Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Sunday, October 7,2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
We will be departing for southern Illinois early Sunday AM (about 2:30). God willing we’ll be home before week’s end. If possible we will post during the trip...Ciao...Helen and Moe.
The full transcript of Sen. Collins’s speech announcing she’ll vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh below...
She puts the First in First Lady
Joke of the day...
FBI Probe Points to A Highly Coordinated Anti-Kavanaugh Smear Campaign Effort by Democrats
FBI Probe Points to A Highly Coordinated Anti-Kavanaugh Effort by Dems
By S.Noble
THE FBI PROBE HAS POINTED TO ANOTHER KEY PLAYER AND A LOT OF HIGH LEVEL COORDINATION IN THE ASSAULT ON JUDGE KAVANAUGH
THE FBI PROBE HAS POINTED TO ANOTHER KEY PLAYER AND A LOT OF HIGH LEVEL COORDINATION IN THE ASSAULT ON JUDGE KAVANAUGH
Sen. Grassley has fired off another blistering letter to credible Christine Ford’s lawyers demanding evidence and communications. At the same time, ‘witness’ Leland Keyser says she was pressured to alter her statement, allegedly by the suspicious former FBI agent Monica McLean, the one Christine Ford allegedly helped prepare for a polygraph.
Did Chucky leak?
It is now looking like the leaker could have been someone tied to Chuck Schumer in a highly coordinated effort to take down Judge Kavanaugh.
Senator Grassley’s letter to Mrs. Ford’s attorneys asks for communications between the Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick teams. In addition, we have learned that Ford’s “beach friends” — which she was coyly vague in mentioning — is former FBI agent Monica McLean.
McLean was Preet Bharara’s spokesperson and Bharara worked closely with Schumer as his deputy in the judiciary.
McLean also sent texts pressuring Leland Keyser, a Ford non-witness witness, to alter her statement — to “clarify” it. McLean’s lawyer denied it but that might not be true.
Republican senators now believe it might have been Chuck Schumer who had a hand in leaking the letter.
Schumer said, before even speaking with Judge Kavanaugh, that he would “oppose him with everything I got”. He presented hysterical arguments without a basis in fact. Schumer thinks it’s extreme right to follow the Constitution. That could be why he said we should abandon due process and the presumption of innocence.
Laura Ingraham’s been looking into it. IMPORTANT RELATED STORY
Leland said she was pressured. Why would she make it up? A lot of coordination went into this. McLean is tied to Preet Bharara who is close to Chuck Schumer and she is the woman who credible Christine prepped for the polygraph as she sought a job in the DOJ/FBI. The ex-boyfriend swore under oath she prepared McLean which credible denied — not under oath — through a lawyer.
McLean and Ford were both in Rehoboth Beach when Ford wrote the letter to Sen. Feinstein, a letter which was most professional.
REPUBLICANS WAKE UP
Normally sedate, near-dead Republicans have mustered up the fortitude to fight back and they are fighting hard.
Lindsey Graham vowed a ‘full scale’ probe into Democrat’s handling of the Ford-Kavanaugh allegation.
“We’re going to do a wholesale, full scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process to deter it from happening again,” Graham said during an interview on ABC News’ “This Week.”
“The FBI will do a supplemental background investigation, then I’m going to call for an investigation of what happened in this committee. Who betrayed Dr. Ford’s trust? Who in Feinstein’s office recommended Katz as a lawyer? Why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California?” Graham continued, referring to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Debra Katz, one of Ford’s attorneys who has been involved in Democratic politics in the past.
As far as the letter, Ryan Grim the Intercept journalist said he didn’t get it from Feinstein’s staff. Feinstein denied it and Graham accepted Feinstein’s denial. “All I can tell you is it came from somebody with a political motive,” he said. “No friend would do this to Dr. Ford.”
Rand Paul’s wife makes disturbing 9 word confession
“On the Holmes Front,” with Frank Holmes
The hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has cranked up the level of crazy in U.S. politics to a new high – and some Democrats have gone beyond words, spilling into full-blown violence.
Now, Senator Rand Paul’s wife, Kelley, is saying the violence has got to stop. In an op-ed for CNN this week , Kelley said that the radical left’s threats and intimidation have spiraled out of control.
Kelley needed only nine words to prove to liberals how their deranged violence has negatively impacted her life — and many other Republicans.
“I now keep a loaded gun by my bed,” Kelley wrote. “I have never felt this way in my life,” she added.
“Earlier this week, Rand was besieged in the airport by activists…preventing [him] from moving forward, thrusting your middle finger in [his] face, screaming vitriol,” she wrote.
Last year a Democratic neighbor beat him up at his own home, breaking six ribs and leaving the senator with a collapsed lung – and the state’s Democrats thought it was hilarious.
Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes cracked her idea of a great joke about Paul after the violent attack.
“Many folks say that Rand Paul can’t be beat,” she said. “I don’t buy that. Just ask his neighbor. He can be beaten.”
For Kelley, her husband’s senseless beating is no laughing matter. She put the blame right where it belongs: on Democratic leaders stoking fear and winking at violence.
Democratic Sen. Cory Booker – a likely 2020 presidential candidate – told an audience in July, “You should get in the face of your Congresspeople.”
Words like that are going to get someone hurt or killed, Kelley wrote.
“Retract your statement,” Kelley told Booker. “I would call on you to condemn violence, the leaking of elected officials’ personal addresses… and the intimidation and threats that are being hurled at them and their families.”
Kelley’s statement is correct — and the Kavanaugh drama has ignited more violence from the left.
Last Sunday, police arrested a 42-year-old artist for spray-painting the words “RAPE” and “SHAME” all over Republican Party Headquarters in Winnebago County, Illinois.
The suspect, Timothy Damm, might not have gotten caught red-handed – but he reportedly couldn’t wait to get back to the scene of the crime, where he was interviewed about it on TV.
“I think it’s great,” Damm told a local reporter, who said she was surprised to see him already at a newly reported crime scene.
“I haven’t been great with the Republicans right in my neighborhood, but somebody labeled them for what they are,” Damm told her. “I’m happy about that.”
He praised his own suspected artwork and even explained part of the symbolism.
“It’s hard to not focus on the beauty” of the vandalism, he said in a four-minute interview where he repeatedly broke out into maniacal laughter.
“Republican equals rape,” he told the reporter. “They encourage rape. And if you rape someone, they will defend you.”
Cops say after they took Damm into custody, he danced on a table, then stripped down to his underwear.
If you’re looking for proof that Trump Derangement Syndrome is a mental disorder, there’s Exhibit A.
But it’s also a sign of the violence and hatred the left is churning up.
County GOP leaders pointed out that 7 women work in the building, and two dozen more meet there regularly. “They should not have to be afraid because some people could not control their hate,” they wrote.
President Donald Trump’s victory and the empty, phony, baseless charges against Brett Kavanaugh have driven the Democrats into a frenzy.
The liberal elite have run the show for most of 70 years. But, now the average American is determined to take back their country. The liberal elites can only watch, cry – and demand thugs to take action.
First, the Democrats lost Congress. Then, they lost the presidency. Now, they’re about to lose the Supreme Court.
Their hold on the government – and the whole country – has slipped away.
If they can’t control the politicians in D.C., they want to beat them up – or worse.
One can only imagine what will happen if they lose the 2018 midterms?
Frank Holmes is a reporter for The Horn News. He is a veteran journalist and an outspoken conservative that talks about the news that was in his weekly article, “On The Holmes Front.”
Not All Women: GOP Women Are Furious Over Democrats' Anti-Kavanaugh Smear Campaign; UPDATE: Dem Strategists Worry
Not All Women: GOP Women Are Furious Over Democrats' Anti-Kavanaugh Smear Campaign; UPDATE: Dem Strategists Worry
Matt Vespa 
The Democratic Party is the one that supports women, is for women, and is fighting for their rights. And yet, some of their biggest supporters in business and media are absolute pigs.
Look at disgraced former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, former CBS News Executive Les Moonves, and of course, former Hollywood media mogul Harvey Weinstein. There was JFK, Ted Kennedy, and Bill Clinton. All parties above treated women like garbage. They’re sleaze. Yet, it surely helps to keep news of the Left’s sleaze to a minimum when they control Hollywood and the elite news media. Also, and this is not a shocking point, women are not stupid. They’re not a uniform voting bloc. And they can think for themselves.
Despite what liberals and the liberal news media might think, the female vote is hardly the sisterhood of the traveling pants. There are liberals, conservatives, moderates, gun-owners, gun-haters, pro-choicers, pro-lifers, and national security-minded voters in this bloc. It’s diverse. And right now, the Left’s anti-Kavanaugh crusade has motivated Republican women the most.
President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to fill the vacancy left by Anthony Kennedy. It looked fine. The confirmation was going smoothly, and then Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick came forward—well, Democrats leaked Ford’s account—and the whole process was thrust into chaos. All three allegations are without evidence or corroborating witnesses. Still, Democrats pounced. They kept their powder dry and took what they thought was a kill shot. They can knock off Kavanaugh, animate their base for the 2018 midterms, and finally retake Congress and start their impeachment campaign against the Trump administration.
The Left appears to be overreaching. They’ve surely animated their side, but all you need to do is say “Trump,” and the mouths of liberals froth with rage. Yet, this character assassination of a man who has already undergone six, now seven, FBI investigations that have turned up zilch in terms of confirming if he’s a sexual predator is striking a chord with Republican women. They’re infuriated over the unfairness of this whole episode. It’s a clown show. Also, the fact that Democrats dropped these allegations at the 11thhour doesn’t help dissuade people that this was a political hit job. It was. Now, new polling shows that not only has the Democratic voter advantages shrunk significantly, but Republican women are enthused to vote in 2018 than their Democratic counterparts (via Slate):
The accusations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh are widely perceived to be a boon to Democrats heading into the midterm elections in November. “The women of this country identify with Dr. Ford and will not forget what is happening here,” Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, told NBC News over the weekend. “They are not angry, they are furious, and I expect the largest women’s turnout in a midterm—ever.”
In fact, however, the Kavanaugh spectacle seems to have evaporated the Democrats’ enthusiasm edge, according to a poll conducted Monday by NPR, PBS NewsHour, and Marist. In July Democrats were likelier, by 10 percentage points, to say the November elections were “very important.” That gap has now narrowed to a statistical tie. “The result of the hearings, at least in the short run, is the Republican base was awakened,” Marist head Lee Miringoff told NPR.
The change is particularly striking when comparing women in the two parties. Of all the cohorts measured by the poll (including Independent men and women), Democratic women are the only group to display less enthusiasm for the midterms this week than they did in July. Meanwhile, Republican women seem invigorated. In July, 81 percent of Democratic women said the November elections were very important, compared to 71 percent of Republican women. Now, Republican women are 4 percentage points likelier to view the midterms that way (83 percent to 79 percent). That’s a 14-point swing in female voters’ interest in the midterms—after the hearings, and in Republicans’ favor.
Emma Green had a good piece in The Atlantic about how Democrats appear to be yet again overreaching with their agenda. Not everyone likes it outside of the Acela Corridor, which is something you’d think they’d catch onto after their 2016 loss. Green interviewed dozens of Republican women who are downright enraged by how Kavanaugh has been treated throughout this process and are mobilizing to punish Democrats for it:
“Honestly, I don’t think I have ever been so angry in all of my adult life,” says Ginger Howard, a Republican national committeewoman from Georgia. “It brings me to the point of tears, it makes me so angry.”
In interviews with roughly a dozen female conservative leaders from as many states, this was the overwhelming sentiment: These women are infuriated with the way the sexual-assault allegations against the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have been handled. They are not convinced by Ford or any other woman who has come forward. They resent the implication that all women should support the accusers. And they believe that this scandal will ultimately hurt the cause of women who have been sexually assaulted.
Above all, these women, and the women they know, are ready to lash out against Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections.
[…]
A big source of conservative women’s anger about Kavanaugh seems to come from a fundamental sense of unfairness: They believe Kavanaugh was convicted in the court of public opinion before he ever had a chance to defend himself. Howard told me that every cable-news network seemed strongly biased against the judge: She was watching NBC at a work event, and “the anchors … were just praising this woman like she was the next Rosa Parks or something,” she says. “I mean, I was screaming at the TV.”
Last week’s hearing was not part of a criminal investigation, “but you sure wouldn’t know that from watching,” says Smith, the Indiana activist. The 62-year-old calls herself “a Mike Pence girl to the max”; she got involved in political advocacy after she finished homeschooling her five kids. “The presumption of innocence … is something I taught my children,” she told me. But she, along with other women, thinks that privilege has not been afforded to Kavanaugh. “The media and the Democrats have totally flipped the narrative,” as Howard put it. Kavanaugh “is guilty until proven innocent.”
[…]
The women I interviewed, however, resented the notion that people’s accusations should be believed on the basis of their identity alone.
And now, even some Democratic strategists are worried that their side has overplayed their hand and created an environment that is better suited for GOP voters (via Daily Beast):
With Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court looking more likely, some top strategists in the Democratic Party have begun warning members to quickly move off the nomination after it comes up for a vote.
Accusations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman in both high school and college have galvanized progressives and led to a growth of online donations to Democratic candidates. But there are growing fears among Democrats that the epicenter of the national political conversation has moved away from more friendly terrain and that Republicans have become mobilized by the Kavanaugh fight in even more dramatic ways.
“The truth is that in nationalized elections—most of which are presidential but some of which can be midterms—if the dominant issue terrain is around the cultural sphere, Democrats lose,” said Kenneth Baer, a former Obama administration official and founder of Crosscut Strategies, LLC. “I cannot think of any election in the postwar period where Democrats have won when that was the case.”
For the first time since the Kavanaugh accusations surfaced, a fissure has become apparent within the Democratic ranks over what the best political strategy is moving forward. While Baer said he was heartened that Democrats were still running their campaigns on economic issues, he and others expressed fear that the party was becoming too consumed by the Supreme Court fight.
[…]
During the 2016 campaign, Baer argued in a much discussed op-ed that Hillary Clinton had allowed herself to be roped into fights with Trump over gender, race, and sex when she should have portrayed him as a phony populist and bumbling plutocrat. Ultimately, a small sliver of voters in three key battleground states appeared to buttress that theory. The Kavanaugh debate, he warned, was leading Democrats down a similar path.
“My concern is that the biggest story that the entire country is focused on is Kavanaugh and the issues that his nomination has arisen,” he explained. “Yes, we should oppose him for many reasons. Yes, he should be investigated. But the politics of it are that if that becomes the overwhelming narrative going into the election, it could hurt Democrats.”
Democrats could find out, in a particularly brutal fashion, how toxic identity politics can be if the GOP votes in decent numbers come November. Let’s make that happen.
Dear NASCAR: What the Fudge?
(Chuck Muth) - As Judge Kavanaugh careens towards a final confirmation vote, I digress this morning for something non-political.
I’ve been reading stories that interest in NASCAR motor sports racing is declining and efforts to boost attendance through its playoff series ain’t working.
As someone who’s been to and enjoyed a couple of NASCAR races in Las Vegas, but not a rabid fan who understands all the rules and stuff, maybe I can help you out…
My understanding – and correct me if I’m wrong – but drivers compete during the regular season for 16 “playoff” spots in the postseason. And after the first rounds of playoffs, the field this weekend has been narrowed down to 12. Do I have that correct so far?
OK, let’s switch over to baseball for a second…because there’s something I really don’t understand about this NASCAR playoff thing.
Major League Baseball teams play 162 games (163 this year for four teams who ended the season in a tie). Six teams advance to the playoffs after winning their divisions. Four also-ran “wild card” teams play a single, winner-take-all elimination game that narrows the field down to eight teams.
Everybody else goes home until next season.
The remaining eight teams then get narrowed down to four. And then those four get narrowed down to two for the World Series.
Similar playoff process for college basketball. You start with 64 playoff teams that get narrowed down to 32, then the Sweet 16, then the Elite Eight, then the Final Four and then the remaining two face off to crown the national champion.
Same process of elimination for just about every other sport with a playoff system. Think Super Bowl. World Cup. Stanley Cup. Heck, even college football has finally switched to a mini-playoff system of single-game elimination.
Winners advance. Losers go home.
But not NASCAR.
We’re supposed to be in the post-season playoffs this weekend with the field narrowed down from 16 drivers to 12. But when I looked at the lineup for tomorrow’s playoff race at Dover International Speedway…there will be 39 drivers in the race!
What the fudge?
This is ‘merica. It’s not a playoff system if the also-rans still get to run.
If you really want to spark some postseason interest, stop letting non-playoff drivers compete in playoff races. Start with 16, go to 8, then 4 and end up with a one-on-one race between the top two finishers.
And if you don’t think that would spark intense interest, consider the fact that the one-on-one horse race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral is still talked about today…even though it happened all the way back in 1938!
And what about the interest in the upcoming one-on-one golf match between Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson?
Again, I’m just a casual fan. Maybe there’s something here I don’t understand. But I do understand this: I’m not following the NASCAR playoffs anywhere near as close as I’m following the baseball playoffs (anybody but the Yankees!) because…it just doesn’t make any sense.
Losers are supposed to go home and wait ‘til next year.
But hey, it’s your sport. You do it your way.
But don’t be surprised by the shrinking number of fans in the stands and viewers on TV.
Which is a real shame, because many of us who are still boycotting the NFL over its tolerance for anti-American “kneelers” are dying to find something else to watch on Sunday afternoons…especially since NASCAR may well be the most patriotic sport in the country today.
We now return you to our regular programming…
#IStandWithBrett
(Mr. Muth is president of CitizenOutreach.org and publisher of NevadaNewsandViews.com. He blogs at MuthsTruths.com. His views are his own.)
The full transcript of Sen. Collins’s speech announcing she’ll vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh
Key Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said Friday that she’ll vote to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, bringing the total number of senators who’ve voiced their support for the candidate to 50.
Collins delivered a nearly hour-long speech on the Senate floor in which she underscored Kavanaugh’s career highlights and rejected criticisms the nominee has received during his confirmation hearings, including about his views on Roe v. Wade, LGBTQ rights, the Affordable Care Act, and access to birth control.
Collins said she’d found Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s to be “sincere, painful, and compelling,” but cited “the lack of corroborating evidence” as a major reason why she is not convinced Kavanaugh was involved in the assault.
Nonetheless, Collins said that “the #MeToo movement is real” and urged the Senate to continue to listen to victims of sexual misconduct.
A few minutes after she wrapped up her speech, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, another key vote in the Kavanaugh nomination, announced he’ll also vote to confirm the judge despite having “reservations.” Manchin’s support will bring the total number of senators saying they’re voting “yes” to 51, meaning Vice President Mike Pence, president of the Senate, will likely not need to intervene to break a possible tie.
A transcript of Collins’s remarks can be found below.
Mr. President, the five previous times that I’ve come to the floor to explain my vote on the nomination of a justice to the United States Supreme Court, I have begun my floor remarks explaining my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion. But today we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional, it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion.
The president nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9. Within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn’t even bother to fill in the judge’s name on its pre-written press release. They simply wrote that they opposed Donald Trump’s nomination of “XX” to the Supreme Court of the United States. A number of senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee’s identity was even known.
Since that time, we have seen special interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial record. Over-the-top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimony at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines, which although debunked hours later, continued to live on and be spread through social media. Interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination. Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than 30 years.
One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom. Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual senator to decide what the Constitution’s advice and consent duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the president has broad discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy, whereas my duty as a senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought.
I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I’ve never considered the president’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush. Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, who were nominated by President Obama. And Justice Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Trump.
So I began my evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles. Nineteen attorneys, including lawyers from the nonpartisan congressional research service, briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the Judge’s extensive record. I met with Judge Kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. I listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearings. I spoke with people who knew him personally, such as Condoleezza Rice and many others. And I talked with Judge Kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions. I also have met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents, regarding Judge Kavanaugh.
One concern that I frequently heard was that the judge would be likely to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s vital protections for people with preexisting conditions. I disagree with this. In a dissent in Seven-Sky v. Holder, Judge Kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the ACA on narrow procedural grounds, preserving the law in full. Many experts have said that his dissent informed Justice Roberts’s opinion upholding the ACA at the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, Judge Kavanaugh’s approach toward the doctrine of sever-ability is narrow. When a part of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, he has argued for severing the invalid clause as surgically as possible while allowing the overall law to remain intact. This was his approach in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the consumer financial protection bureau. In his dissent, Judge Kavanaugh argued for “severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.” Given the current challenges to the ACA proponents, including myself, of protections for people with preexisting conditions should want a justice who would take just this kind of approach.
Another assertion that I have heard often that Judge Kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the president were to come before the court. The basis for this argument seems to be two-fold.
First, Judge Kavanaugh has written that he believes that Congress should enact legislation to protect presidents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office. Mr. President, I believe opponents missed the mark on this issue. The fact that judge Kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that he believes that the president does not have such protection currently.
Second, there are some who argue that given the current special counsel investigation, President Trump should not even be allowed to nominate a justice. That argument ignores our recent history. President Clinton in 1993 nominated Justice Ginsburg after the Whitewater investigation was already underway, and she was confirmed 96 to 3. The next year, just three months after independent counsel Robert Fisk was named to lead the Whitewater investigation, President Clinton nominated Justice Breyer. He was confirmed 87 to 9.
Supreme Court justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them. Perhaps most notably in The United States vs. Nixon, three Nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him. Judge Kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. He has stated that Marbury vs. Madison, Youngstown Steel vs. Sawyer and The United States vs. Nixon are three of the greatest Supreme Court cases in history. What do they have in common? Each of them is a case where Congress served as a check on presidential power.
And I would note that the fourth case that Judge Kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was Brown vs. The Board of Education. One Kavanaugh decision illustrates the point about the check on presidential power directly. He wrote the opinion in Hamdan vs. The United States, a case that challenges the Bush administration’s military commission prosecution of an associate of Osama bin Laden. This conviction was very important to the Bush administration, but Judge Kavanaugh, who had been appointed to the DC Circuit by President Bush and had worked in President Bush’s White House, ruled that the conviction was unlawful. As he explained during the hearing, “we don’t make decisions based on who people are or their policy preferences or the moment. We base decisions on the law.”
Others I’ve met with have expressed concerns that Justice Kennedy’s retirement threatens the right of same-sex couples to marry. Yet, Judge Kavanaugh described the Obergefell decision, which legalized same-gender marriages, as an important landmark precedent. He also cited Justice Kennedy’s recent masterpiece cake shop opinion for the court’s majority stating that “the days of treating gay and lesbian Americans, or gay and lesbian couples as second-class citizens who are inferior in dignity and worth are over in the Supreme Court.”
Others have suggested that the judge holds extreme views on birth control. In one case Judge Kavanaugh incurred the disfavor of both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with religious objections. Although his critics frequently overlook this point, Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent rejected arguments that the government did not have a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception. In fact, he wrote that the Supreme Court precedent strongly suggested that there was a compelling interest in facilitating access to birth control.
There has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. Protecting this right is important to me. To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in Article 3 of our Constitution itself. He believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. In other words, precedent isn’t a goal or an aspiration. It is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances.
The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance and fairness. There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent. The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in Brown vs. The Board of Education overruled Plessy vs. Ferguson, correcting a “grievously wrong decision” to use the judge’s term, allowing racial inequality. But someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow long-established precedent except in those rare circumstances where a decision is grievously wrong or deeply inconsistent with the law. Those are Judge Kavanaugh’s phrases.
As the judge asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked. Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight simply because a judge might want to on a whim. In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.
Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold vs. Connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraceptions. Griswold established the legal foundation that led to roe eight years later. In describing Griswold as settled law, Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920’s, Meyer and Pierce that are not seriously challenged by anyone today.
Finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, describing it as a precedent. When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said “no.”
Opponents frequently cite then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn Roe. The Republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. During this time Republican presidents have appointed Justices O’Connor, Souter and Kennedy to the Supreme Court. These are the very three Republican president appointed justices who authored the Casey decision which reaffirmed Roe.
Furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously oppose each of these justice’s nominations. Incredibly, they even circulated buttons with the slogan “Stop Souter or women will die.” Just two years later Justice Souter coauthored the Casey opinion reaffirming a woman’s right to choose. Suffice it to say, prominent advocacy organizations have been wrong.
These same interest groups have speculated that Judge Kavanaugh was selected to do the bidding of conservative ideologues despite his record of judicial Independence. I asked the judge point-blank whether he had made any commitments or pledges to anyone at the White House, to the Federalist Society, to any outside group on how he would decide cases. He unequivocally assured me that he had not.
Judge Kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12-year track record as a judge, including for his judicial temperament. The American Bar Association gave him its highest possible rating. Its standing committee on the federal judiciary conducted an extraordinarily thorough assessment, soliciting input from almost 500 people, including his judicial colleagues. The ABA concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament and professional competence met the highest standards.
Lisa Blatt, who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman in history, testified, “By any objective measure, Judge Kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. His opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair.” Ms. Blatt, who clerked for and is an ardent admirer of Justice Ginsburg and who is, in her own words, an unapologetic defender of a woman’s right to choose, says that Judge Kavanaugh fits within the mainstream of legal thought. She also observed that Judge Kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession.
That Judge Kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and Chief Judge Merrick Garland voted the same way in 93 percent of the cases that they heard together. Indeed, Chief Judge Garland joined in more than 96 percent of the majority opinions authored by Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting only once.
Despite all this, after weeks of reviewing Judge Kavanaugh’s record and listening record and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the Senate’s advice and consent was thrown into a tailspin following the allegations of sexual assault by Professor Christine Blasey Ford. The confirmation process now involved evaluating whether or not Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault and lied about it to the Judiciary Committee.
Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that it be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence or in cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.
Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. And this debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamentally legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them. In evaluating any given claim of misconduct we will be ill served in the long republic if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness tempting though it may be.
We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy. The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominees otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could a lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.
Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not at the allegations raised by professor Ford, but of the allegations that when he was a teenager Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facility gang rape.
This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That’s such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our a American consciousness.
Mr. President, I listened carefully to Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee. I found her testimony to be sincere, painful, and compelling. I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life.
Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred. None of the individuals Prof. Ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night. Judge Kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of perjury. Mark Judge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault. P.J. Smith, another person allegedly at the party, denied that he was there under penalty of felony. Professor Ford’s lifelong friend, Leland Kaiser, indicated that under penalty of felony she does not remember that party. And Ms. Kaiser went further. She indicated that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know Brett Kavanaugh.
In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence we also learn facts that have raised more questions. For instance, since these allegations have become public, Prof. Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say I was at the party that night.
Furthermore the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that because of the distance she would have needed a ride. Yet, not a single person has come forward to say that they were the ones who drove her home or were in the car with her that night.
And Prof. Ford also indicated that even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly, and without saying goodbye, and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask why she left. “Is she okay?” Not even her closest friend, Ms. Kaiser.
Mr. President, the Constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. It leaves that decision up to each senator. This is not a criminal trial, and I do not believe that claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, nevertheless fairness of this terrible problem.
I have been alarmed and disturbed, however, by some who have suggested that unless Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is rejected, the Senate is somehow condoning sexual assault. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every person, man or woman, who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be heard and treated with respect. The #MeToo movement is real. It matters. It is needed. And it is long overdue.
We know that rape and sexual assault are less likely to be reported to the police than other forms of assault. On average, an estimated 211,000 rapes and sexual assaults go unreported every year. We must listen to survivors, and every day we must seek to stop the criminal behavior that has hurt so many. We owe this to ourselves, our children, and generations to come.
Since the hearing, I have listened to many survivors of sexual assault. Many were total strangers who told me their heart-wrenching stories for the first time in their lives. Some were friends that I had known for decades. Yet with the exception of one woman who had confided in me years ago, I had no idea that they had been the victims of sexual attacks. I am grateful for their courage and their willingness to come forward and I hope that in heightening public awareness they have also lightened burden that they have been quietly bearing for so many years.
To them I pledge to do all that I can to ensure that their daughters and granddaughters never share their experiences. Over the past few weeks, I have been emphatic that the Senate has an obligation to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations of sexual assault. I called for and supported the additional hearing to hear from both Prof. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. I also pushed for and supported the FBI’s supplemental background check investigation. This was the right thing to do.
Christine Ford never sought the spotlight. She indicated that she was terrified to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and she has shunned attention since then. She seemed completely unaware of Chairman Grassley’s offer to allow her to testify confidentially in California. Watching her, Mr. President, I could not help but feel that some people who wanted to engineer the defeat of this nomination cared little, if at all, for her well-being.
Prof. Ford testified that a very limited of number people had access to her letter, yet that letter found its way into the public domain. She testified that she never gave permission for that very private letter to be released, and yet here we are. We are in the middle of a fight that she never sought, arguing about claims that she wanted to raise confidentially.
Now, one theory I’ve heard espoused repeatedly is that our colleague Sen. Feinstein leaked Prof. Ford’s letter at the 11th hour to derail this process. I want to state this very clearly. I know Senator Dianne Feinstein extremely well, and I believe that she would never do that. I knew that to be the case before she even stated it at the hearing. She is a person of integrity and I stand by her.
I have also heard some argue that the chairman of the committee somehow treated Prof. Ford unfairly. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chairman Grassley along with his excellent staff treated Prof. Ford with compassion and respect throughout the entire process. And that is the way the senator from Iowa has conducted himself throughout a lifetime dedicated to public service.
But the fact remains, Mr. President, someone leaked this letter against professor Ford’s expressed wishes. I suspect regrettably that we will never know for certain who did it. To that leaker who I hope is listening now, let me say that what you did was unconscionable. You have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect but who also trusted you to protect her, and you have sacrificed her well-being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting.
My only hope is that your callous act has turned this process into such a dysfunctional circus that it will cause the Senate and indeed all Americans to reconsider how we evaluate Supreme Court if that happens, then the appalling lack of compassion you afforded Prof. Ford will at least have some unintended positive consequences.
Mr. President, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this nomination has reached a fever pitch even before these allegations were known, and it has been challenging even then to separate fact from fiction. We live in a time of such great disunity as the bitter fight over this nomination both in the Senate and among the public clearly demonstrates. It is not merely a case of differing groups having different opinions. It is a case of people bearing extreme ill will toward those who disagree with them. In our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as Americans.
When some of our best minds are seeking to develop even more sophisticated algorithms designed to link us to websites that only reinforce and cater to our views, we can only expect our differences to intensify. This would have alarmed the drafters of our constitution who were acutely aware that different values and interests could prevent Americans from becoming and remaining a single people.
Indeed, of the six objectives they invoked in the Preamble to the Constitution, the one that they put first was the formation of a more perfect union. Their vision of a more perfect union does not exist today if anything, we appear to be moving farther away from it. It is particularly worrisome that the Supreme Court, the institution that most Americans see as the principle guardian of our shared constitutional heritage is viewed as part of the problem through a political lens.
Mr. President, we’ve heard a lot of charges and countercharges about Judge Kavanaugh, but as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband, and father. Despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5 to 4 decisions and so that public confidence in our judiciary and our highest court is restored.
Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Thank you, Mr. President.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2018/10/www_6.html
Related Posts :
Normal, Ill: Children’s Discovery Museum To Host Worldwide Day Of Play Street-Fest On 9/30
New Show: Nella The Princess Knight | Trailer | Nickelodeon Greece
Mecanickando con Rox - Tutorial 9: ¡Crea tu propia mochila! | Nickelodeon Latinoamérica
Maggie & Bianca TV Spot | Nickelodeon Greece
Mecanickando com Rox - Tutorial 2: Spinner | Nickelodeon Brasil
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment