Democrats' Senate losses jeopardize national spotlight for possible 2020 hopeful

[JonLP24]

Senate Democrats’ midterm losses have created a dilemma for the party’s leadership over a key committee seat held by Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), a prospective 2020 presidential contender who is at risk of having to forfeit the high-profile assignment and the national spotlight that comes with it.

Harris, a former prosecutor and state attorney general, is the Senate Judiciary Committee’s most junior member. The panel’s investigations and Supreme Court confirmation battles have commanded regular media coverage since President Trump entered the Oval Office. It’s the kind of exposure a new senator usually could only dream of, and with everything from an attorney general confirmation to oversight of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia probe on next year’s agenda, its limelight won’t soon fade.

Yet unless Democrats strike a deal, either with the Senate’s Republican majority or with fellow Democrats on the committee, numbers and seniority dictate that Harris will be out — and that has liberal groups scrambling to save her position.

“Not only would it be unconscionable to remove the only African American woman from the committee, but Sen. Harris also is the most skilled questioner on the entire panel,” said Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, a liberal advocacy group challenging Trump’s nominations for federal judgeships. “Whatever options they need to consider, removing Harris should not be one of them. The backlash would be intense.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-senate-losses-jeopardize-national-spotlight-for-possible-2020-hopeful/2018/11/25/75d26312-ef45-11e8-8679-934a2b33be52_story.html?utm_term=.140b3506dcb0

[Me.]

1. I Would Assume The Cons Have Deliverately Set This Up

She can take them and their presidency too

[FBaggins]

2. How?

She IS the junior member on the committee and our Senate loses (assuming a MS kids today) would cost us one seat on most committees.

[Me.]

3. THe Point Of The Article Is That She Will Lose The Spotlight

by being taken off the committee and thus lessen her chances to run successfully for Pres. I say, she'll have plenty of opps for the spotlight and can beat them at their own game. She's been very active during this recent election and already has a big fan base.

[W_HAMILTON]

4. Cite your source...

...that "our Senate loses" would cost us one seat on most committees.

From my understanding, committees essentially have the same number of Republicans and Democrats, except the majority party has one additional seat, giving them a majority on committees. If this is the case, how would us losing a Senate seat or two but still being in the minority mean that we lose a seat on a committee?

[FBaggins]

5. Experience

Committee balance is set each term as part of negotiations between the majority/minority party leaders (with the majority pretty much getting what they want and the minority only being able to cry "foul" if they grab too much). That's why there is a single extra seat for Republicans in the current term. It isn't because that's the norm... it's because they only had 51 seats.

In the 114th Congress, Republicans had 54 senate seats and enjoyed an 11-9 majority on the committee. With the 115th, Republicans lost two seats and expanded the committee to 21 members to add a Democrat (11-10) rather than cutting one of their own spots. The last time we ran the senate, we had 53 seats and set the committee at 10-8... then Republicans picked up several seats and cut one Democrat while adding three Republicans.

Republicans recognize that in this cycle, the Judiciary committee is key for them... and they aren't going to settle for a balance that leaves judicial confirmations in the hands of any single "Flake-y" senator. They'll insist on a two-seat majority on the committee. It's theoretically possible that Democrats could convince them to do this by adding a seat to the committee... but it's already larger than it used to be and they don't have any reason to give Harris a platform if they don't have to. What would you be willing to give up to convince them that they should settle for a smaller committee margin than we had the last time we held 53 seats?

[FBaggins]

9. Additional point

I forgot that the current one-seat gap started when Republicans lost the AL special election in December 2017. So even if we win MS and they only rise to 52 seats, they can probably cut out one Democrat.

In other circumstances, we might be able to convince them to add a Republican rather than cut a Democrat to achieve the 2-seat gap... because giving a plum to one of your own is just as appealing as forcing your opponents to cut someone.

However, with Flake retiring and Grassley getting promoted to chair the Finance committee, they can already hand out at least two open slots.

On edit - Aw nuts. I forgot about Orrin Hatch. They have three open slots. We'll be lucky if they don't announce that the panel is too large and needs to be returned to the 18 slots that Democrats used when we were in power. That leaves them with two open slots to fill and us having to dump two existing senators from the committee (with Harris and Booker both endangered).

[Me.]

11. Aside From The First Sentence Of The OP?

“Reducing the size of the 21-member Senate Judiciary Committee is reportedly among the actions being considered by Senate Republicans as they prepare for the next Congress.
If that happens, Sen. Kamala Harris of California -- a high-profile Democrat who is considered a possible candidate for her party’s 2020 presidential nomination -- could be left off the panel, according to a report.

That’s because the first-term senator is the judiciary committee’s most junior member, and would be among the first to go if the panel is downsized, the Washington Post reported.”

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&ei=m4_9W-WiNoWd5gLw-aHwBg&q=The+dems+could+lose+one+seat+on+judiciary+committee&oq=The+dems+could+lose+one+seat+on+judiciary+committee&gs_l=psy-ab.12..33i299l2.5300.34986..40148...1.0..1.462.6514.26j21j4j0j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0j0i71j35i39j0i131j0i131i67j0i67j0i10j0i22i30j33i160j33i22i29i30.GWjsIqWH4Z0

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/418274-kamala-harris-at-risk-of-losing-judiciary-committee-spot

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrat-kamala-harris-could-lose-seat-on-senate-judiciary-committee-report-says

https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2018/11/26/ip-kamala-judiciary.cnn

[W_HAMILTON]

12. That doesn't answer my question.

My question was what rules stated that Democrats had to lose a seat on the Judiciary committee because Republicans won a couple more seats in the Senate.

I don't doubt that the Republicans want to shrink the size of the committee so that Kamala Harris would get kicked off -- my question was what does that have anything to do with how we performed in the Senate elections, given that Republicans seem to be considering shrinking the committee size regardless as long as they remained in the majority and could make that determination.

[Me.]

13. I Said Nothing About Rules

And the amount of members on the committee is in negotiation but you wouldn't know that as instead of reading the sources and doing your own research you misinterpret what I wrote. You want more info, do your own research.

[Me.]

14. Apologies

I thought you were responding to me and clearly, now that my sight has cleared, you are not. However the sources are good.

[karynnj]

8. No - the Republicans worked to get as many seats as they could because that is what you do

They have plus 2 seats (assuming they hold Mississippi) from where they were in the last Congress. The number of seats determine the number of people from a party on each committee. She is the most junior. It may well be that someone with more senority will agree to be off the committee, but otherwise it is usually the most junior.

[winstars]

6. Its easy, one of the other Dems on the committee gives up HIS place to her. Done...

[FBaggins]

7. Easy to say perhaps... but not so easy to do

Judiciary is a prime committee that most senators want to be on. Why would one of them give up his/her seat for her? Cory Booker is the next-least-senior. Do you see him giving up his platform (also possibly running in 2020) to boost her bid?

If Democratic leadership wants to help her out (an open question), they could dangle a carrot like a Finance, Commerce, or Appropriations slot in front of someone... but we need to keep in mind that we likely lose seats on those committees as well.

[winstars]

19. Very easy to say. Why would someone do this? How about for love of country?

I suppose I should Google the list of the Dems on this committee and say hey, this person should do the right thing for the future of our party.

[FBaggins]

20. Oh come now... these are politicians we're talking about

You expect one of them to think that the "good of the country" means that they aren't the right person to be on the committee (even though every one of them has more experience doing the job?).

Also - There are a couple dozen Democrats (likely a few dozens) who think that they should be the next President. Your theory requires them to agree that Harris is really their best option and the rest of the part should get out of the way before the primary process even begins (something most of us think happened the last time around and was a mistake).

[winstars]

21. Oh wait, I never said that one would, I said one of them should...

[0rganism]

10. wow, the media just can't wait to sink its teeth into some Democratic dysfunction

guess there's just not enough scandals and imbroglios to cover with the Republicans

"oh gee, look at the Democrats, losing seats in the senate, can't do anything right, now one of their possible presidential candidates can't get the committee 'spotlight' that she must desperately need to make a run, because we said so."

what a load of malarkey. best thing Democrats could do would be to lay low about potential nominees until primary season is begins. media loves them some trumpy shitstorms, so they have to go out of their way to cut up the Democrat real good going into the general.

[dsc]

15. It is a mess because the most senior senator we lost was Nelson

and his assignments align with those of Feinstein and Leahy. I don't know how they are going to convince someone to move to make room for her.

[DFW]

16. We were defending 26 seats and lost five

They were defending 9 seats and lost two.

Plus they are defending a few shaky seats in 2020 (Collins in Maine and Gardner in Colorado), and a few more may seem shaky by then.

It's not necessarily as bad as it can be made out to be:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/13/politics/senate-democrats/index.html

[EffieBlack]

17. They can work something out.

The same thing happened in 2002 when the GOP reduced the number of Dems on the Judiciary Committee, jeopardizing the most junior member and presumed presidential candidate, John Edwards, who had proven himself to be the most effective questioner on the committee - he almost singlehandedly took down at least one Bush judicial nominee in a Perry Mason moment. The committee clearly needed him, so they cut a deal: He agreed to give up his seat on another committee to make room for Maria Cantwell, who stepped down from Judiciary to allow Edwards to stay on.

this can be managed. And it needs to be because they'd be crazy to remove the only African-American woman on the committee at this point in time - especially using the "last hired first fired" process.

[pecosbob]

18. My understanding is that the reduction in size of the SJC has nothing at all to do

with the recent election totals. Republicans are merely shifting the playing field again and want to change the rules as they go along whenever it suits their purposes. Misleading title...Should read 'Republicans are scared spitless of Harris and threaten to reduce the size of the Senate Judiciary Committee because they can.