SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Brett Kavanaugh Woos Senators as Battle Kicks Off Over Supreme Court Pick
Page 1 2 3 4 5 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Brett Kavanaugh Woos Senators as Battle Kicks Off Over Supreme Court Pick Login/Join 
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
Well, Manchin might be OK-ish (how often does West Virginia elect Republicans anyway?), but I could see Tammy Baldwin, Claire McCaskill and Bill Nelson go down in flames with a smile on my face.
 
Posts: 27291 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
Schumer’s Delusory Document Demand

National Review
Ed Whelan

As Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley detailed in an excellent Senate floor speech yesterday, he expects that his committee will “receive up to one million pages of documents from Judge Kavanaugh’s time in the White House Counsel’s Office and the Office of the Independent Counsel.” This, of course, is on top of the most probative evidence of Judge Kavanaugh’s qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice: the “307 opinions he authored in 12 years as a D.C. Circuit judge, the hundreds more opinions he joined, and the 6,168 pages of material he submitted as part of his Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire.”

As Grassley pointed out: “This will be the largest document production in connection with a Supreme Court nomination ever. By comparison, we received only about 170,000 pages of White House records for Justice Kagan”—who of course had no judicial record.

Yet somehow Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer is pretending that’s not enough. He is demanding the millions of pages of documents that passed through Kavanaugh’s office during his three years as White House staff secretary. Grassley is entirely correct to reject Schumer’s request (as he directly did in this forceful letter to Schumer yesterday).

As my Ethics and Public Policy Center colleague Yuval Levin has explained, the staff secretary “is basically the traffic cop directing the paper flow in the White House.” It demands “a person with intense attention to detail, no patience for cutting corners, and a willingness to insist that various White House offices and the colorful characters who often occupy them do their jobs and play their parts.” But the job “is in essence procedural and not substantive.” Thus:

A review of all the paperwork that circulated through Kavanaugh’s office when he was staff secretary would pretty much amount to a review of all the paperwork that circulated through the White House in those years, and yet would also reveal essentially nothing about Kavanaugh. It would mostly amount to a monumental waste of the Senate’s time.

It’s plain that Schumer, as part of his effort to obstruct the Kavanaugh nomination, affirmatively desires such “a monumental waste of the Senate’s time.” He obviously agrees that the papers from Kavanaugh’s time as White House staff secretary are not necessary to assess Kavanaugh’s fitness for the Supreme Court, as he has already committed to oppose the nomination.

By any sensible measure, the document production—unprecedented in volume—that Grassley is arranging far exceeds what any senator could reasonably expect. Have in mind that there has never been a practice of insisting on all executive-branch records of a nominee. If any such practice existed, then the Obama administration would have been obligated to turn over all of Elena Kagan’s records during her year as the Obama administration’s Solicitor General—information that would have been much more probative of her thinking on constitutional issues (and much more controversial) than her records from the Clinton White House.

The reality is that beyond assuring that the Senate has adequate information to assess the merits of a judicial nominee—a threshold that has already easily been met—a Senate Judiciary Committee chairman should decide how to respond to a Senate minority’s demand for documents based on how burdensome the demand is, how much insight the demanded documents promise, and how much leverage the Senate minority has. For the reasons Yuval Levin has given, the ratio of burden to insight for Kavanaugh’s staff secretary records approaches infinity. And Senator Schumer’s filibuster last year of the Gorsuch nomination, which resulted in the abolition of the supermajority cloture vote for Supreme Court nominees, means that Schumer has deprived himself of any leverage to enforce his patently unreasonable demand.

Link




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
Just wait until Schumer demands copies of any traffic tickets Kavanaugh was ever given - and then screams about the inadequacy of the documentary record when he doesn't get them. Schumer may be able to repeat the same line to the faithful and get a reaction out of them. But I can't see how most people could look at how much of Kavanaugh's record is available and still want to see every last piece of paper that might have ever crossed his desk.

I'd be tempted to just do a massive document dump on the Dems and let them try to claim they've waded through it all, but that would be to allow them to unilaterally establish an absolutely absurd precedent.
 
Posts: 27291 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Just wait until Schumer demands copies of any traffic tickets Kavanaugh was ever given - and then screams about the inadequacy of the documentary record when he doesn't get them. Schumer may be able to repeat the same line to the faithful and get a reaction out of them. But I can't see how most people could look at how much of Kavanaugh's record is available and still want to see every last piece of paper that might have ever crossed his desk.

I'd be tempted to just do a massive document dump on the Dems and let them try to claim they've waded through it all, but that would be to allow them to unilaterally establish an absolutely absurd precedent.


It’s mostly the Kenny Stabler ploy. Just don’t let the clock run out. Maybe something good will happen. Schumer can only hope to prevent a vote before the election, and then hope his hand improves. Maybe Kavanaugh gets picked up in a vice raid (do they still have those?) or dancing drunk and mostly disrobed in a fountain with a Stormy Daniels look alike or something.

If he doesn’t get the documents, he can bitch and moan about that. He can weep and wail about the unfairness of the rush to vote before every last scrap of paper is analyzed. If he gets them, well obviously, taking a vote before the analysis is profoundly unfair and wrong.

Who cares about future confirmations? He has to survive this one, prevent it if at all possible.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Conveniently located directly
above the center of the Earth
Picture of signewt
posted Hide Post
"Here's the room and documents Sen. Schumer; you have until noon Friday to prove you actually have read them, otherwise the confirmation vote is at 6:00PM"


**************~~~~~~~~~~
"I've been on this rock too long to bother with these liars any more."
~SIGforum advisor~
"When the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change, then change will come."~~sigmonkey

 
Posts: 9849 | Location: sunny Orygun | Registered: September 27, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
Ah, JALLEN's got a point. Any sort of concession will be milked to the extent possible. That's why I'm not crazy about setting the precedent that any and every last scrap of a document has to be rounded up and made available - I don't care what's in the documents so much as I care about giving the obstructionists so much as a chance to waste time.

Otherwise, if he's given the room and the documents he'll just whine about not having another week - there's nothing to be gained, there's nothing Schumer can do if he doesn't get every last document, and giving Schumer what he asks for in the hopes he'll shut up will simply provide him with another chance to whine in the hopes that he'll get his way.

What's the phrase - "gambling with the casino's money"?
 
Posts: 27291 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
The Judiciary Committee is 10 Republican and 10 Democrat.

I wonder if this poses any procedural opportunity to gum things up?




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
I’m a Liberal Feminist Lawyer. Here’s Why Democrats Should Support Judge Kavanaugh

Politico
Lisa Blatt

Sometimes a superstar is just a superstar. That is the case with Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who had long been considered the most qualified nominee for the Supreme Court if Republicans secured the White House. The Senate should confirm him.

I have argued 35 cases before the Supreme Court, more than any other woman. I worked in the Solicitor General’s Office for 13 years during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. Because I am a liberal Democrat and feminist, I expect my friends on the left will criticize me for speaking up for Kavanaugh. But we all benefit from having smart, qualified and engaged judges on our highest court, regardless of the administration that nominates them.

What happened to Merrick Garland was a disgrace. His nomination was the Democratic equivalent of Kavanaugh’s. Garland, too, is brilliant, admired, experienced, sober and humane. Indeed, Kavanaugh himself called Garland “supremely qualified” for the Supreme Court. That he made that statement while Garland’s nomination was pending—and was the subject of intense partisan warfare—says a great deal about Kavanaugh’s character.

But unless the Democrats want to stand on the principle of an eye-for-an-eye—and I don’t think they should—folks should stop pretending that Kavanaugh or his record is the issue. He is supremely qualified. Although this fact is distressing, Republicans control both the White House and Senate. In comparable circumstances, when President Barack Obama was in office, our party appointed two Justices to the Supreme Court.

I first met Kavanaugh in 2009, shortly after I left the Solicitor General’s Office. He spontaneously emailed to say he liked an article I had written for The Green Bag, an irreverent legal magazine, about my experience arguing in front of the Supreme Court. I had just started my own appellate practice, and his note was extremely thoughtful.

Months later, I asked Kavanaugh to join a panel at Georgetown Law School to review a film about college debate. He responded that he knew nothing about debate but nevertheless was happy to help. When a law student asked him how debate had shaped his career, he answered: “I actually never debated, but I did play football, and the two are basically the same.” He then offered this advice: “Practice, learn to get along with all of your teammates, learn from your mistakes, and have fun.” It was clear that judge cared about mentoring and teaching law students and was invested in helping others to succeed.

Since then, I’ve kept in regular contact with the judge, mostly to talk about kids and work-life balance, including the challenges I’ve had as a woman trying to raise two children while practicing law. Kavanaugh is a great listener, and one of the warmest, friendliest and kindest individuals I know. And other than my former boss, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I know of no other judge who stands out for hiring female law clerks. My profession is overrun with men, and unless institutions like the Supreme Court do more to hire women, the upper echelons of my profession will never fully include women.

I do not have a single litmus test for a nominee. My standard is whether the nominee is unquestionably well-qualified, brilliant, has integrity and is within the mainstream of legal thought. Kavanaugh easily meets those criteria. I have no insight into his views on Roe v. Wade—something extremely important to me as a liberal, female Democrat and mother of a teenage girl. But whatever he decides on Roe, I know it will be because he believes the Constitution requires that result.

It’s easy to forget that the 41 Republican senators who voted to confirm Ginsburg knew she was a solid vote in favor of Roe, but nonetheless voted for her because of her overwhelming qualifications. Just as a Democratic nominee with similar credentials and mainstream legal views deserves to be confirmed, so too does Kavanaugh—not because he will come out the way I want in each case or even most cases, but because he will do the job with dignity, intelligence, empathy and integrity.

Democrats should quit attacking Kavanaugh—full stop. It is unbecoming to block him simply because they want to, and they risk alienating intelligent people who see the obvious: He is the most qualified conservative for the job.

Link




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
The dam breaks further - but for good liberal reasons, of course.

quote:
Senate Democrats Are Apparently Ready To End Their Kavanaugh Boycott
Kathryn Krawczyk, The Week, 8/3/2018

Top Senate Democrats are finally ready to acknowledge the Supreme Court's newest nominee.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have abandoned their weeks-long avoidance of Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's nominee to the high court, a senior Democratic aide tells the Washington Post.

The Democrats previously insisted they wouldn't see Kavanaugh until they reviewed documents from his time working under former President George W. Bush. But after learning the National Archives wouldn't have those records ready for months, they'll reportedly meet with Kavanaugh and ask him to join their call for releasing the records.

Some Democrats have opposed Trump's nominee since long before his name was even revealed, and they have since demanded an extensive review of his very long track record. Republicans say this is an obstruction tactic, used to delay Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing until Democrats perhaps pick up some Senate seats in November's midterms. After all, even after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) requested 900,000 pages of Kavanaugh's records, Schumer still wondered why he didn't ask for more.

So Schumer and Feinstein will start having traditional one-on-one meetings with the nominee once they get back from recess on Aug. 15 - but not just to question him on reproductive rights, per the Post. They'll also ask Kavanaugh to press for the release of all his records, including papers from three of his five years in the Bush White House that Grassley didn't ask for. Regardless of if or when those papers surface, Republicans still plan to start Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing in September.

Original text at http://theweek.com/speedreads/...nd-kavanaugh-boycott

I love it. Two Senators who have openly stated that they'll oppose Kavanaugh's nomination to the bitter end are going to ask Kavanaugh to go to bat for their politically motivated attempt at delaying and obstructing...Kavanaugh's nomination.

Meanwhile, Dem Senators who might vote to confirm Kavanaugh have the fig leaf they needed to sit down and talk with him. Apparently the conceit is that lesser Dem Senators don't meet with nominees until the senior Dem brass does. Well, the senior Dem brass is gonna meet with him so now any D in the Senate is free to meet with him. So, you know, at least Chuckles and DiFi got something out of all this, right?

Heh, heh, heh, heh.
 
Posts: 27291 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
The dam breaks further - but for good liberal reasons, of course.

quote:
Senate Democrats Are Apparently Ready To End Their Kavanaugh Boycott
Kathryn Krawczyk, The Week, 8/3/2018

Top Senate Democrats are finally ready to acknowledge the Supreme Court's newest nominee.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have abandoned their weeks-long avoidance of Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's nominee to the high court, a senior Democratic aide tells the Washington Post[/i}.

The Democrats previously insisted they wouldn't see Kavanaugh until they reviewed documents from his time working under former President George W. Bush. But after learning the National Archives wouldn't have those records ready for months, they'll reportedly meet with Kavanaugh and ask him to join their call for releasing the records.

Some Democrats have opposed Trump's nominee since long before his name was even revealed, and they have since demanded an extensive review of his very long track record. Republicans say this is an obstruction tactic, used to delay Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing until Democrats perhaps pick up some Senate seats in November's midterms. After all, even after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) requested 900,000 pages of Kavanaugh's records, Schumer still wondered why he didn't ask for more.

So Schumer and Feinstein will start having traditional one-on-one meetings with the nominee once they get back from recess on Aug. 15 - but not just to question him on reproductive rights, per the [i]Post
. They'll also ask Kavanaugh to press for the release of all his records, including papers from three of his five years in the Bush White House that Grassley didn't ask for. Regardless of if or when those papers surface, Republicans still plan to start Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing in September.

Original text at http://theweek.com/speedreads/...nd-kavanaugh-boycott

I love it. Two Senators who have openly stated that they'll oppose Kavanaugh's nomination to the bitter end are going to ask Kavanaugh to go to bat for their politically motivated attempt at delaying and obstructing...Kavanaugh's nomination.

Meanwhile, Dem Senators who might vote to confirm Kavanaugh have the fig leaf they needed to sit down and talk with him. Apparently the conceit is that lesser Dem Senators don't meet with nominees until the senior Dem brass does. Well, the senior Dem brass is gonna meet with him so now any D in the Senate is free to meet with him. So, you know, at least Chuckles and DiFi got something out of all this, right?

Heh, heh, heh, heh.


I believe Kavanaugh has already met with Manchin, maybe one other.

I don’t know why they bother with Difi and Schumer. They aren’t going to vote for him no matter what, so what difference does it make whether they are satisfied with anything.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
A fig leaf for those who need a fig leaf is still a fig leaf for those who need a fig leaf. Think of it as a peppercorn for someone who doesn't even know what a pepper grinder is and who knows everyone of is laughing at them for settling for a peppercorn.
 
Posts: 27291 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
Supreme Court candidate Kavanaugh has met w DEM senator Manchin.

Kavanaugh is set to visit w DEM senators Heitkamp & Donnelly

Sen McCaskill is set to meet w him on 21 Aug

Sen Tester is expected to meet w him later in Aug.

"the red-staters are all lining up to meet him in order to placate the Republican majorities they’ll face in November"

https://hotair.com/archives/20...n-meeting-kavanaugh
 
Posts: 19502 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
quote:
"the red-staters are all lining up to meet him in order to placate the Republican majorities they’ll face in November"

Thus the dam breaks further. Did anyone really want to rely on Manchin as the sole potential ace in the hole? Or does it look like a lot more fun for the forces of truth and beauty to talk to a number of potential Dem "yes" votes so that (1) the odds of success go up, (2) Dem confidence in their ability to use solidarity to manipulate the situation wanes and their collective will to resist aggressively drops, and (3) the Dem leadership is forced to not only play defense across a large, scattered and diverse front, but to play whack-a-mole in the process?

Do I think this is magic? No. Do I think the Dems are digging a ten-foot-deep trench in sand that keeps getting wetter and wetter? Yes.
 
Posts: 27291 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
quote:
"the red-staters are all lining up to meet him in order to placate the Republican majorities they’ll face in November"

Thus the dam breaks further. Did anyone really want to rely on Manchin as the sole potential ace in the hole? Or does it look like a lot more fun for the forces of truth and beauty to talk to a number of potential Dem "yes" votes so that (1) the odds of success go up, (2) Dem confidence in their ability to use solidarity to manipulate the situation wanes and their collective will to resist aggressively drops, and (3) the Dem leadership is forced to not only play defense across a large, scattered and diverse front, but to play whack-a-mole in the process?

Do I think this is magic? No. Do I think the Dems are digging a ten-foot-deep trench in sand that keeps getting wetter and wetter? Yes.


There are nose counters in both parties, sophisticated strategists, who will map out how to play this in various scenarios. If the Republicans alone cannot get to 50 votes, there will be no vote and the nomination will be withdrawn. That is what is in Schumer's morning, and evening, prayers.

If they do get 50 votes, those who beg credibly will get dispensation to vote “Aye,” so as not to be crippled futilely in the election. Also, the key vote is the cloture motion. You can vote party line on that, then as you need to on the confirmation.

The odds will be run continuously to the last minute. There may be changes, a new Senator in AZ, for example.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
What a Difference Party Affiliation Makes

National Review
Thomas Jipping


The confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Thurgood Marshall, then a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, began on July 13, 1967. Marshall was asked for his views on legal issues that could come before the Supreme Court, views he had discussed when he previously served as solicitor general. Marshall declined, noting the common practice of a Supreme Court nominee to “deem it inappropriate to comment on matters which will come before him as a Justice.”

Coming to Marshall’s defense was Senator Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.) then a junior member of the committee. Kennedy interjected that “you have, as a nominee, a different responsibility, as I understand it, as to commenting on questions that might come up before the Court . . . then you have had as the solicitor general.” Later, Kennedy said that senators “have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters which are before the Court or very likely to appear before the Court.”

Kennedy voted for Marshall, who had been nominated by a fellow Democrat, Lyndon Johnson.

Skip to 1993. Kennedy was still on the Judiciary Committee when another judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was nominated to the Supreme Court. Ginsburg was even more direct than Marshall had been, saying that she would provide, “no hints, no forecasts, no previews” about how she would address issues on the Supreme Court. To do so, she said, would “show disdain for the entire judicial process.”

Kennedy voted for Ginsburg, who had been nominated by another fellow Democrat, Bill Clinton.

Now jump to 2005, when another judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, John Roberts, was nominated to the Supreme Court. This time, Kennedy wanted to know the very thing that he said Marshall had a responsibility not to provide. He wanted Roberts’s legal views on issues . . . and even more. As he told an AFL-CIO rally, “we need to know whose side Mr. Roberts is on.” Will he take the side of workers and “average Americans,” Kennedy asked, or the side of HMOs and “polluters.”

Kennedy voted against Roberts, a Republican nominee. So did Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.).

Today, with Schumer as Senate minority leader, another judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, Brett Kavanaugh, has been nominated to the Supreme Court. Within hours of Kavanaugh’s nomination, Schumer took to the Senate floor and said he would demand “affirmative commitments” to vote a certain way on particular issues.

Oh, what a difference a political party makes.

Link




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Info Guru
Picture of BamaJeepster
posted Hide Post


https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.c8948015d43c

I don’t know Kavanaugh the judge. But Kavanaugh the carpool dad is one great guy.

By Julie O'Brien
July 10
Julie O’Brien lives in Chevy Chase.

Much has been written about Brett Kavanaugh as President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, but the discussion has focused on his record as a federal judge and in his legal career. I’d like to talk about him as Coach K. Like the one at Duke University, this Coach K also is a mentor to student-athletes who love basketball. But his players are sixth-grade girls.

Brett’s older daughter and mine have been classmates at Blessed Sacrament School, a small Catholic school in the District, for the past seven years. On evenings and weekends, you’re likely to find Brett at a local gym or athletic field, encouraging his players or watching games with his daughters and their friends. He coaches not one but two girls’ basketball teams. His positive attitude and calm demeanor make the game fun and allow each player to shine. The results have been good: This past season, he led the Blessed Sacrament School’s sixth-grade girls team to an undefeated season and a citywide championship in the local Catholic youth league. To the parents with players on the squad, it’s no surprise that the team photograph with the trophy is displayed prominently in his chambers.

Brett’s contribution to our school’s community extends beyond the sidelines. He and his wife, Ashley, support their two daughters and other children at countless school and church functions throughout the year. In the summer, Brett is the “carpool dad,” often shuttling students to and from practices, games and activities. And in a city where professional obligations can often take priority over personal ones, Brett is a steady presence at his daughters’ events, even if it means racing across town just to catch the last 15 minutes of a game or program.

Brett’s friendship and mentorship have touched my family in an especially personal way. A few years ago, my husband died. One of the many difficult aspects of that loss was that my daughter had no one to accompany her to the school’s annual father-daughter dance. That first year — and every year since my husband’s passing — Brett has stepped forward to take my daughter to the dance alongside his own.

I’ll leave it to others to gauge Judge Kavanaugh’s qualifications for the Supreme Court as a jurist. But as someone who would bring to his work the traits of personal kindness, leadership and willingness to help when called on, he would receive a unanimous verdict in his favor from those who know him.



“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
- John Adams
 
Posts: 29408 | Location: In the red hinterlands of Deep Blue VA | Registered: June 29, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of grumpy1
posted Hide Post
Confirmation hearings set to start Sept 4 and of course democrats crying foul with those crying foul have absolutely no intention of voting for his confirmation anyway.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/c...o-begin-september-4/

"The Senate will begin confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on September 4. Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the committee will launch up to four days of review on Tuesday, beginning with opening remarks from senators.

Kavanaugh will face questions followed by testimony from legal experts and people who know the judge.

Republicans are eager to confirm President Donald Trump's nominee ahead of the new court session Oct. 1, as Justice Anthony Kennedy retires. Democrats have complained Republicans are rushing the process for the lifetime appointment without proper vetting of Kavanaugh's record.

In 2016, Senate Republicans refused to hold confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, believing that the Supreme Court vacancy occurred too close to the election. Democrats now argue that Republicans are now trying to hurry a confirmation process shortly before the 2018 midterm elections.

Republicans have in turn accused Democrats of attempting to block the confirmation process of a qualified candidate. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn criticized Democrats who oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation in a statement.

"The transparent stall tactics and now thinly-veiled attacks on Judge Kavanaugh's character only underscore the strength of the choice President Trump has made," Cornyn said.

Grassley said Friday there's "plenty of time" to review the documents but added it's time for Americans "to hear directly" from Kavanaugh.

White House spokesperson Raj Shah said that "Chairman Grassley has lived up to his promise to lead an open, transparent and fair process."

"Judge Kavanaugh looks forward to addressing the Judiciary Committee in public hearings for the American people to view," Shah said."
 
Posts: 9730 | Location: Northern Illinois | Registered: March 20, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
Ah, the moaning and hand-wringing begins. Apparently the heartland fears that the Dems have lost heart from the get-go. Now, is this reflexive hand-wringing by the faithful or good jo-....good journabbl...I can't even write that without laughing...good journalism?

quote:
Democrats All But Acknowledge Kavanaugh Is Headed Toward Confirmation To Supreme Court
Sean Sullivan, Chicago Tribune 8/10/2018

Democrats have all but acknowledged that they are unable to stop the Senate from confirming Trump nominee Brett Kanavaugh for the Supreme Court this fall. Moderate Republican senators such as Susan Collins of Maine, the most closely watched GOP swing vote, are sending strong signals that they will back Kavanaugh. Several Democrats facing difficult reelections this year have indicated that they are open to voting for the judge. And leaders of the resistance are already delivering post-mortem assessments and blaming fellow Democrats for a looming failure.(Emphasis added - IC)

Barring a major revelation, the Senate is poised to install the 53-year-old Kavanaugh on the high court and take the next step toward fulfilling President Donald Trump's pledge to remake the Supreme Court - and the wider federal judiciary, potentially for decades. "There are too many Democrats who decided out of the gate that this was an unwinnable fight,"(emphasis added - IC)

The fizzling of the campaign to block Kavanaugh underscores the relative weakness of the Democrats, who had promised their political base a pitched battle to protect the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling and other liberal causes. From the moment Trump introduced Kavanaugh to the nation at a prime-time White House ceremony, Democratic leaders sought to portray the would-be justice as a far-right ideologue and targeted a handful of senators in both parties seen as persuadable. But Democrats are likely to watch helplessly as the Senate confirms Trump's second Supreme Court pick after Justice Neil Gorsuch. In addition, Republicans have pushed through 24 circuit court judges, a record number for a president in his first two years in office, and two more are in the queue when the Senate returns next week.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who sees a conservative judiciary as the legacy of the GOP's grip on all levers of government, spoke confidently on Friday about Kavanaugh's prospects. "He'll get confirmed. It won't be a landslide, but he'll get confirmed," McConnell told WKDZ radio in Cadiz, Kentucky. Hours later, Senate Republicans announced that confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee would begin the first week in September. Forty-nine of the 51 Republican senators have expressed their full support or likely backing, shifting the focus to two GOP swing votes - Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska - and three centrist Democrats who backed Gorsuch - Joe Manchin III, W.Va., Heidi Heitkamp, N.D., and Joe Donnelly, Ind. "We always maintained it was an uphill fight, but we have a chance to win and we will keep fighting," said Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Collins, who plans to meet with Kavanaugh later this month, is showing no signs that liberal pressure is getting to her. She decried the "overblown" rhetoric from the sharpest Kavanaugh critics. "That is certainly not what is going to determine my decision at all," she said. Manchin met with Kavanaugh for two hours last month, with the senator calling the session "very productive". Heitkamp and Donnelly will hold their one-on-one sessions with Kavanaugh next week. Some Democrats expect the three senators, who face reelection in solid Trump states, to vote for the judge.

Here in Maine, Collins has spent two decades building a reputation as a moderate willing to break ranks with her party on some issues, as she did last year in opposing the GOP repeal of the Affordable Care Act. That health-care vote and Collins' support for abortion rights initially gave anti-Kavanaugh forces hope. They have rooted their opposition effort in casting the judge as a threat to tilt the court toward rolling back ACA protections and overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

But those ambitions have faded as the reality of Collins' record on judges has set in. She has been a largely reliable Republican vote, backing Kavanaugh in May 2006 when President George W. Bush nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. And she indicated this week that she is open to supporting the nominee. Collins has never voted against a Supreme Court pick, giving Democrat and Republican presidents their choice. In a testament to her brand in the state, at a university grant announcement this week a professor asked Collins to kick off an experiement testing a bridge, because she has "spent her whole career building bridges." (Hey, it was in the article, that's why I thought I had to put it in. I apologize for the way the fillings in your teeth are driving you crazy right now. - IC) "I want to look at his entire record," Collins said. "You know, we're very fortunate with Judge Kavanaugh because he has been on the Circuit Court for more than 12 years. He's personally authored more than 300 opinions, and he's participated in many more. So we have a pretty full record on which to evaluate him."

Local activists have been regularly showing up at Collins' offices to make personal appeals for rejecting Kavanaugh, including warnings that a court with him on it could strip ACA protections for people with preexisting medical conditions. One afternoon at Collins' Portland office, 10 people spoke of their concerns. A pastor's hands shook as he discussed the urgency of protecting people with preexisting conditions; he told the story of his nephew who was diagnosed with a brain tumor at age 15. Marie Follayttar Smith's voice cracked as she explained how she manages a condition that could put her in a coma. "I ask that she vote to protect someone like me," the co-founder of Mainers for Accountable Leadership told a Collins staffer, who listened patiently and jotted down notes. Even as they made their pleas, there was a sense among some in the group that it would not be enough to sway Collins. "I'm feeling a little bit pessimistic," said Genevieve Morgan, who recently met with the senator.

A constellation of national groups is trying to amplify concerns about health care, with advocacy in Maine and other states. Organizations including Demand Justice, Planned Parenthood and Protect Our Care are organizing rallies, airing TV ads and assisting efforts to contact Collins' office. They plan to ramp up their activities in the coming weeks in hopes of turning the tide. But Collins issued a stern warning. "I always want to hear from my constituents," she said. "What is not effective is when these advocacy groups spend millions of dollars on attack ads, jamming my phone lines with out-of-state callers that prevent Mainers with real problems from being able to get through." Collins said she has spoken with residents who repeatedly called her office to discuss problems with federal agencies and eventually decided to show up in person after getting busy signals. One Nation, an organization affiliated with McConnell, plans to go up with a TV ad in Maine next week supporting Collins' current stance on the Kavanaugh nomination as she moves toward a decision, according to a person familiar with the plans.

While the groups try to press their case, the intensity of the campaign against Kavanaugh has not reached the level of last year's fight to preserve the health-care law, Republicans and Democrats agreed. Many people, including senators, are not convinced Kavanaugh presents the clear existential threat to the health-care law posed by the GOP repeal bill. (Emphasis added. This point really seems to matter in Maine and may matter a great deal in Alaska as well - both Collins and Murkowski voted against all three attempts to repeal ObamaCare last year. - IC) "I'm going to care about whether that, in my judgement, that this could result in the rollback of preexisting conditions," Heitkamp said last month. "But, I think it's going to be very, very difficult to gauge that based on the fact that no one is going to answer a question that basically says, 'How would you vote in this case?'"

Pat Cunningham, who visited Collins' office in Portland, Maine, said the multiple issues at stake in the court fight have made it more challenging, compared with last year's health-care showdown. (Emphasis added -IC) "I think for some people, it's confusing - it's like there's so much going on. With the ACA, the messaging was easier," she said. "So it is harder. We feel like we have to do more as far as drilling down the message." (Is there a lesson here to inform future efforts to get rid of ObamaCare? - IC)

Democratic senators facing reelection in Republican-leaning states, top targets of the anti-Kavanaugh forces, said they are not experiencing extraordinary levels of anger about the Kavanaugh votes. "This process, from my perspective as a senator, isn't significantly different that it was on the last Supreme Court nominee," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "Frankly the calls are about even. Maybe slightly more 'Vote no.'"(Emphasis added - IC) "No matter how I vote," McCaskill added, there's going to be a lot of people who are not going to be happy with it. This is not a political winner, quote-unquote, no matter how the vote is ultimately decided for me."

Some activists fighting Kavanaugh's nomination wonder whether the urgent mission they began a month ago has been reduced to a symbolic exercise. Some have lashed out at fellow Democrats, including Schumer, for not embracing the cause with more vigor. Schumer opposes Kavanaugh's nomination and has been critical of the GOP's handling of the nominee's extensive paper trail, but he has given his red-state Democrats space to make up their minds rather than using hardball tactics. Their races are crucial to the battle for the majority in November's midterm elections. "Punishment is not how this place works," Schumer said in a July interview. If Schumer publicly pressured Democrats to vote no, according to a person with knowledge of Democratic leadership's thinkng, it would make it harder for them to do so, since they are trying to demonstrate independence from the national party. His posturing has frustrated activists on the front lines of the Kavanaugh fight. "He speaks and acts in contradictions," said Smith, who organized the visit to Collins' Portland office.

Some editing for space. Original text at http://www.chicagotribune.com/...-20180810-story.html
 
Posts: 27291 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
Once again, the Left has taken a swing at one of the most qualified SCOTUS nominees in history. Once again, it has missed.

National Review
David French


What does the word “primarily” mean? If you look it up in a dictionary, the definition is plain enough. Merriam-Webster says it means “for the most part.” Dictionary.com’s definition is even more helpful, providing a string of synonyms: “essentially; mostly; chiefly; principally.”

Why does this matter? Because in the desperate effort to find something to derail the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, Democrats have moved from credit cards and Nationals tickets to his testimony about the extent of his involvement in the early-2000s nomination of Judge Charles Pickering to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Pickering’s was one of the most intense confirmation battles of the Bush administration. He was nominated and blocked in committee, renominated and filibustered, and then given a recess appointment, ultimately serving as an appeals-court judge for most of 2004. Later, when Senate Democrats questioned Kavanaugh about his knowledge of a specific event in the Pickering fight during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing for the D.C. Circuit, he said, “This was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling.”

In written testimony, he indicated that he “participated in discussions and meetings concerning all of the president’s judicial nominees” but did not highlight his work for Pickering.

Democrats are now seizing on this testimony, and they’ve taken their complaint to the New York Times. The claim? That Kavanaugh may have misled the Senate, a serious charge:

Testifying under oath before the Judiciary Committee in 2006, Brett Kavanaugh downplayed his role in shepherding the Pickering nomination through the Senate, but the limited documents from Kavanaugh’s time in the White House Counsel’s Office that Chairman Grassley has made public show that he led critical aspects,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader. The files, he said, raise “serious questions about whether Kavanaugh misled the Senate.

So, what’s the support for this claim? A series of emails that the Times characterizes like this:

Many of the emails showing glimpses of Judge Kavanaugh’s involvement with the Pickering nomination were minor, such as circulating articles or remarks by public officials related to him.

Still, when a room was being reserved for a Pickering event, it was Judge Kavanaugh who was consulted. When the White House press office needed materials about Judge Pickering, it was Judge Kavanaugh who asked the Justice Department for the files and relayed them. When a senator’s chief of staff was coming to the White House to discuss Judge Pickering and another nominee, it was Judge Kavanaugh who planned to meet with her.

Who knew that booking conference rooms was evidence that you were “primarily” handling a key appeals-court nominee? Who knew that relaying files to the press office was evidence of leadership in a crucial political fight?

I’d urge you to read the entire Times article, plus all the emails. As someone who’s spent more than my fair share of time on large teams of lawyers, I find that Kavanaugh’s work bears all the hallmarks of a minor player. Leaders aren’t routinely forwarding news clippings and booking rooms.

Also note that there is no indication at all that the Times reached out to one of the key players in this whole drama: Judge Pickering. The Times got comment from Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, but not from a key witness.

I’m happy to fill that gap. I know Judge Pickering well. He’s on the board of the Alliance Defending Freedom, where I was once a senior counsel, and we’ve met many times at ADF events, where I often speak. So I picked up the phone and called him.

First, he told me that no one from the Times tried to contact him before it ran with the story. Next, he told me that he hadn’t even heard of Brett Kavanaugh until Kavanaugh was nominated for the D.C. Circuit. He met with various lawyers at the White House, but he doesn’t remember meeting or interacting with Kavanaugh even once.

Finally, I asked him whom he did remember working with during the confirmation fight. He immediately recalled help from Noel Francisco at the White House (currently solicitor general), Viet Dinh at the Department of Justice, and key members of then-senator Jeff Sessions’s staff. He reaffirmed to me the statement he gave the White House this morning: “While I worked with attorneys in the White House Counsel’s office, I cannot recall a single interaction with Brett Kavanaugh about my judicial nomination. I do not even remember knowing his name at the time. His 2006 testimony is accurate.”

It would be curious indeed if the nominee at the center of a political battle that was making national headlines (including in the Times) didn’t know the White House lawyer who was “primarily handling” the fight of his judicial life.

One suspects the Democrats know they’re playing a weak hand, including with this attack. Note the sleight-of-hand in Senator Feinstein’s quote: “Some of the narrow set of documents from Kavanaugh’s time in the White House that we’ve seen and are public show that he led on key parts of the Charles Pickering nomination, which he denied.” Wait. So is the inquiry about the nomination as a whole or just “key parts”? And what is a “key part”? Reserving rooms?

The bottom line is that Brett Kavanaugh may well be one of the most qualified jurists ever nominated for the High Court. He’s also previously vetted, with one of the largest paper trails of any nominee in recent memory. And this is the controversy of the day?

Words mean things. “Primarily handling” does not mean “somewhat involved in.” The judge at the center of the Bush-era storm doesn’t even remember Kavanaugh. The email trail shows that he was a bit player in a much larger drama. The rest of the available evidence confirms that he did not mislead the Senate. Once again, the Democrats have taken their swing at an outstanding nominee. Once again, they’ve missed.

Link




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted Hide Post
quote:
I’m happy to fill that gap. I know Judge Pickering well. He’s on the board of the Alliance Defending Freedom, where I was once a senior counsel, and we’ve met many times at ADF events, where I often speak. So I picked up the phone and called him.

That is AWESOME!
 
Posts: 45798 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Brett Kavanaugh Woos Senators as Battle Kicks Off Over Supreme Court Pick

© SIGforum 2024