Conservatives rebuff Trump, say they have votes to derail health bill

President Trump flashed the thumbs-up Tuesday on Capitol Hill, where he pressured House Republicans to pass an ObamaCare replacement bill -- but despite White House optimism about a deal coming together, conservative members later said they’re still voting no and could derail the chamber vote set for Thursday.
“It’s not a personal decision. It’s a policy decision,” North Carolina GOP Rep. Mark Meadows, leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told Fox News. “We have a difference of opinion.”
Meadows said 21 of the influential caucus’ 30-plus members still intend to vote against the bill, crafted by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and his leadership team.
Trump repeatedly has tried since the bill was introduced several weeks ago to win over Meadows -- from inviting him to the White House and his Mar-a-Lago Florida resort last weekend to calling him out Tuesday in a closed-door meeting.
“Oh Mark, I'm going to come after you,” Trump told Meadows to laughter, according to several reports.
The White House and Meadows later downplayed the comment, with the congressman saying he and the president have a good relationship and that he also got a visit Tuesday from Vice President Mike Pence.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the president was just having some “fun” with Meadows, an early supporter in Trump’s 2016 White House race.
Still, those who attended the roughly 40-minute, closed-door meeting thought Trump was dead serious when he said many House Republicans got elected on a vow to repeal and replace ObamaCare and they could lose re-election in 2018 if they don’t fulfill the promise.
Trump’s blunt warning signaled his and Ryan’s escalating efforts to get the requisite 218 votes to pass the legislation in the GOP-led chamber, then send it to the GOP-led Senate.
Late Monday, Ryan and his team announced changes to their bill, the American Health Care Act, to shore up support from the GOP's rank-and-file, including moderates, and with voters who now rely on ObamaCare.
The change, in a 43-page manager's amendment, would pave the way for the Senate, if it chooses, to make the bill's tax credits more generous for people ages 50 to 65, so they could better afford the insurance. The bill reportedly sets aside $85 billion over 10 years for that purpose.
The measure also would curb Medicaid growth and allow states to impose work requirements on some recipients.
Ryan said Monday the amendment was the result of an "inclusive approach" involving the White House and congressional Republicans.
But even if the bill clears the House, it faces problems in the Senate.
Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, a Trump supporter, said he cannot support the House bill, despite the proposed changes.
He said they “do little to address the core problem of ObamaCare: rising premiums and deductibles, which are making insurance unaffordable for too many Arkansans.”
President Obama’s signature health care law has provided insurance for at least 11 million Americans but has struggled to survive as customers face rising premium costs and fewer policy options.
Still, the replacement plan has no Democratic support.
Meadows indicated Monday that his group will not oppose or support the bill collectively, so members can vote on their own.
However, Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan, a founding Freedom Caucus member, said Tuesday that the group’s opposition remains “very strong.” And he sounded pessimistic about Republican leaders’ down-the-road promises on tax relief and insurance deregulation.
“This bill doesn't do what we told the American people we were going to do,” he said.
Meadows brushed aside concerns about losing in a GOP primary next year.
“I serve at the will of 750,000 people in western North Carolina. I’m going to be a no even if it sends me home,” he said. “I don’t know of too many people who can challenge me on the right.”
Despite giving the thumbs-up before the Capitol Hill meeting, Trump appeared to leave with just cautious optimism, saying negotiations continue and “I think we'll get the vote Thursday."
The president will apparently continue to meet with House Republicans until the vote deadline, which includes talking with the moderate Tuesday Group and attending a National Republican Congressional Committee dinner.
New Jersey GOP Rep. Tom MacArthur a Tuesday Group member who supports the bill, said after the White House meeting that most of the 12 other members also seem to be supportive but still have concerns. 

Unscathed: Gorsuch aces his hearing, 'doesn't give a whit about politics'

Neil Gorsuch is an impressive witness, a judge out of central casting who says all the right things, with great earnestness, about judicial independence.
Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee smoothly insisted that he would have no problem ruling against the president who appointed him and has respect for court precedent—including Roe v. Wade, which he noted has been “reaffirmed.”
The Democrats tried to rough him up at yesterday’s confirmation hearing, in part by bringing up his role in George W. Bush’s Justice Department, but it was mainly polite sparring that left Gorsuch with few scratches.
“Goodness no, Senator,” he told Dianne Feinstein when asked, based on a note he wrote in a case about torture techniques, if he believed an administration could ignore the law.
And when Feinstein asked whether he would always favor big corporations over the little guy, Gorsuch insisted “from the bottom of my heart that I’m a fair judge.” And he told Orrin Hatch that “a good judge doesn’t give a whit about politics.”
Gorsuch also stressed that he has dissented equally from judges named by Republicans and Democrats.
I’ve watched a zillion confirmation hearings. Whatever you think of his record, Gorsuch put on a clinic in how to testify without losing your cool. He said “gosh” and “golly” and then quoted Hamilton and Socrates.
To be sure, Trump picked Gorsuch because he has a solidly conservative record. The hearings are a kabuki dance in which both liberals and conservatives duck specifics while promising to be impartial on the high court.
And Gorsuch probably would have had smooth sailing if Democrats weren’t still furious at Mitch McConnell and company for refusing to give Merrick Garland a hearing last year—a move that Democrat Pat Leahy called “shameful” at the hearing.
Leahy turned up the temperature, saying it appeared that Trump “outsourced your nomination” to “far-right special interest groups.” But Gorsuch deflected his repeated attempts to get him to take a stand on a religious test and surveillance, drawing a laugh when he said “I admire the various ways” the senator kept trying to draw him into pending cases.
An emotional moment came when Dick Durbin confronted Gorsuch over an allegation that he asked his law students if they knew a woman who had taken maternity benefits and left the country. Gorsuch said passionately that he was discussing the ethics of employers asking female applicants if they plan to get pregnant, and is disturbed that many female students say in a show of hands that it’s happened to them.
The initial press headlines reflected how Gorsuch framed the day.
New York Times: “Gorsuch Vows Independence; Offered Trump ‘No Promises’”
Washington Post: “Gorsuch:  ‘No Such Thing as a Republican Judge or a Democratic Judge’”
Having covered Gorsuch’s mother Anne when she ran Ronald Reagan’s EPA, a rocky tenure in which she was charged with contempt of Congress, it is fascinating to watch how easily he deals with Congress.
I also covered the hearings for Antonin Scalia, whose seat Gorsuch would take. He was approved 98 to 0—an outcome impossible to imagine in today’s hyperpartisan climate. But Neil Gorsuch helped himself yesterday.

Gorsuch appears to survive barrage from Democrats, readies for third day of confirmation hearings

Senate Democrats on Tuesday pressed Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch on his opinion on past High Court rulings that could help identify his ideological approach to the bench, but he appeared to have emerged from the hours of testimony relatively unscathed.
Gorsuch appeared intent on following the Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm.
He avoided any serious blunders despite a flurry of questions ranging from his opinion on Roe v. Wade and his opinion on the District of Columbia v. Heller-- the 2008 ruling that allowed handguns to be kept inside homes for self-defense.
“If I were to start telling you which are my favorite precedents or which are my least favorite precedents or if I view a precedent in that fashion, I would be tipping my hand and suggesting to litigants that I’ve already made up my mind about their cases,” he said.

After 9 hrs of chairing Judic Comm SCOTUS hrg I handed the gavel to Sen Tillis Thx senator for taking over so I can run at 4 in the morning

— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) March 22, 2017

The Roe v. Wade line of questioning was of particular interest. Trump said during the campaign that he would nominate judges that would overturn the decision. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., asked Gorsuch whether Trump had asked him to overturn Roe v. Wade. The nominee answered no, and said that if Trump had, “I would have walked out the door.”
GREGG JARRETT: SORRY DEMS, JUDGE GORSUCH IS UN-BORKABLE 
Gorsuch has not ruled directly on the right to an abortion, and was pressed on the topic by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the committee’s top Democrat. He said that legalized abortion is “precedent” and “worthy of treatment as precedent like any other.”
On the major gun rights case known in short-hand as “Heller,” he also said that it’s the “law of the land.”
“I have no difficulty ruling against or for any party, other than based on what the law and the facts of a particular case require,” Gorsuch said. “There’s no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge, we just have judges in this country.”
Gorsuch was also asked if he would have an issue ruling against Trump, if the law called for it. Gorsuch said he would not. He went on to repeat earlier comments he reportedly said in private about Trump’s attack on judges.
“When anyone criticizes the honesty or integrity or motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening and demoralizing.” He was asked if that statement applied to the president and he said, “Anyone is anyone.”
The New York Times summed up the Republican line of questioning: “Republicans largely used their questioning to help insulate Judge Gorsuch from expected criticism, offering 30-minute safe harbors.”
Democrats see Gorsuch, a George W. Bush appointee in the 10^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, as a judge who will interpret the law in a similar fashion of the man he may replace: Antonin Scalia.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he hopes to confirm Gorsuch before a two-week break that begins on April 10. The committee expects to vote on April 3. Grassley told reporters that the nomination would immediately go to the floor.
Gorsuch’s nomination to the High Court appears to be very likely. He will benefit from a Republican-controlled Senate. He needs 60 total votes. Republicans hold 52 seats. Ten Democrats represent states that voted for President Trump in November. And, Republicans can “go nuclear” and change the rule to confirm Gorsuch to a simple majority.
Perhaps one of the more tense interactions of the day, was between Gorsuch and Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.
Franken asked Gorsuch how he could rule in favor of a company that fired a truck driver who abandoned his trailer on the side of an interstate on a -14 degree night. Alphonse Maddin, the driver, noticed that his trailer’s brakes were frozen and his heater did not work.
Maddin unhitched his trailer and drove off to wait somewhere warm. Gorsuch wrote that the company gave him the legal option to wait with his trailer.
“I had a career in identifying absurdity,” Franken, a former member of “Saturday Night Live,” said. “I know it when I see it, and it makes me question your judgement.”

Liberal Austin Cartoons

DHS names local jails that won't hold illegal immigrants

WASHINGTON –  The Trump administration is naming some names in its efforts to shame local jails that don't cooperate with immigration authorities. It's putting the spotlight on Travis County, Texas, home of liberal Austin.
The administration released a list of 206 cases of immigrants released from custody before federal agents could intervene. Roughly two-thirds were from Travis County.

The 206 figure is somewhat murky. It doesn't represent all the cases in which immigration authorities sought custody of people facing criminal charges, with major cities like New York and Los Angeles underrepresented on the list. It's also unclear what period it covers. The cases were identified by the administration between Jan. 28 and Feb. 3, but most of the detention requests had been made before then, as far back as early 2014. Also unclear is the status of the immigrants -- whether some are in federal or state custody.

The release of the list by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was prompted by an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in January. That order called on the government to document which local jurisdictions aren't cooperating with federal efforts to find and deport immigrants in the country illegally.

Trump has made immigration a key issue in his administration and has promised to deport "bad dudes" living in the United States illegally. The report highlights a variety of crimes, including the case of a Jamaican national in Philadelphia charged with homicide, along with multiple sex offenses, assaults and driving under the influence cases. The majority of the immigrants whose cases are highlighted are from Mexico or Central America. The Travis County cases also include a mix of convictions and charges ranging from drunken driving to aggravated assault and sexual assault.

Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez, a Democrat, was elected last fall after campaigning on refusing to comply with immigration detainers in cases where people were arrested on minor offenses unrelated to their being in the country illegally. Detainers are government requests that an immigrant who could face deportation be turned over to immigration authorities.

Hernandez's office has continued to honor detainers for more serious offenses, including murder. All but 26 of the declined detainers were issued by the Obama administration and before Hernandez took office.

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott responded to Hernandez's policies by blocking $1.5 million in state grant funding to Travis County.

Jails and police agencies around the U.S. have opted in recent years not to cooperate with immigration authorities, in some cases citing federal court rulings that immigrants cannot be held in those jails strictly because of their immigration status. Other jurisdictions have passed local ordinances barring cooperation.

As a result, the Obama administration dramatically reduced the number of detainers filed annually, a trend Trump's immigration authorities have pledged to reverse.

ICE said that nationwide, from Jan. 28 to Feb. 3, it made 3,083 new requests to jails that immigrants accused of a crime be held long enough for ICE agents to take them into custody. It is unclear how many of those requests were honored.

The number of requests made and declined is likely to increase as the government issues more detainer requests, immigration officials said. The officials briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity despite Trump's complaints that anonymous sources should not be considered reliable.

Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan said that when detainer requests aren't honored and serious offenders are released, "it undermines ICE's ability to protect the public safety and carry out its mission."

Trump has said he plans to crack down on so-called "sanctuary cities" and other jurisdictions that do not cooperate with immigration authorities and has threatened to eliminate access to some federal grants. He also plans to restart the Secure Communities program that used fingerprints collected in local jails and shared with the FBI to identify immigrants who could face deportation. The program was scrapped under the Obama administration amid multiple court challenges and widespread complaints that it resulted in the deportations of people accused of only low-level offenses.

Conservative House Republicans say they have votes to block health law

Conservative House Republicans said Monday that they have enough votes to block the passage of the GOP’s legislation to dismantle ObamaCare if there is a vote on Thursday and all Democrats vote down party line.
Members of the House Freedom Caucus, which has about 35 members, have called on House leaders to repeal more elements of ObamaCare, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Top House Republicans hunting votes for their health care overhaul are proposing amendments aimed at providing more help for older people, curbing Medicaid and accelerating the repeal of some tax increases.
The bill would let people deduct more medical costs from taxes. It would repeal many tax increases boosted by President Obama's 2010 statute this year instead of 2018. Older and disabled Medicaid recipients would get more generous benefits. But states could impose work requirements on the program.
The bill would let the Senate approve tax credits more generous to people age 50 to 64. Congressional analysts say the current GOP legislation would hit many with big cost increases.
GOP leaders released the changes late Monday, three days ahead of a planned House vote on the bill.
“Based on what I’ve been told is in the manager’s amendment, and what I’ve been told tonight, I don’t know that it moves anybody or makes a compelling case from where their previous positions were,” Rep. Mark Meadows, R.- N.C., chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, told the paper.

Press fired up as Comey rejects Trump wiretap claim, offers no evidence on Russia probe

James Comey didn’t want to say much yesterday on Capitol Hill, but for President Trump’s opponents, he said enough.
House Republicans wanted to focus on illegal leaks of classified information, scoring some points on that issue.
And all this managed to overshadow the first day of Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing, a reflection of the depth of this Washington obsession.
Eight words from the FBI director—“I have no information to support those tweets”—knocked down the most controversial claim of Trump’s presidency.
Comey also said a president has no power to order a wiretap, which dismisses the Trump charge that Barack Obama had set the alleged wiretap in motion.
By confirming that there is an FBI probe of contacts between Trump associates and Russia—which we already knew—Comey appeared to give ammunition to the president’s opponents. It wasn’t a “bombshell,” as some headlines had it, but it’s now official.
In other news that we already knew, Comey said the Russians wanted to damage Hillary Clinton and thereby help the Trump campaign. And Clinton people are upset that the Trump/Russia probe remained secret while Comey talked about reopening the Hillary email inquiry in late October.
But there is more to the story and the way it is being covered.
The Intelligence Committtee hearing was highly partisan, with Democrats asking Comey all kinds of questions, many based on news reports, that he insisted he could not answer. They were obviously trying to get it all on the public record and raise suspicions for the viewing audience.
As for the Republicans, they kept pressing, but didn’t get anywhere, for information on how Michael Flynn’s name was leaked over the contacts with Russia’s ambassador that led to his firing for not being truthful.
This dovetailed with some early-morning tweets from Trump, who said the Democrats “made up and pushed the Russia story” and “the real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!”
So now the media have two related situations in which there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
The one making big headlines, more than two weeks after Trump’s allegations, is that the FBI has nothing to support the notion that Obama directed some kind of 2016 surveillance against Trump.
The other, which has gotten little traction in the press, is that the FBI has found no evidence of improper collusion between the president or his associates and Moscow.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer made this argument to me in a “Media Buzz” interview, saying the press is pushing a “false narrative” by not equally emphasizing the lack of evidence in the Russia probe. Of course, the White House press secretary wanted to focus on the Russian part of the equation while deferring to the intelligence panels on the wiretap claims that his boss has been unable to substantiate.
Now critics can say that the reason there is no evidence of collusion between Trump World and the Putin government is that Comey remains tight-lipped about an ongoing investigation. But in this leaky environment, it’s hard to imagine that damaging material, if it existed, wouldn’t have made its way into the press.
Based on Comey’s testimony, this thing could drag on for months. But the media should apply the same standards to both questions: Make no damaging assumptions unless there is proof.
And then there was this, in mid-afternoon: Gorsuch delivered his opening statement to a Senate committee, which was carried by Fox, while CNN and MSNBC stuck with the Comey hearing. Two big stories, no question, but hard to imagine that the opening day for a Supreme Court nominee wasn’t the day’s headline grabber.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Democrats set to grill Gorsuch on second day of confirmation hearing

The Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Neil Gorsuch is likely to take a sharp turn Tuesday after a relatively smooth opening day on Capitol Hill where the nominee was able to speak about his view on topics like an the importance of an independent judiciary.
Senate Democrats on Tuesday get to attempt to raise concerns about President Trump's pick to replace the conservative icon Antonin Scalia. Democrats will likely try to make Gorsuch appear beholden to big business and out-of-touch with the poor. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., said outright that Gorsuch was “selected by interest groups.”
Gorsuch has been preparing for the questioning. He has been holding closely guarded mock hearings that were attended by legal experts.
He wants to avoid the easy soundbite that could throw a wrench in his nomination process.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on Monday, repeated a comment by White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said last month that Gorsuch "represents the type of judge that has the vision of Donald Trump."
"I want to hear from you why Mr. Priebus would say that," Durbin said to Gorsuch. "Most Americans question whether we need a Supreme Court justice with the vision of Donald Trump."
Gorsuch, a highly-credentialed judge and conservative member of the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is roundly described by critics and friends as a combination of smarts, down-to-earth modesty, disarming warmth and careful deliberation.
But even so, some critics don't think he belongs on the court. They believe he is too quick to side with conservative and business interests at the expense of working Americans and the poor.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, said Monday that the panel’s top priority is to find out if Gorsuch is a “reasonable, mainstream” conservative or not.
Sen. Schumer, D-N.Y., said last week that Gorsuch may “act like a neutral, calm judge” but in reality he “harbors a right-wing, pro corporate, special-interest agenda.”
Besides Gorsuch's take on the court’s role and his view on whether the Constitution is a living body meant to evolve with the times, Democrats are well aware that blocking Gorsuch’s nomination would be a tremendous blow to President Trump.
Trump is still recovering from his national security adviser Michael Flynn’s resignation and while Gorsuch addressed the panel Monday, FBI Director James Comey testified nearby that the bureau is investigating Russian meddling in the election and possible links between Trump associates and the Russians.
The Russian storyline as well as Trump's verbal attacks on federal judges both during the campaign and as president have fed into Democratic efforts to force Gorsuch to break publicly with the man who nominated him.
Gorsuch already has told some senators in private meetings that he found the criticism of the judges disheartening. But Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said the nominee needs to make a statement "publicly and explicitly and directly."
Democrats are not the only ones who work to thwart an opposing party's president's pick for the High Court.
Back in 2009, when Justice Sonia Sotomayor was going through her confirmation hearings, Republicans seized on a comment she made in 2001 that she “would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Republicans hold 52 out of 100 seats in the Senate. Gorsuch needs 60 total votes. Of those 48 Democrats, 10 of them represent states in which Trump carried in November. His confirmation appears likely, but not guaranteed. Republicans can, however, “go nuclear” and change the rule to confirmation by a simple majority. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., took the unusual step in 2013 to break the filibuster.
Besides Russia, there are two Gorsuch decisions that will likely be a focal point. He once ruled in favor of school that declined to extend the length of a six-month leave of absence to a teacher with cancer. In another case, he ruled against the parents of an autistic son who sought reimbursement of the cost of a private program after they took the boy out of public school. The rulings were unanimous — Gorsuch was joined by liberal judges — and The Wall Street Journal editorial page called the rulings “correct” based on “statue and precedent.” Opinion editors at The Journal report that 89 percent of Gorsuch’s 171 employment cases were unanimous decisions.
Gorsuch pledged on Monday that he would be independent or “hang up the robe.”'
"These days we sometimes hear judges cynically described as politicians in robes, seeking to enforce their own politics rather than striving to apply the law impartially. If I thought that were true, I'd hang up the robe. But I just don't think that's what a life in the law is about," Gorsuch said.