Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation Hearing Now with Poll

[Tarsonis]

Let's not forget this was a Trump pick against the preferences of the Republicans, how much will that party have to suffer before they simply disown Trump?

As long as Republicans believe they can fulfill their aims with Trump there they will put up with him. It's more important for them to be able to control the Supreme court than to have the candidate they prefer. The only reason they are pushing so hard for Kavanaugh is because they fear that if they do not the Democrats could regain control of the Senate and block him. For nearly all of them, their objectives trump any standards they might have.

There’s still the lame duck senate. Even if they lose, they can still get Kav through

[Grinning Dragon]

The person that doxxed graham, lee, and hatch has been arrested, jackson cosko, who was working as an unpaid intern for shelia jackson.
He had also previous worked for maggie hassan, boxer and difi. He has been charged with making public restricted personal information, witness tampering, threats in interstate communication, unauthorized access of a government computer, identity theft, second-degree burglary and unlawful entry and more charges could be filed.

[Solorni]

As long as Republicans believe they can fulfill their aims with Trump there they will put up with him. It's more important for them to be able to control the Supreme court than to have the candidate they prefer. The only reason they are pushing so hard for Kavanaugh is because they fear that if they do not the Democrats could regain control of the Senate and block him. For nearly all of them, their objectives trump any standards they might have.

There’s still the lame duck senate. Even if they lose, they can still get Kav through

I think he gets through before the election as much as I do not want him to. The FBI investigation will likely be a blessing in disguise as I tend to think that they won't be able to determine what happened and it will improve the optics for republicans as well as allow the republicans on the fence to vote yes. Even if they tie, Mike Pence holds the tiebreaker.

[Tarsonis]

The person that doxxed graham, lee, and hatch has been arrested, jackson cosko, who was working as an unpaid intern for shelia jackson.
He had also previous worked for maggie hassan, boxer and difi. He has been charged with making public restricted personal information, witness tampering, threats in interstate communication, unauthorized access of a government computer, identity theft, second-degree burglary and unlawful entry and more charges could be filed.

Some sauce for this lamb chop?

[Grinning Dragon]

The person that doxxed graham, lee, and hatch has been arrested, jackson cosko, who was working as an unpaid intern for shelia jackson.
He had also previous worked for maggie hassan, boxer and difi. He has been charged with making public restricted personal information, witness tampering, threats in interstate communication, unauthorized access of a government computer, identity theft, second-degree burglary and unlawful entry and more charges could be filed.

Some sauce for this lamb chop?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-do ... other-dems

[Bombadil]

There’s still the lame duck senate. Even if they lose, they can still get Kav through

I think he gets through before the election as much as I do not want him to. The FBI investigation will likely be a blessing in disguise as I tend to think that they won't be able to determine what happened and it will improve the optics for republicans as well as allow the republicans on the fence to vote yes. Even if they tie, Mike Pence holds the tiebreaker.

I'm not sure, they're in a real bind..

..if they appoint him and more and more comes out then it's a disaster. Yet do they have time to drop him and have Trump nominate another and then get it all confirmed in time..

I really wonder what Chief Justice Roberts thinks of all this, his key is about maintaining the standing of the Supreme Court and this is turning it all into a farce.

[Solorni]

I think he gets through before the election as much as I do not want him to. The FBI investigation will likely be a blessing in disguise as I tend to think that they won't be able to determine what happened and it will improve the optics for republicans as well as allow the republicans on the fence to vote yes. Even if they tie, Mike Pence holds the tiebreaker.

I'm not sure, they're in a real bind..

..if they appoint him and more and more comes out then it's a disaster. Yet do they have time to drop him and have Trump nominate another and then get it all confirmed in time..

I really wonder what Chief Justice Roberts thinks of all this, his key is about maintaining the standing of the Supreme Court and this is turning it all into a farce.

Robert's is also the one who is retiring now so that they can nominate a conservative.

Ultimately the supreme court should never have been politicized like this. WSJ had a good article comparing the Federal Reserve with the Supreme court in terms of one that is more about academics and experts and for the most part left alone whereas the other is much more partisan.

[Farnhamia]

I think he gets through before the election as much as I do not want him to. The FBI investigation will likely be a blessing in disguise as I tend to think that they won't be able to determine what happened and it will improve the optics for republicans as well as allow the republicans on the fence to vote yes. Even if they tie, Mike Pence holds the tiebreaker.

I'm not sure, they're in a real bind..

..if they appoint him and more and more comes out then it's a disaster. Yet do they have time to drop him and have Trump nominate another and then get it all confirmed in time..

I really wonder what Chief Justice Roberts thinks of all this, his key is about maintaining the standing of the Supreme Court and this is turning it all into a farce.

I wonder if Roberts is imagining looking at the outraged frat boy face for the next fifteen years, give or take.

[Grinning Dragon]

I'm not sure, they're in a real bind..

..if they appoint him and more and more comes out then it's a disaster. Yet do they have time to drop him and have Trump nominate another and then get it all confirmed in time..

I really wonder what Chief Justice Roberts thinks of all this, his key is about maintaining the standing of the Supreme Court and this is turning it all into a farce.

I wonder if Roberts is imagining looking at the outraged frat boy face for the next fifteen years, give or take.

They could put up one of those cardboard privacy pieces that students use when taking a test.

[Dahon]

The Republican primary system works horrendously when there are too many candidates.

Yeah.. it gives too much power to the 25% of the population who are batshit insane. And to think the alternative was Ted Cruz.. jesus, how many candidates and near all of them deeply disturbing.

Which is why someone should make a thread on more representative electoral structures (so the agony of a Trump doesn't happen again) -- or else I'd do it and make that thread.

[Salus Maior]

Christian Churches demanding that Kavanaugh withdraws

[Conserative Morality]

Christian Churches demanding that Kavanaugh withdraws

... can they do that? Is that okay?

[Dahon]

Christian Churches demanding that Kavanaugh withdraws

... can they do that? Is that okay?

Trump wanted churchmen to speak up and meddle in politics. He got his wish. (Also, if I recall correctly, this is, uh, illegal. Johnson Amendment or something? I'll have to look it up.)

[Bombadil]

... can they do that? Is that okay?

Trump wanted churchmen to speak up and meddle in politics. He got his wish. (Also, if I recall correctly, this is, uh, illegal. Johnson Amendment or something? I'll have to look it up.)

Really.. they can't make a statement, that's really all they've done. Anyway, they're clearly the wrong kind of Christians..

The National Council of Churches represents congregations across 40 denominations, including most of the major Protestant and Eastern Orthodox divisions of faith. It has a statement of creed that advances social policy, such as equal rights, worker protection, just immigration, and multilateral diplomacy.

The organization also cited an array of policy differences it believes Kavanaugh is on the wrong side of, including many progressive issues, such as climate change, voting rights, and “racial and gender justice.”

[Farnhamia]

I wonder if Roberts is imagining looking at the outraged frat boy face for the next fifteen years, give or take.

They could put up one of those cardboard privacy pieces that students use when taking a test.

Maybe. Kavanaugh will sit there muttering, "I like beer. I drink beer. Nothing wrong with beer. I like beer." In 2045, when he's 80, he'll be "I like beer." And the Notorious RBG will laugh.

[Kowani]

Trump wanted churchmen to speak up and meddle in politics. He got his wish. (Also, if I recall correctly, this is, uh, illegal. Johnson Amendment or something? I'll have to look it up.)

Really.. they can't make a statement, that's really all they've done. Anyway, they're clearly the wrong kind of Christians..

The National Council of Churches represents congregations across 40 denominations, including most of the major Protestant and Eastern Orthodox divisions of faith. It has a statement of creed that advances social policy, such as equal rights, worker protection, just immigration, and multilateral diplomacy.

The organization also cited an array of policy differences it believes Kavanaugh is on the wrong side of, including many progressive issues, such as climate change, voting rights, and “racial and gender justice.”

Advances social policy? Equal Rights? Just Immigration?

In before the “Not true Christians” and/or rabid SJWs comments.

[US-SSR]

1. If your Supreme Court nominee were hanging by a thread, wouldn't you want to give swing Senators as much cover as possible for an "aye" vote instead of offending them and practcally forcing them to issue denunciations of your mockery, intended to stir up the Mississippi hinds so they would whoop all the louder at your rally?

2. It's an ill wind that blows no good. Even if Bart O'Kavanaugh makes it on the Court, he won't be voting on the case of Alabama inmate Vernon Madison who, after 33 years in solitary confinement on death row, multiple strokes and advancing age, can't even remember what it was he might have done to land himself in jail. That case was argued yesterday.

[US-SSR]

Yeah.. it gives too much power to the 25% of the population who are batshit insane. And to think the alternative was Ted Cruz.. jesus, how many candidates and near all of them deeply disturbing.

Which is why someone should make a thread on more representative electoral structures (so the agony of a Trump doesn't happen again) -- or else I'd do it and make that thread.

The political system works horrendously when bad Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United allow practically unlimited money in it, keeping too many "mainstream" candidates who split the not-insane vote, allowing a narcissistic buffoon boasting of a fraudulent fortune to win delegates with 1/3 to 2/5 of the total in primary after primary. Topic for a different thread.

[Loben]

Really.. they can't make a statement, that's really all they've done. Anyway, they're clearly the wrong kind of Christians..

The National Council of Churches represents congregations across 40 denominations, including most of the major Protestant and Eastern Orthodox divisions of faith. It has a statement of creed that advances social policy, such as equal rights, worker protection, just immigration, and multilateral diplomacy.

The organization also cited an array of policy differences it believes Kavanaugh is on the wrong side of, including many progressive issues, such as climate change, voting rights, and “racial and gender justice.”

Advances social policy? Equal Rights? Just Immigration?

In before the “Not true Christians” and/or rabid SJWs comments.

Meh. their opinion is worthless to me

also they sound like like that one church that just reeks of heresy. unitarian or someshit.

[Greater Miami Shores]

This is not just about a job interview, this has become a political trial, Judge Kavanaugh has been investigated and vetted by the FBI several times to positions of power and nothing this bad has ever come up, including this time, before these charges came up, the Democrats in Congress have judged and declared Kavanaugh guilty without any official evidence, in an attempt to disqualify him from being elected to the US Supreme Court.

If this Lady's charges are true, she has not provided any evidence or witnesses with evidence, granted, her charges took place many years ago and are hard to prove if they are true, even by the FBI.

As a conservative republican supporter of Judge Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court, even before these charges came out, I hope these charges are false.

I have a feeling the FBI Report is just going to be over the same general charges, and what we have been hearing about in the media, without any evidence of innocence or guilt, so here we go again, political trial part 2, and if the Democrats win the house as it looks like they will, political trial part 3, maybe even criminal charges. Nothing but an admittance of guilt by Kavanaugh will satisfy them, as proven by the statements of certain democrats in this article, provided the statements of those democrats in this article are true.
_______________________________________________________________________
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 457450002/

The battle over Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court is unlikely to end with his confirmation vote.

Democrats said they won't let go of the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh – or accusations he lied about them and other issues before the Senate Judiciary Committee – even if he is elevated to the high court. If they win control of one or both houses of Congress in November, they'll be in a position to continue the fight.

"If he is on the Supreme Court and the Senate hasn't investigated, then the House will have to," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "We would have to investigate any credible allegations, certainly of perjury and other things that haven't been properly looked into before."

If Democrats win the House, the New York lawmaker would be in line to chair the committee, giving him not only subpoena power but also the ability to draw up articles of impeachment.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made a similar promise: "As soon as Democrats get gavels, we're going to want to get to the bottom of this."

Also: Brett Kavanaugh was 'belligerent and aggressive' drinker, Yale classmate says
The battle over Kavanaugh raises the stakes in a midterm election season already inflamed by passions over President Donald Trump.

If confirmed to replace the moderate-to-conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, Kavanaugh would solidify a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

The court's October term began Monday with a case involving the Endangered Species Act. Issues of the death penalty, eminent domain and age discrimination are also on the docket.

Some of those cases will be decided by eight judges while Kavanaugh's nomination remains in limbo for at least another week. Last week, Trump ordered a follow-up FBI investigation, which he said would be "limited in scope" to the allegations of sexual assault.

'High crimes and misdemeanors'

The same impeachment power that Congress can use to remove the president can be used against federal judges – including Supreme Court justices.

The process works much the same way: The House votes to impeach by a simple majority vote, sending the question of removal to the Senate. (There's one key difference: Unlike in a presidential impeachment trial, the chief justice does not preside over the impeachment of a judge. That job goes to the vice president, as the president of the Senate.)

A House investigative panel would have the power to compel the testimony of witnesses and gather documents. That investigation could be broader than the sexual harassment allegations, and the constitutional threshold for impeachment – "high crimes and misdemeanors" – isn't limited to criminal wrongdoing.

Some Democrats called for Kavanaugh's impeachment as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia after his initial confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court. They accused him of lying under oath about his involvement in judicial nominations when he worked as an attorney for President George W. Bush.

Then Christine Blasey Ford went public with allegations that Kavanaugh held her down in the bedroom of a house in Bethesda, Maryland, when she was 15 years old, groped her and attempted to remove her clothes.

Kavanaugh denied those allegations last week in sworn testimony to the Senate. If that denial is proved to be untruthful, it could form the basis for impeachment.

"If that could be established, that, it seems to me, would be the relevant high crime and misdemeanor," said Richard Broughton, who studies impeachment at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law.

Kavanaugh argued that President Bill Clinton should be impeached for lying about a consensual sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky. Kavanaugh was a staff lawyer for the independent counsel investigating Clinton, Kenneth Starr.

Removal from the Supreme Court requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate – a high bar even if Democrats pick up seats in November. Broughton called that "a tall order."

"To pierce the intense partisanship and get to two-thirds, it would take far more clarity about the evidence than we have now," Broughton said. "Presumably, that’s what some hope will emerge from the FBI inquiry."

Ford alleged that the sexual assault took place in the early 1980s. That makes it difficult to investigate but wouldn't have any legal bearing on impeachment, said Alan Baron, a Washington attorney.

"There's certainly precedent for it, whether it’s 10 years old or 10 days old," he said.

Baron was the special counsel for the last successful impeachment case in 2010.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous, a Clinton appointee from Louisiana, was convicted in the Senate of four counts, including a charge that he misled the FBI and the Senate during his confirmation process.

The vote on that count was 90-6.

"It wasn't even close," Baron said.

Porteous was the 16th federal judge ever to be impeached and the eighth to be convicted.

Only once has a Supreme Court justice been impeached. Samuel Chase, a Federalist justice appointed by President George Washington, was impeached by a Democratic-Republican House in 1804 for "arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust" decisions on the court.

The Senate declined to remove him from office, setting a precedent that exists to this day. As former Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in a 1992 book about the case, "it assured the independence of federal judges from congressional oversight of the decisions they made in the cases that came before them."

'Personal bias or prejudice'

In Kavanaugh's impassioned defense before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, he accused Democrats of a "calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election."

Those words could provide fodder for Democratic-aligned groups with cases before his court to ask him to sit out of politically charged issues.

"He revealed himself as a partisan," Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said on "This Week." "I would think that if I were a Democrat going before him, I’d ask him to recuse himself."

Democrats pressed Kavanaugh to step aside on any cases involving special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign. Kavanaugh refused to commit, saying it would undermine the independence of the judiciary.

If he is confirmed, the decision on whether to recuse himself will be his alone.

Federal law requires a federal judge or justice to recuse himself "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party."

The Supreme Court has never acknowledged that the law applies to its justices, and the law is vague about what constitutes bias.

The rule is never applied to issues," said Robert Hume, a political scientist at Fordham University who studied Supreme Court recusals. "It has to be prejudice toward particular litigants or parties before the court."

If a justice could be disqualified for having expressed an opinion on an issue, he said, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could never decide any cases involving women's rights, or Justice Clarence Thomas on affirmative action.

[Bombadil]

This is not just about a job interview, this has become a political trial, Judge Kavanaugh has been investigated and vetted by the FBI several times to positions of power and nothing this bad has ever come up, including this time, before these charges came up, the Democrats in Congress have judged and declared Kavanaugh guilty without any official evidence, in an attempt to disqualify him from being elected to the US Supreme Court.

I'd say Trump shot himself in the foot by picking him but in fact Trump shot the Republicans in the foot instead, because that's what he does. He seems to have bullet proof feet, that ricochets the bullets he aims at his feet and smacks all those around him instead.

Yet more.. regardless of the allegations, Kavanaugh then proceeded to shoot himself in the foot, then switch and take out the other foot as well.

He lied. He is guilty of perjury.

In the Judiciary Committee transcript, the Fox News interview is placed retroactively under oath. A staffer, whose name is redacted, asks Kavanaugh: “Everything that you said on that interview, do you — do you affirm that today? Do you adopt that as your testimony today?” Kavanaugh replies, “Yes.” The SCOTUS nominee also responds in the affirmative when the questioner asks if Kavanaugh understands that entering his answers to Fox News as testimony means that he is “subject to felony prosecution if you’re lying.”

..from that interview..

MacCallum: “Was there ever a time that you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened the night before?”
Kavanaugh: “No, that never happened.”
MacCallum: “You never said to anyone, ‘I don’t remember anything about last night.’”
Kavanaugh: “No, that did not happen.”

More than enough people from his Yale room mate to others have talked of his drinking to stumbling incoherence on multiple occasions, he has an email from a White House email address to his friends after a weekend apologising though saying he can't remember an incident of getting overly aggressive over a dice game. His bullshit on the terms Devil's Triangle and 'boofing' were lies, he signed a whole email about renting a property when at Georgetown for a weekend party as 'Bart' but apparently has no idea if the Bart O'Kavanaugh is him or not, a letter in which he describes himself and friends as "loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers".

And hey, if he was a drunken, boorish frat boy that's fine, and if he kind of didn't talk to it in his initial hearings that's also fine, he's presenting himself in the best light and there's no real need to say 'I was a total party boy when young'.

Yet when finally called out on it he didn't have to lie, and then start attacking everyone who called him out on it.

These might all seem relatively small lies in the grand scheme of things but that's even odder, he had no need to tell such lies, the Republicans were going to put him through anyway.

You're probably right in that this FBI investigation is probably not going to clarify much, but by acting the way he did he gave cause for people to hesitate and possibly not vote him through.. and even if he does go through there is a huge stain against his name that seeps over to the Republican party in general.

And mostly it was unnecessary lying over small shit, just it happened to be under oath and so he's technically perjured himself.. ironic since that's what he got Bill Clinton for after an investigation that veered from investigating a property deal from the 70's to a blowjob with an intern.

I'm sure he'll laugh about that irony one day.

[Infected Mushroom]

This is not just about a job interview, this has become a political trial, Judge Kavanaugh has been investigated and vetted by the FBI several times to positions of power and nothing this bad has ever come up, including this time, before these charges came up, the Democrats in Congress have judged and declared Kavanaugh guilty without any official evidence, in an attempt to disqualify him from being elected to the US Supreme Court.

I'd say Trump shot himself in the foot by picking him but in fact Trump shot the Republicans in the foot instead, because that's what he does. He seems to have bullet proof feet, that ricochets the bullets he aims at his feet and smacks all those around him instead.

Yet more.. regardless of the allegations, Kavanaugh then proceeded to shoot himself in the foot, then switch and take out the other foot as well.

He lied. He is guilty of perjury.

In the Judiciary Committee transcript, the Fox News interview is placed retroactively under oath. A staffer, whose name is redacted, asks Kavanaugh: “Everything that you said on that interview, do you — do you affirm that today? Do you adopt that as your testimony today?” Kavanaugh replies, “Yes.” The SCOTUS nominee also responds in the affirmative when the questioner asks if Kavanaugh understands that entering his answers to Fox News as testimony means that he is “subject to felony prosecution if you’re lying.”

..from that interview..

MacCallum: “Was there ever a time that you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened the night before?”
Kavanaugh: “No, that never happened.”
MacCallum: “You never said to anyone, ‘I don’t remember anything about last night.’”
Kavanaugh: “No, that did not happen.”

More than enough people from his Yale room mate to others have talked of his drinking to stumbling incoherence on multiple occasions, he has an email from a White House email address to his friends after a weekend apologising though saying he can't remember an incident of getting overly aggressive over a dice game. His bullshit on the terms Devil's Triangle and 'boofing' were lies, he signed a whole email about renting a property when at Georgetown for a weekend party as 'Bart' but apparently has no idea if the Bart O'Kavanaugh is him or not, a letter in which he describes himself and friends as "loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers".

And hey, if he was a drunken, boorish frat boy that's fine, and if he kind of didn't talk to it in his initial hearings that's also fine, he's presenting himself in the best light and there's no real need to say 'I was a total party boy when young'.

Yet when finally called out on it he didn't have to lie, and then start attacking everyone who called him out on it.

These might all seem relatively small lies in the grand scheme of things but that's even odder, he had no need to tell such lies, the Republicans were going to put him through anyway.

You're probably right in that this FBI investigation is probably not going to clarify much, but by acting the way he did he gave cause for people to hesitate and possibly not vote him through.. and even if he does go through there is a huge stain against his name that seeps over to the Republican party in general.

And mostly it was unnecessary lying over small shit, just it happened to be under oath and so he's technically perjured himself.. ironic since that's what he got Bill Clinton for after an investigation that veered from investigating a property deal from the 70's to a blowjob with an intern.

I'm sure he'll laugh about that irony one day.

From the bench of the Supreme Court?

How are his chances looking right now?

[Bombadil]

From the bench of the Supreme Court?

How are his chances looking right now?

I'd certainly lean to his being confirmed but really hard to tell, Trump had no need to go shooting more feet with his speech portraying Ford but he just seems psychologically compelled to make things difficult for everyone.

I can't imagine the back room deals being done right now.

[Herskerstad]

Christian Churches demanding that Kavanaugh withdraws

... can they do that? Is that okay?

If they want to keep their tax exempt status? Questionable, as that relates to political rather than judicial limitations. It's strongly questionable since I don't believe for a second they suddenly became fiercely interested in the judiciary and it reeks of politics.

Then again it's mostly mainliners so i doubt anyone really cares.

[Costa Fierro]

Remember kids, if you're making up a story for political reasons, be consistent.