Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Kavanaugh hearings happened just over a year ago. This book from Summer 2019 covers the process. In many ways, it prefigures the current impeachment hearings, so it's interesting to read it now. The book is 308 pages, with 49 pages of footnotes.
There are numerous parallels to the current hearings. Immediately after Kavanaugh's name was announced, Sen. Chuck Schumer declared he would "oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination with everything" he had. And:
Quote:
...the organizers of the Women's March accidentally issued a statement opposing "Trump's nomination of XX to the Supreme Court." Democracy for America's press release, apparently drafted with Amy Barrett in mind, referred to Kavanaugh as a "she."
In other words, they didn't know yet whom the nominee would be, they knew only that they were 'agin.'
Another parallel was the choice of lawyers. In the case of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford, she linked up with Deborah Katz, a liberal activist lawyer. The present "whistleblower," he has as another liberal activist, the now-famous lawyer Mark Zaid.
The book covers the crumbling of the evidence against Kavanaugh. On page 249-251 there is a litany of inconsistencies from Ford's testimony, such as her apparently false claim of fear of flying.
Even worse were the allegations by Julie Swetnik, who claimed (with her counsel Michael Avenatti) that Kavanaugh had been a part of a gang rape cabal. USA Today called her "100% credible," and Politico called Avenatti an "avenging angel." Jonathan Chait of NY magazine confidently concluded that Kavanaugh was finished.
It turned out that not only were there gaping holes and inconsistencies in her stories. She had problematic credibility, such as a history of filing false lawsuits, and a restraining order filed against her by an ex-boyfriend due to threats she made. Avenatti, once thought to be 2020 presidential material, is currently facing trial for extortion.
There also was a '4th accuser' who turned out to be a TDS sufferer who had called for a 'military coup' against Trump, and a 5th accuser who was a democratic activist. She eventually admitted that her accusation had been a fabrication. When asked if she'd ever met Kavanaugh, she replied "Oh Lord, no."
Kavanaugh eventually was confirmed 50-48. One Democrat voted yes (Joe Manchin). One GOP senator who had planned to vote 'no,' switched to 'present' so that a fellow GOP senator could attend his daughter's wedding on the day of the vote.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is quoted in the book as lamenting the process. She pointed out that Antonin Scalia's confirmation vote had been unanimous, and:
Quote:
The vote on my confirmation was ninety-six to three..."That's the way it should be....I wish I could wave a magic wand and have it go back to the way it was.
An interesting takeaway from this book is that there is little of the rancor and division on the bench that was found in the US Senate.
Judge Merrick Garland, who sat on the same appeals court as Kavanaugh, helped to arrange a security detail for Kavanaugh after his nomination was announced. He knew Kavanaugh would be facing danger from deranged protesters. Indeed the book describes a topless female protester wearing a 'Hitler mustache,' along with a crowd of tomato throwers outside the swearing-in ceremony.
After confirmation, as she had with Clarence Thomas almost 3 decades earlier, Ruth Bader Ginsburg went out of her way to make Kavanaugh feel welcome. Liberal Justice Sotomayor told him "we're family here." Liberal Justice Elena Kagan made sure to publicly shake his hand on his first day on the bench: "The gracious act was reassuring, as protesters were still gathered outside."
The book also has a useful run-down of the so-called "Biden rule" by which McConnell decided to delay confirmation of Obama nominee Merrick Garland.
Sen. Joe Biden, who was judiciary chair, had formulated this in 1992 when HW Bush was facing re-election. He argued that if there were a SCOTUS vacancy that the judiciary committee should wait until after the election to schedule hearings. (p.28-29)
And 18 months before the end of W. Bush's second term, Sen. Chuck Schumer said, that absent "extraordinary circumstances," no Supremem Court nominee should be confirmed if a vacancy arose while Bush was still president.(p.29). It turned out that no vacancy came up, so there was no opportunity to apply the rule.
With the Kavanaugh hearings, various activists argued that Trump should not get to appoint a justice until the Mueller investigation was done. Alyssa Milano tweeted "TRUMP SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CHOOSE A LIFETIME APPOINTEE WHILE HE IS UNDER FEDERAL INVESTIGATION."
Richard Durbin (D,IL) called for imposition of a "Garland rule." No hearings until after the 2018 mid-term elections. (p. 72)
One more note that I forgot to include in post #1. As the testimony of Kavanaugh's accusers began to crumble, senate Dems shifted from sexual allegations to the issue of his "temperament" (p. 248). Not unlike the various shifting sands we have seen during the impeachment hearings.
One was accusers from long ago that could not offer up enough information about the event that Kavanaugh could even construct an alibi.
The Trump situation is well documented.
Now perhaps views will differ on whether his actions met the level of impeachment but there is real evidence there and not undefendable allegations from 25 years ago or more with zero substance.
One more note that I forgot to include in post #1. As the testimony of Kavanaugh's accusers began to crumble, senate Dems shifted from sexual allegations to the issue of his "temperament" (p. 248). Not unlike the various shifting sands we have seen during the impeachment hearings.
I'd let it go if I were you. Kavanaugh got elected and it's kinda like the OJ trial. Initially, everyone was polarized about if he did it or not. These days, a lot of the people that were OJ supporters have calmed down from the us vs. them scenario and the vast consensus is that he did it. With Kavanaugh and the clearly partisan process of confirmation by both parties, there is no question that the accusations against him were so flimsy as to be a complete joke. As passions have cooled all but the most die-hard have given up on bizarre claims by clearly partisan accusers that can't provide enough detail to even present the possibility of an alibi.
In short, the Kavanaugh hearings were a net-win on many levels for the Republicans.
P.S. I personally feel that stalling out presidents appointees which occurred to Obama and others is something that should be changed in the laws, meaning that the slot should have been filled prior to Trump.
The past 3 years have brought nothing but shame and misery to the democratic party, and they earned every last drop of it. What a desperate, pitiful, disgusting display of unstatesmanlike conduct from the wacky deranged leftist mob.
Thankfully, our country is not run like the mafia. Democrats may get away with rigging their own primary, but they can't get away with circumventing the will of the people, along with lawful appointees of the democratically elected president of the United States. Democrats need to be placed in timeout for Trump's 2nd term in office. If they can't play by the rules, they shouldn't be allowed to play at all.
I'd let it go if I were you. Kavanaugh got elected and it's kinda like the OJ trial. Initially, everyone was polarized about if he did it or not. These days, a lot of the people that were OJ supporters have calmed down from the us vs. them scenario and the vast consensus is that he did it. With Kavanaugh and the clearly partisan process of confirmation by both parties, there is no question that the accusations against him were so flimsy as to be a complete joke. As passions have cooled all but the most die-hard have given up on bizarre claims by clearly partisan accusers that can't provide enough detail to even present the possibility of an alibi.
In short, the Kavanaugh hearings were a net-win on many levels for the Republicans.
P.S. I personally feel that stalling out presidents appointees which occurred to Obama and others is something that should be changed in the laws, meaning that the slot should have been filled prior to Trump.
Let what go? I'm just quoting a book and citing facts and history here. What exactly should I be letting go--book, facts, or history? What do you mean?
I'd disagree that "passions have cooled." If anything they have intensified, to wit as can be seen from the impeachment hearings.
And the "both parties" do it cliché does not wash either. If you honestly look at the history of SCOTUS nominations, most D-appointed nominees have been confirmed overwhelmingly, while R-appointed nominees have been opposed along partisan lines. See the quote from RBG in post #1.
As for your P.S., I believe you'd have to get a constitutional amendment for this. The constitution gives the Senate the power of 'advice and consent,' which is what McConnell used to block Obama's nominee. Note that his action was widely whined about, but never challenged in court. Elimination of that power would require an amendment, not just legislation.
The Kavanaugh hearings featured a couple of high points, or low points (depending on perspective) for what is often called the "world's greatest deliberative body." Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D,RI) grills Kavanaugh on the meaning of "boof," which was a euphemism for flatulence among Kavanaugh and his friends. "We were 16," Kavanaugh explains. The book notes that because Sen. Lisa Murkowski asked for clarification on this point, there is an official reference to "boof" now in the Congressional record.
Another proud moment came when an ex-law cleark of Kavanugh named Zina Bash was accused of flashing a 'white power' hand signal during the hearings as she sat behind Brett Kavanaugh. A photo of the purported hand signal is reprinted in the book. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-husband-says/
It turned out that Zina Bash is Mexican on her mother's side and Jewish on her father's side (grand-daughter of Holocaust survivors), so an unlikely purveyor of "white power." Nonetheless the conspiracy theory went viral among Kavanaugh opponents.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
