mr6666

SCOTUS battles

440 posts in this topic

Attorney Sent Letter to Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein in July, Claiming Federal Court Employees Willing to Speak About Brett Kavanaugh

 

"....... told the committee leadership that “there are persons who work for, or who have worked for, the federal judiciary who have important stories to tell about disgraced former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and his mentee, current United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I know that there are people who wish to speak out but fear retaliation because I have been contacted by more than a half-dozen such persons since Judge Kozinski resigned in disgrace.” .........

Kavanaugh’s credibility has also been called into question by his denial that he ever exploited information stolen from Senate Democrats during previous confirmation fights. Emails subsequently revealed that he did. ......

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/17/cyrus-sanai-federal-court-employees-attempted-to-come-forward-to-chuck-grassley-and-dianne-feinstein-neither-responded/

 

-Perjury & Ethics violations are pretty important too  :huh:

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line remains and always will be:  Kavanaugh is being appointed to a 40+ year term to the United States Supreme Court.  This is not a position with a re-election in the future.  Everything he has ever done and said is relevant.

If he made a mistake, did some wrong, etc.; own up to it.  The fact that he bragged in his high school year book about abusing alcohol, partying, etc. lends credence to the allegations and suspicion as to his fitness for Supreme Court.

In a better government, the confirmation would require 66 votes of for Supreme Court and 60 for all other judicial appointments.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

The bottom line remains and always will be:  Kavanaugh is being appointed to a 40+ year term to the United States Supreme Court.  This is not a position with a re-election in the future.  Everything he has ever done and said is relevant.

If he made a mistake, did some wrong, etc.; own up to it.  The fact that he bragged in his high school year book about abusing alcohol, partying, etc. lends credence to the allegations and suspicion as to his fitness for Supreme Court.

In a better government, the confirmation would require 66 votes of for Supreme Court and 60 for all other judicial appointments.

The actual bottom line is that the President gets to submit an appointment and Senators vote on it and it only takes a majority.    

To me it is silly to view the question of 'did he do it' as binary.   I.e. there is no way all these decades later to determine what occurred.   A so called investigation isn't going to reveal anything of substance.    

Therefore the Senate should hold a vote ASAP with each Senator deciding how they wish to 'read' this.  Future elections allow Citizens of a state to determine if they believe their Senator took the 'right' step.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The actual bottom line is that the President gets to submit an appointment and Senators vote on it and it only takes a majority.    

To me it is silly to view the question of 'did he do it' as binary.   I.e. there is no way all these decades later to determine what occurred.   A so called investigation isn't going to reveal anything of substance.    

Therefore the Senate should hold a vote ASAP with each Senator deciding how they wish to 'read' this.  Future elections allow Citizens of a state to determine if they believe their Senator took the 'right' step.

 

How do you know an investigation won't reveal anything?  Appears that you want to rush to get Kavanaugh confirmed before due diligence occurs.  Sounds like a Trump Republican to me.

While it may indeed be difficult and it may never be decisively determined, it should be addressed by the Judiciary Committee.  You don't sweep it under the rug in this situation.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheCid said:

How do you know an investigation won't reveal anything?  Appears that you want to rush to get Kavanaugh confirmed before due diligence occurs.  Sounds like a Trump Republican to me.

While it may indeed be difficult and it may never be decisively determined, it should be addressed by the Judiciary Committee.  You don't sweep it under the rug in this situation.

Come on an investigation involving teenager 36 years later????    Yea,  that is going to revel the truth.

Thanks for the best laugh of the week!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jamesjazzguitar said:

Come on an investigation involving teenager 36 years later????    Yea,  that is going to revel the truth.

Thanks for the best laugh of the week!

 

If it was a laugh, Kavanaugh, Trump, McConnell, Grassley and the entire Republican Party would not be so concerned about it.  Who knows, with enough pressure Kavanaugh or his friend may confirm it.

Beginning to suspect you may have something in your past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We Know Brett Kavanaugh Has Lied Already

"..... In fact, there’s clear evidence showing that Kavanaugh lied under oath during the 2006 confirmation hearing for his spot on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. I should know: I was one of the senators on the Judiciary Committee who questioned him.

...Taking all his testimony together, we see a clear pattern emerge: Brett Kavanaugh has never appeared under oath before the U.S. Senate without lying.

As a onetime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I considered the truthfulness of judicial nominees as a non-negotiable quality.

Lying under oath cannot and must not be rewarded with a seat on the nation’s highest court, and lies cannot remain unchallenged......

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-russ-feingold-kavanaugh-lies_us_5ba020f6e4b013b0977defff?tep

 

-Again, there are OTHER concerns beyond the latest accusation....

:unsure:

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a reminder..............

@AriBerman

 

Republicans refused to even hold hearing for Merrick Garland b/c nominated 237 days before election.

 

Now rushing to confirm nominee 50 days before election who’s accused of sexual assault,

lied under oath 5x,

turned over 4% of records

& nominated by POTUS under investigation

<_<

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCid said:

If it was a laugh, Kavanaugh, Trump, McConnell, Grassley and the entire Republican Party would not be so concerned about it.  Who knows, with enough pressure Kavanaugh or his friend may confirm it.

Beginning to suspect you may have something in your past.

Well actually I was molested at the age of 12 - 13 by my male guardian and I never disclosed this anyone until I got married 25 years later. 

To imply what you did;   what a tool!     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The actual bottom line is that the President gets to submit an appointment and Senators vote on it and it only takes a majority.    

To me it is silly to view the question of 'did he do it' as binary.   I.e. there is no way all these decades later to determine what occurred.   A so called investigation isn't going to reveal anything of substance.    

Therefore the Senate should hold a vote ASAP with each Senator deciding how they wish to 'read' this.  Future elections allow Citizens of a state to determine if they believe their Senator took the 'right' step.

 

Merrick Garland

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

Merrick Garland

I agree that Mitch was a rat and did an end-around the process but he had the power to do so; E.g. he was the Senate Majority leader.     Today the Dems don't have that power.   

In addition Mitch's point about 'not during an election year' was a reference to only a Presidential election year (since the President does the appointing).

But yea,  GOP pulled a fast one.   Dems have to win elections to get around them.   

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Well actually I was molested at the age of 12 - 13 by my male guardian and I never disclosed this anyone until I got married 25 years later. 

To imply what you did;   what a tool!     

Just that you seem to be awfully defensive about questioning Kavanaugh's history and its relevance to his serving on the Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At next Kavanaugh hearing, the stakes are higher than a Supreme Court seat

Analysis: The "Me Too" movement, President Donald Trump, the two political parties, ambitious lawmakers and the institution of the Senate — they've all got something big on the line....
 
:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

MSNBCVerified account @MSNBC 59m59 minutes ago

 

Sen. McCaskill says she will vote no on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

 

....cited Kavanaugh's views on "dark, anonymous money that is crushing our democracy." She said that the "troubling" allegation of sexual assault leveled against Kavanaugh did not influence her decision.

 

“He has revealed his bias against limits on campaign donations which places him completely out of the mainstream of this nation. He wrote, ‘And I have heard very few people say that limits on contributions to candidates are unconstitutional although I for one tend to think those limits have some constitutional problems,'" McCaskill said.

"Judge Kavanaugh will give free reign to anonymous donors and foreign governments through their citizens to spend money to interfere and influence our elections with so-called ‘issue ads.’"......

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/19/mccaskill-vote-no-kavanaugh-830630

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether Dr. Ford testifies or not, the GOPers are on track with the McConnell/Grassley plan.  Get the hearings over with and have the Senate vote before the Nov. elections.

The vote will be between 51 and 55 for confirmation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2018 at 8:22 PM, mr6666 said:

....cited Kavanaugh's views on "dark, anonymous money that is crushing our democracy." She said that the "troubling" allegation of sexual assault leveled against Kavanaugh did not influence her decision.

 

“He has revealed his bias against limits on campaign donations which places him completely out of the mainstream of this nation. He wrote, ‘And I have heard very few people say that limits on contributions to candidates are unconstitutional although I for one tend to think those limits have some constitutional problems,'" McCaskill said.

"Judge Kavanaugh will give free reign to anonymous donors and foreign governments through their citizens to spend money to interfere and influence our elections with so-called ‘issue ads.’"......

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/19/mccaskill-vote-no-kavanaugh-830630

& YES, there ARE OTHER legitimate reasons to oppose the guy

-_-

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr6666 said:

& YES, there ARE OTHER legitimate reasons to oppose the guy [Kavanaugh].

-_-

Dr. Ford has agreed to testify before Grassley's inquisition hearing.  And I am sure the GOPers will make sure it is an inquisition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheCid said:

Dr. Ford has agreed to testify before Grassley's inquisition hearing.  And I am sure the GOPers will make sure it is an inquisition.

Good.  Let's see how the old ***** Hatch & Grassley handle themselves for everyone to see.  Did they save their notes from the Anita Hill inquisition?  They were certainly there for that one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChristineHoard said:

Good.  Let's see how the old ***** Hatch & Grassley handle themselves for everyone to see.  Did they save their notes from the Anita Hill inquisition?  They were certainly there for that one.

Yes,  Hatch and Grassley are buffoons and are highly likely to come off looking like incentive a-holes and that will reflect poorly on the GOP which may cause a few GOP Senators to tell Mitch they can't vote for the appointment.

 

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted LieuVerified account @tedlieu 21h21 hours ago

 

Don't let the GOP rewrite the standards just for Kavanaugh. Would Judge Kozinski, Sen Franken, Rep Meehan, Rep Franks, Rep Conyers, Rep Farenthold & others been convicted in a criminal trial?

Probably not. But they lost their jobs.

Kavanaugh should not get a special preference.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2018 at 9:18 AM, jamesjazzguitar said:

The actual bottom line is that the President gets to submit an appointment and Senators vote on it and it only takes a majority.    

To me it is silly to view the question of 'did he do it' as binary.   I.e. there is no way all these decades later to determine what occurred.   A so called investigation isn't going to reveal anything of substance.    

Therefore the Senate should hold a vote ASAP with each Senator deciding how they wish to 'read' this.  Future elections allow Citizens of a state to determine if they believe their Senator took the 'right' step.

 

We're beyond whether or not he actually did it. Kavanaugh is damaged goods by now whatever occurred or did not occur. The unlikelihood of the accuser with solid background would just make this up, the denials and lying of kavenaugh that we have seen so far, his acknowledged fratboy background, and his neglect for calling for an investigation himself, something a judge is supposed to do btw, and other factors would justify Kavanaugh not be approved for probable cause. As as been pointed out, the is the Supreme Court, we can't vote him out later if doubts were to persist and it would not be good if the prestige of the Supreme Court should be compromised by a "bad" person.

On another note, why is it so that the President is the one who appoints Supreme Court justices? It seems, indirectly at least, a violation of the Balance of Power. It allows the president and the supreme court to potentially merge as a single voice, which is something fundamentally opposed to checks and balances.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, laffite said:

On another note, why is it so that the President is the one who appoints Supreme Court justices? It seems, indirectly at least, a violation of the Balance of Power. It allows the president and the supreme court to potentially merge as a single voice, which is something fundamentally opposed to it.

Because that is the way the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.  President nominates, not appoints.  They were trying to establish a court system that would be more impervious to politics.  They would not have to answer to the president or Congress periodically.  Supposedly this would make them more independent and less likely to succumb to politics.  And it worked up until about 20 years or so ago when presidents began choosing nominees based solely on politics.  Of course, the extreme politicization of the Senate has not helped any.  Just as McConnell planned, Trump and the GOPers in the Senate are able to push the court to the extreme right.

The president nominates and the Senate confirms (approves).  So there has to be cooperation between the two branches.  Only other system would be to have elections for judges and that would be a disaster at the federal level.  Don't know why the House was excluded from the process.  But, the House has always been the less deliberative and more "rowdy" body.

My suggestion would be a Constitutional Amendment requiring 66 votes for Supreme Court and 60 votes for other federal judges.  Also, they would be limited to a 12 year term and could be reconfirmed for a second 12 year term and then gone.  Not going to ever happen though.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in another thread. It is breaking news and worth posting again:

Another woman has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, according to a new report. According to The New Yorker, 53-year-old Deborah Ramirez alleges Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party when they were both students at Yale University in the 1980s.

The newest allegation published Sunday night comes as another Kavanaugh accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is expected to testify Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The newest allegation also comes as attorney Michael Avenatti tells CBS News' Paula Reid he is representing yet another woman who knew Kavanaugh in high school -- although it's unclear what that woman's claim might be. Avenatti tweeted Sunday that he is representing a woman with "credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge," a friend of Kavanaugh's.

In The New Yorker story by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, Ramirez claims the incident happened during a drinking game at a college party. Ramirez said that while she was drunk, a male student pointed a plastic **** at her. At that point, Kavanaugh allegedly put his peni s in front of her face, and she accidentally touched it as she pushed him away. 

"I wasn't going to touch a peni s until I was married," she told The New Yorker. "I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated."

She said she remembers Kavanaugh laughing and pulling up his pants.

"Somebody yelled down the hall, 'Brett Kavanaugh just put his peni s in Debbie's face,'" she said. "It was his full name. I don't think it was just 'Brett.' And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there."

End of news story.

Time to call in the FBI. We now have corroboration and a trend.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us