Below is my column in The Hill newspaper that looks beyond this immediate controversy over the Kavanaugh nomination toward three basic reforms of the confirmation process. With the FBI investigation interviewing witnesses on the first two allegations of sexual assault, it is not clear what new information may surface at the end of the week. In the interim, it would be useful to discuss the now obvious failure of our confirmation process. I have been a long critic of the process, but the Kavanaugh confirmation process has magnified these flaws to a grotesque degree.
Notably, Kavanaugh now has been given the SNL treatment with a performance by Matt Damon that is that type of comical portrayal that hits hard in public controversy.
Here is the column:
When Judge Brett Kavanaugh walked before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday to answer allegations that he is a rapist, few knew what to expect. Predictions ranged from stony denials to a withdrawal of his nomination after the compelling testimony of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. Most expected a repeat of Kavanaugh’s dry, rather stiff performance during his confirmation hearings.
Instead, Kavanaugh seemed to walk into the committee room like Howard Beale in the movie “Network,” declaring on national television that “I am mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore.”
It was riveting and gut-wrenching to watch as Kavanaugh lashed out at Democratic senators who announced beforehand that they believed his accuser; some referred to him as “evil,” a liar. He correctly described the confirmation process as “a national disgrace” and a “circus.” Undeterred, senators proceeded to fulfill that stereotype with cringe-worthy questions, as when Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) demanded to know if Kavanaugh “believed Anita Hill” in her testimony against Clarence Thomas some 27 years ago.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) explored such deep jurisprudential issues as the meaning and correct pronunciation of the word “boofed’ or “buffed,” which Kavanaugh explained was a 16-year-old’s term for flatulence. Whitehouse explored every notation in Kavanaugh’s yearbook, including the long-standing debate over the meaning of “Devil’s Triangle,” which Kavanaugh claims to be the same as the drinking game “Quarters.” We will likely have to wait for the next nominee for some of us to learn what Quarters means. In the meantime, many have suggested that Kavanaugh knowingly lied about the commonly understood meaning of these terms as sexual in nature.
In barely controlled rage, Kavanaugh appeared not only innocent to many but distinctly human. Democratic senators appeared to be thrown back on their heels by a man who decried what he said was their orchestrated campaign to destroy his reputation and his family. Gone was the stiff, robotic nominee who fit Dorothy Parker’s description ofKatharine Hepburn as running “the whole gamut of emotions—from A to B.”
Of course, for people who believe Ford, the anger likely reaffirmed their view of the nominee as a closet sexual predator. However, they were not the audience he needed to reach. For Republicans, Kavanaugh succeeded in making them mad as he fought back genuine tears in recounting what this campaign has done to him and his family. Those voters are now “scoring” this vote as a test for senators like Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). In doing so, Kavanaugh could well have saved his nomination from likely defeat.
Democrats like Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey repeatedly referred to Ford bravely putting forward “her truth.” There is, of course, only one truth — and the hearing did not reveal it. As Howard Beale observed to viewers in “Network,” the hearing confirmed that “man, you’re never going to get any truth from us.”
That is what we need to address long after the conclusion of this confirmation — reforming the process. On this point, Kavanaugh is only partially correct: His confirmation was a disgrace long before this controversy arose.
Confirmation hearings are a modern invention. For much of our history, confirmations were debated and voted directly on the Senate floor. Even after 1868, when nominations were referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the nominee did not actually appear, as opposed to witnesses, and deliberations were held in private. The nomination of Louis Brandeis — opposed by some for his liberal views, by others for his Jewish heritage — broke from that tradition with 19 days of public hearings. It was with the nomination of Harlan Stone in 1925 that a nominee was first called to appear before the committee. Even after 1925, most hearings were limited and perfunctory.
As the importance of the Supreme Court grew with divisive questions of racial and gender equality, confirmation hearings became more of a battleground and nominees more like political proxies. In what became known as the “Ginsburg Rule,” nominees began to refuse to answer questions on how they might rule on cases that came before them. Ginsburg’s insistence on “no hints, no forecasts, no
Each confirmation has resulted in less and less substantive discussion of judicial philosophy and constitutional interpretation. This race to the bottom reached an all-time low with Kavanaugh, whose confirmation hearing never moved beyond judicial platitudes. At the same time, an unprecedented amount of information on Kavanaugh’s background was withheld.
Our confirmation process has finally come to perfectly match our politics: raw, brutal and deceitful. If we want change, we should focus on three areas: decency, transparency and honesty.
First and foremost, there must be basic decency afforded to nominees by the judiciary committee. The withholding of the allegations against Kavanaugh until shortly before his vote was indeed a disgrace; no matter how hard Democrats tried to explain the timing, few people viewed it as anything other than an orchestrated hit-job on a nominee. Ford’s allegations are indeed serious, but that only makes the opportunistic use of them all the more troubling.
In cases where allegations are knowingly withheld, there should be a strong presumption against their consideration. To guarantee that serious allegations like Ford’s are considered, the committee should follow an informal rule to keep nominations open at the committee level for a minimum of 60 days before moving the matter to the Senate floor. (The average time is around 70 days but some, like the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, went through in just 19 days).
There also must be guarantees of transparency by the executive branch. The price of a Supreme Court nomination is the review of every aspect of a nominee’s professional life. Democrats were right in condemning the categorical withholding of Kavanaugh’s record from the period when he was White House secretary, as well as the unprecedented use of “Committee Confidential” markings to restrict documents turned over to the committee. If a president wants to nominee a former executive branch official, the nomination must come with disclosure of the full record.
Finally, there must be honesty by the nominee. The committee should do away with the Ginsburg Rule and only accept a refusal to answer questions on specific pending cases — not questions about how a nominee interprets the Constitution on general questions like privacy or presidential powers. A nominee should be honest on his or her jurisprudential views and interpretive approach. Otherwise, the entire exercise of a confirmation hearing is little more than political theater.
There is hope that Kavanaugh’s “Network” moment may have awakened the public to the need for a new approach to confirmations. If so, something good could come from this. Howard Beale said in the movie, “This is not a psychotic breakdown. It’s a cleansing moment of clarity.” Let’s hope so.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
The Republicans in the Senate have conspired with the D’s to create an absurd situation. Almost all the R’s get their private lives examined, get false accusations, and get Borked. Even someone like Roberts had his confirmation turn into a food fight. The nominees bend over backwards to answer every question and please the D senators, and most D’s still vote against them.
Meanwhile, the Democrat nominees sail through, except for a handful of R Senators who ask a few pointed questions.
Its absurd. And needs to change.
Not sure about lower courts, in re the Supreme Court, between 1912 and 2009 you had notable Republican resistance to the following:
1. Louis Brandeis (a legal advocate in controversial cases, no judicial experiece)
2. Hugo Black (a member of Congress whose judicial experience was limited to 2 years as a JP).
3. Sherman Minton (another quondam politician; he refused to be questioned by the Judiciary committee, btw. He still won a majority of the Republican caucus).
4. The joint nomination of Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry in 1968. (The former for Chief Justice, the latter to replace the former as associate justice). Johnson crony Fortas couldn’t corral more than 43 votes in a chamber in which the Democratic caucus controlled 64 seats, which killed Thornberry as well. (There were quite a mass of Dixiecrats, but a mass of Rockefeller Republicans as well). Objection to the Warren Court’s freebooting was a motor, as was objection to Earl Warren’s scamming around to prevent a Republican president from appointing his successor. Fortas was compelled to resign from the court the following year to avoid impeachment over shady dealings.
All other Democratic nominees sailed through. Now, imagine a Republican president had tried to put John Whitehead, Orrin Hatch, or his personal lawyer on the court. That’s how audacious three of these four nominations were.
As usual, reformers like the good professor, skip over the most important fact. Its the Democrats who have driven the confirmation process into the gutter, starting with Bork. And they’re going to keep it in the gutter, if its to their advantage. They believe the SCOTUS belongs to them, and they will “anything necessary” to keep “Bad Thinkers” off the Court.
Here’s my reform: The POTUS should get some courage and tell the senate, the nominee will be available for private meetings/questions from Senators, but will not complete written questionnaires, will provide no White House documents, or answer questions about his private life. Further they will appear only once in a one day public hearing. Take it or leave it.
We’ve let the tail wag the dog. We didn’t elect jeff flake to decide who gets on the SCOTUS. We elected the POTUS to decide thatn.
An allegation of sexual assault against a Supreme Court nominee is not merely rare, it’s literally unprecedented. The allegation against Clarence Thomas was sexual harassment–not sexual assault. Many Supreme Court nominees have had confirmation hearings before the Thomas hearing or between that hearing and the Kavanaugh hearing without any allegations of sexual harassment nor sexual assault against those nominees. Merrick Garland was not one of those. But Niel Gorsuch was. No sexual harassment nor any sexual assault was alleged against Gorsuch.
So why must Turley recommend an overhaul of the nomination hearing process, now? The probability that future nominees for the Supreme Court will face allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault is very nearly zero. Conversely, who knows what the chances might be for future Supreme Court nominees to be completely and totally ignored by The Senate the way Garland was? Maybe, Trump, McGahn and Leonard Leo of The Federalist Society ought to have done a better job of vetting their own nominee. Do you think? But no. Turley says we have to reform the nomination hearing process so that Trump won’t have to suffer the shoddy shoemanship of Don McGahn and Leonard Leo of The Federalist Society ever again. Pshaw!
Reform? Any new protocol or procedure established will be trampled by the leftists at next turn to achieve their political objective.
JT states that ” In cases where allegations are knowingly withheld, there should be a strong presumption against their consideration”.
This was my view when this issue first came up; sitting on these allegations, then revealing them only after the confirmation hearings were concluded ( and Kavanaugh likely to be confirmed) was such an obvious cheap stunt that there was no reason to bow to the demands for delays, more hearings, FBI investigations, etc.
I don’t know how this will ultimately turn out with the Kavanaugh nomination, but it looks like we have a precedent set for all kinds of fun and games, by both parties, to derail future confirmations.
Clearly and distinctly, the easiest way to derail a Supreme Court nomination is to gain majority control of The Senate and simply ignore whoever is nominated to The Court. Hey. Wait a second. If Republicans lose their Senate Majority, then they will no longer be able simply to ignore nominees to The Court; in which case, they might well need some alternate method to derail future nominees. Maybe that’s why that wily devil, Professor Jonathan Turley, wants to reform the confirmation hearing process now, while the iron is hot. Or not. Does anybody remember whether Turley approved of Kavanaugh’s nomination in the first place? Leonard Leo of The Federalist Society did.
I watched the entire “hearing”. I was persuaded by the nominee and disgusted by several Senators. Before the hearing I did not like the nominee. I had been wooed by all the ugly photos of him on TV over the past weeks. When he spoke for the entire hearing I was impressed. So now I am in favor of his sitting on the low Court. Each Senator needs to be asked questions. Feinstein: How old are you? Blummenthal: Why did you lie about serving in Vietnam when you did not serve in Vietnam? Lindsey Graham: When will you learn to use pronouns inserted into questions with some sense? Like when you are looking at the nominee and saying “you” and are talking about some DemoGog who has just defiled him. It goes on. The Senate is a disgrace to the human race. All I can say is: Hurry on down to Afghanistan! Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn!
Dr. Ford was quoted on the internet as saying “that his thing itself spoke. And that is how I recognized him in the dark.”
Well. I gotta ask. If you had not heard his “thing” before then how did you recognize “him”?
This whole case is becoming some sort of res ipsa thing. And Kavannaugh is friggin Irish and not Latin.
Liberty2nd – what is his thing, how does it speak and where had she heard it before? According to her no clothes were removed, so what is this “thing”?
Who are you?
You’ve written 1,300 words but assiduously avoided diagnosing the salient issues.
I would like to know the method used in helping Dr. Ford retrieve her memory that identified Judge Kavanaugh. If hypnosis and/or drugs were used, then that identification is highly suspect and unreliable.
The method of retrieval is called ‘Lying Your Ass Off”. I seriously doubt a marriage counselor hypnotized her.
Let’s see what happens with a 7th FBI investigation. There is a trip wire that could turn this into a criminal investigation.
Dr. Ford & other accusers are either telling the truth or not.
Anyone remember the famous “rape hoax” of Tawana Brawley in New York, 1987?
Tawana’s lawyers used the case to undermine the entire system of justice. Assistant DA Steve Pagones, was accused of rape along with other law enforcement officials. Brawley’s Lawyers, Maddox & Mason were disbarred & sued for $395 million in a defamation lawsuit. Brawley was ordered to pay $185,000. On June 6, 1988, Tawana’s mother Glenda Brawley was sentenced to 30 days in prison and fined $250 for contempt of court for refusing to testify at the grand jury hearing.
In high profile cases, the FBI sinks resources into investigating normal-but-difficult people (Bruce Ivins), low-voltage eccentrics (Stephen Hatfill), high-voltage eccentrics (Randy Weaver), Republicans, and Democrats who are small-fry and in the way of other Democrats with more pull (Billy R Dale). Democrats get low-budget, quick-and-dirty left-handed investigations and only get prosecuted if, like Wm. “Cold Cash” Jefferson, they do things crude enough to be identified in such an investigation.
Trump has spoken to his supporters in their language. We are now seeing the Democrats speak to their supporters on their terms.
I think one of the greatest Star Trek episodes that says where we really are headed is:
Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.
“While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year,” she wrote.
Mitchell also pointed out that Ford has a history of struggling to name Kavanaugh as her attacker. Mitchell noted that his name was not in notes from her 2012 marriage therapy or her individual therapy in 2013″
From the Arizonan who questioned her under the heading she does not want to press formal charges.
.
Michael Aarethun, can you provide a link to just where you found that?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mitchell-says-she-would-not-bring-criminal-charges-against-kavanaugh-in-memo
Mitchell is the Arizona sex crimes prosecutor brought in because of the complaints about 11 old white guys and no women etc etc ad nauseum
So far that is the only ‘witness’ left but having got her payoff I doubt she wants to re=enter that cess pool of Feinstein’s snakes
In essence Mitchell’s summation was she meaning Ford didn’t have enough to pursue the Kavenaugh complaint.
At that point the left shifted gears but all the threats are prefaced with ‘IF we take back the House meaning I assume House of Representatives since their are two houses. .
So far I’ve only posted the highlights but like Alabama and DC the bimbo brigade has disappeared only thing left is Avenetti’s upper sphincter and the two victims of which Ford has gone into hiding.
(AND the investigation into Feinsteins staff to determine source of leak. A polite way of saying Feinstein AND her staff.
No where to run nowhere to hide.
Michael Aarethun – just to correct the record, Mitchell works for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and is their lead sex crimes prosecutor. There is an excellent one in Pima County as well. Neither works for the State of Arizona, which is a separate entity. 🙂
Old Lady Ford is a liar whose pants are on fire.
Liberty2nd…….Pants? Don’t you mean Huggies Pull-Ups?
Kavanaugh is ” fighting for his life”! His professional life, his personal life, and his family. I would do the same thing. There is no proof that this guy did anything here. None. There will be investigations of this guy until something is found. Just Ike the Russia investigations with Trump. The left just can’t get over the fact that Trump won the election. That’s what this is all about.
Turley’s almost as biased as Kavanaugh. The hearing was to respond to allegations of sexual misconduct and possible lying by Kavanaugh. A thorough FBI investigation into the issue(s) before the hearing would have been the appropriate way to go. However, the Republicans had decided before hand that this would be nothing more than a ‘hiccup’ and Kavanaugh was a shoe in. As it turned out it wasn’t the process that was at fault but those that orchestrated it on both sides. The Republicans came off the worst, however. They had to be forced to extend the issues to the FBI. Kavanaugh was criticized by the ABA 12 years or so ago when he was up for appointment to the appeals court, for being biased, stubborn, and hard to deal with. The ABA requested the FBI investigation. What this whole thing hinges on is whether or not those appointed to the highest positions should be held to the same scrutinies as anyone else. Kavanaugh has already made it known that he feels the President and others in high positions should be shielded from legal actions that others are subject to. Perhaps that loss of an elitist privilege was what made him so angry. Kavanaugh revealed his true self: elitist, sleazy, politically biased, and without a doubt not SCOTUS materiel. Trump would make a lot of points if he were to pull this mutt and nominate Garland. That would create the manageable chaos that is the key to negotiations. Given the hypocrisy of the Republicans and Trump at this point it will take something that big to make some wins in November.
Spoken like a truly biased person
All that effort to just prove you have the worst programmer of all? Most of that was cribbed from Motor Mouth Harris and all she did was describe the situation honestly then change the names. Right away someone noticed that’s pure Marxist tactics. so much for your programmers efforts.
I was with you until “nominate Garland”. I am a registered Democrat, and find Kavanaugh’s ‘lack of candor before the tribunal,’ which should be the foundation of ethics for the legal profession, disqualifying. Yet it is unreasonable to suggest Trump now hand the Democrats a liberal candidate. Obama should have pushed Garland through as a recess appointment. It could have been accomplished, but I believe Obama wanted his bread buttered on both side after leaving the WH.
Obama should have pushed Garland through as a recess appointment.
Why? He cannot make recess appointments when Congress is in session and such an appointment would have expired when Congress reconvened.
I am a registered Democrat, and find Kavanaugh’s ‘lack of candor before the tribunal,’ which should be the foundation of ethics for the legal profession, disqualifying
No you don’t, you fraud. You’ve never bothered to compare his level of ‘candor’ with that of Sotomayor or Kagan.
Your incivility is uncalled for, and should not be allowed. You have commented here under different monikers, but your raging misogyny and utterly nasty tone cannot be mistaken. Why are you still allowed on this site?
More to the point, Kavanaugh is the current focus, not the (female) SCOTUS Justices you mention. (Whataboutism is such a bore.) Kavanaugh’s disgusting, anti-social, and potentially criminal sexual misconduct in high school and college, and subsequent lying under oath to cover it up should be a deal breaker. Your abusive demeanor changes nothing.
Your incivility is uncalled for,
No, you earned it. You stated a principle you would never apply impartially.
Kavanaugh’s disgusting, anti-social, and potentially criminal sexual misconduct in high school and college, and subsequent lying under oath to cover it up should be a deal breaker. Your abusive demeanor changes nothing.
There is no such conduct. Anyone who would take Christine Blasey seriously is lying or stupid.
Professor Turley, if you are reading any of these comments please take note of the individual currently calling himself “Tabarrok to the Pillory”. He is seemingly unable or unwilling to engage in polite discourse, and consistently resorts to name calling and abusive commentary. If incivility is truly against community standards, this commenter should be censored, at the very least.
sorry Turley does not play school marm here.
Mark M a frequent Democrat partisan says that I “watch Hannity and bag his balls”
If this false defamatory and and malicious lie that I have engaged in homosexual copulation with Hannity’s testicles did not not get Mark M banned, then the bar here is very very low.
i dont even watch Hannity, LOL
Prof. Turley, please take note of one L.J. Stark, who, in addition to being a self-appointed hall monitor, fancies he should be able to make false and hypocritical statements while complaining about other people not being ‘polite’.
And you haven’t been called any names, LJ Stark. ‘Fraud’ and ‘Self-appointed hall monitor’ are descriptors. The latter is also a metaphor.
Now, if you could actually make the case for Christine Blasey, you’d do that and not be engaging in sanctimonous civility bulls!it.
My suggestion is that if you want ‘polite discussion’, start with it and don’t whine when belligerent remarks get belligerent replies.
No one is whining, but your know-it-all attitude is pompous and insufferable. (Wasn’t that part of one of your monikers?) You have proven nothing about anything, and have no reason to call a stranger a “fraud” for disagreeing with you.
You do not know me, or my politics, and I am certainly more objective than your rigidly partisan commentary shows you to be. Your conduct is absurd, outrageous, and against the basic norms of social conduct, as well as the rules for this forum. Unfortunately, your nasty tone has very likely kept decent, well informed individuals from participating in Professor Turley’s comment section, leaving you to be the blustering, bloviated, narcissist who lords over the blog.
No wonder you like Brett Kavanaugh so much. He sounds like a role model for someone like you, a crass and angry individual who excels at playing key board warrior with no real reward in sight. (By your standards “crass” is merely a descriptor, and not name calling, right?) Bullies like you (another apt descriptor) marginalize their sometimes legitimate points with their unnecessarily condescending and abusive commentary.
I like craparok the pillory. i welcome his-her commentary. yours bores me by comparison, a lot of tut tuting nonsense
No one is whining,
Except you.
but your know-it-all attitude is pompous and insufferable. (Wasn’t that part of one of your monikers?) You have proven nothing about anything, and have no reason to call a stranger a “fraud” for disagreeing with you.
No, you are undone that someone is challenging you.
You do not know me, or my politics,
I don’t care to know you in meatspace and you’ve made your politics perfectly plain in coarse outline.
and I am certainly more objective than your rigidly partisan commentary shows you to be.
If you actually were objective, you’d be asking yourself why an absurdly stale accusation such as Chrissy’s, an accusation which has been undermined at every turn, an accusation which is protean and subject to all manner of shading, is being taken seriously.
Your conduct is absurd, outrageous, and against the basic norms of social conduct, as well as the rules for this forum. Unfortunately, your nasty tone has very likely kept decent, well informed individuals from participating in Professor Turley’s comment section, leaving you to be the blustering, bloviated, narcissist who lords over the blog.
You’re an emotionally disordered person who cannot process the responses of ordinary people. Rather like our friend Natacha. Inneresting that your gravatar’s the same color as hers. She also claims to be a lawyer. Hmmm.
No wonder you like Brett Kavanaugh so much. He sounds like a role model for someone like you, a crass and angry individual who excels at playing key board warrior with no real reward in sight. (By your standards “crass” is merely a descriptor, and not name calling, right?) Bullies like you (another apt descriptor) marginalize their sometimes legitimate points with their unnecessarily condescending and abusive commentary.
He’s actually been a member of the Bar for 28 years and been an appellate judge for 12 years. To date, no one has offered a persuasive complaint that he’s anything but professional and scads of people in the profession are willing to go to bat for him. He’s been married to his 1st and only wife for 14 years. He’s a social man who hasn’t left a string of broken friendships or disgruntled employees behind him. People who haven’t seen him in decades are willing to attest to his character. He has had friction with people over the years. People who have an impact on their surroundings do.
I’ve actually never met him. He has his hobbies and I have mine. They’re not the same.
You fancy you’re being bullied and ‘condescended to’ when actually you’re just being told to cut the sh!t. Can’t help you.
You have said nothing of substance, and have proven no points, but you insist on doing it so abusively. Carry on with your miserable self, Tabarrok. I have had enough of your crap, and I have read others make similar comments regarding your nasty demeanor. And as for being emotionally disordered, you must be taking lessons in projection from Kavanaugh.
issac – now the investigation is to take care of possible lying by false allegations against Kavanaugh and lying to the Senate. They have already asked for charges to be laid against the guy who said he beat up Kavanaugh on a boat. Grassley announced that yesterday. This is going to be a “take no prisoners” investigation. Flake may not have any balls, but Grassley sure has them. And Graham wants a full investigation into the leak from DiFi”s office. Mandy from Body Language Ghost suggests starting with the brunette sitting to the right (as your face her) of DiFi may be the leaker or knows who is the leaker. Her facial reactions were the most strained during the questioning of DiFi. DiFi started to fall apart, too, so she may be complicit. She didn’t do it but she had a minion do it.
And Chrissy’s story is starting to fall apart even more. They applied for the building permit for the second door in 2008. It appears completed in a photo of the front of the house, probably summer 2011 (Chrissy said it was fighting over getting the 2nd door in 2012 that start releasing the repressed memory). Now this means she lied to the committee about at least one thing. So, what were they doing in family therapy? She alluded to issues? What were the other issues? Are these issues the committee should know about to adjust the validity of her testimony.
Oh, and I hear her attorneys have been reported to the DC Bar for discipline for not communicating with her about the Senate’s offer to fly out to California.
And, Chrissy bestie’s attorney has sent another letter to the committee saying she still does not know who Kavanaugh is then, and she was never at such a party.
He Who Garbles Everything He Thinks He Heard said, “(Chrissy said it was fighting over getting the 2nd door in 2012 that start releasing the repressed memory).”
That’s not what Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford said. What she said, paraphrased more accurately, was that the only reason the subject of the sexual assault came up during therapy in 2012 was that she wanted to explain her need for the second front door. She never said what Paulpuckey thinks he heard her say, “it was fighting over the second door in 2012 that started releasing the repressed memory.” From the infinitesimal narrows of his own misunderstanding Paulpuckey thinks that Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford and her husband were still fighting in 2012 over the installation of a second front door that had already been installed no later than 2011 but possibly as early as 2008. There’s no inconsistency in Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford’s testimony to the SJC about the second front door. Instead, the inconsistency is entirely a phantasm of Paulpuckey’s garble-mongering.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – you are cutting it finer than I would for Chrissy, but four years is a long time to fight over a door. And that was not the reason for the door anyway. Let’s get to the real reason for that door, if that was the issue. I want to hear from the husband, alone.
Ubi FUBAR will not be allowed to change the subject that Ubi FUBAR brought up and Ubi FUBAR garbled beyond all recognition:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/09-27-18-ford-testimony
America West Airlines/Phoenix Suns Teacher of the Year said, “. . . four years is a long time to fight over a door. And that was not the reason for the door anyway. Let’s get to the real reason for that door . . . ”
So the whole and sole reason for alleging that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford supposedly lied to The SJC is that the alleged sexual assault supposedly could not have been the “real reason” for the second front door, because “four years is a long time to fight over a door.” And yet, since the subject of the second front door came up during therapy, most likely along with all of the other residual issues left over from the extensive remodel of their home, which, in turn, may very well have been the very thing that sent them to therapy in the first place, it is obviously an established matter of the factual record that “four years is not a long time to fight over a door.” Whence the notion that the alleged sexual assault supposedly could not have been “the real reason” for the second front door is totally lacking foundation. And that means that, once again, Paulpuckey The Garble-Mongerer has been busted flat in Baton Rouge waiting for a train of thought that might actually lead to his preferred destination–wherever that might be.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – not buying it.
Failure to convince the garble-mongering Ubi FUBAR is not the same thing as lying to Congress.
Excerpted from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before The Senate Judiciary Committee:
“The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed an extensive remodel of our home, and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand. In explaining why I wanted to have a second front door, I described the assault in detail.”
Notice the verb tense Paulpuckey garble-mongerer. “. . . had completed an extensive remodel of our home . . .”
P. S. You were never a schoolteacher. Never.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – her story was it came out as a repressed memory from her family therapy. Remember her using the therapy notes to confirm her story? That is 2012.
BTW, I was an America West Airlines/Phoenix Suns Teacher of the Year. It came with 50 nose-bleed tickets to a bad Suns game and a single America West ticket to any place I wanted to go. I took my students to the game and my wife, of course.
Ubi FUBAR said, “Now this means she lied to the committee about at least one thing. So, what were they doing in family therapy? She alluded to issues? What were the other issues?”
Had Ubi FUBAR ever completed an extensive remodel of his and his wife’s home, Ubi FUBAR would have had no need to pose such impertinent questions as “What were they doing in family therapy” after they had completed an extensive remodel of their family home. Now that means that Ubi FUBAR’s claim that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford lied to the committee about at least one thing is garble-mongering Paulpuckey per usual. Pshaw!
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – answer my question. You can try to insult me all you want, but it never works. It doesn’t stop me. I just keep on asking. Ask David Benson.
Your question has no foundation because the factual record refutes the foundation for your question. Believe it or not, but that IS the answer to your question.
Prove it by posting an article or newspaper photo, surely your award was newsworthy.
Tony – I still have the award letter somewhere, but I have no idea if it made the paper. The Arizona Republic is insipid when it comes to charter schools.
PAUL C…Wow! Congrats!
Cindy Bragg – it was not that big a deal. About 15 of us won the award,
Paul ..well, it’s still something! Btw….years ago I loved the Suns because of mainly Sir Charles! LOVED that team…..KJ, Danny Ange, Marjle, Charles…..in fact my hiking buddy and I had been in Sedona one week in July, and drove down to Phoenix to visit Marjle’s bar before we flew back to Texas….I wore my Barkley Jersey, hoping to see him or any of them…..but alas, didn’t see them…But it was fun….What a great team that was!
Paul
After the sh*^ thrown from both sides settled, the pivotal fact that emerged from all this up until the end of the hearing was that the Republicans wanted to undergo this hearing as a token example of unbiased scrutiny and the Democrats wanted the FBI to investigate the contradicting statements made by all involved on both sides. Regardless of whether one thinks Kavanaugh is SCOTUS material-I clearly see that he is not-or not; shoe horning this mutt through this quagmire is not the American way. It is the autocratic, phony democratic/republican, oligarchic, way. This is another indication that the US system(s) need to be judiciously revisited, just like the Catholic Church. Just because something is hundreds of years old does not make it appropriate. If one cannot understand that then one has no accurate concept of history and mankind.
That a Supreme Court Judge is appointed by the President immediately makes that person politically biased. Add a coordinating Senate and the result is a politically biased court, not what was intended. Whether or not the number should be 9, 15, or ? the terms should be limited to a maximum of 12 years, to span at least two Presidencies. Who nominates the candidate should not be a President or any member of Congress or the Senate. Confirmation should be as it is now but with a two third majority. The system is flawed and with the polarizing of this oligarchical system, our Supreme Court Judges are becoming no less the puppets of the elite as are those in Congress and the Senate. This would be the perfect point to take back the government. What has perversely evolved in the US is a priesthood, not a court of laws.
oh please Canadian stop telling us what is American
Kav is eminently qualified acc to the ABA which is a steadfastly iiberal organization.
this is a circus
The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago
By Avi Selk
The Washington Post
https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20180929/the-american-bar-association-had-concerns-about-kavanaugh-12-years-ago
Again, the American Bar Association’s central organs have long been untrustworthy. I’d refer you to James Lindgren’s study of their work. (Published in Journal of Law & Politics). Robert Bork offered the view 30 years ago that their ratings were largely fraudulent.
issac – the court has been politically biased since before FDR when he tried to pack to court to get his way. They kept finding his programs unConstitutional. Eventually, one of the members of the court gave Sunday salons at which FDR associates were invited. He then instructed them on how the laws should be written to pass Constitutional muster. Soon all was well in the land.
Actually what happened was that 2 members of the court were anxious about conflict between the Court and the elected branches. Then Roosevelt was by events granted 8 appointments to the court over the period running from 1937 to 1941. A number of them went to members of Congress or administration officials who had little or no experience on the bench. By 1942, the Courts case law was promoting the idea that the term ‘interstate commerce’ could include any sort of commerce and even subsistence farming.
So, you agree with me? My comments on the shortcomings of this archaic system includes both Republicans and Democrats. The system should not allow the delaying of appointing a candidate as was done by the Republicans nor should it allow the manipulation of introducing evidence as is alleged that the Democrats have done. My last word on this is that the ABA complained that Kavanaugh was too politically biased and he toned it down. However, he showed on Thursday last that he is still too politically biased to be a part of what is supposed to be above that. The Supreme Court, the protector of the Constitution and Laws of the US is there to protect the Constitution and Laws equally for all Americans. Recently it has been shown that there are more Democrats in the US than Republicans. That the US is now ruled by the minority in the White House, Congress, and the Senate illustrates that more than ever before the Supreme Court must be politically unbiased. Kavanaugh confirmed several things thus far: that he is a sleazy lawyer who avoids answering questions honestly, that he sees himself as a god’s gift to America, and that he is politically biased. His words are there as proof. He would have come off far better if he had. not included the Clinton conspiracy stuff.
issac – the Republicans did not delay Ginburg, she got in 96-2. That is almost all the Republicans voting for her. She was a staff attorney for the ACLU and they did not try to block her. Gorsuch was a close call, Kavanaugh will be closer. The Republicans were willing to support a Democratic President, but the Democrats are unwilling to support a Republican President.
issac – he was on Ken Starr’s team investigating Clinton. Katz defended Clinton against Paula Jones and the Clintons are friends with her. I say a photo with Katz and Hillary that was fairly current. And it is payback from the Clintons. Feinstein was one of the Senators who decided that Bill Clinton should not be convicted.
Thank you, Prof Turley for this important post.
I have been thinking about Article II, Sec, 3, and the fact that the president “shall from time to time” report to Congress on the state of the union and make recommendations, etc……….also….convene one or both houses.
Can’t he do that ANY time? I believe we are reaching a breaking point emotionally and mentally in this country. If Pres. Trump did call a joint session, are not the congressmen/senators required to attend?? What a dramatic and unexpected coup that would be.
It probably sounds like a totally ridiculous idea, but like Pres. Trump says, what do we have to lose??
“Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. “
Jonathan Turley had a plan for a much larger Supreme Court. Good idea.
Agreed, DBB.
So did FDR. It was the one part of government he couldn’t subvert.
I have a report from an attorney that a senate staffer told him that senate hearings were “Kabuki theater”. Since no information is obtained, abolish all senate hearings.
And I have even testified at a small one in the previous century.
Sure you do. And I have a quote from Mitchell the Arizonan. The difference is you never produce anything and owe what thirty cites just to Paul.
Try this.
“While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year,” she wrote.
Mitchell also pointed out that Ford has a history of struggling to name Kavanaugh as her attacker. Mitchell noted that his name was not in notes from her 2012 marriage therapy or her individual therapy in 2013.”
A report huh? Why do I not believe you?
Most important, I don’t owe a thing to Paul C Schulte. He just Makes Stuff Up.
As for Brian’s account of his testifying to congress, the source of the Kabuki theater comment, it was on the Rabett Run blog some time ago, back when Brian was on a water board for part of the San Francisco Bay area.
David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me twelve citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – just to get you up-to-date. It is twelve citation and one source of a quotation that you owe me. Until I get those NOBODY owes you anything.
Michael Aarethun – well played against David Benson. However, I currently have him for twelve citations and the source of a quote. 😉 Still, that doesn’t include anything before I started counting with the OED kerfuffle. So, thirty is about right. 🙂
Kavanaugh’s performance should leave no doubt he does not have the temperament to be a judge of any kind, much less sit on the now un-Supreme Court. His rant showed he will never be a fair judge. His obvious bias toward “liberals, Democrats, the Clinton’s”, misogamy and loyalty to the psychopath fascist liar in chief should have been all it took to prevent his approval by the equally biased privileged old white men, who provided act 2, repugthuglican all. The only bench he is qualified to sit on is the unemployment bench. Impeach Kavanaugh.
Subjective Mysticism again. Not eve a good movie script
Michael Aarethun – they have already announced the movie, starring Nicole Kidman.
Kavanaugh’s performance should leave no doubt he does not have the temperament to be a judge of any kind,
He’s been issuing opinions as an appellate judge for 12 years. No one complained about his temperament. If you don’t want the outrage, quit being outrageous.
Are their any Democrats here capable of uttering one honest word?
Nothing easier and it only takes 11 unless he Senate as whole over-rules.
1. There are only two requirements
a. Nomination by President
b. Confirmation by Senate
That’s it. Not even citizenship is required.
2. Anything else, as in how they go about confirming is up to the Committee again unless changed by the entire Senate.
3. In the case of Garland they just ignored him.
The so called rules such as not during a lame duck time period mean nothing.
No is there any set time period to nominate a Judge. The record is 435 days without having one of the seats filled. So if your party had a comfortable lead in SCOTUS but has perhaps lost it’s lead in the Senate…. President just doesn’t nominate.
And there isn”t a thing anyone can do about it.
Now how was Garland as a choice? Obama referred to him as the furthest to the righ the right he was prepared to go. Which wasn’t very far since very few in congress are anywhere near the center.
Remember the Center in a Constitutional Republic IS The Constitution. The only one that counts just like electoral college votes. How far to the left is the left. Go watch baseball Imagine a group standing around on the other side of the left field bleachers and wall? You are about half way there.
But the key points are
President Nominates with no time limit.
Senate confirms with no time limit.
The rest is made up to make choosing a bit easier.
hmmmmm
Looks like it is time for a change.
How about the minority party isn’t invited to the discussion? We could cal them Garlands without Merrit.
“…something good could come from this.
~+~
I do not believe anything will in the next several years. As long as President Trump remains in office, and a position being nominated has great importance, the Democrats on these confirming committees will continue to act with dishonor. Most have so invested and shackled themselves into a frenzy of perpetual outrage against the president, they cannot bring themselves to accept that a candidate could actually be a good fit. In fact, the more qualified he/she is, the more the Democrats will dig up dirt and drag the nominee through the mud on irrelevant, emotion stirring irrelevances.
They’ve become so habitual in this manner of behavior I don’t foresee them changing.
We as voters also need to adjust our habits with regard to Congress. Clinging to the notion this is an almost sacred and hallowed institution out of nostalgic senses of respect only serves to facilitate more despicable behavior on behalf of too many Members of Congress. We shouldn’t delude ourselves but instead label Congress for what it presently is–an unseemly collection of elitists that does more harm than good and is unworthy of anyone’s respect: for it contains essentially two types of personalities, those who are bad actors and those who enable those actors.
Don’t vote for incumbent Members of Congress next election.
Assuming there are any left in the left LMAO.
its bigger than trump. this is part of the war on men
if they had nominate Judge Amy Barrett then it would have slid thru
even though she is pro life — that is not the real issue
or, maybe they would have said, she didnt have enough time on the federal bench.
Kav has had a lot of time, but, they pick the complaint that works for the moment
“consistency, the hobgoblin of little minds” does not trouble the Dems
I like the Ginsburg Rule. It drives everyone crazy. Besides, they would just perjure themselves anyway. First chance I get I am going to overturn Roe v Wade, yeppers. That would go down well. I do think what Judge Kavanaugh should say is that if he is finally approved is that first chance he gets he is going to hack at the powers of Congress.