Auburnfan91

Wrong for Democrats to call for more Kavanaugh investigations

Recommended Posts

Quote

Finally, the belated week long FBI investigation seemed more suited for political cover than actually uncovering new evidence. Nevertheless, a special hearing was held, declarations gathered, and a supplemental investigation ordered on allegations occurring decades ago. To call post-confirmation hearings on such allegations would expose all justices to lingering threats of investigation with shifting majorities in Congress. That is precisely what the Framers sought to avoid in establishing a high standard for impeachment and giving federal jurists a lifetime tenure.

It seems highly unlikely that Democrats would be as motivated in promising to pull back Justices Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan before Congress on discrepancies in their records. Democratic nominees have faced allegations of untrue statements before Congress without the threat of post-confirmation investigation. Some advocates objected that Kagan denied being asked for or offering her opinion on the “the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation” or “the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation” while she was solicitor general of the Justice Department during the Obama administration.

Later, critics argued that newly disclosed documents showed that, after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, Kagan was consulted on the challenge to that law and may have forwarded some possible arguments to use in litigation. While this became an issue in calling for her later recusal from hearing the appeal, there was no call for her removal.

Impeachments were primarily designed to address misdeeds or abuse in office. While a nominee clearly committing perjury in a confirmation hearing could raise grounds for impeachment, it would be in stark contrast to the past record of these very same members. Democrats did not call for such probe into figures like former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who lied about a major and allegedly unconstitutional surveillance program before the Senate. He admitted that he had chosen the “least untruthful” option in his testimony. Whitehouse did not pull out his hourglass to menace Clapper.

I didn't quote the whole article, just took the portion that I feel should be addressed and discussed.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/409219-wrong-for-democrats-to-call-for-more-kavanaugh-investigations

 

I think it would be an unwise for Democrats to open more investigations into Kavanugh and try to impeach him. If they're whole argument is on the basis of misleading testimony then it's going to be a dangerous move because as the portion of the article I posted explains,  Elena Kagan gave misleading testimony in her confirmation hearing and James Clapper flat out lied under oath but no probe was ever started to investigate his testimony. Democrats can't credibly argue about misleading or false testimony in a confirmation hearing when Kagan was allowed to slide for her misleading testimony on her healthcare consulting.  

I've heard Democrats lecturing for the past week that white lies are still lies and that Kavanugh's should be disqualified because he wasn't truthful about what devil's triangle meant or about his drinking. If the standard  for Democrats and other anti-Kavanugh folks are that white lies are still lies, then Elena Kagan should be on the chopping block as well. You can't just pick and choose which lies or which misleading testimony is worse. If it's not truthful then it should disqualify someone from being on the Supreme Court.

And for those who don't bother to read the article, Whitehouse refers to Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) who said that "as soon as the Democrats get gavels" that they'll investigate Kavanugh again and possibly impeach him.

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




The only investigations that need to happen are with Feinstein, Booker, Hirono, Blumenthal and Kamala-Harris.  

  • Like 2
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justice Brett Kavanaugh has hired a black law clerk for his new chambers at the U.S. Supreme Court, matching Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s record of African-American clerkship hiring during her tenure on the nation’s highest judicial tribunal "(RBG has 25 years on the bench)"

With his first clerkship hires, Kavanaugh also set a gender composition record, an apparent attempt to buck the high court’s hiring patterns, which tend to favor white, male graduates of elite law schools.

Since joining the high court in 1993, Ginsburg has hired over 100 law clerks, just one of whom is black.

Ginsburg’s hiring practices have been criticized for decades. During her 1993 confirmation hearings, GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah asked Ginsburg if a court might reasonably conclude that a small business in a majority black city that hired 57 white employees and zero black employees over a period of years was discriminatory. Ginsburg dodged, before Hatch pointed out that was in fact her own record of clerkship hiring in her 13 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals or the D.C. Circuit.

“I will try harder, and if you confirm me for this job my attractiveness to black candidates is going to improve,” Ginsburg replied, to much laughter throughout the hearing chamber. (RELATED: Confirmed: Brett Kavanaugh Is Now A Supreme Court Justice)

Kavanaugh’s new clerks are Shannon Grammel, Megan Lacy, Sara Nommensen and Kim Jackson. These hires set a record in a second respect: Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court justice to hire an all female class of clerks.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/08/brett-kavanaugh-black-women-law-clerks-ginsburg/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2018 at 8:38 PM, around4ever said:

The only investigations that need to happen are with Feinstein, Booker, Hirono, Blumenthal and Kamala-Harris.  

Right. If everyone who did something stupid stuff in HS or college was banned from holding high office,. But let the Dems continue their circus. Kavanaugh is now on the SCOTUS, the people are tired of the mess, and it's going to cost them in the mid-terms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Right. If everyone who did something stupid stuff in HS or college was banned from holding high office,. But let the Dems continue their circus. Kavanaugh is now on the SCOTUS, the people are tired of the mess, and it's going to cost them in the mid-terms

Let's put this excuse to bed.  Whether he did it or not is another question, but what he was accused of isn't just "something stupid."  It's a serious crime that he could have been tried as an adult for at the time.  Drinking underage, TPing someone's house, driving 90 on the freeway, smoking a joint - that's "stupid stuff from HS or college."  Attempted rape is not.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the racial comparing of SCOTUS clerks is kind of ironic.  Who's more likely to defend the right of an organization or school to proactively diversify their employment or enrollment practices, Ginsburg or Kavanaugh?

Personally, I'd like for justices to focus on diversity by including clerks that had to work their way up from disadvantaged backgrounds and not use race or sex as a big factor.

Edited by homersapien
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Let's put this excuse to bed.  Whether he did it or not is another question, but what he was accused of isn't just "something stupid."  It's a serious crime that he could have been tried as an adult for at the time.  Drinking underage, TPing someone's house, driving 90 on the freeway, smoking a joint - that's "stupid stuff from HS or college."  Attempted rape is not.

Aw, cmon Titan. 

The more Republicans and Conservatives use the "high school jinks" excuse, the better, as far as I am concerned. ;D

Edited by homersapien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Let's put this excuse to bed.  Whether he did it or not is another question, but what he was accused of isn't just "something stupid."  It's a serious crime that he could have been tried as an adult for at the time.  Drinking underage, TPing someone's house, driving 90 on the freeway, smoking a joint - that's "stupid stuff from HS or college."  Attempted rape is not.

Disagree. Whether he did "IT" or not is not a question except for someone who chooses to believe it without any proof. The only thing that came out was some partying and excessive drinking and that's what I was referring to.

Edited by Proud Tiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Disagree. Whether he did "IT" or not is not a question except for someone who chooses to believe it without any proof. The only thing that came out was some partying and excessive drinking and that's what I was referring to.

You didn't limit it to just drinking and partying.  And that's not why his confirmation was in jeopardy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

You didn't limit it to just drinking and partying.  And that's not why his confirmation was in jeopardy. 

I clarified that if you would just read. And I am very aware why his confirmation was in jeopardy.....accusation with zero proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best of TWitter today:

Trump: "On behalf of our nation I want to apologize to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure." |

DpB-Q7oU0AUMTHQ.jpg:large

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, homersapien said:

I think the racial comparing of SCOTUS clerks is kind of ironic.  Who's more likely to defend the right of an organization or school to proactively diversify their employment or enrollment practices, Ginsburg or Kavanaugh?

Personally, I'd like for justices to focus on diversity by including clerks that had to work their way up from disadvantaged backgrounds and not use race or sex as a big factor.

A Justice who wholly supports the Constitution will better defend the rights of any citizen....our rights...and the constitution is simple that way.

Your position on not using race and sex as a factor in hiring decisions; is how we got to where we are.   Try again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling for more investigations is something that the Dems will occupy themselves with until they learn who Trump's next nominee will be. Then they can start trying to find people that will bring unsubstantiated charges against that person. It's how they roll these days.

Edited by Mikey
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, japantiger said:

A Justice who wholly supports the Constitution will better defend the rights of any citizen....our rights...and the constitution is simple that way.

Your position on not using race and sex as a factor in hiring decisions; is how we got to where we are.   Try again.  

Try what again?  :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mikey said:

Calling for more investigations is something that the Dems will occupy themselves with until they learn who Trump's next nominee will be. Then they can start trying to find people that will bring unsubstantiated charges against that person. It's how they roll these days.

Actually they will occupy themselves with re-taking congress.

There will be no lack of investigations for them to initiate, but not on Kavanaugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Try what again?  :dunno:

"Personally, I'd like for justices to focus on diversity by including clerks that had to work their way up from disadvantaged backgrounds and not use race or sex as a big factor."

So you're OK with this approach if it yields no female or minority clerks? 

Based on 30 years of experience in the business world, if I don't specifically require a candidate pool with minority or female candidates to be included; before allowing people to move forward on interviews; then I get no minority or female hires....no matter how well intentioned people may be...if you don't look for it; it won't just happen organically.  There are a million good reasons for why that shouldn't be (especially the higher up the career ladder you are staffing)...but it is.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, japantiger said:

"Personally, I'd like for justices to focus on diversity by including clerks that had to work their way up from disadvantaged backgrounds and not use race or sex as a big factor."

So you're OK with this approach if it yields no female or minority clerks? 

Based on 30 years of experience in the business world, if I don't specifically require a candidate pool with minority or female candidates to be included; before allowing people to move forward on interviews; then I get no minority or female hires....no matter how well intentioned people may be...if you don't look for it; it won't just happen organically.  There are a million good reasons for why that shouldn't be (especially the higher up the career ladder you are staffing)...but it is.   

No, I was just putting a priority on what should be considered.  For example, a white male who came from a disadvantaged background might be a more "diverse" choice than a black and/or female candidate from a privileged background. 

But I do get your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, homersapien said:

No, I was just putting a priority on what should be considered.  For example, a white male who came from a disadvantaged background might be a more "diverse" choice than a black and/or female candidate from a privileged background. 

But I do get your point.

What you call out is more of a qualitative input...difficult to get "hard" data on it.  I think most folks consider hard work, circumstances, etc., when making a call among equally qualified candidates. 

What I can do is target a specific goal over time for women and minority representation; and ensure a certain % of my hiring at different job levels represents the mix I am looking for.   Getting this done in my field is more difficult as women and minority representation in Tech is just generally low (~18%)...none of the Top 10 female degrees are in tech...and male graduates in Engineering and Computer Science equal Female Business grads.  So the numbers I am looking for aren't there without a lot  of extra effort and a system to get the answer I am looking for.  Minority candidates representation in Tech are ~3% of total Tech/Eng degrees......  this requires me to recruit outside the college profile of preference (such as UT, TAMU, Michigan, Duke, Virginia, etc.) and go to traditionally black universities (Prairie View, etc.) with the specific aim of bringing in minority candidates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Mikey said:

Calling for more investigations is something that the Dems will occupy themselves with until they learn who Trump's next nominee will be. Then they can start trying to find people that will bring unsubstantiated charges against that person. It's how they roll these days.

This is beyond ridiculous as well as a promotion of rape culture. Mrs. Ford couldn’t have been sexually assaulted but she was paid to claim she was? Who paid her? And do you honestly think there is enough money to endure national ridicule and death threats? She hasn’t even been able to return to her home because of death threats. As a woman I am so tired of men that insist every victim of sexual assault or rape by a Republican ( Trump, Moore, Kavanaugh) is paid. That is so freaking ridiculous. A payment would be sniffed out by every media outlet in the country. It’s beyond stupid and devoid of reality. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

This is beyond ridiculous as well as a promotion of rape culture. Mrs. Ford couldn’t have been sexually assaulted but she was paid to claim she was? Who paid her? And do you honestly think there is enough money to endure national ridicule and death threats? She hasn’t even been able to return to her home because of death threats. As a woman I am so tired of men that insist every victim of sexual assault or rape by a Republican ( Trump, Moore, Kavanaugh) is paid. That is so freaking ridiculous. A payment would be sniffed out by every media outlet in the country. It’s beyond stupid and devoid of reality. 

Well, let's see...I've seen over $750k from various gofundme accounts...and then there's every shell organization that Soros funds that paid for all the "spontaneous" demonstrations that miraculously happened....so is it really a stretch to think we'll find specifically where the other $$ came from in about a year?  Seems like that is about the half life for the Dem's ability to set on a secret (see Peter Stokz, James Comey, Chris Steele, etc.).  

I find it curious, how it all stopped the instant Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed...I mean,  if I were cynical I would think it was only a plan to stop his confirmation.  I mean, I'm shocked that I've not seen a  genuinely curios reporter...you know, like the ones that are always in the movies...you know, those hero's portrayed in those fictional motion pictures; they might dig into this and fight for this poor victim....but again, I'm just a cynical laymen and I might think it's not a righteous effort aimed at righting a terrible wrong by patriots infuriated with a righteous zeal to seek justice for an innocent victim of a  heinous crime committed; well,  somewhere; well, by someone; well,  at someplace; oh, hell, well, at sometime in the past witnessed by some people who say; well, that they weren't there .... and who predictably came-out with this "airtight" story after the Hearing's smear campaign failed... Nah, come on...what am I thinking.....it's all real!  How could I possibly doubt someone who's so convincing and rife with details....

You guys are so full of s*** your eyes are brown...this was the most ridiculously transparent attempt to bribe thru media intimidation since; well,  every other fool-proof scheme you've come up with to thwart anything Trump wants to do....you should be ashamed trying to smear a good family man; but of course you won't be.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, japantiger said:

Well, let's see...I've seen over $750k from various gofundme accounts...and then there's every shell organization that Soros funds that paid for all the "spontaneous" demonstrations that miraculously happened....so is it really a stretch to think we'll find specifically where the other $$ came from in about a year?  Seems like that is about the half life for the Dem's ability to set on a secret (see Peter Stokz, James Comey, Chris Steele, etc.).  

I find it curious, how it all stopped the instant Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed...I mean,  if I were cynical I would think it was only a plan to stop his confirmation.  I mean, I'm shocked that I've not seen a  genuinely curios reporter...you know, like the ones that are always in the movies...you know, those hero's portrayed in those fictional motion pictures; they might dig into this and fight for this poor victim....but again, I'm just a cynical laymen and I might think it's not a righteous effort aimed at righting a terrible wrong by patriots infuriated with a righteous zeal to seek justice for an innocent victim of a  heinous crime committed; well,  somewhere; well, by someone; well,  at someplace; oh, hell, well, at sometime in the past witnessed by some people who say; well, that they weren't there .... and who predictably came-out with this "airtight" story after the Hearing's smear campaign failed... Nah, come on...what am I thinking.....it's all real!  How could I possibly doubt someone who's so convincing and rife with details....

You guys are so full of s*** your eyes are brown...this was the most ridiculously transparent attempt to bribe thru media intimidation since; well,  every other fool-proof scheme you've come up with to thwart anything Trump wants to do....you should be ashamed trying to smear a good family man; but of course you won't be.

My eyes are hazel and they can see how it’s really sneaky that  the GOP and their indoctrinated fan base promote anti Semitic conspiracy theories about George Soros. That’s your answer for every protestor, because certainly no one could possibly be opposed to Republican dogma without being paid by a filthy rich Jew. It’s pretty funny that your president even promotes this theory of people being paid off when he himself has paid off a few people. But maybe porn stars don’t count. 

And the reason these things die down is because law enforcement rarely cares about investigating decades old sexual assault charges. Hell, they barely investigate and prosecute current rapes and sexual assaults. Perhaps if there were more prosecutions for these crimes it would serve as a deterrent. 

FWIW, it isn’t very smart to say I’m full of s*** while you promote an insane anti Semitic conspiracy theory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

A payment would be sniffed out by every media outlet in the country. It’s beyond stupid and devoid of reality. 

Payment of 3/4 of a million dollars is now public knowledge. We don't yet know, and may never know, how much more $ changed hands to get Ford to bring accusations. As to the rest of your statement, see @japantiger post, just above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GiveEmElle said:

My eyes are hazel and they can see how it’s really sneaky that  the GOP and their indoctrinated fan base promote anti Semitic conspiracy theories about George Soros. That’s your answer for every protestor, because certainly no one could possibly be opposed to Republican dogma without being paid by a filthy rich Jew. It’s pretty funny that your president even promotes this theory of people being paid off when he himself has paid off a few people. But maybe porn stars don’t count. 

And the reason these things die down is because law enforcement rarely cares about investigating decades old sexual assault charges. Hell, they barely investigate and prosecute current rapes and sexual assaults. Perhaps if there were more prosecutions for these crimes it would serve as a deterrent. 

FWIW, it isn’t very smart to say I’m full of s*** while you promote an insane anti Semitic conspiracy theory. 

Oh man...nice job going straight to the Democrat "anti-something-anything" playbook...Soros is a ******* anarchist who supports/funds every radical cause on the planet...but you go ahead and try to defend him because your Kavanaugh smear campaign failed.  It's all you have....you can't win on ideas or truth; so we all have to be anti-phobic-deplorable-iron-triangler-bitter-clingers blah blah blah.... it's working so well for you; don't ever change...  How about you support any of the claims made with one single corroborated piece of evidence?  Nah, not going to happen because they don't exist and you know it...that's why you dropped this like Anthony Weiner drops trow in front of middle schoolers....you guys boofed in your mess-kit... just own up to it...it was a nice try...if by nice you mean a completely ******* unhinged campaign of outright lies against a fine family man and public servant...the kind of public servant we should want...not the kind that enriches themselves at the public trough...but the kind who has actually selflessly served the public and the Republic.

Which one are you in the video by the way?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mikey said:

Payment of 3/4 of a million dollars is now public knowledge. We don't yet know, and may never know, how much more $ changed hands to get Ford to bring accusations. As to the rest of your statement, see @japantiger post, just above.

Kind of like how we may never know how much money changed hands between Russians and the GOP.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/17/17581384/irs-dark-money-nra-maria-butina-donors

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now