On Tuesday's 'Hugh Hewitt Show', Sen. Tom Cotton reacted to Senate Democratic opposition to Brett Kavanaugh's SCOTUS noinations, callign their concerns a "somewhat laughable political game."
HUGH HEWITT: So tell me about your reaction last night when Brett Kavanaugh, the President probably called you beforehand, but what was your reaction?
SEN. TOM COTTON: The President did throughout this process what he promised to do on the campaign trail, what he did in his first opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice, is work from a list that he gave to the American people in advance of very distinguished jurists of all stripes. He selected Judge Kavanaugh who has a long and very impressive record from the D.C. Circuit, and before that as a very capable appellate lawyer in Washington, D.C. I've got now a stack of opinions on my desk that I'll be reading through, which is one of the reasons why I left the law and became a soldier, but it's part of the job. And then I'll look forward to meeting with Judge Kavanaugh very soon.
HEWITT: Now there is a story this morning that this was prearranged, a deal that was made with Justice Kennedy to entice him to retire, that it would be Judge Kavanaugh. I don't know if it's true. It's widely reported. If it is true, does that change your assessment of this?
COTTON: Hugh, no, that's the first I've heard of such a deal. And I'll evaluate this nomination on its merits, on Judge Kavanaugh's record and his character and his jurisprudence. Justice Kennedy served our country for a very long time, and we should thank him for that service. But he's going to take senior status now, and what we have to do as senators is evaluate Judge Kavanaugh's record, and Judge Kavanaugh's jurisprudence when we vote on his nomination. The relationship between the President and Justice Kennedy, in my opinion, is really not relevant to that consideration.
HEWITT: And I want to urge everyone to consult history. Often, justices talk to the White House about when they're going to leave, so that's not a scandal. I talked earlier with Todd Young, with Raj Shah, Senator Cotton, about the Kavanaugh papers at the Bush White House library, the Bush library down in Texas, and about the Independent Counsel papers, urging rapid disclosure, because they will eventually come out, those that are not classified. Those that are classified will end up in a SCIF for senators to review. Do you agree with me, or do you think that there's any doubt that those papers have to be produced?
COTTON: Well, I have no doubt that the Senate will receive the documents we need to consider Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. In fact, George W. Bush just committed to President Trump already that his library and archives would work in an efficient manner to make sure that all documents are produced, and to the extent that there are any privileges or classification issues, they work in a cooperative manner to try to get senators the information they need. Now that said, we certainly can't let the Democrats slow roll this nomination, making endless and needless requests for documents in which Judge Kavanaugh played no part. For three years, Judge Kavanaugh was President Bush's staff secretary. That's the person who controls the flow of papers in and out of the West Wing. It's a very important role, but that doesn't mean that he wrote hundreds of thousands or millions of pieces of paper that crossed the President's desk. And we shouldn't let the Democrats use the facts like that to draw out needlessly the meetings and then the hearings that we'll have on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. I expect they'll do that. The Democrats in the Senate have kind of gone around the bend already on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination if you look at some of the extreme rhetoric, or my favorite part was some of the senators standing out in front of the Supreme Court last night protesting the nomination. And you could see in the background they had signs premade not just for stopping Kavanaugh, but stop Barrett and stop Hardiman and stop Kethledge as well. So it's clear they're just playing a somewhat laughable political game, and they would have opposed for partisan reasons anyone that President Trump nominated.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) calls for the Senate put a stop to the nomination of Donald Trump's Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who Schumer says will "strip women's reproductive rights," undermine the Affordable Care Act, and curb environmental regulations.
"Judge Kavanaugh's own writings make clear that he would rule against reproductive rights and freedoms," Schumer said. "He wouldn't have been approved by the Federalist Society if Leonard Leo weren't certain that he'd repeal Roe v. Wade."
"Judge Kavanaugh has argued that the Trump administration could keep a young girl in federal custody to prevent her from obtaining constitutionally protected health care. And he has argued that employers should be able to deny their employees access to affordable contraceptive coverage. If Judge Kavanaugh feels that way about contraceptive rights, imagine how he feels on a woman's right to choose."
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: Now, Madam President, last night, President Trump selected Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee for the upcoming vacancy on the Supreme Court.
In selecting Judge Kavanaugh, President Trump did exactly what he said he would do on the campaign trail -- nominate someone who will overturn women's reproductive rights and freedoms and strike down health care protections for millions of Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions. He's put at risk civil rights, labor rights, environmental rights, and LGBTQ rights.
How do we know? Because President Trump repeatedly promised to nominate justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade, and who will undermine our health care laws. This didn't come out of the clear blue. President Trump promised it.
Here's what he said: he would only pick "pro-life" judges who would "automatically" reverse Roe v. Wade. President Trump actually went so far as to say that women should be "punished" for their health care choices.
President Trump also said quote his "judicial appointments would do the right thing, unlike Judge Roberts on health care."
That is President Trump's litmus test, and it couldn't be clearer. And during the campaign, President Trump commissioned a list of 25 people who would meet that litmus test, that were vetted and approved by two organizations that represent the hard-right: the Federalist Society -- led by a man named Leonard Leo, whose goal in life has been to overturn Roe v. Wade -- and the Heritage Foundation, whose goal is to strike down health care law because they don't want the government to help people out when they have pre-existing conditions, or other health care needs.
Here's what Edward Whelan, a prominent conservative activist, said about Leonard Leo, the man who put together the list that Trump promised to pick from: "no one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade than the Federalist Society's Leonard Leo." If anyone believes that Judge Kavanaugh or anyone else on the list would uphold Roe v. Wade, then I have a bridge to sell them. Leonard Leo's goal in life is to repeal Roe. He comes up with the list, do you think he put any slackers, in his opinion, on that list? No.
Judge Kavanaugh got the nomination, not because he'll be an impartial judge on behalf of all Americans, but because he passed President Trump's litmus tests: repeal women's freedom for their reproductive rights, and repeal people's health care, including the protections for pre-existing conditions. If Judge Kavanaugh was to be confirmed, women's reproductive rights would be in the hands of five men on the Supreme Court. That's not what the women -- or the men -- of America want.
Judge Kavanaugh's own writings make clear that he would rule against reproductive rights and freedoms, and that he would welcome challenges to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Judge Kavanaugh has argued that the Supreme Court should question the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. He openly criticized the Supreme Court when they upheld the law. He's no neutral arbiter, he's already made up his mind, and he wouldn't have been approved by the Heritage Foundation if they weren't certain that he'd repeal the ACA. He wouldn't have been approved by the Federalist Society if Leonard Leo weren't certain that he'd repeal Roe v. Wade.
Judge Kavanaugh has argued that the Trump administration could keep a young girl in federal custody to prevent her from obtaining constitutionally protected health care. And he has argued that employers should be able to deny their employees access to affordable contraceptive coverage. If Judge Kavanaugh feels that way about contraceptive rights, imagine how he feels on a woman's right to choose.
And I'd make one other point about Judge Kavanaugh: he's a deeply, deeply conservative justice, way out of the mainstream. He has written troubling decisions rejecting something ninety percent of Americans want: common-sense gun laws. He has undone environmental protections, he's challenged them, and our Clean Air and Clean Water Acts would be at risk. He would make it far more difficult for regulations to exist to enforce those laws.
And here's the most amazing thing: he has gone so far as to say that a president doesn't need to follow the law if he "deems" it unconstitutional. Folks, here we have a president, President Trump, who cares less about rule of law, less about the restraints that every other president has felt put in place by the Constitution and the norms that have blessed this great country for 200 years, and we're going to put someone on the bench that says 'if this president, President Trump, deems some law unconstitutional he doesn't have to follow it? How many Americans think that the president would be judicious and limited in doing that? It's not the president I've seen over the past year and a half, oh no.
An analysis by Professor Lee Epstein of Washington University of St. Louis found that Judge Kavanaugh would be the second-most conservative Justice on the Court -- to the right of Judge Gorsuch, second only to Justice Thomas, and this is the most conservative court we've had in eighty, ninety years, since the thirties at the very minimum. To those who say that President Trump has made a moderate selection from the judicial mainstream in the form of Judge Kavanaugh -- think again, and look at his record. He is a deeply conservative jurist.
And his judicial philosophy appears to spring from his history. Judge Kavanaugh was embedded in the partisan fights of the past few decades: the notorious Starr report, the Florida recount, President Bush's secrecy and privilege claims once in office, and ideological judicial nomination fights throughout the Bush Era. The hard-right has had a goal. They can't achieve their philosophy through the elected two branches of government, try as they might: the Congress, the president. But if they get control of the one non-elected branch, the judiciary, they can turn the clock back in America decades, maybe centuries. That has been their goal, and Judge Kavanaugh when he worked in the White House helped them achieve that goal.
Judge Kavanaugh's background as a partisan political operative seems exactly like the kind of man President Trump would want on the Supreme Court if legal issues from the Mueller probe arise: deferential to a fault to executive authority, and with a long track record of partisan politics.
Judge Kavanaugh's long track record of partisan politics comes with a long paper trail.
The Senate must now be able to have access and time to adequately review all documents, e-mails, and other paperwork associated with Judge Kavanaugh before the process moves forward. Judge Kavanaugh's papers may be critical to helping the American people understand the kind of jurist that Judge Kavanaugh would be on the Supreme Court. And if that makes us take a little more time, so be it. As the president himself has said, this is one of the most consequential nominations we have had in a generation. To get the full record before any of us vote is absolutely necessary, important, essential, and fair.
Judge Kavanaugh's papers may give the Senate the best and only chance of understanding Judge Kavanaugh's personal views because there's no doubt he will be schooled, as his most recent predecessor was, to reveal as little about his philosophy and personal views in his confirmation hearing. No doubt he will employ practiced evasions that have become a farcical tradition of the nomination process: "I will respect precedent"; "I will follow settled law and strive to uphold stare decisis"; "Gee Senator, I cannot comment lest I bias myself on a future case."
Well, we have seen what happened when now-Justice Roberts, now-Justice Gorsuch, and now-Justice Alito had said that. Once they got on the bench, they overturned precedent with alacrity to achieve their political goals. Probably the worst: Citizens United, where Chief Justice Roberts undid close to a century of tradition, and allowed wealthy people to send millions of dollars, undisclosed, into our politics, making the swamp so much worse. And most recently, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Roberts, and the rest dramatically overturning precedent in the Janus case, on a whim. As the dissent noted, they just pulled a theory out of the hat, a First Amendment ruling that the First Amendment prohibited unions from organizing. My oh my, how can anyone believe that Judge Kavanaugh will stick to precedent when Justice Roberts, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Alito ignore precedent, and make their own political rulings regularly.
So we need to review the record: Judge Kavanaugh's written history, where the best clues to his jurisprudence may lie. It is no less than the standard my Republican colleagues demanded of Justice Kagan during her confirmation process. They asked for her entire records, a hundred seventy thousand documents were sent here. We need those documents, now more than ever because this new justice will be so pivotal in determining the future of our nation for so long.
Madam President, the Senate has come together on a bipartisan basis to protect women's reproductive rights and to protect health care for millions of Americans before -- including those with preexisting conditions. We need to do it again. I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, and I hope a bipartisan majority will ultimately do the same.
This nomination could alter the balance of the court in favor of powerful special interests and against working families for a generation. The pro-hard-right business Heritage Foundation wants only nominees that will side with the big boys against the average person, and in Judge Kavanaugh they've gotten someone who will do just that. We cannot let that happen. If the Senate blocks this nomination, it will lead to a more independent, moderate selection that both parties could support.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, weighs in on the president's nominee of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, saying the man who prepared the list of potential picks, Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, has "dedicated his life to repealing" Roe v. Wade.
"I sure wouldn't take a bet on Leonard Leo's hand-picked list to keep Roe, for sure," Schumer said.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Here's a pitch straight over the plate that David Price might pitch to you, which is, what do you think about pick? What do you think about Judge Kavanaugh?
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: Well look, President Trump is fulfilling his campaign promises with the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. He said in his campaign he would repeal Roe. He would send it back to the states and he said in his campaign he would repeal ACA with things very precious to the American people like pre -- maintaining preexisting conditions and he has now accomplished that. He's had two groups vet these nominees.
One is the Federalist Society run by Leonard Leo.
SCHUMER: Leonard Leo has dedicated his life to repealing Roe and it is a certainty that anyone on that list will vote to repeal Roe. We have the Heritage Foundation, which have dedicated their existence â¦
SCARBOROUGH: Well, can I just stop you on that point?
SCHUMER: Well, I'd like to finish my -- okay, sure.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, I know, but I just to â¦
SCHUMER: Go ahead.
SCARBOROUGH: â¦ go point by point. You can't really say it's a certainty can you, that Brent Kavanaugh will overturn Roe, when certainly most of us would have said it was a certainty that Justice Roberts would overturn the Affordable Care Act. You never know exactly how those â¦
SCHUMER: Well â¦
SCARBOROUGH: â¦ we Republicans or as a former Republican, you never know which direction they're going go.
SCHUMER: Well look, I sure wouldn't take a bet on Leonard Leo's hand picked list to keep Roe, for sure. And the other one is the Heritage Foundation; they have dedicated their existence to repealing ACA, pulling the government out of healthcare. The president promised that in his campaign as well.
So, these are two issues broadly popular with the American people. Women's reproductive rights, keeping healthcare, particularity preexisting conditions, I will oppose this nominee with everything I've got. And I'd make one other point, particularly for you guys, which is this, you are worried about President Trump's overreach, so am I.
This nominee has stood more, both -- certainly before he became a judge, for presidential overreach. He has said the president shouldn't be investigated. He's gone so far as to say, a president, if he declares a law unconstitutional, doesn't have to obey it.
How is he going to react if Mueller needs a subpoena, if Mueller needs some other action? So, for all these reasons, this man should not be on the bench and I believe if we can prove these two points to the American people, that he will repeal Roe and women's reproductive freedom.
That he will repeal ACA and the right to preexisting conditions, or the right to protect preexisting conditions that we will get a majority in the Senate to vote against him. I know it's an uphill fight, but they said we couldn't do it with healthcare and we did.
BRZEZINSKI: I understand that and isn't it also fair to say, Senator, that this nominee is here because Democrats lost the election? Voters, in 2016, there were looking for conservative judges and they worked toward this, the Republicans got what they want, they won, and here we are. I guess my question is, what fight do you really fight.
Do we look toward the mid-terms and try and find a message and try and find a unifying set of leaders or are we going to fight and impossible fight right now because Democrats lost?
SCHUMER: I don't believe it's an impossible fight. They said that with ACA. I believe that if the American people rise up and we've seen lots of that in the last few days, we can win this fight.
And I make one other point, the number one issue for our party, from the red states to the purple states to the blue states, is healthcare, and particularly preexisting conditions, protecting them.
Which is wildly popular and necessary in the reddest of states, this court battle highlights that and so this actually helps us in the mid-terms. Anytime healthcare is highlighted, Democrats win.
SCARBOROUGH: Senator, your task right now seems to be centered around trying to defeat this nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the court. So, how do you balance that fight with the idea of keeping Tester, Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp, in the United States Senate? How do you balance that?
SCHUMER: Well, as I said, in those states healthcare is a important issue, as it is in Maine, as it is in Alaska. Obviously we can't win this fight unless we get a Republican. But, I do believe if the American people come to believe this court would overturn women's reproductive freedom and the ACA, we will get a majority of votes. Obviously it would have to be from both parties.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) told CNN's Chris Cuomo that President Donald Trump "bowed to the elite in Washington" by picking Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his Supreme Court nominee. Santorum supported Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Hardiman, also a Bush nominee, for the nomination.
"Donald Trump said he was going to energize the base with this pick. I don't think he did that. I think a lot of the folks in the base were really turned off to Brett Kavanaugh," he said.
"He is from Washington. He is the establishment pick. He was the Bush pick," the former Senator lamented.
Santorum also said the nomination of Kavanaugh won't excite people and will actually "rub a lot of people the wrong way."
"It just seems like Trump bowed to the elite in Washington, and I think that's going to rub a lot of people the wrong way," he said Monday night. "I don't think it's going to be a game changer, but I think it's not a 'Yeah, let's go get 'em!' moment for Trump."
NBC's Chuck Todd says that Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy is "a very confirmable pick" for the Supreme Court, when it comes to getting through the Senate, noting that pro-choice Republican Sens. Murkowski and Collins have supported him before.
Complete remarks from Judge Brett Kavanaugh after being nominated to the Supreme Court by President Trump. Judge Kavanaugh concludes: "If confirmed by the Senate, I will keep an open mind in every case and I will always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American Rule of Law."
JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH: My judicial philosophy is straightforward. A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law. A judge must interpret statutes as written. And a judge must interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent.
For the past 11 years, I've taught hundreds of students, primarily at Harvard Law School. I teach that the Constitution's separation of powers protects individual liberty, and I remain grateful to the dean who hired me, Justice Elena Kagan.
As a judge, I hire four law clerks each year. I look for the best. My law clerks come from diverse backgrounds and points of view. I am proud that a majority of my law clerks have been women.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) says that he has very serious concerns about justice in the US if Trump chooses a Supreme Court justice nominee from his list of 25 conservative candidates.
ERIN BURNETT: Up front now, independent senator, Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders, I appreciate your time. Look, we understand the president made is choice, and when you talk about just the logistics of getting someone there and forming them, making it at 3 o'clock Eastern is pretty darn late for a 9:00 PM announcement, but that's what we understand. Senator, is there anyone this president could realistically pick that would be acceptable to you?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Oh, there are many people he could realistically pick, people who respected the rights of works, people who respected women's rights, people who are concerned about the environment and climate change, people who believed in justice.
If President Trump were to nominate somebody who held those beliefs, of course I could support that person. Do I realistically think that that is going to be the nominee? No I don't. As you know, Trump has indicated that he's working off a list of 25 right-wing legal people, and that, during the campaign he said pretty publically that his nominee would be somebody to overturn Roe v. Wade.
BURNETT: Yes, he did.
SANDERS: If that is one of his nominees, no, I certainly will not support him or her.
BURNETT: All right, so, out of the list of 25 that you're not amenable to one of the judges that we understand â I don't know if you just heard or Jeff Zeleny, but he's saying it could obviously be anyone on that list of 25, but we do believe at this point he had whittled it down possibly to Judge Thomas Hardiman and Judge Brett Kavanaugh. I want to ask you Thomas Hardiman. Obviously, he's in â on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals right now, and part of the reason he's there is because of you. You voted to confirm him as a Circuit Court judge, so â
SANDERS: Well, wait a minute. Let's â who else voted for him on that one? In fact, everybody voted for him, right?
BURNETT: Well Democrats did. My point is, you're saying you're now putting him a conservative you couldn't support, but obviously a decade ago you didn't feel the same way?
SANDERS: Well, there's â yes, but there is a difference between voting for somebody in a lower-court and somebody floating â voting for somebody in the highest court of the land. There's fundamental difference, and if he â
BURNETT: Which is what? I mean, principles would matter in either case, right?
SANDERS: Well, the principle is that the Supreme Court makes the law of the land and determines what happens in our country, in virtually every area. So, yes, there is a fundamental difference.
Look, what we are talking about here is in a moment in American history where we have right-wing extremists controlling the House, the Senate and the White House. If we appoint another right-wing extremist to the Supreme Court I have very serious concerns about justice in this country and what will happen to the â
BURNETT: So â
SANDERS: â men, women and children and the future of our nation. So we will â
BURNETT: But just to understand (ph), would Thomas Hardiman be a right-wing extremist now, as you define it?
SANDERS: Yes. So if he is on a list of the 25 that were presented to the president, yes, he would be somebody that I would feel impossible to support.
BURNETT: Your colleague, the Democratic senator, Bob Casey from Pennsylvania, he said he'd oppose anybody on the list, which I â I â I believe is similar to what you're saying to me now, right?
SANDERS: Yes, yes, yes.
BURNETT: OK. The White House deputy press secretary, Rod Shaw, responded, and his response was, "Unfortunately, though not surprising that even before his or her qualifications can be evaluated, Senator Casey is refusing to even consider the president's nominee." Doesn't he have a point? I mean â
SANDERS: Not really. It depends. I think what Bob said is that if it were part of the list of 25, and that list of 25 is not just an arbitrary list, these are people who have been assembled by right-winged jurists, and they have views on role versus wage. They have views on workers rights.
SANDERS: They have views on the environment, which in many cases are well done, so this is not just any old person. I â I would not say that, you know, any person should be summarily rejected, but if they're a member of that list they shouldn't (ph). Look â
BURNETT: Do â do you regret â do you regret, then, voting for Thomas Hardiman on that lower-court because I know you're saying it's different, but the reality is he wouldn't be up for this if he hadn't gotten that (ph), so?
SANDERS: Look, I voted for â when you vote for lower-court judges sometimes they get blue slips, and there's a process that goes by. When you â I think that vote was 95 to nothing, was that correct?
SANDERS: 95 to nothing, and there are a number of votes like that, but let's be clear, voting for a Supreme Court justice is very different than voting for anybody in a lower-court. Look, what we're talking about is a right-wing agenda of which, not only wants to end role versus wage (ph) despite the fact that 70 percent of the American people support the maintenance of role versus wage (ph), not only wants to overturn decisions regarding gay marriage and gay rights despite strong support from the American people.
The right-wing agenda goes so far is â is to really side, time and time again, with large corporations who are attacking workers rights, even the concept of the minimum wage, which now is now a starvation wage of $7.25 an hour. There are people, right-wing people, saying, "Oh, no, that's unconstitutional." We're talking about healthcare. We're talking about issues of women's health, in general.
BURNETT: I want to ask you before â before we go, but while I have your time, about the deadline tomorrow, which you know, of course, is the government's deadline to reunite children under-5 who were separated at the border from their parents. Half of the children are going to be reunited by that deadline.
The Trump Administration isn't sure about the rest. Now the federal judge, though, who set this deadline for reunification said he's quote, "Very encouraged, thus far." Again, I've said half of those children will be reunited by the deadline, half will not. Are you encouraged?
SANDERS: Am I encouraged by a president who ripped children out of the arms of their mother and a situation in which the authorities did not even know where these kids were, am I encouraged, no. I am outraged by what Trump and his administration have done. Obviously, I would hope and expect that every person in this country, every person in the world, believes and expect these children should be united with their parents. We will see what happens, but I have â if you want to know what I've been impressed by it's by the incompetence of the Trump Administration to even (ph) the simplest things in this area.
BURNETT: ICE has become a lighting-rod in this, and the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell was followed out a restaurant this weekend. Protesters yelling personal insults at him, chanting abolish ICE and vote him out. I wanted to play a clip for you, Senator Sanders.
BURNETT: Senator, among the protesters were members of the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America. Do you think their behavior was acceptable?
SANDERS: I â look, people getting back to this very issue of immigration. There are people all over this country who are outraged that little kids have been separated from their parents, which, no doubt, will cause, I guess, permanent psychological damage when you separate a kid from his or her parents.
So people are outraged, and I understand, but I happen to believe that if we want to deal with real immigration reform, if we want to deal with real criminal justice reform, if we want to deal the environment, the area that we should be focusing or energy on is ending republican control over the House and over the Senate.
And I am going to do everything I can, and millions of people are going to do everything they can, putting together a grass-roots which demands that we have a government that represents all of us and not just wealthy campaign contributors. So I think our focus of energy should be on bringing change to the House and the Senate and supporting a progressive agenda.
Hours away from President Donald Trump revealing his Supreme Court Justice pick, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer speaks out against President Trump's list of possible nominees.
"The president has gone to two hard right groups, the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, and asked them, not the Senate, to advise and consent on a Supreme Court nomination," Schumer said. The Democratic leader also suggested that Trump should nominate Merrick Garland, whom then-President Barack Obama nominated to the court in 2016
Sen, Orrin Hatch, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee discusses what he thinks the president is looking for in his selection of a new Supreme Court Justice.
"The Democrats now are so upset that the Republicans have this opportunity to appoint nominees to the court that they make every doggone appointment a cause celebre, tht's the way they do it," he said.
"I think the president really wants somebody who is going to uphold the constitution and stand behind those laws and quit playing politics with the Supreme Court. And I think, I think when he gets through this evening most people will be very pleased with his choice."
"I think any of those four will get through the process," he said about the top four nominees reported in the press. "One or more of them may have a more difficult time, but I think that the Republican party is going to be behind whoever it is and I hope there will be some honest Democrats who will go beyond politics and recognize the achievements of whoever the president picks."
President Donald Trump announced Monday evening that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is his nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote on the deeply divided court.
Kavanaugh, 53, has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit since 2006.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: My fellow Americans, tonight I speak to you from the East Room of the White House regarding one of the most profound responsibilities of the President of the United States, and that is the selection of a Supreme Court Justice.
I've often heard that, other than matters of war and peace, this is the most important decision a President will make. The Supreme Court is entrusted with the safeguarding of the crown jewel of our Republic, the Constitution of the United States.
Twelve days ago, Justice Anthony Kennedy informed me of his decision to take senior status on the Supreme Court, opening a new vacancy. For more than four decades, Justice Kennedy served our nation with incredible passion and devotion. I'd like to thank Justice Kennedy for a lifetime of distinguished service. (Applause.)
In a few moments, I will announce my selection for Justice Kennedy's replacement. This is the second time I have been faced with this task. Last year, I nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia. (Applause.) I chose Justice Gorsuch because I knew that he, just like Justice Scalia, would be a faithful servant of our Constitution.
We are honored to be joined tonight by Justice Scalia's beloved wife, Maureen. Maureen. (Applause.) Thank you, Maureen.
Both Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia were appointed by a President who understood that the best defense of our liberty and a judicial branch immune from political prejudice where judges that apply the Constitution as written. That President happened to be Ronald Reagan.
For this evening's announcement, we are joined by Ronald Reagan's Attorney General, Edwin Meese. Ed. (Applause.) And, Ed, I speak for everyone: Thank you for everything you've done to protect our nation's great legal heritage.
In keeping with President Reagan's legacy, I do not ask about a nominee's personal opinions. What matters is not a judge's political views, but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the Constitution require. I am pleased to say that I have found, without doubt, such a person.
Tonight, it is my honor and privilege to announce that I will nominate Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court. (Applause.)
I know the people in this room very well. They do not stand and give applause like that very often, so they have some respect. (Laughter.)
And Brett's wife, Ashley, and their two daughters, Margaret and Liza, have joined us on the podium. And thank you and congratulations to you as a family. Thank you. (Applause.)
Judge Kavanaugh has impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications, and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law.
A graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, Judge Kavanaugh currently teaches at Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown.
Throughout legal circles, he is considered a judge's judge â a true thought leader among his peers.
He is a brilliant jurist, with a clear and effective writing style, universally regarded as one of the finest and sharpest legal minds of our time. And just like Justice Gorsuch, he excelled as a clerk for Justice Kennedy. That's great. Thank you. (Applause.)
Judge Kavanaugh has devoted his life to public service. For the last 12 years, he has served as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals â with great distinction â authoring over 300 opinions, which have been widely admired for their skill, insight, and rigorous adherence to the law.
Among those opinions are more than a dozen that the Supreme Court has adopted as the law of the land.
Beyond his great renown as a judge, he is active in his community. He coaches CYO Basketball, serves meals to needy families, and â having learned from his mom who was a schoolteacher in D.C. â tutors children at local elementary schools.
There is no one in America more qualified for this position, and no one more deserving.
I want to thank the senators on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, for their consultation and advice during the selection process. This incredibly qualified nominee deserves a swift confirmation and robust bipartisan support.
The Rule of Law is our nation's proud heritage. It is the cornerstone of our freedom. It is what guarantees equal justice. And the Senate now has the chance to protect this glorious heritage by sending Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court.
DANA BASH, CNN 'STATE OF THE UNION' GUEST HOST: Let's start with the president's impending announcement to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. The president said he has narrowed the field down to four and will announce tomorrow night.
Now, the question for you, sir, is, as you represent an incredibly red state, Donald Trump won 62 percent of the vote in Alabama, do you feel a responsibility to give your constituents what they voted for?
SEN. DOUG JONES (D-AL): Well, I feel a responsibility to my constituents, but I also feel a responsibility to the Constitution.
You know, the Constitution gives the Senate a shared responsibility with the president to confirm nominees. And our founders, you know, put that in there for a reason, because judges have life tenure. And so that shared responsibility is important. And I take that very seriously.
So we're going to give -- whoever the nominee is going to be, we're going to give them a very, very good, hard and fair look to determine what I believe to be the best interest of my constituents, but also the country.
BASH: So, to be clear, you are open to voting yes for whomever the president nominates?
JONES: Oh, I'm open to voting yes. I'm open to voting no.
We don't know who this nominee is going to be yet. I don't think my role is a rubber stamp for the president, but it's also not an automatic, knee-jerk no either.
My job is to exercise that independent voice. I want to look for a judge that has the intellect and capacity to do the right thing, to follow the rule of law, to adhere to precedents, and move the country forward. And I think that that's the best role.
BASH: And just to put some context around this, Neil Gorsuch, the president's first nominee for the Supreme Court, got three Democratic votes. You weren't in the Senate then. But you come from a more Republican state than those Democratic senators. Hard to imagine you voting no. Fair?
JONES: Well, no, I don't think that that's fair one way or another, Dana.
I think that I have got to look at this nominee. I'm going to make an independent judgment. I -- that's my job. I come from a place with a former senator in Howell Heflin, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
He understood the role of the Senate as -- with that shared responsibility. And I'm going to look. I'm going to make an independent judgment and a view. I don't think anyone should expect me to simply vote yes for this nominee just simply because my state may be more conservative than others.
I want to make an independent look at this, because I think, you know, even the people of Alabama like to make sure they have judges that adhere to the rule of law.
BASH: And, at the same time, just the fact that you're open to voting yes sets you apart from the vast majority of your Democratic colleagues in the Senate.
Listen to how some of them have described the implication of this decision.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: He's looking for a nominee who will criminalize abortion and try to punish women.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I), VERMONT: All of the advances that we have made over the years are now increasingly in danger.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D), CALIFORNIA: We're looking at a destruction of the Constitution of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: Destruction of the Constitution, do you agree that that's what's going on here?
JONES: Look, I think that this is a very important nominee, for sure.
And I am concerned about this nomination. And I'm concerned about the direction that the court will take. And I don't want to see things change radically. And I think there are some legitimate concerns.
That's what I'm going to look at. That doesn't mean I'm going to vote yes. It doesn't mean I'm going to vote no. I think it's premature to say automatically -- I'm not going to say automatically that I'm going to vote against any nominee that Donald Trump put out there. That's just not my role.
But I'm not going to automatically vote for them either. I want to take a good, long look. We're -- we have got a long way to go with whoever this nominee is going to be.
BASH: Is it appropriate for your Democratic colleagues to be doing just that, saying no before the nominee is out there?
JONES: Well, I would -- you know, Dana, I would prefer that they don't do that.
I would prefer that Republicans don't say they're going to automatically vote for someone. The problem that we have got in this country right now is that we have such a partisan divide, and particularly on Supreme Court nominees. It has become so political.
I was watching this morning. They're already running TV ads in favor of a nominee that's not being selected. This has become a political issue, as opposed to an independent judiciary. And that's not a good thing.
BASH: And it's become political.
And on the politics, it's a question of fairness for a lot of your fellow Democrats.
Your leader, Chuck Schumer, says there shouldn't be a vote this year in 2019 because Republicans refused to confirm Merrick Garland during an election -- or that was a presidential election year. This is a midterm election year. But is that the right strategy?
JONES: I don't think that that strategy is going to work regardless, whether it's the right or the wrong strategy.
I think that the -- Senator McConnell is going to proceed with this nomination. As he proceeds, there is very little that Democrats can do procedurally.
But it's also going to depend on the nominee. If this nominee requires a greater, deep dive into their background, it's going to take some time. So, I think it's going to be really dependent on the nominee and the investigation that is going to go on by both a majority and minority in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then for individual senators to meet.
I want to make sure that I get a chance to meet with this nominee before I pass judgment on them.
Senator Tom Cotton joined me this morning: Audio: 07-10hhs-cotton Transcript: HH: Gosh, Tom Cotton, Senator extraordinaire from Arkansas, what a great day in Washington. Brett Kavanaugh is nominated. Your reaction to his nomination? TC: Very, well, first, Hugh, let me say congratulations on 18 fantastic years of the Hugh Hewitt Show, and 36 years of marriage to the Fetching Mrs. Hewitt. HH: Thank you, thank you. TC: …indicating that she is probably the most patient and understanding woman on the face of the Earth after putting up with you for 36 years. HH: I have to agree with that. I have to agree with that. So tell me about your reaction last night when Brett Kavanaugh, the President probably called you beforehand, but what was your reaction? TC: The President did throughout this process what he promised to do on the campaign trail, what he did in his first opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice, is work from a list that he gave to the American people in…
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, July 10, 2018 – Lieutenant Governor Todd Lamb (R-Oklahoma) released the following statement regarding President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court.
“I believe Judge Kavanaugh will be an outstanding justice, and I applaud President Trump for his nomination. Judge Kavanaugh’s resume is extremely impressive, and he is exceptionally qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court. He will be a fair and impartial judge who will base his opinions strictly on the rule of law while protecting the separation of powers that is paramount to our democracy. It is my hope the United States Senate will confirm Judge Kavanaugh in a timely and fair fashion.”
Barry Goldwater Jr., a member of the US House of Representatives from California for 14 years, has agreed to individually hand-sign certification labels exclusively for Numismatic Guaranty Corporation® (NGC®). Goldwater is the son of former US Senator and 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Serving alongside his father in Congress, Goldwater earned a reputation as a […]
FANCY crowdfunding for a defamation court case — a new low for Senator Hanson-Young and Senator Leyonhjelm. Surely these well-paid people should fund their own battles. Geoff, Lara SUSIE O’Brien (Opinion, 10/7), freedom of speech is the right of...
<strike>Jeffrey</strike> <strike>Jeffery</strike> <strike>Jeff</strike> covjefe seems to think that Senator McConnell should somehow play nice. No, Senator McConnell should f(ornicating) play hardball, and ram through the nomination. If Ruth Bader Ginsberg should go to her eternal reward in October of 2024, President Trump should nominate the most conservative person possible, and Mr McConnell ram it through the Senate before the next President is elected.
Take no f(ornicating) prisoners; we know that the Democrats won't!
As the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) concludes the commemoration of its 50thanniversary, the Philippines marks the historic occasion by hosting a contemporary art exhibition featuring ten artists who will represent each ASEAN member state.
The exhibit titled Ties of History: Art in Southeast Asia is curated by noted art historian, scholar, and curator Patrick D. Flores.
It will be held simultaneously in three major art institutions in the Philippines: the Metropolitan Museum of Manila (MET Manila), the University of the Philippines Vargas Museum, and the Yuchengco Museum.
The exhibition’s artists from the region will gather in Manila to open the exhibition on August 8 (MET Manila), 9 (Yuchengco Museum), and 10 (Vargas Museum) with a series of programs for each venue. The opening reception of each venue starts at 5pm. The exhibition will be on view from August 10 to October 6, 2018.
The project is presented by the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) through the Dalubhasaan Para sa Edukasyon sa Sining at Kultura (DESK) with the support of the Office of Senator Loren Legarda.
“Ties of history” is a phrase taken from a document signed by ASEAN’s founding members on August 8, 1967. The document describes “a region already bound together by ties of history and culture.” A region that is “conscious that in an increasingly interdependent world, the cherished ideals of peace, freedom, social justice, and economic well-being are best attained by fostering good understanding, good neighbourliness and meaningful cooperation among the countries of the region.” The document gave birth to the regional organization, which taken as a collective is the world’s 5th largest economy.
Ties of History: Art in Southeast Asia is a survey of contemporary art, on the one hand. On the other, it is a diligent study of a particular practice. The project selects three works of each artist from the ASEAN countries to be exhibited in three institutions. This enables the exhibition to present a more in-depth look into the interests of the artist and allows the audience from different parts of the city to view the exhibition.
As Flores, who was recently appointed as Artistic Director of Singapore Biennale 2019, explains, “this undertaking…draws attention to the thoughtful and sensitive process of artistic transformation and maturity and tries to avoid the tendency of survey exhibitions to merely select the most popular or the most accessible.”
“It also reminds us that artistic practice is not fully formed but rather gleaned in the condition of constant forming. It is this constant forming that the project endeavors to curate,” he adds.
NCCA Chairman Virgilio S. Almario agrees that “[t]here is much to gain in gathering the talents of the region in order to view not only their works but to also reflect on the realities each of them respond to.” He further emphasizes that “it is a proud moment that the Philippines initiates this celebration of ASEAN artists.”
Almario also remarks on the importance of the ASEAN in the current climate. For him, “[the] ASEAN is a unique regional organization because it aims to be known to the world as one community despite its diversity in religion, race and culture. In a world troubled by differences in belief, finding peace may be meditated through art that lets us see the threads that string us together.”
Senator Loren Legarda, one of the Philippines leading cultural advocates, expresses her pride with the recent developments in Philippine contemporary art: “Support for Philippine contemporary art is at its peak with our participation at the Venice Biennale for four consecutive years after a 51-year absence, with Dr. Flores as the first curator since our re-entry. This collaborative endeavor further puts the country at the center of contemporary art globally, not just in Asia. I invite our ASEAN neighbors to continue this art project annually or in the form of a biennial in the same manner by which we host political and economic affairs in ASEAN.”
Ties of History: Art in Southeast Asia aims to identify artists from across generations who have demonstrated both responsiveness and range in relation to the concerns of aesthetic material and socio-historical contexts.
A contemporary artist based in Singapore known for her collaborative and multidisciplinary approach to art, Amanda Heng (b. 1951) explores social issues in the context of Singapore’s inter-cultural social milieu.
Roberto Feleo (b. 1954) is a seminal Philippine artist whose works are sharp sociohistorical commentaries on Philippine myth and history and creative investigations into local materials and techniques.
Known for his practice that includes the use of natural materials and traditional tools used in Indonesian craft,Anusapati(b. 1957) has inspired a younger generation of artists disposed to respond to craft, modernism, and the environment.
Do Hoang Tuong (b. 1960) of Vietnam belongs to an influential generation of abstract painters in the South of Vietnam in the 1990s. From an academic perspective and within the narrative space of his paintings, he expresses the desire of a founding condition of a new subjectivity.
Savanhdary Vongpoothorn (b. 1971) was born in Laos and came to Australia in 1979. Her practice implicates Lao cultural references interwoven with Australian and other cultural mediations in a productive space of resettlement.
Working with photography and the moving image, Chris Chong Chan Fui (b. 1972) from Malaysia questions and redirects how humans work within such intersecting fields as economics and ecology.
Jedsada Tangtrakulwong (b. 1972) lives and works in Thailand. His practice is informed by Thai cultural sign systems and reflects on the delicacy of daily existence.
Min Thein Sung (b. 1978), born and based in Myanmar, works with and on motifs, media, and processes inspired by the everyday and his childhood.
Artist and curator Vuth Lyno (b. 1982) from Cambodia is the Co-founding Artistic Director of Sa Sa Art Projects, an artist-run space initiated by the Stiev Selapak collective in Phnom Penh. His artistic and curatorial practice is primarily participatory in nature, exploring collective learning and experimentation.
Working with organic materials, Yasmin Jaidin (b. 1987), a contemporary artist from Brunei, interrogates how these elements are often overlooked in the context of contemporary life.
A network of practitioners in contemporary art in the region was consulted in the selection of artists for the exhibition. These advisors include Ahmad Mashadi, Head of the National University of Singapore Museum; Khim Ong, Deputy Director, Curatorial Programmes at Nanyang Technological University Centre for Contemporary Art Singapore (NTU CCA Singapore); Loredana Pazzini-Paracciani, independent curator, writer, and lecturer of Southeast Asian contemporary art; and independent curator and scholar Grace Samboh.
The public is invited to join an artist talk and roundtable discussion with the advisors from the region as they discuss contemporary art in Southeast Asia on August 11 at the MET Museum of Manila. There will also be a public and education program to feature talks and lectures by scholars of and practitioners in the region in the duration of the exhibition’s run.
For details relating to the exhibition’s education programs, please check our social media pages @tiesofhistory or email us at email@example.com to be added to our mailing list.
L-R, clockwise- Ties of History: Art in Southeast Asia featured artists— Amanda Heng (Singapore), Roberto Feleo (Philippines), Anusapati (Indonesia), Do Hoang Tuong (Vietnam), Chris Chong Chan Fui (Malaysia), Yasmin Jaidin (Brunei), Min Thein Sung (Myanmar), Vuth Lyno (Cambodia), Jedsada Tangtrakulwong (Thailand), Savanhdary Vongpoothorn (Laos)
hilippines Hosts Exhibition of Contemporary Art in Southeast Asia
Exhibition: Ties of History: Art in Southeast Asia
National Urban League President Urges Senate to Reject Consideration of SCOTUS Nominee Until Investigation Is Complete
WASHINGTON, DC (July 9, 2018) – National Urban League President Marc H. Morial issued the following statement in response to President Trump's announcement of his Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh:
CANNABIS CULTURE- This week, Canada's Senate approved the Liberal government's cannabis legalization bill. While this legislative hurdle is clear, many are concerned that over-regulation and government monopolies have hijacked the natural order away from true cannabis liberty. Legal cannabis has worked, and is working in several jurisdictions worldwide. One of these places, Nevada, started with a rather rigid structure, and has since seen major windfalls from rolling back oppressive regulations. Recreational cannabis legalization has turned…
The Senate has approved the federal marijuana legalization legislation in a historic vote. Pot advocate Jodie Emery says the vote may be historic, but for lawyers, civil liberties advocates, and herself, the passing of the Cannabis Act brings a number of concerns to the forefront. “[The Act] introduces many more criminal laws with relation to cannabis and it doesn’t look at amnesty or pardons for all of the victims of prohibition in the past.” She…
Recreational marijuana use will soon be legal in Canada after the Senate passed a "historic" bill on Tuesday with a vote of 52-29. Canada is only the second country in the world -- and the first G7 nation -- to implement legislation to permit a nationwide marijuana market. In the neighboring US, nine states and the District of Columbia now allow for recreational marijuana use, and 30 allow for medical use. Bill C-45, otherwise known…
The House of Commons has sent Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, back to the Senate after voting to pass a message stating it would accept some, but not all of the Upper Chamber’s proposed amendments. The bill is now in the hands of senators to debate how they feel about the federal government saying thanks but no thanks to some of the Senate's more robust recommendations. Last week, Health Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor announced that…
Beer brewed with marijuana, baking mixes concocted to bring out the unique flavours of cannabis oil and good, old-fashioned pot cookies: Canadian companies are creating them all, but it’s unclear when stores will legally be able to stock the edibles for recreational users. Instead, business owners have been getting creative to manufacture, refine and sell their products. Ottawa has pledged that recreational marijuana will become legal sometime this year and the Senate recently approved the…
'You just can't ban it outright,' says Lt.-Gen. Chuck Lamarre. The Canadian military will not be in a position to impose an outright ban on the use of recreational marijuana, but its restrictions will be more wide-ranging than its policy governing alcohol, says a senior commander. A draft policy is waiting in the wings for the Liberal government to pass C-45, the cannabis legalization bill, which was sent back from the Senate to the House…
The Cannabis Act was passed by the Canadian Senate today. Voted in by a comfortable margin - 56 yeas, 30 nays, and 1 exemption - the new legislation now goes for further scrutiny by the House/Royal Assent before it becomes active. Bill C-45—or as it is more commonly known, the Cannabis Act—makes marijuana legal for recreational use nationwide with a personal possession amount maximum set at 30 grams. Much of the specifics will be left…
CANNABIS CULTURE - Rusty Williams says medical cannabis helped him get through chemotherapy and saved his life. The above video was sent to Cannabis Culture by the office of United States Senator Bernie Sanders (Democrat - Vermont). According to email correspondence with Senator Sanders' staff, this one story illustrates with the former Presidential Candidate's view on legalization, "We should be allowing states to move forward with legalization efforts, not interfering with the great progress that…
President Trump on Monday night nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the seat on the U.S. Supreme Court that Justice Anthony Kennedy will vacate at the end of the month. Kavanaugh is a judge on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Below, we’ve gathered some of the best reporting on Kavanaugh.
Did we miss anything? Leave a link in the comments or tweet to us with #scotusnominee.
Potential Nominee Profile: Brett Kavanaugh
SCOTUSblog, June 2018
SCOTUSblog’s profile of Kavanaugh provides a comprehensive summary of the judge’s background, from his upbringing in the Washington area to his college and law school years at Yale to his prestigious positions in various parts of the federal government. As the profile notes, Kavanaugh was a law clerk for Kennedy, whom he has been nominated to replace. The piece offers a highlight reel of Kavanaugh’s time on the federal appeals court in Washington. Ultimately, the article concludes, Kavanaugh “brings a pragmatic approach to judging,” albeit with a serious conservative bent.
Brett Kavanaugh, a Conservative Stalwart in Political Fights and on the Bench
New York Times, July 2018
The New York Times’ Adam Liptak examines Kavanaugh’s personal and professional history. The profile depicts Kavanaugh as a decidedly conservative Washington insider but hardly a rank partisan. He’s known as a nuanced and careful thinker, and although his judicial opinions are often lauded by voices on the right, he has shied away from absolutist positions, at times to the chagrin of conservatives. He has “formed lifelong friendships with liberals, many of whom praise his intellect and civility,” and those who worked with him before he became a judge described him as “often a moderating force.”
Kavanaugh Paper Chase Threatens to Draw Out Confirmation Battle
Politico, July 2018
Kavanaugh’s nomination “presents a band of government archivists and White House officials with a herculean task: wading through what could be millions of pages of records” ahead of his confirmation hearings. The paper trail leads back to the two years Kavanaugh spent in Bush’s White House Counsel’s Office and another three years he spent as Bush’s staff secretary. Politico’s Josh Gerstein takes a look at how the extensive documentation of Kavanaugh’s executive branch career could slow the judge’s confirmation process.
Trump’s Supreme Court Frontrunner Is the “Forrest Gump of Republican Politics”
Mother Jones, June 2018
This Mother Jones profile casts Kavanaugh as a consummate insider of the D.C. conservative establishment who “frequently inserted himself into high-profile political battles.” Kavanaugh worked on the team of Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. He represented the Miami relatives of Elian Gonzalez in a high-profile immigration dispute in 2000, in which they sought to keep the Cuban boy in the United States. He worked on George W. Bush’s legal team during the contentious 2000 presidential election recount in Florida — and went on to oversee judicial nominations in Bush’s White House Counsel’s Office. His ubiquity earned him the nickname the “Forrest Gump of Republican politics.”
How Four Potential Nominees Would Change the Supreme Court
FiveThirtyEight, July 2018
FiveThirtyEight draws on a tool to measure judicial ideology developed by legal scholars and political scientists to assess Kavanaugh’s potential effect on the Supreme Court’s jurisprudential makeup. The conclusion: a Justice Kavanaugh “would likely represent a reliably conservative voice and vote on the high court”—“to the right of Gorsuch and Justice Samuel Alito, and just to the left of the arch conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.” That would leave Chief Justice John Roberts as the “new median justice.” FiveThirtyEight adds a caveat, however, about the metric it’s relying on: it’s based on the ideology of the politicians who nominated a judge—in this case, Bush—rather than the judge’s rulings.
Brett Kavanaugh, Supreme Court Front-Runner, Once Argued Broad Grounds for Impeachment
The New York Times, July 2018
The Times’ Mark Landler and Matt Apuzzo take a look at Kavanaugh’s time on Starr’s team — and its implications for Trump. Starr’s report as independent counsel, which Kavanaugh co-wrote, argues that lying to staff members and misleading the public are grounds to impeach a president for obstruction of justice. That “broad definition of obstruction of justice,” Landler and Apuzzo write, “would be damaging if applied to President Trump in the Russia investigation.”
Top Supreme Court Prospect Has Argued Presidents Should Not Be Distracted by Investigations and Lawsuits
The Washington Post, June 2018
The Washington Post examines a 2009 law review article in which Kavanaugh argued that a sitting president shouldn’t have to deal with “time-consuming and distracting” lawsuits and investigations. The distraction “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis,” Kavanaugh wrote. That, the Post notes, “puts him on the record regarding a topic of intense interest to Trump — and could be a central focus of his confirmation hearing.”
In this comment, Jeffrey Toobin describes Kavanaugh as a judge in thrall to partisan politics. Toobin characterizes Kavanaugh’s work as an appeals judge as “startling.” He accuses Kavanaugh of “pandering to the base” in a dissenting opinion he wrote in a case challenging Obamacare. Kavanaugh “appeared to offer some advice to the Republicans who are challenging Obama in the election,” Toobin wrote — whatever courts hold, a Republican president could simply decline to enforce the health-care law because he deems it unconstitutional.
Leading Contender to Be Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Faces Questions from Social Conservatives
The Washington Post, July 2018
The Washington Post’s Robert Acosta and Josh Dawsey survey conservative misgivings about Kavanaugh’s record on the federal appeals court in Washington. Where Toobin saw Kavanaugh as a right-wing partisan, many social conservatives fear he’s not enough of a hardliner. The conservative response to the White House floating Kavanaugh’s name included “a clamor from those who see him as out of step on health care and abortion, or too tied to George W. Bush’s White House.” The concerns arise from opinions Kavanaugh wrote in cases challenging the Affordable Care Act and in a recent case over the right of an immigrant teenager in federal custody to have an abortion. The judge dissented in those cases, but did not go as far as “ideological purists” would have liked.
NPR’s Ari Shapiro reported on what some Democratic senators saw as misleading testimony Kavanaugh provided during his 2006 confirmation hearing to become a federal appeals judge in Washington. Kavanaugh had told Sen. Richard Durbin, D.-Illinois, that during his time in the Bush White House he was not involved in conversations about the rules governing the handling of detainees captured in the War on Terror. In fact, he had been involved in 2002 discussions about whether detainees had a right to an attorney. Durbin told NPR he felt “perilously close to being lied to.” (Kavanaugh, through a court spokesman, called his testimony accurate.)
Daily Wire, by Hank Berrien Posted By: JoniTx- Tue, 10 55 2018 09:55:04 GMT The two woman GOP senators who had seemed recalcitrant about supporting President Trumps nominee for the Supreme Court are hinting they will be fine supporting Trumps actual nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. According to Politico, Lisa Murkowski (R'AL) and Susan Collins (R'ME) were far less confrontational after Trumps announcement Monday night than they had been with the possibility of Judge Amy Coney Barrett joining the Court. Murkowski allowed, Lets put it this way: There were some who have been on the list that I would have had a very, very difficult time supporting, just based on what was already publicly known
On 07.09.18 05:06 PM posted by John G. Malcolm
President Donald Trump announced on Monday night his nomination of D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh, who was included in The Heritage Foundations original list (https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/03/30/the-next-supreme-court-justice/) of potential Supreme Court nominees, is a very promising choice.
The battle lines were already drawn before Trump made his announcement, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., declaring he would not vote for any of the individuals on Trumps short list.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., promised the confirmation vote would happen this fall. Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin the process of reviewing Kavanaughs judicial record and background, with a hearing coming later this summer.
Lets take a closer look at Kavanaugh.
On 07.09.18 06:55 PM posted by Fred Lucas
President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court in a prime-time announcement Monday night. If confirmed by the Senate, Kavanaugh would replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy to give the court a likely solid 5-4 conservative majority.
Throughout legal circles, he is considered a judges judge, a true thought leader among his peers, Trump said in announcing his choice at the East Room of the White House.
President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003, but he wasnt confirmed until 2006, by a Senate vote of 57-36. The D.C. Circuit is considered a stepping stone (https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL+-+Judges+-+BMK) to the high court.
My judicial philosophy is straightforward, Kavanaugh, 53, said after Trump introduced him at the White House event. A judge must be independent and must interpret the law and not make the law. A judge...
07.08.18 09:01 PM
The political philosophy of democratic socialism is ascendant in the Democrat Party, even though no one seems to know what it is or be able to explain it beyond free stuff.
As Senator Bernie Sanders challenged the witch from Chappaqua for the Democrat nomination in 2015, some media outlets sought to get an explanation of social democracy or democratic socialism from him. His explanation fell short, according some political science professors.
“When you call your fire department or the police department, what do you think youre calling?” Sanders babbled to the crowd in one of his stump speeches. “These are socialist institutions.
If he were to write this on an exam for me?* Thats an F, Andrei Markovits (https://www.marketplace.org/2015/11/18/elections/explaining-democratic-socialism), a professor of political science at the University of Michigan, said.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, mapped out strategy with Republican leaders Tuesday, launching a fierce confirmation battle that could remake the court for decades and roil the midterm elections in the meantime. Kavanaugh, a favorite of the GOP establishment, first huddled with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. […]
It is timely to discuss the implication of Extreme Longevity tech on the Supreme Court. I think a Constitutional Amendment will become necessary. How about this: A president can replace one Justice after being sworn in, with advise and consent of the Senate.
Alberto Aguilar ha assegurat que “l’han alliçonat perquè vegi la família com si fossin dimonis” El pare de Patricia Aguilar, la jove d’Elx (Baix Vinalopó) presumptament captada per una secta i desapareguda durant un any i mig al Perú, ha explicat que tem que la seva filla no vulgui retrobar-se amb ell perquè “l’han alliçonat perquè vegi la família […]
Media darling and Democrat Senator Kamala Harris tweeted on Monday about the power of the Supreme Court. Harris said she was a student in only the second class to integrate at Berkeley public schools. Kamala Harris: Two decades after Brown v. Board, I was only the second class to integrate at Berkeley public schools. Without […]
"Idaho is now sprinting in the wrong direction" when it comes to embracing clean energy and educating students about climate change, one student said.
There's a disconnect between state and local when it comes to concern over climate change and adopting clean energy. In February, the Idaho House passed K-12 science education standards that omitted any reference to fossil fuels' impact on climate change, only to be overridden by the Idaho Senate. City Hall is striking a different tone, as Boise Mayor Dave Bieter was among the first mayors in the country to subscribe to the Mayor's Agreement on Climate Change in 2005, and the Public Works Commission will get an update on the Climate Adaptation Assessment later this week. Boise-area high school students—members of the Climate Justice League—and the Idaho chapter of the Sierra Club met at Camel's Back Park on July 10 to announce they, too, should have a say in how the city and state work toward clean energy and address climate change. Presenting Boise City Council President Lauren McLean with more than 1,000 postcards thanking the city for its efforts to embrace renewable energy, they said they were disappointed with with the Idaho House's resistance to including climate change in science education standards. "If we don't do something now, our lives are going to change," said Adam Thompson, a student at Capital High School, who added he believes the State of Idaho is doing itself a disservice by largely ignoring the threat posed by climate change. "Idaho is now sprinting in the wrong direction." Therese Etoka, a recent graduate of Boise High School who will attend college in Connecticut this fall, said the effects of climate change are mostly suffered by marginalized communities like the poor, people living in rural areas and people of color. "There's people that are left out, and those are people who are the most impacted," she said. "We're representing rural communities. It's about all of Idaho." One of the students who testified before the Idaho House Education Committee in February, Etoka said she was silenced by its chair, Rep. Julie VanOrden (R-Pingree), who cut off testimony from anyone who referenced climate change. "That was disheartening," she said. "I was taken aback. I wasn't even sure what I'd heard." Speaking to the students, McLean said she would like to take the postcards with her to City Hall, where they can be put on display, and reiterated her and the City Council's commitment to combating climate change and working toward using 100 percent clean energy. "Our council and…
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, mapped out strategy with Republican leaders Tuesday, launching a fierce confirmation battle that could remake the court for decades and roil the midterm elections in the meantime. Kavanaugh, a favorite of the GOP establishment, first huddled with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. He […]
Our forebears once flocked in staggering numbers to “human zoos,” where thousands of kidnapped natives from various countries were displayed.
When Donald Trump recently accused “illegal immigrants” of wanting to “pour into and infest our country,” there was an immediate outcry. After all, that verb, infest, had been used by the Nazis as a way of dehumanizing Jews and communists as rats, vermin, or insects that needed to be eradicated.
Nobody, however, should have been surprised. The president has a long history of excoriating people of color as animal-like. In 1989, for instance, reacting to the rape of a white woman in New York’s Central Park, he took out full-page ads in four of the city’s major papers (total cost: $85,000) calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty and decrying “roving bands of wild criminals roaming our streets.” He was, of course, referring to the five black and Latino youngsters accused of that crime for which they were convicted -- and, 10 years late, exonerated when a serial rapist and murderer finally confessed.
Trump never apologized for his rush to judgment or his hate-filled opinions, which eventually became the template for his attacks on immigrants during the 2016 election campaign and for his presidency. He has declared many times that some people aren’t actually human beings at all but animals, pointing, in particular, to MS-13 gang members. At a rally in Tennessee at the end of May, he doubled down on this sort of invective, goading a frenzied crowd to enthusiastically shout that word -- “Animals!” -- back. In that way, he made those present accomplices to his bigotry. Nor are his insults and racial tirades mere rhetorical flourishes. They’ve had quite real consequences. It’s enough to look at the cages where undocumented children separated from their families at or near the U.S.-Mexico border have been held as if they were indeed animals -- reporters and others regularly described one of those detention areas as being like a “zoo” or a “kennel” -- not to mention their parents who are also trapped behind wire barriers, even if arousing far less attention and protest.
A History of Caged Humans
All the president’s furious contemporary rants and rallies, along with those cages and detainee centers, have certainlybrought Nazism to mind for some, but it might be more illuminating to think of them as echoing an earlier moment in history when comparing dark-skinned humans to animals would hardly have caused a stir. It would have been considered part of normal discourse, in both Europe and the United States.
Indeed, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, millions of Europeans and Americans considered it perfectly natural to treat certain members of our species quite literally as if they were beasts. They were unfazed, so the historical record suggests, by the idea of seeing such “animals,” such oddities, displayed in literal zoo cages at boisterous public events. It may now be hard to believe, but our forebears once flocked in staggering numbers to “human zoos,” where thousands of natives kidnapped from Asia, Africa, and Latin America were exposed to scrutiny, curiosity, and derision, as well as, sometimes, undergoing scientific experimentation.
Today, such mindboggling violations of human rights have almost entirely vanished from public memory. I had only vaguely heard of human zoos myself, before I became obsessed with them when research for my latest novel, Darwin’s Ghosts, led me into the world of human menageries. I discovered that the phenomenon had been launched in the most modest of ways.
One hundred and seventy years ago -- 1848, a year of revolutions across the globe -- a Hamburg fishmonger, Claus Hagenbeck, decided to charge customers to take a peek at some Arctic seals swimming in a large tub in the backyard of his house. Soon enough, that first timid entrepreneurial step developed into a highly lucrative family business exhibiting wild animals, while feeding growing demands for wondrous beasts to populate circuses and fill the private collections of monarchs and other wealthy individuals.
In the end, animals were not enough. By the early 1870s, in conjunction with the Jardin d’Acclimatation in Paris and American impresarios like P.T. Barnum, the Hagenbeck family started dabbling in displaying “savages” from the farthest corners of the planet. The first victims of this desire to bring exemplars from the rest of humanity to viewers in the West were Laplanders, displayed in a setting meant to look like one of their villages. (A similar urge gave birth to the dioramas that soon began to flourish at museums of natural history.)
That first exhibition in Hamburg of “the little men and women” of Lapland proved so sensational -- tours were organized to Berlin, Leipzig, and other German cities -- that the desire to see more “primitive” humans soon became insatiable. Scavengers who had previously specialized in locating and bringing African and Asian wildlife to Europe and the United States were now instructed to be on the lookout for similarly exotic human wildlife. They should not be, it was quickly stipulated, so monstrous as to disgust audiences, but neither should they be so beautiful as to cease to be bizarre.
The Laplanders were followed by a multitude of indigenous inhabitants of the planet forcibly removed from their habitats: Eskimos, Cingalese, Kalmuks, Somalis, Ethiopians, Bedouins, Nubians from the Upper Nile, aboriginal Australians, Zulu warriors, Mapuche Indians, Andaman Islanders from the South Pacific, head-hunters from Borneo. The list went on and on, as those human zoos spread from Germany to France, England, Belgium, Spain, Italy, and the United States, all of which -- what a coincidence! -- just happened to be the globe’s imperial powers of that era.
Representatives of ethnic groups from all over the planet soon became an expectable feature of then-popular World’s Fair pavilions. Besides providing entertainment for the whole family -- they might be thought of as that moment’s equivalents of reality TV shows -- those exhibitions were proclaimed “educational” experiences by the enterprises cashing in on them. Such tableaus of “prehistoric” people offered a way for affluent visitors to gawk at and be amazed by the bizarre habits of the bizarre inhabitants of the faraway lands that their countries were incorporating with great violence into “civilization” via colonial dominion. In fact, that violence was such that some of the native populations on display, like diverse groups of Patagons from Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of Latin America, were already then on the verge of becoming extinct. One of the draws of seeing living specimens of those strange men, women, and children was to do so before their last remnants, along with their languages and their cultures, disappeared from the face of the Earth.
Even if you were among the millions of Americans and Europeans who couldn’t personally visit such folk displays, ethnic villages, and human zoos, you could still inexpensively and vicariously experience those exotic others. The images of the captives -- who, of course, had been photographed without their consent -- were commercialized on an industrial scale. The postcards upon which their faces and bodies were flaunted soon became an everyday feature of domestic life, one more way that the human zoo was normalized, whitewashed, and sent into the home with barely a thought about the horrors, the suffering being visited on those captives or how their children, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, relatives, and friends, left behind, were dealing with the trauma of having their loved ones torn from their midst.
Nor were such acts repudiated by the most illustrious members of those “advanced” societies. Quite the opposite, many of the abductions had been financed by scientific institutions eager to discover how such specimens might fit into Darwin’s theory of evolution. Their research, in turn, was backed by government officials more than ready to show their respect and support for scholars looking into the origins of humanity. Were those Africans and South Americans entirely human or did they constitute missing links in the great chain of beings that became our species? Eminent naturalists and doctors debated just such matters, gave lectures on them, wrote treatises about them, and (in what then passed for scientific experimentation) poked at or into the bodies of those who had made the mistake of being born far from the so-called civilized world.
The Ota Bengas of Today
Today, of course, human zoos and the medical experiments on live human beings that went with them are inconceivable. The consciousness of humanity, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the U.N. 70 years ago, has made such practices disgraceful and intolerable. Who today could stomach the fate of Ota Benga, a pygmy from the Congo who was housed with the primates at New York’s Bronx Zoo in 1906 and committed suicide a decade later when he realized that he would never be able to return to his native land? Who among us would bring their children to gape at “missing links” like Thai dwarfs, Amazonian Indians, or Sudanese villagers as if they were freaks of nature, not human beings?
Unfortunately, congratulations are not (yet) in order, given how often the same racist impulses resurface today, and not only in the president’s intemperate diatribes equating humans and animals (none of which have so far provoked indignation in most of his followers). A similar dehumanization of strangers with darker faces and skins appears to animate current anti-immigrant sentiments in many lands, a desire to escape “infestation” from abroad and maintain mythical versions of racial purity and national identity. Are we really that removed from the spectators who watched their fellow humans abused in zoo-like conditions a century or so ago without blinking or being disturbed?
In retrospect, what’s most sobering about the human zoos of an earlier time is how oblivious those who participated in such degrading spectacles were to the crimes being committed before their eyes. Many of them would have judged themselves decent, enlightened citizens, shining advocates of progress, science, and freedom. And yet, in Berlin in 1882, the police had to be called in to quell a riot by visitors to an exhibition of 11 Kaweshkar natives abducted from Tierra del Fuego. Thousands of customers, having imbibed copious gallons of beer, began to stone the hostages, demanding that they mate in public. Or consider the fate of two female Kaweshkar whose sexual organs, after they died in captivity, were carved from their dead bodies and sent to be examined by a prominent German researcher interested in discovering how such creatures might be distinct from European women.
So many decades later, it’s easy enough to condemn such offenses. More difficult and painful is to ask what injustices are happening now that we take to be as normal as human zoos (or the disempowerment of women and child slavery) were just a few generations ago. Is it the thoughtless annihilation of immeasurable species, the plundering of nature, the loss of wisdom stored for millennia by ethnic groups that are fast disappearing? Is it the punitive incarceration of millions, so many lives wasted? Is it our incredibly counterproductive “war on drugs” that unnecessarily ravages cities, nations, and lives? Or our inability to rid ourselves of the plague of nuclear proliferation, the brutality of widespread hunger, America’s endless wars, the detention centers for immigrants and their children in this country, the spectacle of undocumented minors shut up in cages and crying for their parents, or the overflowing refugee camps elsewhere in the world? And what of so many children displaced in their war-torn lands or incarcerated in poverty? Where is the indignation about them? Who marches to have them released from their structural captivity? And who even noticed the 10,000 children murdered or maimed in armed conflicts in 2017 alone, deaths invisible to us if you didn’t happen to catch a brief news item quickly forgotten?
In reality, those human zoos of the not-so-distant past pose a terrifying question for us: What everyday horrors of our world will our descendants look back on with disgust in the future? How, they will wonder, could their ancestors have been so blind as to condone such transgressions against humaneness and humanity?
Overturning Roe v. Wade would most definitely give individual states the right to outlaw abortion at the state level.
Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts hit the nail on the head last night when—after learning that Judge Brett Kavanaugh would be President Donald Trump’s second nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court—she asserted, in an e-mail, “Make no mistake: Brett Kavanaugh was chosen because conservatives are confident that he would overturn Roe v. Wade.” Bingo.
There are many right-to-privacy Supreme Court decisions that the Christian Right would love to see overturned, from 1965’s Griswold v. Connecticut (which struck down a Connecticut law forbidding the sale or use of contraceptives among married couples) to 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas (which declared a Texas sodomy law unconstitutional and was a major victory for gay rights). And with Kavanaugh likely to be confirmed by U.S. Senate, it is quite possible that the High Court will overturn Roe v. Wade—the landmark Supreme Court ruling of 1973 that, in effect, legalized abortion nationwide.
The end of Roe v. Wade would not automatically mean the end of legal abortion throughout the United States; in order for the Christian Right to achieve that goal, the overturning of Roe v. Wade would have to be followed by both houses of Congress—the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives—passing a nationwide abortion ban and President Trump signing it into law. Such a federal law would be needed to outlaw abortion in all 50 states, and as it stands now, some states have laws that explicitly protect abortion rights at the state level. Overturning Roe v. Wade would not invalidate those pro-choice state laws.
However, overturning Roe v. Wade would most definitely give individual states the right to outlaw abortion at the state level. And Kavanaugh, a severe social conservative with a “strict constructionist” view of jurisprudence, would likely argue—along with Clarence Thomas, Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch and other social conservatives on the High Court—that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because it was a violation of states’ rights and that individual states should be able to decide whether they do or don’t want legal abortion.
So post-Roe v. Wade, it’s entirely possible that one would see abortion outlawed at the state level in Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma, Kansas and Utah while remaining legal in New Jersey, California, Oregon, Massachusetts and Vermont. Some Republican-dominated states, including Louisiana and the Dakotas, have “trigger laws” that would automatically ban abortion statewide if Roe v. Wade were overturned.
The Center for Reproductive Rights has published, on its website, an informative page called “What If Roe Fell?”—which offers a state-by-state analysis of where abortion likely would and wouldn’t be legal if Roe v. Wade were overturned. The Center breaks all 50 states down into three categories: a high risk of abortion being outlawed at the state level post-Roe, a low risk or a medium risk. And some of the swing states in presidential races—such as Pennsylvania and Colorado—fall into the medium risk category.
According to the Center’s post-Roe scenario, legal abortion “appears safe” in 20 states, is likely to be “banned outright” in 22 and faces a medium risk in the others. The end of Roe would likely make abortion a major litmus test for politicians at the state level, and given that the majority of Americans are pro-choice, it isn’t hard to imagine a lot of Republicans being voted out of office in swing states when horror stories over botched back-alley abortions started coming out of Texas, Kansas and Mississippi and voters blamed the GOP.
Pennsylvania, for example, could become a major abortion rights battleground in a post-Roe scenario. Philadelphia is a very Democrat-dominated city—Philly hasn’t had a Republican mayor since Bernard Samuel left office in January 1952, and Republicans are seldom elected to Philly’s city council—and Pittsburgh is very Democratic as well. But the center of Pennsylvania (where Trump benefitted from a high voter turnout in 2016) has a lot more Republicans, and if enough Republicans in Pennsylvania’s state legislature voted to outlaw abortion post-Roe, it’s quite possible that women living in Philly would be seeking abortions in New Jersey.
Or, if abortion were outlawed in Arizona post-Roe but remained legal in California and Nevada, women living in Phoenix or Tucson might be seeking legal abortions in San Diego or Las Vegas—that is, if they had the funds to travel long distances. Low-income women would be hit especially hard by the end of Roe v. Wade, as they would have less money to travel from anti-choice states to pro-choice states. In many Latin American countries where abortion is illegal, it is poorer women who typically die from dangerous back-alley abortions—not unlike the U.S. before Roe v. Wade—while more affluent Mexican, Salvadoran or Guatemalan women seeking abortions can afford the airfare to Havana, Cuba, where abortion is legal.
Post-Roe, pro-choice activists—from Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the National Organization for Women (NOW) to Emily’s List—could do a lot of recruiting at the state level. The end of Roe v. Wade, if it comes about, could seriously galvanize pro-choice voters in individual states, especially if Kavanaugh and other social conservatives on the Supreme Court overturned Griswold v. Connecticut as well and allowed individual states to outlaw birth control.
According to the Pew Research Center, almost seven in ten Americans—69%, to be exact—remain pro-choice and oppose overturning Roe v. Wade. But public opinion matters little to today’s overtly authoritarian Republican Party, which is why President Trump has shown so little humility despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016. Authoritarians govern by force or coercion, not consensus. And if Roe v. Wade is overturned despite being broadly popular, abortion rights activists will need to be as vocal and proactive as possible at the state level.
Advocacy groups are warning about the 53-year-old judge's already-established record
In addition to the mountain of much-discussed reasons the American public should be alarmed by President Donald Trump's Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh—from his anti-abortion views to his past opinions favoring the interests of big polluters—advocacy groups are warning that the 53-year-old judge's established record of hostility to net neutrality and support for mass surveillance shows that his confirmation would spell "disaster for internet freedom."
"Trump's SCOTUS pick Brett Kavanaugh is an enemy of net neutrality and has sided with big cable companies in the lower courts," noted Demand Progress on Twitter following Trump's official selection of Kavanaugh Monday night, citing his previous argument that net neutrality rules violate the free speech of internet service providers.
In an analysis of Kavanaugh's past opinions late Monday—which include his assertion that net neutrality rules are "unlawful and must be vacated"—Slate's April Glaser notes how the record of Trump's pick for the court reveals a judge who is vastly more "sympathetic to the handful of companies that control the internet...than to the hundreds of millions of Americans who use it."
While the net neutrality protections established in 2015 were officially rolled back by FCC chair and former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai last month, this telecom-backed move is facing a slew of legal challenges from advocacy groups and state attorneys general that could ultimately make it to the nation's highest court.
"If any of those cases do make it to the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh probably feels that net neutrality isn't something the federal government should take strides to preserve," Glaser writes.
While Kavanaugh's past rulings as a federal appeals court judge demonstrate his concern for the rights of giant corporations, they also lay bare his apparent contempt for the privacy rights of Americans.
As Politicoreported ahead of his nomination, Kavanaugh "has a history of embracing warrantless surveillance and rejecting Fourth Amendment challenges to it."
In a concurring opinion in 2015, Kavanaugh argued that the National Security Agency's warrentless metadata collection program—which was exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013—is "consistent with the Fourth Amendment" and insisted that "critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program."
Judge Brett #Kavanaugh is notorious for his hostility to int’l law and infamously ruled in favor of the NSA’s expansive and illegal dragnet surveillance program. Judge Kavanaugh held that the Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the 4th Amendment.
Glaser of Slate argued that, if confirmed by the Senate, Kavanaugh will "cement a conservative majority that is likely to agree that the government should be allowed to make broad requests to access the data that companies collect on us without a warrant."
"Many of the major problems we have on the internet today—dragnet corporate and government surveillance, a handful of powerful companies that are allowed to control how we use the internet—could be deepened by a Supreme Court justice who could well be there for decades," Glaser concluded.
Drug treatment and recovery groups are lining up against the measure, which strips drug patients of crucial privacy protections.
A bill ostensibly intending to reduce opioid overdoses passed the House last month, but rather than cheering it on, drug treatment and recovery advocates are lining up to block it in the Senate. That's because instead of being aimed at reducing overdoses, the bill is actually a means of removing patient privacy protections from some of the most vulnerable people with opioid problems, including people using methadone-assisted therapy to control their addictions.
And that, advocates say, is likely to increase—not decrease—opioid overdoses by pushing users away from drug treatment out of fear the information they reveal could be used against them. The fear is real: Unlike other medical conditions, drug addiction leaves patients open to criminal prosecution, as well as stigmatization and other negative social consequences if their status as drug treatment or maintenance patients is revealed.
This bill, H.R. 6082, the Overdose Prevention and Patient Safety Act, would remove drug treatment patients' ability to control the disclosure of information to health plans, health care providers, and other entities, leaving them with only the lesser privacy protections afforded to all patients under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996.
"The confidentiality law is often the only shield between an individual in recovery and the many forms of discrimination that could irreparably damage their lives and future," said Paul Samuels, president and director of the Legal Action Center. "Unfortunately, there is a very real danger of serious negative consequences for people whose history of substance use disorder is disclosed without their explicit consent."
The current patient privacy protections, known as 42 C.F.R. Part 2 ("Part 2"), were established more than 40 years ago to ensure that people with a substance use disorder (SUD) are not made more vulnerable to discriminatory practices and legal consequences as a result of seeking treatment. The rules prevent treatment providers from disclosing information about a patient’s substance use treatment without patient consent in most circumstances. The bill’s plan to replace Part 2’s confidentiality requirements with HIPAA’s more relaxed standards would not sufficiently protect people seeking and receiving SUD treatment and could expose patients to great harm, the advocates charge.
"They should call this the Taking Away Protections Act," said Jocelyn Woods, head of the National Alliance for Medication-Assisted Recovery. "People will be afraid to go into treatment. I'm getting emails from people who want to leave treatment before this happens. If I were going into a program and they can't tell me my information will be safe, I would think about turning around and walking out," she told the Independent Media Institute.
"Many of us would not have gone to treatment or accepted services if we thought that our information would have been shared with other entities without our permission. We would not have put our careers, reputation or families at risk of stigma and discrimination if we were not assured that information about our substance use disorder was safe and would only be shared with our consent," added Patty McCarthy Metcalf, executive director of Faces and Voices of Recovery.
The push for the bill is being led by health information software companies and behavioral health providers, such as Hazelden and the Betty Ford Center, and it prioritizes convenience over patient privacy.
"This is because the behavioral health people see complying with the privacy requirements as a pain in the ass," said Woods. "They're going to have to fix their computer systems to block out any treatment program licensed by the federal government—not just methadone programs—and they don't want to do that. One of the software companies, Netsmart, complained that they don't want to mess with their programming," she said.
"We need Part 2," Woods continued. "It keeps police out of the program. Without it, police can walk right in. They already sit outside methadone clinics and bust people for DUI on the way out. If this passes, they will walk right in. If the police see anyone they think has a warrant or committed a crime, they're gone.”
While the bill has made its way through the House, advocates are hopeful it will stall in the Senate.
"The House pushed this through because they wanted to look like they were doing something and because the behavioral health people were pushing for it," Woods said, "but my sense is that it's moving slowly in the Senate. We have this crazy president, and there's immigration, and the congressional break, and then campaign season. My hope is we can push this past the elections and a blue wave in November will give us a fighting chance."
But the campaign isn't taking any chances and is mobilized to fight on the Hill in the next few months to block the bill. As Mark Parrino, president of the American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence, warned: "In the midst of the worst opioid epidemic in our nation’s history, we cannot afford to have patients fearful of seeking treatment because they do not have faith that their confidentiality will be protected."
André Postema legt zijn functie neer als fractieleider van de PvdA in de Eerste Kamer. Hij blijft wel senator, zo meldt de partij. Postema ligt onder vuur door misstanden rond de schoolexamens bij VMBO Maastricht.
I found a page you all might find interesting in Camelot At Dawn.
A gift from Kari Lee, she knows somehow to pick the right book. Thank you!
Here is the page:
For the evening of May 5, Evelyn Lincoln noted a dinner for the CAP at the Shoreham Hotel and wrote "Try to stop by before dinner." with names below bracketed.
[Charles Bartlett, Mansfield, Warren and White.]
Bartlett a writer for Chattanooga newspaper and had introduced JFK to Jackie.
Mansfield is Senator Mike Mansfield
By Clare Foran and Joan Biskupic Washington (CNN) – President Donald Trump announced on Monday his decision to nominate Brett Kavanaugh to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision to retire. Kavanaugh, 53, currently serves as a judge on the powerful US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Here’s where he stands on some hot-button issues: Abortion Because he was a swing-vote in favor of abortion rights, Kennedy’s departure from the court has sparked alarm among abortion rights activists that Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, could be overturned. In addition, Trump has long vowed to appoint justices who would reverse Roe and allow states to determine whether abortion should be legal. Kavanaugh has not expressed outright opposition to Roe v. Wade. One of his opinions likely to draw scrutiny from senators is a his dissent from a ruling of the DC Circuit last October that an undocumented immigrant teen in detention was entitled to seek an abortion. Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.
The top Republican in the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell, on Wednesday said he was not worried that President Donald Trump will withdraw the country from NATO, as Trump, who has a history of fiercely criticizing and occasionally scrapping international agreements, travelled to a major summit of NATO members.
Senatori e Deputati pentastellati puntano sul senso di appartenenza al territorio I Neo-parlamentari del M5S della Capitanata, il Senatore Marco Pellegrini e gli Onorevoli Rosa Menga e Giorgio Lo Vecchio, domenica 8 luglio sono convenuti a San Giovanni Rotondo per ringraziare i cittadini per l’ottimo risultato ottenuto dal M5S alle [...]
Stocks inched higher Tuesday, with the Dow Jones industrial average gaining for a fourth straight session, as markets brushed off mounting trade tensions and eyed the start of earnings season. The dollar and Treasury yields rose.
Americans are quitting their jobs at a rate not seen in 17 years. The jobs quits rate rose to 2.4% in May, the Labor Department said, another sign of a tightening US labor market.
The trade fight between the US and China shows no signs of letting up. In the most recent blow between the world's largest economies, China's commerce ministry said it would hit some US optical fiber products with tariffs of up to 78.2%.
Tesla is planning to build a plant in China, which the company said it expects to produce 500,000 cars a year. Shares rallied after Tesla announced it had signed an agreement on the deal with Shanghai's municipal government.
And a look at the upcoming economic calendar:
NATO leaders meet for an annual summit in Brussels.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Vice President Mike Pence pose for photographs before a meeting in McConnell's office in the U.S. Capitol July 10, 2018 in Washington, DC. U.S. ; Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
President Trump has nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the vacancy left by retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.
If confirmed, Trump's choice would solidify the high court's conservative majority and continue the president's push to shift the federal bench to the right.
Trump announced his choice with a prime-time address from the White House East Room. Since 2006, Kavanaugh has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the nation's second most powerful court. He was appointed to that post by President George W. Bush, after serving as Bush's White House staff secretary.
Kavanaugh graduated from Yale Law School and clerked for Kennedy in the mid-1990s. Kavanaugh later worked with independent counsel Kenneth Starr during the investigation of President Bill Clinton.
With files from the Assocated Pres
Richard Re, associate professor of law at UCLA who clerked for Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 2008-2009
Adam White, Hoover Institution and director of the Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University; he is also on the executive committee of the Federalist Society’s Administrative Law Practice Group; he tweets @adamjwhitedc
Julie Nice, professor of law at the University of San Francisco, where her areas of expertise include constitutional law
Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review; he tweets @ishapiro
William P. Marshall, professor of law at the University of North Carolina, specializing in federal courts, presidential power and judicial selection matters; former deputy White House counsel and deputy assistant to President Clinton
WASHINGTON, D.C. (41NBC/WMGT) – Georgia U.S. Senator David Perdue says he is excited about President Donald Trump’s nomination for the Supreme Court. Perdue issued a video statement this morning. He says he was in the East Room of the White House Monday night when the President announced Brett Kavanaugh as his choice. Perdue believes Kavanaugh will fight […]
[High Praise! to The Babylon Bee] Senate Democrats Demand Supreme Court Nominee Not Be Unduly Influenced By U.S. Constitution [Think you have a link that’s IMAO-worthy? Send it to firstname.lastname@example.org. If I use your link, you will receive High Praise! (assuming you remember to put your name in the email)] Send to Kindle
President Donald Trump has announced his nominee to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Here is what you should know about the latest nominee for associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Brett Kavanaugh, including his religion and Christian faith.
Photo: U.S. Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh looks on as U.S. President Donald Trump introduces him as his nominee to the United States Supreme Court during an event in the East Room of the White House July 9, 2018 in Washington, DC. Pending confirmation by the U.S. Senate, Judge Kavanaugh would succeed Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, 81, who is retiring after 30 years of service on the high court.
WASHINGTON – The divide in the USA seems to be expanding over President Trump’s pick for the next Supreme Court justice, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Half the country thinks it’s the end of the world, while the other half seems to think everything is just peachy. “Are you ready for the fight?” Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders asked a crowd of Democratic protesters after Trump’s nominee was announced Monday night. “If confirmed by the Senate, I will keep an open mind in […]
No Republican senate has confirmed a Democratic president's Supreme
1895. So there should not be any expectation that Democrats ought
to vote to confirm a Republican nominee, especially if that nominee is
Alex Burrows said multiple factors left the Ottawa Senators overcome by “negative energy” in their plunge to 30th place last season. In an interview Monday with Ottawa radio station TSN 1200, the retiring veteran of 13 NHL seasons said he had never...
Senators who could cast the deciding votes on the fate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh gave little indication of where their heads were on the matter on Tuesday, hours after President Donald Trump announced his nomination. Kavanaugh, a conservative federal judge who previously served in the administration of George W. Bush, has been tapped…
Senate Republicans have a very narrow margin for error on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The GOP caucus has just 51 members, but it’s unclear if Arizona Sen. John McCain, who is being treated for brain cancer, will be able to return to the chamber to vote. A 50-50 tie vote would…
The odds of the senate flipping are near zero.
Trump would have to be caught in bed with Putin and there would have to be pictures.
Republicans have zero spare votes right now.
McCain is unlikely to return - and is doing the country a disservice by not resigning because of his health.
Maybe Republicans can pick up a red state democrat.
Regardless, Kavanaugh is going to be a significant election issue.
Republicans are far more likely to be motivated by a SCOTUS nominee than Democrats.
There is conflicting polling information coming out.
Purportedly since 2016 Republicans have gained 10 points among millenials - currently the largest voting cohort. 17 points among white male millenials who are not majority republican. Trumps support among blacks and hispanics has risen 10 pts in each group.
Those things can not easily be concurrently true with the polling supporting a blue wave.
As I understand it overall Trump support is higher than on election day 2016.
But "enthusiasm" is much higher among democrats - hence the blue wave.
In otherwords if democrats vote in large numbers as predicted, and republicans don't there will be a blue wave. While if either of those is not true there will not.
Scott is leading Nelson in FL.
Currently Republicans are losing in AZ - but the primary is not over.
Heller is a tiny bit behind in CO.
Manchin is up in WV
Baldwin is up in WI
Cramer is beating Hietkamp in ND
Brown is up in OH
Braun us up in IA
McKascil is up in MO
But almost all these are in the margin of error.
I understand, and I will have to read about Kavanaugh to decide if I am going to write my senators to ask they oppose him.
I am troubled by his 4th amendment positions - particularly at a time we are starting to gain 4th amendment rights back.
I suspect that I will remain troubled, but not enough to oppose him, and will not really find out whether there is anything to fear until next June. -
Preşedintele Camerei Deputaţilor, Liviu Dragnea, preşedintele Senatului, Călin Popescu Tăriceanu, primarul Capitalei, Gabriela Firea, ministrul de Interne, Carmen Dan şi şeful Jandarmeriei, Sebastian Cucoş au fost reclamaţi la Consiliului Naţional de Combatere a Discriminării (CNCD) pentru că „acţiunile şi afirmaţiile lor reprezintă fapte de hărţuire, jignire şi intimidare a manifestanţilor”. Plângerea, depusă la începutul acestei săptămâni, a fost semnată de reprezentanţii unei asociaţii civice şi de jurnalişti, care spun că instituţiile statului trebuie să acţioneze independent şi în interesul cetăţenilor, nu pentru infractori, acuzând, de asemenea, presiuni şi intimidare din partea autorităţilor publice şi din partea forţelor de ordine, care respectă dreptul tuturor la exprimarea liberă, potrivit News.ro.
Senatorii olandezi au aprobat marţi abrogarea unei legi cu privire la referendumurile consultative, suprimând astfel o practică ce le-a permis cetăţenilor să respingă, în urmă cu doi ani, un tratat esenţial între Uniunea Europeană şi Ucraina, transmite AFP.
Preşedintele Senatului, Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu, a declarat marţi că decretul semnat de preşedintele Iohannis de revocare a Laurei Codruţa Kovesi din funcţia de procuror-şef al DNA este un act de normalitate, în condiţiile "abuzurilor şi încălcărilor repetate ale Constituţiei comise în mandatul fostei şefe a DNA şi a deciziei CCR".
Proiectul legii offshore merge la promulgare. Actul normativ stabileşte condiţiile în care sunt exploatate zăcămintele naturale şi este esenţial pentru începerea extragerii gazelor din Marea Neagră. Însă, varianta finală, cea votată în Camera Deputaţilor, diferă mult de cea a Senatului. Investitorii nu doar că nu vor mai fi scutiţi de taxe, dar le vor fi percepute şi unele suplimentare.
Senatul, în calitate de for decizional, a respins marţi, cu 75 de voturi „pentru” şi 20 de voturi „împotrivă” cererea de reexaminare formulată de preşedintele Klaus Iohannis cu privire la legea 303/2004 privind statutul magistraţilor.
For a lawmaker, Rep. Tim Goodwin (R-30/Rapid City) seems distressingly incapable of understanding state law. Alas, so does Secretary of State Shantel Krebs. According to Rep. Goodwin’s latest blog post, Goodwin shares Krebs’s mistaken interpretation that Senator Lance Russell can return to the District 30 Senate ballot: To make matters more confusing, Sen. Russell was […]
Why should you ring the Blog Tip Jar and support Dakota Free Press? Because, as Republican Senator John Thune tells WNAX, the free press is vital to democracy: …A free press plays an important role in keeping governments accountable and… holding their feet to the fire. We need a vibrant, open, and free press [Senator John […]
Click here to view original web page at mrdilettante.blogspot.comBrett Kavanaugh is a good pick for the Supreme Court. I would have personally preferred Amy Coney Barrett, but at this moment a guy like Kavanaugh, with a gold-plated resume and a substantial history on the D.C. Court of Appeals, is the smarter choice. If President Trump has more Republican senators next time, and I suspect he will have as many as three more bites of this apple, he can go with someone like Barrett. Kavanaugh is the wise pick this time for a simple reason -- his record and his history, especially working for Justice Elena Kagan, makes it obvious that Democratic Party opposition is strictly about partisanship and not about principle, hardly a surprising observation to regular readers of this feature but others might learn something. It also puts a number of incumbent Dem senators in the box; do you […]
Click here to view original web page at bradley1969.blogspot.com...when Minnesota's junior (and interim) U.S. Senator doesn't seem to grasp the concept on what she's a part of. This tweet reads as if all of Congress has a say concerning a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. The reality is SCOTUS hearings and the final up or down votes reside solely in one chamber of Congress. That would be the Senate. Y'know, the deliberative body of which Sen. Smith is a member. And for the record, my vote in this poll would be a write-in: As soon as the Democrats' inevitable filibuster is ended by a simple majority vote, which is now all that is required to invoke cloture thanks to former Majority Leader "Dingy" Harry Reid. --------------------------------------- Click here to view original post bradley1969.blogspot.com
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Senate panel voted Tuesday to approve President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead Veterans Affairs, a department beset by political infighting and turmoil over providing health care. The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee agreed on voice vote to back Robert Wilkie, currently serving as a Pentagon undersecretary. Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont [&hellip
Can Elizabeth Warren win back blue-collar Democrats from President Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania? Its a question many Democrats are pondering as Warren one of the leading contenders for her partys presidential nomination, if she chooses to run in 2020 goes back and forth with the president over immigration and other issues. Warren (D-Mass.) has shown an ability to rally and excite progressives, shes a proven fundraiser and she has policy bona fides from her work in the Senate. Yet there are creeping doubts among some Democrats that shes the best candidate to take on Trump. Some...
Democrats are in for an uphill battle in Novembers midterm elections as they struggle to overtake the GOP-led Senate, according to an Axios and SurveyMonkey poll of key states released Tuesday. Although Democrats only need to pick up two seats to gain the majority in the Senate, they are struggling to control 10 states already held by Democratic senators. These states are now predominantly red states with voters who are strong supporters of President Donald Trump. They include Indiana, Missouri, Montana and North Dakota, all of which Trump won in 2016, while his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton couldnt even win...
When President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court on Monday, Democrat chicken littles erupted in paroxysms of rage. "Civil rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, healthcare are all under attack," the NAACP warned. NAACP â @NAACP Civil rights, womenÂs rights, LGBT rights, health care are all under attack. WeÂve seen Judge Brett KavanaughÂs record and we demand no new SCOTUS justice until after a new Senate is seated in 2019. Â @PeopleFor #StandUpFightBack #ScotusPick #SaveSCOTUS 8:57 PM - Jul 9, 2018 300 309 people are talking about this House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Kavanaugh would be...
Top Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer shot down suggestions Tuesday that his party would boycott committee meetings or Senate floor action to try to derail President Trumps Supreme Court pick. Liberal activists have demanded Mr. Schumer use every tool at his disposal to try to thwart the elevation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the high court, including parliamentary delays. Mr. Schumer, though, said there arent a lot of good tools left to the minority party to delay action now that both parties have curtailed the filibuster, and he said boycotting the committee or floor would just leave Republicans more space...
A news conference outside the federal building in Anchorage, and then a demonstration at a downtown building that houses offices for Alaska’s two U.S. senators, focused on the role of U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the appointment process.
Production and maintenance of givex cards/accounts. The Ticket Operations Coordinator is responsible for providing customer service to Ottawa Senators season... From Senators NHL - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 18:10:13 GMT - View all Ottawa, ON jobs
With Ben Brock Johnson . The depth of Russian interference in U.S. elections is deeper and darker than you know. A top reporter who has covered it all, reveals the chilling facts. Guests Jeff Pegues , Justice and Homeland Security correspondent for CBS News. Author of Kompromat: How Russia Undermined American Democracy . ( @jeffpeguescbs ) Matt Dietrich , Spokesman for the Illinois State Board of Elections. From The Reading List The Los Angeles Times: Senate Panel Backs Up Intelligence Agencies, Says Russia Aimed To Help Trump In Election — The committee’s statement is not a surprise — Burr and the panel’s Democratic vice chairman, Sen. Mark R. Warner of Virginia — have both made previous statements supporting the intelligence community’s assessment. But the strong endorsement nonetheless marks a significant milestone in the continued debate over Russia’s role in the 2016 campaign. The New York Times: Trump and Putin Will Meet One-on-One in Finland, Officials Say — There is no
For the second day in a row, New Governor Andrew Cuomo held rallies Tuesday criticizing President Donald Trump’s choice for the U.S. Supreme Court, and urging action on a measure that would protect the right to choose abortion in New York.
WAMC's David Guistina speaks with Mike Spain, Associate Editor of The Times Union, about the ongoing trail of former New York state Senate Leader Dean Skelos. The pair also discuss Albany County Executive Daniel McCoy , who is being criticized for his office's social media practices.
President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh visited top U.S. Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, seeking to build support among lawmakers in what promises to be a contentious confirmation battle with Democrats. Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer vowed an all-out battle against Kavanaugh, but senators in his party cannot block Kavanaugh’s confirmation if no Republicans break ranks.
According to Reuters, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh visited top Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill a day after his nomination. President Donald Trump selected Kavanaugh to succeed Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is retiring at the end of the month. Republican leader Mitch McConnell stated Senate Republicans look forward to his confirmation process, which will occur in the coming weeks.
It’s hard to believe that we’ve come to this point. According to BuzzFeed News, pregnant women detained in US immigration facilities have suffered miscarriages due to neglect and cruel practices. In light of BuzzFeed’s investigation, ICE declined to comment on specific cases, but US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand took to Twitter to express her outrage, saying: Pregnant women say they are being harmed and denied medical care in immigration detention — even when hemorrhaging and miscarrying.
Chuck Schumer has vowed to fight President Trump's Supreme Court nominee. Reuters reports Trump named Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his pick on Monday. “I will oppose this nominee with everything that I’ve got.' Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer Schumer says he worries about the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the Affordable Care Act. “If we can prove these two points to the American people - that he will repeal Roe and women’s reproduction freedom, that he will repeal ACA and ...
Nairobi, KENYA: Parliamentary legislators have blasted the Council of Governors for what they termed as shielding alleged corrupt counterparts and their demand that governors be given immunity. In a media briefing at parliamentary buildings separately, Ugunja legislator Opiyo Wandayi who is also chair of the National Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee and Meru Senator Mithika Liunturi who is also vice chair of Senate Accounts and Public Investment Committee condemned the COG chair Josephat Nanok over remarks he made that the national government is on a witch-hunt and political mission on governors over corruption matters. Last week, Busia Governor Sospeter Ojaamong was taken to court after his arrest at Integrity Center in Nairobi for alleged corruption. Wandayi said that it is incorrect for Nanok to assert that the government has directed its energy to County governments as compared to the National government insisting that county chiefs must be accountable on how they spend public funds. He insisted that the Council of Governors should leave government agencies to tackle corruption in the National and County governments without interference and the council should stop shielding corrupt tendencies in the county. “We cannot turn the Council of Governors into some kind of refugee for governors and other county government officers to run to when the law is catching up with them let the due process take its course .”He said. He downplayed Nanok allegations that there is a move to fast-track auditing of county governments as compared to audited accounts of the national government indicating that accounts of the county and national accounts are examined concurrently especially the accounts of 2014/2015. He urged the governors to execute the mandate given by the citizens indicating that people in the grassroots are vulnerable thus depending on the governors to solve their plight. On the other hand, Linturi blasted the governors call to be given immunity from prosecution whenever they are in office indicating that they must face the law. Wandayi also added that parliamentarians will be in the fore front to shoot down any bill or motion seeking immunity for the governors warning that the council is setting a precarious predence on governance matters.
When Beijing first asked airlines around the world to remove references to Taiwan as an independent country from their destinations lists, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders slammed the move as "Orwellian nonsense." But a number of airline companies are buckling under Chinese pressure.
Why it matters: China is wielding its market leverage to advance its geopolitical goals — and it's working.
The stakes: In the past, China has shut down the Chinese versions of various companies’ websites, like Zara and Marriott, for refusing to wipe references to Taiwan. It threatened airlines with similar measures if they failed to comply, per Foreign Policy.
Air India, which is owned by the Indian government,was the latest to comply, wiping all references to Taiwan from its site and re-dubbing it "Chinese Taipei," according to Business Insider.
Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways, both from Japan, changed "Taiwan" to "China Taiwan" on their Chinese language sites in June, though they kept "Taiwan" on other versions of their websites, reports the Japan Times.
Qantas Airways, Australia's largest airline by fleet size, is now referring to Taiwan as "Taiwan, China," AP reports.
Others: Per AP, Air Canada, Lufthansa, British Airways, Finnair, Garuda Indonesia, Asiana Airlines, and Philippine Airlines also made the change shortly after the Civil Aviation Authority of China ordered it in April.
What to watch: American airline companies have thus far refused to bend to Beijing's will. Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Democratic Senator Bob Menendez wrote a letter of support to U.S. airline companies under pressure from China, urging them to oppose Beijing's demands.
If confirmed, President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, would rank just after Justice Clarence Thomas as the court's second most conservative member.
Why it matters: Kavanaugh's confirmation would shift the court for a generation, impacting decisions on topics like gun rights, health care, social issues and more. His judicial record, however, indicates that he may not be as reliably conservative as many Republicans would hope.
"Kavanaugh's most significantACA-related decision was in a case about the individual mandate. He did not, contrary to what some of his critics have implied, vote to uphold the mandate."
"The second case dealt with a more far-fetched challenge: It sought to have the ACA invalidated because the Senate wrote most of it. ... The Constitution's Origination Clause says bills that raise revenues have to originate in the House, not the Senate."
"Such Senate amendments are permissible under the Clause’s text and precedent," Kavanaugh wrote. But he said an earlier ruling had upheld the law for the wrong reasons — and that his court should take another look at that decision. He lost.
Kavanaugh "won't be inclined to give federal agencies wide latitude on imposing climate and environmental regulations."
"Longtime environmental lawyer David Bookbinder tells Axios that, by his count, Kavanaugh has been involved with six climate change cases, and in five of those he took a 'narrow' view of EPA's regulatory authority."
Former Obama official Jody Freeman told Ben in an email: "I am not sure he is so different from Justice Kennedy on this score. ... Can we expect decisions that cabin EPA somewhat? I think yes. I would expect a Justice Kavanaugh to make sure EPA and other agencies 'stay in their lane' so to speak."
"Kavanaugh...is a constitutional conservative that some legal experts argue would likely side with conservatives in supporting corporate free speech cases."
"When it comes to libel, the Hollywood Reporter's Eriq Gardner details a decision authored by Kavanaugh at the U.S Appeals Court for the D.C Circuit four years ago that allows litigation to be used to deter free speech."
"When it comes to net neutrality,Vice has an article explaining why Kavanaugh is a major net neutrality opponent."
From Axios' Shanna Vavra:
"Kavanaugh has stood behind warrantless government surveillance in the past, including the NSA’s surveillance operation that former NSA contractor Ed Snowden exposed in 2013."
"He wrote, 'the Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment. … In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program.'"
"Kavanaugh also dissented on the court’s decision in 2010 about authorities placing a GPS tracker on a suspect’s car without a warrant. Kavanaugh said the suspect did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his public movements."
Per NBC, "Kavanaugh's record of public comments and legal decisions on abortion rights is relatively thin."
He told Sen. Chuck Schumer in 2006, on the issue of Roe v. Wade: "If confirmed to the D.C. circuit, I will follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be binding precedent of the court, It's been decided by the Supreme Court."
In October, when a pregnant undocumented teenager wanted an abortion, Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent that "the court was wrong to conclude she had the right to 'an immediate abortion on demand.' ... He said delaying the procedure until she could be released to a U.S. sponsor would not impose an undue burden on the abortion right," NBC reports.
"He has called for restructuring the government's consumer watchdog agency so the president could remove the director and has been a leading defender of the government's position when it comes to using military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects."
Something that could come up during his confirmation: In 2009, Kavanaugh "argued that presidents should not be distracted while in office by civil lawsuits or criminal investigations," per The Post.
Kavanaugh "has often been skeptical of government regulations," the Wall Street Journal reports. "And he has argued in favor of greater judicial power in reviewing the actions of administrative agencies on major questions."
He's "been open to using the First Amendment to strike down government regulations."
His career on the D.C. Circuit has "been marked with dozens of votes to roll back rules and regulations," another WSJ report states.
Politico reports that business groups were called upon by the White House on Monday "to help push his confirmation."
The White House, in a document sent out to business groups, "wrote that Kavanaugh has overruled federal regulators 75 times on cases involving clean air, consumer protections, net neutrality and other issues," and most recently "favored curtailing the power of independent federal regulators."
To win the Senate, Democrats need to keep all 10 seats they're defending in states that President Trump won in 2016 — plus pick up two more seats.
Why it matters: That's not happening. A new Axios/SurveyMonkey poll of key states shows Dems would lose three of those red-state seats while picking up two GOP seats — still short of the majority.
*Incumbent. Data: Survey Monkey poll of 12,677 registered voters from June 11 to July 2; Chart: Chris Canipe/Axios
Why it matters: It's looking nearly impossible for Democrats to take back the Senate. So the stakes are even higher for them to win the House if they're going to have any kind of congressional check on President Trump.
The state of play: The polls shows three Democratic senators are poised to lose their seats to Republicans — Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, Bill Nelson in Florida and Joe Donnelly in Indiana.
Be smart... Democrats would pick up seats in Arizona and Nevada, while Republicans keep their seat in Tennessee.
Democratic bright spots: Sens. Joe Manchin in West Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana were losing by double digits to a generic GOP candidate last time we polled these states in February. They're now leading by double digits.
Our data includes an expected range under six different scenarios that measure potential turnout, giving a more complete picture of each race.
Even under the most optimistic scenarios for Democrats across all 13 states, they would still lose the same seats by a range of one percentage point to 14 percentage points.
Under Republicans' most bullish forecast, they would actually pick up six seats, the four mentioned above plus Ohio and Missouri.
The bottom line: Democrats face long odds to take back the Senate.
WESTERN KENTUCKY (7/10/18) — U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell successfully secured a provision in the Senate Interior Appropriations bill to combat the spread of Asian carp in both Kentucky Lake and Lake Barkley in western Kentucky.
McConnell, a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, secured the provision in the Interior Appropriations Bill that has passed the Committee and now must be approved by the full Senate.
McConnell’s language directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to focus its efforts on combatting the serious threat of Asian carp in both Kentucky lakes. The legislation also provides $11 ...
WASHINGTON >> President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, mapped out strategy with Republican leaders today, launching a fierce confirmation battle that could remake the court for decades and roil the midterm elections in the meantime.
3 Northern Governors, 30 Senators, 70 Reps’ Members On The Verge To Dump APC For PDP There are strong indications that about three governors in Northern Nigeria elected on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC) are heading to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) any moment from now. NOW TRENDING: PDP, R-APC, 37 Others […]
Don't give up on hope. A daily column on what the ALP have as a policy, supported by a local member, and how it has 'helped' the local community. I'll stop if I cannot identify a policy. Feel free to make suggestions. Contact me on FB, not twitter. I have twitter, but never look at it. Gabrielle Williams was appointed Parliamentary Secretary for Carers and Volunteers, working with the Minister for Housing, Disability and Ageing and the Minister for Families and Children. As part of the November 24th Vic election campaign I have a petition I want to bring before the Opposition Leader Matthew Guy. I believe Matthew will be the next premier of Victoria and so I am petitioning him as I raise the issues of Employment, Crime and Education in Dandenong. I am also seeking money for my campaign. I don't have party resources, and so my campaign is on foot, and on the internet. Any money I receive that is not spent on the campaign will go to Grow 4 Life. I am asking questions like "What do you love about Dandenong?" and "If you could change something in Dandenong to make it better, what would it be?" I'm not limiting the questions to state issues. I'm happy to discuss anything, and get things done. I am a decent man and don't care for the abuse given me. I created a video raising awareness of anti police feeling among western communities. I chose the senseless killing of Nicola Cotton, a Louisiana policewoman who joined post Katrina, to highlight the issue. I did this in order to get an income after having been illegally blacklisted from work in NSW for being a whistleblower. I have not done anything wrong. Local council appointees refused to endorse my work, so I did it for free. Youtube's Adsence refused to allow me to profit from their marketing it. Meanwhile, I am hostage to abysmal political leadership and hopeless journalists. My shopfront has opened on Facebook.
Here is a video I made Mystery of Webster's Curse
The complete HD video comprising all four parts.
The story is produced, written and directed and narrated by David Daniel Ball. Art work has been created by the former Disney animator May Wa Leng. A few clips were from VideoBlocks.com, a film footage firm which sells clips to tv studios and individuals for rebroadcast use.
Some things should not happen, but they do. Kevin Rudd as PM was highly lauded for apologising to Australian Aborigines. It was an empty gesture, but an attempted travesty as he moved to end the intervention in the North of Australia saving lives of Aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal people are suffering from left wing compassion which seems to promote criminal and decadent behaviour. So that Aboriginal children have got high levels of sexually transmitted diseases. Drunken behaviour and dysfunctional families characterise what has become a cargo culture. Rudd effectively apologised for early welfare groups that tried to help foundlings and the dispossessed. Rudd referred to a myth of a stolen generation in which very few have been identified who were stolen from their parents to be raised by the state. It was an empty gesture of Rudd, but he is still highly lauded for it. It is apparent that Turnbull can not achieve anything worthwhile as PM, except further humiliation. So he must be looking for a note on which to finish so as to define his term. Turnbull is looking for a Rudd like empty gesture. Same sex marriage could be that. A plebiscite is the policy which the Liberals took to the last election, with no back up plan, and the senate won't allow it because many independents, and the ALP and Greens, feel discussion for such a plebiscite might mean that the plebiscite fails. Pesky democracy. So now a Lib backbencher, possibly with Turnbull's encouragement, is threatening to cross the party floor and move for a parliamentary vote without a plebiscite or discussion. Personally, I don't feel government should be involved with people's sex lives where consent is achieved, but I also want protection for churches which act on conscience, something a members bill might not do. There are lots of legal things I would never do. An empty gesture like Rudd's for which Turnbull can point as a crowning achievement. It is probably too late for Turnbull to bear a child while in office.
My books "History in a Year by the Conservative Voice" are available, recommended for those age ten and up. They have an essay or two on current affairs for each day of each month. They also list events, births, deaths and holidays and observances for each day around the world. But unless you ask a Library to stock it for you, they will not do so. One public Library feels they are too specialised. No news yet as to wether the fierce battle of half wits will decide who will be the next ALP leader between Shorten, Albanese, Plibersek or Clare. Clare looks better in a suit. Nobody is challenging random phrase generator Turnbull, yet, either. Turnbull has declared “We have resolved this election! Ringing stuff. Hopefully Scott Morrison will move soon before Turnbull melts completely. Compulsory voting has not prevented the lowest turnout for the major parties in Liberal Party history. ALP recording their second worst result since last time. Liberals going backwards while their coalition colleagues, Nationals, still progressed. Turnbull deposed Mr Abbott under the false pretence of explaining policy better and being better at elections. Now the vote is over, Turnbull can resign. Or face further humiliation. For some, at the moment, the Sex Party has more credibility.
=== from 2015 ===
Democrat hatred for the United States cultural assets is longstanding. In South Carolina, in 1962, a Democrat Governor put up the confederate flag on their capitol building while taking credit for improving educational standards while opposing integration. The flag is coming down now, a symbol exploited by bigots and haters. It is difficult to know when it was anything else. The current governor is Nikki Haley. She is GOP. ALP leader Bill Shorten is the bastard boss portrayed in union attack adverts on Work Choices. He failed to adequately explain his union leader decisions from back in the day. Shorten smeared the High Court Judge instead, claiming Dyson Heydon is Mr Abbott's pawn. Shorten's leadership is exposed and so the eye of voters wanders to look at others. And the alternatives are showing voters what they have got. Tanya Plibersek, ALP Deputy leader, complains she is losing the ability to feed herself. The compelling vision is clearly calculated to inspire sympathy from ALP supporters at the grass roots. They will be needed to change the leadership. Jason Clare says he doesn't know why the government is turning back boats because the policy won't work. In fantasy terms, Clare is a compelling candidate because he has never been leader before and therefore all his mistakes have been someone else's fault. Something ALP members find appealing. But it isn't only ALP members campaigning for Shorten's position. Sarah Hanson-Young is going on sea patrol. She is going to the Mediterranean seas to find lost migrants. It is much nicer there in Summer than Australia in Winter. ALP should be happy with her embarrassment of leadership choices.
Hundreds of millions of tweets over just one soccer match. But it was an unusual match. By way of contrast, Netherlands vs Argentina did not get the same coverage as Germany vs Brazil. But then Germany spanked Brazil 7-1 in front of a home crowd for Brazil. It doesn't get more upsetting in world sport .. anywhere. The result is career changing for all involved. Netherlands beat Spain 5-1 earlier in the tournament, but did not carry on with that form. Germany have done well, but need to maintain it to win the tournament. That is their goal. Today is the anniversary of an equivalent match as Argentina vs Netherlands has been, 48 BC had Julius Ceaser pitted against Pompey at Battle of Dyrrhachium. It was precipitous, and Ceaser risked all by accident, but nothing happened as two heavyweights faced off. Technically, Pompey won and so he went to face Ceaser again at Pharsalos with all the advantages .. yet lost everything. What had happened was Ceaser had sailed to Dyrrhachium through an enemy force in winter .. and got trapped with a much smaller force that could not resupply. Mark Antony marched to his aid, and Pompey moved to prevent the reuniting. The upshot was that Pompey had a force behind fortifications and Ceaser chose to starve him out by building more fortifications. Pompey had sea access to supplies, but could not feed his livestock. Ceaser's men were hungry, but when spring came, Ceaser would hold all the advantages. Pompey broke out of his enclosure and marched to Pharsalos. How will Argentina fare against Germany? How will Brazil against Netherlands? So much has happened, but the future is uncertain, and anything might prove all the difference.
Also on this day, but in the year 645, was the Isshi incident in Japan which transformed Japan and involved their honour system in a way that seems incomprehensible if one is not Japanese. Two princes, Nakatomi no Kamatari, Prince Naka no Ōe, conspired to kill a third, Soga no Iruka. The attack took place in front of Empress Kōgyoku during a court ceremony. Iruka was not killed during the first attack, but pleaded his case to the Empress, who retired to consider it. A second attack in front of the Empress finished Iruka and put the Empress in a difficult position, she was unclean because of the murder in her presence. So she stepped aside, but not for the killer, but his older brother. The killer became a monk. And after a few reigns, Emperor. It was a family affair. Much like that big family of soccer fans watching the events unfold in the world cup. Also on this day, Lady Jane Grey took the throne of England in 1553. It was not a blessing for her. Neither was it a blessing when Richard Neville defeated Lancastrian forces of Henry VI in 1460. The Vellore mutiny against the British East India company happened on this day in 1806, but the Sepoys had to wait another hundred and forty two years to see independence for India. US Democrat President Andrew Jackson moved to kill the second US bank in 1832, setting in train a position of inept fiscal rectitude all Democrat Presidents have followed. Death Valley recorded a temperature of 57 degrees centigrade in 1913. It has been cooler ever since. In 1997, scientists reported DNA analysis of a Neanderthal that favoured the 'out of Africa' theory for human development, with an 'Eve' existing 100k to 200k years ago (She was a good woman who liked kids). Born on this day was John Calvin in 1509, Nikola Tesla in 1856, Marcel Proust in 1871, Harvey Ball 1921, Jake LaMotta 1921, Arlo Guthrie 1941 and Sunil Gavaskar in 1949.
New York Sun, by Editorial Posted By: Toledo- Wed, 11 09 2018 12:09:18 GMT Senator Chuck Schumer says he knows why President Trump ended up picking Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. Mr. Schumer, according to the dispatch in the New York Post, is worried about Special Prosecutor Robert Muellers probe and reckons Judge Kavanaugh would be a barrier to the investigation. All we can say is that if its true, its the best of the many wonderful things people are saying about Judge Kavanaugh. The judge has certainly been in the thick of the fight to defend separated powers, which are so threatened by the very concept of independent (and special) counsels. Since the presidency of Richard Nixon,
Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the national leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC), has accused the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) of stealing all the money in the country before their regime was...
PJ Media, by Jim Treacher Posted By: PageTurner- Tue, 10 29 2018 11:29:24 GMT If you´re reading this, that means it´s not too late. There´s still time. We can still prevent this calamity. We can still save America from the doom that´s inevitable if the United States Senate is allowed to confirm President Trump´s latest nominee to the Supreme Court, [Fill In The Blank]. We all know that Cheeto Hitler is a deep-cover Russian agent who stole the election even though Hillary got the popular vote and it´s not fair. (#ButHerEmails!) That´s a given, and so far we´ve put up with it. We´ve played nice. We´ve kept our cool. But now it´s time to fight back. Now Trump is presenting a direct threat to [Liberal Agenda Item]
The bleak reality for liberals is that the furious response to Souter’s tenure fueled a political response from conservatives with an energy and determination that did not wane for three decades. It led to a steadily growing conviction that the shape of the Supreme Court, and the impact such a court would have for a generation, more than justified a vote for a candidate who, in earlier times, might have been happily abandoned. It meant that any tactic to protect a conservative Supreme Court—even denying a president with almost a year left in his term the right to a hearing on a nominee—was justified by the stakes. It led to a Trump administration pushing—and succeeding—to put a record number of federal appeals judged on the bench, with a Senate Republican majority abandoning traditions like the “blue slip” rule, which required at least one home state senator, regardless of party, to approve a judicial nominee. via www.politico.com …
Production and maintenance of givex cards/accounts. The Ticket Operations Coordinator is responsible for providing customer service to Ottawa Senators season... From Senators NHL - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 18:10:13 GMT - View all Ottawa, ON jobs
We’re one day into the Brett Kavanaugh Wars, and the process is already exhausted. Most senators pre-emptively sorted into their partisan camps with little sign they’re susceptible to persuasion. If the nomination process is going to last for months, they will be tedious months, and there’s little chance that it will conclude with good news for Democrats.
With an effective 50 to 49 majority—Arizona Sen. John McCain is out indefinitely—Democrats would need just one Republican to flip in order to sink the nomination, if they can keep their own caucus unanimous in opposition. I could not identify that Republican, or any Republican even toying with the idea of being that Republican, on Tuesday. Senate Republicans were nearly all enthusiastic about Kavanaugh and eager to make fun Democrats for spinning their wheels trying to develop silver bullets to kill Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy, a Judiciary Committee member who told reporters on Monday evening that he wouldn’t be a “rubber stamp” for the president’s pick, said Tuesday that if it were up to him he would start confirmation hearings “next week,” and called all Democratic accusations against Kavanaugh “ridiculous.” The thing Kennedy wants to know, from his powerful perch as one who gets to publicly question Kavanaugh, is whether “he had a crummy first job.”
“I’d feel better if he spent an August on a hot roof laying plywood,” Kennedy told reporters.
Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, whom many seem to forget is a staunch conservative when he’s not criticizing the president’s tone, also loves Kavanaugh, regardless of whether he spent formative teenage summers on hot roofs. Nor is he swayed by any of the tranches of criticism Democrats are currently road-testing on Kavanaugh. Policy arguments, like how Kavanaugh might unravel Obamacare or further restrict access to abortion, won’t dissuade Flake. But Kavanaugh is also facing criticism for a 2009 law review article in which he argued that Congress should enact a law shielding presidents from a “time-consuming and distracting” criminal or civil prosecution while in office. (Kavanaugh admits that this was not his opinion in the 1990s, when he investigated the Clinton administration as part of the Kenneth Starr probe.)
If that argument was going to persuade any Republican, it would likely be Flake, who said in May that the presidency has been “debased” by a president who has “only a passing familiarity with how the Constitution works.”
So, how bothered is Flake by Kavanaugh’s belief in just leaving presidents alone?
“Frankly that was back when Obama was president, so if somebody’s trying to draw a line between him being easy on Trump, that’s not there,” Flake said. “He’s a strong pick.” Kennedy, on the same topic, told reporters that it’s not “fair to criticize a thinking person for thinking.”
“I mean, I don’t want somebody who’s never had an original thought in his life,” he said.
What about Maine Sen. Susan Collins? The occasional Republican swing vote has been entertaining the largest swarms of reporters on the Senate subway platform since the height of the health care debate last summer. While she insists that she’s still working through her position, and wants to meet with Kavanaugh to get a better sense of his “judicial philosophy,” she didn’t express any concerns at all about him on Tuesday.
Collins noted that she voted for both Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, “even though I don’t share the same political philosophy with them, but I found them well-qualified to serve on the court,” and said that she made a “similar” decision with Justices John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch. If being viewed in Collins’ eyes as “well-qualified to serve on the court” is the key to her vote, then, Kavanaugh’s in good shape.
“When you look at the credentials that Judge Kavanaugh brings to the job, it’ll be very difficult for anyone to argue that he’s not qualified for the job,” Collins said.
Collins also swatted away Democrats’ charge that Kavanaugh would unravel protections in the Affordable Care Act. She noted that in one case on the ACA that Kavanaugh adjudicated, he was “criticized by conservatives as not going far enough.” She also took a subtle swipe at Democrats’ recent emphasis on the effect Kavanaugh would have on health care, which has been the party’s strongest and most unifying issue ahead of the midterms.
“I’ve noticed that they seem to have switched from a focus on Roe to health care in an attempt, I assume, to unify their caucus,” she said.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer denied in his weekly press conference that Democrats had made such a calculation, and said that they were focusing on all sorts of issues. This came after he said in his opening remarks that a Justice Kavanaugh would be the “dagger through the heart” of Americans’ health care protections, and that health care was “at the top of the list” of their concerns. He did, however, also cite the two other main lines of attack in this nascent three-pronged focus: Roe and Kavanaugh’s views on criminal investigations against a president.
Most Senate Democrats have already signaled their opposition. Even ones that are occasionally squishy, like Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, have said that any selection from President Trump’s list of potential nominees isn’t what they’re looking for. Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, one of the few Democrats who voted to confirm Kavanaugh to the D.C. Circuit in 2006, said Monday that Kavanaugh’s record since then has concerned him. It doesn’t appear that there will be many question marks about the vote count in the Judiciary Committee, either, considering that all Democrats on the committee spoke outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning about how lousy Kavanaugh is.
Theoretically, all eyes are on a handful of Senate Democrats up for re-election in states that Trump won: West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, Indiana Sen. Claire McCaskill, North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, and Montana Sen. Jon Tester. All of them claim that they’re reviewing the nomination and gathering information.
Are they, though? The only information they really need to gather is whether Collins or some other Republican will defect. The other likely candidate, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, was coy with reporters on Tuesday and went on at length about it being the time for senators to do the “hard work” of vetting. If Democrats do get a defection, they’ll have Republican cover to kill the nomination on the unifying argument that they’re protecting pre-existing conditions. If the confirmation ends up being secured solely with Republican votes, then some red-state Democrats can add to the total to show off how bipartisan they are.
What would it take for the Kavanaugh nomination to be stopped? An extinction-level asteroid collision might do the trick. Barring that, some new piece of highly scandalous information would have to emerge and shift the conversation from where it is right now: predictable squabbling along partisan lines, where one side has one more vote than the other.
To be perfectly clear on the obvious point: Brett Kavanaugh is a lovely man and presumably a good father with a lovely family. As was Neil Gorsuch before him. As was Merrick Garland who was grievously insulted by Senate Republicans and conservative legal lobbyists for nearly a year. It wasn’t personal then, and it’s not personal now when I say that Donald Trump made a mistake in picking Kavanaugh as his second nominee to the Supreme Court.
Over what I believe to be a surprisingly authentic warning from Mitch McConnell not to select Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat left by Anthony Kennedy, the president chose the guy who had the most to say about imperial presidents. This is not a surprise. Beyond the fact that Kennedy doubtless approved of Trump’s selection—Kavanaugh, like Gorsuch, clerked for Kennedy—the single greatest selling point for Kavanaugh had to have been the much-reported line from his 2009 Minnesota Law Review article, in which he wrote, “Even in the absence of congressionally conferred immunity, a serious constitutional question exists regarding whether a President can be criminally indicted and tried while in office.” A President Trump seeking justification to immunize himself from prosecution needed to look no farther than Kavanaugh’s caution in that same article that the indictment and trial of a president “would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas.”
But the problem for Trump is that Kavanaugh has been extraordinarily transparent—perhaps too transparent—about his affinity for broad constructions of executive power. Nevertheless, the president—whose administration is currently the subject of a wide-ranging criminal investigation—somehow chose the judge who’s most likely to endorse the Trumpian view that this is all a massive witch hunt, this despite the gamble that Kavanaugh’s selection makes him look guilty. Pro tip: It makes him look guilty.
To be sure, as Jed Shugerman notes, Kavanaugh’s law-review article doesn’t promise presidential immunity so much as suggest that Congress can and should confer such immunity. Nevertheless, Kavanaugh’s lengthy and complicated record with respect to presidential investigations (ranging from his work on Vince Foster’s suicide to his zealous pursuit of Bill Clinton in the Whitewater probe) will require the review of a massive trove of documents from his time at the White House and working for Ken Starr, an endeavor that will consume huge amounts of time. And Kavanaugh’s record will include emails on so many questions connected to the Mueller probe—including issues that Trump himself has raised such as the nature of presidential obstruction and presidential immunity—that a deep dive into that record will ensure (as if it needed ensuring) that the Mueller probe stays in the headlines in the runup to the midterm elections.
In short, this means that Trump didn’t just give Senate Democrats the talking point that Kavanaugh is an all-but-certain vote to erode or end Roe v. Wade. That statement, while true, could’ve been made about any of the judges on the president’s short list. In selecting Kavanaugh, Trump has given Democrats an additional talking point: The president picked a guy he hopes will hand him a get-out-of-jail-free card.
A pair of Democratic senators have already jumped on this bandwagon, with Jeff Merkley tweeting that the pick indicates Trump “is terrified of Robert Mueller” and Cory Booker stating that he “literally selected the one person who has a pretty good written record of saying, ‘Hey, if you’re a president under investigation, I don’t think you should be allowed to be under criminal investigation.’ ”
Whether this is true or not, or even supported in Kavanaugh’s extensive record, the fact is that Senate Democrats will be able to spend the summer arguing precisely what the president doesn’t want them to argue: that the Mueller probe is ongoing, that close Trump confederates have been indicted and other indictments are coming, that many of the legal questions surrounding the Mueller investigation may end up before the Supreme Court, and that the president may have hand-picked a judge solely for the possibility that he may vote to exonerate him.
While we don’t yet have a full picture of the scope of Kavanaugh’s record about the boundaries of an imperial presidency, we do know that, as Garrett Epps put it Monday night, “Not since Warren Harding in 1921 nominated former President William Howard Taft to be chief justice has the country been presented with a high court nominee so completely shaped by the needs and mores of the executive branch as Brett Kavanaugh.”
More specifically, we know that when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in 2011, Kavanaugh wrote in dissent that if a president takes issue with an existing law, he can simply declare it unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. “Under the Constitution,” he wrote, “the President may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the President deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.”
In short, to the extent that the president looks like he went on a shopping spree for the justice who’s inclined to put his legal imprimatur on the proposition that Trump gets what Trump wants, he seems to have found what he needed. And I, for one, am exceedingly glad that we have a 12-year judicial record, in addition to years of government service, to probe for clues on whether Kavanaugh will be an independent vote or not. This is a vastly better outcome than getting someone who’s written a pile of law-review articles and has no meaningful judicial record.
Trump would have done better choosing a religious conservative and turning the midterms into a fight over the religious freedoms of Christian dissenters. The midterms, effective this week, will instead be about whether Trump’s proposed new justice thinks the president can pardon himself. As Republican get-out-the-vote messages go, it’s not a strong one.
For a second time in three years Governor Rick Scott has declared a state of emergency in response to toxic algae blooms wreaking havoc in water bodies on the state’s east and west coasts. The blooms are caused by agricultural run off into Lake Okeechobee that is then released into surrounding bodies of water. “This hurts bigger […]
Proiectul cultural Un-hidden Bucharest II continuă în 2018 cartarea lucrărilor street art bucureștene și produce 3 noi intervenții artistice, 2 ateliere pentru copii, 1 apel deschis, 1 concurs IG și 2 tururi ghidate. Un-hidden Bucharest este un proiect de regenerare urbană conceput ca o serie de intervenții artistice în spațiul public care au ca scop umanizarea orașului București și promovarea cunoașterii și explorării acestuia prin artă. Un-hidden Bucharest este un proiect cultural produs de Save or Cancel prin feeder.ro, co-finanțat de AFCN.
Iată programul activităților proiectului Un-hidden Bucharest II, ediția 2018. Revino pe pagina proiectului pentru a afla cine sunt artiștii care vor interveni în spațiul public bucureștean și alte știri despre proiect.
Open Call Un-hidden Bucharest 2018
Înscrieri: 20 Iulie - 14 August Jurizare: 15 - 24 August Anunț intervenție câștigătoare: 25 August
Vizitează pagina OPEN CALL Un-hidden Bucharest 2017 pentru a avea o viziune despre cum se va desfășura noul apel deschis pentru o intervenție artistică în spațiul public. Anul trecut, alături de CNDB, partenerii proiectului, am invitat artiștii să reinterpreteze fațada Sălii Omnia, viitoarea casă a Centrului Național al Dansului București. Câștigătoarea apelului, Skinny Bunny, a pictat pe geamurile fostei săli de conferințe a senatului RPR, personaje sugestive pentru istoria și viitorul acestei clădiri dezafectate emoțional.
Noul apel deschis pornește în căutarea unui obiect sau personaj urban remarcabil. Premiul constă în realizarea și promovarea propunerii în cadrul proiectului, cu un buget de producție și o remunerație financiară. Ți-ai imaginat deja cum ar arăta lucrarea ta?
Concurs de fotografie // explorare urbană
10 August - 30 Septembrie
Folosește hashtagul #unhiddenromaniape instagram pentru fotografiile tale în care ai surprins street art interesant din orice loc din România și intri automat în concursul de explorare urbană.
SEMNAL URBAN IV // INTERVENȚIE ARTISTICĂ
Unknown Artists 25 - 27 August
Semnal urban IV inaugurează unui nou spațiu public dedicat artei super contemporane, gazda unei instalații misterioase, create de 2 Unknown Artists. Spațiul alternativ de expunere se află într-un cadru liniștit și relaxat, în centrul orașului.
SEMNAL URBAN V // INTERVENȚIE ARTISTICĂ // Atelier de street art pentru copii
Unknown Artist 20-23 Septembrie
Atelier destreet art pentru copii: explorăm arta ca mijloc de regenerare urbană cu ajutorul a două ediții de ateliere creative. Invităm copii între 7-14 ani să ia parte, gratuit, la un atelier de street art, menit să stârnească interesul participarea la viața orașului. Oricine este bine-venit/ă indiferent de abilitatea artistică, deoarece echipa va ajuta participanții să creeze propriile lucrări de street art. Vom învăța cum să colorăm Bucureștiul, interpretând orașul ca o pânză colectivă și vom folosi arta ca o modalitate de a semnala locurile noastre preferate.
SEMNAL URBAN VI // INTERVENȚIE ARTISTICĂ // Atelier de street art pentru copii
Open Call Winner 24 - 30 Septembrie
TUR GHIDAT // Paul Dunca
29 Septembrie și 30 Septembrie
Parcurgem împreună aproximativ 5 km pentru a descoperi 6 intervenții street art, o mică parte din harta Un-hidden Bucharest, ghidați de Paul Dunca, unul dintre cei mai creativi și prezenți makers & shakers pe scena artistică din București. Storytelling & insights, pe măsură ce participanții explorează orașul prin prisma intervențiilor artistice independente. Participarea la turul ghidat este gratuită iar înscrierile se trimit la adresa email@example.com, în limita a 20 de persoane.
pentru a spori sentimentul de apartenență și identitate prin redescoperirea și apropierea afectivă a locuitorilor de oraș și artă, în spațiul public;
în București și în România, în general, există brownfields – zone cu clădiri scoase din uz => scad calitatea spațiului public și implicit a vieții;
arta are capacitatea de a umaniza spațiul public, sporind dialogul și co-participarea;
există deja o serie interesantă de inițiative culturale și intervenții artistice independente care sporesc calitatea spațiului public în București.
prima ediție a proiectului a activat spații interesante sau uitate, cum sunt Sala Omnia, Lente, Cinema Marconi, alături de artiști remarcabili – Pisica Pătrată, Sorina Vazelina și Primitiv Print, Skinny Bunny, Paul Dunca, VJ VLC, producând un traseu ghidat și o hartă online și print, cu 22 de intervenții artistice independente în spațiul public.
atragerea unor noi categorii de public și sporirea implicării acestora în co-crearea spațiului public ca spațiu cultural comun, cu ajutorul a două apeluri deschise pentru proiecte și producția a 3 intervenții artistice
conștientizarea și sensibilizarea publicurilor vizate față de participarea artei în spațiul public, relevând, prin democratizarea spectrului de activități, potențialul acesteia ca alternativă sustenabilă pentru regenerare urbană.
promovarea creațiilor contemporane locale și susținerea producției artiștilor tineri.
În spațiul public bucureștean, activând publicuri noi și zone inactive sau emergente, dar istoric valoroase, din punct de vedere cultural și social.
Echipa Save or Cancel, compusă din Cristina Popa (random) – designer social, editor și manager cultural, și Andrei Racovițan (ubic) – arhitect, editor și manager cultural, alături de public, artiști, colaboratori și parteneri.
Vizitează pagina proiectului Un-hidden Bucharest pentru a fi la curent cu noile activități programate.
Despre Save or Cancel Din 2008, Save or Cancel este un mediu de comunicare și propagare a artelor și culturii, promovând și facilitând rolul acestora în societatea contemporană. Programele multidisciplinare auto-inițiate de Save or Cancel au ca scop identificarea oportunităților sustenabile și adaptabile de (re)valorizare a existentului prin proiecte de arhitectură, culturale și editoriale.
Un-hidden Bucharest II
The Un-hidden Bucharest cultural project continues in 2018 to map the city's street artworks and produces 3 new artistic interventions, 2 children's workshops, 1 open call for artists, 1 IG contest and, 2 guided tours. Un-hidden Bucharest is an urban regeneration project conceived as a series of artistic interventions designed for the public space, co-created with the community, aiming at humanizing Bucharest and promoting its understanding and exploration through art. Un-hidden Bucharest is a cultural project produced bySave or Cancel through feeder.ro, co-financed by AFCN.
Here are the activities planned for the 2018 edition of Un-hidden Bucharest. Return to the project's page to find out who are the artists invited to create interventions for the city's public spaces and other news about the project.
Open Call Un-hidden Bucharest 2018
Registrations: 20 July - 14 August Selection: 15 - 24 August Winner announcement: 25 August
Visit the Un-hidden Bucharest 2017 OPEN CALL page to have an idea of how the new open call for a street art intervention will unfold. Last year, together with CNDB, the project's partners, we invited artists to reinterpret Omnia Hall's façade, the future home of the National Dance Centre Bucharest. The winner of the Call, Skinny Bunny, painted the windows of the former senate's conference hall depicting characters inspired by the emotionally disaffected building's past and future.
The new Open Call is searching for a remarkable urban object or character. The award consists of the production and promotion of the work as part of the project, with a production budget and artists' fees. Did you already imagine your work?
Photography contest // urban exploration
10 August - 30 September
Use the instagram hashtag #unhiddenromaniafor your photographs depicting interesting street art from throughout România and you're automatically registered in the urban exploration contest.
URBAN SIGNAL IV // ARTISTIC INTERVENTION
Unknown Artists 25 - 27 August
Urban Signal IV is the inauguration of a new public space dedicated to super-contemporary art, the host of a mysterious installation, created by 2 Unknown Artists. The alternative exhibition area is in a quiet and relaxed setting, in the city centre.
URBAN SIGNAL V // ARTISTIC INTERVENTION // Children's street art workshop
Unknown Artist 20-23 September
Street art workshops for children: we explore art as a means of urban regeneration during the two creative workshops. We invite children aged 7-14 to take part in a street art workshop, free of charge, to stimulate interest in participating in the city's life. Everyone is welcome regardless of their artistic ability, as the team will help participants create their own street artworks. We will learn how to color Bucharest, interpreting the city as a collective canvas and we will use art as a way to signal our favorite places.
URBAN SIGNAL VI // ARTISTIC INTERVENTION // Children's street art workshop
Open Call Winner 24 - 30 September
GUIDED TOUR // Paul Dunca
29 September and 30 September
We walk together for approximately 5 km to discover 6 street art interventions, a small part of the Un-hidden Bucharest map, guided by Paul Dunca, one of the most creative and present makers & shakers on the arts scene in Bucharest. Storytelling & insights, as participants explore the city through independent artistic interventions. Participation in the guided tour is free of charge and entries should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org, within the limit of 20 people.
to increase the sense of belonging and identity through the inhabitants' rediscovery and affective connection of and with the city and art, in public spaces;
Bucharest and Romania, in general, is plagued with brownfields- areas with abandoned buildings which decrease the quality of public space and implicitly of life;
art has the ability to humanize public space, enhancing dialogue and co-participation;
there is already an interesting series of cultural initiatives and independent artistic interventions that enhance the quality of public space in Bucharest;
the first edition of the project activated interesting or forgotten spaces, such as Omnia Hall, Lente or Cinema Marconi, together with remarkable artists – Pisica Pătrată, Sorina Vazelina & Primitiv Print, Skinny Bunny, Paul Dunca, VJ VLC, producing a guided tour and a printed and digital map, presenting 22 independent street art interventions.
The project's objectives
attracting new categories of audiences and facilitating their involvement in the co-creation of the public space as a common cultural space, with the help of the two open calls and three artistic interventions
raising awareness and sensitizing the audiences concerning artistic participation in the public space, revealing, through the democratization of the activities spectrum, art's potential as a sustainable alternative path for urban regeneration
promoting local contemporary creations and facilitating artistic production for young artists.
In Bucharest's public spaces, activating new audiences and inactive or emergent area, but historically valuable, from a cultural and social point of view.
The Save or Cancel team, composed of Cristina Popa (random) – social designer, editor and cultural manager, and Andrei Racovițan (ubic) – architect, editor and cultural manager, together with the audience, artists, collaborators și partners.
About Save or Cancel Since 2008, Save or Cancel is a medium of communication and propagation of the arts and culture, promoting and facilitating their role in contemporary society. The self-initiated multidisciplinary programs of Save or Cancel aim to identify sustainable and adaptable opportunities for (re) valorisation of the existence through architectural, cultural and editorial projects.
President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh visited top U.S. Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, seeking to build support among lawmakers in what promises to be a contentious confirmation battle with Democrats.
President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday as he aimed to entrench its conservative control for years to come, but the federal appeals court judge faces a tough confirmation fight in the bitterly divided Senate.
It may soon become difficult to determine who sits in the hotter seat: U.S. President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh or Senate Democrats from conservative states who must decide whether they are jeopardizing their political careers by opposing him.
The morning after President Trump named D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his second nominee to the Supreme Court, Tuesday’s CBS This Morning rushed to get reaction from Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. In the softball interview that followed, the liberal lawmaker was asked how he might “stop the nomination” and whether it would be a “betrayal of the party” for any Democrat to vote to confirm Kavanaugh.
The 2018 legislative session ended late Wednesday, June 20 for the Assembly, and early Thursday, June 21 for the Senate, without the traditional flurry of high profile bills being passed through compromises across the aisle. After a session marked... By: Harris Beach PLLC
Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: It will be one of the most consequential decisions President Trump makes during his time in the White House, and he will announce it tonight. Who will he name to fill Justice Anthony Kennedy's spot on the U.S. Supreme Court? It'll likely be a name on the list that President Trump compiled while he was campaigning for the presidency, which has already been vetted by conservative groups. A conservative will tip the balance of the court for the first time in decades, and that puts Democrats in a bind. They must defend 10 seats in the Senate in states that President Trump won. A handful of senators are in a particularly tough spot - vote against the nominee and alienate moderate votes they'll need to win re-election or confirm the nominee and weaken democratic unity. Senator Patrick Leahy is a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is a Democrat from Vermont. And he joins us now. Thank you so much for being with us,
Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: President Trump is set to announce his second Supreme Court nominee. It'll happen tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern time. A source close to the process tells NPR that administration officials spent a whole lot of the weekend in deep deliberation at the president's New Jersey golf club. There is political pressure on the president to pick someone who can get through the confirmation process. Republicans have a razor-thin Senate majority. They may need every Republican senator to secure the seat without Democratic help. Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri told NBC's "Meet The Press" the president should take note of that political reality in his choice. (SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, "MEET THE PRESS") ROY BLUNT: They're good judges. I think they'd be fine justices of the Supreme Court. I do think the president has to think about who is the easiest to get confirmed here. MARTIN: NPR's Sarah McCammon joins us now in studio to talk about the
Judge Brett Kavanaugh started making the rounds in Washington Tuesday, meeting with senators who will decide whether he gets to join the Supreme Court. Some Democrats are already vowing to try and block his nomination. CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford reports.
Amy Schumer echoed abortion activists’ worries about Roe v. Wade in light of President Donald Trump’s announcement of his next U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. Schumer, an actress, comedian and cousin of pro-abortion Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, is an outspoken abortion advocate and supporter of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion group in America. […]
A new poll released today by Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) finds that a majority of voters in Senate battleground states want President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee confirmed and also want abortion policy to be decided by the people through their elected representatives, not the Supreme Court. The polling will be cited by SBA […]
Senator Philip Gyunka (PDP-Nasarawa), on Tuesday, hailed the alliance of 39 political parties ahead of 2019 general elections, saying it was “a welcome development”. The political parties, including the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Social [...]
For starters, if you want to learn more about tariffs and trade, we will hold an informational call on Thursday to discuss newly imposed tariffs, progress on the North American Free Trade Agreement renegotiations and steps the labor movement is taking to find trade policy solutions that benefit working people. (Click here to RSVP.)
Now, let’s tone down the rhetoric just a bit. Real wars, such as those inIraqandAfghanistan, are deadly, dangerous, scary affairs. No one should confuse tariffs with real wars.
So why are so many people saying we’re in a trade war? First, to scare us. Maintaining the status quo is exactly what the powerful want to keep workers and wages down. Second, because the U.S. is finally starting to do something about harmful trade practices that hurt working people. It has beenso long since the U.S. hasambitiously used trade remedies to defend our economy that Wall Street fat cats are calling it a trade war.
While tariffs are not dangerous per se (in fact, they can be a very effective tool to address harmful trade practices andcreate jobs), they must be applied carefully, thoughtfully and strategically. If done right, tariffs can persuade trading partners to change their harmful practices. In that case, the tariffs will disappear quickly. On the other hand, if the tariffs are applied haphazardly, they may backfire, causing more economic disruption than necessary. As with anything it does, the government should be smart in how it applies tariffs. And it should have a plan that minimizes negative side effects for the U.S. economy and prioritizes benefits for working families—no matter in what industry those families work.
Just Security has put together a nice timeline of Trump's interactions with the Russian government since he was elected. It's quite interesting when you look at it all together. It's certainly fine to propose a fresh start with relations between the two countries. But they seemed to have a much more specific agenda from thevery beginning.
I've just excerpted the first six months after the election:
Nov. 14, 2016 — In their first official phone call, President-elect Trump and Putin agree on the “absolutely unsatisfactory state of bilateral relations” between Russia and the U.S., according to the New York Times. The two leaders agreed to meet at some point in the future and “endorse” the idea of taking efforts “to normalize relations and pursue constructive cooperation on the broadest possible range of issues.”
Nov. 18, 2016 — President-elect Trump names retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as his national security advisor, stirring controversy in part because of Flynn’s ties to Russia, according to the Washington Post. In 2015, Flynn accepted payment from RT — a Russian news channel that had become a propaganda arm — to attend the station’s gala event in Moscow. Putin also attended the gala, and RT later published photos of the two dining next to each other.
Dec. 1 or 2, 2016 — Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak meets with former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and Trump Senior Advisor Jared Kushner in Trump Tower. The meeting is not disclosed to the public until March 2017. The White House first states that its purpose was to “establish a line of communication.” Kislyak later reports to superiors in Moscow that, in the meeting, Kushner suggested setting up a secure channel between the Trump transition team and the Kremlin, to be hosted at the Russian embassy or consulate, according to the Washington Post.
Dec. 12, 2016 — President-elect Trump officially nominates Rex Tillerson as secretary of state, spurring controversy because of Tillerson’s close relationship with Russia. As CEO of Exxon Mobil, Tillerson had engaged in joint ventures with Rosneft, a state-backed Russian oil company, and had received the Order of Friendship from Russia in 2013, according to the New York Times.
Dec. 13, 2016 — Senior Trump Advisor Jared Kushner meets with Sergey Gorkov, then-chairman of Russia’s government-owned Vnesheconombank (VEB) and a close ally of Putin, at Russian Ambassador Kislyak’s request. The bank was placed on the sanctions list following Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea. In June 2017, the Washington Post reports that VEB says the meeting was conducted in relation to Kushner’s family real estate business. However, the Trump White House later maintains it was a diplomatic meeting in which Kushner was acting in his role as soon-to-be presidential adviser. Kushner testifies on July 24, 2017 to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees that Kislyak had recommended the meeting because Gorkov “had a direct relationship with” Putin. Kushner said they discussed the general poor state of US-Russian relations but that they didn’t touch on any specific policies nor on Obama-era sanctions against Russia. “At no time was there any discussion about my companies, business transactions, real estate projects, loans, banking arrangements or any private business of any kind.”
Dec. 29, 2016 — Shortly after the White House notifies Russia of sanctions that the Obama administration will impose for election interference, Michael Flynn speaks with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. During the phone call, Flynn discusses the sanctions. According to several current and former officials who read transcripts of the call, Flynn told Kislyak that Russia should not overreact to impending sanctions for election interference because the Trump administration would be in a position to revisit the sanctions and change policy toward Russia, according to the Washington Post. Nearly one year later, Flynn pleads guilty to lying to investigators regarding his conversations with the Russian ambassador.
Dec. 29, 2016 — Within four hours of the Obama White House’s announced sanctions against Russia for election interference, Trump issues a written statement in response saying, “It’s time for our country to move on to bigger and better things.”
Dec. 30, 2016 — Following Russia’s surprise turnaround decision not to respond to the U.S. sanctions in-kind, Trump tweets: “Great move on delay (by V. Putin) – I always knew he was very smart!” Putin’s decision came as a surprise in part because Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had earlier said in televised remarks, “Of course, we cannot leave these sanctions unanswered … Reciprocity is the law of diplomacy and international relations.”
Jan. 3-4, 2017 — In a series of tweets, Trump disparages the intelligence from U.S. agencies scheduled to brief him on their findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
Jan. 6, 2017 – May 9, 2017 — Jan. 6 is the date then-FBI Director James Comey helped brief Trump on Russian election interference, and May 9 was his final day as FBI Director. In his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey is asked (by Senator Joe Manchin) whether Trump showed “any concern or interest or curiosity about what the Russians were doing.” Comey responds that he does not recall any conversations with Trump about Russian election interference during the former FBI Director’s time in office. Comey is also asked (by Senator Martin Heinrich), “Did the President in any of those interactions that you’ve shared with us today ask you what you should be doing or what our government should be doing — or the intelligence community — to protect America against Russian interference in our election system?” Comey says he does not recall any conversation like that–“never.”
Jan. 6-7, 2017 — After the briefing by intelligence officials, Trump acknowledgesthat the Russian government may have been involved in the hacking of Democratic National Committee computers, but says it didn’t affect the outcome of the election because Russia didn’t gain access to voting systems, and says he wants to improve relations with Russia.
Jan. 11, 2017 — George Nader, a Lebanese-American fixer and advisor to the United Arab Emirates, convenes a secret meeting in the Seychelles at the “behest” of UAE Crown Prince Mohammed, according to the New York Times. The meeting is between Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater and a Trump supporter (and brother of Betsy DeVos, Trump’s then-nominee to be secretary of education), and Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian wealth fund manager with ties to President Putin. The apparent purpose of the meeting is to test Russia’s commitment to Iran and to set up a communication channel between President-elect Trump and Moscow, according to the Washington Post.
Prince testifies before Congress in November that the meeting with Dmitriev was a “chance-encounter,” and that he traveled to the Seychelles to pursue a “business opportunity” with potential customers from the UAE, who had suggested that he meet with a Russian businessman staying at the same hotel, Vox reports. However, according to reporting by ABC News and the Washington Post, Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly has new evidence and a cooperating witness in Nader, who is allegedly testifying that the meeting was preplanned to set up communications between the Trump transition team and Moscow so that they could “discuss future relations between the countries.” The New York Times also reports that Kirill Dmitriev had met Trump associate Anthony Scaramucci at the 2017 Davos forum, after which Scaramucci criticized the Obama administration sanctions on Russia with a TASS reporter.
Jan. 11, 2017 — At a news conference, Trump says, “I think it was Russia” that hacked the 2016 U.S. election, but then diminishes its significance, adding, “But I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people.” He draws comparisons to other incidents of hacking, and suggests that the DNC left itself open to hacking and deserves some blame. Trump also says, “Russia will have much greater respect for our country when I am leading it than when other people have led it,” according to CNN.
Post-Jan. 20, 2017 — In the “early weeks” of the administration, top Trump administration officials task State Department staff “with developing proposals for the lifting of economic sanctions,” until their efforts are blocked by State Department officials and members of Congress, according to reporting by Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News.
Jan. 20-early Feb., 2017 — National Security Advisor Michael Flynn advocates for closer military communication with Russia to fight ISIS. According to several current and former Pentagon sources cited by the Daily Beast, Flynn suggests that a military communications channel originally established to prevent in-air collisions be expanded for other purposes that could have approached “outright cooperation” with Russia. Both the Pentagon and Centcom oppose Flynn’s idea.
Jan. 26-Feb. 13, 2017 — Acting Attorney General Sally Yates meets personally with White House Counsel Don McGahn about National Security Advisor Flynn’s conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016. Yates warns the White House Counsel that Flynn’s statement that he did not discuss sanctions with the Russian Ambassador is untrue and that in her view Flynn is accordingly vulnerable to being blackmailed by Russia. Yates is fired on January 30 for refusing to enforce the immigration ban. (ABC News). It is not until February 13 that Flynn is asked to resign, following a Washington Post story revealing the meeting with Yates and the White House Counsel. (New York Times) (Washington Post)
Feb. 6, 2017 — In a Super Bowl interview with Bill O’Reilly, Trump says he respects Putin and dismisses the host’s characterization of the Russian president as a “killer.” “There are a lot of killers,” Trump says. “Do you think our country is so innocent?
Feb. 14, 2017 — The New York Times reports that Russia has deployed a cruise missile in violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) treatysigned by President Ronald Reagan and his Soviet counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev. In congressional testimony, Gen. Paul Selva, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff states, “We believe that the Russians have deliberately deployed it in order to pose a threat to NATO and to facilities within the NATO area of responsibility.” The administration does not issue a public statement rebuking Russia. When Trump is asked about the violation in a February 24 interview with Reuters, he says, “To me, it’s a big deal,” and adds that he “would bring it up” with Putin “if and when we meet.” The State Department reiterated the alleged violation in its April 2017 report and in December 2017, released a strategy to counter the alleged violations, according to the Arms Control Association.
March 21, 2017 — The State Department announces that Secretary Rex Tillerson will not attend his intended first NATO meeting in Brussels on April 5-6, and will instead stay in the U.S. to join Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. During the same announcement, the State Department notes that Tillerson will travel to Russia in April, drawing criticism that the administration is prioritizing Russia over historical allies and the NATO alliance, according to Reuters. Subsequently, the State Department offers new dates to reschedule the NATO meeting, and Tillerson attends.
March 31, 2017 — Tillerson meets with NATO leaders in Brussels. In his remarks, Tillerson reiterates the frequent U.S. exhortation over the years that allies increase their defense spending, but seems to take it a step further, saying: “As President Trump has made clear, it is no longer sustainable for the U.S. to maintain a disproportionate share of NATO’s defense expenditures.”
April 2-27, 2017 — In an interview on April 2, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley says: “Certainly I think Russia was involved in the U.S. election.” On April 5, Haley criticizes Russia for obstructing UN action on Syria and for supporting Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Haley says Russia made an “unconscionable choice” by opposing a resolution condemning the use of chemical weapons, and rhetorically asks “how many more children have to die before Russia cares?”
However, during a working lunch on April 24 with UN Security Council ambassadors including Haley, Trump jests, “Now, does everybody like Nikki? Because if you don’t … she can easily be replaced,” according to the Washington Post. Further, on April 27, Secretary of State Tillerson sends UN Ambassador Haley an email instructing her that, from then on, her comments should be “re-cleared with Washington if they are substantively different from the building blocks, or if they are on a high-profile issue,” according to the New York Times.
April 6, 2017 — In response to a reported chemical attack perpetrated by the Assad regime, the Trump administration launches a military attack on a Syrian-government airfield near Homs from which the chemical weapons attack reportedly was launched, according to NBC News. In an interview with Fox News, National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster suggests Russia may have known about the chemical attacks in advance saying: “I think what we should do is ask Russia, how could it be, if you have advisers at that airfield, that you didn’t know that the Syrian air force was preparing and executing a mass murder attack with chemical weapons?”
April 23, 2017 — In an Associated Press interview, Trump expresses strong support for far-right candidate Marine Le Pen in upcoming French elections; Le Pen is supported by Putin and promises to remove France from the EU, a long-term goal for Putin. Le Pen had also visited Trump Tower in January, according to AP and Politico.
May 10, 2017 — Secretary of State Tillerson meets with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Ambassador Kislyak and says the U.S. would no longer require Russia to unfreeze the construction of an American consulate in St. Petersburgbefore considering handing back seized Russian diplomatic compounds in Maryland and New York as part of the Obama sanctions for election interference. The statement represented a reversal of the position staked out two days prior by Undersecretary of State Thomas Shannon, the Washington Post reports.
May 10, 2017 — During an Oval Office meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Ambassador Kislyak, Trump tells the Russian officials that he had fired the “nut job” FBI director (James Comey) who was investigating Russian election interference, according to the New York Times. Trump also says he had faced “great pressure” because of Russia, which had now been relieved. Additionally, Trump discloses highly classified information to the Russian officials. The intelligence was provided by Israel, which had not authorized the U.S. to share it, according to the Washington Post. The intelligence centered on Syrian extremist bomb-making plans, and was obtained in part through highly classified cyber operations, the disclosure of which “infuriated” Israeli officials, according to the New York Times. Israel subsequently changes its intelligence sharing protocols with the United States. No U.S. press are allowed into the Oval Office meeting, but Trump does allow TASS, the Russian state-owned agency, according to the Washington Post. Trump does not disclose to the press that Kislyak attended the meeting until TASS publishes photographs showing him in the room; the White House releasefollowing the meeting only mentions Lavrov. In a later interview, National Security Advisor McMaster refuses to confirm that Russian interference was discussed, even when asked directly about it.
May 10, 2017 — Following the meeting with Trump, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov tells TASS: “At present, our dialogue is not as politicized as it used to be during Obama’s presidency. The Trump administration, including the President himself and the Secretary of State, are people of action who are willing to negotiate.”
May 25 – 26, 2017 — Arriving in Europe with Trump, top White House economic advisor Gary Cohn tells reporters that the U.S. is “looking at” the future of sanctions on Russia. When pressed on what the current U.S. position is, he says: “Right now we don’t have a position.” The following day, Cohn counters that statement, saying the U.S. will not ease sanctions on Russia and, “if anything, we would probably look to get tougher.”
May 25, 2017 — In Europe, Trump chastises NATO leaders for their “chronic underpayments” to the alliance and fails to reaffirm U.S. commitment to Article 5 – the collective defense clause of the NATO agreement – promising only to “never forsake the friends that stood by our side” in the wake of Sept. 11 (a statement later labelled by the administration as an affirmation of Article 5). According to Politico, several Trump advisors, including National Security Advisor McMaster, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, are surprised by the omission, having endeavored to include language supporting Article 5 in Trump’s remarks prior to the summit. Additionally, National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton says Russia was not discussed in a larger meeting between American and European officials, but that he could not speak for a meeting involving just Trump, President of the European Council Donald Tusk, and President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker. Tusk later says he is “not 100 percent sure” he and Trump share a “common position, common opinion, about Russia,” according to the New York Times.
May 26, 2017 — At a political rally the day after the Brussels meeting, German Chancellor Angela Merkel says: “The times in which we could rely fully on others — they are somewhat over. This is what I experienced in the last few days. We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands,” implying that Europe could no longer rely on a close alliance with the U.S.
May 30, 2017 — In a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer is asked about Trump’s reaction to Angela Merkel’s comments implying Europe could no longer rely on the U.S. He responds that Europe, “working in friendship with the U.S., the U.K., Russia, and other partners,” is precisely “what the President called for.” (May 30 press briefing). Trump reacts to Merkel’s comments on Twitter: “We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change.”
The reaction to President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court from Colorado’s U.S. senators fell in line with the senators’ parties’ lines in what has become the latest issue to further divide the deeply partisan U.S. capital.
Robert Wilkie, President Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs, is one step closer to confirmation after a Senate panel Monday voted to send his nomination to the floor.In a voice vote, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee...
Sen. Cory Booker says President Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court is nothing more than an insurance policy ... in case Robert Mueller comes knocking. We got the NJ Senator Tuesday outside the…
In Second Opinion, Thoma Bravo has reportedly agreed to take a majority stake in Centrify, Tintri goes from IPO to bankruptcy in little more than a year and although it's a longshot, Senate Democrats are vowing to block the confirmation of President Trump's Supreme Court pick, Brett Kavanaugh.
(Paul Mirengoff) Senator John McCain has expressed his strong support for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. McCain tweeted: Judge Brett Kavanaugh has impeccable credentials & a strong record of upholding the Constitution. He is widely respected as a fair, independent & mainstream judge. I look forward to the Senate moving forward with a fair & thorough confirmation process. We don’t know whether McCain will be physically able to vote for Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Washington, D.C. | www.adc.org | July 10, 2018 - The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) calls on the United States Senate to reject President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the United States Supreme Court. ...
Welcome to the Daily Kos Elections Live Digest, your liveblog of all of today's campaign news.
Please note: The Live Digest is a 2016 and 2020 Democratic presidential primary-free space. It’s also an elections-only zone. If you'd like to discuss policy, please visit the latestDaily Kos Elections policy open thread.
Sign up hereto receive the Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest in your inbox each weekday. Andclick herefor our race ratings for every Senate, gubernatorial, and House contest in 2018.
WI-Sen: Wisconsin Next PAC, which is funded by billionaire megadonor Diane Hendricks, has put $438,000 behind an ad attacking businessman Kevin Nicholson in the GOP primary against state Sen. Leah Vukmir. The spot uses footage of him speaking at the 2000 Democratic National Convention to argue he's an unreliable conservative.
AK-Gov: The Democratic firm Harstad Strategic Research has polled Alaska's gubernatorial race on behalf of the state AFL-CIO, which isn't officially backing a candidate yet. Their survey finds likely GOP nominee Mike Dunleavy with a 32-28 lead over independent Gov. Bill Walker, while former Democratic Sen. Mark Begich takes 18. Their survey finds likely GOP nominee Mike Dunleavy with a 32 percent plurality while independent Gov. Bill Walker and former Democratic Sen. Mark Begich are tied for second at 28 percent apiece. However, if either of Walker or Begich were to drop out, the race looks very different. In a two-way matchup, they have Begich up 50-41 over Dunleavy, while Walker leads him by 49-40.
The pollster also tested the Aug. 21 Republican primary, where they find Dunleavy with a 43-17 advantage over former Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell
GA-Gov: Secretary of State Brian Kemp has finally unloaded on Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle with a TV ad in the GOP primary runoff that makes use of a damning secret recording where Cagle admitted to supporting what he called a bad law solely because it deterred a super PAC from spending millions to support another candidate. Kemp says "if that's no criminal, it should be."
AL-02: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has gone up with a TV ad attacking former Rep. Bobby Bright in the GOP primary runoff over his Democratic past, noting he backed Nancy Pelosi for speaker. They tout Rep. Martha Roby as a Trump-supporting conservative.
KS-03: Women Vote, which is affiliated with EMILY's List, is putting $387,000 behind a two-week TV ad buy on behalf of attorney Sharice Davids ahead of the Aug. 7 Democratic primary. The ad calls her a fighter as Davids, who is also a mixed martial arts fighter, is shown practicing with a punching bag. The narrator notes her background as the daughter of a single mother Army veteran, while they highlight how Davids went from community college to getting a law degree from Cornell. They close by calling her a progressive who will take on Trump and the NRA.
MI-11: Democrat Haley Stevens, who was the former chief of staff to President Obama's Auto Task Force, has released her first TV ad ahead of the Aug. 7 primary. She touts how the auto rescue saved over 200,000 jobs and says she's running for Congress to get more people covered under Obamacare and stop Trump from sabotaging it.
Meanwhile, state Rep. Tim Greimel has also launched his first Democratic primary ad. The spot emphasizes how Greimel stood up to Trump and Michigan Republicans by fighting for Medicaid expansion, a higher minimum wage, and women's reproductive health care.
Governors, Redistricting: With Donald Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court is about to take a major step backward in the battle against Republican gerrymandering, but Stephen Wolf details in a new post how Democrats can fight back by winning gubernatorial elections. This map shows which states hold gubernatorial elections that matter for 2020s redistricting, and the the 10 biggest battlegrounds this year are Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
CA-25, MN-02, NJ-03: Last week, the League of Conservation Voters and the Environmental Defense Fund released a June poll from Global Strategy Group of 2,000 voters across 20 Republican-held congressional districts and found Democrats with a 44-40 lead on the generic ballot in these seats. As part of that survey, GSG also polled extra respondents in five districts in order to have a sufficiently large sample size to analyze the individual head-to-head matchups in those races, and now they've published the data from three of those contests.
In California's 25th District, GSG gives GOP Rep. Steve Knight a 45-40 lead on Democrat Katie Hill while Donald Trump is underwater with a 43-49 favorability rating. This is the first poll we've seen here in many months, and therefore the first we've seen since Hill won the second slot in June's top-two primary.
Over on the other side of the country in New Jersey's 3rd Congressional District, GSG has Republican Rep. Tom MacArthur in a 42-all tie with his Democratic opponent, Andy Kim, with Trump even more unpopular at 43-52. Those numbers are even better than the 48-44 MacArthur advantage that Kim's own internal from early June found.
Finally, in Minnesota's 3rd Congressional District, GSG for some reason didn't test Democrat Angie Craig by name against freshman GOP Rep. Jason Lewis, even though Craig is the only Democrat on the August primary ballot. Instead, they have Lewis up 43-42 over an unnamed "Democratic candidate," while Trump's favorables stand at a negative 41-54.
NJ-02: After standing by their racist nominee in New Jersey's 2nd Congressional District for weeks, the NRCC finally withdrew its backing from Republican Seth Grossman after Media Matters unearthed social media posts in which Grossman favorably linked to hate-filled essays on white supremacist sites. One typically unsubtle passage from a piece that Grossman highlighted:
However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.
While Grossman squirmed when Media Matters asked him for comment, he'd never made any attempt to hide his views. Last month, shortly after he unexpectedly won the GOP primary, audio emerged from an April candidate forum in which he'd declared, "The whole idea of diversity is a bunch of crap and un-American," calling the concept "an excuse by Democrats, communists, and socialists, basically, to say that we're not all created equal."
Soon thereafter, we learned what he believes about Islam ("a cancer"), Kwanzaa ("a phony holiday invented in 1960's by black racists"), and George Soros (akin to Leon Trotsky, who was an "International Communist—and a Jew"), thanks to a series of other online writings uncovered by CNN.
It's never just one isolated comment with guys like this, but the NRCC waited until maximum embarrassment had set in to cut ties, even though the committee was unlikely to ever devote real resources to Grossman. It's nevertheless a remarkable turn of events: The GOP has now triaged a seat it's held for decades—and one that Trump won!—because it couldn't avoid nominating a white supremacist. It won't be the last time.
“This site is brought to you by Jay Pinho and Victoria Kwan, the co-creators of SCOTUS Map. What is this? SCOTUS Watch tracks the public statements made by United States senators about how they plan to vote on the Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, and tallies them into a likely vote count. This tally is […]
On the Erik Karlsson trade talks … Larry Brooks of the NY Post: Trade talks between the Tampa Bay Lightning and Ottawa Senators have subsided. The Dallas Stars have now appear to be the front-runners to trade for defenseman Erik …
WLS-TVAn Illinois park is investigating after a woman accused one of its police officers of standing by as a man harassed her for wearing a shirt with the Puerto Rican flag, saying it was un-American. Mia Irizarry says she was trying to celebrate her 24th …Puerto Ricans in Florida play key role in Senate raceThe […]
Honolulu Star-AdvertiserJudge Bennett, who will maintain chambers in Honolulu, was nominated to the court by President Donald Trump on Feb. 15. Senators Hirono and Schatz both voted to confirm Bennett. After appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 11, his … and more …read more Source:: Honolulu News By Google News
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-picked-the-wrong-judge/2018/07/09/d356f84a-83de-11e8-8589-5bb6b89e3772_story.html?utm_term=.815d31f93967" rel="nofollow">David French</a> thinks Trump picked the wrong Judge, but I believe this was not the time to pick Barrett simply because of the thin majority Republicans have in the Senate. It is better to wait until the Senate is firmly held by Republicans before nominating Barrett. In fact, the optics would be better (if only for gender preservation) if Barrett was nominated to fill RBG's seat.
Australia correspondent Karen Middleton has more on the Australian senator is suing another senator after he taunted her in Parliament about her sex life. She'll also cover recent stories about gun laws and family violence, a wedding cake snub and a giant croc!
Preparing studies, questions, reports, statements, briefing notes and speeches on various issues. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.... From Parliament of Canada, Senate - Fri, 06 Jul 2018 22:04:14 GMT - View all Ottawa, ON jobs
Mehr als 20 Jahre war Barbara John die Ausländerbeauftragte des Berliner Senats und bis heute beschäftigt sie sich mit Migration in all ihren Erscheinungsformen. Barbara John engagiert sich für Flüchtlinge und gegen Rassismus. Sie fordert eine komplett neue Asylpolitik, ein Einwanderungsgesetz und verbindliche Regeln für die, die kommen und bleiben wollen. Und Barbara John ist seit sechseinhalb Jahren die Ombudsfrau für die Hinterbliebenen und Familienangehörigen der Opfer des rechtsterroristischen NSU. Der Prozess gegen Beate Zschäpe und ihre vier Mitangeklagten geht morgen mit dem Urteil zu Ende.
THE LNP state conference over the weekend tossed aside two senior LNP senators to unwinnable positions on a “renewable” Senate ticket, a couched word having many fathers. Of the LNP’s two Queensland heavies, Senator Barry O’Sullivan – who sits as a...
Сенатор от республиканской партии Джон Кеннеди (John Kennedy), в составе неофициальной делегации Конгресса США, посетил Россию и по возвращению, по итогам, сделал ряд характерных замечаний, в ответ на которые Дмитрий Сергеевич, пресс-секретарь президента, сказал:
"Конечно, трудно понять подобные слова, я не знаю, в каком контексте они были сказаны. Сенатор, действительно, был здесь, имел возможность посмотреть на нашу страну, пообщаться с нашим руководством. Мы не носим розовых очков и прекрасно отдаем себе отчет в том, насколько американский политический истеблишмент находится: а) в плену стереотипов и б) под страшнейшим внутренним русофобским давлением. Мы это прекрасно понимаем", — заявил Песков журналистам в ответ на просьбу прокомментировать высказывание сенатора.
Дмитрий Сергеевич неправ. Нет в причинах высказывания сенатора ни русофобии ни стереотипов. В основе мотива реакции сенатор лежит совсем иная, куда более глубокая и фундаментальная причина. Для начала, приведём точный текст статьи ("GOP senator warns against trusting Putin ‘mafia’" "Associated Press", 10.07.2018.) содержащей высказывания Джона Кеннеди:
“There is no political philosophy in Russia. It’s sort of like saying, what’s the political philosophy of the mafia,” Kennedy told reporters Monday on Capitol Hill.
“Their philosophy is money and power. That’s the philosophy of Putin. He rules with an iron hand. He’s a dictator,” Kennedy said. He noted there’s “no free press” in Russia and said there’s a vast gap in wealth between the elites and ordinary Russians. He said the Russian people “deserve better.”
The senator said he had no problem with Trump meeting privately with Putin, but said he doesn’t expect a diplomatic breakthrough.
“You can’t trust Putin,” Kennedy said. “I think the best we can do is try to contain him.”
The senators were in Russia as part of a congressional visit headed by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, chairman of the Appropriations Committee. The trip came ahead of a summit between Trump and Putin in Helsinki.
The senators met with legislative leaders of Russia’s legislative body, but Kennedy said the most difficult session was with Lavrov. The meeting, Kennedy said, got off to a rocky start when the senator addressed him as ambassador rather than the expected title.
“We didn’t call each other an ‘ignorant slut’ or anything, but we exchanged words,” the senator said.
Kennedy said the senators confronted the Russians about election interference in 2016. Kennedy said the senators warned the Russians if they interfere in the November election, Congress “will hit you with sanctions even harder than what we have right now.”
He said the Russian response was to deny that they interfered in the election. “Deny, deny, deny,” he said.
“I thought it was important for us to look them in the eye and say, ‘Hey, we know what you’re doing,’” Kennedy said.
Kennedy’s takeaway from the meeting was that “what Russia wants is what Mr. Putin wants. And what Mr. Putin wants is status.”
“It’s really like dealing with the mafia.”
Выразим полное кратко, воспользовавшись форматом тезисов.
Россия и США представители Систем с разными преобладаниями: Россия - ИСО>ЕСО, США - ЕСО>ИСО.
Для ИСО>ЕСО России этап №1 преобладает над этапом №2, т.е. Распределение и Потребление господствуют над Производством и Управлением.
Для ЕСО>ИСО США всё наоборот. №2 над №1. Производство и Управление главней Распределения и Потребления.
В России немного управленцев и те, что есть весьма специфичны, они более чиновники нежели управленцы, зато в России много чиновников.
В США, напротив, по сравнению с Россией, немного чиновников и те, что есть весьма оригинальны, они более управленцы нежели чиновники, зато в США много управленцев.
Между Управлением и Распределением, традиционно, от Природы, сволочные отношения. Переложим эту специфику на Цикл преобразования Опыта и получим:
мы даём Вам такие команды, а Вы, превратив наши Формы в Ваши нормы, плодите такие законы, от которых ненавистному нам Потреблению становится так тошно, что оно ябедничая своему Производству, превращает свои Образы в его Принципы, делая нашу, и без того непростую жизнь, окончательно скверной;
Вы даёте нам такие команды, которые совершенно не соответствуя его Принципам и их Образам, постоянно ставят нас в дурацкое положение, когда мы, формализуя Ваши Формы в наши Нормы, получаем обозлённую реакцию противного Вам Потребления, трансформируемую презираемым нами Производством в неслыханные Принципы.
Когда Политик ЕСО>ИСО, полагающий себя ответственным за Чиновника ЕСО>ИСО, "знакомится с родителями" Политика ИСО>ЕСО, Чиновниками ИСО>ЕСО, он:
- видит пред собой Чиновников ИСО>ЕСО у которых крайне скромно политическое начало и нескромно начало потребительское, т.е. слишком мало Форм Поведения и слишком много Образов Жизни;
- замечает, что Производят много меньше, а Распределяют много больше, сперва Распределяя, потом Производя;
- понимает, что выдающиеся, как ему кажется, задачи, которые генерирует представляемое им Управление, непостижимым ему Образом, конкурируют с решениями ненавистного ему местного Потребления, хронически ему в том проигрывая.
Криминал есть антипод Управления проживающий в Потреблении, т.е. любое и всякое Управление из Криминала выходит и туда же приходит, подобно, любой и всякий Криминал выходит из Управления и в Управление возвращается. Одного без другого не бывает. Болезненно брезгливое отношение Политиков ЕСО>ИСО к Криминалу по мотивам Управления, проистекает из Природы Профессионализма, когда Профессионал не желая терять свою квалификацию, будучи изменяемым Продуктами своего труда, полагает должным изменения непрофессионалов оплачивающих Профессионалу возможность поддержания им своего "статус-кво" в любой ситуации.
Политик Джон Кеннеди, посетив Россию:
- увидел Чиновников, которые не хотят и не могут оценивать "замечательные Решения" Управления США, "преступно" сравнивая их с Задачами Потребления России;
- осознал, что Чиновник России, более Чиновник-Потребитель, нежели Чиновник -Управленец, не столько воющий с ненавистными Политикам США Потребителями России, сколь с ними сотрудничающий;
- позавидовал положению "глупца едящего хлеб до сыта", Чиновнику России, по тому, что по Природе ЕСО>ИСО, Производство США, так позволить ему, себя вести, не может.
Отдельного места заслуживает пассаж Джона Кеннеди о "русском народе", который он "видел в гробу" и которому, будь его воля, он обеспечил бы короткую жизнь и долгую смерть.
"Вишенкой на торте" можно считать пассаж о "хулигане" Лаврове, "преступно" допускающим в формальный язык дипломатии живые фрагменты Образов Жизни, столь ненавистные её мёртвым Формам Поведения.
С пониманием и соответствующими ожиданиями, Dimitriy.
Today on KNEB.tv News: The City of Gering continues its search for a new Parks and Recreation Director after interviewing applicants but failing to find the right candidate U.S. Senator Ben Sasse weighs in on President Trump’s nomination for U.S. Supreme Court Scotts Bluff County Health Director offers up safety tips during these hot summer […]
Lawmakers are back on Capitol Hill this week but getting the farm bill to the finish line may be a slow process. The Hagstrom Report speculates the process will be sluggish, based on statements from the office of Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. His office stated: Chairman Roberts “looks forward” to working […]
Oh, good grief, New York Times. Timothy Noah highlights this bit of nonsense in the Times’ coverage of Donald Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court: “Kavanaugh’s apparent belief that Vince Foster killed himself (i.e., Hillary didn’t kill him) is cited on Page One of the NYT as an example of his sometime moderation.”
Elsewhere, the Times had Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar all lined up and ready to go in the role of Liberal Who Will Ultimately Be Proven Wrong About Republican Nominee. Back in 2017, Neal Katyal filled that role on Neil Gorsuch, and already looks pretty bad having done so. Amar sticks to safer ground by arguing that Kavanaugh is learned and likes to read history, rather than Katyal’s laughable claim that “if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law,”
But Amar—a highly respected legal scholar—starts off with a real howler in this: “The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move.”
Yeah, no, sorry. Trump looked at his pre-approved Federalist Society list and liked what he saw in Kavanaugh’s commitment to shielding presidents from investigation. That Kavanaugh is “an avid consumer of legal scholarship” did not enter into the decision, and as excellent as Amar’s legal scholarship may be, he shows himself here to be either a fool when it comes to politics and human nature or just way way too eager to kick off his New York Times op-ed with a memorable sentence.
Donald Trump promised a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade and then, of the FedSoc-approved judges who would do that, he picked the one who also opposes any meaningful limits on a sitting president’s power. That’s it. No one other than Senate Republicans looking to rush the nomination through should bother looking for deeper reasons.
After spending his Fourth of July holiday watching ballet in St. Petersburg and visiting with Russian officials in Moscow, Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson is back in the states to say that we’ve been too hard on Vladimir Putin. As Roll Call reports, Johnson stated that the United States had gotten way, way too upset about the fact that Russia stole information from one campaign, fed it to the other, created hundreds of false media sites, disseminated thousands of false social media posts, sent Russian agents to conduct fake “grassroots” protests on American soil, and invested millions in targeted ads over Facebook, Google, and other services.
Johnson: We’ve blown it way out of proportion.
In an interview with right-wing paper the Washington Examiner, Johnson stated that the Russian interference into the election was “not the biggest threat to our democracy,” and that the Senate has “gone too far” in sanctioning Russia for meddling in U.S. elections. And, like other Republicans who insist on keeping sanctions on Cuba for the last 53 years, Johnson says that the sanctions against Russia “are not working.” Those words are certainly appreciated.
Johnson’s remarks to the Examiner were highlighted by Russian state media.
Not every member of the Republican Moscow Brigade seemed that thrilled with their Russian hosts. Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy said that Russian tactics reminded him of the Mafia, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is “a bully” who “started out in the world as a smartass and worked his way up.” Which is a type that should be all too familiar to many within the Republican Party. And speaking of, Donald Trump continues to push the point that “Putin denies it” when asked about campaign interference, taking Trump all the way back to Square Minus One when it comes to accepting the conclusion of both US intelligence agencies and the Senate investigation.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer seems to get that the battle to block Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is critical—both legally speaking and to the morale of the progressive base. An Intercept piece notes Schumer has been telling his Democratic colleagues in the Senate that "if they don’t put up a brutal fight... there will be hell to pay from the Democratic base."
The strategy Senate Democrats have settled on to thwart Kavanaugh’s nomination is primarily centered on issues rather than process. Internal polling showed that voters found substance-driven arguments on issues like abortion more compelling, for instance, than an argument over Senate precedent during an election year.In a CBS News interview Tuesday morning, Schumer laid out the strategy, which is partially dependent on a robust assist from voters.
"I believe if we can prove to the American people, which I believe is truly the case, that this nominee will lead to a court that repeals women's reproductive freedom, repeals ACA with its protections for pre-existing conditions, we will get a majority of the Senate to vote for it,” Schumer told “CBS This Morning” when asked how he might block Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Democratic senators are definitely pushing issues they believe are most compelling to their constituencies. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, one of three Democrats who cast a "Yea" vote for Trump's last nominee, has been advancing health care access as a key concern for him in considering Kavanaugh. "The Supreme Court will ultimately decide if nearly 800,000 West Virginians with pre-existing conditions will lose their healthcare," he said Monday, following Trump's announcement.
Other Democratic senators, such as New Jersey's Cory Booker, have been honing in on the conflicts presented by allowing a president under investigation to appoint a judge who might decide his fate. “We can’t underscore enough the fact that @realDonaldTrump is a subject of an ongoing criminal investigation & there's a clear conflict of interest for this president," Booker tweeted Monday night, noting the Supreme Court may ultimately weigh the legal question of whether a sitting president can be criminally indicted or pardon himself.
Apparently the fix is already in with Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. She's going to keep up some pretense of seriously considering this nomination, but unless convinced otherwise by the people of Maine, she's voting for him. Look at some of these statements:
Like "Collins says she's noticed Democrats have 'switched' from talking about Roe to talking about health care 'in an attempt I assume to unify their caucus' on Kavanaugh's nomination." And "the health care issue 'is very important to me.' Also noted that Kavanaugh has already rendered one decision on the ACA that 'frankly was criticized by conservatives in not going far enough.'"
Two things there: abortion is health care. Period. Start with the part that it's a legal medical procedure conducted by medical professionals as your first clue, and then consider that it's women's bodies, the things that are pretty much what health care is all about. Second, no, his decision on the Affordable Care Act wasn't some kind of moderate waffling over the law. In fact, in that dissent, the guy said "Under the Constitution the President may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the President deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional." That's pretty damned radical, asserting that the president is the one who gets to decide what's constitutional, even if he's in disagreement with the courts.
Never mind that the whole conservative opposition thing is just a gigantic ruse anyway, done for the single purpose of giving Susan Collins cover to say that he "frankly was criticized by conservatives in not going far enough." Translation: "Look! He's really a mainstream nominee! Nothing to see here when I vote for this guy who is definitely going to be a vote for taking healthcare and abortion rights away from people."
If you need more evidence that Collins is going to be completely partisan in this whole thing, look no further than this: "Collins, asked about asking nominee about Roe: 'It is the height of irony that it was Justice Ginsburg who was the one who first said: 'no hints [...] no forecasts' on how she would vote." Right there she's repeating a myth propagated by the right-wing Heritage Foundation and repeated dutifully by her fellow Republicans like Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley.
Here's what Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually said about Roe in her confirmation hearing, in part:
The argument was it's her right to decide either way, her right to decide whether or not to bear a child. […]
But you asked me about my thinking about equal protection versus individual autonomy, and my answer to you is it's both. This is something central to a woman's life, to her dignity. It's a decision that she must make for herself. And when Government controls that decision for her, she's being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.
Not much obfuscation there, huh? Collins has at least put to rest one question we've all been asking about her for months: Is she stupid or a liar? She's a liar.
Now it's up to the people of Maine to call her on it. Directly. Every day. At her office numbers: (207) 622-8414, (207) 945-0417, (207) 283-1101, (207) 493-7873, (207) 784-6969, (207) 780-3575, (202) 224-2523
Pregnant women in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention say in interviews and written affidavits that they have been “shackled around the stomach” and denied adequate medical care, some testifying that they were “ignored when they were obviously miscarrying,” according to Buzzfeed. “Those descriptions were backed by interviews with five legal aid workers, four medical workers, and two advocates who work with ICE detainees.”
One woman, identified only as “E” out of safety concerns, said she was four months pregnant when she began bleeding and called for help. “An official arrived,” she said, “and they said it was not a hospital and they weren’t doctors. They wouldn’t look after me. I realized I was losing my son. It was his life that I was bleeding out. I was staining everything. I spent about eight days just lying down. I couldn’t eat, I couldn’t do anything. I started crying and crying and crying.”
E miscarried, and “about a week after speaking with BuzzFeed News, E gave up her fight for asylum, accepted voluntary departure, and was deported back to El Salvador.” Another woman held in Texas said she was given an X-ray, “despite this being against the Food and Drug Administration’srecommendations. ‘I saw on the machine that [it said] pregnant women should not have an X-ray,’ she wrote.”
Women are also saying they’re being shackled while being transferred, despite it being “prohibited by ICE and CBP’s most recent standards-of-care policies as well as bya congressional directive.” Dr. Anjani Kolahi of the Physicians for Reproductive Health called the allegations “’absolutely medical negligence. Overall [detaining pregnant women] is a cruel, inhumane practice. It’s creating all sorts of unnecessary risk for the women’ and their children, she said.”
“Pregnant women I spoke with in ICE custody often didn't get appropriate nourishment, medical care, or prenatal vitamins,” tweeted Cristina Costantini earlier this year about other pregnant women that have been detained. “Some were even shackled during childbirth, denied breast pumps, and not allowed to hold their babies.”
The allegations come just months after the Trump administration ended a policy that generally, but not always, released pregnant women from detention. But advocates said they began to notice more pregnant women were being detained even before the change was announced, saying “that they first began to notice an increase in pregnant detainees last summer.” Luis Guerra of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) said that “it was a real shock to us at first, but then we just started seeing it more and more.”
According to ICE data “from Dec. 14, 2017, to April 7, 2018, there have been a total of 590 pregnant women booked into custody,” with about 35 in custody as of April. “My soul aches,” E said, “that there are many pregnant women coming who could lose their babies like I did and that they will do nothing to help them.”
There’s the lament/wishful thinking from the old guard:
“I think that’s the drama we’re going to see in the next few years — whether the beliefs that are being espoused by President Trump are going to firmly take root and take over the party, or are they going to be tested in real life,” said Tony Fratto, who served as a spokesman in the George W. Bush administration. “I think we’re going to see foreign policy failures and trade failures that will lead Republicans to say, that was a mistake. We need to go back to where we were on those issues.”
But, Sen. Steve Daines tells us of Trump’s base, “They want to see America first.” Also, “They want to see jobs protected,” hilarious as China targets red counties with tariffs and Republicans, of course, continue to block a minimum wage increase. “And relating to NATO, they want to make sure everybody’s paying their fair share.” Yes, I’m sure the average voter had strong feelings about NATO payments before Donald Trump made it a favorite topic.
Here’s your answer to what Republicans are going to do about this supposed disconnect between their party’s traditional positions and Trumpism: They’re going to fall in line. Whether because they secretly (or not so secretly) always hated immigrants this much or because they care more about what they’re getting from Trump than what they’re giving away or because they only ever cared about power to begin with or because they’re just that craven, Republicans will happily go along as the party of Trump.
And for anyone waiting for that “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency” moment, well, no, they don’t. Trump definitely doesn’t have a sense of decency, and it’s become clear that no Republican who dares to ask that question will continue to have any standing within their party. Who’s going to ask that question? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who held open a Supreme Court seat for nearly a year and blocked President Obama from warning the public about Russian election interference? House Speaker Paul Ryan, whose answer to questions about anything awkward said or done by a Republican is that he hasn’t heard about it? The question “Have you left no sense of decency” can’t be directed at just one person—it must be directed at the entire Republican Party. And they’ve answered it.
The Oregon ranchers were convicted of—and pleaded guilty to—arson on federal lands. They were prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Oregon, federal prosecutors. Part of the Department of Justice. Because the arsons were federal offenses. One of the fires was started to cover up poaching on federal lands! They hunted illegally then tried to cover up the evidence by setting it on fire! Another fire was set intentionally when they knew there were Bureau of Land Management fire fighters in the area that they were endangering.
They tried to kill firefighters. And Trump just pardoned them.
By federal law, enacted by Congress, arson on federal land carries a five-year minimum sentence. Why? As Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams said at the time of sentencing, "Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States' property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy."
And Trump just pardoned them. Hours after naming a would-be justice to the Supreme Court.
It’s not enough that Trump himself is under federal investigation for conspiring with the Russians in the 2016 election. It’s not enough that he’s flouting the Constitution on a weekly basis by enriching himself. Now this. Trump showed long ago that he's not fit to make any nominations, but this total disregard to the rule of law, this total pandering to the worst of white supremacist, nationalist, hate-fueled base, should be the final straw for the Senate.
NONE of his judiciary nominees should be confirmed, particularly not a Supreme Court justice. And every one of those already confirmed should be impeached.
Republicans are gearing up to fight yet another precedent they themselves set on Supreme Court confirmations. When Justice Elena Kagan was confirmed, Republicans demanded every scrap of paper from her time in government. But they really don't want Democrats or the public to see the full paper trail for Donald Trump’s nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, who worked as a prosecutor for independent counsel Kenneth Starr and in George W. Bush’s White House as staff secretary and for the White House counsel’s office.
Releasing all that paperwork could take quite a while and demanding it is both a way Senate Democrats could slow down the confirmation process and a possible source of interesting revelations about Kavanaugh’s record. Republicans won't be happy about either part of that, and a former Democratic Senate Judiciary staffer predicted that “the Republicans are going to say they’ve released more pages than any nominee in history. … They’re going to take that talking point and run with it.”
Kavanaugh worked on the investigation of a sitting president, only to turn around and now oppose investigation of sitting presidents. So his participation in Starr’s investigation is directly relevant to a major issue he’s likely to face if confirmed—and an issue Republicans must particularly wish to avoid.
A broader indexof Kavanaugh's files shows still-unreleased folders containing memos on "perjury (obstruction/false statements)," shredding of records by Hillary Clinton's former law firm, impeachment, grand jury secrecy issues related to President Bill Clinton's interview about Foster's death, and a conspiracy theory at the time known as the INSLAW Affair.
Some Republicans who expressed concern about Trump picking Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court say those documents and others could put him and Trump in an awkward spot by giving fodder to Democrats to ask questions about parallels between Clinton's alleged misdeeds and accusations that Trump lied to the public and obstructed justice.
Gee, you think? Look for Republicans to argue against transparency as they seek to confirm a justice nominated by a president under investigation as part of a deal to get a sitting justice to retire.
Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are thus far filling their expected roles in the kabuki play that is Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. They responded to the announcement with the expected pablum about how seriously they take their jobs and how qualified this nominee is.
"Judge Kavanaugh has impressive credentials and extensive experience, having served more than a decade on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals," read Collins' statement. "I will conduct a careful, thorough vetting of the President's nominee to the Supreme Court, as I have done with the five previous Supreme Court Justices whom I have considered. I look forward to Judge Kavanaugh's public hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee and to questioning him in a meeting in my office." Those five include Justice Neil Gorsuch, who we already know has happily upended one of Collins' criteria for a qualified justice—respecting long-standing precedent. By Collins' own criteria, her track record there on approving judges isn't very encouraging.
Murkowski, on the other hand, released a statement that didn't show her hand, and didn't laud the nomination. "While I have not met Judge Kavanaugh," she said, "I look forward to sitting down for a personal meeting with him." She continued, "I intend to review Judge Kavanaugh's decisions on the bench and writings off the bench, and pay careful attention to his responses to questions posed by my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee." She added that she would consider the American Bar Association's analysis of Kavanaugh in her decision-making. "The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Judiciary will also review Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications prior to these hearings and issue a rating." Finally, she says, "I intend to carefully consider that rating, the information obtained through personal meetings, my own review of Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications and record, and the views of Alaskans in determining whether or not to support him." So there's a job for Alaskans.
That this whole thing is a farce in which Collins and Murkowski have assigned roles is reinforced by the reporting Tuesday morning by NBC, when we learned that as far back as November pr*sident Trump was negotiating with retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy to install Kavanaugh.
The fix really seems to be in on this nomination, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Trump are on the cusp of installing a Supreme Court that would undo decades of civil rights progress in this nation, for women, for people of color, for the LGBTQ community, for working people. All of the issues that Collins and Murkowski tout as critical to them in order to maintain their mantle as being the last standing moderates in the GOP. Here's the real test for them.
They stepped up once, to help John McCain defeat Trumpcare. If they want their stand against their leadership and against Trump on that to mean anything, to have any lasting resonance, they have oppose this nomination. They have to work with Democrats to stop it.
WLS-TVAn Illinois park is investigating after a woman accused one of its police officers of standing by as a man harassed her for wearing a shirt with the Puerto Rican flag, saying it was un-American. Mia Irizarry says she was trying to celebrate her 24th …Puerto Ricans in Florida play key role in Senate raceThe […]
Honolulu Star-AdvertiserJudge Bennett, who will maintain chambers in Honolulu, was nominated to the court by President Donald Trump on Feb. 15. Senators Hirono and Schatz both voted to confirm Bennett. After appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 11, his … and more …read more Source:: Honolulu News By Google News
President Trump on Monday evening chose Brett Kavanaugh to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy left by retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kavanaugh will now go before the U.S. Senate for confirmation. On Tuesday’s St. Louis on the Air , host Don Marsh talked with Greg Magarian, J.D., professor of law at Washington University, about the nomination and its local implications. Magarian previously clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens.
The top Republican in the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell, on Wednesday said he was not worried that President Donald Trump will withdraw the country from NATO, as Trump, who has a history of fiercely criticizing and occasionally scrapping international agreements, travelled to a major summit of NATO members.
Senate yesterday said the deployment of 30,000 policemen to Ekiti state ahead of the governorship election is faulty and unnecessary because the force had failed to detail adequate operatives to quell the killings in some parts of the country. This followed the presentation of the lead debate by Deputy Majority Leader, Sen. Bala Na’Allah during […]
Brett Kavanaugh Is The Wrong Choice For The Supreme CourtbostonTue, 07/10/2018 - 12:32
President Donald Trump announced last night that Brett Kavanaugh is his nominee to be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice. The president has shown that he has little respect for the separation of church and state, so it is no surprise that he has chosen a nominee who rejects this fundamental value as well. In fact, Kavanaugh believes that the “wall of separation” metaphor, invoked by Thomas Jefferson and long used to explain the protections guaranteed to us in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “was wrong as a matter of law and history.”
The separation of church and state is the linchpin of religious freedom. We can’t afford to have a Supreme Court that would undermine it. By nominating Kavanaugh to the court, Trump threatens the vision of religious freedom for which Americans United has fought over the last 70 years. That’s why Americans United must oppose him.
Trump chose Kavanaugh, who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, from a list of conservative judges that the Chicago Tribuneexplained “had been outsourced to, and approved by, the conservative legal organization the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.” And according to The Washington Post, conservatives were looking for a nominee “willing to shield religious objectors from progressive policies or soften the boundaries between church and state.” They want a justice who will allow religion to be used to undermine antidiscrimination laws that protect LGBTQ people and to obstruct women’s access to health care, including birth control.
According to a new report by Americans United, Kavanaugh’s record demonstrates that he would likely undermine religious freedom in a number of ways.
First, Kavanaugh would likely grant religious exemptions to businesses and nonprofit organizations even where the exemption could cause real harm to other people. In his dissenting opinion in Priests for Lifev. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kavanaugh argued that employers can cite religious beliefs to obstruct their employees’ access to contraception. Kavanaugh’s dissent suggests that he would permit the government to grant religious exemptions in future Supreme Court cases even if they result in the denial of health care or discrimination against women, LGBTQ people, or religious minorities. The court could distort religious freedom from a shield to protect religion into a sword to harm others.
Second, Kavanaugh is critical of five decades of Supreme Court rulings that prohibit public schools from sponsoring prayer. As an attorney, Kavanaugh wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, defending a public school that broadcast student-delivered prayers at its football games. Kavanaugh implied that practices “deeply rooted in our history and tradition” should be permitted even if they “favor or promote religion over non-religion.” The Supreme Court disagreed with Kavanaugh. So does Americans United: Religious freedom requires that the government treat all religions equally, including belief systems that are nontheistic.
Third, in friend-of-the-court briefs in both Santa Fe and Good News Club v. Milford Central School, as well as in a 2017 speech, Kavanaugh argued against long-standing precedent prohibiting the use of public funds for religious activities. If the Supreme Court were to adopt Kavanaugh’s views on public funding of religion, that would upend the bedrock constitutional principle that we each get to decide for ourselves whether and how our money goes to support religion.
When you add all this up, Kavanaugh proves to be the wrong pick for the Supreme Court. With this nomination, the court could be in a position to play favorites and approve practices that promote the majority religion while harming schoolchildren, nonreligious people, women, LGBTQ people, taxpayers and others.
It is crucial that the Senate reject Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Religious freedom for all Americans hangs in the balance.
With a looming special session and all the rush to be “for” or “against” an internet sales tax, it’s important to understand what it really is and how the state legislature is about to rob your local cities to try to hide what they have failed to do in recent years for roads and bridges, and many other things that might risk precious reelection for many of them. Few people realize that Mississippi has always had a sales tax on anything we buy from out of state. The burden has simply been on the buyer to voluntarily report and pay it. The U. S. Supreme Court has now changed that equation so states can make the seller collect the tax and send it to the state. How is sales tax revenue important to your local community? When you buy things at the local grocery store or hardware center, they collect sales tax and then send it to the state Department of Revenue. Once the tax dollars get there, they use a fancy little computer and send 18.5 cents of every 100 cents right back to the city that collected it. This is what your local government uses to pay for things such as police and fire protection, roads, sewer, garbage, libraries, animal shelters, jails, etc. It also helps keep your local property taxes from increasing.
When people started buying more items online a few years ago, those sales taxes weren’t collected by your city, meaning less money went to operate your local government and basic services got shortchanged. With the new court ruling, somewhere between $100 - $200 Million will be coming into Mississippi from internet sellers. The problem is that the state leaders claim it is just too darned complicated for their fancy computers to figure out where those purchases came from in Mississippi, so they will just keep it in the General Fund (pronounced “Lawmaker Begging Fund”).
If the state decides to just keep all the internet sales taxes, it will mean that the 18.5% won’t get back to your town and the legislature won’t be sending the required portion to the classroom supply fund either. So, despite the loud political cries of wanting more money going into the classrooms, even less will go there if the new revenue jumps right into the General Fund. This means that 18.5 of every 100 cents of internet sales taxes people pay will go to the state and not to their local towns. Sadly, instead of benefiting our communities, these internet sales tax dollars will simply plug holes in the state budget so career politicians can pretend everything is just fine.
The spin you will hear is how complicated it is to try to figure out where the online purchases came from, so they must just keep it. To that I say hogwash! If Amazon’s computers can figure out how to get a whoopie cushion to my front door overnight, the state can surely figure out where that sales tax came from. If you feel the same way, you better make sure your state representative and senator know how you feel before they get to Jackson for the Special Session and get handed a blank check on your account.
The just launched SCOTUS Watch comes from Jay Pinho and Victoria Kwan, co-creators of SCOTUS Map. From the SCOTUS Watch Website: SCOTUS Watch tracks the public statements made by United States senators about how they plan to vote on the Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, and tallies them into a likely vote count. This tally is based solely on their statements: we […]
WASHINGTON — Conservative Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh plunged into his confirmation battle Tuesday, meeting face-to-face with Senate leaders in what promises to be an intense debate over abortion rights, presidential power and other legal disputes that could reshape the court and roil this fall's elections.
Kavanaugh is a favorite of the GOP legal establishment, and his arrival as President Donald Trump's nominee was greeted on Capitol Hill with praise from Republicans and skepticism from Democrats. There were also pledges of open minds by key senators whose votes will most likely determine the outcome.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called Kavanagh "one of the most thoughtful jurists" in the country but warned of an onslaught of "fear mongering" from liberal groups trying to derail the nomination. He said it was clear that many Democrats "didn't care who the nominee was at all. Whoever President Trump put up they were opposed to."
Chuck Schumer, the Senate's Democratic leader, said his party's lawmakers did indeed care who the nominee was — and what his views were on such thorny issues as abortion and Trump himself.
Trump "did exactly what he said he would do on the campaign trail — nominate someone who will overturn women's reproductive rights," the New York senator said.
He also argued that the president chose the man he thought would best protect him from the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Kavanaugh has written about a need to free the executive branch from intrusive criminal investigations.
"Not only did Mr. Kavanaugh say that a president should not be subpoenaed, he said a president shouldn't be investigated," Schumer said.
The confirmation marathon is expected to drag on for months, and no date has yet been set for hearings. GOP leaders, with a slim majority in the Senate, are anxious to have Kavanaugh in place for the start of the court's session in October — and before the November congressional elections.
But that may be a tall order. His confirmation is complicated by an unusually long record as an appellate judge and as a George W. Bush administration official — and also his role as part of the Kenneth Starr investigation of President Bill Clinton.
Kavanaugh, just 53, could serve on the high court for decades.
As he arrived on Capitol Hill Tuesday, he huddled with McConnell, Vice President Mike Pence and former Sen. Jon Kyl. He also met with Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which will determine whether to recommend him to the full Senate.
McConnell, who has been influential in shaping Trump's remaking of the judiciary, said, "What we'd like to see is a few open minds about this extraordinary talent."
Grassley said a speedy confirmation wasn't necessarily the goal. The vetting process, he said, is "going to be thorough and going to be done right." Pence told reporters that Kavanaugh was a "good man."
Republicans have little margin of error for the final vote unless a few Democrats can be brought onboard. McConnell has a 51-49 Senate majority, narrowed further by the absence of ailing Sen. John McCain of Arizona. But they hope to gain support from a handful of Democrats who are up for re-election in states where Trump is popular.
So far, Democrats are uniting behind a strategy to turn the confirmation fight into a referendum on conservatives' efforts to undo abortion access, chip away at health care protections under the Affordable Care Act and protect Trump from Mueller.
Senators will be seeking access to Kavanaugh's writings and correspondence, reams of documents that will take weeks to compile and even longer to review, giving opponents ample opportunity to wage a political battle. Protesters have filled the steps of the Supreme Court in recent days.
By fall, the nomination may turn on a handful of senators who will be under enormous pressure ahead of the midterm elections.
The Democrats are trying to pressure two Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, to oppose any nominee who threatens the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. The two have supported access to abortion services, and activists have already begun sending wire coat hangers, as a symbol of an era when abortion was illegal, to Collins' office.
She said that with Kavanaugh's credentials, "it's very difficult for anyone to tell me that he's not qualified for the job." But she added that other issues also would come into play for her, including "judicial temperament" and "judicial philosophy."
Murkowski said, "We've got some due diligence that we've got to do."
At the same time, Republicans are urging a half dozen Democratic senators, largely those who are up for re-election in Trump-won states, to back the president's choice.
Among their targets are Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, as well as Doug Jones of Alabama, who is not up for re-election but represents a conservative state in the Deep South.
Kavanaugh in the past has made statements about respecting precedent that could help in winning over senators, particularly Murkowski and Collins.
In his 2006 confirmation hearing to become a federal judge, he said, "I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully" because it's "binding precedent" that has been "reaffirmed many times."
Yet there's little doubt that Kavanaugh, a solidly conservative, politically connected judge, would shift the nation's highest court further to the right.
A product of the Republican legal establishment in Washington, Kavanaugh is a former law clerk for retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Like Trump's first nominee last year, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh would be a young addition who could help remake the court for decades with rulings that could restrict abortion, expand gun rights and roll back key parts of" Obamacare."
Trump unveiled his pick showbiz style, in a suspense-filled prime-time televised announcement Monday evening. He called Kavanaugh "one of the finest and sharpest legal minds of our time."
"Brett Kavanaugh has gotten rave reviews — rave reviews — actually, from both sides," Trump said Tuesday, a stark mischaracterization of Democrats' comments, as he left the White House for a weeklong overseas trip. "And I think it's going to be a beautiful thing to watch over the next month."
Associated Press writers Kevin Freking, Matthew Daly, Laurie Kellman, Catherine Lucey, Mark Sherman, Zeke Miller and Alan Fram contributed to this report.
Neera Tanden, president, Center for American Progress, center, rallies in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, July 9, 2018, after President Donald Trump announced Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his Supreme Court nominee.. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)
CORRECTS DAY AND DATE TO MONDAY, JULY 9, INSTEAD OF TUESDAY, JULY 10 - President Donald Trump shakes hands with Brett Kavanaugh, his Supreme Court nominee, in the East Room of the White House, Monday, July 9, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Anthoney Novotny, from Havertown, marches with a group called Refuse Fascism, as they protest President Donald Trump's nomination for the Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in front of the Philadelphia Federal Courthouse, Monday, July 9, 2018. (Steven M. Falk/The Philadelphia Inquirer via AP)
(Paul Mirengoff) Senator John McCain has expressed his strong support for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. McCain tweeted: Judge Brett Kavanaugh has impeccable credentials & a strong record of upholding the Constitution. He is widely respected as a fair, independent & mainstream judge. I look forward to the Senate moving forward with a fair & thorough confirmation process. We don’t know whether McCain will be physically able to vote for Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
LIMA — U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) recently announced that through the Senate’s Defense Appropriations Bill he has helped procure $2.8 billion to protect critical manufacturing jobs at Lima’s Joint Systems Manufacturing Center (JSMC). The Senate Defense appropriation bill includes funding for $392.5 million for Stryker vehicle upgrades and modifications and more than $2.4 billion […]
WASHINGTON — A Senate panel voted Tuesday to approve President Donald Trump's nominee to lead Veterans Affairs, a department beset by political infighting and turmoil over providing health care.The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee agreed on voi
WASHINGTON — Conservative Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh plunged into his confirmation battle Tuesday, meeting face-to-face with Senate leaders in what promises to be an intense debate over abortion rights, presidential power and other legal
The founder of the Women's Equality Party and the one time recipient of thousands in campaign cash from Donald Trump is not missing a beat in fanning abortion flames in New York, where abortion would be legal regardless of Roe v Wade. Governor Andrew Cuomo peremptorily railed against the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the high court before he was named and the Governor is demanding the State Senate reconvene to pass an abortion bill of rights. Democrats have migrated from demanding ICE be eliminated to their old saw of abortion rights. It's familiar turf and should ensure a Cuomo victory in the fall. http://wrvo.org/post/cuomo-demands-senate-reconvene-vote-abortion-rights-measure
Rosario Dawson has been cast as the lead in Briarpatch, a pilot for USA Network based on the book of the same name by Ross Thomas.
Dawson will play Allegra "Pick" Dill, a skilled investigator working for a Senator in Washington, DC. When her younger sister, a homicide detective, is killed by a car bomb, she returns to her corrupt Texas hometown to investigate her death and excavate her buried past.
Should the pilot get picked up for a series, this would be Dawson's first leading role on a TV show. She currently pops up on all the Marvel Netflix shows as Claire Temple.
Harvard Law prof. Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) discusses Pres. Trump's SCOTUS pick Brett Kavanaugh — and criticizes the GOP for refusing to consider Obama’s 2016 nominee Merrick Garland: "They stole the first nomination to the Supreme Court — absolute theft, unconstitutional." pic.twitter.com/UQjGMlZqlo
On Monday night, President Donald Trump announced Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his pick for the next Supreme Court justice. By early Tuesday morning, protesters were already at the Supreme Court building and lining the streets of Washington, D.C., in opposition of the nomination. But even before the official announcement was made, it was already…
A Montana judge has ordered election officials to remove the Green Party from the ballot, giving the Democratic candidate a boost in the 2018 midterm elections. Helena District Court Judge James Reynolds’ decision to remove the party’s Senate candidate, Steve Kelly, as well as other candidates comes after Montana Democrats accused the party of not…
Laura Ingraham hosted David Perdue, senator from Georgia. Perdue said he knows he will be held accountable for his victory and that the direction of the country is wrong, starting with border security, the economy and debt. He said he...
Laura Ingraham hosted David Perdue, Senate candidate from Georgia. Perdue said Michelle Nunn wants to amend and broaden Obamacare and is for amnesty. He pointed out that President Obama cut an ad supporting her. He said the polls are tight...
I'm a US Senator, a fourth generation politician, and the future of the conservative party.
I’ve known from the time I could walk, that I’d run for office. I've played the game, battled my colleagues, and come out on top.
Everything I've ever wanted is within my grasp.
Then why did I fall for a man who’s touch consumed me to the point of forgetting my goals? Why did he have to be my political opponent for the highest office in the Nation?
Now, I must decide between a road that is clear and could lead to the White House and another that is unknown and has the potential to leave me in shambles. I am Jacinta Camden. Presidential hopeful and United States SENATOR.
Author Sienna Snow is a writer, mom, and world traveler, who plans to visit all seven continents within the next ten years.
Her romantic fiction aims to shatter the stereotypes associated with weak female characters pervasive in romantic and erotic fiction today. Inspired by her years working in corporate America as a management consultant, Sienna has created a narrative around strong, successful women who know what they want and exactly how to get it, in and out of the bedroom. In fact, the heroines in her books are billionaires.
From diverse backgrounds, the heroines are smart, well-educated women who choose to find love through atypical circumstances.
Anthony Kennedy's retirement from the Supreme Court has many worried about the future of Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that women have a constitutional right to abortion, and a return to the dark era that preceded it. Before Roe, women seeking an abortion often had to resort to back-alley abortionists or homegrown methods — all dangerous, even life-threatening. Understandably, this has people worried about one big question: if Roe v Wade is overturned what happens?
But some reproductive-rights advocates, while fighting to preserve Roe, point out that if abortion loses its federal protection, women will still have more resources for self-managed abortion than the pre-Roe generations. Namely: Medication abortion, the internet, and social media.
"We’re not in 1960, where we didn’t have access to medication abortion," Yamani Hernandez, executive director of the National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF), told Elite Daily on Tuesday. "There’s this narrative that in this new climate [where Roe could be overturned], people will resort to desperate measures, and we really push back on that narrative because we know that also the technology has changed, the medicine has changed, and we know that people are able to have an abortion with medication."
What is medication abortion?
Medication abortion refers to the taking of two hormone pills to end a pregnancy: mifepristone, which stops the production of progesterone (a hormone that enables pregnancy), and misoprostol, which induces a miscarriage. The process is safe and effective, and it doesn't require a doctor's supervision. But if Roe v Wade is overturned what happens? Would women have access to this?
Quite possibly. Some organizations like WomenOnWeb provide medication abortion to women in countries where access to abortion is restricted. A similar process could spring up in the U.S. Today in states where abortion is difficult to access, volunteers drive women to states where it's more accessible.
If Roe v Wade is overturned what happens? What other options do women have?
On June 29, Time reported on the flurry of activism and support that followed the news of Kennedy's retirement: "Women took to social media in droves to encourage others to get an IUD or stock up emergency contraception like Plan B. Others are donating to abortion funds and calling their senators. Some supporters are getting more creative — considering donating air miles so women can travel for abortions and looking into building or finding temporary housing for women in places where abortion will likely remain legal should Roe be overturned."
Critically, reproductive-rights advocates have another tool in their arsenal that didn't exist pre-Roe: The internet, to marshal support for preserving legal abortion and to amplify what's at stake. It was public pressure that prevented a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act last year, and abortion-rights advocates will likely be at least as loud as the Senate hearings for Kennedy's replacement get underway.
Minutes after President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court was announced on Monday night, the political hype machine started winding up. Strong opinions were trumpeted, both for and against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was unknown to most Americans just days ago.
“Judge Kavanaugh should not be allowed anywhere near our nation’s highest bench,” cried Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez. “A superb choice,” retorted the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform. “Kavanaugh has spent his career ruling against working people in favor of wealthy corporations,” claimed 32BJ SEIU Pennsylvania and Delaware vice president Gabe Morgan. “A judicial grand slam!” said Horace Cooper, co-chair of the black conservative group Project 21, adding, “Those who love our Constitution will be thrilled."
But in fact, according to Rutgers Law School professor Perry Dane, all this politicking and noise is precisely the problem that is hampering the U.S. Supreme Court from fulfilling its function as the third branch of government, empowered under Article 3 in the U.S. Constitution.
”The whole process is just bizarre. This is not how judges should get selected,” Dane said. “It’s really not up to justices to either affirm or disappoint their supporters. In principle, once they’re appointed, they’re supposed to be free agents, using their best judgment.”
What can we expect during the confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh? A “free-for-all,” said Dane, who clerked for US Supreme Court justice William J. Brennan in the 1980s.
“I’m frankly not looking forward to it. Whoever Trump nominates will be well-prepared and well-rehearsed not to say anything of much interest. … There will be an effort to tease specific views from them, and the nominee will say very general things and will talk about judging in very bland terms,” he predicted. “There’s going to be all the worst aspects of a political campaign without any of the actual information."
Perry predicted that with a Republican majority in the Senate, huge pressure will be brought to bear upon sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who are seen as potential swing votes. But otherwise, the public can expect a vote along party lines.
“Most Republicans are going to vote yes, most Democrats will vote no,” Dane said. “One of the things I’m not looking forward to in this process is presumably the opponents will try to figure out some personal defect. … If that happens there's a risk of it getting particularly ugly.”
"If I were the Democrats, my opposition would be much less tied to the personality of the candidate," he continued. "I would say we shouldn’t have anybody until the election, or not let Trump get two nominations after the fiasco with Merrick Garland, or shouldn’t let Trump pick somebody while the Mueller investigation is going on.”
A better way?
As an example of a better system, Dane cited the United Kingdom, where three new justices, nominated by a neutral judicial commission, were appointed to the nation’s 12-judge Supreme Court in 2017.
“Even though it is a very important court that issues very important decisions, there wasn’t nearly the same sort of fuss or sense of political crisis,” Dane said. “They really tried to pick the three judges in the country who were the most superbly qualified.”
He argued that past Supreme Courts have had more “flexible” judges, like retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, who despite being a Republican was known for authoring some of the court’s most progressive opinions.
“If I were designing a Supreme Court, I might have a few people who were very clearly ideologues on the left and ideologues on the right, and I'd have a nice mushy center of people who were willing to be convinced one way or the other on each case and issue,” he said. “The current split is very identified with our political parties. … You really have the Supreme Court viewed as another legislature. People just get used to it and they forget that it’s bizarre and weird and bad, both for the law and the country.”
On Monday night, President Trump named his second nominee for the Supreme Court: 53-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, an experienced judge that pleased some conservatives, nonplussed others and sent Democrats to their battle stations, fearing the conservative jurist will overturn Roe v. Wade. Here's what we know about Kavanaugh and his record so far:
1. He is conservative (but not enough for some conservatives)
A longtime George W. Bush staffer and D.C. native, "Kavanaugh is considered a pragmatic but conservative judge, who believes in textualism and originalism," says NPR. He has written opinions that could be interpreted as anti-abortion (see #5) and against the Affordable Care Act. But some conservatives consider those same opinions too liberal: In a ruling about Obamacare, he recognized it as a tax, the same logic the Supreme Court used to uphold it as legal, irking the right wing. Kavanaugh, 53, is married with two daughters and is a practicing Catholic.
2. Brett Kavanaugh has extensive experience on the bench
Kavanaugh is a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, kind of a farm team for future Supreme Court justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg came from there; so did Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee whom Senate Republicans blocked. (Garland is Chief Justice, technically Kavanaugh's boss.) Kavanaugh was appointed by George W. Bush in 2006, after his hearing was delayed by Democrats for three years because they considered him unqualified and a partisan pick. In his 12 years on the bench, he has written more than 300 decisions.
3. He worked in the Bush White House
Kavanaugh served George W. Bush's staff secretary — the mild-sounding job that is actually incredibly important. (It's also the one Hope Hicks's boyfriend Rob Porter was forced to leave after previous domestic abuse allegations surfaced against him.) The staff secretary keeps track of every piece of legislation the president has to sign, and so has his hands and eyes on all manner of highly privileged information. He was previously associate White House counsel under Bush.
4. Brett Kavanaugh was a lawyer during the 2000 Bush-Gore recount
He represented Bush.
5. He was on Kenneth Starr's team investigating President Clinton
Dude got around. He was assigned to investigate Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster's suicide and ultimately helped write the Starr Report.
6. As a judge, he criticized investigation of a sitting president
In a 2009 issue of the "Minnesota Law Review," Kavanaugh wrote: "Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation — including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators — are time-consuming and distracting. Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the President's focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President."
7. Brett Kavanaugh made one ruling involving abortion
In the case of a 17-year-old immigrant who became pregnant and wanted to seek an abortion, Kavanaugh dissented from the majority and voted not to allow it. But he wasn't as hard-line as another judge who also voted against it. He will be pressed to give his opinion on preserving Roe v. Wade during Senate confirmation hearings.
8. He clerked for the man he has been nominated to replace
Kavanaugh served as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Today, Politico reported that Kennedy's partiality to Kavanaugh helped convince Trump to make the pick.
President Trump nominated appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court Monday night to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, ending a days-long guessing game that began the moment Kennedy announced his retirement and setting the stage for a grueling confirmation fight. The president praised what he called Kavanaugh's "impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law." Trump said, "There is no one in America more qualified for this position, and no one more deserving." Leonard Leo, an adviser to the president for judicial nominations, joined Fox News Radio's Guy Benson and Marie Harf to discuss why President Trump chose Kavanaugh. His thoughts on Kavanaugh: This president is probably the most engaged and intense and transparent on Supreme Court selection than I've ever seen in my professional life, and there's no question in my mind that he has been extraordinarily thorough and he's made an absolutely extraordinary pick. You know, this is something he cared about deeply because he ran on it during the presidential election and this propelled him to victory. So, he took this very very seriously, and Brett Kavanaugh is exactly what the president wanted. He's one of the most distinguished jurors in the country. (1:13) On the importance of D.C. Circuit court which Kavanaugh sits: Well, for the legal nerds the D.C. Circuit is called the second most powerful court in the country and that's because being in D.C. it has jurisdiction over some of the really important cases involving things like separation of powers and federalism and executive power and how far the administrative state can go in regulating people's lives. And of course D.C. itself has a rather crazy jurisdiction so at times you get things like the D.C. gun ban. So, there's a lot of really important cases that come through there and that gives a lot of judges on that court a lot of experience. (3:05) On Judge Kavanaugh's thoughts on women's health issues: Judge Kavanaugh like Justice Elena Kagan and Judge Ruth Ginsburg is not going to answer specific questions about where he stands on those issues It's important to remember when we talk about Roe v. Wade and abortion that this has been a boogie man or scare tactic going all the way back to Sandra O'Conner's nomination to the Supreme Court in 1981. Everybody thought that she was going to overturn Roe v. Wade and everybody thought that Anthony Kennedy was going to overturn Roe v. Wade. (5:22) On if President Trump is looking for someone to overturn Roe v. Wade: First of all remember, a lot of presidents run on these promises on both sides, but when you really get down to it you have to look at the process they put in place when they are president. And I can't speak to what he's said on the campaign trail, but I can tell you this is a process where the president doesn't get into it. We've never talked about it. (6:55) On Capitol Hill side of this: First, every president thinks about what the confirmation process is going to look like when they nominate someone. So, absolutely you're going to think about the Senators who are going to be most interested and concerned about a nominee. So that happens all the time and certainly this president was getting commentary from people about that and occasionally asking questions about it. (8:58) On timeline of confirmation: It's going to be a smaller document dump than people think and a relatively easy one I think to get through. (10:50) On if this is a victory lap for the Federalist Society: Well, it's far from over. We don't have a judiciary that is fully in accord with the idea of interpreting the text as its written and applying the original meaning. We're certainly much further along than we used to be. (12:54) Listen below:
President Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has set the stage for a bruising confirmation battle, as Senate Democrats and liberal groups vowed to resist what could be a dramatic and long-lasting rightward shift on the Supreme Court. Ron Bonjean, former congressional GOP staffer who worked on last year's high court confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined Fox News Radio's Guy Benson and Marie Harf to discuss the confirmation process of Supreme Court Justices. On what the next days and weeks look like: This has been a lot of fun to watch now the second time around. because I really feel like the rollout they did last night was flawlessly executed. I was really impressed with it. I was really impressed with the narrative they established of him of his judicial background as well as being a solid family man. I thought that was super helpful. The race is on to define who Judge Kavanaugh is. (1:22) On how hostile it gets in closed door meetings: You know, whats really interesting with this whole thing it's sort of a slow burn. right now Judge Kavanaugh will be meeting with top Republicans in order to get sort of just get friendly interviews and to also get him used to that flow of how this is gonna go and the next step will obviously be to meet with Democrats. And with Justice Gorsuch clearly he met with a lot of them, but I will say that with Kamala Harris it's pretty interesting because we had a tough time scheduling with several Democrats at first who kind of just didn't have the time to meet with us. (4:21) On if Democrats should delay this or get it over with: Voter intensity is strong with Republicans on this issue. It would be very wise for Democrats to get this out of the way as fast as they could make it. Make their points and get it out of way. The more they drag this out, it's gonna be hard for them to do, but the more this drags out the worse this gets. (7:00) On if he thinks this will easily have Republican support: I think that when Donald Trump narrowed it down to the four nominees and one of them was viewed more as a lightning rod, regarding her pro-life stance, so to speak, and the concerns by Senator Collins and Murkowski regarding the issue of Roe v. Wade and then the response we've seen all seen the video of Kavanaugh being interviewed for his Court of Appeals position by Chuck Shumer. I think all of that has helped with these moderate senators. It feels a lot less extreme than what they could of had. (8:38) Watch below:
(RNS) — President Trump has nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be his Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, setting the stage for a heated confirmation battle that will likely focus on his views regarding both law and religion.
(RNS) — President Trump has nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be his Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, setting the stage for a heated confirmation battle that will likely focus on his views regarding both law and religion.
Trump made the announcement from the White House on Monday evening (July 9) after keeping observers guessing for several days.
“Judge Kavanaugh has impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications, and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law,” Trump said, as Kavanaugh stood nearby with his wife and children. “He is a brilliant jurist with a clear and effective writing style universally regarded as one of the finest and sharpest legal minds of our time.”
President Trump greets Judge Brett Kavanaugh, his Supreme Court nominee, in the East Room of the White House on July 9, 2018, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)When Kavanaugh spoke soon after, he was quick to talk about his faith.
"I am part of the vibrant Catholic community in the D.C. area," Kavanaugh said, after mentioning his Jesuit high school. "The members of that community disagree on many things, but we are united by a commitment to serve."
Kavanaugh, who once clerked for Kennedy, has built a high-profile career tailor-made to please many stalwart conservatives: He helped author the Starr Report on then-President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, represented Cuban child Elian Gonzalez pro bono to keep him from returning to the island nation, and was a lawyer with the George W. Bush campaign during the Florida recount.
But since being appointed to the District Columbia Circuit of the Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh has also issued rulings that speak directly to hot-button issues among people of faith, such as abortion and religious liberty.
“He’s going to move the court to the right of the man who he clerked for,” said Micah Schwartzman, a University of Virginia School of Law professor who specializes in religion and the U.S. Constitution. He noted that the most lasting impact of Kavanaugh’s appointment may be how it reshuffles the calculus of the court, saying that confirming him will make it “more likely Chief Justice John Roberts will be the swing vote.”
Many have noted Kavanaugh's dissent in Garza v. Hargan, when the court allowed an undocumented teenager who had crossed the border from from Mexico into Texas as an unaccompanied minor to get an abortion while residing at a government-funded shelter. He argued the 2017 ruling was “ultimately based on a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand.”
In this June 1, 2006, file photo, from left to right, President Bush watches the swearing-in of Brett Kavanaugh as judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, far right, during a ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House, in Washington. Holding the Bible is Kavanaugh’s wife, Ashley Kavanaugh. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)Kavanaugh also wrote a lengthy dissent in another case when the court declined to take up a case brought by a group of priests who objected to the Obama administration’s rules regarding contraceptive coverage.