Get Ready for Rand Paul’s Next Drone Filibuster

He may talk a bunch, but he actually can’t block Obama’s judicial pick the way he could last year.

National Journal
Elahe Izadi
May 16, 2014, 10:02 a.m.

Rand Paul drew praise from both the Right and Left last year when he moun­ted a 13-hour, talk­ing fili­buster from the Sen­ate floor to block a nom­in­a­tion over ob­jec­tions re­lated to drone killings of Amer­ic­an cit­izens. And he might do it again this year.

The Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­or from Ken­tucky plans to block the nom­in­a­tion of Dav­id Bar­ron to the U.S. Court of Ap­peals for the First Cir­cuit. Bar­ron, a former Justice De­part­ment of­fi­cial, was a main au­thor of a secret Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion “drone memo,” which re­portedly offered a leg­al jus­ti­fic­a­tion for the killing of Amer­ic­an ex­trem­ist An­war al-Aw­laki, who was liv­ing in Ye­men at the time. After mount­ing pres­sure from both lib­er­als and liber­tari­ans, the ad­min­is­tra­tion al­lowed sen­at­ors to read the memos, of which there are two doc­u­ments.

“I’ve read Dav­id Bar­ron’s memos con­cern­ing the leg­al jus­ti­fic­a­tion for killing an Amer­ic­an cit­izen over­seas without a tri­al or leg­al rep­res­ent­a­tion, and I am not sat­is­fied,” Paul said in a state­ment Thursday. There is “no val­id leg­al pre­ced­ent to jus­ti­fy the killing of an Amer­ic­an cit­izen not en­gaged in com­bat,” the sen­at­or ad­ded, say­ing he plans to fili­buster Bar­ron’s nom­in­a­tion.

Sen­at­ors look to block ac­tion on the Sen­ate floor all the time, but not through a talk­ing fili­buster. Asked wheth­er Paul’s plan to block Bar­ron’s nom­in­a­tion means an­oth­er mara­thon fili­buster, Paul’s press sec­ret­ary said he “will do everything in his power to op­pose the nom­in­a­tion of Dav­id Bar­ron, and thus a fili­buster is not out of the ques­tion.”

Thanks to C-SPAN and so­cial me­dia, talk­ing non­stop to thwart a bill — which was how law­makers fili­bustered bills in the old days — has the po­ten­tial to draw massive amounts of at­ten­tion. Take Demo­crat­ic le­gis­lat­or Wendy Dav­is’s fili­buster of an abor­tion bill in the Texas state House. Her ef­fort went vir­al and pro­pelled her to the na­tion­al stage.

Paul’s fili­buster last year spurred sur­pris­ing sup­port from both con­ser­vat­ives and lib­er­als. Back then, the sen­at­or was block­ing the con­firm­a­tion of John Bren­nan to lead the CIA, after the ad­min­is­tra­tion had re­fused to rule out the use of drone strikes on Amer­ic­an soil.

“I will speak un­til I can no longer speak,” Paul said on the Sen­ate floor last March. “I will speak as long as it takes, un­til the alarm is soun­ded from coast to coast that our Con­sti­tu­tion is im­port­ant, that your rights to tri­al by jury are pre­cious, that no Amer­ic­an should be killed by a drone on Amer­ic­an soil without first be­ing charged with a crime, without first be­ing found to be guilty by a court.”

The tim­ing of the fili­buster, which spawned the hasht­ag #Stand­With­Rand, came shortly be­fore the con­ser­vat­ive con­fab at CPAC. There, it be­came clear that Paul’s polit­ic­al stock had ris­en con­sid­er­ably thanks to his speech.

But there’s a cru­cial dif­fer­ence between last year and the cur­rent case. Where­as Paul’s fili­buster did ef­fect­ively block Bren­nan’s nom­in­a­tion from mov­ing for­ward, this po­ten­tial speech will take place in a post-nuc­le­ar Sen­ate. The up­per cham­ber has since changed how it con­firms ju­di­cial nom­in­ees — last March, 60 votes were needed to con­firm a nom­in­ee; now, just 51 are re­quired. That means that Paul can talk all he wants, but it won’t mat­ter much if 51 Demo­crats back Pres­id­ent Obama’s nom­in­ee.

Lib­er­als have also voiced con­cerns over Bar­ron’s nom­in­a­tion. Demo­crat­ic Sen. Mark Ud­all of Col­or­ado, for in­stance, has said he won’t back Bar­ron’s nom­in­a­tion un­til the memos are made pub­lic.

On Thursday, White House coun­sel met with the Demo­crat­ic caucus to dis­cuss the memos and Bar­ron’s nom­in­a­tion. A Sen­ate vote on Bar­ron’s nom­in­a­tion will come next week.

“It’s a dif­fi­cult is­sue. He’s a bril­liant judge, who on most is­sues, is in sync with the vast ma­jor­ity of Demo­crats. And the ques­tion is this memo,” Chuck Schu­mer, the Sen­ate’s No. 3 Demo­crat, said be­fore the meet­ing. “The people who have read the memos — I have not at this point — say when you read them, it’s far more ex­culp­at­ory of Bar­ron than the news re­ports might in­dic­ate.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
8 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×