its rule and its supremacy remain true to this day.
3. Feinstein and Franken Complained About Gorsuch&#8217;s Opposition To The Chevron Rule
Sen. Feinstein also defended the &#8220;<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference">Chevron rule</a>,&#8221; which gives administrative agencies deference on how to interpret regulations in the courts. Gorsuch has demonstrated that he is against it, and Feinstein <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/those-were-smears-dianne-feinsteins-fearmongering-is-exactly-why-trump-won">lamented</a> that:
<blockquote>
Judge Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion, this time to challenge a long-standing legal doctrine that allows agencies to write regulations necessary to effectively implement the laws that Congress passes and the president signs. It&#8217;s called the Chevron Doctrine. This legal doctrine has been fundamental to how our government addresses real-world challenges in our country, and has been in place for decades. If overturned, as Judge Gorsuch has advocated, legislating rules are very difficult. In fact, Congress relies on agency experts to write the specific rules, regulations, guidelines, and procedures necessary to carry out laws we enact.
</blockquote>
Feinstein worries that Gorsuch&#8217;s opposition to Chevron deference would overrule executive power through administrative agencies. This would be great news because it means that Congress has more say over what laws and regulations should either stay or go according to a constitutional lens.
Sen. Franken (D-MN), the former comedian masquerading as a U.S. Senator, also used his opening statement to passionately defend the administrative state. Implying that Justice Scalia also upheld the Chevron deference rule, Franken <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14611/franken-gorsuch-defend-bureaucracy-trumpbannon-robert-kraychik">argued</a> that Gorsuch&#8217;s belief that Chevron should be questioned is problematic:
<blockquote>
Now, administrative law can be an obscure and sometimes complicated area of the law, but for anyone who cares about clean air, or clean water, or about the safety of our food and of our medicines, it&#8217;s incredibly important, and [the Chevron doctrine] simply ensures that judges don&#8217;t discard an agency&#8217;s expertise without good reason. Justice Scalia recognized this to be true. But for those who subscribe to President Trump&#8217;s extreme view, [the Chevron doctrine] is the only thing standing between them and what the President&#8217;s chief strategist Steve Bannon called the &#8216;deconstruction of the administrative state,&#8217; which is shorthand for gutting any environmental or consumer protection measure that gets in the way of corporate profit margins.
</blockquote>
Like Sen. Feinstein, Franken does not believe that the executive branch <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/13834/4-things-you-need-know-about-administrative-state-elliott-hamilton">should cede</a> its extensive power back to Congress, which has an enumerated power in Article I of the Constitution to create laws that the President can either sign or veto through the bicameral process. 
4. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) Slams The Second Amendment
The junior senator from Rhode Island used his <a href="https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-remarks-at-gorsuch-confirmation-hearing">opening statement</a> to slam Gorsuch for supposedly representing &#8220;big corporations&#8221; while also taking shots at textualism and the Second Amendment. 
<blockquote>
The Court also helps big business against unions: Harris v. Quinn, 5-4, all Republicans. Last year, Friedrichs was teed up as a 5-4 body blow against unions, when Justice Scalia died. With a new 5-4 Court, they&#8217;ll be back.
Throw in Hobby Lobby: Corporations have religious rights that supersede health care for their employees, 5-4, all Republicans. 
Add Heller and McDonald, reanimating for gun manufacturers a legal theory a former Chief Justice once called a &#8220;fraud&#8221;, 5-4, all Republicans.
This 5-4 rampage is not driven by principle. Over and over, judicial principles &#8211; even so-called &#8220;conservative&#8221; ones &#8211; are overrun on the Court&#8217;s road to the happy result. 
Stare decisis: That&#8217;s a big laugh. These were law-changing decisions, many upending a century or more of law and precedent. 
Textualism: The Second Amendment uses the military term &#8220;arms&#8221; and talks about militias, but never mind that when the gun lobby wants something. 
</blockquote>
Returning to the same tired Democratic talking points about &#8220;big corporations&#8221; and the &#8220;gun lobby,&#8221; Sen. Whitehouse revisited the same scorn that his party holds to the individual&#8217;s right to keep and bear arms. The ridiculous claim that Gorsuch cares more about corporations than the individual was also shared by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who announced she opposes Gorsuch for those reasons.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We don&#8217;t need another Supreme Court justice to help giant corporations. We need a justice who will uphold equal justice for all.
&#8212; Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/843943038552592384">March 20, 2017</a></blockquote>
Of course, Democrats did not complain when a Supreme Court majority, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy voted in favor of Kelo v. City of New London, which <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html">h</a><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html">eld</a> that a city taking private land from individuals to assist a corporation was legal under the Fifth Amendment. Originalists view that ruling as an abomination. Look no further than Justice Thomas&#8217; epic <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-108P.ZD1">dissent</a>.
Hypocrisy reeks within the Democratic Party, especially those on the Senate Judiciary Committee who finally decided to talk about integral aspects of the Constitution like separation of powers and executive overreach.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
After 8 years of deafening silence, <a href="https://twitter.com/JudiciaryDems">@JudiciaryDems</a> now care about executive overreach, separation of powers, and federalism. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GorsuchHearing?src=hash">#GorsuchHearing</a>
&#8212; Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams/status/844211312133595136">March 21, 2017</a></blockquote>
Follow Elliott on <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ElliottRHams/">Facebook</a>.

Menu