1/6 Commission Filibustered but hey Breyer is optimistic!

This is relevent to something below (I'm not the only one who flagged it), so I'll lead off with saying the 1/6 Commission was filibustered 54-35. To be clear, this is the debate for it, which is supposed to be the basic point of having a filibuster. To allow the minority their freedom of speech. Senator Warner, an old Senate institution just died, but this brings to mind Senator Byrd. Byrd was a big believe of the right of a senator to talk.

The vote was predictable -- it basically matched the votes to convict with Toomey and Burr not voting, but Toomey's camp saying if it mattered, he would have voted for debate. Burr opposed it, arguing congressional investigation is enough. The only change was that Sen. Portman, the "moderate" that is retiring but did not vote to convict, supported the commission.

Sen. Murkowski was noticeably upset with the Republicans being worried about election success. This is nice as was her solitary vote to confirm Vanita Gupta (Collins was the sole Republican vote for Kristen Clarke; such a travesty, especially on the anniversary of George Floyd's death), but only so much. You need some sanity in the Senate, though again, at this point, I give her limited respect for still mostly aiding and abetting the Trump Republican Party.  

Murray and Sinema, Democrats, were of the eleven who didn't vote. It's Friday before a break and senators want to get home.  The vote happened this morning, a China related bill holding up things late last night with a few usual suspects among Republicans wanting to talk particularly. This would include Ron Johnson and Skeletor (insurrection friendly) from Florida.  Anyway, this vote should be seen -- like the votes to block the electoral votes on 1/6 -- as special acts of perfidy.  

====

The vote also provides the basic path of the Republican Party at this point, even among the Republican senators, who on 1/6 warranted some respect for not joining with their House members (less than 10 senators voted that way as compared to 2/3 on Pennsylvania).  The fact Republicans are not TOTALLY there yet, even when the vote would be only a message (the worry now is what happens when they control state legislatures and there is even a halfway credible reason to block Democratic wins), only takes one so far here.  

The institution has some credibility, but at this point especially with Republican leadership in both houses, the party deserves little.  I simply don't know how bad it is, not quite in the four alarm fire mode of some people.  Still, I concur that the concern is not partisanship as if "both sides" are the problem.  At this point, that is basically crap.  I'm not a bs artist so frame it that way to underline that Democrats are a party; they have some partisanship.  But, males being dubious creatures still don't make them all rapists.  And, only one party is the Trump Party.

Breyer is worried that the appearance of a political court will erode public confidence and faith in democracy. For him, the main problem facing American liberal democracy is partisanship. But he’s wrong. The main problem facing American liberal democracy is fascism. And insisting that the fascists and opponents of democracy are good-faith partners in bipartisan defense of democratic institutions is the quickest path to destroying those institutions for good.

I basically agree with this criticism of Justice Breyer, who as the 1/6 vote was going on was taking part in some video event.  One thing he offered is that if you spend time talking with Republicans, you will eventually get common ground.  That's nice.  The lowest common denominator won't get us very far at the moment.   I like Breyer in various ways.  But, this sort of Panglossian business at this moment after all the water that flowed under the bridge is hard to take.  I still hope the guy realizes it is time to retire. Even given his concerns, trying to do so in the middle of a midterm election season would be hard.  So, what?  He will wait to 2023?  

===

I updated my Supreme Court summary to briefly note some developments. It is unclear what the death penalty in Indian Country stay will mean, so it's okay to not add to that for now.  One thing there, however, is that three justices dissented on the record.  The accepted rule there is that you can't assume votes.  Hey, maybe Thomas dissented silently!  

But, Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Robinson -- in response to a tweet of mine -- said she was not playing that game.  If they don't say otherwise, she will assume silence means consent. I think that is the correct approach.  I also think back-loading all these major opinions into June is bad policy too. They had two opinion days this week, all to release three minor opinions.  Hey, sure, they are important to some degree for the litigants. The costs ruling is not totally trivial for litigants.  

And, the SCOTUSBlog summary praises it for its clarity in providing a national rule, which is basically a core job for SCOTUS.  Doing so without drama might even be something justices want to highlight, suggesting some value in a stand alone opinion while court watchers were hoping/expecting a big ticket case.  But, they still are minor rulings, and with over twenty left, we will how have like six a week in June with a bunch of major opinions in the bunch.  Another way to show that they are doing their job in an organized no drama way is not to have a so many opinions at once, particularly a bunch heavy with hot button stuff. 

And, yes, there will be an Opinion Day on June 1st.