Senate Judiciary announces Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing

[Common Sense 1]

Try as they may the democrats could not stop the Kavanaugh nomination hearings. Should be lots of drama and fireworks
from the democrats trying to slow down/stop this process.

Senate Judiciary announces Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/401315-senate-judiciary-announces-kavanaughs-confirmation-hearing

The Senate Judiciary Committee announced on Friday that it will hold its confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh early next month.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee's chairman, announced the hearing for President Trump’s nominee to replace former Justice Anthony Kennedy will start on Sept. 4 and last three to four days.

“He’s a mainstream judge. He has a record of judicial independence and applying the law as it is written. ... It’s time for the American people to hear directly from Judge Kavanaugh at his public hearing,” Grassley said in a statement.

Republicans want Kavanaugh on the bench as early as the first of October, before the court starts its next term. They’ve warned that they won’t delay a final vote until after the midterm elections in November.

Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican, indicated on Friday that the timeline for Kavanaugh's hearing will allow the Senate to vote on his nomination next month as well.

“I look forward to what will be a thorough and open vetting process by the Committee between now and September, followed by a vote to confirm him before October 1," he said.

 

[Moot]

I question whether a president who under federal investigation for obstruction of justice should be allowed to appoint a judge that may be ruling on his case.

 

[Mach]

Republicans blocked all those documents from his work with government...and now they are rushing this through.

**** Republicans.

Apparently the big baby Democrats need serious help. For anyone with extra time, I suppose we should go help out.

 

[Crovax]

I question whether a president who under federal investigation for obstruction of justice should be allowed to appoint a judge that may be ruling on his case.

Thats why the senate gets to confirm or deny that appointment

 

[Moot]

Thats why the senate gets to confirm or deny that appointment

Perhaps I should've said "nominate".

 

[PLizzy]

If and when Kavanaugh is confirmed it will be the responsibility of Democrats to orchestrate political strike-back against the GOP, once they regain majority control of the Congress and WH.

One of the options has to be an expansion of the court.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I question whether a president who under federal investigation for obstruction of justice should be allowed to appoint a judge that may be ruling on his case.

You can question all you want, it has no effect on anything; nor does your "concern" have any Constitutional support.

The President has neither been charged with any crime, nor has he been removed from office. "Investigations" are simply that, looking into allegations which have yet to be proven.

As long as he remains in office he is the Chief Executive, and can exercise all his Constitutionally assigned powers as he sees fit.

Innuendo, suspicions, and witch-hunt high-jinks notwithstanding. :coffeepap:

 

[JMR]

You can question all you want, it has no effect on anything; nor does your "concern" have any Constitutional support.

The President has neither been charged with any crime, nor has he been removed from office. "Investigations" are simply that, looking into allegations which have yet to be proven.

As long as he remains in office he is the Chief Executive, and can exercise all his Constitutionally assigned powers as he sees fit.

Innuendo, suspicions, and witch-hunt high-jinks notwithstanding. :coffeepap:

I assume this means you fully supported Obama's right to the exercise of Constitutionally assigned powers. That Constitutionally assigned power was subverted by a misuse of Congressional power. If not, than you are a little short in the credibility department.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I assume this means you fully supported Obama's right to the exercise of Constitutionally assigned powers. That Constitutionally assigned power was subverted by a misuse of Congressional power. If not, than you are a little short in the credibility department.

If you are referring to the Senate's refusal to approve his SCOTUS pick, then you don't seem to understand the Constitutional division of powers.

The President can nominate whomever he sees fit. Which is what Mr. Obama did.

The nomination must be approved by the Senate, you know, that pesky "advise and consent" requirement? They don't have to even go through the motions of hearings. If a majority simply don't want to support the candidate, much less vote for him, they can do exactly what they did. If a majority do, they can suspend the rules and vote by acclamation. :shrug:

 

[JMR]

If you are referring to the Senate's refusal to approve his SCOTUS pick, then you don't seem to understand the Constitutional division of powers.

The President can nominate whomever he sees fit. The nomination must be approved by the Senate. They don't have to even go through the motions of hearings. If a majority simply don't want to support the candidate, much less vote for him, they can do exactly what they did. :shrug:

How very democratic.:roll: How very disrespectful of the sitting president. How disrespectful of the nominee, and the American people. Yet you somehow champion Trump's right to respect of his office, while defending that lack for Obama by elected officials, in a governing body long ruled by tradition.

 

[Mycroft]

How very democratic.:roll: How very disrespectful of the sitting president. How disrespectful of the nominee, and the American people. Yet you somehow champion Trump's right to respect of his office, while defending that lack for Obama by elected officials, in a governing body long ruled by tradition.

Both Trump and Obama have the right to nominate a supreme court justice. Both have exercised that right. The Senate has the right to confirm or deny that nominee...or just ignore that nominee. None of this indicates any disrespect towards anyone. It's just politics.

 

[Linc]

How very democratic.:roll: How very disrespectful of the sitting president. How disrespectful of the nominee, and the American people. Yet you somehow champion Trump's right to respect of his office, while defending that lack for Obama by elected officials, in a governing body long ruled by tradition.

25 more days is a very long time for Kavanaugh’s lies to be unearthed from the past — and to mention who is screening what America will see on Kav —

beginning with his blatant lies to Senate Judiciary to get on the Fed District Bench and now Court of Appeals in the first place — and the conflicts of interest where Kav failed to recuse himself —

Let the GOP make the mid-terms a referendum on an unqualified and completely crooked and bought off judge — just another GOP these days —

 

[humbolt]

How very democratic.:roll: How very disrespectful of the sitting president. How disrespectful of the nominee, and the American people. Yet you somehow champion Trump's right to respect of his office, while defending that lack for Obama by elected officials, in a governing body long ruled by tradition.

You might, in the midst of your indignation, remember that Obama promised very publicly to get around the GOP congress at every opportunity. He seemed to think that was pretty cool - that phone and pen schtick. Then that time came when he couldn't get around congress, shows up hat in hand, and they told him to stuff it. Seems fair to me.

 

[Kal'Stang]

If and when Kavanaugh is confirmed it will be the responsibility of Democrats to orchestrate political strike-back against the GOP, once they regain majority control of the Congress and WH.

One of the options has to be an expansion of the court.

That you would rather give paybacks to the GOP than do what is actually right for the country is down right disgusting. Like it or not if Kavanaugh is confirmed it will have been done completely legal. All you're advocating for is payback and a way to get your own way. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I know instead you'll be proud of yourself.

 

[JMR]

Both Trump and Obama have the right to nominate a supreme court justice. Both have exercised that right. The Senate has the right to confirm or deny that nominee...or just ignore that nominee. None of this indicates any disrespect towards anyone. It's just politics.

LOL. It's just politics cause you like it. Not providing a hearing to a nominee for Supreme Court Justice is a disgraceful abuse of power. The Senate has a right to vote the nominee down. To claim some misbegotten idea that it was too close to election day (February!!!) and that the People should decide (what about that Constitution?) and that therefore they were doing the right thing is fodder for the apologists

 

[Kal'Stang]

LOL. It's just politics cause you like it. Not providing a hearing to a nominee for Supreme Court Justice is a disgraceful abuse of power. The Senate has a right to vote the nominee down. To claim some misbegotten idea that it was too close to election day (February!!!) and that the People should decide (what about that Constitution?) and that therefore they were doing the right thing is fodder for the apologists

It's just a disgraceful abuse of power because you don't like it.

Sounds like politics to me.

 

[JMR]

You might, in the midst of your indignation, remember that Obama promised very publicly to get around the GOP congress at every opportunity. He seemed to think that was pretty cool - that phone and pen schtick. Then that time came when he couldn't get around congress, shows up hat in hand, and they told him to stuff it. Seems fair to me.

Really? I distinctly remember the GOP Congress stating that they would not work with Obama. Did you forget this?

“If Obama wanted it, we Republicans had to be against it,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “We are going to make him a one-term president.”

In 2010, the Republican/tea party took over Congress. The GOP insisted on more tax beaks for the wealthy. They fought all attempts to help the middle class. Besides trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act 50-plus times, these are some of the bills that have totally been blocked by the Republicans:

Veterans jobs bill

Wall Street reform

Immigration reform


Political ad disclosure

Small business jobs act

Unemployment extension bill

Tax on companies shipping jobs overseas

Healthcare for 9/11 first responders

Benefits for homeless veterans

Anti-rape amendment


Fair pay act

I'm not surprised you might have different recollections. That happens, especially when one attempts to justify practices that they like for themselves, but would deny others.

 

[JMR]

It's just a disgraceful abuse of power because you don't like it.

Sounds like politics to me.

I hope the democrats don't sink so low, but if they do in the coming years, I hope you remember your position on this.

 

[dcsports]

I question whether a president who under federal investigation for obstruction of justice should be allowed to appoint a judge that may be ruling on his case.

A hypothetical you are just pondering? Because it's not relevant to this nomination.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I hope the democrats don't sink so low, but if they do in the coming years, I hope you remember your position on this.

They've already sunk that low. We have democrats advocating expanding SCOTUS simply to make it more liberal and to get past the conservative judges, all based around the premise of payback against the GOP. Post #6 is a prime example of such.

 

[humbolt]

Really? I distinctly remember the GOP Congress stating that they would not work with Obama. Did you forget this?



I'm not surprised you might have different recollections. That happens, especially when one attempts to justify practices that they like for themselves, but would deny others.

Obama routinely expressed his contempt for the GOP congress. He offered no realistic opportunities for compromise, he damn well knew it, and used that as a spring board for further demonization of the congress. You'd do well to follow your own conclusion above. Obama got back exactly what he gave, and he earned it. Everything in politics comes at a price.

 

[JMR]

They've already sunk that low. We have democrats advocating expanding SCOTUS simply to make it more liberal and to get past the conservative judges, all based around the premise of payback against the GOP. Post #6 is a prime example of such.

Well see what happens when the system becomes "just politics?" Your side has been playing politics with the Supreme Court ever since Bork who WAS given a hearing and a vote despite having only 42 senators on his side (in the olden days, before a simple majority would do and 60 votes needed) despite the fact that years before he was the only person Nixon could find who was shameless enough to fire Cox. Hard to figure how Reagan couldn't find one more qualified candidate. It was just politics. So since it is all "just politics" why not make the court 15 justices? That would be totally Constitutional. Maybe when the GOP reclaims the Congress, your guys can make it 21. Some day there could be 113 Supreme Court justices. And what would the beginning of that sorry road look like? Oh yeah, we're on it right now...just politics.

 

[JMR]

Obama routinely expressed his contempt for the GOP congress. He offered no realistic opportunities for compromise, he damn well knew it, and used that as a spring board for further demonization of the congress. You'd do well to follow your own conclusion above. Obama got back exactly what he gave, and he earned it. Everything in politics comes at a price.

Obviously you have your Obama bias firmly in place...What a demon he was! Bad for America! Make America Great Again.

 

[humbolt]

Obviously you have your Obama bias firmly in place...What a demon he was! Bad for America! Make America Great Again.

No, I didn't vote for or care for Obama. I'm a conservative. I'm also not enamored with Trump, but I'll support conservative policies he might propose. I am touched by the tears you shed for Obama. Touched.

 

[JMR]

No, I didn't vote for or care for Obama. I'm a conservative. I'm also not enamored with Trump, but I'll support conservative policies he might propose. I am touched by the tears you shed for Obama. Touched.

Geez, I'm surprised a conservative has the heart to be touched. I thought you gave that up when you grew out of being a liberal. As the saying goes.

Is building a trillion dollar wall a conservative policy? Is increasing the national debt a conservative policy? How about trading the environment for profit? I fail to see the attraction of actual conservatives to Trump.