This blog serves my Congress course (Claremont McKenna College Government 101) for the spring of 2026.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
I shall post videos, graphs, news stories, and other material there. We shall use some of this material in class, and you may review the rest at your convenience. You will all receive invitations to post to the blog. (Please let me know if you do not get such an invitation.) I encourage you to use the blog in these ways:
To post questions or comments about the readings before we discuss them in class; To follow up on class discussions with additional comments or questions. To post relevant news items or videos.
There are only two major limitations: no coarse language, and no derogatory comments about people at the Claremont Colleges.
Most, maybe all, of the questions Senators are asking Zuckerberg were were written by 30-year-old legislative assistants who actually use and understand Facebook. Hence the Senators sounding like they're students in an ESL class.
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.” — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7
Mark Zuckerberg will be testifying in two congressional hearings this week. This will be very interesting to see since Facebook is under investigation all over the world because of their privacy issues, which can have huge implications for the entire tech industry. Many lawmakers want to confront Facebook, “We can no longer go with the mantra ‘trust us’ because they have proven untrustworthy,” Blumenthal said about Facebook." I was surprised to see the responses of many Senators in this article about the big tech companies: Google, Facebook, and Amazon. I wonder how these hearings will turn out and what Congress will try passing as a result of that. What do you all think about this situation?
Corey Lewandowski had a blunt message for Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee: He wasn't going to answer their "fucking" questions.
Lewandowski, President Donald Trump's former campaign manager, was the final witness in the yearlong House investigation that descended into vitriol and back-biting -- ultimately resulting in two separate partisan reports that will leave the American public no closer to learning how the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections.
But Lewandowski, who agreed to come back to the committee a second time in March after initially refusing to answer questions about topics occurring once he left the campaign in June 2016, was in no mood to give Democrats anything they wanted, saying he would only answer "relevant" questions.
And, according to four sources with direct knowledge of the situation, the Trump confidante repeatedly swore at Democratic lawmakers to make the point he wasn't going to talk further.
I'm not answering your "fucking" question, Lewandowski shouted at one point.
March 16, 1970: As the Senate is considering he nomination of Judge G. Harrold Carswell to fill the Fortas seat, Senator Roman Hruska (R-NE) says in a TV interview, "Even if he [Carswell] were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises and Frankfurters and Cardozos."
A home state senator historically has been able to block a judicial nominee by deciding not to return a blue slip of paper to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee under the "blue slip" tradition.
“With many states in the 9th Circuit having two Democratic senators, it makes it tricky to get through committee with the way the parliamentary games are played in the Senate,” [Cato legal scholar Ilya] Shapiro said.
The blue slip tradition has been honored differently by past chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the current chairman, has held committee hearings and votes on two judicial nominees despite unreturned blue slips.
“If you look at where the vacancies are, it’s not as easy as it might look,” [University of Richmond law professor Carl] Tobias said.
Three of the seven vacancies on the 9th Circuit, for example, are in California, which has two Democratic senators, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., a member of the committee and a possible presidential candidate in 2020.
Already, Feinstein has indicated Trump may face a difficult path if he were to nominate conservative judges to the 9th Circuit.
“It’s no secret that President Trump and Republicans want to reshape the 9th Circuit and we will not accept unwarranted, partisan attacks on our courts,” she said in a statement on Reinhardt’s death. “I am fully committed to ensuring that 9th Circuit nominees reflect our state’s communities and values and are well-regarded by their local bench and bar.”
Suing the president... a Stag (Liz Wydra `98) explains it all:
March 16, 1970: As the Senate is considering he nomination of Judge G. Harrold Carswell to fill the Fortas seat, Senator Roman Hruska (R-NE) says in a TV interview, "Even if he [Carswell] were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises and Frankfurters and Cardozos."
Mitch McConnell's use of his power as Senate Majority Leader to limit debate, floor amendments, roll call votes, etc. is frustrating both Republican and Democratic senators - especially new senators - who want open debate on key issues. Each year under McConnell, the Senate votes on fewer amendments. Now, senators are beginning to accept this is as the new normal (senators have filed a little over 1,000 amendments through September, while senators in the previous two-year Congress filed over 5,000).
McConnell, who spent years in the minority party and experienced the frustration many are now feeling under his rule, promised that as Leader he would bring back a "free-wheeling Senate."
