

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
“Trump’s claims about inflation are false, and you can go to the grocery store and see it yourself,” said one economist.
A new poll shows US voters' approval of President Donald Trump's handling of the economy has hit an all-time low, even as the president and his officials insist the economy is the best in the world.
The latest Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released Thursday found that only 31% of voters approve of Trump's handling of the economy, the lowest figure in that survey throughout either of his two terms in office. Overall, 68% of voters said that the current state of the economy was "poor."
What's more, Trump's approval rating on the economy among Republican voters now stands at just 69%, a strikingly low figure for a president who has consistently commanded loyalty from the GOP base.
Despite the grim numbers, the president and his administration have continued to say that the US is now in the middle of an economic boom.
During a Thursday morning interview on CNBC, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that the US now has "the greatest $30 trillion economy in the world."
"We are doing great," Lutnick said. "Nothing bad is happening. Greatness is happening. We grew at 4% GDP! Come on!"
Lutnick: "Jay Powell is too afraid to lead the greatest $30t economy in the world. We should be leading with our front foot. Instead we are always leaning back as if something bad is happening. We are doing great. Nothing bad is happening. Greatness is happening. We're growing 4%… pic.twitter.com/uWqrlwpllE
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 11, 2025
Lutnick's message echoes the one Trump delivered earlier this week during a rally in Pennsylvania, where he said that voters' concerns about being able to afford basics such as groceries, electricity, and healthcare were a "hoax" concocted by Democrats.
"Prices are coming down very substantially," Trump falsely claimed during his speech. "But they have a new word. You know, they always have a hoax. The new word is affordability."
Trump on the US economy: “I said it the other day. And a lot of people misinterpreted it. They said ‘Oh he doesn’t realize prices are high.’ Prices are coming down very substantially. But they have a new word. You know, they always have a hoax. The new word is affordability.” pic.twitter.com/JkErFnkT1D
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) December 10, 2025
As NPR reported on Thursday, data shows that the prices of groceries and electricity have continued to rise throughout Trump's second term, directly contradicting his claims that prices are "coming down."
University of Michigan economist Betsey Stevenson told NPR that Trump is playing with fire by making false claims about prices when US consumers can see costs persistently going up.
"Trump's claims about inflation are false, and you can go to the grocery store and see it yourself," Stevenson said.
Even some members of Trump's own party are growing wary of him insisting that America is experiencing an unprecedented economic boom when voters feel otherwise.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told The Hill that Trump's insistence on making happy talk about the economy would not fly with voters.
"You can’t call it a hoax and suggest that people are going to believe it," she said. "What you say matters."
An anonymous Republican senator also told The Hill that they were concerned about the optics of Trump building a massive luxury ballroom in the White House at a time when Americans say they are struggling financially.
"The cost of living just makes life very difficult on people," the senator stressed.
And Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) gently pushed back on Trump's messaging by telling CNN that "a lot of people are still having trouble making ends meet" in her state.
"We have been debating amendments for 21 hours and we are still going because through 12 hours of debate and 21 hours of amendment votes, Republicans still don't have 50 votes for their bill," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
Even after an all-night session of amendment votes and wrangling behind closed doors, Senate Republicans still did not have enough support to pass their reconciliation package as of Tuesday morning, leaving party leaders scrambling to placate GOP holdovers who are purportedly nervous about the legislation's unprecedented cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) argued in a social media post that the reason for the GOP's inability to quickly rally its own members around the legislation is straightforward: "Because it's a moral monstrosity."
"We have been debating amendments for 21 hours and we are still going because through 12 hours of debate and 21 hours of amendment votes, Republicans still don't have 50 votes for their bill," Murphy wrote at roughly 5:30 am ET, as the marathon "vote-a-rama" continued with no end in sight.
With Democrats unanimously opposed to the bill, Senate Republicans can only afford to lose three GOP votes if they are to send the measure back to the House for final approval. Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) have said they will vote against the bill in its current form, and Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) are undecided. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) also suggested he's on the fence.
Republican leaders have been working to bring Murkowski into the yes column with a proposal that would temporarily exempt Alaska and other states from the bill's massive cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, ripped the proposal as "absurd" and said it would reward the states with the highest SNAP error rates.
"Insanity reigns," Klobuchar wrote on social media.
Senate Republicans' margins became more difficult after Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) announced his opposition to the legislation over the weekend, pointing to the Senate version's devastating cuts to Medicaid.
"What do I tell 663,000 people in two years or three years, when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding's not there anymore?" Tillis asked in a floor speech on Sunday, citing an estimate of the number of people in North Carolina who could lose health insurance under the Republican bill.
Throughout the country, nearly 12 million people would lose coverage under the Senate reconciliation bill, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
"Kicking millions off healthcare, blowing up the national debt by trillions, and devastating generational economic harms—all being written into law on the fly," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said early Tuesday morning after hours of debate and amendment votes.
Amid widespread applause Sunday for U.S. Senate Democrats' long-awaited passage of a budget reconciliation package, Indigenous and conservationist leaders declared that they were "deeply disappointed" in lawmakers' refusal to restore protections to a key region of Alaska.
"Congress has chosen to ignore the health of the Arctic and the Gwich'in way of life."
Unlike the Build Back Better Act approved by House Democrats last year, the deal negotiated by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) doesn't shield the incredibly biodiverse Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) from fossil fuel activity--which the Wilderness Society called "a grievous attack on the rights, culture, and sacred lands of the Gwich'in and Inupiat peoples."
After the Inflation Reduction Act passed the Senate on Sunday, Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee--an Indigenous group that has long fought to safeguard ANWR's Coastal Plain--blasted the exclusion.
"In the Arctic, we're experiencing a warming climate at four times the rate as the rest of the world, yet Congress has chosen to ignore the health of the Arctic and the Gwich'in way of life by failing to stop this destructive and failed oil and gas program," she said. "We will never stop fighting to protect these sacred lands, the Porcupine caribou, and our communities."
After Manchin joined with Senate Republicans in 2017 to thwart efforts by other Democrats and conservationists to protect ANWR, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) proposed forcing the U.S. Interior Department to hold two lease sales for ANWR--legislation that was included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
When signing what critics called the GOP tax scam into law in December 2017, then-President Donald Trump said that "corporations are literally going wild over this." Murkowski, meanwhile, framed the passage of her ANWR measure as "a watershed moment for Alaska and all of America" that would "give us renewed hope for growth and prosperity."
While the first of the two required lease sales was held just before Trump left office in 2021, the event failed to attract fossil fuel giants.
In fact, as the Gwich'in Steering Committee pointed out Sunday, as global banks and insurance companies have pledged to not be involved with exploiting ANWR, the three companies with leases--Regenerate Alaska, the only oil firm that bid in the 2021 sale, along with Chevron and Hilcorp, which both held decades-old leases--have backed out.
Peter Winsor, executive director of Alaska Wilderness League, said in June that Regenerate Alaska, a subsidiary of Australia-based 88 Energy, "canceling its lease interest on the heels of Chevron and Hilcorp divesting themselves of their own Arctic refuge holdings is the clearest sign yet that there is zero interest out there in industrializing the wildest place left in America."
"We have long known that the American people don't want drilling in the Arctic refuge, the Gwich'in people don't want it, and we now have further proof that the oil industry doesn't want it either," he added.
Following the Senate's vote Sunday, Winsor joined Demientieff, the Gwich'in leader, in expressing disappointment about the package's exclusion of ANWR safeguards while also highlighting handouts to fossil fuel giants included in the legislation.
"The United States just took a big leap forward to address climate change," he said. "However, today's progress left out public lands as part of the solution, and in fact parts of the bill increased oil and gas extraction on our nation's lands and waters, including in Alaska's Cook Inlet."
"We are... doubling down on our efforts to make certain that public lands are the focus of future climate progress."
The Biden administration in May canceled three fossil fuel lease sales for the Gulf of Mexico and Cook Inlet, citing a lack of industry interest--a move welcomed by climate campaigners, who continue to call on President Joe Biden to end all offshore drilling.
Discussing Manchin and Schumer's compromise, Nicole Whittington-Evans, state director at Defenders of Wildlife, told the Anchorage Daily News in late July that "I think the Alaska provisions will really greatly reduce our achievements, in terms of climate, with this deal."
The federal government would have to make at least 60 million acres of waters available for fossil fuel leases to hold a sale for offshore wind energy projects, which Whittington-Evans said "is very significant" and "does not seem like a great trade-off for Alaska."
Winsor on Sunday pledged to keep fighting for regional protections, saying that "while we too celebrate a win today for our climate as a whole, we are also doubling down on our efforts to make certain that public lands are the focus of future climate progress."
"Tomorrow we'll be back at work," he said, "seeking to restore congressional protections for the Arctic refuge, and urging President Biden to do everything in his power to make sure the Arctic refuge is a climate solution, and not an oilfield."
As GOP-led states continue working to further restrict reproductive freedom in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's late June ruling, some progressive advocates on Monday responded critically to the introduction of bipartisan abortion rights legislation.
Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) introduced the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, which they claim "would undo the damage of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade."
NARAL Pro-Choice America president Mini Timmaraju declared that "this bill is just another political stunt that would not actually address the abortion rights and access crisis that has pushed care out of reach for millions of people already."
"Unless these senators are willing to end the filibuster to pass this measure, there's no reason to take it seriously," Timmaraju added.
A coalition of 15 groups including the ACLU, NARAL, Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH), and Planned Parenthood Federation of America said in a lengthy joint statement Monday that "the crisis today demands legislative solutions that make abortion truly accessible."
"We are looking to the future and the bills that get us there--bills that protect our liberty, and strike down the political interference that denies us access to abortion and treats us as less than," the coalition continued. "Regrettably, the bill introduced does not address the abortion access crisis."
"This bill claims to 'codify' Roe v. Wade but fails to do so. In fact, it does not expressly prohibit pre-viability abortion bans, leaving states able to continue to pass abortion bans that are denying people access to essential healthcare across the country," the groups added. "This bill has been written for a world that does not exist and would provide little solace in the nightmare we are living."
According to the co-sponsors, the Reproductive Freedom for All Act would:
NARAL noted that in February, then again in May--after a draft of the Dobbs decision leaked--both Collins and Murkowski refused to support the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA), a Democrat-led bill to codify Roe, the 1973 decision that affirmed the constitutional right to abortion until it was recently overturned by the high court's far-right majority.
At least 10 Republican senators would have to join with the Democratic caucus to pass a bill, due to the filibuster rule that is backed by not only the GOP, but also Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who notably opposed WHPA.
"Senate Republicans have been crystal clear about where they stand on abortion," NARAL said, pointing out that ahead of the Dobbs ruling, "47 GOP senators signed onto amicus briefs calling on the court to end" Roe.
Collins and Murkowski also helped shift the U.S. Supreme Court to the right during former President Donald Trump's tenure. Though Murkowski voted present rather than to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Collins voted against confirming Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Murkowski backed Barrett, Collins supported Kavanaugh, and they both voted for Justice Neil Gorsuch.
As The Washington Post reported Monday:
It's not clear that Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) would bring up the bill for a vote ahead of the midterm elections in November. There has been disagreement in the Democratic caucus on whether a bipartisan bill that has no chance of passage should be brought forward, which would make it more difficult for Democratic candidates to contrast themselves with Republicans. And many Democrats, Kaine said, would prefer the Democratic version of the bill, the Women's Health Protection Act, which includes fewer limitations on abortion.
Kaine calls the bill the bare minimum.
"What the four of us were trying to do was put a statutory minimum in place that replicated what the law was a day before Dobbs," he said.
The newspaper noted that Kaine also admitted their proposal does not have the support of 10 Republican senators.
Last week, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) blocked the Right to Contraception Act. Because Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) tried to pass the House-approved bill by unanimous consent, other GOP senators were not required to weigh in.
This post has been updated with the coalition statement.
Advocacy groups on Tuesday blasted new efforts by U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin to strike a deal with the GOP on climate legislation after months of the West Virginia Democrat preventing the House-approved Build Back Better Act from reaching President Joe Biden's desk.
"The White House and Democratic leadership must push for the solutions we need, not merely what pleases Joe Manchin."
Manchin and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) organized a Monday night meeting to "gauge bipartisan interest in a path forward that addresses our nation's climate and energy security needs head-on," a Manchin spokesperson, Sam Runyon, told Bloomberg.
Food & Water Watch managing director of policy Mitch Jones said in a statement Tuesday that "the Build Back Better bill was effectively stymied by Sen. Manchin, who is now apparently part of an effort to craft a bipartisan bill that would be even weaker than the compromise efforts he soundly rejected last year."
While congressional Democrats attempted to use the budget reconciliation process to pass the $1.75 trillion package, it was blocked by Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Manchin, who said Monday that "if I can find something bipartisan, we don't need reconciliation."
According to Bloomberg, "Manchin told reporters after the meeting that one area of common ground could be reform of the federal oil and gas leasing process."
The outlet reported:
In addition to reform on permitting, a potential package could include revisions to federal land policy, aid for domestic pipelines, efforts to bolster production of both liquefied natural gas at home and abroad and critical minerals, a person familiar with the matter said. It's possible the changes could be paired with hundreds of billions of dollars in new and expanded tax credits for wind and solar power, nuclear plants, biofuels and advanced energy manufacturing sought by Democrats and the White House and included in earlier iterations of the Build Back Better spending bill, the person said.
Runyon didn't respond to a request for comment about the possible elements of a deal.
In his response to reports about Manchin's negotiations, Jones said that "this approach could only be considered 'climate legislation' if we warp the meaning of that term to include bills that will make climate change worse."
"Instead of letting Manchin and fossil fuel interests define the terms," he added, "the White House and Democratic leadership must push for the solutions we need, not merely what pleases Joe Manchin."
Sierra Club also released a statement Tuesday opposing attempts to compromise with the GOP, declaring that "just as there's no negotiating with arsonists on how much of a building they can burn, there's no negotiating with a party of climate deniers on climate action."
"For decades, the overwhelming majority of Republicans in Washington, D.C. have made their views on climate change abundantly clear: It's much ado about nothing, if it even exists," the group noted, citing some prominent examples--including recent comments from Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who attended Manchin's meeting.
During an NPR interview in January, Cramer said:
The vast majority of people that we work for, that would be our constituents, believe that there is climate change, that it is going the wrong direction in terms of the temperature of the Earth and that they want us to do something about it. My starting point is that it's not near the crisis that the alarmists have made it out to be. But at the same time, nobody is going to solve the problem except humans. Other than God himself, we're the only ones in a position to contribute or to lower our contribution, whatever that might be. And our constituents expect us to do that.
Asked what he says to young people concerned about the future, Cramer said that "what I would tell them is that the Earth has gone through cycles for as long as there's been creation. What I would also tell them is what we can't do is we can't destroy ourselves in the process of trying to save the Earth."
Discussing the Monday meeting with Axios, Cramer said that Manchin, "not surprisingly, likes to be proactive and he wants to see what's possible."
"What's acceptable to them has got to be something that can get 10 of us," he added. "And that's going to be pretty tough."
Sierra Club said that "even when Republicans are capable of recognizing the facts about the climate crisis, they're unwilling to take any action to address it," highlighting that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) "wasted decades denying the existence of climate change--collecting a small fortune in donations from corporate polluters along the way--only to now have no plan to address the crisis."
"It's past time for President Biden and Democratic leadership to reject this nonsense and deliver on their promises of action on climate, care, jobs, and justice," the group asserted. "Our communities and our planet urgently need investments in transitioning to clean energy, reducing pollution, cutting costs for working families, creating good jobs, and promoting environmental justice."
Sierra Club was among the groups that held "Fight for Our Future" rallies across the country this past weekend.
Related Content

"Building on this momentum, the Green New Deal Network will place ads in D.C. specifically targeting the Senate and President Biden to deliver on their promises to protect communities from climate, economic, and racial injustices as they return from recess," announced the group, which joined the rallies.
"Fighting for our future is more than just a slogan. It's about demanding that those who we elected actually show up to represent our best interests," said Angelica Zamora, the network's political manager for Arizona. "It is vital that we invest in our planet and people so that we can ensure justice for our communities."
"There is a small window of opportunity to reverse the damage of the climate crisis and provide vital resources that families in Arizona, and across the country, need to thrive," Zamora added. "We need public officials to not waste this moment, but join us in rallying for the security of our future."
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's historic nomination to the United States Supreme Court cleared a minor hurdle Monday after the U.S. Senate overcame a deadlocked Judiciary Committee via a procedural vote in the upper chamber, where her confirmation is all but guaranteed.
"I dream of a day where Black women don't have to be overqualified, jump through hoops, and face misogynoir just to get to the jobs they already deserve."
The Judiciary Committee voted 11-11 on advancing Jackson's high court candidacy to a full Senate vote, meaning that for the first time since 1853 the upper chamber had to hold vote on discharging her nomination from the panel. The full Senate subsequently voted 53-47 to discharge the nomination.
Three Republican senators who have declared their support for Jackson's nomination--Susan Collins of Maine, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney of Utah--joined all 50 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus in voting to discharge the federal judge's nomination from the Judiciary Committee.
The Washington Post reports a final vote on Jackson's confirmation is expected to occur on the Senate floor Thursday or Friday.
Summer Lee, a democratic socialist member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives running for Congress, tweeted that "despite the GOP's efforts, Ketanji Brown Jackson will now be considered for the SCOTUS by the full Senate."
"I dream of a day where Black women don't have to be overqualified, jump through hoops, and face misogynoir just to get to the jobs they already deserve," she added.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement following the split committee vote that "it is obvious listening to Republicans that their objections are entirely unserious. Many who label Judge Jackson as radical and far-left today conveniently ignore that she received bipartisan support not once, not twice, but three times in this chamber, including by voice vote."
"They also fail to mention that Judge Jackson commands strong support from across the political spectrum," Schumer continued, "from conservative judges, to the nation's largest police unions, to a long list of former colleagues who say she is nothing short of the best of the best."
"Republicans in committee have ignored, in other words, the plain facts of Judge Jackson's record and that is deeply disappointing," he added. "Judge Jackson is a brilliant and a historic nominee--and her elevation as the first Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court should bring the Senate together."
Mini Timmaraju, president of the reproductive rights advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a statement that "it's insulting that Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sought to put up another hurdle to impede the confirmation of the first Black woman to the court by refusing to vote to advance her nomination out of committee today."
"However, after the full Senate's... vote to discharge Judge Jackson's nomination from the committee, we look forward to being one step closer to having a justice on the court that we can count on to uphold equal justice for all."
Last week, more than 50 civil society groups joined the chorus of Democratic condemnation of what they called Republican senators' "baseless and harmful attacks" on Jackson's record as a judge and a public defender during her Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings.
Related Content

Dan Goldberg, legal director at Alliance for Justice Action, asked, "How does any senator go back to their constituents and explain why they voted against her?"
"People definitely are going to remember who was on the right side and who played petty partisan politics with this historic nomination," he told The Daily Beast.
At a March 25 Marengo, Iowa town hall for Sen. Chuck Grassley--the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee--one voter said the GOP members "just beat [Jackson] up really badly" in an "appalling" way "so they could get TV time."
"I'm not going to dispute what you said, because I think you described it accurately," Grassley replied.
Daily Beast politics reporter Eleanor Clift mused that "we probably won't remember the names of the Republicans who performatively voted against the eminently qualified Judge Jackson's confirmation."
"But 30 years from now," she added, "we will be talking about the first Black woman on the court, her record, her rulings, and how she opened the door for others to follow."
With Covid-19 killing thousands of people each day in the U.S. and the economy still mired in deep recession, progressives are calling on President Joe Biden and the Democrat-controlled Congress to abandon futile outreach to the GOP and push ahead with a robust relief package after a pair of so-called "moderate" Republican senators voiced skepticism Wednesday about passing another major spending bill.
Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), members of a bipartisan group of lawmakers calling itself the Common Sense Coalition, indicated shortly after Biden's inauguration Wednesday that they would have difficulty supporting relief legislation on the scale of the $1.9 trillion plan the president unveiled last week--a proposal progressives criticized as inadequate.
"Who cares what Romney thinks. Ultimately the effectiveness of the Biden admin will be determined by how often they ignore what Republicans have to say and jam stuff through reconciliation."
--James Medlock, policy analyst
Romney characterized Biden's opening offer as "not well-timed" given that Congress "passed a $900 billion-plus package" last month. Some economists argue that between $3 trillion and $4.5 trillion in spending will be necessary in the short-term to bring the U.S. out of recession and pave the way for a speedy recovery.
"Let's give that some time to be able to influence the economy," Romney said of the December relief measure.
Murkowski echoed Romney's concern, complaining that "the ink is just barely dry on the $900 billion." Biden's relief proposal--which includes $1,400 direct payments, a boost to unemployment benefits, and other key measures--would require "a fair amount of debate and consideration," said the Alaska Republican.
Given that Biden would likely need the backing of both Romney and Murkowski--as well as other Republicans--to achieve his hope of passing a relief bill with bipartisan support, progressives said the two senators' comments further bolster the case for ignoring the austerity-obsessed GOP and using unified Democratic control of government to swiftly pass an ambitious package.
"Who cares what Romney thinks," tweeted policy analyst James Medlock. "Ultimately the effectiveness of the Biden admin[istration] will be determined by how often they ignore what Republicans have to say and jam stuff through reconciliation."
Medlock was referring to the expedited, filibuster-proof process that allows passage of certain kinds of legislation with a simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes--a threshold that would require the support of at least 10 Republican senators.
Biden has not explicitly endorsed passing coronavirus relief through reconciliation if Republicans obstruct his agenda. But White House press secretary Jen Psaki said during the new administration's first press briefing Wednesday that while the president's "clear preference is to move forward with a bipartisan bill," Biden is "not going to take tools off the table for how the House and Senate can get this done."
With the reconciliation process a possibility, another--and, according to some progressives, much better--option is to quickly eliminate the legislative filibuster, a move that would allow passage of legislation without any Republican support.
Democrats control the Senate by the narrowest possible margin, meaning they would need the backing of the entire caucus plus a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Kamala Harris to pass legislation in the absence of the filibuster, which Democrats can kill with a simple majority vote.
"A Republican minority shouldn't be allowed to hold the nation's economic recovery and public health hostage," progressive organizer Ilya Sheyman said, urging Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to use one of the two tools at his disposal to pass a major relief bill.
Amid growing GOP hostility to additional coronavirus relief spending, Biden's economic advisers are expected to meet with the Common Sense Coalition in the coming days, continuing outreach to Republicans and conservative Democrats--such as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)--that began before the inauguration.
"We can do 1,000 straight days of this song and dance or we can just zoom ahead and enjoy a glorious, filibuster-free existence," tweeted Ryan Kearney of the LGBTQ Victory Fund. "Your choice!"
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the new chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said Wednesday that while he has "no problem with reaching out to Republicans" and "would prefer to do it that way," he has no intention of wasting precious time trying to bring intransigent GOP lawmakers onboard.
"If we hear very early on that Republicans do not want to act in a way that meets the needs of working people in this country or the middle class, sorry, we're gonna do it alone," the Vermont senator said in an appearance on ABC.
As progressive Democrats and advocacy groups demand quick action, the timeline for movement of a coronavirus relief package remains unclear. Punchbowl News reported Wednesday morning that "Democrats do not expect to be able to send Biden a Covid relief bill until early March," when emergency unemployment benefits are set to expire for millions of Americans.
Progressives made clear that waiting until March to pass a relief bill would be unacceptable, given the enormity of the public health and economic emergencies that are ravaging the country.
"We urge the President to continue to act swiftly and boldly to address the multiple crises our nation faces," Rahna Epting, executive director of advocacy group MoveOn, said in a statement late Wednesday. "People's lives depend on it. We cannot allow Washington gridlock or Republican obstruction to stand in the way of the urgent needs of the nation."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, issued a similar call to action, demanding that the Biden administration and Democratic Congress work toward "the swift passage of a comprehensive and bold relief package that meets the scale of this crisis."
"We have no time to waste," said Jayapal.
"With less than 50 days until the election and voting already underway in many states, it's important that we demand all senators pledge not to move forward with any nominee until after the next inauguration."
That's according to a new petition from MoveOn.org, now signed by over 780,000 people, urging the GOP-controlled Senate to honor the dying wish of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and allow the victor of this year's presidential contest to choose her replacement.
As early voting was getting underway in some states for this year's general election--in which President Donald Trump is facing off against Democratic nominee Joe Biden--the liberal justice died Friday night at the age of 87, sparking an intense battle over what to do about her empty seat.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) swiftly made clear that Trump's third nominee to the court would get a vote in the upper chamber--eliciting charges of hypocrisy from Democratic lawmakers, advocacy group leaders, and others opposed to a pre-election appointment. They all pointed to McConnell's infamous decision to block outgoing President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016.
"It would be a truly inexcusable act of hypocrisy and injustice for Trump and Senate Republicans to move any nomination forward," declares the MoveOn.org petition, reiterating that ballots are already being cast. Biden, in a Sunday speech at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, urged GOP senators, "Please follow your conscience."
Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine--who is up for reelection this cycle--have said they oppose voting on a nominee before November 3. However, they were both silent on the possibility of a lame-duck session vote, and at least two more members of the GOP would have to join with them and all Democrats to block the confirmation of another right-wing justice--an appointment that, without significant reforms, could alter the court's makeup for decades.
While joining the ranks of those calling out McConnell for "breathtaking hypocrisy, " Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson wrote Saturday in an NBC News op-ed that "we should at some point just be honest. McConnell is seizing on Ginsburg's death as an opportunity to solidify the conservative leaning of the Supreme Court for decades to come--as we knew he would. This is about raw partisan power. There is no legitimate explanation beyond that. Sometimes things are exactly as they appear."
Given McConnell's pledge to hold a vote on Trump's next pick for the court, set to be announced next week, University of Northern Iowa professor C. Kyle Rudick wrote Sunday for Common Dreams that "charges of hypocrisy are insufficient to change the course of the RBG's replacement or, in fact, in other Republican attempt to race-bait, disenfranchise voters, or increase the wealth of the affluent. Each of these things are not inconsistent with the party's actual agenda--power for the sake of power."
"Of the many lessons we must take from Justice Ginsburg's life, perhaps none is more prescient than the need to reject the temptation of pessimism and embrace the grit and determination it takes to see every fight to the end."
--Fatima Goss Graves, NWLC
"Democrats are starting to wake up to this reality. They are considering, if elected in sufficient numbers, to remove the filibuster rules and pack the courts," Rudick noted. "Only time will tell if they have the stomach, or the means, to pursue these types of goals. There is one thing that is that is for sure: Democrats will not win political power through accusations of Republican hypocrisy."
Declaring that now is the time for "constitutional jiujitsu," Jeffrey C. Isaac of Indiana University, Bloomington offered Democrats some suggestions. "The Senate Democratic leadership should strategize about the entire range of legislative tactics that can be employed, now, to forestall a rushed SCOTUS replacement appointment," he wrote for Common Dreams. "This includes possible threats to eliminate the filibuster if the Democrats win back the Senate in November."
Although it remains possible that McConnell and Trump could force through a nominee, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said Friday that he doesn't believe it is "a foregone conclusion." Now, he added, congressional Democrats can either "pretend they are powerless in this situation, or they can pick a fight for once."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) reportedly warned the chamber's Democratic caucus on a Saturday call that "healthcare, protections for preexisting conditions, women's rights, gay rights, workers' rights, labor rights, voting rights, civil rights, climate change and so much else is at risk." Given that threat, Schumer said, "Let me be clear: If Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans move forward with this, then nothing is off the table for next year. Nothing is off the table."
Despite the tough talk, some progressives have suggested that considering Schumer's track record of allowing Trump and McConnell to remake the federal judiciary with right-wing judges confirmed to lifelong posts, a primary challenge to the minority leader--who is up for reelection in 2022--could increase the pressure on him to use all tools at his disposable to prevent a third Trump justice on the nation's highest court.
Some opponents of a Trump Supreme Court nominee are drawing inspiration from none other than RBG. As Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women's Law Center (NWLC), said on a Saturday call with leaders of civil and legal rights advocacy groups: "Of the many lessons we must take from Justice Ginsburg's life, perhaps none is more prescient than the need to reject the temptation of pessimism and embrace the grit and determination it takes to see every fight to the end."
In a Saturday Medium post arguing that "RBG deserves better than liberal defeatism," writer Will Oremus asserted that "hypocrisy has always been rampant in Washington, but it's usually easier to hide than this--and when you can't, it still doesn't sit well with a lot of voters." He continued:
To pretend that norms will constrain Trump or McConnell would be folly, yes. But for Democrats, the media, and the public to concede the ground in advance is to do their dirty work for them. To frame what should be a career-dooming level of hypocrisy as the obvious play, the shrewd political move, is to stand down and wave Senate Republicans through what should be a punishing political gauntlet. It lends credence to excuses like "that's just politics," or "the other side would do the same." It lets them off the hook.
"The New York Times' Jamelle Bouie had the right idea," Oremus added. "Democrats, he suggested, should pursue a two-track strategy that insists on tying Republicans to their 2016 words while at the same time threatening devastating retaliation, in the form of court-packing, should they go back on those words. 'You want no norms?' the Democrats should say. 'We'll show you what that looks like when we're in charge.'"
With mass protests on Capitol Hill Thursday afternoon and a procedural vote set for Friday, North Dakota's Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp has declared she is a firm "no" on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, leaving Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) as the last remaining Democrat still on the fence against the historically unpopular and controversial Supreme Court nominee.
"The process has been bad but at the end of the day you have to make a decision and I have made that decision," Heitkamp told local radio station WDAY radio in Fargo, North Dakota. "I will be voting no on Judge Kavanaugh."
In addition to the intensified focus it puts on Manchin's decision, Heitkamp's announcement also puts heightened pressure on the three key Republicans: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Jeff Flake of Arizona - all three of whom have expressed reservations about Kavanaugh and all three facing increased protests from their own consituents and the broader American public.
In her comments, Heitkamp said that last week's testimony by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, and the outpouring of women's voices since, was a serious consideration in her final decision.
"When I listened to Dr. Ford testify, I heard the voices of women I have known throughout my life who have similar stories of sexual assault and abuse," Heitkamp said. "Our actions right now are a poignant signal to young girls and women across our country. I will continue to stand up for them."
News of Heitkamp's "no" came as West Virginian voters maintained an ongoing occupation of Manchin's office in the U.S. Senate Building:
While both Collins and Flake indicated their satisfaction with the report generated by the FBI and handed over for senator's to review on Thursday, they--along with Murkowski--remain the target of protesters who have vowed not to give up until Kavanaugh's confirmation is defeated: