At the top of this week’s “Boy, do I miss Peter Freyne” column in Seven Days, Paul Heintz puts his oar in the water thusly:

Nearly two months into the legislative session, the scene at the Statehouse remains unusually slow.

Yeah, well, actually, no. It may be unusually smooth, or unusually dull. It may be low on bickering, hand-wringing, and stumblebumitude (if it ain’t a word, it oughta be), but actually, this legislative session has been pretty eventful.

It’s just that most of the events involve the legislative process at work. Bills on a variety of tough subjects — bills that have foundered in past sessions — are moving through the system with dispatch. Some of those bills are better than others (let us not speak further of campaign finance reform), but a hell of a lot of stuff is being accomplished with not much drama.

Methinks the Democrats have gotten a solid handle on how to operate with a veto-proof majority.

Maybe they learned some stuff from the difficulties of 2012, when bills were derailed by the least little bit of opposition or controversy and the State Senate was basically a disaster. (So bad that Senate Penitent Pro Tem John Campbell came thisclose to losing his job, and only hung onto it by promising to overhaul his office and whip himself into shape.) Yeah, that 2012 session was kind of a stinker. Especially since the Democrats had zero excuses.

Last year was better, but there was still room for improvement. Some things got through: end of life, marijuana decrim, drivers’ licenses for migrant workers, to name a few. But others went nowhere, or fell victim to House-Senate disputes: campaign finance reform, shorelands protection, child-care unionization. Governor Shumlin’s doomed tax proposals (Earned Income Tax Credit cut and hey, remember that zany break-open ticket tax?) sucked a lot of air out of the room, and he allowed some good proposals on child care and energy to die rather than accept alternative funding sources.

This year, a lot of formerly difficult items have been sailing along. There’s still time for the session to go sideways, but look at some of the legislature’s accomplishments to date:  

— Campaign finance reform. Yes, the bill set high contribution limits, but at least they got something through after years and years of kicking the can down the road.

— The Senate has approved a child-care unionization bill.

— The shorelands protection bill, which was blocked in the Senate last year after House passage, has cleared the Senate.

— The Senate has passed a bill to streamline decisions on hospitalization and medication of psychiatric patients.

— Lawmakers have begun taking some real steps toward water quality improvement and Lake Champlain cleanup, including the ever-nettlesome identification of potential funding sources.

— The House Education Committee is finalizing a bill to consolidate public school governance.

The Legislature is also moving on two bills (a ban on using hand-held cellphones while driving and a mandate for employers to provide paid sick time) that may face a gubernatorial veto — or a face-saving derailment before reaching the Governor’s desk. But at least they’re moving.

I can’t say I like everything that’s been done. But I like the fact that the Dems are working together in an apparently harmonious way to get stuff done. It’s better than the squabbling and vacillation that too often characterized 2012 and 2013.

What’s this? A happy blogger? Horrors!

Well, not entirely. But satisfied, within reasonable expectations.  

So the once-great IBM took another step into the Abyss of Forgotten Giants today with another round of layoffs, including approximately 150 at its Essex Junction plant. The fact that it was “only” 150 conpared to last year’s roughly 400 is, I suppose, cause for a teeny-tiny bit of celebration. Cue the Kazoo Chorus.

The numbers are all approximate and rough because IBM refuses to disclose layoff numbers or, for that matter, the size of its domestic workforce because the actual figures would be so damn embarrassing. The IBM watchdog group Alliance@IBM keeps track of the numbers as best it can; it reports that IBM’s domestic workforce peaked at 154,000 in the year 2000. That number had dropped to an estimated 88,000 by the end of last year, and will now fall even further.

But wait, there’s more. Alliance@IBM says the 88,000 figure includes more than 20,000 vendors, contractors, and supplemental workers. Which brings its actual salaried workforce to a pitiful 66,000.

(IBM’s global workforce has remained basically stable, with thousands upon thousands of new positions in India, China, and anywhere else labor is cheap and fungible, up to and perhaps including Elbonia, Freedonia, Anvilania, Yukkabukkoo, and perhaps Tatooine*, essentially displacing employees in the United States.)

*That Jabba, now there’s a guy we can cut a deal with.

No wonder the Alliance “Job Cuts” message board is littered with reports from laid-off workers whose primary emotion is relief rather than sadness. IBM has become a toxic workplace, and a lot of people are just glad to get the hell out, even if it wasn’t their choice.

In corporatespeak, the layoffs were the result of a poor fourth-quarter earnings report. Which is, if I may put it bluntly, either a lie or spectacularly poor management. You shouldn’t react to a single disappointing quarter with massive layoffs that will cost a billion dollars in reorganization charges.

Well, you shouldn’t unless your one and only goal is boosting profits, even if it means cannibalizing the company’s future — or, as technology reporter Robert X. Cringely puts it, “eating your seed corn.” Cringely has reported extensively on IBM’s one and only strategic goal: to goose its profits as quickly as possible. Preferably by growing the business; but failing that, by selling assets and slashing payroll.

And IBM has been steadily “failing that,” and resorting to corporate cannibalism. Alliance@IBM’s figures don’t lie, and neither does IBM’s stonewall on domestic workforce.

David Sunderland, head of the Vermont Republican Party, reacted to the IBM news with complete predictability:

We call on Governor Shumlin to take immediate action that will ease the burden on Vermont’s businesses and individuals by; reducing Vermont’s tax burden to encourage growth, easing Vermont’s regulatory burden by reducing bureaucratic red tape, and lowering our state’s energy costs for individuals and small businesses.

If Sunderland has a brain in his head, he knows damn well that IBM is doing what it’s doing because of its global strategy (or lack thereof). The Essex Junction plant would be slowly withering away even if we ripped off all the red tape and gave IBM free electricity and a tax rate of zero.

(Speaking of Sunderland, Bad Journalism Alert: The Burlington Free Press’ online article on the IBM layoffs puts Sunderland’s boilerplate in the headline: “Republican Chairman Chides Governor on IBM Job Cuts.” Way to thumb the scales, Freeploid!)

Now, back to our story.

Interestingly, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, Republican Enough For Most Sane People, issued a more nuanced statement. He naturally called for more action “to grow our economy, create high-paying jobs, or make it easier to do business within our borders.” But he put the blame, not on Shumlin or the Democrats, but on “we in Montpelier.”  Classy. I’m sure it earned him no points with the Darcie Johnston wing of the party.

In any event, the takeaway from today’s layoffs is Same As It Ever Was: IBM’s circling the drain, putting short-term profit above actually building a business, As far as is practicable, it is abandoning America, it is outsourcing and cost-cutting everywhere, and selling off valuable parts of its business. Shareholders and top executives win big; everybody else takes it in the shorts.

IBM used to be a good corporate citizen and a valued source of stable, high-paying jobs. The lights may still be on at Essex Junction — well, some of ’em anyway — but that IBM is already long gone. We know how this story will end.  

This week’s issue of Seven Days (THE SEXXXXXXXX ISSUE!!!!!!! Purely for journalistic reasons, not at all an appeal to our baser instincts and our baser advertisers) includes a lengthy, exhaustively detailed look at the very combative campaign for mayor of Montpelier, featuring incumbent John Hollar and challenger Gwen Hallsmith, penned by Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz. Read at your pleasure; my attention is focused on a single anecdote buried deep within the article, and presented by Heintz without commentary. Which I will hereby provide. You’re welcome, Paul.

We pick up our story with Mayor Hollar suffering a real bad case of Bunched Knicker Syndrome over some reporting in the Times Argus that struck Hizzoner as too favorable toward Hallsmith. Take it away, Paul…

Upset with the paper’s coverage, Hollar wrote to publisher John Mitchell to complain about what he called “numerous distortions and false statements.” Mitchell, apparently, agreed with the mayor. In an email to Hollar, the publisher said that if he had not been out of town, he “might otherwise have been more involved in this story sooner.”

“I admire your restraint on this matter, and, unfortunately, share your concerns, i.e. ‘tone, directions and implications,’ about how this story has been handled,” Mitchell wrote.

And there’s the journalistic perfidy. It’s a universal, if unwritten, rule of the trade: if you run a news operation and one of your minions falls afoul of a public figure, you back your staffer. Even if you think the staffer was all wrong: you deal with it in private, and close ranks in public. You do not undercut your staff.  

Mitchell’s grovel before Hollar was craven and cowardly, and unworthy of one of the great families of Vermont newspapering. And although Mitchell saw fit to bow and scrape before the mayor, his subordinate saw it differently. And still does.

Times Argus editor Steve Pappas makes no such apologies.

“Stories such as this, where conflicts of interest are raised among public officials, have to be explored,” he says, noting that the paper has given just as much scrutiny to Gov. Peter Shumlin and Barre Mayor Thom Lauzon. “We felt that we did our due diligence.”

Steve Pappas has done yeoman’s work keeping the Times Argus semi-relevant on a shoestring budget that offers salaries barely competitive with Mickey D’s. John Mitchell should get down on his knees and thank God every damn day that he’s got Steve Pappas running his ship. The last thing he should be doing is sticking a politically convenient knife in his editor’s back.

Shameful.  

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

The Campaign for Vermont  recently released an Education Research Tool with spending figures  for all Vermont schools. I was shocked to see that BFA tops the list at $30,859 per pupil per year. Fortunately, this number is totally inaccurate.

The Agency of Education and the BFA Annual Report from 2013 both show an equalized annual per pupil spending of $14,325 for fiscal year 2014. Why the big difference? I believe that it stems largely from the use of the budgets of the high school and the tech center together divided by an inaccurate pupil count for the high school alone to arrive at a grossly inaccurate spending number. I leave it to readers to decide whether this was a willful manipulation of the data or just bad methodology.

I applaud the Campaign for Vermont for their effort to shine light on education spending, but erroneous data causes confusion. Misinformation is worse than no information at all. I encourage everyone to educate themselves as to the real spending at each of our schools- and to look beyond test scores to outcomes like employment, graduation rates, and college enrollment as evidence of value for our tax dollars.

In Montpelier we are looking at changes in school property tax formulations, school governance and other policies that should reduce cost and improve outcomes for Vermont students. Data is very useful, but inaccurate data can be misleading and dangerous.

I applaud the work of FCSU and BFA administrators, staff and school board members. I’m very happy to report that, contrary to the Campaign for Vermont’s ERT, BFA’s per pupil spending is below the state average for Vermont high schools.

Representative Mike McCarthy

Saint Albans

For Immediate Release

For further information contact:

James Marc Leas 802 864-1575

Complaint filed with Vermont Attorney General alleges open meeting law violation

Requests investigation and enforcement

Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell received a letter today asking him to investigate violation of Vermont’s open meeting law by three South Burlington City Councilors, Pam Mackenzie, Chris Shaw, and Pat Nowak.

The open meeting law finds support in article 1, chapter 6 of the Vermont Constitution, which provides:

That all power being originally inherent in and consequently derived from the people, therefore, all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants; and at all times, in a legal way, accountable to them.

As the Vermont Supreme Court said:

In 1957, the Vermont Legislature enacted the Open Meeting Law.  The Legislature’s purpose was to “give meaning to Chapter I, Article 6 of the      Vermont Constitution.”  Rowe v. Brown,    Vt.    ,    , 599 A.2d 333, 336 1991). (Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc v. The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Vermont and University of Vermont http://libraries.vermont.gov/s… 1992)

“As the first line of defense against corruption, the importance of the open meeting law cannot be over stated,” said South Burlington attorney James Marc Leas, who submitted the letter. “This law is a check on the ability of a quorum of city councilors to meet privately with monied interests. Allowing its degradation opens the door wide to corruption.”

“Like everyone else, law-makers, including city government officials, must be held fully accountable when they break the law,” said Mr. Leas. “The oath of office provided in the Vermont Constitution and sworn by the Attorney General to ‘do equal right and justice to all persons’ would be devoid of meaning if he gave public officials a pass because of who they are or the position they hold.”

The three councilors, Pam Mackenzie, Chris Shaw, and Pat Nowak, each announced their attendance at a meeting of the South Burlington Energy Committee on February 15 at a South Burlington City Council meeting three days later 13:50, 17:47, and 21:56 on CCTV.  Additional facts were presented in a news item on WPTZ on February 19, “Accusations fly about open meeting violations, City lawyer says councilors did nothing wrong” http://www.wptz.com/news/vermo… an article in the Burlington Free Press on February 19, “Violation of open meeting laws alleged in South Burlington, Three city council members convened without warning” http://www.burlingtonfreepress… and in an article in Seven Days, on February 19, “South Burlington Councilor Decries ‘A Mockery of Democracy'” http://www.sevendaysvt.com/Off…

Several residents brought the violation of the open meeting law by a quorum of the City Council to the attention of the Council immediately after the opening remarks by City Council members on February 18 [23:30 and 59:15 on CCTV].

City officials in denial

Also on February 19, City Manager Kevin Dorn issued an email stating “there was no violation of the open meeting law.” However, Mr. Dorn’s email self-servingly misquoted the law (he wrongly asserted that for the law to be violated the councilors had to take action on city business rather than merely participate in discussion of city business or listen to discussion of city business. In his email, Mr. Dorn replaced an “or” in the law with an “and” to reach this result).

After the misquoting was pointed out by Keith Epstein, a member of the energy committee, and by James Marc Leas, in a later email, Mr. Dorn then further incorrectly insisted that the councilors “did not attend the GUEP meeting to discuss or conduct the business of the public body (the Council) nor did they do either of those things.” However, Mr. Dorn omitted mention of the fact that all three councilors did in fact discuss the business of the city during the meeting and that one of them had been invited to give a speech at the meeting and did speak.

After the failed interventions by the City Manager failed to quell the issue, in response to a request from Mr. Dorn, on February 19 City Attorney Jim Barlow issued a memorandum supposedly addressing the facts and law at issue. The memorandum, “Alleged Open Meeting Law Violation” http://www.burlingtonfreepress… was posted to the web site of the Burlington Free Press. However, like the email from Mr. Dorn, the memorandum failed to mention the fact that all three of the city councilors spoke at the meeting. With the facts wrong, there was no way the memorandum could be relied upon as reaching a correct conclusion.

That city business was discussed at the February 15 energy committee meeting is demonstrated by the 3-page list of ideas for action generated during the discussion (attachment B).

The memorandum also omitted mention of the clear direction provided by Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos in a presentation, “Got Transparency 2013” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t…

The presentation explains what is “discussing the business of the public body [the city council]”:

• Discussing anything that the public body has the authority to oversee.

• Open Meeting laws apply regardless of where a quorum of the public body is gathered

The assertion in the memorandum that the open meeting law does not apply if the council voted and “no further action by the Council was necessary or required for the City’s participation in this event,” is in sharp conflict with the law as written, with the constitutional provision, and with direction from the Secretary of State. Under the direction from the Secretary of State, the open meeting law applies if the quorum is present when “anything the public body has the authority to oversee” is discussed. Requirement for further action by the Council is irrelevant, under the law and under the direction from the Secretary of State.  

Attached is the letter requesting investigation and enforcement submitted to Attorney General Bill Sorrell by James Marc Leas. Also the three attachments to that letter, including the various emails and the list of ideas generated during discussion at the February 15 meeting.

The violation of open meeting law by the three members of the South Burlington City Council immediately follows the charge of open meeting law violation by one of them, Pam Mackenzie, in her other capacity as chair of the Vermont Public Television Board.  

No, not that closet — the partisan closet. Peter “Mr. Microphone” Hirschfeld:

Newly updated filings at the Federal Elections Commission show that Lisman… contributed $10,000 to the Vermont GOP on Jan. 6. That’s in addition to the $16,000 Lisman gave to the Vermont Republican Party between Aug. 13 of 2010 and Dec. 8 of 2011.

… There are no records of contributions from Lisman to the Vermont Democratic Party.

Ah yes, it turns out that Bruce Lisman, retired Wall Street panjandrum and member of a fincnail-sector fraternity that gets together once a year to dress in drag and share misogynist jokes and yuck it up about how great it is to be filthy rich, has been one of the VTGOP’s biggest individual donors — even as he heads up the “nonpartisan” Campaign for Vermont.

If you need a reminder of how rich ol’ Brucey is:

As for the donations in 2010 and 2011 – they arrived in three installments of $5,000 and one of $1,000 – Lisman said, “I don’t remember them.”

A few grand? Ha, that’s chump change for the likes of Lisman. But he insists that his personal contributions have no relationship whatsoever to the “nonpartisan” organization he personally bankrolls to the tune of over a million bucks.

“I hadn’t considered it that way,” he said.

(Cough.) And if you buy that, I’ve got some subprime derivatives to sell you.

In case you still need more proof of CFV’s partisan bent, here are some figures compiled by people I know with more time on their hands and more database experience than I, showing that the CFV “grassroots” lean heavily to the Republican side of the aisle.

CFV claims more than a thousand “partners.” That list includes 66 who were members of local Republican town committees between 2011 and 2013.  

That may not seem terribly overwhelming, but look: only 2 were members of Democratic, Progressive, or Liberty Union town committees.

TWO.

Do some quick math here: a CFV “partner” is 33 times more likely to be a Republican Party official than a Democratic Party official.  

One other tidbit: 330 CFV “partners” took a Republican ballot in the 2012 Presidential primary. Compared to the entire electorate, CFV partners were three times more likely to have voted in that Republican primary.

Put it all together, you have an organization that is putatively nonpartisan but has a strong conservative lean. It’s headed (and entirely funded) by one of the leading individual donors to the Vermont Republican Party. And a man so wealthy that he “can’t remember” giving away $16,000 of his fortune.

I’d still like to see some intrepid reporter drill Mr. Lisman on his 2010 speech in South Burlington, dissected here and here.  

To sum it up: In a talk entitled “Finding Skin” (which concerned the importance of “having skin in the game” — rather ironic from a guy who doesn’t expect people to give a goddamn penny to join CFV), Lisman echoed many of the tenets of the Wall Street/one percenter crowd, including the desirability of lower taxes for rich people and capital gains and the idea that economic growth should be the “first magnitude” priority for government. And he described the 2008 financial meltdown as it if were an act of God that could not have been prevented or foreseen by his fellow Masters of the Universe.

Lisman also parroted the “47%” shibboleth: he asserted that “more than 50% of potential taxpayers” don’t pay any taxes. Which is just flat-out bullshit: nearly 50% don’t pay federal income taxes, but they are not exempt from all the other taxes. But even if you accept his argument, what he’s saying is that the poor should pay more.

This speech is almost four years old, but it’s the only time I know of that Lisman has revealed his own political views in a public forum. I’d love it if someone asked him about that speech, which is still viewable online thanks to Burlington’s community access folks.

I think those questions are fair game for someone who’s spent a million bucks (and counting) in an effort to influence public policy in Vermont.  

Comments Of Senator Patrick Leahy

(D-Vt., President Pro Tempore,

Chairman Of The State Department And Foreign Operations

Appropriations Subcommittee)

On Uganda President Museveni’s Signing

Of The Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2014

“I am deeply concerned by the decision of President Museveni of Uganda to sign into law the anti-homosexuality bill.  I support Secretary of State Kerry and others in calling for its immediate repeal.  Much of U.S. assistance to Uganda is for the people of Uganda, including those in the Ugandan LGBT community whose human rights are being so tragically violated.  But we need to closely review all U.S. assistance to Uganda, including through the World Bank and other multilateral organizations.  I cannot support providing further funding to the Government of Uganda until the United States has undergone a review of our relationship.”

# # # # #

Yesterday, I asked if the Rifle on the Wall Story was true.  My suspicions were based on slightly different accounts being told by differently named individuals.  I said that I’d take my lumps as being a cynical jerk and issue an apology for questioning the veracity of the story if necessary.  Here is that apology to you, and to you alone.

I first heard the Rifle on the Wall story via radio advertisement.  Her story is compelling and provokes a common sense outrage.  But her account of the attack and her response jumped out at me as very suspicious.  Now I’ll gladly take my lumps for being a cynical jerk if I’m wrong  (probably), but here are the things that set my alarm bells off:

1) She kept a loaded gun on the wall.  Serious violation of gun safety rules (NRA Rule #3).  But since her reason for owning a gun is her personal safety, I’ll accept it that she wanted a loaded weapon to be easily accessible in case of attack.

2) Then when she was attacked, she didn’t shoot her attacker.  She had the presence of mind to grab the phone, call 911, and keep the attacker at bay.  

3) She was very fortunate the attacker didn’t grab the gun that was on the wall and in turn use it on her.

WCAX, in its reporting on the gun control debate (http://www.wcax.com/story/24550288/gun-control-debated-in-burlington), identified the woman as Amy Alexander.   But her story also sounds quite similar to the one told by Amy Lorraine in the comments section of a VT Digger story (http://vtdigger.org/2013/10/28/gun-sense-vermont-sponsors-educational-forum/):

I am not fearful Don, I am prepared. On the night of 11/17/11, a man broke in the back door of my house. I called 911 and put it on speaker phone. Despite knowing he was able to be heard by the 911 operator, he punched me in the face and grabbed/shoved me into the wall – the wall where my .44 was hanging. I grabbed the gun, chambered a round and pointed it at his chest. I walked him out the door. The cops arrived 52 minutes later and said I would have been justified in shooting him. I didn’t have to but he knew I could have and that is what made all the difference in the outcome. That rifle, and the fact that it was loaded, saved my life that night.

.

We have two versions of the event.  In Amy Alexander’s version, the man attacked her, then went into another room.  She then grabbed the loaded gun off the wall, walked him back into the kitchen, called 911, and then waited 52 minutes for the police to arrive.  In Amy Lorraine’s version, she called 911, then was attacked and shoved into the wall where her gun was.  She then chambered a round and held the man at bay until the police arrived 52 minutes later.

Interestingly, Amy Alexander also shows up to comment on the same VT Digger article in which Amy Lorraine shared her story.  So did the attack happen to Amy Alexander?  Or Amy Lorraine?  Or are they the same person?

This story could be authenticated very easily if Amy Alexander/Lorraine provided the location of the attack.  We already know it was November 17, 2011, so if we know the location, then we can ask for the police report or police log.  If authenticated, I’ll gladly apologize for questioning the veracity of Ms. Alexander/Lorraine’s account.

A sad headline to write. And unlikely, but true. Our own St. Patrick, chair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, has stirred the ire of left-wing advocacy groups over his adherence to Senate tradition.

Credo Action, a liberal group with a mailing list of over three million, has sent an email blast targeting Leahy who, in spite of a 100% prochoice voting record (according to both NARAL and Planned Parenthood), is enabling obstructionist Republicans in their efforts to block President Obama’s judicial nominees.

As the email lays out, Leahy has thus far refused to abandon a relic of a largely dismantled patronage system known as the “blue slip,” which allows a single senator to effectively veto anyone nominated to a federal judgeship in their state.

The immediate consequence:

Georgia’s two Republican Senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, wielded the blue slip to pressure the White House into a lopsided deal that includes four judges chosen by the Republican lawmakers and only two selected by President Obama.

One of the Senators’ nominees is Michael Boggs, who has a record of opposing reproductive rights and marriage equality because he wants to “stand up for Christian values.” This week, 27 progressive groups sent a letter to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee urging them to vote against Boggs. Now, Credo is directly targeting Leahy for refusing to modify (or dump) the blue slip rule. Or, as Credo put it:

Tell Senator Patrick Leahy: We need judges who will protect a woman’s right to choose – stop allowing rightwing senators to blackball President Obama’s pro-choice nominees to the federal judiciary.

The “blue slip” tradition, according to ThinkProgress, has its origins in an earlier Senate era:

Although the Constitution gives the president power to name judges “with the advice and consent of the Senate,” for much of American history lower court judgeships were often treated as little more than patronage jobs to be doled out by senators.

… Two relics from the old patronage days remain, however. The first is that seats on the federal appeals courts are considered bound to a particular state. …The second is the “blue slip” process, which allows a single senator to prevent a judicial nominee from their home state from receiving a committee hearing, effectively vetoing the nomination.

This is one of the few shortcomings of having a Senator with a whole lot of seniority: he tends to be loyal to the arcane ways of the World’s Most August Boys’ Club.

And this, in spite of the fact that the blue slip rule was ignored the last time the Republicans ran the Senate:

In 2003, for example, when Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) took over as Judiciary chair and George W. Bush was president, Hatch largely abandoned the blue slip rule. According to the Congressional Research Service, “[a] return of a negative blue slip by one or both home-state Senators d[id] not prevent the committee from moving forward with the nomination – provided that the Administration engaged in pre-nomination consultation with both of the home-state Senators,” during Hatch’s tenure.

So Leahy has a decision to make. Support one of the Senate’s most obscure and useless rules, or clear the way for more Obama nominees to be confirmed.

The clock is ticking. The Republicans stand a good chance of regaining a Senate majority in November. Should that happen, we’ll see a whole lot of judicial vacancies lingering on and on, as the Republicans try to stall until the 2016 election.