SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Brett Kavanaugh Woos Senators as Battle Kicks Off Over Supreme Court Pick
Main Page The Lounge Brett Kavanaugh Woos Senators as Battle Kicks Off Over Supreme Court PickGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
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. | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process  |
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 | |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
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. | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
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 | |||
|
| Conveniently located directly above the center of the Earth  |
"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 | |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
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"? | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
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 | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
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 | |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
The dam breaks further - but for good liberal reasons, of course.
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 in the principle of Due Process |
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 | |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
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. | |||
|
| wishing we were congress |
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 | |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
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. | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
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 | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
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 | |||
|
Info Guru |
 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 | |||
|
Member |
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." | |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
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?
Some editing for space. Original text at http://www.chicagotribune.com/...-20180810-story.html | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
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 | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
That is AWESOME! | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Brett Kavanaugh Woos Senators as Battle Kicks Off Over Supreme Court Pick
Main Page The Lounge Brett Kavanaugh Woos Senators as Battle Kicks Off Over Supreme Court Pick© SIGforum 2024