ChrisWeigant.com

SCOTUS Daydreaming

[ Posted Thursday, September 20th, 2018 – 16:53 PDT ]

[Editor's Note: At least once a year, usually during the silly season in August, I indulge in writing a summer daydream article. I am probably "borrowing" this theme from the comic strip Doonesbury, I fully admit, but when the political news is slow and the weather's hot sometimes it's fun to just indulge your inner "what if..." and spin it in a pleasant direction, just for the heck of it. Today, I choose to do so once again, because it would be so supremely justified. And, yes, "supremely" is the only possible term to use, really.]

The scenario which frightens Republicans the most right now is that the chance to tilt the Supreme Court their direction for a generation to come might just be slipping away from them. This is the sole reason the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh is being rammed through as quickly as they can manage. Which led me to ponder about the worst possible scenario for them, just for fun.

Let's say Kavanaugh either withdraws his nomination or fails to get a majority vote on the Senate floor. Perhaps Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski decide to vote against him, and publicly say so. This would most likely lead to Kavanaugh's withdrawal, although perhaps the vote (49-51 against) would actually happen. So what would happen next?

Donald Trump, after licking his wounds, would nominate someone else for the job on the high court. However, there simply wouldn't be time for the Senate to hustle through another nominee before the midterms. Since we're daydreaming about the worst scenario imaginable for Republicans, we have to then assume that they lose three seats in November and the Democrats win control of the chamber.

The pressure would be on Senate Republicans at this point to confirm a justice in the lame-duck session, after the election but before a new Congress is sworn in next January. However, immediately after the election, two retiring Republican senators (Jeff Flake and Bob Corker) release a joint statement that says, in essence, that because their states just elected Democrats to replace them, they will abstain from any Supreme Court confirmation votes in the lame-duck session altogether, or even vote "No" if they have to. This would leave Mitch McConnell without the majority he needs to push the confirmation through, thus killing the lame-duck confirmation idea.

When the new Senate is sworn in, Chuck Schumer (now Majority Leader Schumer) makes a speech on the Senate floor. Here's what I envision Schumer saying to America:

I am hereby putting President Donald Trump on notice. The United States Senate will only hold hearings and vote on the confirmation of a Supreme Court judicial nominee during the course of the entire next two years under one specific circumstance: we will gladly consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the high court. If Garland is nominated by President Trump, his confirmation process will go forward as normal.

However, if anyone not named Merrick Garland is nominated, then the Senate will not even begin to hold hearings for any other nominee. It is not going to happen, period.

This is only fair. Turnabout has always been fair play. When Republicans were in the majority, they refused to move on a presidential nominee to the highest court in the land for purely partisan reasons. This was disgraceful, and remains a black mark in the Senate's history. Because of the outright theft of a Supreme Court nomination, the only recourse we have at this time is to postpone any nomination by Donald Trump until after the 2020 presidential election. Republicans who are now loudly screaming that a vacancy on the court is some sort of constitutional crisis, well, that's exactly what we said for all of 2016, but it didn't seem to bother the Republicans too much back then.

For egregiously ignoring the Constitution back then, we are now throwing the flag and penalizing the Republican Party one judicial nominee. Their cries of unfairness will ring hollow, because we will indeed provide advice and consent on a Supreme Court nominee -- as long as his name is Merrick Garland.

Furthermore, we are proposing an amendment to the Constitution to prevent this from ever happening again. We know this isn't the way the business of the Senate is supposed to work, but the stakes are so high we cannot fix the situation without first balancing out what happened to Merrick Garland. After doing so, both sides will have shamefully and politically manipulated the confirmation process once each, and the era will no doubt go down in history with these two incredible black marks on the Senate. But in our defense, we aim to prevent this from ever happening again, and we urge our Republican colleagues to join us in this effort.

The amendment we propose is simple. Supreme Court nominees must be voted on within 90 days of the president making the nomination, but if such a nomination is made within 90 days of an election, then the confirmation will not happen until after Election Day. Furthermore, if the Senate does not act within 90 days, then the nominee will be automatically confirmed to the high court.

We chose this number because it would allow a justice to retire at the end of the Supreme Court's term in June and still have the Senate confirm his or her successor both before an election in November and before the Supreme Court's next term begins at the start of October. However, we are open to discussion as to what this length of time should be -- if Republicans have a better idea, we would indeed consider it. But whatever number is agreed to, there simply must be a hard deadline. If a nomination happens before the deadline, then the Senate will vote within that time period. If a nomination happens and an election will intervene before the deadline, then the confirmation will not happen until after the election.

If a Supreme Court vacancy happens too close to an election, then the vote will take place afterwards, which will help remove the political aspect from the equation. This is what Republicans initially claimed they wanted to do when Barack Obama appointed Merrick Garland. But it would still allow a full court to be seated in October if a justice stepped down in June. This amendment could be ratified by 2020, and take effect in 2021, under whomever wins the presidential election. But because it is not merely a law but a constitutional amendment, the new rule could not be easily changed by any future Congress. But until the point that such an amendment is in place, the Senate will not vote on any nominee at all to the high court -- unless, of course, Donald Trump renominates Merrick Garland.

By stopping all other nominations, we will be bringing balance. The Republicans blocked one nomination, and we're now blocking another in return. But we want to change this ugly situation forever, and we invite all Republicans to join us in this effort. This is not the way things are supposed to work. We know that. But, working together, we can change that. We can make such shenanigans with Supreme Court judicial nominations absolutely impossible in the future by passing an amendment that spells out the consequences for even trying. If the Senate refuses to vote within 90 days, then the nomination will be automatically confirmed. Period. Such an amendment was never necessary until this moment in history, because past Senates never used such naked partisanship to kill a nomination before. We believe that doing so was wrong when they did it, is wrong (but fair) now, and we want to prevent it from ever happening again -- right after we balance the injustice of what was done to Merrick Garland.

As mentioned, we invite any Republicans who are just as disgusted with what the process has now devolved into to join us in our effort to make sure it never happens again. When the next president is seated -- from our party or theirs -- we want to assure them that they will be able to nominate justices to the Supreme Court and have them properly considered by the Senate in a timely manner. And if that does not happen, then their nominee will automatically be confirmed. But because it is necessary to rewrite parts of the Constitution to achieve this, we cannot simply pass a law or make a rules change to the Senate to do so. Attempting to do so would not only leave open the question of a future Senate reversing course, but it would also quite likely be an unconstitutional law. So an amendment is necessary.

So what do you say, Republicans? Are you sick of this game yet? Do you want to return the Senate to its traditional role of providing advice and consent in a timely fashion, or do you just want to wait until you're in charge again to continue this downward spiral? We will need your help, and the help of Republicans in state legislatures across this country, to successfully pass and ratify a constitutional amendment, so we welcome your input and welcome your support. Let's end this nonsense forever, and let's do so together.

You'll notice that, even in my daydream, I refrained from using the phrase: "Payback's a bitch!" anywhere in that speech, for the obvious reason of Senate propriety. However, the sentiment is entirely appropriate. I do realize that this scenario is the longest of longshots and is quite likely never to occur, but then, hey, what's a summer daydream for, right?

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

91 Comments on “SCOTUS Daydreaming”

  1. [1] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The proposed amendment is so logical and reasonable that it has absolutely no chance of ever passing....it fails the smell test...it doesn't stink.

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Even in a "real" dream a constitutional amendment can't be conceived, passed and ratified in two years.

    And if you're gonna dream- why not dream BIG?

    Why not an amendment to stop the nonsense by eliminating lifetime appointments?

    Each justice gets a nine year term and then can be reappointed or not by the president. A deadline could apply for the president to reappoint or reject with reappointment automatic if the president does nothing and then the Senate gets to approve or reject the reappointment. If the president rejects reappointment the Senate could override and reappoint with a 2/3 vote.

    The justice in their last year gets to be the chief justice for that year.

    This would keep the court more in line with the current political climate instead of having justices appointed for 30 or 40 years or more and this would relieve some of the pressure of the nominations.

    And it would happen every year on a regular schedule that would only be thrown off if a justice retires or dies before the end of their nine year term.

    As I just saw Colin Kaepernick say in the commercial: "Don't ask if your dream is crazy- ask if it's crazy enough."

    Speaking of crazy ideas, the daydream format works well. Perhaps there is some other idea that IS crazy enough that could be the subject of another daydream article real soon.

  3. [3] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [2] Ditto-ish … What would be eminently fair would be rotating SCOTUS appointments by both (or when sense reigns, the three parties) propose a justice every 12 years to be voted on by both houses of congress. Retired Judges could be called upon to serve on the bench for increments of 4 years after the 12 year period if re-appointed and voted on gain...makes sense to sync their service with general elections...

    Seems to the casual observer, SCOTUS is rendered ineffective by partisan renderings. Why bother having them if they aren't so much, final arbiters of the constitution, so much as political ramrods for whom ever happens to appoint them.

    Either bring a semblance of balance to the joint, or abolish it in favour of an elected body, chosen by the people over whose lives they preside. Too much power lies in the hands of a bunch of doorknobs answerable to no one.

    LL&P

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    michale, if you insist that this is just partisan hardball, don't pretend it wasn't forshadowed in the testimony. Kamala Harris, after descibing a following line of questioning as perfunctory, "Me, Too" checking-off of a box, asked Kav a series of questions about disqualifying conduct towards girls and women over his lifetime, all of which he denied chapter and verse.

    Oh, I have absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind that this was all pre-ordained..

    That's why it's so despicably hypocritical for Democrats to try and take the moral high ground..

    This whole sorry and pathetic exercise is about one thing and one thing only.. Delaying the Kavanaugh nomination..

    Which cannot be allowed to happen..

    It damned well better not be possible to even place him at any party she was at, even if -no, especially, he was drunk and cannot remember it. Not sayin', not hopin'. That's just a fact.

    Which is exactly why this so-called "victim"'s recollection is so spotty..

    I am sure she knows the exact place and date and time all of this allegedly took place..

    But knowing that Kavanaugh wasn't even there, if she were to give a specific date and place, Kavanaugh would likely be able to PROVE that he wasn't there..

    Hence the lying about her no remembering the time and place...

    This is all contrived bullshit, planned and agreed upon long ago..

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am hereby putting President Donald Trump on notice. The United States Senate will only hold hearings and vote on the confirmation of a Supreme Court judicial nominee during the course of the entire next two years under one specific circumstance: we will gladly consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the high court. If Garland is nominated by President Trump, his confirmation process will go forward as normal.

    So...

    For all ya'all's hysterical screaming about how it was against the Constitution and the Constitution doesn't allow it and it's a gross violation of the Constitution...

    NOW you want the Democrats to do the exact same thing???

    Who could have predicted that the Democrats would be as low down and as Constitutionally illegal as they accuse the GOP of being???

    Oh... wait....

    Don't get me wrong.. I don't give a royal rat's ass if the Democrats actually do that.. As you say, turnabout is always fair play...

    It's just royally disappointing that ya'all would be so blatantly and unequivocally hypocritical due to Party slavery...

    Predictable..

    But still very disappointing..

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:
  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    For all ya'all's hysterical screaming about how it was against the Constitution and the Constitution doesn't allow it and it's a gross violation of the Constitution...

    NOW you want the Democrats to do the exact same thing???

    So, either ya'all were full of shit back then when ya'all were claiming that this goes against the Constitution???

    Or ya'all are claiming NOW that Constitutional violations are perfectly acceptable to ya'all if they further YA'ALL'S agenda and YA'ALL'S agenda only.....

    which is it???

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    According to reports, this wasn't really a "party" but rather a small get together that included the so-called "victim", Kavanaugh's friend Judge, a guy named Patrick Smyth, (allegedly) Kavanaugh and an un-named female classmate's of the so-called "victim"..

    Of the 3 people that were "there", 2 people (Smyth & Judge) claim that they NEVER SAW Kavanaugh act in such a manner anywhere at any time..

    NOTE TO SELF Follow up on why Smyth or Judge haven't been able to pinpoint the date and place of the get-together.. Maybe they have and the committee is holding the facts in reserve...

    Anyways, my point is...

    Why hasn't this un-named female come forward to support the so-called "victim"'s story??? It's reasonable to assume that the so-called "victim" knows who she is..

    So, either the "victim" doesn't want to name her because the "victim" knows this un-named female won't support the story being told..

    Which, again, goes to the credibility of the so-called "victim"...

    Which ALSO plays into the wisdom of the so-called "victim" changing her story from there being 4 boys in the room to there only being 2 boys in the room...

    4 boys saying none of it happened is a LOT more credible than only 2 boys saying none of it happened..

    It's also funny to note that the so-called "victim" is hazy on EVERY detail...

    EXCEPT about Kavanaugh....

    She is SURE it's Kavanaugh..

    Yea... No ulterior motive whatsoever... :^/

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK.... Here's a test for ya'all

    PIC A
    pbs.twimg.com/media/DnkevMuXgAEYgs-.jpg

    PIC B
    pbs.twimg.com/media/DnkeySKXoAAOoGW.jpg

    Without resorting to GOOGLE.....

    Identify Kavanaugh...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kapernutz going to the Patriots..

    http://www.tmz.com/2018/09/20/mark-geragos-colin-kaepernick-patriots-raiders-nfl-nike/

    It's a perfect fit.. Everyone already hates the Patriots.. :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kapernutz going to the Patriots..

    That SHOULD read Kapernutz going to the Patriots???

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's just royally disappointing that ya'all would be so blatantly and unequivocally hypocritical due to Party slavery...

    Amend that to read

    It's just royally disappointing that ya'all would be so blatantly and unequivocally hypocritical due to Party loyalty...

    My fingers mis-typed...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Easy answer, Mr. Graham. She never "refused to testify." Her lawyer said she would testify and has been negotiating the terms by which she would do so ever since she agreed. She... in fact... never once refused to testify.

    "refusing" is not the point..

    The so-called "victim" has claimed she never wanted to go public, never wanted to deal with any of this, never wanted to testify..

    And yet, the *FACTS* clearly show that the so-called "victim" took steps to be well-prepared for doing exactly that..

    She hired a lawyer a month before there was even an iota of a whiff of this and took a bogus lie-detector test in preparation of going public...

    Her actions are ALL according to the plan hatched out back in July....

    Has NOTHING to do with truth or justice..

    As Blathy conceded, this is all a grand plan as payback for Garland...

    Which is fine.. Turnabout is fair play... It's pathetically sad that Democrats have gone about it this way, but that's par for the course for Democrats..

    But Democrats can't pretend this is all about truth and justice...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    But Democrats can't pretend this is all about truth and justice...

    Well, they CAN....

    But everyone else knows what's what....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats have put all their eggs inside Ford’s basket. If her story falters, it will reflect on them and their awful handling of Kavanaugh’s confirmation. This is something voters will not forget by November, and that “blue wave” many are expecting could evaporate because of it.
    http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/20/will-unleashing-kavanaughs-accuser-suck-away-democrats-midterm-blue-wave/

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    This whole sorry and pathetic exercise is about one thing and one thing only.. Delaying the Kavanaugh nomination..

    Which cannot be allowed to happen..

    why not, exactly? it's a lifetime appointment, so it's not as if the clock's ticking and he's going anywhere.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    why not, exactly?

    Because it will set a precedent that any old FACT-LESS accusation can be used to derail proper confirmation process..

    As in my previous analogy..

    "Give me $10 million dollars and I'll testify"

    If one gives into that then it sets a very dark precedent that leads to a very slippery slope..

    And argument I am confident that ya'all would be making if the Party roles were reversed in this situation.. :D

    If Democrats *REALLY* wanted justice and truth, they would have started this process back in July when they were first made aware of this issue....

    If Democrats *REALLY* wanted justice and truth, they would not have sprung this on the committee in the 11th hour AFTER the confirmation hearings had been completed...

    Any claims of this being rushed is SOLELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY the fault of Democrats...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now for a bit of humor...

    A man was standing in a line with a friend at a liquor store in Moscow. After waiting for hours, the guy said to his friend, "Hold my place in line. I am going to go shoot Gorbachev."
    The man left and came back an hour later to reclaim his place in line.
    "Did you get him?" the friend asked?
    "No", the man said. "The line there was even longer than the line here.." Baa daa da
    -Declassified Soviet-Era Joke

    :D

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in the Jeezus people, get a life!!! Department..

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2018/09/20/sexy-handmaids-tale-halloween-costume-sparks-outrage/1375851002/

    Jeezus, people!! Get a life!!!

    :^/

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    How much evidence is required to destroy a person’s life?

    Christine Blasey Ford has accused Brett M. Kavanaugh of attempted rape while they were both in high school — a charge he unequivocally denies. She can’t remember the date the alleged attack took place. She isn’t even certain about the year (although she reportedly thinks it may have been the summer around the end of her sophomore year when she was 15). She can’t remember whose house she was in. She can’t remember how she got there. She says she didn’t tell anyone about it at the time, not even her closest friends — so there are no contemporaneous witnesses to back her claims.

    No other women have come forward to say that the young Kavanaugh assaulted them. There is no pattern of bad behavior. Quite the contrary, by all accounts other than Ford’s, he treats women with respect in his personal and professional life. (Full disclosure: I worked with Kavanaugh in the George W. Bush White House.) The gathering included just Ford and four others, according to her confidential letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). One man named by Ford as a witness has come forward and not only denied knowledge of the assault but also denied knowledge of the gathering in question. Another, who said he was the “PJ” mentioned in the letter, Patrick J. Smyth, has also denied being at a gathering like the one Ford described.

    Once again..

    There are **NO FACTS** to support this so-called "victim"'s version of events..

    There are TONS OF FACTS to support Judge Kavanaugh's complete and utter innocence of this accusation...

    When Democrats have ANY facts to support this so-called "victim"'s claim, ANY facts to support a pattern of such behavior... THEN we can talk...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Now let me ask you..

    Why derail this nomination based on NOTHING but the spotty, ambiguous and outright deceitful claims of this so-called "victim"??

    Let Judge Kavanaugh get to work...

    Then Democrats can investigate to their hearts content and, if it turns out that I am wrong, that this IS something other than a huge NOTHING BURGER then, armed with actual FACTS, Democrats can push to impeach Judge Kavanaugh....

    If "truth" and "justice" are TRULY the goals here, then THAT is the best process going forward...

    But "truth" and "justice" are NOT the goals here and you and I both know it...

    :D

  22. [22] 
    lharvey16 wrote:

    CW
    You can tell you're onto a good idea by how far you have to scroll to avoid michaele drivel. Please cc Schumer.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, but that "good idea" depends on one impossible factor..

    Dumbocrats take the Senate..

    And, considering the huge spanking Dumbocrats are getting after this sad and pathetic Garland Payback gambit, the chances of the Dumbos getting the Senate are even MORE remote...

    :D

    But hay.. Thanx for playing.. :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    And another Hollywood party for Beto...

    Yea.. *THAT* will play well in Texas!! :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, considering the huge spanking Dumbocrats are getting after this sad and pathetic Garland Payback gambit, the chances of the Dumbos getting the Senate are even MORE remote...

    Put another way..

    If you honestly believe that the Dumbocrats actually have a chance of taking the Senate...

    Then you are as delusional as you were back when you thought Hillary Clinton actually had a chance of being POTUS... :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    DEMOCRATS: WE ALREADY KNOW KNOW KAVANAUGH IS GUILTY
    https://news.grabien.com/story-democrats-we-already-know-know-kavanaugh-guilty-montage

    And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen..

    American jurisprudence, Dumbocrat style..

    "We already know he's guilty so let's just take him outside and hang 'im!!"

    That's ya'all's Dumbocrat Party..

    Aren't ya'all soooooo proud.. :^/

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    CW
    You can tell you're onto a good idea by how far you have to scroll to avoid michaele drivel. Please cc Schumer.

    I know, right.

    Michale:

    If the scroll dial on my mouse breaks I'm sending you the bill ;)

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the scroll dial on my mouse breaks I'm sending you the bill ;)

    :D

    There's just so many facts ya'all continue to ignore..

    I would be doing a grave disservice to ya'all and to CW if I didn't do my utmost to make ya'all aware of them..

    :D

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    There's just so many facts ya'all continue to ignore..

    Dream on, my friend.

    Past experience has taught me that cut/paste content from RWNJ web sites is a good idea to ignore ;)

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Past experience has taught me that cut/paste content from RWNJ web sites is a good idea to ignore ;)

    Well, sure.. If you WANT to remain ignorant, that is of course, your choice...

    But facts are facts and care not for the Party loyalist who chooses to remain clueless.. :D

    Once the GOP retains control of the HOUSE and SENATE as I predict, you'll learn.. :D

    You think I comment alot NOW!??? :D Wait until then.. :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sen. Gillbrand: Asking Kavanaugh’s Accuser to Testify ‘Is Silencing Her’

    THAT is what amounts to "logic" for the Dumbocrat Party...

    Offeringh this so-called "victim" a forum to substantiate her accusations is "silencing" her.. :^/

    Dumbocrat "logic"... :eyeroll:

  32. [32] 
    Paula wrote:

    So a bigshot "conservative" lawyer Ed Whelan goes on Twitter and does a tweetstorm accusing a fellow student of Kavanaugh's as being the actual attacker. He names this man and posts his photo and photos of where this man lived in Maryland at the time. HE WENT ON TWITTER and ACCUSED another man of attempted rape.

    The story was then spread through the rightwing media machine. Meanwhile people-with-brains on Twitter, and real-journalist begin responding to the unbelievable stupidity and cupidity of this move. FOX & Friends did a big segment on it. The tweets have been deleted (though lots of outlets have the screenshots) and Whelan has issued an abject apology.

    It's now looking like Orrin Hatche's office may have helped cook this thing up and it's possible Kavanaugh himself knew about it.

    I hope the man they fingered sues Whelan for defamation and, via discovery, finds out just who was involved.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/21/17886430/brett-kavanaugh-news-ed-whelan-trump

    "Ed Whelan’s tweets have created a second Kavanaugh scandal.

    Did Brett Kavanaugh know a friend of his was planning to smear a private citizen?"

    Among other things, this kind of boneheaded stunt makes clear the Repubs have accepted an assault did take place, now they're trying to shift the blame.

  33. [33] 
    Paula wrote:

    To clarify, FOX & Friends did a segment taking the tweetstorm seriously and spreading the accusations Whelan made.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    HE WENT ON TWITTER and ACCUSED another man of attempted rape..

    How is that any different than what ya'all are doing to Judge Kavanaugh???

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's now looking like Orrin Hatche's office may have helped cook this thing up and it's possible Kavanaugh himself knew about it.

    Facts that prove this??

    No???

    Of course not.. :^/

  36. [36] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    How is that any different than what ya'all are doing to Judge Kavanaugh?

    Is that a defensive post, or do you seriously not know the difference?

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Trump Tweet: I met with the DOJ concerning the declassification of various UNREDACTED documents. They agreed to release them but stated that so doing may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe. Also, key Allies’ called to ask not to release..

    Once again, Trump is stopped from doing something incredibly stupid by the folks around him.

    And he's so self-unaware that he felt compelled to tell the world about it.

    .

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    HE WENT ON TWITTER and ACCUSED another man of attempted rape.

    So?? The guy is likely a Republican and... GASP!!! A MAN!!!!

    So, what do you care about what he is accused of??

    You never cared about the innocence of GOP'ers before..

    Why start now..

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is that a defensive post, or do you seriously not know the difference?

    There is no difference..

    Ya'all accuse a man without ANY facts to support the accusation...

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, Trump is stopped from doing something incredibly stupid by the folks around him.

    That's one possibility..

    Another possibility is that President Trump did the responsible thing, listen to people who have relevance to the issue and made a wise decision..

    When yer a Trump hater, everything looks like a Trump mistake...

    :^/

  41. [41] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://www.wonkette.com/national-review-idiot-found-the-real-rapist-and-its-totally-chris-not-that-hes-saying-its-chris

    He has screenshots of the Whelan tweets that have been deleted and does a nice breakdown of the debacle.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    NYT: ROSENSTEIN WANTED TO WEAR WIRE
    PLOT TO REMOVE TRUMP

    https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/407807-rosenstein-discussed-secretly-recorded-conversations-with-trump

    DOH!!!!

    He is sooo fired...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    He has screenshots of the Whelan tweets that have been deleted and does a nice breakdown of the debacle.

    BBBWWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    "It's HORRID and DESPICABLE that this Whelan asshole would post tweets accusing an INNOCENT MAN of rape!! Here's a copy of his tweets for ya'all to read!!!!"
    -Paula

    Do you comprehend thru all yer hatred what utter lunacy that is???

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ya'all accuse a man without ANY facts to support the accusation...

    It's called testimony, Mike, and it happens in every court in this country, daily. Victims accuse their attackers, often long after the crime occurred (for a variety of reasons). Prosecutors assess the victim's credibility - this one is a College professor - and sometimes prosecute, and sometimes get convictions based on that testimony.

    One difference is that authorities usually do some sort of investigation. In this case, Kavanaugh's allies are for some reason reluctant to investigate these charges. Why is that?

    Kavanaugh is simply learning something that Harvey Weinstien and Bill Cosby have learned before him - that there is no statute of limitations on attempted rape, and that victim testimony matters, even in a he said/she said scenario.

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    M [40] That's one possibility..

    A distinct possibility. Let's just say that it's a fair bet that Trump didn't discuss that move with his lawyers first (if they recommended it, he should fire them immediately).

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's called testimony, Mike, and it happens in every court in this country, daily.

    It's called FACTS and ya'all and this so-called "victim" have NONE...

    Not a SINGLE iota of a fact to support this so-called "victim"'s claims..

    One difference is that authorities usually do some sort of investigation.

    Which the FBI did when DiFi reported it to them back in Jul..

    Their conclusion?? Insufficient facts to warrant further investigation..

    In this case, Kavanaugh's allies are for some reason reluctant to investigate these charges. Why is that?

    Because it's clear these "charges" are nothing but partisan payback for Garland...

    As such, they don't merit investigation as there are no FACTS to support an investigation..

    Kavanaugh is simply learning something that Harvey Weinstien and Bill Cosby have learned before him - that there is no statute of limitations on attempted rape, and that victim testimony matters, even in a he said/she said scenario.

    Wienstien and Cosby both showed a PATTERN...

    Is there such a pattern with Kavanaugh?? No, there is not...

    However, there ARE facts to support that Kavanaugh is not capable of these acts.. Over 200 witnesses who have KNOWN Kavanaugh for over 40 years...

    And you have ONE muddle-brained drunk who says otherwise...

    A distinct possibility..

    That's your biased opinion based on Trump hatred...

  47. [47] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Which the FBI did when DiFi reported it to them back in Jul..

    they don't merit investigation as there are no FACTS to support an investigation.

    So which is it - did they investigate or not? I'm guessing no, otherwise the lack of investigation wouldn't be an issue.

    By comparison, the FBI did an investigation prior to the Anita Hill - Clarence Thomas hearings with fewer 'facts' in evidence than there are here.

    Grassley and his fellow Republicants must fear that an investigation might result in even more dirt on their already-flawed nominee. No FBI, no siree...

  48. [48] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Is there such a pattern with Kavanaugh?? No, there is not...

    So one-time rapists get a pass? I don't remember a 'one and out' clause in the law.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    So which is it - did they investigate or not? I'm guessing no, otherwise the lack of investigation wouldn't be an issue.

    Lack of investigation is NOT an issue..

    For those who know the FACTS and don't have a political agenda..

    DiFi reported the issue to the FBI in July. The FBI investigated and determined it's a nothing burger and simply added it to Kavanaugh's packet...

    By comparison, the FBI did an investigation prior to the Anita Hill - Clarence Thomas hearings

    THAT's because the issue came to light MONTHS before the hearings..

    If the Democrats wanted a full force investigation, why did they wait MONTHS and spring it on the committee AFTER the hearings were over???

    Grassley and his fellow Republicants must fear that an investigation might result in even more dirt on their already-flawed nominee. No FBI, no siree...

    No, Grassley and his fellow Republicans don't want to derail the confirmation over NOTHING but a lame addled-brained accusation that has NO SUPPORTING FACTS...

    If the Dumbocrats wanted an investigation, they should have demanded one back in Jul...

    NOT after the hearings were concluded..

    So one-time rapists get a pass? I don't remember a 'one and out' clause in the law.

    NO FACTS to support the claim that Kavanaugh is a one time rapist or ANY rapist for that matter.

    YOU brought up Wisenstein and Cosby as if it has some relevance here..

    I simply used FACTS to prove you wrong.. :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't take my word for it..

    Listen to LeaningBlue...

    Next to me, he is the most level-heading one here on this issue.. Interested in FACTS and nothing else...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    McConnell voices confidence on Kavanaugh confirmation: 'We're going to plow right through it'
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/21/mcconnell-voices-confidence-on-kavanaugh-confirmation-were-going-to-plow-through-this.html

    Yep.. That's what needs to be done..

    Show the Dumbocrats that they are not going to get away with their Garland Revenge pathetic bullshit...

    Dumbocrats rolled the dice and they failed...

  52. [52] 
    Paula wrote:

    [48] Balthasar: The attempted rape is bad enough, but Kavanaugh should really go down because he is a liar. Lying about the attack is just one-more-lie.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    When all is said and done, here is what's left...

    1. There are *NO FACTS* to support this so-called "victim"'s claim..

    2. There are TONS of facts to support Kavanaugh's innocence...

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    [48] Balthasar: The attempted rape is bad enough, but Kavanaugh should really go down because he is a liar. Lying about the attack is just one-more-lie.

    Facts that Kavanaugh is lying??

    NONE whatsoever...

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    NYT: ROSENSTEIN WANTED TO WEAR WIRE
    PLOT TO REMOVE TRUMP
    https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/407807-rosenstein-discussed-secretly-recorded-conversations-with-trump

    DOH!!!!

    He is sooo fired...

    There goes the Mueller Witch Hunt as well.. :D

  56. [56] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    THAT's because the issue[of Anita Hill's allegations] came to light MONTHS before the hearings..

    The Thomas hearings had been completed when Nina Totenberg leaked news that Anita Hill's allegations had been raised and reported in a preliminary FBI report. The hearings were re-opened to address the allegations, and the FBI then did a follow-up investigation.

    The fact set here is nearly the same, save that Feinstein rather than NPR leaked the accusation. Democrats are only asking for the same follow-up investigation that was done for Hill.

    But, yes, the extra time that it would take to do such an investigation would be..inconvenient.. for Republicans. In 1991, the follow-up investigation took three whole days. Sucks, eh?

    YOU brought up Wisenstein and Cosby as if it has some relevance here..

    Weinstein and Cosby are relevant, like it or not. Most of the accusations against both of them relate to sexual assault, not rape.

    Kavanaugh is accused of sexual assault, with the belief of the victim that she escaped an attempted rape.

    And the accusation is certainly more serious than those that were leveled at Franken, who was drummed out of the Senate.

  57. [57] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Facts that Kavanaugh is lying?

    She's referring to the fact that Kavanaugh stated under oath that he had no part in framing Bush's torture policy. Emails released later have proved that to be a lie.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2018/09/21/women-rally-in-support-kavanaugh-know-man-know-his-heart/_jcr_content/par/featured_image/media-0.img.jpg/931/524/1537556853960.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

    Dozens of women stand in support of Judge Kavanaugh..

    So much for the bullshit claim that women are abandoning him...

    Where is the support for this so-called "victim"'s story???

    NO FACTS whatsoever.....

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    Let's hope Rosenstein is fired and the TOTUS hires a replacement whose only purpose is to fire Mueller.

    But let's hope this takes a few excruciating weeks and is the main point of discussion up to the election.

    Rosenstein is already claiming that this is a hit job inside the WH against him, let's hope he is right and the WH spends the next couple of months twisting in the wind over this.

    Also, once Rosenstein is out, he is a potential witness for Mueller or the replacement to Mueller you just know is coming.

    Remember, TOTUS nominated Rosenstein to his current role in Feb 2017 and he was confirmed in Apr 2017.

    This is a clear demonstration that TOTUS has no control over his policy, his staff, and, very likely, getting his mushroom polished by his wife.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    She's referring to the fact that Kavanaugh stated under oath that he had no part in framing Bush's torture policy.

    Factually not accurate..

    Kavanaugh was asked if he had any primary part in framing Bush's torture policy..

    Kavanaugh answered factually that he had no primary part in framing Bush's torture policy...

    Once again.. FACTS.... vs ya'all's political hatred...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    NONE of which has anything to do with the FACT that there is not a single solitary fact to support this so-called "victim"'s claims...

  62. [62] 
    neilm wrote:

    Facts that Kavanaugh is lying?

    She's referring to the fact that Kavanaugh stated under oath that he had no part in framing Bush's torture policy. Emails released later have proved that to be a lie.

    We've been through this before, we all need to stop confusing Michale with reality. It is a form of torture to him as it puts his head into a spin cycle where the possibility that he has been conned for three years messes up his carefully collected set of fantasies.

  63. [63] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    There goes the Mueller Witch Hunt as well..

    You mean the one that keeps catching witches.

    Do you honestly think that firing Rosenstein or Mueller will cause all of the prosecutors, investigators, State's Attorney Generals, US District Attorney's and others to simply abandon their work and go away? Will Manafort's depositions disappear?

    Don't set yourself up for disappointment...

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    You'all are remembering that Rosenstein was on Starr's prosecution of Bill Clinton - nobody on the left needs to feel sorry for this guy - I'll be happy to see the back of him frankly, and if it is because of a bunch of lies made up about him that TOTUS believes, all the better.

  65. [65] 
    Paula wrote:

    [57] Balthasar: Kavanaugh also lied about using materials stolen from Democrats during his earlier confirmation hearings:

    Last week, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of repeatedly misleading the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings. “Brett Kavanaugh used materials stolen from Democratic senators to advance President Bush’s judicial nominees,” the committee’s ranking member tweeted. “He was asked about this in 2004, 2006 and this week. His answers were not true.”

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-lies-senate-testimony-supreme-court.html

  66. [66] 
    neilm wrote:

    Also, if Rosenstein is fired, I can't wait for the senate hearings for his replacement.

    The first question every single Senator should ask his nominated replacement is "Are you going to fire Mueller?"

    Nice lead up to the election.

  67. [67] 
    Paula wrote:

    Kavanaugh ALSO worked for Ken Starr and spent his time creating allegations against Bill Clinton, all of which were eventually debunked. He's a longtime rightwing scumbag - thus he's a perfect GOP nominee - but he's bad for America.

    Republicans doing everything they can to cover for him debases everything about this process. If they succeed in shoe-horning him onto SCOTUS they will taint the court as well as themselves.

    They had other nominees to choose from who would have been reliable "conservative" judges. They would have been bad, but not bad like this.

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    In fact, given that Rosenstein is claiming innocence, and that this is a plot to get him, this might be a very clever plot be somebody wanting to undermine the WH just before the mid terms.

    If you are an American before you are a Republican, and you work in the White House and are disgusted by what you see, what better than to gin up some lies about Rosenstein, put Mueller's possible firing into play, and then sit back and wait for Fox News to get suckered in and get the clown all riled up.

    Just about any way you look at this, it is a disaster for TOTUS.

  69. [69] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kavanaugh answered factually that he had no primary part in framing Bush's torture policy...

    An assertion that the emails appear to contradict. Senator Patrick Leahy has referred the matter to the DOJ for investigation.

    The answer is probably found in the thousands of pages of documents that were withheld from the committee by the the White House, now sought by Democrats.

  70. [70] 
    Paula wrote:

    [69] Balthasar:

    The answer is probably found in the thousands of pages of documents that were withheld from the committee by the the White House, now sought by Democrats.

    Yep. Among the many reasons this nomination process is tainted is the fact that Repubs have suppressed the majority of documents relating to Kavanaugh's professional history. When Elena Kagan was nominated virtually everything she'd ever written was demanded by Repubs, and provided.

    Repubs put an arbitrary timeline on the process and suppressed materials and are now complaining about Christine Blasey Ford's timing, thus adding yet another layer of hypocrisy to the mountain they'd already built.

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    What is going to hurt the Republicans more in the mid terms:

    1. The clown in the White House, or

    2. The war on women, or

    3. Trying or actually firing Mueller, or

    4. Attacking Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid?

    I'm going with #4 but they are really trying to make #2 as bad for themselves as possible.

  72. [72] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Riddle me this... If Kavanaugh is as pure as driven snow, blemish-free with his stink-free shite, why has he denied ever being at a party that remains un-named, at house who knows where, held by god only knows?

    Blanket denials imply multiple infractions.

    It's all academic, the Democrats are just sending the message that they won't forget the Garland treachery.
    Both sides live in the loopholes and cracks.
    "Past is prologue"
    Trump will be cauterized in November and Trump will single-handedly decimate the GOP. By 2020, the old guard of the GOP will be put out to pasture, Trump will be begging Biden for pardons and the real work of government can get back to repairing the damage.

    You heard it here first.

    LL&P

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    An assertion that the emails appear to contradict. Senator Patrick Leahy has referred the matter to the DOJ for investigation.

    WOW.. A Dumbocrat referred a matter for investigation..

    EARTH SHATTERING!!!!

    MY GODS, THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!!! :D

    Face reality my friend.. Kavanaugh will make it out of committee by next week, fully approved and ready to face the full Senate..

    GOPers are united behind Kavanaugh and this pathetic Garland Payback maneuver has placed red state Democrats in even MORE danger..

    I'll be laughing all next week and the bonehead stunt Dumbocrats pulled.... :D

  74. [74] 
    neilm wrote:

    People are saying that TOTUS will offer to throw the 2020 election if he can get a cast iron guarantee of a pardon and the dogs called off.

    I'd tell these people: "No way, he is going down in 2020 and to prison in 2021."

  75. [75] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kavanaugh will make it out of committee by next week, fully approved and ready to face the full Senate..

    Where Republicans have a two vote margin. Good Luck!

  76. [76] 
    Paula wrote:

    Repubs are doing everything they can to discourage Dr. Ford from appearing. EVERYTHING they've done makes Kavanaugh look guilty, not innocent. They think he did it and they don't care if he did, but they DO care if sane-America thinks he did and is getting away with it.

  77. [77] 
    Paula wrote:

    They're down to saying she has to come Wednesday when she said she can't make it until Thursday. That's how much they want the truth!

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    They're down to saying she has to come Wednesday when she said she can't make it until Thursday. That's how much they want the truth!

    If she can't make it Weds, that shows how much she wants her hearing..

    This is all about delay... That's it

    Repubs are doing everything they can to discourage Dr. Ford from appearing.

    And, once again, you spew bullshit without ANY facts..

    GOP'ers have bent over backwards to accomadate the so-called "victim". But every time the GOP agreed, this liar moved the goal posts..

    Personally, I was for not giving an inch. The matter has ALREADY been postponed to accomadate the liar and they should hold fast to the Monday deadline..

    However, if it takes moving it a couple days to PROVE what the liar's agenda is?? I guess I can get on board with that..

    Once again.. Paula.. Long on hysterical bullshit and actually NO FACTS to speak of.. :D

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    People are saying that TOTUS will offer to throw the 2020 election if he can get a cast iron guarantee of a pardon and the dogs called off.

    yea... Just like "people are saying" that Republicans are looking for a way to dump Kavanaugh.. :D

    Once again.. LONG on hysterical bullshit..

    Absolutely NO FACTS WHATSOEVER to support.. :D

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Where Republicans have a two vote margin. Good Luck!

    We don't need luck..

    We have FIVE Democrats ready to say YES to Kavanaugh... :D

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Judge Kavanaugh will be seated as the next SCOTUS Justice by 1 Oct 2018....

    This is fact...

    "La-a-a-a-a-di-da"
    -Maren Morris

    :D

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/21/kavanaugh-lawyer-debra-katz-resist-rally/

    Pure unadulterated Party slavery..

    The entire Kavanaugh Democrat debacle is about pushing an agenda, about Garland Payback, about derailing a good man's nomination, a man who even LIBERALS rave about...

    It has NOTHING to do with truth or justice or facts..

    Just a Party agenda. That's it..

    And it WILL fail and it WILL cost Dumbocrats in November...

    Independents may not be warm for President Trump but they hate this Dumbocrat kind of bullshit more...

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    Funny how the "Law and Order" party has become the "catch us if you can" gang.

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny how the "Law and Order" party has become the "catch us if you can" gang.

    Funny how the Dumbocrat Party has become the GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT Party...

    Dumbocrats don't DESERVE to govern....

  85. [85] 
    neilm wrote:

    Innocent, and if you can obstruct the FBI from investigating, you can stay that way.

    Applies to TOTAS and Kav.

  86. [86] 
    Paula wrote:

    Per WaPo: https://t.co/gOMr5N77uS

    Dr. Ford noticed that Ed Whelan was checking her LinkedIn profile a few hours before her name was made public.

    On Sunday, Ford noticed that — even before her name became public — Whelan appeared to be seeking information about her.

    That morning, Ford alerted an associate via email that Whelan had looked at her LinkedIn page, according to the email, which was reviewed by The Post. LinkedIn allows some subscribers to see who views their pages. Ford sent the email about 90 minutes after The Post shared her name with a White House spokesman and hours before her identity was revealed in a story posted on its website.

    A White House spokesman said Friday that neither Kavanaugh nor anyone in the White House gave Ford’s name to Whelan before it was disclosed by The Post. Whelan did not respond to a request for comment on how he first learned of Ford’s identity.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/1043269288579227648

    Yep... Time to play hardball against this Dumbocrat bullshit...

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Innocent, and if you can obstruct the FBI from investigating, you can stay that way.

    Sorry, son.. The FBI already investigated back in July.. And duly and properly round-filed this crock of shit...

    Your Dumbocrat ploy is crashing and burning..

    You lost...

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the precedent ship set sail thirty years ago. it's a political process, and it will play out politically. personally i'd like to know for a fact whether or not there's substance to the accusations, prior to the senate voting. at the moment any conclusions are pure speculation. my suspicion is that the nomination will be rammed through and we'll only find out later. hopefully it all works out and doesn't give our system of government yet another black eye.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Excellent assessment...

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    71

    What is going to hurt the Republicans more in the mid terms:

    1. The clown in the White House, or

    2. The war on women, or

    3. Trying or actually firing Mueller, or

    4. Attacking Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid?

    I'm going with #4 but they are really trying to make #2 as bad for themselves as possible.
    _______________

    These are all excellent points, but I'm going with:

    5. AOTA :)

Comments for this article are closed.