Kavanaugh hearing: Democrats cry foul over lack of access to documents, seek to delay proceedings

Via:  colour-me-free  •  2 years ago  •  83 comments

Kavanaugh hearing: Democrats cry foul over lack of access to documents, seek to delay proceedings

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T

The confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh quickly devolved into a political brawl on Tuesday, as Democrats loudly objected to the proceedings as rushed, one prominent Republican railed about “mob rule” and dozens of protesters interrupted senators.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley’s opening remarks were delayed for nearly an hour and a half as Democratic senators sought to cut off the confirmation hearings for Kavanaugh, raising an uproar over a last-minute document dump sent to the Judiciary Committee late Monday encompassing more than 42,000 pages from the nominee’s tenure in the George W. Bush White House.

And the protesters, who were predominantly women, repeatedly heckled the senators and Kavanaugh as they argued that installing President Trump’s second pick to the Supreme Court would irreparably end access to abortion and dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

“What are we trying to hide? Why are we rushing?” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked.

Democrats have charged that documents on Kavanaugh’s career have been withheld without justification, particularly those from his tenure as a Bush staffer. Senators have reviewed nearly 200,000 pages that cannot be disclosed to the public, and the Trump administration is withholding another 100,000 pages from Congress altogether, claiming those documents would be covered by presidential privilege.

Leahy said there are gaping holes in the record, spanning several years of Kavanaugh’s career in the Bush White House, and that the Senate was abandoning its obligation by not first reviewing those documents before beginning confirmation hearings this week. “It’s not only shameful, it’s a sham,” Leahy said. “This is the most incomplete, most partisan, least transparent vetting for any Supreme Court nominee I have ever seen.”

As tempers got heated Tuesday, Grassley (R-Iowa) denied the moves from Democrats to adjourn the proceedings, saying he would press on with the hearing and that he expects Kavanaugh to be confirmed.

Democrats continued to insist on a vote on their motions as the hearing veered seriously off track for more than an hour, at which point Grassley resumed reading his opening statement.

Tuesday’s proceedings brought to the surface years of anger over judicial nominees. Democrats invoked the name of Merrick Garland, who was nominated by President Barack Obama in 2016 to fill the Supreme Court seat formerly held by the late justice Antonin Scalia, and denied a hearing by Senate Republicans.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said the Democrats’ behavior would lead them to be “held in contempt of court,” prompting a chorus of quiet boos and “oh come on” echoed throughout the hearing room. He later said the hearing had turned into “mob rule.”

Several senators, including Grassley and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), said they felt personally attacked. Kavanaugh’s family sat stone-faced as a prolonged debate ensued about the standards of releasing records on earlier Supreme Court nominees.

Later on Tuesday, Kavanaugh plans to tell senators he will be “a neutral and impartial arbiter” if confirmed, according to excerpts of his opening statement.
“I don’t decide cases based on personal or policy preferences,” Kavanaugh says in the excerpts, released by the White House on Tuesday.

“I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge,” Kavanaugh says. “I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge.”

In Kavanaugh’s statement, he will also pay tribute to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whom he has been nominated to replace, according to the excerpts.
“To me, Justice Kennedy is a mentor, a friend, and a hero,” Kavanaugh says. “As a Member of the Court, he was a model of civility and collegiality. He fiercely defended the independence of the Judiciary. And he was a champion of liberty.”

“If confirmed to the Court, I would be part of a Team of Nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States,” Kavanaugh says. “I would always strive to be a team player on the Team of Nine.”

The excerpts were released about two hours before the start of Kavanaugh’s four-day appearance before the Judiciary Committee, which was expected to be highly contentious even before the verbal sparring broke out Tuesday.

As the first day got underway, Grassley lavishly praised the qualifications of President Trump’s nominee.

“Judge Kavanaugh is one of the most qualified nominees — if not the most qualified nominee — I have seen,” Grassley said, adding that his “extensive record demonstrates a deep commitment to the rule of law.”

In her opening statement, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) addressed Kavanaugh about abortion. The question, she said, is not whether Kavanaugh believes that the landmark Roe v. Wade decision is “settled law,” as he has told other senators, but “whether you believe it is the correct law.”

Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said she is concerned about Kavanaugh’s dissent in a recent case involving a pregnant immigrant teen in federal custody. Kavanaugh disagreed with his colleagues on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit who ordered the Trump administration to allow access to abortion services.

Kavanaugh wrote that the court was creating “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand."

Feinstein also described Kavanaugh as “outside the mainstream on guns” and expressed concern about the loosening of gun control laws. In 2011, Kavanaugh dissented when his colleagues upheld Washington’s ban on semiautomatic rifles. Kavanaugh pointed to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision declaring an individual right to gun ownership apart from military service.

“Gun bans and gun regulations that are not long-standing or sufficiently rooted in text, history, and tradition are not consistent with the Second Amendment individual right,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Even before the protests began inside the hearing room, there were groups of protesters walking the hallways of the Senate Hart building. With the future of abortion rights at stake, dozens of women dressed in crimson robes and white bonnets as characters from the television series “The Handmaid’s Tale” stood silently outside the hearing room.

Once the hearing began, one by one, the mostly female protesters in the audience stood to loudly object to Kavanaugh’s nomination and urge the senators to “vote no.”

“This lifetime appointment will be devastating to women’s rights, voting rights, gay rights,” one woman shouted.

“An illegitimate president cannot make a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court,” another said.

The protesters were quickly and quietly pulled out by Capitol Police officers who flanked the back wall of the hearing room.

As of 10:19 a.m., 22 individuals had been arrested on charges of disorderly conduct, according to Capitol Police.

About an hour into the hearing, the White House issued a tally of how many times Democratic senators on the committee had interrupted others on the panel. The total was 44, by its count, with Blumenthal topping the list with 13 interruptions.

Democrats began crying foul over the confirmation process before the hearing began.

“We go to these hearings under protest,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said during a news conference on the steps of the Supreme Court.

“I’ve never had a hearing like this, where documents are so difficult to get,” said Feinstein, who was flanked by fellow Democrats on the committee.

Yet Democrats have been resistant to break with Senate norms and release the documents classified as committee confidential, which total nearly 200,000 pages that senators have been able to review but has been concealed from the public.

“I’ve been chairman of Intelligence for six years … committee confidential has always been respected,” Feinstein said Tuesday morning. “We want to know more about the law with respect to committee confidential.”

Kavanaugh, appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by Bush, served the president in the White House Counsel’s Office from 2001 to 2003 and as staff secretary from 2003 to 2006.

In his opening statement, Grassley downplayed concerns about access to documents.

“The American people have unprecedented access and more materials to review for Judge Kavanaugh than they ever had for a Supreme Court nominee,” Grassley said. “And to support the review of Judge Kavanaugh’s historic volume of material, I’ve worked to ensure that more senators have more access to more material than ever.”

One line in Kavanaugh’s opening statement is likely to rile Democrats.

According to the excerpts released by the White House, Kavanaugh will praise Garland, the chief judge on the appeals court on which they both serve, as “superb.


jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Colour Me Free
1  seeder  Colour Me Free    2 years ago

I realize that some want Kavanaugh confirmed before the midterms - and I understand why … yet things need to be dealt with, ducks need to be lined up … If one does not have a complete picture of the nominee, how can someone ask the pertinent questions to further their understand of said nominee?

It is sad that the Supreme Court is such a contentious partisan battle .. perhaps the president [regardless of who it is] should not pick the nominees for Supreme Court … ?  I have no clue how they would or should be chosen .. but the partisanship is doing damage to the nation .. from both sides

My opinion...

1.1  CB   replied to  Colour Me Free @1    2 years ago

The problem is THIS ungrateful president, THIS ungrateful senate majority, This outsourcing of the judge selection process to "foundations" which expertly and precisely offer 'well-moded and strict" conservative (and conservative only) judge candidates. Kavanaugh, who as it reads today, I for one, will NEVER respect and ALWAYS support getting rid of from the high office. Take Clarence Thomas with him - Thomas the most conservative Justice on the panel? Unbelievable.

I utterly detest Trump, now Republican Senators, and now the Highest Court in the Land. My political life is utterly broken and stupid.

One more thing: I was a member of the group-at-large that told democrats we would rue this day and a Trump presidency if they did not get off their duffs and vote!

1.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @1.1    2 years ago
My political life is utterly broken and stupid.

I will submit that is a personal problem and has NOTHING to do with Republicans or what YOU perceive as emotionally just.

Colour Me Free
1.1.2  seeder  Colour Me Free  replied to  CB @1.1    2 years ago
The problem is THIS ungrateful president, THIS ungrateful senate majority,

Sounds akin to 'if only everyone thought like me...'  Do you think that all problems will be solved if the current president is removed, senate majority removed and the disapproved of justices were removed?

I certainly do not think any problems would be solved by the afore mentioned happening - American cannot survive as an echo chamber .. 

Had a discussion with a neighbor .. she feels the tea party was the catalyst to the obstruction, the anger .. even bitterness (to an extent) in and towards the government .. if that is the case, then is not the current president amplifying / magnifying the problems/dysfunction that has been building and happening for sometime … ?  hmmm but I suppose the senate majority has a few remnants of the tea party remaining among them

I try not to assess blame .. yet at times it is unavoidable I suppose

I am going to have to do some reading on the foundations to which you speak .. I have read comments about it before, but did not follow up and learn anything about them...

1.1.3  CB   replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.1    2 years ago

Yeah. Well, I will get over it, I always do. Then, I get busy. (Smile.) There is always, always, always, a way to fix a 'fhitty deal.' Enjoy red-time 'high on the hog.'

1.1.4  CB   replied to  Colour Me Free @1.1.2    2 years ago

No, I do not want everyone to think like me. When my 'side' loses, I want to lose honestly. I am a principled liberal.  What you have in President Trump is a 'steamroller.' What you have in the Republican Senate is, our SC Justice Scalia died, but we will stiff the first black president (no matter what people think of the deed) and take the hit.

Then, Trump somehow yet to be determined and explained stole the office of president; and now McConnell listening to the jeerings of right-wing talk radio all damn day and night long haranguing, is pushing through a second SC Justice without listening to the 'counsel' of democrats whom he works with closely everyday.

No, I, John Q. Public—Liberal! Ain't wrong in thinking this is not how a judge "for life" should come to be! (Smile.)

1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Colour Me Free @1    2 years ago

Hi Colour....

I have no clue how they would or should be chosen

I do and it's spelled out in that document called the Constitution of The United States.

It's interesting that the 'hearings' as we see them have from what I understand only happened since around 1955.    But as it relates to the current nominee, the Democrats making their statements are NOT//NOT speaking about Kavanaugh or his qualifications, and he has received glowing endorsements from not only other jurists, but the American Bar Association, and many of the decisions he authored have actually been used in SCOTUS decisions already, but they're lamenting that it is Trump that made the nomination.

I will admit that it very likely would have been beneficial had Grassley suspended the hearings and gone directly to a vote.  Hell, all of the Democrats, save two or three have already indicated they'll vote against Kavanaugh for no other reason than he was nominated by Trump and Schumer told them not to.

Colour Me Free
1.2.1  seeder  Colour Me Free  replied to  XDm9mm @1.2    2 years ago

Just as the Republicans did with Garland and because it was Obama's pick and he was going to sway the court to the liberal 'dark side' … tis a 2 way street.. one cannot act like what is happening is in someway something new....

I am somewhat of an originalist, I get what is written in the Constitution - yet I do not think that the Supreme Court should be stacked in a partisan fashion ………… one of the most partisan things out there in politics today is 'who gets to choice the next justice' and who can block it, or even prevent a hearing from taking place .. sad to me..

1.3  Skrekk  replied to  Colour Me Free @1    2 years ago
It is sad that the Supreme Court is such a contentious partisan battle .. perhaps the president [regardless of who it is] should not pick the nominees for Supreme Court … ?

That was essentially Biden's point in a speech he gave in 1992 (the so-called "Biden Rule").  He said it was foolish for a President to nominate a candidate like Bork who was so divisive that he couldn't even pass the judiciary committee much less be confirmed by the Senate, thus needlessly extending the entire nomination process.    He was urging Senate involvement in screening candidates before they were nominated in order to avoid such extremists and the delays which result, particularly late in an election year.

Mr. Biden’s remarks were part of a long speech about revising the Supreme Court confirmation process after a tumultuous five-year period that had featured three bitterly contested nominees:  William H. Rehnquist in 1986, who received the most “no” votes of any justice until that time;  Robert H. Bork , who was rejected by the Senate in 1987; and Clarence Thomas, whose bruising hearings culminated in a vote in 1991 in which he drew even more opposition than Chief Justice Rehnquist had.

Hours after archival C-Span video clips of the speech began circulating, Mr. Biden issued a statement saying that his remarks had been misinterpreted, and stressing that he believed, then and now, that the White House and Congress should “work together to overcome partisan differences” on Supreme Court nominations. He had a record of moving such candidates during his time as chairman of the judiciary panel, he said.

“Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year,” Mr. Biden said. “This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject.”

Officials at the White House and on Capitol Hill noted that Mr. Biden had also said in the 1992 speech that he would support a future Supreme Court nominee by Mr. Bush as long as the president consulted with the Senate or chose a moderate. Mr. Biden made that observation as he discussed how the confirmation process could be changed “in the next administration,” should he remain as chairman.

Colour Me Free
1.3.1  seeder  Colour Me Free  replied to  Skrekk @1.3    2 years ago

Thanks for the link .. 

I tried to talk Biden into running - I understand and respect why he did not run .. but I still wish he would have .. at least as a one term, I cannot help but think the nation might be healing a wee bit, rather than getting further divided if he was in the White House...

Did you read Split Personality's link?  very interesting - some information I knew .. but did not know the sequence of events

1.3.2  Skrekk  replied to  Colour Me Free @1.3.1    2 years ago

I agree about Biden.   It's just too bad for the country that things happened the way they did, but I certainly can't blame him for choosing not to run after losing another child.

Note that my comment about his 1992 speech was intended to downplay the so-called "Biden Rule" nonsense.   The speech was really about overall procedural reform of the nomination process and to help prevent nominees who were extremists.

Colour Me Free
1.3.3  seeder  Colour Me Free  replied to  Skrekk @1.3.2    2 years ago

I am aware of his speech and the context of his words … besides it does not matter, calling it the Biden Rule is just a way to 'deflect' blame .. blame is the name of the game - look they thought of it first / did it first...

1.4  WallyW  replied to  Colour Me Free @1    2 years ago

The Democrats are pretty much all lined up to vote NO anyway, so why do they need 42,000 more pages of documents on top of the over 500,000 they already have?

2  Silent_Hysteria    2 years ago

It doesn't matter who was nominated.  The left would generally reject anyone nominated by the right.  They are upset SCOTUS is going to be solidly conservative for the foreseeable future.  If they had flipped SCOTUS 7-2 liberal they wouldn't have any issues with the balance.  It's a tantrum they aren't getting their way.  

Colour Me Free
2.1  seeder  Colour Me Free  replied to  Silent_Hysteria @2    2 years ago

So what was blocking Merrick Garland called?  If not a temper tantrum .. it was a ………?

2.1.1  Cerenkov  replied to  Colour Me Free @2.1    2 years ago

Biden Rule action.

Colour Me Free
2.1.2  seeder  Colour Me Free  replied to  Cerenkov @2.1.1    2 years ago

Aww yes, the famous 'well they did it first' … a'ight fair enough

2.1.3  Silent_Hysteria  replied to  Colour Me Free @2.1.2    2 years ago

They did it first ...  also known as precedent.  Also remember Harry Reid went "nuclear" and you now only need a simple majority to confirm.  

I had democrats who were gleeful in the past dreaming about a strong liberal court under obama and so they thought Hillary... so they could do things like make the second amendment only apply to the national guard members etc.

So let's be real.  Democrats aren't worried about the court being used as a political tool.  They are pissed it isn't a tool they are currently wielding.

2.1.4  Skrekk  replied to  Cerenkov @2.1.1    2 years ago
Biden Rule action.

I seriously doubt that you ever read or listened to that speech, but instead only know one small soundbite from it.

2.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Cerenkov @2.1.1    2 years ago
Biden Rule action.

Which is total BS since no one was up for nomination at the time. 

2.1.6  Silent_Hysteria  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.5    2 years ago

Actually that's a good point.  However it does show that democrats will support an if it benefits them and be against it if it doesn't.

same can be said about the republicans though so that is a wash.  

Just shows it is politics as usual democrats crapped out this time.  The republicans will be on the losing side of political games eventually though.  It goes both ways 

2.1.7  MUVA  replied to  Colour Me Free @2.1    2 years ago

It was advise and consent the senate controls judge appointments not the president glad we have a republican senate or we would have a activist court.

2.1.8  WallyW  replied to  Skrekk @2.1.4    2 years ago

Didn't Upchuck Schumer help write the Biden Rule?

2.1.9  WallyW  replied to  Silent_Hysteria @2.1.6    2 years ago

It would be nice if Trump can appoint Amy Coney Barrett to the High Court during his second term. 

Colour Me Free
3  seeder  Colour Me Free    2 years ago
In her opening statement, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) addressed Kavanaugh about abortion. The question, she said, is not whether Kavanaugh believes that the landmark Roe v. Wade decision is “settled law,” as he has told other senators, but “whether you believe it is the correct law.”

Just emailing with a friend, he brought up Feinstein's opening statement - ask me whether I thought Roe v Wade was the 'correct law' .. I did not have an answer .. as I do not think I know what 'correct law' is, what do you all think / your opinion on what the definition of correct law is..?

3.1  CB   replied to  Colour Me Free @3    2 years ago

Yes, Roe vs Wade was the correct law based on the criteria the Court used to assent: A women's right to privacy of her own body. This is what Feinstein's position in support of ROE is based on.

Now then, what your friend, if a conservative, could be referring to is there is no "letter of the law" which explicitly states a woman has a right to privacy.

And, as you know, the republicans have been 'milking for cash and votes' the Pro-life voters ever since ROE passed. Conservative 'shock' jocks have been beating that drum for decades now. And now they stand on the threshold. There is little or no chance a republican senator will capitulate to facts, procedures, and truth of circumstances, will those 'hell-hounds of talk' watching there every word.

Colour Me Free
3.1.1  seeder  Colour Me Free  replied to  CB @3.1    2 years ago

I hear you calbab … I am neither pro or con abortion - it is personal choice that for some reason has never remained personal nor private .. I have watched a 'news' report on a young woman that documented her abortion .. even filming herself while having the procedure ………………….. people blocking clinics screaming about [what they scream about]..  I got out of my car and punch an abortion protester right in the nose .. my young son and I were parked at a red light when a demonstrator came off the side walk and stuck pictures in my sons face, pics of baby body parts .. I was so pissed..

Abortion is none of my business and my opinion on the subject is irrelevant .. I raised my boys on my own - abortion was not an option for me.  I do not condemn anyone for making a decision that they think is best for them - yet I will say I am tired of hearing about it..

I have had this conversation many times, and the general consensus from the women I have discussed it with is that 'if I had daughter(s) I would feel more strongly on the subject, that it would matter to me - and they are probably right...


3.1.2  CB   replied to  Colour Me Free @3.1.1    2 years ago
. . . I am neither pro or con abortion - it is personal choice that for some reason has never remained personal nor private . . . I got out of my car and punch an abortion protester right in the nose .. my young son and I were parked at a red light when a demonstrator came off the side walk and stuck pictures in my sons face, pics of baby body parts .. I was so pissed..

I hear you! I am definitely Pro-Choice. I am a male, so I can not have an abortion. And, I do not have any children at this point in my journey (getting up in years too).

And to be clear in the rhetoric associated with the social issue, no one should or would admit to being "pro-abortion." (Smile.) I have 'bumped into' some abortion images and listen, it ain't nothing nice to look at. Actually, I would have to say it is indeed a matter of privacy, because like going to the bathroom or having internal surgery, it is not something you want others to watch or 'sit with you' through. That was my takeaway.

No one should mess with your children: That's a full on red-line. Children ought to be left out of seeing images like that. Children are not apprised of the pros and cons of this women's issue to any substantial lengths anyway. To their credit the Pro-Life activists in my area are peaceful, quiet, and simply stand or sit (depending on their ages) with their handout materials or discussion for passerbys. I even see them standing and sitting at my local DMV offices from time to time. I do not talk to those life activists and, they make no attempt to draw my attention. Essentially, we respect each other's right to egress the same areas. Like you, I think, a girl, a woman, should be allowed to continue making up her own mind.

Some of the 'direct language' Senator Kamala Harris was uttering today was 'throw-back' to me, as I can remember those times when young girls and women would sneak away to get an abortion. Some of those women (I know at least two) got messed up inside from unsanctioned abortions and though they are alive today—they are both childless. Their personal stories did not have to end this way.

So abortion is a privacy matter between a woman, even the man, and the doctor. Mainly, it's the woman's womb that is major here as we all can agree.

Colour Me Free
3.1.3  seeder  Colour Me Free  replied to  CB @3.1.2    2 years ago

Roe v Wade makes the choice up to the woman .. some men have succeeded to have an abortion blocked, but unless a woman wants a man / her man to have an opinion on the subject .. then he does not.. I do not even think her doctor need be involved does he?

Abortion was not illegal in my life time .. well I was born in '66 - so I have no clue what life was like before hand - yet I also have a few friends that had botched legal abortions  .. better stop there before I begin preaching : )

Thank you so much for the exchange of thoughts .. I have enjoyed beginning to get to know you here on the board a bit better... : ) glad we can agree to disagree and still communicate...

3.1.4  CB   replied to  Colour Me Free @3.1.3    2 years ago

The doctor? Interesting, I really don't know that detail. (Smile.) Roe vs. Wade was decided in 1973. I was not old enough to realize the full scope of the pain and issue for women, but I remember the court announcement and the 'wave of emotion' which raced from one side of the country to the other.

Colour Me Free, I am a bit of a enigma, and I speak my mind in any number of ways, inflections, tones, and phrases. But, in my heart of heart, I really love people, all people. Biggest exception: Liars!!! And of the variety that is malicious to other people's way of life.

Thank you so much for sharing.

Colour Me Free
3.1.5  seeder  Colour Me Free  replied to  CB @3.1.4    2 years ago
The doctor? Interesting, I really don't know that detail.

Does not take a doctor to find out one is pregnant and last I checked [figured of speech :] some states allow a clinician / nurse practitioner  to perform an abortion .. it has been a while since I paid attention to abortion restrictions .. but I think it was in 2017 that the ACLU took on a case against Montana regarding Nurse practitioners being allowed to perform abortions..

Do not quote me, but I believe it is 34 states that require a physician to perform an abortion ...

Peace ..  

Just Jim NC TttH
3.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Colour Me Free @3    2 years ago

Perhaps what she meant was, do you think it was enacted properly. In other words, does he think it was given enough consideration during the process. He could agree it is settled but he doesn't necessarily have to agree that all, and I mean all, things were considered. I don't think he could disagree that it was correct. Leading question............so what else is new in a governing body made up mostly of lawyers in DC...............JMHO

Colour Me Free
3.2.1  seeder  Colour Me Free  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2    2 years ago

Hey Jim … 

I think it is the wording is what is making the interpretation hard for me...  I see Roe v Wade as settled law, the law of the land, thus has spoken the Supreme Court … I cannot believe that in 2018 there is nothing more important to be battling over than whether or not a woman wants to have the ability to have an abortion or not..

My word .. 2/3 of federal tax dollars are going to [so called] entitlements … and many of those opposing abortion are also opposed to entitlements … who is going to support the next baby boom?

3.3  Tacos!  replied to  Colour Me Free @3    2 years ago
whether I thought Roe v Wade was the 'correct law'

Partly the answer depends on what aspect of the ruling we are talking about. The privacy issue derives from Griswold v Connecticut. It remains somewhat controversial because there's nothing in the Constitution or the Amendments that says anything like "Congress shall make no law abridging a person's right to privacy." i.e. there is no "right of privacy" per se in the Constitution. The Supreme Court found it implied in the penumbra of the Constitution. A lot of people who say they think the law should be restricted to precise words in the Constitution have a big problem with this.

I actually happen to agree with Griswold. All of our rights regarding speech, religion, association, to be free from searches and seizures, quartering of soldiers, confidential counsel, non-self-incrimination, life liberty, property, etc. are, in my mind, merely specific applications of a right so basic, the framers took it for granted: the right to privacy.

In fact, we know that the framers believed the people had many inalienable, God-given rights and they were afraid that spelling them out individually would have the effect of depriving people of rights not listed. I think that's exactly what happened with privacy.

For me, the issue of abortion should not be turning on privacy, but rather on whether the life developing within a pregnant woman is a life of value akin to a living person that deserves the same type of protection as any born person. The current standard of viability is a standard that goes back centuries to English common law which permitted abortion before "quickening" of the fetus.

The Roe decision and Planned Parenthood v Casey are rooted in this basically medieval standard. Modern science has revealed details of development in the womb that were unknown previously. I think that potentially changes the argument. Viability may not be the morally correct standard.

3.3.1  lib50  replied to  Tacos! @3.3    2 years ago
For me, the issue of abortion should not be turning on privacy, but rather on whether the life developing within a pregnant woman is a life of value akin to a living person that deserves the same type of protection as any born person.

That takes the woman out of the decision making process, with no right to privacy for the most basic right to control what happens to her body.  Forcing the belief of others (certainly not mine).  You think the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the woman.

3.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  lib50 @3.3.1    2 years ago
That takes the woman out of the decision making process

It does, yes.

You think the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the woman.

Except for the life of the woman, yes. So does the Supreme Court. That's why current law allows states to restrict abortion upon viability.

Colour Me Free
3.3.3  seeder  Colour Me Free  replied to  Tacos! @3.3    2 years ago

Thanks for your view on the subject .. you gave me food for thought..

3.4  WallyW  replied to  Colour Me Free @3    2 years ago

Roe vs Wade was a "made up" law based on an imagined "right".

It has proven to not be correct.

3.4.1  Texan1211  replied to  WallyW @3.4    2 years ago

Roe v. Wade is settled law.

Kavanaugh has stressed repeatedly how important precedent is to him, so I don't believe he will ever overturn it. In fact, I am not so sure that SCOTUS will even take a case challenging it again. The decisions handed down by lower courts will undoubtedly rely on the Roe precedent.

Colour Me Free
4.1  seeder  Colour Me Free  replied to  Split Personality @4    2 years ago

Thanks for the link..

Did Congress trim the court’s size to sandbag Stanbery and Johnson? Historians disagree. Some argue that the bill addressed concerns from sitting justices that a court of ten was too big. But the timing of the move – just days after Congress overrode Johnson’s veto of the second Freedman’s Bureau bill – bolsters the argument that partisan politics motivated the Radical Republicans.

Think I need to go and read some history I missed .. : )

5  CB     2 years ago

What is former Secretary of State Condoleesa Rice doing sitting behind Kavanaugh during his "Opening Statement"?

The People's Fish
5.1  The People's Fish  replied to  CB @5    2 years ago

It's called Immoral support.

6  Tacos!    2 years ago

Fake hearings. Fake outrage.

Not one single person bitching about the documents has any intention of voting for Kavanaugh under any circumstances and there is nothing that could possibly be present in any of those documents that would make them change their minds. They have already said so.

OR . . . I'm 100% wrong and every one of those senators is sitting there with an open mind regarding Kavanaugh and the possibility actually exists that the committee will approve him unanimously.

LOLlaughing dude

6.1  MUVA  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 years ago

You are right it is being uncivil just for the sake of being a asshole.

Colour Me Free
6.2  seeder  Colour Me Free  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 years ago

I agree that there was never an intent to vote for him, just a way to delay - yet I have to stand by my original thoughts when seeding this article .. the Supreme Court should not be partisan, nor judges nominated for purely partisan reasons - it is a life long appointment .. does there not need to be some consensus on the individual being nominated?

6.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Colour Me Free @6.2    2 years ago

I think Kavanaugh's record as a judge speaks for itself. He has been upheld by the SC many times.

I've heard people complain about him being nominated by Trump, but I haven't seen anyone picking apart his decisions.

Of course, he voted with the majority of the court some 97% of the time.

So no one can really criticize him for those decisions unless they also want to criticize judges appointed by Presidents they liked better.

Colour Me Free
6.2.2  seeder  Colour Me Free  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2.1    2 years ago

Fair enough .. I am learning more about Kavanaugh .. and have heard nothing but complaints about him and the end of abortion since his nomination was announced 

So no one can really criticize him for those decisions unless they also want to criticize judges appointed by Presidents they liked better.

Yeah well, when has that stopped anyone .. if a president they liked better nominated a Kavanaugh that would be different...

6.3  WallyW  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 years ago

Two or three...trying to preserve their political lives, will vote YES to confirm.

6.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  WallyW @6.3    2 years ago

As Lindsey Graham correctly pointed out today, 30 years ago only two or three would have voted no.

7  Rmando    2 years ago

The Democrats should just follow their previous advice about the ACA- pass it to read it and then find out what's in it. I'm guessing if all those redundant documents wee dropped on the Dems then they would moan about not having enough time to read them.

7.1  lib50  replied to  Rmando @7    2 years ago

At least those pages were ALL RELEASED.  And they had been discussed over a period of over a year, so only minute details were unknown.   Kavanaugh's release is less than 10%, and he is being pushed through while Trump is a subject of investigation.  If republicans hadn't fucked over Merrick Garland this wouldn't piss people off so much.  As far as I'm concerned, this needs to be tabled until after the election.  McConnell thought almost a year was too soon, this is a NY minute.

7.1.1  WallyW  replied to  lib50 @7.1    2 years ago

100% of those pages asked for would amount to over 5 million pages!  What are they looking for anyway?

7.1.2  lib50  replied to  WallyW @7.1.1    2 years ago

Tough shit, what is he hiding? 

8  CB     2 years ago

What Kavanaugh's "situation" means for liberals is we are going to have to 'flip the script,' get out and vote in every election. Because, the conservatives have likely won the courts for the existing timeframe. Democrats and independents come kick some mid-term 2018 with me!! Write some laws under our own legislative strength!

8.1  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8    2 years ago

What do you think is going to happen when Kavanaugh is confirmed?

8.1.1  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.1    2 years ago

I give you a vote! That is a stellar question! In the plainest language I can come of with, . . .and Senator John Kennedy (R—Louisiana) mentioned it during the opening interview: "I do not want a robot on the Court, and I do not want a politician on the Court either.'

Texan, I am confident that Kavanaugh will fit the conservative agenda like a glove.

I know what the conservatives "movement" wants from the Supreme Court. I have known for years and I am sure others do as well. Conservatives say they want clear cut respect for the Constitution as it is written on the page, with lines of demarcation for the three branches of government. Legislature - make laws, courts -interpret laws constitutionally, and Administration enforce all signed laws. But.

What conservatives really want is conservative lawmakers to write laws conservatively, the courts to interpret laws conservatively, and a conservative administration to enforce them. Cool!

Not! Liberals and independents will not live under an ALL-CONSERVATIVE SYSTEM of governance! We must, and we will, take 'our country back' again!

8.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.1.1    2 years ago

Based in Kavanaugh's extensive judicial record, what specifically do you object to about him, and how many times have his opinions been struck down by higher courts, which might supply a real reason to oppose him?

8.1.3  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.2    2 years ago

You can compartmentalize all you wish, but Kavanaugh was vetted by conservatives for purposes of service to conservatives' view of the Constitution.

I, Liberals and Independents, do not have to 'sat in the back of the car' while conservatives drive the car of the Courts, and the Presidency, whereever they wish, content and on a high.

If conservatives feel that strongly about the record of Kavanaugh, then you would not ram your 'guy' through the Senate nomination process with documents and files closed off under executive privilege. BTW, it can only mean there is something tangible to hide, or something confusing the WH does not want to take the time to investigate or fully explain.

Which means John Q Public can not see Kavanaugh's "extensive record," because conservatives and republicans won't lift their damn feet off of it!

So miss me with that distraction to "look over here" talking point commentary!!

8.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.1.3    2 years ago

Congratulations on a nice post that didn't answer what I asked.

What else can I ask you that you will ignore in favor of your little diatribe?

Kavanaugh's record is in his 300+ court decisions and his written opinions.

The fact you chose to ignore that isn't lost on me, nor the fact you didn't cite a single case you disagreed with him on.

Gee, that wouldn't have anything to do with him voting in the majority the VAST majority of the time, and you don't ALSO want to disparage judges appointed by Democrats, right?

When you can answer what I originally asked, get back to me.

Otherwise, I won't waste any more time with you. 

8.1.5  WallyW  replied to  CB @8.1.1    2 years ago

What the COUNTRY wants are judges who will fairly INTERPRET the law instead of trying to create new and perhaps unconstitutional lawt. It's up to Congress to MAKE the law. It preposterous that ONE SINGLE JUDGE can shut down the EXECUTIVE branch for political reasons. If the Dems don't get their way, they go running to some district judge to stop something, such as the travel ban.

8.1.6  WallyW  replied to  CB @8.1.1    2 years ago
Liberals and independents will not live under an ALL-CONSERVATIVE SYSTEM of governance! We must, and we will, take 'our country back' again!

And we right wingers and most independents will not live under an ALL-LIBERAL-SYSTEM of governance! The left has shown very vividly in the last few years that they can't govern and are becoming irrelevant.

8.1.7  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.4    2 years ago

I wash my hands of you to, buddy. I make my case the way I wish to make it, not according to your ideas on what is "good" for me. Do you GET IT?


I do not care how fine a judge, Kavanaugh is, and I hear statements he may be really A qualified judge and a good man. Booey for him.  The fineness of his cases and his jurist prowess is not why conservatives are interested in this judge.

The conservative agenda has plans for the Supreme Court going forward and it involves (I need to calm down because I am typing through "gritted teeth" at this point) and . . . stopping right here.

Walking away. . . .  Later.

One More Thing! Right now on 24/7 breaking news on the conservative White House, we have RESISTANCE from conservatives working inside the White House: Somebody/ies is ringing a clarion bell to the whole country that its president is a ticking time-bomb who could blow up and take out a fraction of the republic! And, you ask me about some guy's record of cases for the Supreme Court, who this loser president is holding files away from us on?

Go back and reset, Texan! Your president is messing and stepping in it!

8.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.1.7    2 years ago

I am perfectly content to let you let emotion rule you instead of logic.

have a great day, and you might want to calm down a little.

All that stress must be wearing you thin, what with one imaginary crisis after another !

8.1.9  CB   replied to  WallyW @8.1.5    2 years ago

The democrats/liberals go to the courts, because of stiff-necked conservatives who obsess over oppressing them. And, conservatives are not interested in Kavanaugh as ONE SINGLE JUDGE, he will add his 'uniqueness' to the other conservative judges. Believe me, conservatives have been complaining about judges who did not 'break the balls' of liberals for x numbers of years.

Liberals had to go to the courts because conservatives are so low-down as to stand in the door to block them being free to live their true lives. I am not going to waste my time re-hashing all the problems with civil rights and civil liberties gone and left awry by conservatives who dream up ever newer ways to mess with the populace!

So now, that this is happening now.

YOU'RE RIGHT. Liberals will have to figuratively 'go to war' with Congress and be the change in Congress they wish to see!

8.1.10  CB   replied to  WallyW @8.1.6    2 years ago


8.1.11  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.8    2 years ago

You are free to go fix that 'thang' you have that is slo-mo imploding in the White House. It is being reported today, Trump is a national security risk! Maybe, his children should do a public service intervention.

8.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.1.11    2 years ago


Nice deflection!

I realize that sometimes, it's all you got!


8.1.13  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.12    2 years ago

Er' you have 'breaking news' in your in-box, Texan. Enjoy! /s

For the record, I would not vouch for Kanavaugh's record with your brain! He is the conservative problem. You can go read his cases and report back when you are done.

8.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.1.13    2 years ago

You know, I would have lots more respect for your opinion if you could very simply tell me what cases of Kavanaugh's you didn't like the decision in, what your legal position is in opposing it, and then tell me if the case was ever overturned.

Barring that, I don't have much time to deal with people who base their decisions on emotion instead of facts and logic.

8.1.15  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.14    2 years ago

Respect? Is that what we are calling this, today? Well,  And look, you are still typing. . . . Time is not a problem for you. My emotions? I have taken a walk, looked at how lovely life is and can be, and am back to my usual self. How you doing?

8.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.1.15    2 years ago

I'm great!

And still willing to discuss Kavanaugh based on his record.

How about you?

8.1.17  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.16    2 years ago

Oh, I am great down and the 'vent' worked nicely.  My, my, you seem to have all the time in the world. How about that Kavanaugh? That one of 'sequestered' records, cheesy answers, and a whopper of a Image result for big grin emoticon , to boot!  Don't worry Grassley and Hatch will get yer through this thang, boy!

8.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.1.17    2 years ago

I'll drink a toast to you when I celebrate Kavanaugh's confirmation.


8.1.19  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.18    2 years ago

Drink away.  Here is a tune you can play with your rounds (think of me, Calbab!):

Boom!   Bang!     

Drop!   STOMP!! 

FLiP!    HoP!     

SKIp!      STEP!

8.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.1.19    2 years ago

No thanks, I prefer to choose my own music.

Maybe you can dance to it!

probably beats that Pied Piper tune!

8.1.21  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.20    2 years ago

I'm having a ball!!! Big Pay Back!

8.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  CB @8.1.21    2 years ago

So, just the one, eh?

Colour Me Free
9  seeder  Colour Me Free    2 years ago

locking for the night ...

sweet sleep everyone..

Colour Me Free
9.1  seeder  Colour Me Free  replied to  Colour Me Free @9    2 years ago

Good morning .. think this conversation has reached its conclusion .. however, I will leave it open today..

Raven Wing
10  Raven Wing    2 years ago

The entire hearing is a joke, just like the man being considered. 

His claim to jurisprudence and constitutional prudence and piety is an obvious sham, like so many other Trump nominees. That they have chosen to hide so many of the man's documents speaks volumes for why he should not be approved.


10.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Raven Wing @10    2 years ago

"Obvious sham" - how 'bout giving us some examples of how he is an "obvious sham" - case number, decision, rulings - you know - the factual stuff that supports your comment.

Raven Wing
10.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1    2 years ago

It's my OPINION. You don't have to like it, or agree. I am entitled to my own OPINION just like you and others here. I don't always agree with your OPINION

You know the drill......OPINIONS are like a$$holes.....everyone has one. And I expressed my own OPINION. And I did not ask you or anyone else to like it or agree.


Who is online


27 visitors