Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the growing pledges from House and Senate Democratic members to investigation and possibly impeach Brett Kavanaugh if he is confirmed this week. It would constitute a dangerous and reckless precedent for Democrats to pursue with any new majority.
Here is the column:
There is something vaguely familiar in the recent declarations by Democrats that they are prepared to hold post-confirmation investigations into Judge Brett Kavanaugh if he is confirmed. The idea is that, if given control, Democrats will order an effective redo in pulling Justice Kavanaugh back before one or both houses.
There is precedent for such a body. It was called the Synodus Horrenda, or the “Council Dreadful.” Used in medieval times, these tribunals could prosecute even the dead for long passed crimes. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) promised Kavanaugh that it does not matter if he is confirmed because “as soon as Democrats get gavels” the party will investigate and possibly impeach him. On the House side, Democratic representatives on the House Judiciary Committee, including Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), have declared that they will open up an investigation into Justice Kavanaugh as soon as they regain control over the House.
In other words, neither confirmation nor death will prevent a day of reckoning once power shifts hands. The implications are chilling for a system designed to insulate justices from political threats or retaliation. The most famous Council Dreadful (or “cadaver synod” or “council horrible”) was called in 897 when Pope Stephen VI wanted to try Pope Formosus for crimes that occurred decades earlier. The problem was that Formosus was already dead. His successor, Pope Boniface VI, died under controversial circumstances after only 15 days. Stephen then took over the papacy and the Council Dreadful, which dug up Formosus and propped him on his throne to answer for his crimes. Not surprisingly, he failed to convince the jury composed of his enemies. He was convicted, stripped of papal garments, and three fingers of his right hand used for blessings were cut off. He ultimately was thrown into the river Tiber.
Whitehouse seemed eager to put the dread back into the Council Dreadful last week in proclaiming that “the sand is running through Kavanaugh’s hourglass.” The pledge to effectively have a do over is playing well with Democratic voters even though the odds of a successful impeachment are remote. Being tossed in the Potomac may be one of the few indignities not awaiting Kavanaugh if such post-confirmation hearings are ordered. It would create precedent for justices to be retroactively investigated on allegations raised but rejected in their confirmations.
I previously said that I agree with Democrats that the withholding of years of background material for Kavanaugh was unprecedented and wrong. Yet, the degree of disclosures demanded by the Senate is, ultimately, a decision of the majority. Moreover, Kavanaugh’s answers about his work on controversial matters were sufficiently hedged to make any claim of perjury difficult to establish. Whitehouse, however, was not talking about Kavanaugh’s work as White House secretary in the Bush administration.
Whitehouse was suggesting that a potential Democratic majority after midterms would call a Justice Kavanaugh to answer allegations that he was a serial rapist. The problem is that the Senate already has heard from the witnesses cited by Christine Blasey Ford and none corroborate her accounts, or even remember the party in question. This is not dispositive, since Ford said she told no one until many years later. However, she cannot remember the date or the specific location of the incident, or the identity of the person who drove her home after she fled the party.
Republicans have not helped the process with their artificial limitations on investigating the claims. Rightfully irate at the Democrats for holding the allegations until shortly before the committee’s vote, Republicans refused to ask for a FBI investigation and then effectively waived serious examination of Ford by hiring a female prosecutor who was limited to questions in ridiculous five minute increments. The haiku style examination of Ford was wide and correctly derided. Similarly, Democrats had little ability to examine Kavanaugh in such brief segments.
Finally, the belated week long FBI investigation seemed more suited for political cover than actually uncovering new evidence. Nevertheless, a special hearing was held, declarations gathered, and a supplemental investigation ordered on allegations occurring decades ago. To call post-confirmation hearings on such allegations would expose all justices to lingering threats of investigation with shifting majorities in Congress. That is precisely what the Framers sought to avoid in establishing a high standard for impeachment and giving federal jurists a lifetime tenure.
It seems highly unlikely that Democrats would be as motivated in promising to pull back Justices Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan before Congress on discrepancies in their records. Democratic nominees have faced allegations of untrue statements before Congress without the threat of post-confirmation investigation. Some advocates objected that Kagan denied being asked for or offering her opinion on the “the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation” or “the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation” while she was solicitor general of the Justice Department during the Obama administration.
Later, critics argued that newly disclosed documents showed that, after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, Kagan was consulted on the challenge to that law and may have forwarded some possible arguments to use in litigation. While this became an issue in calling for her later recusal from hearing the appeal, there was no call for her removal.
Impeachments were primarily designed to address misdeeds or abuse in office. While a nominee clearly committing perjury in a confirmation hearing could raise grounds for impeachment, it would be in stark contrast to the past record of these very same members. Democrats did not call for such probe into figures like former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who lied about a major and allegedly unconstitutional surveillance program before the Senate. He admitted that he had chosen the “least untruthful” option in his testimony. Whitehouse did not pull out his hourglass to menace Clapper.
None of this is meant to suggest either certainty or satisfaction with the status of these allegations. Like many, I found both Ford and Kavanaugh’s testimony compelling. I would have preferred that Democrats revealed the allegations earlier. I would have preferred that Republicans provided more time for questions and investigation. Moreover, it is still not clear what, if anything, the FBI might uncover or how this will end.
Yet, end it must. There needs to be finality in some parts of our government, even as chaos reigns in all other parts. If senators are troubled by the lack of disclosures or time, they can in good faith vote against Kavanaugh. However, a confirmation vote shows that the requisite majority of senators were satisfied enough with the record to confirm.
Democratic members should consider the potential political cost of endorsing retroactive reviews of confirmation hearings. It certainly did not work out well for Pope Stephen VI, who was eventually arrested and condemned to death by strangulation. Watching this unfolding spectacle in Washington, many voters know exactly how he must have felt.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
JT believes that the Dems may take the House/Senate in the Midterms.
Yet, the more reliable metrics of cable news shows ratings tells a very different story than the “polls” which are consistently wrong in predicting elections.
“Q3 2018 Ratings: Fox News Marks 67 Straight Quarters as No. 1 Cable News Network; Hannity Becomes No. 1 Basic Cable Series”
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q3-2018-ratings-fox-news-marks-67-straight-quarters-as-most-watched-cable-news-network-hannity-becomes-no-1-basic-cable-series/378271
Seems that Fox News (conservatives) are fit to be tied and no doubt will make their voices heard (again) in the nearest election.
Newsweek picks up the story:
“NEW WITNESS COMES FORWARD CLAIMING SHE SAW BRETT KAVANAUGH SPIKE DRINKS DURING PARTIES”
BY EWAN PALMER ON 10/3/18 AT 12:35 PM
https://www.newsweek.com/new-witness-comes-forward-claiming-she-saw-brett-kavanaugh-spike-drinks-1151037
(Kavanaugh showed his true colors during questioning last week, IMHO. He shouldn’t be confirmed.)
Avenatti dug up another grifter? I suspect he’ll tell her to shave some of the lurid elements off this time. The last one laid it on too thick. (Didn’t help she had such a paper trail of legal disputes, either).
Whatever happens, it’s still best to follow these things through to see where they might lead.
“Another grifter?”
We’ll see.
There was plenty of time during the hearings. Democrats and you lie all the time so you could continue lying until the next century. We have to forget about the liars and deal with what is right.
More blah, blah, blah from Allan. Did someone say, “Allanonsense”???
🙂
David, what are you smiling about? Are you senile?
🙂
Yes, you continue to lie and you don’t dispute the facts. There was plenty of time during the hearings to deal with all these things. You are just ignorant.
Oh, if you only knew… This is to some guy who call himself “Allan” and spews a lot of Allanonsense.
He spends too much time here, when he could get out and clear the cobwebs. Obviously, there are many…cobwebs.
Take note how you can’t argue the facts, but we know that from your other aliases. Putting all your aliases together doesn’t make you any smarter. But it is good that you hide yourself in shame behind the generic anonymous.
Your personal bias is showing Prof. Turley. Normally you manage not to let your own biases enter your writing but I’ve been reading you too long not to recognize it. Kavanaugh has outright lied to the committee about numerous matters. The majority should have long ago simply acknowledged that and removed his name from consideration. There are plenty of other judges out there willing to overturn Roe v Wade which is their primary interest. Furthermore, his outrageous testimony last week and his disgraceful hostility toward the committee demonstrates beyond any doubt he does not have the proper temperament to be a justice on the Supreme Court. His vicious partisanship, his bitterness toward the Clintons and “the left” generally all proved beyond any doubt he is not fit for this job. I agree the Democrats would be wrong to try and impeach him on the sexual assault charges unless the FBI investigation yields a lot more than anyone expects. But that is not necessary to disqualify him from serving and his dishonesty—very intentional and willful dishonesty to the committee is enough for him to be impeached after having been approved by a corrupt, power mad majority of Republicans who don’t have enough integrity to stand up to our very corrupt, incompetent and unfit President.
Kavanaugh has outright lied to the committee about numerous matters.
You need to tap your ruby slippers every time you repeat this incantation.
And you need to take off your blinders.
The ‘perjury’ charges are humbug. I’m sure there are partisan Democrats who believe them, because they haven’t anything else except faux-outrage that BK was not, in 1982 or 1984, an old-school Methodist.
Again, you’re burdened by your blinders Tabby.
Anon,
“Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser’s claim before it became public” see NBC news for this story.
Brett told Orrin that the first time he had heard of Ramirez’s allegations was when the NYorker article came out. This isn’t a matter of opinion, there are transcripts of what Brett told Orrin. That’s hard, verifiable evidence.
Now we come to the texts. They show Brett reaching out to people he know concerning Rameriz’s allegations. This reaching out took place quite some time before the NYorker article appeared. The texts are verifiable evidence. They exist in reality.
We thus know Brett lied in his testimony to Congress. It’s called perjury. It’s a crime. It occurred in the present. Grassley said anyone who lied to Congress should go to jail. Brett said perjury is wrong. This isn’t a matter of he said/she said. It’s a matter of he said/he did!
As anon already pointed out, Trump has plenty of jurists that will overturn Roe V. Wade, reduce or deny compensation to the heroes in law enforcement and fire fighting of 9/ll trying to get their medical bills compensated, will deny the lawful right of Gitmo detainees to a lawyer, and support the utter and complete consolidation of executive dictatorial powers. (All things Brett has done.) No lawless person need worry that all this and more will be done.
Why do all the people on this blog who claim to support the rule of law want someone who violates it with impunity to be on the SC? These are weird times.
Did it ever occur to you that The New Yorker made inquires of him in preparing their story, Jill?
Tab, If this is true, Brett definitely committed perjury. Remember that he told Orrin that the first he heard of these allegations was after reading the NYorker magazine’s article.
BTW, would you mind providing the link to where the NYorker reached out to Brett about the allegations prior to his reading the story? I’d like to send that information to my Senator. Thank you.
Tab, If this is true, Brett definitely committed perjury. Remember that he told Orrin that the first he heard of these allegations was after reading the NYorker magazine’s article.
Oh, Jill, NBC News is pulling your leg.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-did-not-perjure-himself-on-deborah-ramirez-and-nbc-owes-him-a-correction
TAB,
This isn’t an opinion. Once again, the verifiable information lies in the transcripts; Brett said the first time he heard of the allegations concerning Ramirez was after having read the NYorker magazine. That’s Brett’s own claim, in his own words. It is in a transcript from the hearing that you or anyone else can look up and verify.
Next there are a number of texts showing Brett reaching out to people concerning Ramirez’s testimony. You or anyone else can see these texts. There dates of these text are prior to the NYorker article.
He said one thing and did another. To tell Congress a lie is perjury. None of this hinges on your or my opinion or anyone else’s opinion. It is all verifiable information. Facts are facts, not opinions.
I’m really hoping for that link so I can send it to my Senator. Thank you!
No, Jill, you’re arguing that someone should bring perjury charges because in his answers he intermittently conflated discussion of the publication of the article with discussion of the process of its publication. That’s just asinine, and it’s about an inconsequential issue. Ramirez credibility does not hinge on whether Kavanaugh got wind of her claims when they appeared in cold print or when The New Yorker asked about them. She’s still a lousy witness.
The meme pushers have contended he ‘lied’ about his drinking, as if subjective assessments of one’s habits 35 years after the fact were responses to discrete ‘yes/no’ questions. (Meanwhile, under another of your sock-puppets, you’ve traded in inventions to the effect that he blacked-out frequently and has alcohol related medical problems which will kill him soon). Sen. Whatshisface dumpster dived through his 2006 confirmation hearings and claimed he ‘lied’ about his assignments as White House counsel (as if anyone gave a rip about who did what in Alberto Gonzales office), which in turn requires you insist that such questions had a specificity they didn’t.
You never stop lying.
I have a solution to this unsolvable, intractable cultural and political dilemma – secession! If we “flyover” people are so evil, racist, sexist and etc., LET US GO. You lefties can then create the utopia you have been seeking. I, for one, welcome the upcoming breakup of the United States and hope it can be done peacefully as was done in the USSR and Czechoslovakia at the end of the Communist era.
Perhaps a good idea and also perhaps wise to keep deep water ports in NE and NW coastal areas and a contiguous land area from sea to shining sea along the Canadian border.
The mexicans can have san diego through south of the Bay if they want for all I care! See if they like conditions better once it joins the Estados Unidos de Mayheeco.
hey, the democrats can have Texas and every single southern state too. Let them have DC if they want it too. Let’s rewrite the Civil war which they lost and just give it to them. If they think they can keep them in order after the fact, which I doubt….. But meanwhile, we get to throw every single one of them out of the North if they don’t leave promptly.
We would be fine without them.
David Horowitz has a great take on Christine’s #metoo lying bullsh*t:
—–
One thing I learned watching the witch trial of Brett Kavanaugh on MSNBC, is that a prestigious university in New York has a Vice President for Social Justice. (She is an MSNBC commentator). Her Orwellian title is but one of many signs that our country is already on the threshold of 1984; the Judiciary Committee circus is another.
In her comments on the hearings, the Vice President for Social Justice, Maya Wiley, was clearly out for blood, and had no interest in evidence, due process, or the facts. She is also of course both a woman, a woman “of color” and a lesbian. In other words, she occupies three of the top rungs in the hierarchy of the oppressed – all bombs waiting to blow up in the face of any straight white male who stumbles into their cross-hairs.
Any fair-minded observer of the Kavanaugh proceedings would have noted that no one – Republican or Democrat – so much as laid a glove on his female accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, even though she had come forward to destroy the life of an exemplary individual and his family. No one, dared to do so. Call this feminine or victim privilege. Kavanaugh’s high school yearbooks with tales of drinking were fair game, but Ford’s – which openly talk of the girls’ sexual promiscuity and boast of girls passing out at drinking parties – were not. Nor were her extensive political connections to the anti-Trump left, the pro-abortion movement, the Democratic Party and even the law firm involved in the Steele dossier.
Yes, the sexual crime prosecutor established that Ford lied to the committee when she said she couldn’t come to Washington for the hearings because she was afraid of flying. In fact, as she admitted under questioning, she has frequently flown all over the world for pleasure. But no one actually confronted her about this. For example, no one asked her directly, “If you were brazen enough to lie to a congressional committee about this, why should we believe you in regard to anything else?”
Yes the same prosecutor gently asked Ford why she thought her best friend Leland Keyser, whom she claimed was present at the party and would corroborate her story, in fact refuted it, saying that she was never at such a party, and the one in question never happened. Ford gave a transparently evasive answer saying her friend had (unspecified) health issues, while never explaining what they were or why that should cause her to contradict what Ford had claimed.
Actually, all the alleged witnesses to the party where the incident was supposed to have taken place have denied that they were there. The one witness who was allegedly in the room where she claimed the incident took place says he wasn’t there. But none of the senators had the temerity to confront her directly with the obvious question: why should we believe your inflammatory claims about Judge Kavanaugh given that no one you have named supports any piece of your story? Moreover, no one asked her “How do you feel about besmirching the reputation of a stellar individual, and bringing incalculable pain to his family by advancing claims that no one corroborates? How can you say that you are 100% sure an incident happened, when you can’t remember anything else accurately about the evening? Did your lawyers instruct you to say 100%? What actually did your lawyers prompt you to say in your prepared statement?
No one said to her: you signed a letter attacking President Trump’s border policies and were able to get the anti-Trump ACLU to publish it; you contacted an anti-Trump paper, the Washington Post, to make your charges; you turned first to Democrats who are sworn to “resist” – actually sabotage –the Trump presidency and his judicial nominees; and you accepted attorneys recommended by Democrats, who are activist Democrat, anti-Trump lawyers. Can we conclude, therefore, that there might be a political motive behind your decision to bring up these character-ruining accusations about a rough-housing you allegedly received 37 years ago when you and Kavanaugh were too young to even vote?
No one dared to ask these questions or to vigorously pursue problematic areas of her testimony and behavior. Instead everyone expressed sympathy for her and her pain in testifying, and said how credible she sounded – even though, unlike Kavanaugh’s presentation, hers was vetted and coached by lawyers, and even though it amounted to character assassination if her memory was false.
At the bottom of these asymmetries lies the fact that despite half a century of women’s “liberation” and “hear me roar” proclamations the feminist attitude towards women is still Victorian. Women are fragile violets who wilt before the raised voices and impassioned claims of male innocence. But this image is a one way mirror. Let a moment go by and then, when they or their defenders are on the counter-attack, hear them roar. Senator Mazie Hirono put it mind-numbingly well: “Men should just shut up and stand up (for their female accusers of course).”
This is the ideologically constructed atmosphere, which makes a latter-day witch trial like the Judiciary hearings possible. Christine Blasey Ford’s story is unbelievable on its face. She claims that after the alleged incident at the alleged party, where three of her friends (who have denied it) were allegedly present, she fled. Here are some questions that were not asked:
How did she get past those friends without them seeing her and her distress?
How could she not have warned her best friend, Leland Keyser, that there were two potential rapists in the house, if that’s what she thought?
How did she get home?
How did her best friend not ask her the next day why she left without her, or what happened?
Why was this such a trauma she could not tell her best friend? One can understand why she would want to conceal from her parents that she had gone to a drinking party with boys, but her friend who was allegedly there? She doesn’t even claim that she was raped, only that she was frightened in an incident that could have happened at any of the drunken parties she might have attended as described in her high school yearbook.
On the face of it, Christine Blasey Ford’s story is not only unsubstantiated. It isn’t credible. The destruction of Brett Kavanaugh’s reputation is the equivalent of a modern-day lynching – the third that Democrats have orchestrated in the last twenty-seven years. It’s despicable. At least Republicans like Lindsey Graham have laid that charge at the door of the Democratic culprits who worked so hard to accomplish it. But, as a nation, we have obviously not reached the point where we can grant women true equality by confronting their lies and their reckless accusations with the same candor and frankness we would if they were coming out of the mouths of men.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271471/sorry-blurting-it-out-christine-blasey-ford-liar-david-horowitz
——
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
In her comments on the hearings, the Vice President for Social Justice, Maya Wiley, was clearly out for blood, and had no interest in evidence, due process, or the facts. She is also of course both a woman, a woman “of color” and a lesbian.
Ye Gods! NYU was cribbing off of Jonathan Franzen’s The Corrections. (Except that the lesbian Filapina who’d beat a plagiarism rap with candlelight vigils was the provost).
Kavanagh is an honorable man. So are they all; all honorable men.
If you do not like the way your two Senators vote then vote them out next time they come around. And if you live in CT then vote out that Blummenthal guy for lying about serving in the military in Vietnam. That is castration without representation.
The partisan Democrats who post here fancy if they lie repeatedly, it will all be true someday.
Let them. Jonah Goldberg sized up the current moment all too well:
“You Idiot Reporters Are Making It Worse”
“You might also consider why millions of people love it when Trump says you are the enemy of the people: It’s because of how you are behaving right now. You’re letting the mask slip in Nielsen-monitored 15-minute blocks of virtue-signaling partisanship. You’re burning credibility at such a rate, you won’t have enough to get back to base when this is all over.
Yes, Donald Trump has done the country a disservice by how he talks about the press. But so have you, because you have made it so easy for him — and you’re making it worse right now.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/kavanaugh-hearings-partisan-reporters-making-it-worse/
The truth about the lie that is Christine Blasey Ford:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rachel-butera-mocks-christine-blasey-ford_us_5bad28ffe4b0425e3c21ae64
“Even People Who Like Kavanaugh Are Jumping Ship”
“Benjamin Wittes offers a detailed and regretful assessment of the nomination”
By JOE PATRICE
Oct 2, 2018 at 4:29 PM
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/10/even-people-who-like-kavanaugh-are-jumping-ship/
The best way to define the US Senate Kavanaugh hearings
“Win or lose, Kavanaugh confirmation hearings define Democrats”
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/09/08/win-or-lose-kavanaugh-hearings-define-democrats/
“Gone are the niceties and overtures of an earlier era, when senators deferred to a president’s prerogative to put in place a qualified nominee of the commander in chief’s choosing….Schumer, on Friday, seemed pleased with the result of the hard-edged approach. He said in a statement that Democrats “were able to shine a bright light – for the American people and Republican senators to see – on Judge Kavanaugh’s troubling views on women’s rights, presidential power, and protections for people with pre-existing conditions.”
TL; DR:
It’s all about power, really, always has been for the Dems, e.g. owning Blacks as Slaves and fomenting Civil War to the death.
yes and it’s time that Republicans wake up and smell the coffee. Yes, Lincoln was a tyrant, but that’s what was required. Today, the Dems fear Trump because he is strong and they see he could be another Lincoln too, if they want to go that route.
Republicans will never wake up and smell the coffee because they are not capable of being as nasty, deceitful, immoral as Dems. Ever since “Deep Throat’ and Woodward/Bernstein, the Dems have been on a character assassination path. The Reps don’t push back with similar nastiness but they should to even the playing field.
Projection at its best…or worst.
Let’s get a few things straight here: Republicans are tearing apart this country by trying to force onto the bench someone who, at minimum, lacks judicial temperament, as he amply demonstrated last Thursday. 500 law professors signed a letter saying he should not be confirmed for that very reason, plus his partisan political accusations an ulterior motives to question him about his character and fitness. He was indignant that Senators could dare to question him, the Great Bart Kavanaugh. Then, there’s the lying, and that’s another huge issue. He pretended not to know whether he was the “Bart”, referred to by his best friend, Mark Judge, who described him as drunk and puking, but the NYT has been given a letter written in Kavanaugh’s own hand, wherein he calls himself “Bart.” “Bart” wrote about the hard drinking to come during “Beach Week”, in which he and his fellow privileged elitist high school students were going to rent a condo at a beach for a huge drunken blast. “Bart” advised that neighbors should be warned about the rowdy partying and vomiting that would be forthcoming, so they should get far away. This is irrefutable evidence that Kavanaugh had a serious drinking problem while in high school, and supports Dr. Ford’s and Ms. Ramirez’s accounts of his drunkenness, even if you ignore the statements by his friends at the time, who have accused him of lying about his drinking and partying. He also lied about using the pseudonym “Bart”. The alternative spin on this evidence is that he does suffer from blackouts. Maybe he still has an alcohol problem. Setting aside the issues of character, “Bart” could be blackmailed down the road because of his lying. Who knows what polaroids and other “Bart” notes are out there? That’s the practical reason why we can’t allow a proven liar onto the SCOTUS.
Turley’s spin on this is that Democrats are trying to hang someone for youthful indiscretions that they have overcome. That’s not the case. Setting aside the fact that Kavanarugh demonstrated clearly that he is engaging in partisan politics, which is also improper for a judge of any stripe, and the sexual allegations, the willingness to lie, the outbursts of temper and disrespect to members of Congress are enough to keep him off the SCOTUS. America deserves better. The irony of a judge violating an oath is too much.
If, somehow, he gets to the bench anyway because Republicans are determined to play politics and to shove onto the SCOTUS a clearly-unqualified candidate in an effort to protect Trump from being subpoenaed and testifying, then Democrats not only can, but should, reverse this mistake. There is clear evidence of lying and lack of judicial temperament, which are not political issues, but integrity issues, so one need not even bother with vetting the sexual claims or “Bart’s” clear political agenda, which is also improper.
” lacks judicial temperament”
yeah, serving the homeless, cooking for the poor, honoring his wife and children, coaching his kids school teams, having impeccable judicial recommendations, and of course being a devout Catholic……perish the thought
Dems have no moral standing. None
Amy Coney Barrett is the mother of 7 children. So there is that to consider when Trump puts forth her name to SCOTUS when RBG retires or dies in the next 12 months.
At this rate the USA should be turning into a Theocracy with all of these Catholic Justices and i can’t say it would be a bad thing given the current moral abyss where we find ourselves
“yeah, serving the homeless, cooking for the poor, honoring his wife and children, coaching his kids school teams, having impeccable judicial recommendations, and of course being a devout Catholic……perish the thought”
An absolute saint! (And if you believe that… He gave himself away when questioned this past week.)
He absolutely lacks the judicial temperament for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
Christine: you might want to re-check the claim of “impeccable judicial recommendations.” Well over 500 law professors wrote to the Senate to advise that Kavanaugh’s intemperate outbursts, disrespect for Senators and lying are violations of the Code of Judicial Responsibility, which alone should disqualify him. Harvard Law School rescinded an offer to have him teach a course in the Spring, and he is no longer listed as adjunct faculty. Yale Law students and faculty have a strong, organized protest against his nomination Several people who recommended him have rescinded their recommendations. These people are not all Democrats, and I can’t understand why you would question anyone’s “moral standing” for objecting to the lifetime appointment of a judge who has proven that he is not impartial, who cannot conduct himself in compliance with judicial standards for temperament, and who lies.
Note that none of these matters have anything whatsoever to do with Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez or anyone else They are about him, the lies he told, and the display of non-judicial temperament and bad behavior he exhibited last Thursday.
I don’t know whether he actually engaged in the charitable work you claim. I used to volunteer at a food pantry and at a homeless shelter, and we had some of the privileged, expensive private Catholic high schoolers come there for their mandatory service hours in which they appear to be helping the poor. Mostly what they did was stand around, talk to each other, and look disgusted at the poor and marginalized folks who came for help. Sometimes, they might stock some shelves or organize things. I saw virtually no evidence of sincere caring or compassionate interactions between them and our clients. BTW: I am a Catholic. IMHO, “devout” Catholics don’t behave like Kavanaugh. IMHO, most judges don’t display the temper and disrespect Kavanaugh showed to members of the Judiciary Committee or anyone else, for that matter.
Yup.
Well over 500 law professors wrote to the Senate to advise that Kavanaugh’s intemperate outbursts, disrespect for Senators and lying are violations of the Code of Judicial Responsibility,
He didn’t lie. He was not, under the circumstances, intemperate (have you considered looking in the mirror, Natacha?). Not sure what you fancy this is a demonstration of other than the number of partisan Democrats on law faculties, something which will come as a surprise to no one.
I’m Catholic too. Im not a priest and you arent either so don’t pretend you get to say what is Catholic. Not all Catholics have been or are meek and mild. Go read the history books.
Limp wristed, panty-waisted Catholics, who can’t stand up for anything besides their own rackets, donations and endless simpering about one thing or another. Many of us have really, really had enough of them come to think of it. Bring more out like Kav! And then maybe the coin in the coffer will ring again. Put some men with backbones up there instead of the gelding dreck that’s been foisted upon us for decades now as supposed “pastors.”
Until then, we’re holding our donations and probably won’t be stopping by much for Mass for a while either.
You anonymous, you may damn us, that doesn’t matter; God may damn us, that will only matter when we die. In between times, we will stop damning ourselves and stand up.
not tearing anything apart besides tearing away heterosexual men from the Dem party. you don’t need them anymore right? that’s why you set up a false show trial of a guy on flimsy charges.
every man out there who isnt a choir boy like Kav,, wont be voting Dem anymore
the Dems keep saying old white men, but, in this episode. I think black men may have empathy with the Republican. and not just Kanye who lectured the SNL crew recently, lol
“Let’s get a few things straight here: Republicans are tearing apart this country by trying to force onto the bench someone who, at minimum, lacks judicial temperament”.
Said by a first class anonymous fool. When you respond watch your bloger temperment. Alternatively maybe the list manager should release your real name, address and location and you should be traced down. Let’s see how you react when people lie about you in your local news.
Allan – I am sure that Maxine Waters office would be happy to doxx anonymous. All we have to do is claim he/she/it is a Republican conservative troll. 😉
It is incredible how dumb some people are.
“Avenatti emerges with new sworn allegations against Kavanaugh, amid questions over 1st client”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/avenatti-emerges-with-new-sworn-allegations-against-kavanaugh-amid-questions-over-1st-client
“Michael Avenatti Releases New Statement from Unidentified Witness Alleging ‘Inappropriate Conduct’ by Kavanaugh”
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/michael-avenatti-releases-new-statement-alleging-inappropriate-conduct-by-kavanaugh-from-unidentified-witness/
lol, another avenatti fraud. right about now stormy is wishing he would stfu because nobody will ever want to pay to roll with her in the hay again considering the company she keeps. with a lawyer like that will she go from kissing and telling, to kissing and crying rape? that’s what any customer would ask.
Professor Turley notes that Republicans have not been helpful with artificial limitations on the FBI’s investigation. Indeed!
What’s an ‘artificial limit’? They have a week, an investigation is redundant, and it’s only being done due to Jeff Flake’s vanity.
Marcy Wheeler tweet (sub-tweet):
“emptywheel
@emptywheel
That Kavanaugh was not credible about Dr. Ford should make folks realize that he was not credible on warrantless wiretapping, torture, judicial philosophy, using stolen emails, and Kozinski.
12:24 PM – 2 Oct 2018”
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1047205683375030272
The media are ready to grind up and spit out any person who steps forward with new recollections about Judge K. Also, who wants to be interviewed by the FBI, now that we’ve seen how they can lay a perjury trap if that is their wish, or the wish of an ally in DOJ.
I’m convinced that many witnesses to Brett Kavanaugh’s youthful behavior are just holding back because of the terrible price they could face by arousing 30% of the nation into a blaze of hatred and vengeance.
In the Age of Inforwarfare, remaining invisible is a key survival instinct.
I agree with what you are saying but I would also add that whatever witnesses came forward at the behest of politicians should realize that they also will be kicked to the curb once their usefulness expired, especially if their testimony did not go as well as their sponsoring politician expected. Maybe the prize performers might be rewarded with an arranged book deal to launder some form of compensation for their testimony but the risk of being humiliated and ground into the dirt by all these dishonorable people surely must be considered by anyone considering coming forward.
From another perspective, I wouldn’t want to avail myself to any politician for the purpose of furthering their own agenda or position. I regard it as giving money to lecherous people who will then use it for unseemly ends. They would instead by better served in their charity in helping their children study their homework, or working some overtime at work to help their company meet their goals.
I’m convinced that many witnesses to Brett Kavanaugh’s youthful behavior are just holding back because of the terrible price they could face by arousing 30% of the nation into a blaze of hatred and vengeance.
Yeah, go with that. That’s all you’ve got at this point.
yes last proposition is correct. and Democrats are superskilled at keeping tabs and exacting revenge years later. Far better than Republicans. But Republicans can learn these malicious tactics too. Dems want to fight, punch below the belt, they better expect the same in return
JT, you actually haven’t had a chance to hear the testimony of people who could corroborate Ford’s story, let along the 20 people who can support the testimony of Ramirez. These people have been prevented from giving evidence to the FBI. Thus, one of your first premises is incorrect.
There is nothing fair about what is happening. Information that should come out before the nomination is voted on is being suppressed by this govt. That’s no basis for an appt. to the SC. This information will come out after he is confirmed. Because the govt. forbade citizens and Senators from knowing about it, deliberately and with malice towards our own nation, I see no reason why we ought to accept that situation.
Further, I see no mention in your writings of the fact that Kav has clearly perjured himself in the present, before Congress. That information is publicly available and being ignored. Kav clearly stated (and there are transcripts of this) to Hatch that the first time he learned of Ramirez’s allegations were when he read the NYorker piece. Yet there are texts showing him contacting his friends concerning her allegations, far in advance of that article’s release. Perjury is a crime, even according to Brett. It is actually a crime to lie to Congress although I clearly see that that rule, like so many others, means nothing.
The one way to break out of this situation as a partisan nightmare is to focus on the clearly illegal perjury of Kav during his hearing. Yes, the Democrats are partisan as are the Republicans. Further, because of the deliberate suppression of evidence by the govt. it will be unlikely that we will have accurate information before this vote is taken. But what we do have right now, before the vote, is perjury by Brett. Technically, this evidence should be put before a Grand Jury. Yet you are asking us to ignore that clear evidence, available right now and you further urge us to do nothing once the govt. has been shown to have suppressed evidence which is material to the allegations against Brett.
I think this process of injustice makes a mockery of the SC.
The one way to break out of this situation as a partisan nightmare is to focus on the clearly illegal perjury of Kav during his hearing.
No, it isn’t. The perjury isn’t real, Jill. It’s a political fiction you need to sustain yourself in this argument. If you were capably introspective, you’d ask yourself why political fictions are things you need. You are not, of course.
I don’t fear these Leftists because I believe Nietzsche when he says:
“I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house.”
In my view the best outcome we should strive for as a species/society is to establish a system of laws enacted solely for the benefit of liberty, individuals, and the environment–one that protects people and fosters betterment in terms of stability and long term posterity. It would be a system that works without management by politicians and is self-sufficient. It would be based upon a constitution which along with laws and such would serve as the foundation for which the individual and other entities align themselves in the fashion in which all things align themselves and adapt to the laws of nature. While there would be of course government agencies serving legitimate functions, the only traditional branch of government to exist as it would now would be the independent judiciary. Congress and legislatures would be unneeded. I haven’t resolved yet the question as to whether an executive is needed or if so what form it should take.
Criminals…you don’t seem to understand how they view themselves as being highly attuned to “the laws of nature” (dominance of the strong/clever/deceitful over the weak/docile/honest).
In your naive idealism about a libertarian utopia, you’ve forgotten why “..the People do ordain and establish…government…” as a bulwark against rule-of-the-jungle taking over as the default, lowest level of human organization.
I would direct your gaze toward the criminocracy that Mexico has become, the Philippines, and ask how you might modify your political philosophy to prevent organized crime gangs from ever gaining the upper hand in a society or a locality. Because, once they have it, it is incredibly hard to dislodge them. Better a strong enough government to prevent criminocracy than having to mount a police-state government to quash it.
You might have overlooked that I mentioned that agencies would be left intact, and law enforcement agencies are included. Criminals would be of course tried by the judiciary and prosecuted by a prosecution agency.
The difference is that the political and power seeking aspect would essentially be a vestige of the past.
The difference is that the political and power seeking aspect would essentially be a vestige of the past.
[chuckles]
Now speaking of criminals. Let’s look at who what group of individuals has killed the most people worldwide in the past hundred years or more. It is not MS-13, the mafia or common criminals in their entirety. It is politicians and world leaders who direct these killings. WWII was over 70,000,000, Stalin’s purges in excess of a million, WWI around 8,000,000, and over 100,000 in the 2003 Iraq Invasion. The list goes on. Who is really the most homicidal? It isn’t the street thug or even the serial murderer. But we grant this license to kill to politicians and label it sovereign prerogative.
As a species we as a whole haven’t tamed universally this thirst to cause death in others and until we do we cannot allow ourselves a system that permits the ambitious or the evil to attain power. At least here in the US on a local level we don’t have a system that considers it normal for municipal governments to wage war against other municipalities. In fact nobody considers it. But ours and other populations accept as normal granting the right for national leaders to attack other nations with impunity. If there was no mechanism to wage wars of aggression at the national level of all nations, we would be much better off as a humanity.
I don’t believe we can at the present be trusted as humans to empower politicians with such ability. Therefore it is incumbent upon ourselves to strive to eliminate the role of a “politician” who will seek to serve their own ends and not that of the betterment of everyone.
governments are the top criminal gangs. they rule by supreme force, which is what makes them the government in the first place.
most people don’t get this, unless they are “in the business” either on one side of the bars or the either.
governments are the top criminal gangs.
I’m sure you fancy that made you sound smart and savvy.
you’re on a roll today madam, keep up the good work
gang, that’s another word for organization, or group, just a bad name meaning an illicit group.
the government is the most powerful group organized to lay taxes, collect them, dictate rules, keep the peace by force and punish the rulebreakers, maintain territorial boundaries by force too, etc
all things that illicit gangs do as well, however illegal or legal they may be under the circumstances
there are other licit gangs, which are other nations top gangs, and the subdivisions of government like states and local. and all their “departments”
then you have other forms of licit gangs here too; corporations, that have powers over their own people and property that would have made governments of ancient times drool with admiration.
are religious sects licit gangs? im just asking. they sure are groups. i like to play around with these kinds of nomenclature and see what distinctions it can illuminate.
for example, when a state cant govern, and it’s on its way out, then we call it a “failed state”
the difference between a tyrannical state and what is called a “Failed state” is that a failed state has been overtaken by other gangs. Which may become strong enough to be recognized and called government, eventually, by other top gangs.
in America, the federal state is very powerful, more powerful than any in history. I don’t call it tyrannical but it has all the tools of tyranny to apply if need be.
i fear them, as any wise private person should. they can and will dish out a bucketfull of trouble on anyone if it’s worth their while. i’m sick of them and all for letting it all go hot.
Nietzsche also said in BGE
“How poisonous, how crafty, how bad, does every long war make one, which cannot be waged openly by means of force! How PERSONAL does a long fear make one, a long watching of enemies, of possible enemies!”
Who will write the book:
The Great Democratic Christine Blasey Ford Scam of 2018
“The problem is that the Senate already has heard from the witnesses cited by Christine Blasey Ford and none corroborate her accounts,”
Really? When were the Senators given the opportunity to ask questions of these witnesses? When did the FBI question them? Perhaps in the abortive investigation after the hearing but has that information been given to the Senators? Kavenaugh’s assertions don’t count.
“Impeachments were primarily designed to address misdeeds or abuse in office. While a nominee clearly committing perjury in a confirmation hearing could raise grounds for impeachment, it would be in stark contrast to the past record of these very same members.”
I believe Kavanaugh is a sitting judge, is he not? So lying is ok?
SO YOU’RE DOWNGRADING HIM FROM RAPIST TO DRUNKARD TO LIAR? WHEW, Kav breathes a sigh of relief. Now he’s only a liar. AT this rate, next he will be a jaywalker, soon thereafter– Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States!