New letter from Yale Law School dean, faculty, alumni strongly supporting Kavanaugh:

Link

The savaging of Brett Kavanaugh continues apace:

All these memes are hilarious!

I never knew that Brett was a frat boy name. I was never in a frat, but I did drink beer in college.

Long article. Mods, please let me know if you want this deleted or edited down to size a bit.

Chuckles isn't having much luck on his latest cat-herding expedition. Heck, his efforts may in fact be totally counterproductive (try bribery, Chuckles, threats are for kids). If this remains the same, perhaps it means a confirmation vote sooner rather than later?

quote:

'Kiss My You Know What': Schumer Hamstrung in SCOTUS Fight
Burgess Everett, Elana Schor, Politico, 7/13/2018

Chuck Schumer says he's going to fight Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court with "everything I've got." To do so, he'll need to get centrist Democrats to hold the line. The minority leader's problem? Those Democrats say he can't tell them what to do.

"I'll be 71 years old in August, you're going to whip me? Kiss my you know what," said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) when asked if Schumer can influence his vote.

Kavanaugh's nomination is already a huge headache for the Senate minority leader. Not only is he under pressure from the left to tank the nominee, Schumer also has a half-dozen vulnerable members from red and purple states up for reelection this fall. To defeat Kavanaugh, Schumer has to keep all 49 of his members in two and convince at least one moderate Republican to break ranks. But if could prove impossible for Schumer to persuade senators like Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana to vote against Kavanaugh. All three supported Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch last year, and all three say that their decision won't be swayed by Schumer no matter what he does this year. "My decision won't have anything to do with Chuck Schumer," Donnelly said. "I'm going to vote the way I'm going to vote regardless of what the leader says," Heitkamp said.

It may be good politics for them to distance themselves from Schumer, who is close to the caucus' moderates and helped elect many of them. Republicans are attacking vulnerable Democrats for their association with Schumer, so they're doing what they can do create daylight from a party leader that all of them voted for in the most recent leadership election. Sic - IC Yet that distance will hamstring Schumer's ability to stop Kavanaugh's nomination. If his red-state Democrats vote "no" on Kavanaugh, they'll inevitably be accused of kowtowing to the New Yorker.

Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said that's reason enough for Schumer to tread carefully with the Democrats most likely to back President Donald Trump's nominee. "Chuck knows better [than to twist arms] and I do, too," Durbin said. "These are men and women who will make an historic, important, legal and personal judgement." Schumer declined to comment for this story. But, for now, Democrats say, it looks like Schumer agrees with Durbin on a hands-off approach.

Yet some in the party argue that it's an ineffective strategy. Adam Jentleson, who served as deputy chief of staff to former Democratic Leader Harry Reid, is calling for Schumer to take a hard line with his entire caucus on the Kavanaugh nomination. "Giving red staters a pass on every tough vote is neither strategy nor leadership. If you care about standing for something, sometimes you have to ask members to do hard things," Jentleson said. "Reid knew when to do that and this is one of those moments."

But David Krone, a former chief of staff to Reid who now works in venture capital, said that Schumer can't simply "wave a magic wand" and make his caucus vote "no" on such a challenging vote right before the midterm elections. "There's no blanket approach, and anybody who thinks there is doesn't know what they're talking about," Krone said. "There's only so much a leader can do to influence a final vote...it's not like Chuck Schumer isn't going to try."

Liberal activists are also bird-dogging Schumer to try harder. A cadre largely affiliated with the anti-Trump group Indivisible is cajoling the Democratic leader to reschedule an in-person town hall in Brooklyn after having to bow out at the eleventh hour last week.* Protesters recently demonstrated outside his local office with chants of "Whip the vote, Chuck!" Other progressive groups are directing their efforts more at swing-state senators from both parties than on pushing the minority leader personally. Demand Justice, formed to battle Trump's nominees, unveiled its first ads Friday targeting Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp.

That tactical decision tracks the thinking of top Democrats inside the Capitol, who say there's little upside to Schumer leaning hard on his own vulnerable senators if the goal is to get them to vote no. Even vulnerable Democrats expected to vote against Kavanaugh must carefully position themselves to avoid appearing being under Schumer's influence. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who voted against Goresuch, said he "probably won't be whipped" by Schumer, as did Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) And Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said "Chuck knows better" than to press her to vote with the caucus. "He doesn't come to me and say: 'You've got to vote with us on this.' He knows I'll tell him to take a flyin' leap," McCaskill said. "I'm going to do what I think is right. It has nothing to do with the party."

Democrats are already envisioning the triple bank shot they would need to sink Kavanaugh. First, Schumer has to get his moderates to withhold any commitments to back Kavanaugh until Sen.s Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) take a position. If neither of that duo or Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are wavering on Kavanaugh, then Schumer and his team would have room to escalate their effort to lock down "no" votes from the three moderates who voted for Gorsuch, as well as Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), who was not in the Senate for the last Supreme Court confirmation.

Democrats close to Schumer say that he truly wants to defeat the nomination. But they say he is taking a more deliberate tack by simply hearing out potential Kavanaugh supporters in private conversations rather than cracking the whip. "The worst thing you can do is try to strong arm a resilient, experienced, independent senator from a red state," said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), a member of the whip team. "It just wouldn't work to try to break arms. They wouldn't respond well to that. So I think he's going about this in a way that respects that."

The conundrum for Schumer is a regular topic of discussion among Republicans. Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) even ribbed Schumer at the Senate gym on Wednsday as the minority leader sweated it out on an exercise bike, telling Schumer he's in a bind but that he's "kind of like Houdini" and will figure a way out. Schumer laughed a bit, but "didn't think it was all that funny," Cornyn recalled.

The Democratic leader has held his caucus together on high-profile votes to repeal Obamacare, cut taxes and confirm Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. At the same time, moderates broke ranks on Gorsuch and CIA Director Gina Haspel, even though Haspel's declared GOP opponents gave Democrats leverage to stop her nomination. Schumer told his leadership team on Monday that health care and abortion rights may be able to win over Collins and Murkowski, according to two people briefed on the meeting. Yet those two senators don't seem to be responding to ad campaigns and pressure tactics in their states. Murkowski said the due diligence she's doing on Kavanaugh shouldn't be interpreted as a response to any Democratic strategy to defeat him. "If the Democrats think that the pressure campaign that they've unleashed in Maine - including $3 million worth of television, radio and online ads - is going to have an impact on," Collins said, "they are sorely mistaken."

[*For those who didn't see the story, Chuck tried to make do with a conference call down to where people were meeting due to problems with the private plane Schumer considers to be worthy of his importance and dignity. Many of his constituents considered that absolutely insufficient. Why it would make a difference, I don't know - unless his constituents just plain really want him to jump through as many hoops as possible to prove he's listening to them. Either way, emotions are plainly running very high, and that leads me to wonder how damaging Kavanaugh's confirmation would wind up being to Schumer's political future. IC]

As usual, edited for space. Original text at http://www.politico.com/story/...ist-democrats-716654

You know what they say, Chuckie - "live by the prima donna, die by the prima donna".

OK, here we go.

Judge Kavanaugh is a filthy deviate. They have him by the short and curlies now! Kavanaugh was a clerk for, among others, 9th Circuit Court Judge Alex Kozinski, who retired last year facing accusations of social improprieties with females, including some of his clerks. Kavanaugh had to have known of this and said nothing!

I posted this one earlier today.

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...0601935/m/5020053444

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
I posted this one earlier today.

Forgive me...I searched around and didn't see it.

This morning brough an e-mail from Sen. Cornyn inviting me to sign up to support Judge Kavanaugh. I bet sime ofyou will wantto sugn up as well.

quote:

Last week, I had a chance to meet with Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and I have to tell you, I could not have been more impressed.

That is why I am announcing my strong support for Judge Kavanaugh, and asking you to do the same: https://action.johncornyn.com/...ort-judge-kavanaugh/

When Americans voted for President Trump in 2016, a lot of them did so with the expectation that he would nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court who would fight for us and the Constitution.

And when he nominated Justice Neil Gorsuch last year, we knew he was following through.

Now, with another seat open on the court, he's nominated Judge Kavanaugh.

Already the Democrats are promising to block his confirmation. We cannot let this happen. I need your help to tell the liberal elites that we MUST confirm: https://action.johncornyn.com/...ort-judge-kavanaugh/

Jim, obstructing his confirmation is obstructing the voice of the American people.

We spoke loud and clear in 2016. We demanded a new, conservative direction for this country. We demanded conservative judges.

Now, we have to confirm them.

Jim, I am asking you to throw your full support behind Judge Kavanaugh by signing our petition demanding he be confirmed.


ADD YOUR NAME
Thanks for your continued support of our efforts.

John Cornyn

Soros-Linked Nonprofit Led By Clinton & Obama Alum Spending Millions To "Stop" Kavanaugh
Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
by Tyler Durden

https://www.zerohedge.com/news...lions-stop-kavanaugh

Today's edition of "George Soros Meddles" is brought to you by ten-week-old political advocacy group Demand Justice - a Soros-linked organization which has pledged $5 million towards a "multi-platform" campaign to stop Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the US Supreme Court.

Headed by former Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon and longtime Obama aide Christopher Kang as chief counsel, Demand Justice was created and financed by nonprofit organization the "Sixteen Thirty Fund," which has received millions from the Open Society Policy Center (OSPC), according to the Daily Caller's Kevin Daley and Andrew Kerr.

As we reported two weeks ago, Demand Justice intends to fight "Trump's hateful vision for America" by opposing his Judicial picks across the country - including the Supreme Court.

The campaign will feature television spots promoting embattled Democratic Senate incumbents in West Virginia, Indiana, and North Dakota, who face competitive Republican challengers this November.

They will also run ads in Maine and Alaska, urging GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to oppose the nomination. Collins and Murkowski are pro choice moderates who have broken with their party on Obamacare repeal and federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The spots urge the senators to protect abortion access by withholding support for nominees who oppose the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. -Daily Caller

The Sixteen Thirty Fund collected some $2.2 million in contributions from the OSPC between 2012 and 2016 - while more recent records are not available. The OSPC, meanwhile, is virtually indistinct from Soros's Open Society Foundations (OSF), the 87-year-old's grant-giving and philanthropic network.

The [Sixteen Thirty] Fund is largely financed by a handful of donors. Financial statements filed with state oversight officials in 2014 show just three contributors accounted for 70 percent — or some $11.5 million — of the Fund’s total donations and grant revenue. Disclosure forms filed with the same agency in 2016 present similar facts. Fewer than five donors gave $13.3 million to the Fund, representing 63 percent of their donations.

One of those donors is the OSPC. The Center’s tax forms show the Soros group gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Fund each year between 2012 and 2016, the last year in which records are publicly accessible. The Center gave the Fund $350,000 in 2012, $772,000 in 2013, $125,000 in 2014, $550,000 in 2015, and $481,483 in 2016. -Daily Caller

The Caller reports that the OSPC has no staff of its own - rather, Open Society Foundation employees are compensated for work done on OSPC efforts.

“OSPC has no employees,” the form reads. “Employees of Open Society [Foundations], a related section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, perform services for OSPC. OSPC advances funds to Open Society [Foundations] for their services based on the time they spend on OSPC matters. Their compensation is determined by Open Society [Foundations], and is based on market comparability data and is documented in Open Society [Foundations’] records.”

The Sixteen Thirty Fund created Demand Justice in May of this year in order to counter a network of conservative advocacy groups which "advertise and organize around judicial confirmations," according to the Caller.

Republicans have significantly outpaced Democrats in this space in recent years, given conservative voters’ sustained interest in the federal courts.

Executive director Brian Fallon told The New York Times that DJ hopes to “sensitize rank-and-file progressives to think of the courts as a venue for their activism and a way to advance the progressive agenda.” -Daily Caller



Brian Fallon
✔
@brianefallon

Kavanaugh:
✔️ Praised *dissent* in Roe
✔️ Criticized Roberts ruling on Obamacare
✔️ Says sitting POTUS can't be indicted/can fire special counsel whenever he wants
✔️ Opposes net neutrality
✔️ Opposes consumer bureau
✔️ Says assault weapon bans are unconstitutional
9:23 PM - Jul 9, 2018

15.5K
12.9K people are talking about this

Hillary Clinton threw her support behind her former Press Secretary's new political machine in a late June tweet:



Hillary Clinton
✔
@HillaryClinton

Given the news coming out of the Supreme Court this week, I'm excited to support @WeDemandJustice's critical work by welcoming them into the @OnwardTogether family.
Onward Together @OnwardTogether

"Long after Donald Trump is no longer our President, his takeover of our courts will keep alive his hateful vision for America for decades to come," their website reads. "Trump’s judges are overwhelmingly white men. Many are not at all qualified for their posts. And they consistently hold extreme, right-wing views."

"If we truly want to stop Trump, we can’t surrender this fight." -Demand Justice

Since the Sixteen Thirty Fund serves as Demand Justice's fiscal sponsor, it doesn't submit its own tax returns or disclose its supporters. As such, beyond the Soros network's $2.2 million contribution to Sixteen Thirty over five years - it's difficult to determine how much money individual donors like Soros have channeled directly to Demand Justice since its inception ten weeks ago.

The National Council of Nonprofits says that fiscal sponsors provide “fiduciary oversight, financial management, and other administrative services” for its dependents, like Demand Justice. As such, many grants or donations DJ receives are awarded by way of the Fund. Both organizations are based out of the same Washington, D.C., address.

Supporters can also give to DJ through ActBlue Civics, a major fundraising platform for leftwing causes.

Given this structure, it is difficult to know how much money individual donors like Soros have channeled to Demand Justice. Daily Caller

Meanwhile, Capital Research noted last month that "coupled with the fact that Fallon recently spoke at the Atlanta Conference of the Democracy Alliance, a shadowy network of left-leaning donors including George Soros, it is clear that Demand Justice could be well on its way to becoming something much bigger than the obscure nonprofit it is now. As a (c)(4), it is allowed to engage in unlimited lobbying. But it can also support or oppose candidates for election (as long as that activity isn’t the organization’s primary purpose, which currently means spending no more than 49 percent of expenditures on electioneering)."

And just like that, the newly formed, Soros-linked, Obama and Clinton alum operated nonprofit has sprung up with a $5 million "multi-platform effort" to prevent Judge Brett Kavanaugh's ascension to the US Supreme Court.

Well, that $5 million oughtta help prime the economy. I'm not sure what else it's gonna do, though.

The Democrats' Second Attempt To Hurl A Bomb At Trump's SCOTUS Nominee Exploded In Their Faces

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...-exploded-i-n2501604

Great Scott! Judge Brett Kavanaugh said he would like to deliver the final nail in the coffin to the Morrison decision, which spoke to the constitutionality of an independent counsel. Some have argued it’s unconstitutional, as it increases the power of the judiciary over the executive branch. Judge Kavanagh, President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, made these remarks at an American Enterprise Institute event in 2016 (via NBC News):

Two years before President Donald Trump nominated him to a seat on the Supreme Court, federal appeals courts Judge Brett Kavanaugh said he believes the legal precedent that allows for independent counsels to investigate government officials for federal crimes should be overturned.

Asked at a conservative event in 2016 to name a case that he believed should be overturned, Kavanaugh named Morrison v. Olson, a Supreme Court ruling upholding a 1978 law that creates a system for independent counsels to investigate and potentially prosecute government officials for federal crimes. The law had five-year sunset provisions and was allowed to expire in 1999, according to the Congressional Research Service.

"It's been effectively overruled, but I would put the final nail in…”

[…]

After the law expired, new regulations allowed for the appointment of "special counsels," but unlike independent counsels, special counsels answer to the U.S. attorney general.

The president's campaign is under investigation by a special counsel, Robert Mueller, as part of the ongoing federal probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. The president has called the investigation a "witch hunt" and the White House has insisted that Trump could fire Mueller if he wanted to. The president has also asserted that he has the "absolute right" to pardon himself.



CAP Action
✔
@CAPAction

Trump is under federal investigation and is trying to appoint his own judge to put him above the law.

Kavanaugh was asked in 2016 to name any precedent he’d like to overturn. He chose the ruling upholding independent counsels and promised to "put the final nail in.” Watch:
11:59 AM - Jul 18, 2018

250
330 people are talking about this

You can see the script now from the Left, right? Fix bayonets! They’re coming charging, except the Morrison opinion was apparently a crappy legal decision that’s mostly been discarded. The act from which this issue arose—the Independent Counsel Act—was allowed to expire in 1999 (via Weekly Standard):

The law was challenged as a violation of the separation of powers. The Rehnquist majority dealt with the law's appointment and removal provisions before turning to the separation of powers. Scalia said the majority's approach to the case was "backwards" and instead began his opinion with a discussion of separation of powers that drew upon The Federalist. Scalia wrote that the principle "is the absolutely central guarantee of a just government" and that "without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless."

Scalia identified the powers the Constitution vests in the three departments of government and declared, "That is what this suit is about. Power. The allocation of power among Congress, the President, and the courts in such fashion as to preserve the equilibrium the Constitution sought to establish—so that [quoting James Madison] 'a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department' can effectively be resisted" and, by implication, our rights preserved.

"Frequently," Scalia continued, "an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep's clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf."

That last sentence is arguably the most famous passage in a Scalia opinion. The quarterly legal journal Green Bag produces bobbleheads of the justices. The collectibles have visual allusions to especially characteristic opinions, and Scalia's bobblehead includes a wolf and has the justice standing on a dictionary, an allusion to his keen ability to use words—indeed, to his distinction as a master stylist, on display in this passage (and elsewhere) in his dissent in Morrison.

The legal writer Yury Kapgan points out that the metaphor of the wolf clad in sheep's clothing does not convey the usual message that appearances can be deceiving but "just the opposite," as the reader learns from the revelation at paragraph's end that "this wolf comes as a wolf." There is, writes Kapgan, "no disguise here, no sheep's clothing, appearances are what they are—clear." And precisely because "this wolf comes as a wolf," there is really no need for "careful and perceptive analysis" for the simple reason that the potential of the asserted principle to change the equilibrium of power is immediately evident. "This wolf" will effect an unconstitutional change in the balance of powers.

In his analysis of the statute, Scalia relied on constitutional text, pointing out that Article II vests not some but all of the executive power in a president. And because it does, the independent counsel law must be unconstitutional "if the following two questions" are answered affirmatively: "Is the conduct of a criminal prosecution .??.??. the exercise of purely executive power?" and "Does the statute deprive the President of the United States of exclusive control over the exercise of that power?" Scalia said they must be answered affirmatively: the first because "governmental investigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function," the second because "the whole object of the statute" is to deny a president exclusive control over the exercise of purely executive power.

Justice Elena Kagan regarded the dissent written by the late great Justice Antonin Scalia, he was the lone dissenter, as “one of the greatest dissents ever written and every year it gets better.” The late Janet Reno, who served as attorney general under Bill Clinton, also acknowledged that the law at the time was flawed and unable to be fixed through measures within our Constitution. This is what Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) had to say about the act for the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs back in 1999:



Four years ago, I voted to reauthorize this law. A number of my Republican colleagues came to me and said that there had been excessive efforts made under this law that cannot be justified. I thought they overstated the case. They did not. I sit here today readily acknowledging to the Chairman and other members of the panel that I made a mistake in that vote.

I hope that we can rectify that mistake in the actions that we are about to take in this Committee. Our form of government is grounded on the premise that unchecked power is tyranny. The independent counsel is unchecked, unbridled, unrestrained, and unaccountable.

Our system of justice is grounded on the presumption of innocence and the belief that it is better for a wrongdoer to go unpunished than an innocent man be wrongly convicted.

Statements by the Independent Counsel Smaltz in the Espy case, the actions of other independent counsels make it clear that this basic rule of law in America has too often been ignored. Let me read to you the words of Archibald Cox when he wrote, ``Independent counsels must see their function not as pursuit of a target to be wounded or destroyed, but as an impartial inquiry with as much concern for public exoneration of the innocent as for indictment.'' Unfortunately, this message has been lost.

So, it’s another salvo that fell flat. Newsweek noted that legal experts are saying that special counsels and independent counsels are two different things:

"Special counsels are an entirely different creature," Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, told Newsweek. "They are special but they are not independent."

What Turley means is that the1988 ruling that Kavanaugh is referring to gave a large amount of freedom to the counsel in its investigation, with barely any rules or oversight in how the counsel proceeded with its examination. Special counsels, on the other hand, are regulated and consistently checked on by the attorney general within the Department of Justice.

While the expert says that there is "no doubt that this is likely to be a significant subject" in Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, it is important lawmakers recognize these differences before making assumptions that Kavanaugh would automatically deem Mueller's investigation unconstitutional.

Still, Turley said people are correct in assuming that Kavanaugh would be very supportive of Donald Trump in this probe if he were to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

"There's no question Kavanaugh has a robust view of presidential power and he is sympathetic to presidents who face criminal or civil investigations," he said. But that deference is also matched by Kavanaugh's loyalty to federal agencies.

David Fontana, a law professor at George Washington University, agreed with Turley and said that there is no way to possibly say that Kavanaugh would automatically view the Mueller probe as unconstitutional. Even if a five-justice majority featuring Kavanaugh were to overrule the Morrison v. Olson decision it is still likely that Mueller's investigation will be found constitutional, Fontana told Newsweek.

Overreach thy name is Democrat. So far, the fight tooth and nail war cries have made headlines, but little in placing any measurable amount of pressure on this nomnation, a tacit admission from the Left that Kavanaugh will be confirmed? Probably.

Kavanaugh's trying to woo, and this is all Schumer can do:

quote:

Schumer Stalling On Kavanaugh Meeting Deepens White House Rift
Lorraine Woellert, 7/19/2018 Politico

Senate Democrats are snubbing Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, another salvo in the deeping cold war between President Donald Trump and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. The politically strategic slight has raised hackles at the White House, which has been reaching out to Senate Democrats to schedule meetings but has found itself rebuffed at every turn. Some Democrats have said they won't meet with Kavanaugh until Schumer does. Others have more benignly cited scheduling conflicts. Kavanaugh has made the rounds to nearly two dozen Republican senators since his nomination July 9, but so far has scheduled no meetings with Democrats. "Judge Kavanaugh is ready and willing to meet with Senators that are willing to meet with him," White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a written statement. He declined further comment.

Schumer has refused to meet with Kavanaugh until he wins Republican assurances that the nominee's voluminous document cache, including materials from his years in the Bush White House, is made available for review. Senate Democrats so far have remained united behind Schumer, playing to the liberal base that has pulled out all the stops to block Kavanaugh's confirmation and denying the White House photo opportunities.

Tradition holds that Supreme Court nominees meet first with the leadership from both parties before paying calls on rank-and-file senators, but it's not clear how long Schumer can hold the caucus together. Some Democrats, including Sen. Joe Manchin* of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, two potential deciding votes on confirmation, are making plans for sit-downs with the nominee.

Schumer has demanded that Republicans adhere to what he calls the "Kagan standard", named for Justice Elena Kagan, a President Barack Obama nominee who served in the White House under President Bill Clinton. During Kagan's Supreme Court confirmation process in 2010, Obama White House counsel Robert Bauer took the proactive step of asking the National Archives and Records Administration to release more than 170,000 documents related to her service, including emails. (Emphasis added by poster - IC)

Schumer has said a review of Kavanaugh's voluminous paper trail, which could amount to more than a million pages (and take a million years for the Democratic caucus to read - IC), is the best way of understanding his views. "It is no less than the standard my Republican colleagues demanded of Justice Kagan during her confirmation process," Schumer said in a July 10 floor speech. "They asked for her entire records, a hundred-seventy-thousand documents were sent here. We need those documents, now more than ever because this new justice will be so pivotal in determining the future of our nation for so long."

Republicans have labeled the so-called Kagan standard a stalling tactic and note that Senate Republicans, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, met with Kagan on May 12, 2010, just two days after her nomination. That was three days before Bauer's request to the archives and six days before the Senate sent its first document request to the Clinton Presidential Library. "This is my sixth Supreme Court debate and I've never heard of such a thing," McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said. "Schumer has already announced that he's going to do everything he can to stop his nomination, so I take him at his word. This is a manifestation of that."

Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa also called out Democrats on the Senate floor Thursday. "The American people elected senators to represent them, not the minority leader," Grassley said. "When Senate Democrats have largely made up their minds to vote against Judge Kavanaugh - and none of them have even met with him - their demands for an unprecedented paper chase sound more and more like a demand for a taxpayer-funded fishing expedition."

The paper trail debate is more than political sparring. If Democrats can make the case that Republicans aren't coming clean with a full document release, it could give swing-state senators cover to vote against the nominee. "It's incumbent on the Senate as a whole to review all of the documents related to Judge Kavanaugh's actions at the White House," said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, which is fighting his confirmation. "The burden is on Brett Kavanaugh and the White House to demonstrate, through a full presentation of his entire record, that he's the right person for the job."

Original text at http://www.politico.com/story/...-schumer-snub-733631

*There was a mention in today's Wall Street Journal that a GOP advocacy group will not be mounting a previously planned multimillion dollar ad campaign in West Virginia against Joe Manchin. I don't know whether there's a hard and direct connection between that and the attempt to get Kavanaugh confirmed, but it sure doesn't seem like what one would normally expect.

At any rate, I guess the whole "Kavanaugh used to work for a deviate" thing isn't getting the Democrats anywhere.

And I'll be damned if I can see how the decision of one Obama staffer to proactively release a mountain of documents for Kagan somehow magically creates a standard that every subsequent nomination must necessarily follow. There's no such thing as unilaterally creating a standard in politics - it still takes two to twatwaffle even when some politician succeeds in kicking off a race for the bottom. There's certainly no way in hell Schumer is telling the truth when he claims the Republicans demanded what the Obama White House had to have done on its own initiative if it did it proactively. Even so, Chuckles can hardly claim there's a relevant precedent when the Republican Majority Leader and other Republican senators met with Kagan some days before the Obama White House unilaterally released the documents.

8 Key Opinions of Judge Kavanaugh

National Review
Carrie Severino

To follow my previous post recounting eight less known aspects of his background, below are eight of Judge Kavanaugh’s most important opinions, written in cases touching on fundamental issues involving the structural Constitution, individual rights, and the activity of administrative agencies, which comprise the bulk of the federal government in the modern era.

Judge Kavanaugh’s attentiveness to the structural Constitution is captured by his opinions in the following two major separation of powers cases:

1. In PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 839 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016), rev’d, 881 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (en banc), the D.C. Circuit faced the question of the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau authorized by Dodd Frank, which designated as its head a single director who could be removed by the president only for cause rather than at will. Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion for the panel—and later his dissent following the rehearing of the case en banc—asserted that that structure violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. As he put it in his panel opinion, the unique structure of the CFPB “lacks the critical internal check on arbitrary decisionmaking, and poses a far greater threat to individual liberty than does a multi-member independent agency.” The D.C. Circuit did not have the final say on this issue as just last month, a federal district judge in New York declined to follow the en banc court and expressly agreed with Kavanaugh on the unconstitutionality of the CFPB’s structure.

2. Judge Kavanaugh dissented from the court’s rejection of constitutional challenges to the structure of the Sarbanes Oxley-authorized Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 537 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2008), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 561 U.S. 477 (2010). He argued that the statutory two-layered for-cause limitation on the removal of board members violated the president’s removal power and additionally that the board members could not be deemed inferior officers under Article II’s Appointments Clause. On appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with Kavanaugh on the removal issue and even quoted his analysis at length in its opinion.

Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions have been protective of free speech and the freedom of religion regardless of the viewpoints involved, as exemplified in two cases involving organizations on opposite sides of the political spectrum:

3. In Emily’s List v. FEC, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009), Emily’s List, an organization that promotes abortion rights and supports pro-choice female Democratic candidates, challenged FEC regulations that placed restrictions on how nonprofit organizations could raise money and spend it in advocating for their cause. Judge Kavanaugh wrote the panel opinion ruling in favor of Emily’s List and striking down the regulations under the First Amendment—and holding several regulations to be invalid on statutory grounds as well.

4. In Priests for Life v. HHS, 808 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015), Judge Kavanaugh issued a lengthy dissent from denial of en banc review following the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of a challenge to the Department of Health and Human Services’ contraception mandate brought under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by a Catholic archbishop and affiliated nonprofit organizations. He received a significant measure of vindication when the Supreme Court heard the appeal and vacated the D.C. Circuit’s judgment in Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016).

Note as well Judge Kavanaugh’s farsighted opinions on the Second and Fourth Amendments, which display both his judicial craftsmanship and his solicitousness regarding individual rights:

5. In a sequel to the landmark Supreme Court Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the District of Columbia adopted a ban on firearms designated as “assault weapons” and magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds of ammunition, along with new gun registration requirements, and Dick Anthony Heller returned to challenge the new restrictions. By a vote of 2–1, a panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld the law in Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Judge Kavanaugh dissented in a 27-page opinion that maintained the new law violated the Second Amendment. Justice Thomas would cite Kavanaugh’s Heller dissent in his own dissents from the Court’s denial of certiorari in two other Second Amendment cases: Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 135 S. Ct. 2799 (2015), where he was joined by Justice Scalia, and Silvester v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 945 (2018).

6. In United States v. Jones, 625 F.3d 766 (D.C. Cir. 2010), Judge Kavanaugh dissented from denial of en banc review of a panel opinion in a case involving the government’s warrantless use of a GPS device to track the movements of a vehicle for approximately four weeks. While the panel had held the government’s actions to constitute a Fourth Amendment violation, it did so employing what Kavanaugh considered a dubious argument without considering a different, property-based theory, one grounded in the original understanding of the Fourth Amendment, challenging the police’s installation of the device on the vehicle. Kavanaugh asserted that that issue merited review by an en banc panel even though the government would not necessarily prevail on that argument. The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari and vindicated his dissent when, in an opinion by Justice Scalia in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), it decided the case—against the government—on precisely the issue Judge Kavanaugh maintained needed to be considered.

Picking up on our recent discussion of Judge Kavanaugh’s evenhandedness on administrative law matters, which occupy the largest portion of his docket, here are two key cases in which he looked past politically contentious issues to employ a sober application of the law:

7. In United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 855 F.3d 381 (D.C. Cir. 2017), he dissented from denial of en banc review of the FCC’s net neutrality rule, arguing that the rule was both an unlawful assertion of agency power absent clear congressional authorization and that it violated the First Amendment. This case presented an occasion for him to voice his skepticism of the level of deference courts give agencies under the Chevron doctrine. The FCC was not given the statutory authority to regulate the internet like a public utility, he maintained, so deference to the agency was unwarranted: “If an agency wants to exercise expansive regulatory authority over some major social or economic activity . . . an ambiguous grant of statutory authority is not enough.”

8. In In re Aiken County, 725 F.3d 255 (2013), reh’g en banc denied, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22003 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 28, 2013), he wrote the panel opinion granting a petition for mandamus compelling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to process the Department of Energy’s application for a nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain, a project opposed by the Obama administration, because the Nuclear Waste Policy Act required it. Signaling his unwillingness to defer to any administration that does not heed its obligation to enforce the law, Kavanaugh asserted that “the President may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections.”

Given how rarely the Supreme Court grants certiorari, it is remarkable that several of these cases reached the Supreme Court and that every time they did, Judge Kavanaugh’s dissenting position was vindicated. Truly an extraordinary record for any lower court judge.

Link

So now McConnell is threatening to delay the Kavanaugh vote, potentially until right before the midterm elections, as a payback for Dem obstructionism and demands for a mega-release of Kavanaugh's documents.

quote:

Mitch McConnell Might Delay Brett Kavanaugh's Confirmation Vote To Drain Democrats' Campaign Time
Kathryn Krawczyk, The Week (Politico?), 7/20/2018

When it comes to filling the soon-to-be-empty seat on the Supreme Court, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is playing hardball. In a private meeting Wednsday, McConnell apparently told senior Republicans he may keep pushing back the confirmation vote for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh until right before the November midterms, sources tell Politico. Why? Because Democrats keep trying to surface the nominee's long paper trail, and McConnell, it seems, is sick of it.

Even before President Trump had announced his nominee to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, Democrats were dead-set on a strategy of resistance, warning Trump's pick could cement a conservative majority on the nation's highest court and spell disaster for issues like reproductive rights. Since then, Democrats have been requesting every piece of Kavanaugh's records in an attempt to find something they can use to fight his confirmation.

McConnell is apparently ready to retaliate. He's already canceled the Senate's August recess, and is looking to drain Democrats' campaign time even more by delaying Kavanaugh's confirmation vote, per Politico. The delay would mean red-state Democrats wouldn't be able to leave the Capitol and utilize valuable campaign time until the Kavanaugh vote, and his potential confirmation would serve them a crushing defeat just days before voters head to the polls.

If Democrats manage to flip the Senate this fall, that could give them the 50 votes they need to defeat Kavanaugh's nomination. But McConnell has already pledged to hold the vote before the midterms, even if it's at the very last minute.

Some sentences compressed into paragraphs for space. Original text at http://theweek.com/speedreads/...ocrats-campaign-time

Well, if the Dems want to stall, I guess ol' Pushing Turtle's gonna show them how. I'd be mildly worried about Kavanaugh's confirmation getting Dem voters all fired up to go to the polls, but somehow I don't think that's going to be anything that actually moves anyone who isn't already committed enough to vote on their own initiative.

It appears that Schumer's Iron Curtain done broke. Senator Manchin is going to sit down and meet with Kavanaugh next week, and other Dem Senators are lining up to do the same.

quote:

Manchin To Sit Down With Kavanaugh Next Week
Burgess Everett, Politico, 7/23/2018

Brett Kavanaugh will meet with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) next week, signaling the Supreme Court nominee is beginning to woo Democrats in his confirmation bid.

Kavanaugh will meet with Manchin next Monday, according to a Manchin aide. Manchin is considered one of the Democrats most likely to back Kavanaugh, along with Sen.s Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana. Those three red-state Democrats voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch last year.

Several other moderate Democrats are also angling to meet with Kavanaugh, even though Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has yet to meet with the nominee. A Heitkamp aide said she is working to set up a meeting with Kavanaugh but it hasn't been finalized.

Typically rank and file members have waited for the party leader to secure a meeting with a Supreme Court nominee, though Schumer is already vowing to try to defeat Kavanaugh.

Original text at http://www.politico.com/story/...supreme-court-736246

So what happened? Take your pick:

(a) Schumer can't control his caucus

(b) Schumer has been forced to admit that he doesn't have a realistic plan to block Kavanaugh's confirmation

(c) Some Senators up for re-election in red states are absolutely freaking out

(d) The White House has promised to provide milk, juice and cookies for the meetings

(e) Some combination of the above

And here I was so bored with events today that I was sitting around wondering whether the Safe Hearing Act would get passed after the midterms.

This is good news. Seems like they're breaking ranks already.

In a perfect world 3-4 dem senators in red states vote for him but still go on to lose their reelection bids. Best of both worlds