Kavanaugh SCOTUS hearings

[GMDino]

(09-24-2018, 04:08 PM)Benton Wrote: Which is why this is largely Feinstein's screw up. If she had come forward early in the process, we'd have plenty of time for a realistic timeline for an investigation and a chance for any other accusers to come forward.

(09-24-2018, 04:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, we're still waiting. The original vote date was 4 days ago.

Bring forth articles of impeachment.

So in four days we had three more accusations.

What is a "realistic" amount of time to investigate? If every day one or two new accusations come along?

And impeachment is the legal answer...but would be the most efficient answer?

Maybe we should just go with an eight member court?  That seemed like an idea the GOP could get behind.

[Vlad]

(09-24-2018, 04:08 PM)Benton Wrote: Which is why this is largely Feinstein's screw up. If she had come forward early in the process, we'd have plenty of time for a realistic timeline for an investigation and a chance for any other accusers to come forward.

Screwed up? LOL

It was her intent to hold it until the 11th hour.

[*bfine32*]

(09-24-2018, 04:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: So in four days we had three more accusations.

What is a "realistic" amount of time to investigate? If every day one or two new accusations come along?

And impeachment is the legal answer...but would be the most efficient answer?

Maybe we should just go with an eight member court?  That seemed like an idea the GOP could get behind.

Shouldn't your question be why did folks sit on this information to delay investigations? But there should be no time limit on the investigations; however, there should be a time limit of time to vote.

Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump on 7/9/2018; that's 77 days and counting. In the past 115 years, the average time for Senate confirmation/rejection has been 37 days. More recently in the period from Richard Nixon's presidency to the present, the average has been 63. But folks want people to buy the narrative the GOP is rushing it.

What's wrong with the legal answer. Seat him and if he is found to be unfit, impeach him.

[ballsofsteel]

You would stink that Kavanagh would want a fbi investigation to prove he is telling the truth. If he's got nothing to hide, whats the problem. This will always be a cloud over his head if there is no fbi investigation.

[*bfine32*]

(09-24-2018, 05:10 PM)Vlad Wrote: Screwed up? LOL

It was her intent to hold it until the 11th hour.

I'm thinking Benton is acknowledging that.

[*bfine32*]

(09-24-2018, 05:11 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: You would stink that Kavanagh would want a fbi investigation to prove he is telling the truth. If he's got nothing to hide, whats the problem. This will always be a cloud over his head if there is no fbi investigation.

Sure, vote him in a timely fashion and conduct your investigation. What day are we on in the Russian Probe? If found guilty impeach.

[Bengalzona]

Why does it "have" to be Kavanaugh? Didn't the President have a short list with other names on it? In the past when a SCOTUS nominee was turned down or it appeard they were going to be turned down, didn't the President then offer a new name? Surely a less controversial person could be named and even confirmed before November (with consideration for the GOP election fears), right?

[*bfine32*]

(09-24-2018, 05:15 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Why does it "have" to be Kavanaugh? Didn't the President have a short list with other names on it? In the past when a SCOTUS nominee was turned down or it appeard they were going to be turned down, didn't the President then offer a new name? Surely a less controversial person could be named and even confirmed before November (with consideration for the GOP election fears), right?

Perhaps they are unwilling to tarnish an innocent (presumed) man's reputation. Now the question could be asked why wouldn't Kavs withdraw.

[*bfine32*]

As to the latest accusation; that should be easy to validate. we simply have to employ the technique suggested by Beulah Ballbricker

[jj22]

Once you're confirmed you're confirmed. It's a lifetime appointment. There is no going back.

The simple answer to all of his is allow an FBI investigation. That's what most innocent people would call for after being falsely accused. I think the fact Kav, the Republicans, and the witnesses don't want an FBI investigation into it says all we need to know.

But common sense is in short supply in this new age of politics.

Only 15 more accusations and he'd be considered POTUS material by the majority of the American electorate.

[GMDino]

(09-24-2018, 05:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Shouldn't your question be why did folks sit on this information to delay investigations?

No since that has been explained repeatedly.

(09-24-2018, 05:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But there should be no time limit on the investigations; however, there should be a time limit of time to vote.

Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump on 7/9/2018; that's 77 days and counting. In the past 115 years, the average time for Senate confirmation/rejection has been 37 days. More recently in the period from Richard Nixon's presidency to the present, the average has been 63. But folks want people to buy the narrative the GOP is rushing it.

Maybe because these same republicans thought six months was fine during the Obama administration?

From the link in the story I noted above:

Quote:Six. Seven. Nine. Ten. Seven. Nine.

These numbers reveal the absurdity of the argument that somehow the federal judiciary is debilitated without a ninth Supreme Court justice for a brief period of time. As the numbers make clear, the size of the court as Congress designed it over the years has frequently changed, and hasn’t left the court in disarray.

The Supreme Court was established with only six justices. No one would call members of the first Congress that passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, like James Madison, or George Washington, who signed it into law, un-American.

Yet, Register editorial April 4 [Grassley creates stalemate on Supreme Court] went so far as to call the current Senate’s check on the president’s power to nominate “un-American” because eight justices will perform the court’s work until a new president is sworn in.

The temporary impact of a split decision pales in comparison to the damage an election-year political brawl would cause the court and the country, as then-Sen. Joe Biden said in 1992. Biden, then-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, explained that the Senate shouldn’t move forward on a Supreme Court nomination during a hyper-partisan election year, predicting that a nominee, the president, the Senate, and the nation would endure a bitter fight no matter how good a person is nominated. I agree with Chairman Biden. A nomination considered during this heated campaign season would be all about politics, not the Constitution.

The court will continue to fulfill its constitutional role during this vacancy just as it has in the past. For instance, Justice Jackson spent a full court term prosecuting war criminals at the Nuremberg Tribunal. Justice Frankfurter wrote to Justice Jackson that his absence did not sacrifice “a single interest of importance.” Justices also regularly recuse themselves from cases to avoid conflicts of interest. Justice Kagan sat out of dozens of cases because of her prior work as solicitor general — including two that resulted in evenly divided four-to-four decisions. The sky didn’t fall.

As Justices Breyer and Alito have said recently, the court can deal with a vacancy and continue its work. It can order a case to be reargued after the vacancy is filled. It can reschedule a case for a later time. It can reach an evenly divided decision and resolve the issue another day.

So, despite hyperbolic rhetoric, the court will continue to function. And even cases that split evenly will likely be few and far between. On average, the court decides about one in five cases by a five-to-four split. Because Justice Scalia wasn’t always in the majority, you can expect even fewer cases to result in tie decisions because of his absence.

With this in mind, the American people have a unique opportunity to engage in a serious discussion about the meaning of our Constitution and the way justices read it. Supreme Court justices should decide cases based on the law and the facts instead of personal policy preferences, empathy, or what’s in the justice’s heart, as the president has suggested. Americans deserve the chance to debate these questions this election year before the court takes a dramatic turn for a generation.

The Senate’s power to withhold consent is as much a part of the Constitution as the president’s power to nominate. It’s also not unlike the president’s power to veto a bill Congress presents him, as the president has done nine times, or the many veto threats he’s made on measures that Congress hasn’t even passed. The Senate’s decision regarding the court vacancy is constitutional. It will help safeguard the integrity of the court. It’s common sense. And, it’s entirely American.

Seems like he was in no rush and didn't see a problem with it....then.

(09-24-2018, 05:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What's wrong with the legal answer. Seat him and if he is found to be unfit, impeach him.

Someone has more faith in the people who would make that decision than I do.

[Benton]

(09-24-2018, 04:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: So in four days we had three more accusations.

What is a "realistic" amount of time to investigate? If every day one or two new accusations come along?

And impeachment is the legal answer...but would be the most efficient answer?

Maybe we should just go with an eight member court?  That seemed like an idea the GOP could get behind.

Realistic is more than a week or two. And it's difficult to determine, as it's going to change once you get into looking at things. At some point you're going to stop getting accusations. Either because, if true, all the people impacted came forward or, if they're false, the number of people willing to lie to Congress is finite.

[Benton]

(09-24-2018, 05:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Shouldn't your question be why did folks sit on this information to delay investigations? But there should be no time limit on the investigations; however, there should be a time limit of time to vote.

Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump on 7/9/2018; that's 77 days and counting. In the past 115 years, the average time for Senate confirmation/rejection has been 37 days. More recently in the period from Richard Nixon's presidency to the present, the average has been 63. But folks want people to buy the narrative the GOP is rushing it.

What's wrong with the legal answer. Seat him and if he is found to be unfit, impeach him.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/past-summer-nomination-timelines/
The 77 has been pretty on par with some of the more recent timelines. I think the "rushing it" issue is that some questions have come up — honesty, previous legal work, rape allegations — and the GOP wants to vote without getting any further answers. In their defense, it's going to be along party lines, so they do have a bit of a point.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Withdraw Kavanaugh and nominate Barrett then fast track it.

This is what Democrats want, right?

EDIT: Democrats get their "Block" of the nominee as revenge for Garland and when they try to block Barrett, they will be voted out of office.

I rather think Republicans are going to keep control this November though. I just have a feeling.

[Vlad]

Kavanaugh letter today.




September 24, 2018

 
 
The Honorable Charles Grassley   The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Chairman      Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary    Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate     United States Senate 135 Hart Senate Office Building   331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510    Washington, D.C. 20510
 
 
Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein:  

When I testified in front of the Senate three weeks ago, I explained my belief that fair process is foundational to justice and to our democracy.
 
At that time, I sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than 31 hours and answered questions under oath.  I then answered more questions at a confidential session.  The following week, I responded to more than 1,200 written questions, more than have been submitted to all previous Supreme Court nominees combined.
 
Only after that exhaustive process was complete did I learn, through the news media, about a 36year-old allegation from high school that had been asserted months earlier and withheld from me throughout the hearing process.  First it was an anonymous allegation that I categorically and unequivocally denied.  Soon after the accuser was identified, I repeated my denial on the record and made clear that I wished to appear before the Committee.  I then repeated my denial to Committee investigators—under criminal penalties for false statements.  All of the witnesses identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party she describes are on the record to the Committee saying they have no recollection of any such party happening.  I asked to testify before the Committee again under oath as soon as possible, so that both Dr. Ford and I could both be heard.  I thank Chairman Grassley for scheduling that hearing for Thursday.
 
Last night, another false and uncorroborated accusation from 35 years ago was published.  Once again, those alleged to have been witnesses to the event deny it ever happened.  There is now a frenzy to come up with something—anything—that will block this process and a vote on my confirmation from occurring. 
 
These are smears, pure and simple.  And they debase our public discourse.  But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country.  Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service. 
 
As I told the Committee during my hearing, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure.  That is the kind of judge I will always be.  I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process.  The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not
drive me out.  The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out.  The lastminute character assassination will not succeed.
 
I have devoted my career to serving the public and the cause of justice, and particularly to promoting the equality and dignity of women.  Women from every phase of my life have come forward to attest to my character.  I am grateful to them.  I owe it to them, and to my family, to defend my integrity and my name.  I look forward to answering questions from the Senate on Thursday. 
 
Sincerely,
 
 
 
Brett M. Kavanaugh

[*bfine32*]

(09-24-2018, 05:49 PM)Benton Wrote: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/past-summer-nomination-timelines/
The 77 has been pretty on par with some of the more recent timelines. I think the "rushing it" issue is that some questions have come up — honesty, previous legal work, rape allegations — and the GOP wants to vote without getting any further answers. In their defense, it's going to be along party lines, so they do have a bit of a point.

The Dems were pushing the "rushing it" agenda long perform any accusations of sexual misconduct was brought to light. Let's be honest and call a spade a spade. 

If the GOP wanted to vote without any further answers it would have happened on SEP 20 when it was originally planned. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-24-2018, 05:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: No since that has been explained repeatedly.



Maybe because these same republicans thought six months was fine during the Obama administration?

From the link in the story I noted above:


Seems like he was in no rush and didn't see a problem with it....then.


Someone has more faith in the people who would make that decision than I do.

Everyone's aware of the Garland situation. It just varies on whether folks think that justifies the Dems current circus. I find them both to be wrong. There's actually a well known fallacy for those that think it makes it right. 

[Millhouse]

I hope to see the Repubs withdraw his nomination.

Then find the most conservative whitest male gun-toting Baptist judge and nominate that guy.

Now is that worth seeing the reactions from the diehard left? Why yes, yes it is.

[Belsnickel]

(09-24-2018, 06:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The Dems were pushing the "rushing it" agenda long perform any accusations of sexual misconduct was brought to light. Let's be honest and call a spade a spade. 

If the GOP wanted to vote without any further answers it would have happened on SEP 20 when it was originally planned. 

I agree, here. I mean, I think Kavanaugh is a crap choice for a number of reasons, but this wasn't a rushed thing. I will say, though, that according to Ronan Farrow's reporting, the GOP leadership in the Senate and White House was aware of the second allegation prior to the reporting of it, and it was after that there was a push to get the vote through before the second allegation was made public. Agree or disagree with the timeline, that looks bad.

I think there is a split in the GOP on this issue, Kavanaugh in general, right now. McConnell didn't want him because of the baggage, and there are probably plenty of others that feel the same. This has probably caused a lot of the issues with this because if they wanted to they could'v'e just made this happen. There is nothing the Democrats could do to stop it if the GOP Senators were all behind him.

[Belsnickel]

(09-24-2018, 08:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's not pretend that deviants can be stereotyped. Keith Ellison in not conservative, nor white, nor gun-toting, nor baptist.  And it seems the left does not mind. 

I do. Though I am not all of the left.