Below is my column in USA Today on the troubling course taken by Democratic members in the confirmation hearing of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. As I have stated, there are a host of legitimate questions to be raised over Judge Barrett’s view of the law. Indeed, I praised the exchanges between Sen. Dick Durbin (D., IL.) and Judge Barrett as the substantive highlight of the hearing. Unfortunately, those were the exceptions. Instead, the thrust of the entire hearing was that Barrett was unqualified due to her expected vote in the upcoming case on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Various senators directly stated that they would vote against Barrett to protect the ACA. That is what is so unnerving about the Barrett confirmation hearing.
Here is the column:
The confirmation hearing of Judge Amy Coney Barrett could easily have been mistaken for the sentencing hearing for John Wayne Gacy. Surrounding Barrett were huge pictures of sick individuals. One would think that Barrett was being confronted with the faces of her victims. In reality, the pictures perfectly captured a far more important message. Senators had finally broken free from any pretense of principle in reviewing the qualifications of a nominee. Indeed, many are about to create a new rule, the Barrett Rule, allowing conditional confirmation voting. The pictures were meant to pressure Barrett to either satisfy senators that she would vote against an Affordable Care Act challenge or they would vote against her confirmation.
There has long been a debate over the legitimate grounds for opposing a Supreme Court nominee. While senators can vote under the Constitution for good, bad or no reason at all, most have sought to justify their votes on some principled basis. For most of our history, senators followed the rule that disagreement with a nominee’s jurisprudential views was not a basis to vote against their confirmation. A president was viewed as constitutionally entitled to appoint jurists reflecting their own legal viewpoint and the primary basis for voting against a nominee was on the lack of qualifications or some disqualifying personal or professional controversy. It was a rule of senatorial deference that controlled the majority of nominations in our history.
Voting against nominees based on their expected votes
Members began to chafe at the limitations of this principle in the second half of the twentieth century. With abortion, desegregation and other hot button issues, confirmations became politics by another means. With every year, senators became more open about voting against nominees solely on the basis for their expected votes. This trend was accelerated in October 1987 in the confirmation hearing of Judge Robert Bork presided over by a senator from Delaware named Joe Biden. Bork was labeled “outside of the mainstream” of legal thought and rejected in a process that is now called “Borking.”
Democratic members have struggled with changing rationales for voting against Barrett, who has impeccable credentials as an accomplished academic and respected jurist. One such implausible claim was made the day before the hearing by Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.) on Fox News Sunday. He claimed the nomination “constitutes court packing.” Both Biden and his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Cal.) have referred to nominating conservatives as court packing. Biden and others have refused to tell voters whether they will move to pack the Supreme Court if the Democrats retake both the Senate and the White House (a proposal once denounced by Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself). Instead of answering, Coons and others insist that Barrett’s nomination is court packing — a position that would allow them to vote against her without the need to consider her actual qualifications.
The portrayal of the Barrett nomination as court packing is facially absurd. Court packing is the expansion of the Court to create a dominant ideological majority. Referring to such a proposal by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then Sen. Joe Biden once denounced it as “a bonehead idea . . . a terrible, terrible mistake” in seeking to add seats to the Court just to create a majority. Filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court is not court packing under any remotely plausible definition. Otherwise, anytime you disagree with the choices of a president, it would be court packing despite leaving the court the same size.
With little traction on the packing pitch, Senators were left with a rare moment of clarity. Indeed, Sen. Cory Booker (D., NJ) captured it best when, without waiting to hear from Barrett, Booker announced that he would vote against her. The reason was that she might vote against the ACA. The clear suggestion is that, after an election, the Democrats hoped to nominate someone who would clearly support the ACA. The issue was simply her expected vote on Nov. 10 in the case of California v. Texas.
Barrett and the ACA
We have now reached the Rubicon of confirmation politics. Thirty-three years after the Bork hearing, senators are now stripping away any pretense or nuance: they will oppose Barrett because of her expected votes on cases. In particular, Democrats have been arguing that they will vote against Barrett to prevent her from voting on a pending case, California v. Texas, dealing with the constitutionality of the ACA. Sen. Mazie K. Hirono (D., HI) announced recently that she would vote against Barrett because “she will vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act.”
In reality, the ACA case is unlikely to be struck down. The Court may uphold the lower court in declaring the individual mandate of the original ACA to be unconstitutional, but the real issue is whether that provision can be “severed” from the rest of the statute. Most legal experts believe that the Court has a clear majority favoring severance and preserving the rest of the act. The law was originally saved by Chief Justice John Roberts who felt that the individual mandate was constitutional. Congress later nullified the mandate.
The question before the Court is whether the rest of the act can be “severed” from the now defunct mandate — a question that cuts across the Court’s ideological divisions. Indeed, conservatives like Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh are expected to uphold the rest of the law. Thus, despite the pictures in the hearing, the picture for the ACA looks solid even with a Justice Barrett on the Court. Indeed, no one knows how Barrett would vote on the issue of severability.
The more important decision in the hearing is that some Senators are now invoking the right to vote against a nominee on the basis of her expected vote on this pending case. It will be a uniquely ironic moment since it was Ginsburg who refused to answer questions on pending or expected cases as improper and unethical inquiries by the Senate. It became known as the “Ginsburg Rule.” We may now have the Barrett Rule where a nomination can be rejected without such assurances.
The Barrett Rule would allow not only for the packing of a Court but the packing of the Court with guaranteed ideological drones. It is court packing without any pretense. Like our current politics, it would finally strip away any nuance or nicety. The court, like Congress, would become subject to raw and brutal politics at its very worst.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
Ukraine’s Corruption As Reported By Foreign Policy Magazine In February of 2016
Over $12 billion disappears from Ukraine’s budget every year, and global graft watchdog Transparency International ranks the country as Europe’s most corrupt. Though Ukrainians face demands for petty bribes in all areas of their lives, the worst, grandest corruption is perpetuated by high-level politicians, officials, prosecutors, and oligarchs who operate with utter impunity. Recently, a staggering $1.8 billion in aid from the International Monetary Fund disappeared offshore thanks to the efforts of a single oligarch — and he has never been held accountable. The Euromaidan revolution that deposed the venal regime of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych and promised European-style governance is now nearly two years in the past. Ukraine must, at long last, find a way to tackle this endemic problem before it’s too late.
While Ukraine’s vibrant civil society continues to demand that Kiev confront corruption, old guard officials from both the government and parliament continue to fight change every step of the way. What’s to be done? Surprisingly, the most useful model for Ukraine could turn out to be the small and distant Central American country of Guatemala.
Faced with its own endemic graft, Guatemala decided to sacrifice a portion of its sovereignty, outsourcing its fight against corruption to a hybrid international/domestic body called the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). Doing the same would surely be a difficult pill for Kiev to swallow, but milder measures simply haven’t worked. It’s a radical step for Ukraine’s feuding politicians to take — but the fate of their country depends on it.It’s a radical step for Ukraine’s feuding politicians to take — but the fate of their country depends on it.
CICIG was created in 2006 under an agreement between Guatemala and the United Nations. It was established as an independent investigative agency to target powerful criminal networks who were running amok in the aftermath of the country’s long civil war. While CICIG operates under Guatemalan law in the Guatemalan courts, institutionally it stands apart from the rest of Guatemala’s government. Crucially, CICIG is funded entirely by voluntary contributions by foreign countries — principally the United States — with the money administered by a trust fund created by the United Nations. As a result, its operating costs aren’t dependent on the fortunes of Guatemala’s economy.
Following Guatemala’s example may be the only hope Ukraine’s immensely unpopular president Petro Poroshenko has of saving his political skin.Following Guatemala’s example may be the only hope Ukraine’s immensely unpopular president Petro Poroshenko has of saving his political skin. But CICIG does have a number of shortcomings. To make a genuine dent in corruption, Ukraine needs an enhanced version that would preserve CICIG’s key innovation — its status as a hybrid domestic and international body — while making several important improvements.
Needless to say, Ukrainian politicians, too, tend to block anti-corruption legislation by proposing endless changes or inserting anti-reform clauses into unrelated laws — so Ukraine would undoubtedly face the same problem. To ensure that the Ukrainian version of the agency doesn’t become a political football, it should begin with a minimum mandate of five years that would be extended automatically, unless it were explicitly ended through legislation.
Second, funding CICIG has been a constant challenge. According to ex-CICIG head Castresana, much of his time while running the agency was spent chasing donations from international donors. To mitigate this problem, the United States and other Western donors should fully fund the first five years of Ukraine’s version in advance. CICIG’s current budget is $12 million year, and since Ukraine’s population is three times Guatemala’s, $200 million should suffice for the first five-year period.
This may sound like a lot, but in the context of current donor support for Ukraine, it’s a drop in the bucket. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has just committed $190 million to assist Ukraine in its fight against corruption. More broadly, the International Monetary Fund and Western donors have already spent tens of billions of dollars propping up Ukraine. Since reforming the country without fundamentally addressing corruption won’t succeed, the comparably small amount required to fund a Ukrainian CICIG should be seen as a hedge on money that has already been spent.
Finally, for a Ukrainian CICIG to succeed, it must possess two major powers the original does not. CICIG is an investigative agency, but holds no prosecutorial powers, forcing it to rely on the regular judicial system to secure convictions. This would be a huge problem in Ukraine, since the General Prosecutor’s Office is widely considered to be one of its most corrupt institutions. According to Yegor Sobolev, who heads the anti-corruption committee in parliament, the chief prosecutor — close Poroshenko ally Victor Shokin — has refused to pursue any of the hundreds of serious corruption cases Sobolev’s committee has brought him. Despite numerous calls for Shokin’s dismissal, Sobolev alleges that he remains in place because he protects the corrupt schemes that lead to the president. To avoid relying on someone like Shokin, the Ukrainian CICIG needs to be able to prosecute its own cases, in addition to investigating them.
It must also be allowed to work completely outside of Ukraine’s regular judicial system, since Ukraine’s judges are also corrupt to the core. The interior minister has even suggested shutting down the country’s courts for three months while an entirely new judicial system is built from scratch. Though such a drastic scheme is unlikely, it indicates why a Ukrainian CICIG would need its own judges and prosecutors — something former CICIG director Francisco Dall’Anese pined for as well.
Is it feasible for such a scheme to work in Ukraine? Institutionally, the pieces already exist.Is it feasible for such a scheme to work in Ukraine? Institutionally, the pieces already exist. Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NAB), which reformers consider the “point of the spear” in the war against graft, recently hired its first 70 investigators and detectives out of a planned 500. The NAB could serve as the nucleus for a Ukrainian CICIG.
Ukraine also recently created a special anti-corruption office within the General Prosecutor’s Office, leading to worries that the new anti-corruption prosecutor risks being “eaten by the system.” Placing this position in the Ukrainian CICIG instead would mitigate this risk while also providing the agency with the in-house prosecutors it needs.
The key question is whether Ukraine’s politicians have the political will to outsource such sensitive government responsibilities — especially if they fear becoming targets of investigations. But Ukrainian reformers and their Western allies are not without leverage. Sobolev already favors international involvement in Ukraine’s war on graft, and Kiev’s dependence on Western aid plus Ukrainian society’s demand that the government start a real fight against corruption could lend additional weight to the proposal.
Ukraine’s political class understands that the country’s mood is darkening.Ukraine’s political class understands that the country’s mood is darkening. Only seven percent of Ukrainians believe the current strategy for fighting corruption is yielding results. Murmurs of a possible third Maidan are growing louder, and extremist groups such as Right Sector vow “an execution in some dark vault” for Poroshenko and his team in the event of a coup. The could compel Ukraine’s politicians to take radical steps that would be unimaginable in less-tense circumstances. Just to be sure, though, international donors should use the tremendous financial leverage they hold over Ukraine by making further financial aid contingent on Kiev establishing a Ukrainian version of CICIG.
Ukraine needs to treat the war against corruption as seriously as it does its conflict with Russia. It is no less existential a threat — and international help is no less necessary to win it.
Edited From: “Why Ukraine Must Outsource Its Fight Against Corruption”
Foreign Policy Magazine, Feb 1, 2016
You waste ink on things you don’t understand, with a much-gilded influence from sources protecting the shady and the guilty. The Foreign Policy Magazine is heavily funded by oligarchic interests, including The Open Society Foundation and Media Matters. Both are institutions founded by George Soros, a clandestine Marxist, who has made a living from overthrowing national governments, just as he is influential right now in the current attempt to overthrow the Trump Government.
Any kind of confluence of power vested in the United Nations to “solve” any national or global problem of law and order demonstrates a century of failed history. To be equally distrusted are the many Institutions, commonly know as “Foundations”, which tout “charity” and “philanthropy” – a mere front, a cover to conceal nefarious influence peddling and money laundering. Even the now corrupt ICC – International Criminal Court – has become engaged in a politic to take down America. The only way to cut through the smoke and mirrors is to follow the money. If you don’t understand by now who controls the United Nations and its nefarious Agenda, you never will.
It requires a knowledge of the history of who founded the original model, the failed League of Nations and why it failed, inextricable from the assassination of the entire Romanov family of Czar Nicholas II. The funders of the Bolshevik Revolution are the devil in the woodpile, then and now – their dynastic family influence and descendants, who have never relinquished the reins of power, the very criminals pulling the very strings which you laud and applaud. What the Foreign Policy Magazine article claims is bollocks. All propaganda, a shocking veil of deception.
You write
Timeline Charting Shokin’s Removal As Ukrainian Prosecutor General
IMF Wanted Shokin Out.. Cash And Diamonds Scandal
The international effort to remove Shokin, who became prosecutor general in February 2015, began months before Biden stepped into the spotlight, said Mike Carpenter, who served as a foreign policy adviser to Biden and a deputy assistant secretary of defense, with a focus on Ukraine, Russia, Eurasia, the Balkans, and conventional arms control.
As European and U.S. officials pressed Ukraine to clean up Ukraine’s corruption, they focused on Shokin’s leadership of the Prosecutor General’s Office.
“Shokin played the role of protecting the vested interest in the Ukrainian system,” said Carpenter, who traveled with Biden to Ukraine in 2015. “He never went after any corrupt individuals at all, never prosecuted any high-profile cases of corruption.”
That demonstrated that Poroshenko’s administration was not sincere about tackling corruption and building strong, independent law enforcement agencies, said Heather Conley, director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based foreign policy think tank.
In July 2015, Shokin’s office became mired in scandal after authorities raided homes belonging to two high-ranking prosecutors. Police seized millions of dollars worth of diamonds and cash, suggesting the pair had been taking bribes.
It became known as the “diamond prosecutors” case. Deputy General Prosecutor Vitaliy Kasko, who said he tried to investigate it, resigned months later, calling the prosecutor’s office a “hotbed of corruption” and an “instrument of political pressure.”
Shokin’s office also stepped in to help Zlochevsky, the head of Burisma.
British authorities had frozen $23 million in a money-laundering probe, but Shokin’s office failed to send documents British authorities needed to prosecute Zlochevsky. The case eventually unraveled and the assets were unfrozen.
In October 2015, Ukrainians staged a protest outside Poroshenko’s home calling for Shokin’s removal.
During a September 2015 speech at a financial forum in Odessa, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt decried the inability of Shokin’s office to root out corruption.
“Rather than supporting Ukraine’s reforms and working to root out corruption,” Pyatt said, “corrupt actors within the Prosecutor General’s Office are making things worse by openly and aggressively undermining reform.”
In October 2015, then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland told the Senate Foreign Relations committee the Prosecutor General’s Office must lock up “dirty personnel” in its own office.
In December 2015, Biden railed against the “cancer of corruption” in a speech before the country’s parliament and called out Shokin’s office.
Besides Biden’s threat over the $1 billion in aid, the International Monetary Fund threatened to delay $40 billion in aid for similar reasons.
Shokin was eventually removed from his position in the spring of 2016.
The decision to remove Shokin “creates an opportunity to make a fresh start in the Prosecutor General’s Office,” said Jan Tombinski, the EU’s ambassador to Ukraine, in a written statement.
“I hope,” Tombinski said, “that the new Prosecutor General will ensure that the Office of the Prosecutor General becomes independent from political influence and pressure and enjoys public trust.”
Edited From: Explainer: Biden, Allies Pushed Out Ukrainian Prosecutor Because He Didn’t Pursue Corruption Cases”
USA Today, 10/3/19
Peter, Biden was caught on tape.
Art Deco,
Which Biden?
Caught on tape doing what?
Link to your evidence.
The information is in the public domain and easily accessible at the NY Post over more than one day.
The other video has been posted numerous times and easily searchable. Biden tells Ukrainians to fire Shokin. A video exists and you know it. You are trying to be cute but you are just Stupid and Pathetic.
You lack credibility so you need to provide a source.
I see your folks are working on your script, Anon.
But more is coming out and it is very damning.
China’s “soft” conquest.
Harris-Biden-Obama will oversee the subsumption of America by Communist China, aka the Global Deep Deep State.
To wit,
“Daryl Morey Resigning as Houston Rockets GM … 1 Year After China Drama”
Daryl Morey is leaving his position as general manager of the Houston Rockets … roughly 1 year after he created an international incident with a pro-Hong Kong tweet.
48-year-old Morey was NOT fired, according to ESPN’s Adrian Wojnarowski — but rather it was Daryl who approached Rockets’ owner, Tilman Fertitta, and initiated the conversation to step down.
Morey has been the GM for the past 13 seasons — and wanted to explore other professional options for himself while spending more time with his family … according to Woj.
Morey was successful during his run with the team — the Rockets have made the playoffs 8 years in the row, the longest streak among NBA teams.
But he’s most well-known for the China incident — on Oct. 4, 2019 he tweeted out support for Hong Kong, which REALLY pissed off China.
The tweet read, “Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong,” with a pic of pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong in October.
The Tweet created a ton of backlash in China … with massive Chinese e-commerce site Taobao yanking all Rockets merchandise and CCTV pulling NBA games from broadcast.
It was just last week that China allowed CCTV to air NBA games again — after a massive relationship rebuilding campaign led by NBA commish Adam Silver.
– TMZ Sports
Facebook cites content policy to hide Biden bombshell, as Biden campaign admits it might be true
Company cites “signals” of false information in Biden expose, but hasn’t said what they are.
Sen. Cotton: ‘Big tech oligarchs declaring war’ on Trump, GOP by censoring Hunter Biden reports
Congressman Banks cited a line from an email in the Hunter Biden reports that mentions the ‘big guy’ getting an equity share in a Chinese business deal: ‘We want to know today, is Joe Biden the big guy?’
_JTN
—-
Is Joe Biden known as the ‘big guy’ or the ‘chairman’? The Biden Family crime team through influence peddling and other heinous acts makes money and like the Mafia one portion always goes to the ‘big guy’. Joe Biden is a crook.
This is how the Viktor Shokin story looked back in March of 2016; long before Trump tried to turn it against Biden. All our NATO allies wanted Shokin gone.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/world/europe/political-stability-in-the-balance-as-ukraine-ousts-top-prosecutor.html
That is how the NYTimes attempted to spin the Victor Shokin story back in March of 2016.
Apparently you have failed to notice that Hunter “The Blowfeld” Biden stupidly left his laptop at a repair shop and never returned to get it back.
Cocaine is a helluva drug.
Apparently you have failed to notice that there’s no evidence that it was Biden’s laptop.
You must be the one who’s snorting what you name.
There’s a Hunter Biden sex tape on the hard drive. At least one.
That doesn’t prove it’s his laptop.
Anonymous the Stupid, everyone but you knows Hunter Biden did cocaine. That is even documented in the videos off Hunter’s computer.
What an insulting person Anonymous the Stupid is.
No one said he didn’t.
With all of the anonymous’ floating around mostly your pretend anonymous friends its difficult for you to prove what you said or didn’t say.
The laptop being left and forgotten about makes sense because Hunter was taking cocaine. That can explain all the stupidity of Hunter including how he handled himself the videos and everything else.
Whose laptop do you think it was?
“failed to notice that there’s no evidence that it was Biden’s laptop”
It was someone else’s laptop with photos and videos of Hunter smoking crack and having sex?!
In addition, there is no doubt whatsoever that Giuliani as a lifelong prosecutor had forensics done on the laptop to verify that it belonged to Blowfeld Biden.
You truly are the essence of lameness.
It’s possible that Russia hacked his iCloud account, downloaded some of his photos and video, and mixed it with disinformation on a laptop that isn’t his.
Lol that you have no doubts about Giuliani.
Yeah, Rhodes, that story sounds a little ‘too’ stupid. Perfect for you.
You and “stupid” go together like peas and carrots, Anon.
Which is why owning you is akin to taking candy from a spoiled little toddler.
https://politics.theonion.com/the-case-for-and-against-confirming-amy-coney-barrett-1845391831?utm_source=TheOnion_Daily_RSS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-10-16
You do know that two things can be true at the same time, right. Shokin is prosecuting corruption and the EU or our NATO allies wanted Shokin gone. Add a third; Biden wanted Shokin gone as well. Our NATO allies also didn’t want to pay any more of their GDP into the alliance than they did. They are paying more and Trump was right about that as well.
The EU and US, including Republicans, wanted Shokin gone because he WASN’T prosecuting corruption.
Right. Lol. And Biden made sure of it.
Yes.
Here’s a 2015 speech from the US Ambassador to Ukraine:
https://www.facebook.com/usdos.ukraine/posts/remarks-by-us-ambassador-geoffrey-pyatt-at-the-odesa-financial-forum-on-septembe/10153248488506936/
“We have learned that there have been times that the PGO not only did not support investigations into corruption, but rather undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases. For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the U.K. authorities had seized $23 million in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO’s office were asked by the U.K. to send documents supporting the seizure. Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result the money was freed by the U.K. court and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus. The misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote those letters should be investigated, and those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should—at a minimum—be summarily terminated.”
PGO = prosecutor general’s office, Shokin was the PG
Zlochevsky = the oligarch who ran Burisma
The EU and US wanted Shokin ousted because he wasn’t prosecuting corruption, including at Burisma.
One has to be careful about what they say about our Ambassador to the Ukraine because her public statements did not match her testimony and further information demonstrated that she wasn’t totally truthful when she testified.
Paying attention to details isn’t your forte, Allan.
Notice who the Ambassador to Ukraine was in 2015. His name is even in the link.
Paying attention to the Biden corruption doesn’t seem to be your forte Anonymous. She was Ambassador when so called sh1t hit the fan. She is extremely pertinent to the discussion.
Numerous reports and investigations say otherwise. The weight of the evidence at the present time points to the fact that Joe Biden involved himself in the internal affairs of another country and told them to fire the prosecutor. He didn’t ask for an end to corruption which might be appropriate when dealing with US dollars rather he told them how they had to do it and to fire one man that was said to have been investigating Burisma. There is evidence he was and evidence that others against him were corrupt. That puts a spotlight on a cover up and on Joe Biden.
“All our NATO allies wanted Shokin gone.”
PaintChips, that isn’t true and the NYT article doesn’t say that. You lied as usual. In fact a bunch of countries know Shokin’s firing was wrong and have said so. They even know Joe Biden is a Crook.
“Former Polish President: Burisma Hired Hunter Biden for His Last Name
The former president of Poland has confessed that Burisma Holdings hired Hunter Biden (shown) for one reason: He is former Vice President Joe Biden’s son.
This has been known for years but only recently has it been revealed to be as bad as it is.”
https://thenewamerican.com/former-president-of-poland-burisma-hired-hunter-biden-for-his-last-name/
Hunter Biden apparently agrees:
In the interview, however, he admitted he probably would not have been offered the job at Burisma Holdings, a natural gas company in Ukraine, if his last name wasn’t Biden.
“I don’t know. I don’t know, probably not,” he said. “You know, I don’t think there’s a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn’t Biden.”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2019/10/15/hunter-biden-speaks-out-about-working-for-foreign-companies-n2554729
Which doesn’t contradict that the EU and US wanted Shokin gone because he wasn’t prosecuting oligarchs, including at Burisma.
That he “wasn’t prosecuting” is not something we are supposed to determine unless we are intimately involved in Burisma. We know Hunter was involved and his only concern would be if Shokin was prosecuting.
How is it that one of you lawyers has not obtained an immediate injunction against Facebook and Twitter?
Jonathan: Your take away from the Barrett hearings is that Senate Democrats tried to impose the “Barrett rule”, that unless Judge Barrett committed to upholding the ACA they will vote against her. No doubt Barrett will do just that if confirmed based on her religious views and because Trump made abolishing the ACA his litmus test for nominating her. Noteworthy is the fact that neither Trump nor Republicans have put forward any plan to replace the ACA. They have had plenty of time. But Trump wants to get rid of the ACA only because it is Obama’s legacy. This is why Democratic senators tried to impress upon Barrett with photographs showing that millions of Americans will lose health care if the ACA is struck down. Those with serious medical conditions will be particularly hard hit. This was lost on Republican Senators and apparently you too. This is particularly troubling at a time when we are facing a second Covid-19 wave, infections and deaths from the coronavirus are increasing and without the ACA millions will face astronomical hospital bills. In other Western democracies and under Article 25 of the UN charter health care is considered a fundamental human right. Not so in the U.S. where health care has been viewed as a privilege for those who can afford it. We are the outlier. But given the opportunity Barrett will use Scalia’s “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution to argue that since the framers didn’t address health care in the founding documents no one is entitled to have it in the 21st century.
What was also remarkable about the hearings was that Barrett said she had no “firm views” on climate change. That’s hard to believe. Everyone has a view on the subject. Donald Trump has “firm views” on climate change. He denies the science and has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement and rolled back Obama era regulations on carbon emissions. Under questioning from Senator Harris, Barrett said climate change caused by human activity is a “contentious matter of public debate”. Barret may share Trump’s views but most Americans disagree, 80% of Americans agree with the consensus of climate scientists that human induced climate change is an existential threat and believe action is urgently needed to address its worst effects. So Barret is also an outlier when it comes to climate change. No doubt the Republican Senate will confirm Barrett’s nomination and she will go on the Court to vote to strike down the ACA and Biden initiatives on health care, climate change, voting rights and many other issues important to the American people. That was the whole point of her nomination.
Feds examining whether alleged Hunter Biden emails are linked to a foreign intel operation – https://t.co/29xQzeC0g2
A great essay by Brian Beutler on how to face the relentless bad faith of the Republican Party – https://crooked.com/articles/republicans-bad-faith/
That is why Joe Biden and his family have been enriching themselves in China, the Ukraine, Russia etc. Joe is now not denying his meeting. $3.4 Million from the Moscow Mayors wife.
What a non sequitur. What does your response have to do with Beutler’s article?
You can’t see the comparison. When stalking about bad faith one should look at Joe Biden who has sold America down the drain. That is bad faith, but I understand whey Anonymous the Stupid has problems relating the two.
I think “stalking” is a Freudian slip on your end.
Are you paranoid along with being Stupid?
The irony of Turley putting up “democratic members are creating a new and dangerous standard for confirmations” when Moscow Mitch and the republican party has broken any semblance of fair and honest advise and consent from the republican Senate is just to much.
“Diaper Man, that’s the heart of Beverly Hills. Which is why Trump owned a house there. But you’re stupid enough to let Absurd warp the discussion.”
PaintChips, what does Trump owning a house there have to do with your frequent trips between the Mark Twain bathrooms and the nail salon?
Allan continues with his go-to strategy of insulting people.
Allan knows the Moderator will intervene on his behalf. Which gives him false courage.
You are a wimp and you know it. Always blaming someone else. Can you mention a time the moderator stepped in on my behalf. No. When my posts were lost, did he step in? No. You are paranoid.
I don’t think the moderator does much at all. That’s why Allan feels free to demean people every day.
You are insulting, but worse you do it in a Stupid fashion and then you lie.
They have the votes needed to confirm Barrett.
So it’s all over but the cryin’.
Which is the one thing the PTS/TDS Buttercups are very good at doing.
Rhodes:
Exactly right. People who watched this for drama are like football fans watching reruns of Super Bowl III and hoping for a Colts victory. Sorry, but Joe Willie always wins.
It is more fundamental than that. Barrett like Kavanaugh are both Catholic. The Catholic Church opposes abortion therefore Catholics are unfit to be appointed to the Supreme Court and any vile attack is justified. Even asking Barrett if she had sexually assaulted anyone.
We now have from democrats a religious litmus test.
The Catholic Church opposes abortion therefore Catholics are unfit to be appointed to the Supreme Court and any vile attack is justified.
We do offer Exorcisms though at a decent rate, so you might consider that. But alas there is a wait list. San Francisco Archbishop has been doing exorcisms at a brisk pace recently. ANTIFA BLM Anarchists have been destroying Catholic images and spaces. Perhaps you are them?
Archbishop Cordileone plans exorcism at church where Serra statue was toppled
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2020/10/archbishop-cordileone-plans-exorcism-at-church-where-serra-statue-was-toppled/
Happily there is an app available so you could consider getting an Exorcism through that. Not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church ‘tho. Keep us posted
https://exorcism-san-francisco.com/
👍🏽
That’s right Tony, and the reason why Obama didn’t appoint Sotomayor and Democrats wouldn’t vote for Biden.
Marky Mark Mark – I thought you had gotten a real job. Don’t believe the polls, Marky.
The larger issue is the push on the left for a partisan, subservient, judiciary. It’s absolutely terrifying and they just can’t see it and they won’t see it until they become the victims of their own policies.
“The more important decision in the hearing is that some Senators are now invoking the right to vote against a nominee on the basis of her expected vote … The court, like Congress, would become subject to raw and brutal politics at its very worst.”
I don’t see anything wrong with that, and I’m surprised by your comments. This has been brutally clear since the Republican Senate majority refused to even give Judge Garland a hearing. They explicitly refused to criticize him personally or professionally. Certainly, you don’t buy the pretense they refused him a hearing because it was an election year. They expected him to “vote”, as you put it, a certain way.
Likewise, it is brutally clear with respect to the Barrett hearing. The Republicans are pushing it through because they expect her to “vote” a certain way.
Yeah, sure Justices write opinions so their “votes” can be rationalized. But you put it exactly right, they are “votes”, and there is no reason why we should have it any other way.
The 2020 presidential election has been irredeemably corrupted through the failure to hold the election on the one and only designated Tuesday, for imposing the total loss of control of the security of the vote through vote-by-mail, and through massive disruption and censorship of the presentation of election material by principal parties to the election on social media platforms.
The 2020 election must be expunged, abrogated and conducted a second time with fair, equal and uncensored access to all media platforms.
Voting should be like jury duty. You have to show up in person unless you have extenuating circumstances that prohibit you from doing so.
How could anyone ask a nominee, for the Supreme Court Judgeship or for any job really, as to how he or she would vote in the future on any issue?? .. That is not a proper question. No one could know as to what would be the “context of tomorrow”. A Judge has to decide the issues based upon the “evidence presented, the context, and the law” for the same… Isn’t it?? .. When one has to appoint a person for a job then it must be done based on the past “track record”. For, the past can be examined for its facts, context and the law. .. How could anyone examine the future?? .. Do they have a crystal ball?? .. All pretty absurd really.
Chintamani-Chanakya is our usual troll using yet another name. Here he has someone’s photo boxed. That creative touch should make us see this ‘commenter’ as more ‘real’ then one lacking a photo.
Barrett Won’t Say If Married Couples Have A Right To Contraception
Sometimes what a nominee won’t say is as telling as what she does. Thus Barrett was willing to pronounce that both Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark school desegregation case, and Loving v. Virginia, which declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, had been correctly decided. But when it came to a precedent even older than Loving, the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut, Barrett balked.
The court in Griswold found that a constitutional right to privacy protected the right of married couples to obtain contraception. Barrett argued that her view on this case didn’t matter — “an academic question that wouldn’t arise” — because no state in the modern era would consider criminalizing contraception.
But then she contended just the opposite: that she couldn’t offer her view on Griswold because it was anything but academic. “I think the only reason that it’s even worth asking that question is to lay a predicate for whether Roe was rightly decided. Because Griswold does lie at the foundation of that line of precedent,” Barrett told Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.). “So because Griswold involved substantive due process, an area that remains one subject to litigation all over the country, I don’t think it’s . . . a case that I can opine on.”
Actually, it is: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — among others — all commented on privacy and Griswold in their confirmation hearings. Roberts, in 2005, said, “I agree with the Griswold court’s conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception.” President Trump’s two previous nominees, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, largely ducked the question.
Barrett’s studied silence offers yet another indication that she sees no protection for abortion rights in the Constitution. If she’s willing to say that Loving was correct, what’s the significance of her refusal to say the same about the same-sex marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges? Again, it’s not hard to guess.
Edited From: “Barrett’s Hearings Were A Frustrating Charade. But They Were Still Chilling”
Today’s Washington Post
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Griswold v. Connecticut ruled that the Constitution protects the liberty of a married couple to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction. Said ruling struck down a Connecticut law that prohibited any person from using “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception”.
One has to seriously ask why that ruling was so ‘controversial’ that Barrett couldn’t say if it was correct. Would Barrett have us return to the days when contraceptives could be prohibited?? Do we want Catholics or Evangelicals lobbying for bans on contraceptives?
Barrett famously belongs to an off-shoot of the Catholic church where she actually held the title of ‘Handmaid’ until a best-selling book make that title uncool. Republicans howled with outrage when mainstream media examined Barrett’s church. Yet her inability to answer questions concerning Griswold possibly signals that her Handmaid point of view might influence opinions.
“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
– Marjorie England
_______________
Barring terminal intervention as abortion, the zygote will develop into a human being and, therefore, IS a very young human being.
Thou Shalt Not Kill
Often the zygote fails to develop properly and spontaneously aborts. When this occurs later in a pregnancy to an embryo it is called a still-birth.
Almost half of blastocysts never even implant.
Dianne Feinstein is a turncoat.
Her driver wasn’t. He kept spying for China.
Was it the hug?
Hahaha!
Mercedes Schlapp, a Trump Campaign advisor said “Well @JoeBiden @ABCPolitics townhall feels like I am watching an episode of Mister Rodgers Neighborhood,” as if that’s an insult.
Who doesn’t like Mr. Rogers?
I don’t want Mr. Rogers as my President. It is an insult. The left never get satire.
Mr. Rogers is unfortunately no longer with us, but would have been a much better president than Trump has been. Rogers’ wife has endorsed Biden and called Trump out as “mentally ill” and a “horrible person” who “seldom tells the truth.”
Is Mrs. Rogers competent to tell if a person is mentally ill at long distance? And how does she know Trump is a “horrible person” who “seldom tells the truth”? Does she only watch CNN?
I don’t think Joe Biden is with us either.
Mr. Rogers is unfortunately no longer with us, but would have been a much better president than Trump has been.
Looking at the production schedule of Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, it would appear the man went into semi-retirement around about 1975. Maybe he was devoting all his time to the speaking circuit. Most of the books which appear under his name appear to have been cobbled together by his wife from fragments of his writing.
Shortly after his death, a documentary was produced of his life and work, which incorporated a mess of old footage of interviews of him. We saw it in our house some years later. The umpteenth time he says of some retainer or consultant, “He is one of the most sensitive…” you realize that at the end of his life Fred Rogers was a caricature of Fred Rogers, a reality at which most of us arrive. Except that in his case, he may have been caricature from stem to stern. He was a pleasant and well-intentioned person, but his whole ethic was ‘let’s listen and be nice’. There is nothing wrong with listening and being pleasant and forbearing. It’s just rather … incomplete as an ethic of living. It’s also deficient in making sense of the world in which we live.
In 1978, George Carlin put together a comedy routine making brutal fun of him, which had one of his neighbors appearing at his home to chew him out and tell him “I gotta petition here. 18 names. want you Out of the neighborhood”. And then accused him of being a child molester. We had a cassette of this that we would play at school and we laughed and laughed and recited the dialogue ourselves, complete with accents. A decade earlier, we’d seen the program when it first hit public television. We were in the very oldest cohorts in the target demographic for it. He was the same age as my father, but he seemed so unlike my father, and not in a way I found inviting. (My sister enjoyed some of the puppet shows, but found Rogers himself kinda creepy).
The world doesn’t benefit from a superabundance of ‘sensitive’ men. It benefits from an abundance of men whose callousness induces them to guide and instruct the young in salutary ways. Few men are like Fred Rogers. Few have it in them to be Fred Rogers. Few would ever want to be that guy. And only an odd minority of women would want Fred Rogers as the man of the house. The rhythms of his life were atypical for his cohort. He had no time in the military.. He was married for eight years before he had any children. He and his wife kept it to two kids (born when she was 32 and 34) when 3 or 4 were the norm among their contemporaries. For some puzzling reason, with all the state schools available in Pennsylvania and with all the swank colleges he could afford, his son was sent to the same unprepossessing private college in Florida he’d attended (he admitted around about 1980 that he and his older son were estranged). His sons by middle age had produced two children between them. Rogers younger son has had his problems in living (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7965769/Fred-Rogers-youngest-son-accused-throttling-ex-wife-jarring-contrast-gentle-TV-icon.html)
Somthing…off about the guy.
Mr. Rogers fits your maturity level perfectly, Anon.
So I can see why you still watch his reruns.
Don’t stop!
Are you and Allan the same person, Rhodes? Both of you consistently resort to insulting people.
Not everyone has to rely on loads of anonymous names. Some people maintain their integrity while others wallow in the dirt.
Your comments consistently place you in the latter category.
Anonymous the Stupid, you don’t know the difference between integrity and wallowing in the dirt.
Says the troll who constantly trolls any poster who isn’t in lockstep with his sophomoric PTS addled worldview.
Have you ever been gainfully employed?
I didn’t much care for MisterRogers.