The
Republican-controlled Senate on Wednesday afternoon confirmed Lawrence
VanDyke to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, marking President Trump's
50th successful appellate court appointment in just three years in
office, and his second to the historically liberal 9th Circuit in as
many days.
By contrast, President Barack Obama nominated a total
of 55 circuit judges who were confirmed over eight years -- and Obama's
nominees were, on average, approximately ten years older. The White
House has dramatically transformed the 9th Circuit, a powerful court with jurisdiction over nine states and Guam that has long been a thorn in the president's side.
Of
the 30 active seats on the 9th Circuit, 10 have now been appointed by
Trump, and 14 by Republican presidents. Only nine of the court's 19
semi-retired "senior status" judges were appointed by Democrats, with 10
by Republicans. That's a major change from early last year, when only six of the active judges on the 9th Circuit were chosen by Republicans.
"FIFTY
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES!" tweeted Carrie Severino, the conservative
Judicial Crisis Network's chief counsel and policy director. "Despite
unrelenting Democratic obstruction and smear campaigns," she wrote,
Trump and his Senate allies "have answered the call of the American
people."
VanDyke's confirmation, by a 51-44 vote, came just 24
hours after Patrick Bumatay, an openly gay Filipino man, was also seated
on the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit. Both nominees were fiercely
opposed by Democrats, including the senators from their home states --
Nevada Sens. Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto for VanDyke,
and California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris for Bumatay.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has long drawn
the ire of President Trump, who has called it "disgraceful." It's now
being transformed. (AP)
But, the White House has long ignored the so-called "blue slip" process
of seeking advice from home-state senators in the judicial confirmation
process, as it pressed ahead with its goal of transforming the federal
appellate bench for generations.
"As the 9th Circuit shifts to
become more conservative and better parallels the Supreme Court's
ideological baseline, I could only imagine fewer liberal 9th Circuit
decisions and fewer overturned 9th Circuit decisions generally," legal
scholar and judicial data guru Adam Feldman, who blogs at Empirical SCOTUS, told Fox News.
The
confirmations have not been easy for the White House -- or its
nominees. VanDyke, a deputy assistant attorney general in the
environmental and natural resources division, broke down in tears during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in October, as he disputed suggestions that he would not be fair to members of the LGBTQ community.
The
ostensibly nonpartisan American Bar Association (ABA), which rated
VanDyke unqualified, sent a letter to committee leadership alleging that
people they interviewed expressed this concern, and that VanDyke
himself "would not say affirmatively that he would be fair to any
litigant before him, notably members of the LGBTQ community."
“There
was a theme that the nominee lacks humility, has an ‘entitlement’
temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always have a
commitment to being candid and truthful,” the letter added.
The
ABA did note that VanDyke, a Harvard Law School graduate and former
solicitor general for Montana and Nevada, is "clearly smart." VanDyke is
a former Nevada solicitor general who also waged an expensive campaign
for a seat on the Montana Supreme Court in 2014.
"I did not say
that," VanDyke told Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., tears welling up in his
eyes. "No, I did not say that. I do not believe that. It is a
fundamental belief of mine that all people are created in the image of
God. They should all be treated with dignity and respect, senator."
VanDyke
also said that he was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the
allegations during his ABA interview. He said when he was confronted
with the concerns about his views, he began to answer but was told they
were running out of time, and described himself as “much more hurt than
I’ve ever been to get that” assessment from the ABA.
That
interview was conducted by Marcia Davenport, the lead evaluator. Hawley
noted that Davenport once contributed to the campaign of a judicial
candidate who was running against VanDyke.
"I find that absolutely
unbelievable," Hawley said, stating it "probably explains the totally
ad hominem nature of this disgraceful letter."
Conservative
groups came to VanDyke's defense: "Even for the ABA, this is beyond the
pale," the Judicial Crisis Network's Carrie Severino said in a
statement, accusing the ABA of "bias against conservative nominees to
the judiciary."
Bumatay, the nominee confirmed to the 9th Circuit
on Tuesday, served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern
District of California. He was confirmed in a 53-40 party-line vote, and
received a “Qualified” rating from the ABA.
He was nominated last year, but the Senate never took up his confirmation, and it eventually expired.
“Patrick
Bumatay lacks the knowledge and experience necessary for the 9th
Circuit," Feinstein said. "He also acknowledged working on the
separation of immigrant families while at the Justice Department and
refused to answer questions about other controversial issues."
The conservative Americans for Prosperity (AFP), however, praised Bumatay's credentials.
“In
Patrick Bumatay, the president has nominated a highly qualified and
experienced individual, committed to supporting and defending the
Constitution – rather than seeking to legislate from the bench," Casey
Mattox, AFP's vice president for legal and judicial strategy, said in a
statement. "We applaud Chairman Graham and the members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee for their support of Bumatay and Senator McConnell
for his continued commitment to confirming fair and qualified nominees
to the federal bench.”
Speaking to top Republican lawmakers and Justice Department officials in the East Room of the White House in November, Trump celebrated
the appointment of his 150th federal judge, which he called
a "profoundly historic milestone and a truly momentous achievement." As
of Dec. 11, Trump has appointed a total of 120 judges to federal
district courts, which sit below appellate courts -- with dozens more in
the pipeline.
The event featured a series of humorous moments as Trump's onetime rivals took the microphone. Sen. Lindsey Graham, for example, fondly recalled the time Trump had given out his personal phone number on
the campaign trail and compared him to a "dog" -- and how the two
quickly settled their score shortly after Trump took office.
"The
defining moment of your president was the Kavanaugh hearing," Graham
said. "This room would be empty if we had failed Brett Kavanaugh. Brett
Kavanaugh lived a life we should all be proud of. He worked hard. And
the way he was treated was the worst experience I've had in politics. A
lot of people would have pulled the plug on him. Mr. President, thank
you for not pulling the plug."
Trump
singled out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., for a
standing ovation, saying his impact in methodically confirming judges in
the Senate was "truly amazing." Trump went on to joke that it was "so
easy" to get Supreme Court justices confirmed, in a nod to the
contentious Brett Kavanaugh hearings last year.
"Generations from
now, Americans will know that Mitch McConnell helped save the
constitutional rule of law in America -- it's true," Trump said. Fox News' Ronn Blitzer contributed to this report.
Eric Holder, who headed the U.S. Justice Department under former President Barack Obama, penned
a column late Wednesday in which he calls Attorney General William Barr
an unfit successor due to "nakedly partisan" actions and loyalty to
President Trump.
Barr
has been a favorite target of Trump critics since becoming attorney
general in February following the departure of Jeff Sessions. Barr's
detractors see him as a high-ranking enabler of the president who may
use the department to serve Trump's personal and political interests.
In an interview with Fox News earlier this year, Barr said he was ready for the criticism.
His
supporters, however, see Barr as a major player in determining the
origins of what became the Russia investigation. The White House and
Republicans in Congress say they want to know more about why the FBI
decided to investigate the Trump's 2016 campaign's possible ties to
Moscow — what Trump has often called a partisan “witch hunt.”
Writing
in The Washington Post, Holder's criticism of Barr is wide-ranging.
He points to a comment Barr made last month at a Federalist Society
event, asserting that Barr made the "outlandish suggestion that Congress
cannot entrust anyone but the president himself to execute the law."
"This
is a stunning declaration not merely of ideology but of loyalty: to the
president and his interests," Holder writes. "It is also revealing of
Barr's own intent: to serve not at a careful remove from politics, as
his office demands, but as an instrument of politics — under the direct
'control' of President Trump."
Attorneys general and their
relationship with presidents have long been closely watched. Kris Olson,
a former U.S. attorney in Oregon, wrote about the close
relationships that usually hang in the balance. A president can remove
his attorney general at will, but the person is "also intrinsically tied
with the politics of the administration."
Holder, in 2013, did not hide his closeness with Obama. During a radio interview, he called himself Obama’s “wingman.”
"I’m
still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done. I’m still
the president’s wingman, so I’m there with my boy. So we’ll see,"
Holder told Tom Joyner's radio show, according to Politico.
Critics
quickly seized upon Holder's term "wingman" because the attorney
general is traditionally considered a role independent of the president
— even though the job holder is appointed by the president.
Continuing in the Post, Holder
writes about his initial reluctance to go public with his criticism of
Barrr but adds he is in a unique position where his voice is needed. He
says Barr's actions "demand a response from someone who held the same
office.”
Holder
also writes that he was infuriated as he watched Barr comment on the
ongoing John Durham criminal investigation into the origins of the FBI
probe into Trump’s 2016 campaign. Barr, at the time, said he thought
"spying occurred" by the government into the Trump campaign and then,
according to The New York Times, clarified that he was "concerned" it
occurred.
Holder warns that Durham could see his good reputation meet the same fate as Barr’s — becoming "irrevocably lost."
From the moment Donald Trump
was inaugurated, Washington Democrats have been myopically focused on
politically targeting his administration and impeaching him.
Set aside their three separate impeachment votes before anything with Ukraine ever happened.
Recall
the dissemination of a fake Russian collusion conspiracy theory, built
on a debunked dossier and aided by rogue senior FBI officials.
Remember the failed attempt to convict President Trump on a baseless obstruction of justice allegation.
And,
most recently, consider the evidence-free hysteria over a secondhand
allegation about a call Democrats hadn’t heard and a transcript they
hadn’t read at the time – culminating in an official impeachment
procedure.
The impeachment began as it ultimately stayed: a
disorganized kangaroo court. Secret depositions, manipulative leaks and
wild allegations seized Congress.
Democrats
began an effort to overturn an election behind the closed doors of a
sensitive compartmented information facility used for classified
information. They leaked only anti-Trump information and kept Americans
in the dark from context for weeks.
And it’s certainly no wonder
that Democrats guarded the full set of facts from the public as long as
they could. In the weeks of open hearings, their case didn’t just render
little evidence – it fell apart at the faintest sign of scrutiny.
Officials
like America’s acting ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor, admitted
to never having been a party to any conversations, negotiations or
discussions providing firsthand knowledge.
Former Ambassador to
Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch didn’t finish her opening statement before
acknowledging she could bring no testimony regarding any quid pro quo
allegations against the president – or, the entire basis of the
impeachment.
Even the “star witness” – Ambassador to the European
Union Gordon Sondland – admitted he had no evidence “other than his
assumptions.” In other words: he had nothing at all.
This came
even as Congress heard from multiple witnesses with firsthand accounts,
directly undercutting the anti-Trump allegations.
Officials like
former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker and former National Security
Council Russia specialist Tim Morrison were emphatic that there was no
political quid pro quo, that the Ukrainians never communicated a belief
otherwise, and that President Trump never ordered anything of the sort.
Remarkably,
we even heard from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his top
aide, Andriy Yermak, disputing the allegations from Ukraine’s
perspective.
While the Democrats had rumors and innuendo
suggesting something was true, President Trump had direct witnesses
testifying that the allegations were false.
Despite all this,
Democrats pushed forward and introduced articles of impeachment Monday.
It should be noted these articles came after Democrats made an 11th-hour
rule change in the House Judiciary Committee, lowering the threshold
for impeachment.
Democrats then quietly removed “bribery” from
their list of allegations, after they had conducted polling that led
them to allege it in the first place.
Through it all, President
Trump and the White House were given virtually no rights – other than an
offer to have an attorney present during the last week, when the cake
had already been baked.
After
a bungled process, a weak fact pattern, and a crumbling narrative, it’s
now beyond any doubt: there is no policy priority too important and no
lack of evidence too glaring that will prevent Washington Democrats from
going after this president.
It has been the Democrats’
single-minded goal this entire Congress. They are an angry mob seeking
validation. An impeachment machine in search of a cause.
But this
effort to undermine the president will fail, just like their other
attempts. Americans will see through it. And if Washington Democrats
ever decide they’re ready to accept the results of the 2016 election,
we’ll be ready to work with them on issues that matter to American
families: creating more jobs, lowering health care costs, securing the
border, fighting the opioid crisis and more.
Until
then, while they focus on fruitless political investigations, we’ll
keep working with the president to deliver on his commitments and
improve everyday lives across the country. While Democrats check off
impeachment votes, the president will keep checking off his promises.
And
when all is said and done, it will be said of House Democrats: When
they couldn’t bring themselves to support President Trump, they consoled
themselves by making every effort to undermine those who did – the
American voters.
The
House Judiciary Committee is poised to be the scene of another major
partisan clash Thursday as lawmakers press ahead with two articles of impeachment against President Trump, ahead of an initial vote expected by day's end likely to advance the measures to the floor.
The
final "markup" process began Wednesday evening, immediately breaking
out into fiery disagreement. Committee Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler,
D-N.Y., argued that it would be unsafe to wait until the 2020 election
to remove Trump from office.
"We
cannot rely on an election to solve our problems when the president
threatens the very integrity of that election," Nadler claimed during
Wednesday's session.
Democrats from districts that supported Trump
in 2016, however, have been less enthusiastic. Recent polls have shown
declining support for impeachment in key swing states, with two polls
released Wednesday indicating that most Americans did not want Trump
removed.
Politico reported earlier this week that
the numbers were making a "small group" of moderate Democrats, who have
held seats in districts where Trump won in 2016, nervous about how to
vote. They instead have suggested Trump be censured,
which would prevent the GOP from holding a potentially damaging Senate
trial and give them political cover in the upcoming election.
The
House is now composed of 431 current members, meaning Democrats would
need 217 yeas to impeach Trump. There are currently 233 Democrats, so
Democrats could lose only 16 of their own and still impeach the
president. Among the House Democrats, 31 represent more moderate
districts that Trump carried in 2016.
Freshman Rep. Elissa
Slotkin, D-Mich. – who flipped a GOP district in 2018 that Trump won by
seven points in 2016 – told Fox News last month that she was tentatively
weighing all the evidence. On Wednesday, she confirmed that she's still undecided.
"The
phones are ringing off the hook," she told CNN. "We literally can't
pick up the phones fast enough -- and it's people on both sides of it."
Republicans,
meanwhile, have vociferously opposed the impeachment effort. The
committee's ranking member, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, stated that
Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump since he took office. He
echoed the White House's argument that the impeachment was politically
motivated theater, long in the works and foreshadowed openly by Democrats for months, if not years.
He
and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., each argued that unlike previous
presidents who have faced impeachment, Trump was not accused of an
offense actually defined by law: neither "abuse of power" nor
"obstruction of Congress" is a recognized federal or state crime. Those
are the two offenses outlined in the articles of impeachment before the
committee. (The separate charge of contempt of Congress, according to
the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel, exempts the president for
separation-of-powers reasons.)
The markup is expected to go until
Thursday afternoon. If the committee votes to approve the articles of
impeachment, as expected, there will likely be an impeachment vote on
the House floor in the middle of next week.
The articles center on
Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to launch an investigation into his
political rivals – namely, former vice president Joe Biden – while
withholding aid. Democrats argue Trump wrongly used U.S. aid and the
prospect of a White House meeting as leverage, but Trump denies doing
so. Fox News' Chad Pergram and Mike Emanuel contributed to this report.
House
Democrats avoided a political pitfall Tuesday, limiting themselves to
two articles of impeachment rather than a kitchen-sink approach that
included Russia, Putin, the Trump hotel, caustic tweets and whatever
else they could conjure up.
But the brief appearance by Nancy
Pelosi, Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff, for all their efforts at
solemnity, seemed like a predictable step on a predictable path toward
impeachment in the House and acquittal in the Senate.
And
that leaves us, as always, with roughly half the country believing that
President Trump did commit high crimes and misdemeanors, and half who
think Pelosi’s party is doing this solely to overturn the 2016 election.
So
the question becomes who do you believe: the Democrats or the GOP? The
media or the president? Inspector General Michael Horowitz or Attorney
General Bill Barr?
For so many people, the answer is one side or the other, or…no one at all.
This goes beyond impeachment, beyond Ukraine and Russia, beyond the Carter Page FISA warrant. The Washington Post is
running a series based on confidential documents, comparable to the
Pentagon papers, showing how the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations
lied about the war in Afghanistan by claiming progress as things kept
getting worse.
And many years before Trump popularized the phrase
fake news, confidence in the media began to slide, fueled by blunders
and bias.
Ben Domenech, founder of the Federalist, told the New York Times there has been a steady decline in trust in the gatekeepers of American life:
“Everything
from politics to faith to sports has been revealed as corrupted or
corruptible. And every mismanaged war, failed hurricane response,
botched investigation and doping scandal furthers this view.” That, he
said, “allows individuals to retreat to their own story lines, fantasies
and tales in which their tribe is always good or under attack, and the
other always craven and duplicitous.”
A very concise snapshot of where we are.
Christopher
Wray is either doing his job or, as Trump tweeted about the man he
appointed, “with that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the
FBI.”
Despite the IG’s findings of no political bias, Barr
continues to insist that the Trump campaign was “clearly spied upon,”
telling NBC’s Pete Williams that the nation has been upended by a “bogus
narrative” that’s been “hyped by an irresponsible media.” And they all
work for the same administration.
Twitter is the modern embodiment
of this tribal culture. Angry people on both sides will wave away this
question and go on the attack, saying that Trump is innocent or guilty,
that the deep state is insidious or fictitious, that FBI chief
What’s
more, they will denounce the motives of reporters, analysts, columnists
and anchors and declare them to be either Trump-haters or in the tank
for Trump–or for just being horrible human beings. There is plenty of
unfair journalism and commentary out there, to be sure, but also the
demonizing of decent people trying to do their jobs.
And we have plenty of company.
As
the Times piece by Peter Baker puts it: “Much of the public may not
trust Mr. Trump, according to surveys, but it likewise does not trust
his opponents all that much either — or the news media that he complains
is out to get him. Americans have been down on banks, big business, the
criminal justice system and the health care system for years, and fewer
have confidence in churches or organized religion now than at any point
since Gallup started asking in 1973.”
Public distrust in
government, at least in the modern era, has its roots in Vietnam, and in
Watergate (which led to the Nixon impeachment). Distrust in “the
system” is nothing new: remember the racially divided furor over the
O.J. verdict? And media malfeasance has a long history: Seven years
after the Washington Post won a Pulitzer for its Watergate reporting,
the paper had to return a Pulitzer for the phony Janet Cooke story about
an 8-year-old heroin addict.
Even a party-line impeachment is
familiar ground: Just 21 years ago, House Republicans brought articles
against Bill Clinton in a sex-and-lies scandal that was followed by
acquittal in the Senate.
If the Trump impeachment feels different,
it’s because the battle is part of a culture war that transcends
politics and plays out in an oversaturated media environment. It’s
because this president uses his vast platform, and digital bully pulpit,
to wage war on political rivals, critics and the media. It’s because
some Democrats really have been trying to get him out of office since he
was inaugurated. It’s because some in the press really do think he’s an
illegitimate president and have a visceral animosity toward him.
There
is a larger cost that will outlast the Trump presidency, a further
erosion of trust and a deepening division that have come to define
America.
The Mexican cartels are coming under increased pressure from U.S. lawmakers.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., is expected to introduce on Wednesday a bill to subject certain foreign criminal organizations – namely the cartels
– to the same level of sanctions as terror groups. It comes after
President Trump last month announced that plans were in motion to
designate the drug-trafficking enterprises south of the border as
foreign terrorist organizations, or FTOs.
“Criminal
organizations and drug cartels like the one responsible for last
month’s attack in Mexico ought to be treated just like terrorist groups
in the eyes of the U.S. government,” Cotton told Fox News in a
statement, referring to the early November slaying of nine U.S. citizens
from the Mormon community in the northern state of Sonora.
“This
bill would help stop cartel violence by ensuring these groups, and
anyone who helps them, face dire consequences for their actions,” he
added.
Referred to as the Significant Transnational Criminal
Organization Designation Act, the legislation – an amendment to the
Immigration and Nationality Act – enables the federal government to
impose on the most significant Transnational Criminal Organizations
(TCOs) the same sanctions that apply to FTOs.
The sanctions
include prohibiting organization members and their immediate
families admission to the United States, freezing assets, and seeking
civil and criminal penalties against individuals providing material
assistance or resources to the organization.
Moreover, the bill
mandates that the president submit a report to Congress with the
government’s findings on the Nov. 4, 2019 attack on U.S. citizens in
northern Mexico once the investigation is completed, including whether
the organization responsible should be designated a significant TCO.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., participates in a Senate Armed Services
Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, on Jan. 25, 2018 in Washington, D.C.
(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
The
bill is sponsored by GOP Sens. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, John
Cornyn of Texas, Ted Cruz of Texas, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina,
Josh Hawley of Missouri, David Perdue of Georgia, Mitt Romney of
Utah and Ben Sasse of Nebraska.
The act defines “membership in a
significant transnational criminal organization” as direct members
and/or their spouse and child. But it carves out an exemption for those
“who did not know, or should not reasonably have known, that his or her
spouse or parent was a member of a significant transnational criminal
organization or whom the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to
believe has renounced” to such membership.
Mexican national guardsmen patrol near Bavispe, at the Sonora-Chihuahua border, Mexico, Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2019.
(AP)
The bill comes at a time when cartel
violence is spiking and the U.S. is battling unprecedented levels of
drug-related deaths and overdoses. New Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf has also vowed to go after cartels and other gangs fueling chaos at the border.
Meanwhile,
it remains to be seen if and when Trump's FTO designation on the
cartels will come to fruition, a move that has generated both praise and
criticism. Terrorist designations are handled by the U.S. State
Department. Once a group has been slapped with such a designation, known
members are prohibited from entering the country, and it is then
illegal for those in the U.S. to intentionally provide support to them.
Financial institutions are also barred from doing any type of business
with the organization or its members.
“The FTO designation is an
important step in a positive direction for U.S. national security. Too
many Americans have died as the ruthless cartels have made billions by
terrorizing communities and killing at unprecedented levels. It's clear
President Trump always places the safety of Americans first,” noted
Derek Maltz, a former special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement
Administration Special Operations Division in New York. “Designating the
cartels as terrorists and implementing a focused operational plan will
save a tremendous amount of lives.”
The
FTO tag could also mean that an American in an inner-city gang selling
street drugs that originated from south of the border could be
prosecuted under anti-terrorism laws – possibly being given a life
sentence.
A boy pauses as he speaks next to the coffins of Dawna Ray
Langford, 43, and her sons Trevor, 11, and Rogan, 2, who were killed by
drug cartel gunmen, during the funeral at a family cemetery in La Mora,
Sonora state, Mexico, Thursday, Nov. 7, 2019.(AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)
According
to the latest annual assessment from the DEA, Mexican drug trafficking
organizations pose the greatest crime threat to the U.S. and are
continuing to “expand their control of the opioids market” in
conjunction with the deadly spike in overdoses in recent years. However,
officials have also lamented that “the scope of violence generated by
Mexican crime groups has been difficult to measure due to restricted
reporting by the government and attempts by groups to mislead the
public.”
Moreover, Mexico’s homicide rate – routinely driven by
cartel-connected violence – is on the path to reaching record levels
this year, even higher than the record numbers set in 2018 when more
than 30,000 people were killed.
Bernie Sanders faced pushback from union members in Las Vegas on Tuesday over how the Democratic presidential candidate would fund a government-subsidized health care plan that would force union members to forfeit the benefits they’ve spent years bargaining for.
The
77-year-old independent U.S. senator from Vermont addressed a town hall
meeting hosted by Culinary Union Local 226 and its parent union, Unite
Here. Though union members in the crowd were widely supportive of
Sanders – shouting “Bernie! Bernie!” as he wheeled out his stance on
immigration, criminal justice and climate change – a group of about 12
people began to heckle the senator when he came to health care,
according to the Washington Examiner.
“We have, in this country, a dysfunctional, broken and cruel health care system,” Sanders told the audience, according to the Las Vegas Sun. “We spend twice as much per person on health care as do the people of any other country.”
Elodia
Muñoz -- one of 550 Culinary members to strike against the Frontier
hotel for more than six years between 1991 and 1998 – questioned why she
should vote for a candidate who supports Medicare-for-All after all her
effort, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. Under the government plan, all Americans, including union members, would lose private insurance plans.
During
Sanders’ response, the crowd began to chant: “Union health care! Union
health care!" One man also shouted: "How are you gonna pay for it?"
The same union hosted Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., on Monday and will host former Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday.
In
his bid for the party’s presidential nomination, Biden has called for
allowing employees to keep their current health plans, positioning
himself against Warren and Sanders who’ve both advocated for
Medicare-for-All. The International Association of Firefighters, which
has endorsed Biden, has called Medicare-for-All a non-starter, according
to the Examiner.
"You'll
be able to keep your negotiated plans," Biden told a group of union
members in August. "You've worked like hell, you gave up wages for it."
Warren
has recently backed away from her once-orthodox approach toward a
government-run health care system after seeing her poll numbers
deteriorate over the past month in national surveys and, more
importantly, in polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states to
hold contests in the primary and caucus presidential nominating
calendar.
Speaking in Las Vegas on Tuesday, Sanders discussed his
efforts to pass legislation throughout his career that aligns with
union issues, including raising the minimum wage, forcing employers to
recognize union elections and deterring corporate greed. He also cited
his experience negotiating with companies that employ Unite
Here workers, such as American Airlines. Still, union benefits remain
the main factor that keeps membership high.
Culinary Union President Ted Pappageorge later chastised the crowd for heckling Sanders.
“We’re
gonna let candidates speak without any kind of heckling. If you want to
heckle, go outside and heckle. We want to learn. The town halls are to
learn. Frankly, not to learn from the hecklers, but the candidates,"
Pappageorge told the crowd. "Second, I want to be very clear to
everybody, this union stands very strongly that every American deserves
to have good, quality health care. It’s a right, it should never be a
privilege in this country.” Fox News' Paul Steinhauser and Tara Prindiville contributed to this report.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has long drawn
the ire of President Trump, who has called it "disgraceful." It's now
being transformed. (AP)
