Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Yuk
Yuk

No, you guys went Republican to ethnonationalist.

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

When Georgetown Prep sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're

TexArcher
TexArcher

In 2016 I was a moderate.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but not quite a libertarian.  I would have considered voting for Kasich had he won the nomination. Now?  I will probably never

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted

WASHINGTON—Senate Democrats called for Republicans to halt confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, citing his own potential role in legal proceedings involving President Trump, but didn’t address whether they would pursue any actions in Congress against the president.

Republicans, meanwhile, urged restraint and warned Democrats not to overplay their hand.

The comments came a day after the president’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, told a federal judge that Mr. Trump directed him during the 2016 campaign to buy the silence of two women who allegedly had affairs with him. 

Mr. Trump has denied those affairs, and denied telling Mr. Cohen to pay the two women to prevent them from talking. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Wednesday the president has done nothing wrong.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who met with Mr. Kavanaugh on Tuesday and has said he would oppose his nomination, called for the confirmation hearings to be delayed as he continues to seek more documents on the nominee.

It is “unseemly for the president of the United States to be picking a Supreme Court Justice who could soon be, effectively, a juror in a case involving the president himself,” the New York senator said.

Republicans control the Senate, and there was no sign that they planned to delay the hearings.

“This is a desperate and pathetic attempt by Democrats to obstruct a very highly qualified nominee,” Ms. Sanders said. “The hearing date has been set and Judge Kavanaugh will be there.”

Confirmation hearings are scheduled to start Sept. 4.

Democratic Sens. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Ed Markey of Massachusetts said they were canceling meetings with Mr. Kavanaugh, calling his nomination illegitimate due to the allegations against Mr. Trump.

Democrats have been looking at how Judge Kavanaugh might rule in any legal case involving President Trump, amid dual investigations into Mr. Cohen and a separate probe by special counsel Robert Mueller into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 campaign. Mr. Trump has denied any wrongdoing related to Russia and the Kremlin has denied interference.

 

Judge Kavanaugh wrote a law-review article in 2009 that argued Congress should pass a law that would defer civil suits and criminal probes involving a president while he or she is in office.

The Justice Department has long taken the position that a sitting president cannot face a criminal charges while in office because such a step would be too disruptive to the workings of government. Any criminal prosecution would likely have to wait until the president left office, resigned or was removed.

As a result, any immediate action related to Mr. Trump would likely have to come from Congress, which has several tools at its disposal to hold presidents accountable.

Either chamber could open its own investigation, or could try to censure Mr. Trump. Or the House could initiate impeachment proceedings, the process by which a president is removed from office after a trial in the Senate.

Republicans currently control both chambers, but polls show Democrats are favored to win seats in the House in the November midterm elections—meaning the political calculus for the president could change after the vote.

Mr. Trump’s fate is going to be shaped by where public opinion around him rests after Mr. Mueller finishes his investigation, said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. As a House member in 1998, Mr. Graham was an enthusiastic proponent of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and one of the House members who presented the case for Mr. Clinton’s removal in the Senate.

With the benefit of hindsight, Mr. Graham noted that Republicans had miscalculated during Mr. Clinton’s impeachment trial—overestimating the public’s appetite for a divisive political trial that brought Washington to a halt in late 1998 and early 1999.

“I’ve learned once before—you can feel passionate about your case, but if you can’t convince the people, you’re not going to be successful,” Mr. Graham said. “The public was with Clinton. The Democratic base and independents thought impeachment was a bridge too far and that will determine a lot about what happens to President Trump.”

Mr. Graham suggested that Congress could take up a measure short of impeachment, such as censure. Several times during the Clinton impeachment, there were bipartisan proposals to censure Mr. Clinton through a congressional resolution rather than try to remove him from office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871

Posted
Posted

Everyone has made hay about his previous writings about a president's immunity to criminal prosecution, but it seems to me that someone should just ask him if he would recuse himself in any ruling related to Trump's right to be in office.  I don't know recusal rules, but it seems like that would fall into something too close to quid pro quo:  I'll nominate you because you think I am unmovable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

His wife has aged well.

Those were the only pictures I could find that had our, just ownership from grad to grad, Texas girl prominently in them.  There were a bunch of images of her in high school, yearbook types, but I didn't think it was appropriate to link them.   She is probably a big reason he is what he is at this point, just a guess, (smart wife to discuss things with is a true blessing even if it is sometimes just an advanced sound-boarding of your thoughts from the day).

Edited by zork
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Captainant

Captainant 28509

Posted
Posted
Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The WH released 42,000 documents yesterday afternoon regarding Kavanaugh.  Grassley said the majority side of the Senate has completed their review of the documents. 

Very productive.   

The dems noted that it was "a little over 7000 documents per hour. Very impressive."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13725

Posted
Posted

In light of Garland, its a farce that they are pushing Kavanaugh through 2 months prior to the election.  Obviously the GOP can't take the chance of losing the SCOTUS seat if the Dems somehow pulled off taking over the Senate.

IF the Dems win the Senate (still a longshot,) I believe Trump will not get 1 more judicial nominee vote for the remainder of his term.   The Dems will pay back McConnell for Garland.  I don't think Trump will get any nominee for any position through the senate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1391

Posted
Posted
In light of Garland, its a farce that they are pushing Kavanaugh through 2 months prior to the election.  Obviously the GOP can't take the chance of losing the SCOTUS seat if the Dems somehow pulled off taking over the Senate.
IF the Dems win the Senate (still a longshot,) I believe Trump will not get 1 more judicial nominee vote for the remainder of his term.   The Dems will pay back McConnell for Garland.  I don't think Trump will get any nominee for any position through the senate.  
If dems have Senate and Whitehouse after 2020, the press needs to nominate Garland as a 10th justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28509

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Legit question from a citizen uninformed on this matter, is there any reasonable explanation for the withholding of Kavanaugh's documents?

The GOP is  claiming executive privilege (without the president ACTUALLY invoking it) and that it would undermine that ability of future presidential aides to give candid advice and counsel (or councel/council/covfefe). Which is horseshit considering by Kavanaugh's own admission was the most formative years of his career. And the senate judiciary committee has seen about 10% of his total record.

Edited by Captainant
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13725

Posted
Posted
Just now, Captainant said:

The GOP is  claiming executive privilege and that it would undermine that ability of future presidential aides to give candid advice and counsel (or councel/council/covfefe). Which is horseshit considering by Kavanaugh's own admission was the most formative years of his career. And the senate judiciary committee has seen about 10% of his total record.

Personally I think a President and his aides do have executive privilege to some extent.    This gets dicey when the privilege is currently being extended to 2 Presidents ago as in this situation.   

At the end of the day, we should always lean in favor of transparency over secrecy.  Therefore if the administration wants to exert a claim of executive privilege, they need to prove it and their word isn't enough.    However the documents are all a charade for both sides.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28509

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Personally I think a President and his aides do have executive privilege to some extent.    This gets dicey when the privilege is currently being extended to 2 Presidents ago as in this situation.   

At the end of the day, we should always lean in favor of transparency over secrecy.  Therefore if the administration wants to exert a claim of executive privilege, they need to prove it and their word isn't enough.    However the documents are all a charade for both sides.  

I disagree, the documents are an important issue and this is the first time that the judiciary committee has seen such a small percentage of a nominee's overall work. They're a useful and important heuristic for measuring how a candidate will behave on the bench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47127

Posted
Posted (edited)

. . . and there's that little hiccup where Kavanaugh apparently lied under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he was up for a federal judgeship.

I mean, if perjury is such a big deal and all.  Otherwise, no biggie.

Edited by jimmyjazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28509

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

. . . and there's that little hiccup where Kavanaugh apparently lied under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he was up for a federal judgeship.

I mean, if perjury is such a big deal and all.  Otherwise, no biggie.

So you're saying he's attorney general material?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...