Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

[Paratus]

So, theoretically, if Kavanaugh is found to have lied in his confirmation hearing would that be grounds for impeachment and removal? I'd think so.

I'm only asking since he just admitted to a close friendship with a lawyer at Kasowitz firm, which has had many cases before his circuit, that he previously didn't seem to remember even existed.

Speaking of lying have we covered this exchange between Patrick Leahy and Kavanaugh about Kavanaugh potential receiving emails stolen from Leahy?

Supposedly Kavanaugh was asked about it in a previous hearing and said he knew nothing, but Leahy now thinks otherwise.

https://splinternews.com/democratic-senator-grills-kavanaugh-about-receiving-all-1828864032

On the third day of Senate hearings for Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, appears to have dropped a bombshell on the proceedings, releasing what he claims is proof that Kavanaugh not only received stolen Democratic emails during his time working in the George W. Bush White House, but that he then went on to lie under oath about it.

 

[Maxima1]

So, theoretically, if Kavanaugh is found to have lied in his confirmation hearing would that be grounds for impeachment and removal? I'd think so.

I'm only asking since he just admitted to a close friendship with a lawyer at Kasowitz firm, which has had many cases before his circuit, that he previously didn't seem to remember even existed.

Yes, but pretty toothless with this partisanship. How could Democrats ever get 2/3rd majority to convict? The other side would only potentially go along if they have the presidency and Senate majority.

 

[K1052]

Speaking of lying have we covered this exchange between Patrick Leahy and Kavanaugh about Kavanaugh potential receiving emails stolen from Leahy?

Supposedly Kavanaugh was asked about it in a previous hearing and said he knew nothing, but Leahy now thinks otherwise.

https://splinternews.com/democratic-senator-grills-kavanaugh-about-receiving-all-1828864032

On the third day of Senate hearings for Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, appears to have dropped a bombshell on the proceedings, releasing what he claims is proof that Kavanaugh not only received stolen Democratic emails during his time working in the George W. Bush White House, but that he then went on to lie under oath about it.

Yes, there seems to be some indication that he has not been honest in (at least parts) of his testimony.

 

[K1052]

Yes, but pretty toothless with this partisanship. How could Democrats ever get 2/3rd majority to convict? The other side would only potentially go along if they have the presidency and Senate majority.

I don't disagree that conviction would be a longshot. Impeachment and trial however seems like a real possibility.

 

[ivwshane]

Harry Reid cracked the levee and Biden is on record asserting that an election year President should not appoint to SCOTUS. Politics is a Pandora’s box.

I already said it started under Reid. As to your biden comment, you are once again full of shit and regurgitating Republican talking points. You may welcome having your skull shit into by your team but don't try pawning it off on everyone else.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

 

[K1052]

If anybody thinks that McConnell would have kept the filibuster for appointments, after intentionally keeping open so many judge slots, I have beachfront Arizona land to sell you.

Also, what happened to blue slips? Oh right.

 

[Jhhnn]

I already said it started under Reid. As to your biden comment, you are once again full of shit and regurgitating Republican talking points. You may welcome having your skull shit into by your team but don't try pawning it off on everyone else.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

From your article-

Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.

The whole thing started back in 2005 when Frist threatened the nuclear option over appeals court nominees-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_debate_on_nuclear_option_(United_States_Senate)

Their utter obstructionism during the Obama years prompted Reid's action wrt lower courts & now they get to blame him for their own actions. It's perfect, huh?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

That's mealy mouthed as well. Asked for his own opinion on the matter, he expressed a non-opinion. Either he supports Roe or he doesn't & he wouldn't say. It's often referred to as weasel words.

Bullshit, it's known as "The Ginsburg Rule" Since she used it so often in her own hearings.
https://www.heritage.org/commentary/the-ginsburg-rule

"When Sen. Joseph Biden chaired confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, he established certain rules for questioning nominees -- rules that some of his fellow Democrats seem to have conveniently forgotten.

Ginsburg, while a smart lawyer, had been a radical activist. Her record as an ACLU litigator placed her far outside the mainstream of American law. She had argued for legalizing prostitution, against separate prisons for men and women, and had speculated that there could be a constitutional right to polygamy.

Some Republican senators wanted to know whether she still held such extreme views. On question after question, though, she refused to answer: The Biden rules stipulated that she had no obligation to answer questions about her personal views or on issues that might come before the Court. " ..............

 

[ivwshane]

From your article-



The whole thing started back in 2005 when Frist threatened the nuclear option over appeals court nominees-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_debate_on_nuclear_option_(United_States_Senate)

Their utter obstructionism during the Obama years prompted Reid's action wrt lower courts & now they get to blame him for their own actions. It's perfect, huh?

Its perfect because gullible idiots don't question it nor take the 30 seconds of time it takes to look it up and verify/debunk a claim.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

His answer was non-responsive. If he supported Roe he would have said so. Obviously he does not. Given that & the rest of what he's said he's clearly no advocate for women's rights at all.

Dipshit, you expect a nominee to the Supreme Court to be an "advocate for women's rights" ? and to make that declaration at the open hearing? lol

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So, theoretically, if Kavanaugh is found to have lied in his confirmation hearing would that be grounds for impeachment and removal? I'd think so.

I'm only asking since he just admitted to a close friendship with a lawyer at Kasowitz firm, which has had many cases before his circuit, that he previously didn't seem to remember even existed.

Did you watch? He asked Kammie for a name, she never provided it.

 

[Bitek]

Did you watch? He asked Kammie for a name, she never provided it.

It was her question. She's the Senator. She didn't need to clarify.
He's there to answer and not dance and dodge.

So much hiding information.

 

[Jhhnn]

Dipshit, you expect a nominee to the Supreme Court to be an "advocate for women's rights" ? and to make that declaration at the open hearing? lol

Ginsberg was & did so. She was confirmed 96-3.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Did you watch? He asked Kammie for a name, she never provided it.

Is he as stupid as you? He finally gave a no answer to the question instead of ducking it. Please don't respond because I give 0 shits for anything you have to say.

 

[umbrella39]

Imported Asshole still spreading bullshit and lies. Your kids need to take your flip phone and car keys gramps. You're a braindead smench....

 

[zinfamous]

Yep. I've been around a long time and have never heard that phrase used in a racist context. Never. But hey, by all means please make believe that it was...as this kind of 'race card' horseshit exemplifies just how completely insane you and many on the left have become.

Do you think that a president that is known to not be acting as president should be allowed to nominate a SCOTUS justice?

What a about a black man that is actually still president and known to be acting as president?

 

[Jhhnn]

The GOP threw the rules out the window. Don't need no steenking 60 votes. Then they have the chutzpah to complain about Dems breaking the rules in questioning the nominee they fully intend to ram right down Dems' throats by simple majority vote. They won't even wait until after the election to get 'er done, either. Thorough & honest examination of the nominee's previous writings are the last thing they want.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I already said it started under Reid. As to your biden comment, you are once again full of shit and regurgitating Republican talking points. You may welcome having your skull shit into by your team but don't try pawning it off on everyone else.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

Not pawning off anything. Biden made the case to take election year cycles into consideration for a SCOTUS nomination. There is no Constitutional basis or precedence in doing so, all the more curious that Biden would make the case for such a bizarre hypothetical.

The article you linked doesn’t give Biden a pass for suggesting it, it just provides the context behind his comments

Biden was wrong to suggest such a scenario. McConnell shamelessly cited it.

Pandora’s box.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not pawning off anything. Biden made the case to take election year cycles into consideration for a SCOTUS nomination. There is no Constitutional basis or precedence in doing so, all the more curious that Biden would make the case for such a bizarre hypothetical.

The article you linked doesn’t give Biden a pass for suggesting it, it just provides the context behind his comments

Biden was wrong to suggest such a scenario. McConnell shamelessly cited it.

Pandora’s box.

Bullshit. Biden offered that it shouldn't be a part of electioneering, that it's too important to be discussed in the heat of the campaign season. It never was a rule, anyway, merely a suggestion as to how to handle a situation that didn't occur until McConnell put the bone to Merrick Garland.

 

[ivwshane]

Not pawning off anything. Biden made the case to take election year cycles into consideration for a SCOTUS nomination. There is no Constitutional basis or precedence in doing so, all the more curious that Biden would make the case for such a bizarre hypothetical.

The article you linked doesn’t give Biden a pass for suggesting it, it just provides the context behind his comments

Biden was wrong to suggest such a scenario. McConnell shamelessly cited it.

Pandora’s box.

Even when linked for you and provided, not only the context, but what was actually said, you double down.


You are proof that you can't fix stupid.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Even when linked for you and provided, not only the context, but what was actually said, you double down.

You are proof that you can't fix stupid.

I don’t need to double down, the context and intent were quite clear. Just another inconvenient truth that breaks the narrative.

Bullshit. Biden offered that it shouldn't be a part of electioneering, that it's too important to be discussed in the heat of the campaign season. It never was a rule, anyway, merely a suggestion as to how to handle a situation that didn't occur until McConnell put the bone to Merrick Garland.

Just a suggestion. lol. Spin away.

 

[UberNeuman]

But, Biden!

lol.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So you think that people have a right to disrupt and break the law during a protest?

Do you think that they have a right to interfere with your rights?

civil disobedience:

"Civil disobedience, also called passive resistance, refusal to obey the demands or commands of a government or occupying power, without resorting to violence or active measures of opposition; its usual purpose is to force concessions from the government or occupying power. Civil disobedience has been a major tactic and philosophy of nationalist movements in Africa and India, in the American civil rights movement, and of labour, anti-war, and other social movements in many countries.

Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or nonexistent, feels obligated by a higher, extralegal principle to break some specific law. It is because acts associated with civil disobedience are considered crimes, however, and known by actor and public alike to be punishable, that such acts serve as a protest. By submitting to punishment, the civil disobedient hopes to set a moral example that will provoke the majority or the government into effecting meaningful political, social, or economic change. Under the imperative of setting a moral example, leaders of civil disobedience insist that the illegal actions be nonviolent."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/civil-disobedience

 

[Jhhnn]

I don’t need to double down, the context and intent were quite clear. Just another inconvenient truth that breaks the narrative.


Just a suggestion. lol. Spin away.

Mere fact. Biden wasn't even a member of the leadership, just one more Senator. He didn't have the power to do more than suggest.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/102nd_United_States_Congress

 

[Victorian Gray]

You are a dance instructor.

with two left feet.