ICYMI: Top reads on Congress

Hans Noel, “The Senate represents states, not people. That’s the problem,” Vox:

“These concerns were central for the Framers, who were looking at the Constitution from the very state-centered perspective of the Articles of Confederation. Each state had its own government and identity, and their relationship to one another was weak. The Constitution aimed to make that relationship stronger, but states were still the players. An American was a citizen of their state first, and of the union second.”

Jonah Goldberg, “The Senate Is not Undemocratic,” National Review:

“In the wake of the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a lot of people are suddenly very mad that the Senate is “undemocratic.” I’m unmoved.The reason for my indifference is twofold. First, this alleged outrage fits a time-honored tradition of progressives declaring illegitimate everything that is inconvenient to their agenda. Second, this is mostly about California being a big baby.”

Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Senate Truce Collapses as G.O.P. Rush to Confirm More Judges Begins Anew,” New York Times:

“Republicans on the Judiciary Committee convened yet another hearing to consider still more conservative federal court nominees — while the Senate was technically in recess. Incensed Democrats boycotted the proceedings, but their empty chairs did not prevent candidates for the bench, such as Allison Rushing, 36, a social conservative nominated by President Trump to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, from taking a crucial step toward confirmation.”

E. Donald Elliot, “Fixing a broken process for nominating US Supreme Court justices,” The Conversation:

“The current system is no longer working as intended, perhaps because justices are being appointed at a younger age yet life expectancy is increasing. Consequently, some presidents can exercise vastly disproportionate influence over Supreme Court appointments for decades after their terms of office have expired.”

Amber Phillips, “All the ways House Democrats are planning to make Trump’s life miserable next year,” Washington Post:

“But House Democrats are talking a lot down the home stretch about other ways they could make Trump’s life difficult. And if Democrats win back the House of Representatives in the fall — which is likely — there’s a lot they could do short of the “i” word, from investigations into Trump and his allies to trying to get Trump’s tax returns.”

Nicholas Fandos, “With a House Takeover, Democrats Could Get Trump’s Tax Returns. Would They?” New York Times:

“Democrats, eyeing control of a powerful House tax-writing committee next year, are studying a century-old provision in the federal tax code that could give them access to President Trump’s long-sought tax returns and eventually the ability to make them public.”

Lindsey McPherson, “Why Pelosi Is Likely to Be Speaker Again if Democrats Win Back House,” Roll Call:

“You can’t beat somebody with nobody.” That political axiom explains in just six words why Nancy Pelosi is likely to be elected speaker if Democrats retake the House in November. No one has announced plans to challenge the California Democrat, and it’s unclear if anyone will after the election.”

Jim Newell, “Nancy Pelosi Will Rise Again,” Slate:

“Though the size of the would-be Democratic majority will determine whether she’ll have to fight for it, Pelosi remains the strongest bet for speakership largely because there are no other strong bets out there. Yes, there are plotters lurking in the viper’s nest that is the House Democratic Caucus. But there’s just no plot.”

Anna Palmer, “Pelosi details her plans for House majority,” Politico:

“Similar to 2007 — the first time Pelosi took the speaker’s gavel — House Democrats plan to introduce a package for campaign finance reform as their first bill of the 116th Congress. “People believe you that if you want to reduce the goal of money in politics … then they trust you to do the right thing,” Pelosi said in an interview in a downtown Philly food court before heading out for a trio of campaign events.”

Rachel Bade, “The other spending war: Appropriations race gets ugly,” Politico:

“The race to head the powerful Appropriations panel next year is intensifying behind the scenes, as Graves, a dark-horse candidate, makes headway in his long-shot bid for the position.”

Emma Dumain, “Black Caucus members tell Jim Clyburn to step it up ahead of midterms,” McClatchy:

“Rep. Jim Clyburn’s friends want him well-positioned to be a top House leader next year, so they’re sending him a strong, tough message: Get off the sidelines and be aggressive.”

McKay Coppins, “The Man Who Broke Politics,” The Atlantic:

“Gingrich’s career can perhaps be best understood as a grand exercise in devolution—an effort to strip American politics of the civilizing traits it had developed over time and return it to its most primal essence.”

Jamelle Bouie, “Minority Rule Does Not Have to Be Here Forever,” Slate:

“But Madison wasn’t a minoritarian; he believed majorities, properly structured around consensus, had the right to govern.That belief should inform our understanding of the present, where the Republican Party holds all three branches in Washington despite less-than-majority support among the public at large.”

Jonathan Bernstein,”Madison Never Envisioned Minority Rule,” Bloomberg:

“So, yes, Madison didn’t want absolute rule by majorities. But he didn’t see absolute rule by a minority as the more democratic alternative; I don’t think such a thing would’ve even occurred to him. Democracy is, at its core, rule by the people. Not a majority of the people. And obviously not a minority.”

Catherine Rampell, “States are taking action on #MeToo. Why isn’t Congress?” Washington Post:

“In fact, over the past year, Congress has done (almost) nothing to address the systemic problems that lead to workplace sexual misconduct. Federal lawmakers haven’t even managed to enact a bill that would hold their own misbehaving colleagues accountable, let alone bad actors elsewhere in the country.”

Amber Phillips, “What can Congress do to punish Saudi Arabia if Trump won’t?” Washington Post:

“Lawmakers have a number of tools to use against Saudi Arabia, said Jon Alterman, the head of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. That’s because Saudi Arabia is particularly sensitive to any deviation from the norm in U.S.-Saudi relations.”

Charlie Savage, “Ex-Senate Aide Pleads Guilty to Lying to F.B.I. About Contacts With Reporter,” New York Times:

“A former Senate Intelligence Committee aide pleaded guilty on Monday to lying to the F.B.I. about his contacts with an unidentified journalist during an investigation into leaks of classified information related to coverage of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.”