web analytics

The Equal Rule of Law……. but not for the Judge

By Patrick Van Roy On September 21st, 2018

Acts 25:16 Context

13And after certain days king Agrippa and Bernice came unto Caesarea to salute Festus. 14And when they had been there many days, Festus declared Paul’s cause unto the king, saying, There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix: 15About whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against him. 16To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him. 17Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth. 18Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed: 19But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.

This has now ventured deep into the very heart of the Law.  As shown in the verse above ALL People have the right to face their accuser. To know the accusations against them. Back to the days of the Romans this has been True.

But no longer.

Judge Kavanaugh is not awarded that basic human right. He must defend himself before he has been accused. Before he knows the true and full nature of the charges being brought against him by his accuser.  High officials our stating his Guilt even before one word has been spoken under oath against him. Guilty Until Proven Innocent.

Senator Gillibrand believes Judge Kavanaugh’s Guilty before ever hearing a single word from Ms. Ford and these are her reasons why:

“I don’t think he’s qualified because of his record on women’s issues, specifically. He doesn’t believe that women should have the ability to make decisions about their reproductive freedom. He believes that your boss should decide whether or not you have access to birth control. And if he has this history, then he is unfit for the court, and he doesn’t have the character or integrity.”

Gillibrand concluded by stating of Ford, “I believe her. Her story is credible. If you listen to everything about it, the fact that she told her therapist about it five years ago, a friend most recently, she told a reporter before Kavanaugh was even named to be a nominee. This is a woman who has endured trauma, and — as experts have said, this is what trauma looks like. These — it gets relived much later in time. A lot of — you don’t remember everything, you remember the most poignant moments.”

Christine Blasey Ford and her Attorney are DEMANDING that this is now the Standard of Law. Her and her team state that she will not testify unless Judge Kavanaugh testifies in his defense first.

Not only are you Presumed Guilty and must Prove your innocence, you must do so before you know the nature of the charges.

That is the Standard in a Totalitarian System of Law NOT our Constitutional System.

We must hear the accusers accusations under oath and hear the defendants defence under oath. Impartially judging each on their credibility. That is the basic standard of Law in all civilised nations back to the time of Rome.

However the Democrats NO LONGER believe a man is innocent in regards to sexual misconduct. He is automatically guilty. He must PROVE his innocence.   Why? Because he is an Old White Male and a Republican. A guilty evil predator no matter what his lifelong record shows.

If we have learned anything over the past 10yrs the Democrats support a 2 tier Justice System. One for them and a Lessor one for everyone else. These people are a cancer. If they are allowed to continue this abuse of Basic Human Rights the Republic is doomed.

124 Responses to “The Equal Rule of Law……. but not for the Judge”

  1. All of the Democratic tactics in this case are to try to delay confirmation of Kavanaugh.

    They got the idea from the guy who said the name of the game is delay, delay, delay.

  2. Kavanaugh is not on trial. The Senate can’t convict him on this subject. So your wailing about innocent until proven guilty is nonsense.

    The legal role of the Senate is to advice and consent. That they may feel that this accusation is enough to advice the President not to appoint Kavanaugh, and to not consent to his appointment, is entirely within their remit. It has nothing to do with legal principle.

  3. They are conducting a Trial. Just as they did with Clarence Thomas. The Rule of Law applies.

  4. When was he indicted?

  5. It isn’t a trial. It is a hearing. However, if one can cut through the extreme nonsense it is true that the Democrats are manipulating this for political reasons.

  6. The Republicans threw the hearing rule book in the bin in 2016. Anything the Democrats are doing is fair game.

  7. When they stopped the vote on his confirmation.

    The Senate Judicial Committee is holding a HEARING a hearing is a trial.

  8. So if he isn’t confirmed he goes to prison?

  9. Seamus, on September 21st, 2018 at 8:49 PM Said: Edit Comment
    The Republicans threw the hearing rule book in the bin in 2016. Anything the Democrats are doing is fair game.

    Pure sophistry…. the Republicans did NOTHING. They did not file charges against Garland and pronounce him guilty. That is what the Democrats have done here, and have done in the past with others.

  10. Seamus – no, it isn’t fair game. Republican actions don’t justify Democrat actions. Both are abandoning a duty to deliberate seriously.

  11. They refused to advice or consent on the President’s nomination. They abandoned their constitutional duties to advice and consent. So I have no problems with what the Democrats are doing.

  12. Patrick – you’ve got to understand the meaning of words. No one filed charges here.

  13. The precedent has been set Mahons. When the Senate confirms Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court then the equilibrium will be fair. Until then all’s fair.

  14. Seamus, on September 21st, 2018 at 8:51 PM Said: Edit Comment
    So if he isn’t confirmed he goes to prison?

    If they do not confirm him due to this charge he must be impeached and removed from the court he now sits on. If he is found NOT to be fit to sit on the Supreme Court he is not fit to sit on any court.

  15. The don’t have the power to do that. Only the House can impeach a sitting judge. So the Senate do not have the power to do what you are saying they are trying to do.

    So again if he isn’t confirmed he goes to prison? And if not how is he on trial? Has he been impeached by the House?

  16. I hope the pro-life nutter gets confirmed. When Roe v Wade is struck down (as it will be) all bets will be off.

  17. Seamus – the standard isn’t whether you personally don’t have a problem. The standard is whether on this occasion they are discharging their duty which includes rising above political title for tat.

  18. “Seamus – no, it isn’t fair game. Republican actions don’t justify Democrat actions. Both are abandoning a duty to deliberate seriously.”

    If the Democrats don’t stand up to the Republicans then they will find it very hard to appoint another Supreme Court judge. If the Republicans think it is OK to delay Garland for almost a year then the next time they get a chance they will think it is OK to delay for more than a year, or maybe 2 years or how about 4 years.

  19. Mahons, on September 21st, 2018 at 8:54 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Patrick – you’ve got to understand the meaning of words. No one filed charges here.

    He is being Tried and either found Guilty or Not Guilty….. A Charge has been made before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If found Guilty he will suffer loss of income and destruction of his reputation. The evidence is going to be weighed in a hearing.

    To say he is not on Trial is idiocy.

  20. How many times do I need to say this. Roe v Wade is not under threat (even though it should be). As I stated months ago:

    “Largely speaking in the past there has been 4 major groups on abortion decisions. The first group included Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia who held that Roe and Casey where wrong and should be reversed. The second group included the four liberal judges (RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan) who have pretty much held that any interference by the government in abortion is unconstitutional. The third is the group of Samuel Alito and John Roberts who have broadly held that Roe and Casey should stay as established precedent but have largely support virtually all abortion restrictions as long as they do not overturn Roe. The final group was Anthony Kennedy who largely, as in most areas, could not make up his mind and flailed about like a moron looking for a side to support.”

    “Where to put Gorsuch into that is harder to tell because most commentators feel he is somewhere between Thomas and Alito but even assuming he is with Thomas that would still be 7-2 against overturning Roe. Even appointing another Thomas/Scalia clone to the court to replace Kennedy would only make it 6-3. Roe, as a official decision, is broadly safe.”

    “Where abortion is going to be more impacted is in the other restrictions being place on it that don’t overturn Roe. Those decisions have in the past largely all been 5-4 decisions with RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan voting against the restrictions, Thomas, Scalia (and I’d imagine now Gorsuch), Alito and Roberts all voting in favour of them, and Kennedy making his decision I’d imagine on whether or not he’d had his breakfast that morning. Replacing Kennedy with a full blooded conservative like the other four would render all of those decisions 5-4 in favour of the restrictions. That means decisions like Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (which was declared unconstitutional in a 5-3 decision following the death of Antonin Scalia) would soon likely be rendered as constitutional.”

  21. “Seamus – the standard isn’t whether you personally don’t have a problem. The standard is whether on this occasion they are discharging their duty which includes rising above political title for tat.”

    Their duty is to advice and consent. They are refusing consent.

  22. “A Charge has been made before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If found Guilty he will suffer loss of income and destruction of his reputation.”

    Has he been impeached by the House? If not then a failed confirmation in front of the Senate will have no impact. Because he has not been impeached by the House.

  23. Delaying a nomination by the party in power is Legal. Charging a man of sexual assault and ignoring Legal Precedent is not.

  24. They haven’t charged him. They can’t charge him.

  25. Has he been impeached by the House? If not then a failed confirmation in front of the Senate will have no impact. Because he has not been impeached by the House.

    If he is denied his seat on the court for Sexual Assault he will be impeached. Maxine Waters has already said she will bring the charges against him for impeachment from the lower court.

    That is the seriousness of this case.

  26. If he hasn’t been charged Seamus why are the having a hearing?

  27. How many times do I need to say this. Roe v Wade is not under threat

    So the Evangelicals have been sold a pup? They voted for the pussy-grabber to get an anti Roe v Wade SCOTUS and that is what they will get as soon as Kavanaugh is confirmed. But be sure that Trump has at least one pro-life substitute ready to rush through confirmation before the elections next month, just in case Kavanaugh has to be ditched.

    Either way Roe v Wade is toast.

  28. “If he hasn’t been charged Seamus why are the having a hearing?”

    To decide whether or not to withold consent for his appointment to the Supreme Court.

  29. Patrick – you are having one of those days in which you are sticking to an claim that even you know is patently false. He isn’t on trial. He has not been charged with anything. He won’t be found in this hearing to have criminal liabikity. You can keep repeating it is a trial if you want, but that doesn’t make it so.

  30. “If he is denied his seat on the court for Sexual Assault he will be impeached. Maxine Waters has already said she will bring the charges against him for impeachment from the lower court.”

    Which is the proper channels for doing so. Impeachment by the House, conviction by the Senate (with a two thirds majority). So this hearing would need to uncover something pretty drastic to overturn a Republican majority in the House, and get 66 Senators to vote for conviction.

  31. Few – Democrats can stand up to Republicans without trying to manipulate a dubious allegation for political purposes.

  32. “Either way Roe v Wade is toast.”

    So they have magically conviced John Roberts and Samuel Alito to change their long standing views on the subject?

  33. Seamus

    As your final paragraph at 8.59 makes clear, any further restrictions on Roe v Wade will have a good chance of passing. It might not be formally struck down but it will survive in name only. Already it is difficult in practice for a woman to exercise her choice in most of the Confederate states as GOP restrictions (including significant funding cuts) have been applied over the years at the behest of the true believers.

  34. “Already it is difficult in practice for a woman to exercise her choice in most of the Confederate states as GOP restrictions”

    Maybe they should vote for pro-choice candidates then. The whole democracy bit.

  35. “Few – Democrats can stand up to Republicans without trying to manipulate a dubious allegation for political purposes.”

    How?

    The Reps have shown they they are willing to deny a Democratic President a Supreme Court nomination no matter who he nominates. I hope they somehow can delay this until the next Senate is seated (probably won’t happen) with a Democratic majority (may not happen).

    Then they refuse to consider any Trump nomination (unless he is called Merrick Garland)

    I realize my wishes almost certainly won’t come true but if they don’t fight back with whatever tactics they can then they will get screwed even more the next time the Reps get a chance.

    An example of how they treat the Democrats when they get the chance; in North Carolina after a Dem won the governor election the Reps used the lame duck session to remove many powers from the governor.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/12/17/nc-gop-strips-some-democratic-governors-power/95555182/

  36. A Hearing by a Committee of Congress is a Legal Hearing. It is a Trial before Congress and has Penalties governed by Law.

    The accuser is insisting that her charges be investigated by the FBI, now the Charges should be investigated by the Md local Authorities. There are no statute of limitations in Md of this type of CRIME. Her attorney is arguing the CHARGES should be investigated by the FBI and not the local.

    For a dispute to be investigated by any criminal investigation a charge has to be made.

    There is no Federal Law violation here, but there is a State one.

    If the FBI investigates the CHARGE and finds there is no evidence the accuser can not be charged with making a false accusation. If the CHARGE is investigated by the State and is found to be false the accuser is charged with making a false accusation.

    This CHARGE according to everyone is NOT political it is Criminal Charge.

    You do not understand how this works. She is laying a criminal charge by their own words against him. Sexual Assault. She is laying those charges against him before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    When Congress holds a Hearing it is a LEGAL hearing. You can even be found in contempt of it, because the hearings carry the weight of Law. Since they carry the weight of Law legal rules apply.

    The Accuser MUST go first because that is part of the basic legal rules and procedures of our system.

  37. I don’t think a Judge’s view on Roe v Wade is standing alone grounds to confirm or not confirm. But clearly many do. And they are letting their opinion of that effect their opinion on the Ford accusation and how it should be treated.

  38. “A Hearing by a Committee of Congress is a Legal Hearing. It is a Trial before Congress and has Penalties governed by Law.”

    Such as? What penalities can be imposed by the Senate (alone without a House impeachment)?

  39. It’s not a trial.

  40. Patrick – there is no penalty based on the hearing. They will vote to confirm or not confirm. They will not reach a verdict as to guilt or innocence. I agree that the accuser should testify first.

  41. Lying under Oath, Contempt of Congress and a multitude of others.

  42. Phantom, on September 21st, 2018 at 9:31 PM Said: Edit Comment
    It’s not a trial.

    Then why are they to be sworn in Under Oath?

  43. wasted thread, hysteria in fact, its a hearing
    Kavanagh gets to go first,
    perhaps one of the morals of this sorry take is
    we still blame women for the sins of men

  44. “Lying under Oath, Contempt of Congress and a multitude of others.”

    Which is true of any appearance before Congress. So are all confirmation hearings now criminal trials? Because perjury and contempt of Congress still apply. Are all investigations by Congress now criminal trials? Because perjury and contempt of Congress still apply.

  45. Mahons, on September 21st, 2018 at 9:32 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Patrick – there is no penalty based on the hearing.

    Denial of a job, Destruction of reputation, followed by Impeachment….. Those are damn harsh penalties.

  46. See if you testify before Congress, like recently Mark Zuckerberg did, you testify under oath. This isn’t new.

    Christ learn your own system of government.

  47. Because at hearings people testify under Oath. Sworn statements do not make a trial. This isn’t complicated.

  48. I was under oath once when I was interviewed for a civil deposition. Was I on trial?

    A witness who testifies at a criminal or civil trial is placed under oath. Are those witnesses on trial?

    Trials determine innocence or guilt. That’s not what happens at a confirmation hearing.

  49. “Denial of a job”

    Isn’t a penalty.

    Was Garland subject to a criminal sanction? He was denied a job.

    “Destruction of reputation”

    Isn’t a penalty … and can’t be imposed by the Senate. People are going to believe what they want to believe.

    “Impeachment”

    Can’t be imposed by the Senate.

  50. Seamus, on September 21st, 2018 at 9:36 PM Said: Edit Comment
    “Lying under Oath, Contempt of Congress and a multitude of others.”

    Which is true of any appearance before Congress. So are all confirmation hearings now criminal trials? Because perjury and contempt of Congress still apply. Are all investigations by Congress now criminal trials? Because perjury and contempt of Congress still apply.

    He is being charged with Sexual Assault. That makes this a criminal case it is a criminal charge.

    Not all Congressional Hearings are Criminal Hearings, but all Congressional Hearings carry the weight of Criminal Law when conducted Under Oath.

  51. He has not been charged by any prosecutor with anything and this is not any criminal case

    You are going to the dark side of Pluto making this stuff up as you go along.

  52. “He is being charged with Sexual Assault”

    No he hasn’t. Stuff making shit up. He has been accused of sexual assault. Not charged.

    “Not all Congressional Hearings are Criminal Hearings, but all Congressional Hearings carry the weight of Criminal Law when conducted Under Oath.”

    Only hearings considering articles of impeachment are criminal hearings. The House haven’t impeached him. By definition this isn’t a criminal hearing.

  53. *should read ‘Stop’ making shit up.

    Bring back the edit button.

  54. Was Garland subject to a criminal sanction? He was denied a job.

    No he wasn’t Congress denied Obama the ability to proceed with his nomination. The political Action was against Obama. Not Garland. Garland was denied NOTHING. Obama was.

  55. Garland was nominated. He was then denied a job (so by your wreckoning a criminal charge).

  56. Seamus, on September 21st, 2018 at 9:42 PM Said: Edit Comment
    “He is being charged with Sexual Assault”

    No he hasn’t. Stuff making shit up. He has been accused of sexual assault. Not charged.

    If they are being put UNDER OATH which they are it is a charge.

  57. He is not guaranteed the nomination, reputation is not something Congress controls, and one can not be impeached because they are not confirmed.

  58. Seamus, on September 21st, 2018 at 9:45 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Garland was nominated. He was then denied a job (so by your wreckoning a criminal charge).

    you don’t know the rules of our system. Garland was denied nothing. He doesn’t even play into his own nomination. The Republican blocked Obama NOT Garland.

  59. “If they are being put UNDER OATH which they are it is a charge.”

    No it isn’t you crazy moron. When you testity before Congress, on any matter, you swear an oath. Any hearing. Any investigation. When Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress a few months ago he was swarn in. What was he or anyone else charged with?

  60. Police issues speeding tickets under oath. People constantly testify to Congress under Oath. It is not a charge. You either know this and are arguing in spite of knowing this or are too stupid to understand.

  61. “you don’t know the rules of our system.”

    Well spot the pot calling the kettle a nigger.

  62. “Garland was denied nothing. He doesn’t even play into his own nomination. The Republican blocked Obama NOT Garland.”

    Obama was not nominated. Garland was. By your idea then Kavanaugh is not being denied anything either. Trump is being denied it.

  63. The president takes an oath when he is sworn in.

    Were all the presidents placed on trial

  64. He is not guaranteed the nomination

    Kavenaugh’s Nomination was accepted by the Senate he IS the nominee. Garlands Nomination was never accepted by the Senate. The Senate BLOCKED Obama from nominating they did not disqualify his Choice, they prevented him from actually making his choice an Official Nominee.

  65. Patrick – I think folks notice here that when you write something incorrect and are corrected you tend to double down, triple down and quadruple down until the absurdity totally undermines the point you wanted to make in the first place. So instead of arguing about obvious Democratic manipulation here you are burying yourself in a hole.

  66. Phantom, on September 21st, 2018 at 9:50 PM Said: Edit Comment
    The president takes an oath when he is sworn in.

    Were all the presidents placed on trial

    Obama should be…… he violated his oath of office.

  67. now who told you a thing like that

  68. Kavanaugh’s nomination was not accepted by the Senate. They don’t accept nominations. That isn’t their role. So the Senate have no ability to accept or not accept the President’s nomination.

    They have the ability to consent or not consent.

  69. Mahons nothing I’ve written is incorrect.

  70. “Mahons nothing I’ve written is incorrect.”

    Which ironically is also incorrect.

  71. Someone else wrote these error riddled comments?

    That must be it

  72. Wrong Seamus.

    The Nominee is accepted and then the process of Advise and Consent begins. A Nominee has to be accepted before the Nominee can meet with the Senators.

    In Kavanaugh’s case that happened, in Garlands it didn’t.

  73. Few – sorry to return to your comment but Obama had two successful nominees to the Court in Sotomayor and Kagen. Republicans did the country a diservice by not considering his third, but their power play on that occasion doesn’t justify the Democrats tactics this time.

  74. Patrick – Seamus beat me to the ironic observation.

  75. Where in the Constitution does it state thate before advicing and consenting that the Senate most accept the nomination?

    Nowhere.

    The Senate can’t accept or not accept the nomination. The nomination is entirely the purview of the President. What the Senate (led by the Majority Leader who refused to schedule a vote) did was refuse to consent to the nomination.

  76. “he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States”

    He nominates. They advice and consent. So the nomination becomes active when the President nominates.

  77. He’s making this up, the author of his own personal constitution, which changes every week

  78. As someone who openly admits to knowing nothing about the nomination of Judges in the united States, I can easily only imagine how Troll feels…

  79. In 2002 the Sesame Street character Elmo testified before the House Education and Appropriations Subcommittee. I imagine he was on trial and faced the penalty of going to prison if he committed perjury. Course for a guy who had been fisted his whole life, would prison really be a threat?

  80. Others who Patrick would say we’re on trial would include Frank Zappa, John Denver, Ayn Rand, Charlton Heston, Jewel, Bono, Michael J Fox and Metallica…all of whom testified before Congress.

  81. You forgot my buddies, Casey Stengel and Mickey Mantle who spoke with great eloquence

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trGISziFv7E

  82. Gentleman……

    When you raise your Right hand and say “I swear to the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth” you are affirming that you are now under penalty of criminal Law.

    Why do you think it is always stated when someone is appearing before Congress whether it is or is not “Under Oath”.

    These two are both going to be sworn in. That makes this a Trial with Criminal Penalties.

    Now you can live in your fantasy land, but the Law doesn’t. They are being sworn in and put under Penalty of Law. When under Penalty of the Law the rules of Jurisprudence and Legal Procedure apply.

    The accuser MUST testify first…. or they are operating under a New version of Law that applies law based on Sex and Party which is what this Post is about.

    2 sets of Laws on for the Democrats and one for everyone else.

    Denying this is a trial is Laughable once it has been declared that they will take the Oath.

  83. Seamus, on September 21st, 2018 at 10:00 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Where in the Constitution does it state thate before advicing and consenting that the Senate most accept the nomination?

    Nowhere.

    The Senate can’t accept or not accept the nomination. The nomination is entirely the purview of the President. What the Senate (led by the Majority Leader who refused to schedule a vote) did was refuse to consent to the nomination.

    It’s not in the constitution it is in the rules….. The rules of Congress the rules regarding appointments. The only way a President can get around these rules is through recess appointments.

    You people do not understand what you are talking about.

  84. calm down Pat, its a process, and it is fair, the senate leaders have agreed to it
    if anything mrs Ford is not getting 1/2 of what she asked for , so i think zip it a lil man

    phantom point of order i got some real estate on the dark side of pluto
    hoping for a weekend break when we master warp speed , shall we open a bar 😉

  85. phantom, you’ll love this
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/21/rod-rosenstein-trump-25th-amendment-report

    imagine being the POTUS and you find out your team is secretly discussing
    is the president stark raving bonkers .. ?

  86. Pat it’s exactly the opposite kavanaugh is being shielded
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/21/mark-judge-testify-brett-kavanaugh-witness-subpoena

  87. Jude Mark Judge isn’t being subpoenaed for 2 reasons.

    1) The accuser can’t find anyone at the time of the incident to corroborate her story and the dems say it’s not fair for him to have a witness and not her

    2) and the main reason his story corroborates Kavenaugh’s

  88. and Rosenstein by wanting to where a wire to show the disarray in the Trump white house and push a 25th amendment case shows that like his signing off of the 4th FISA renewal using phony evidence that it was all politically motivated…. it’s corroborating evidence of bias political motivation Jude it hurts their case not helps it.

  89. Or maybe he realized that the president was a delusional crackhead, In addition to the other things

    It might be unkind to say, but it’s true

  90. Kavanaugh’s mother was a district Judge in Maryland and in one of her cases she ruled against Ford’s (the ‘victim’) parents in a property dispute – in 1996. Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz says that people who work for Trump are “miscreants”

    https://www.oann.com/watch-kavanaugh-accuser-may-have-hidden-agenda-with-supreme-court-nominee/

    kaiju • 4 days ago

    Well Duh. Do you think she might have an agenda? College professor, Democrat donor, pro-choice, and liberal activist throwing out unprovable accusations at the last minute, might have an agenda? Well she just might.
    Waiting for the next accuser to magically show up now. Don’t expect the next one to remember what happened or where either.

    Kavanaugh is clearly a moderate so Trump should be warming up somebody who isn’t.

  91. There was no ruling in the case in 1996, Allan. Both sides settled. The bank accepted a remortgaging of the house and Ford’s parents still live in the house to this very day.

    “You people do not understand what you are talking about.”

    And again the pot calls the kettle…

    A nominee is nominated by the President. That is the start, middle and end of the matter. The nomination is active as soon as the President nominates him.

    “The only way a President can get around these rules is through recess appointments.”

    No. The only way the President can appoint someone without the advice and consent of the Senate is via recess appointments. Notice the name. Recess appointments. Not recess nominations.

  92. and a recess appointment is a temporary appointment they are still subject to the confirmation process.

    You people keep trying to relate the Garland procedural block to this personal attack on Kavanaugh the two are totally different things Seamus.

  93. They aren’t. They are an attempt by the opposition in the Senate to frustrate the appointment of the President’s nominee. They are pretty much identical.

  94. A nominee is nominated by the President. That is the start, middle and end of the matter. The nomination is active as soon as the President nominates him.

    Then why didn’t Garland get hearings…..

  95. A blocking of the Nomination is NOT the same as labeling the nominee as a sexual predator.

  96. Because the Senate refused to hold them. Garland was nominated. The Senate refused to consent to his appointment.

    Kavanaugh has been nominated. The Senate will refuse to consent to his appointment until they are satisfied that his conduct merits appointment.

    The Senate have no say over nominations. They have say over appointments.

  97. “A blocking of the Nomination is NOT the same as labeling the nominee as a sexual predator.”

    The Senate have no power to label Kavanaugh as a sexual predator. All they are doing is delaying his nomination and holding hearings to determine if they will consent to his appointment.

    It will be others who choose to label Kavanaugh.

  98. No the Democrats have labelled him a sexual predator. The have personally attacked the nominee.

    The Senate have no say over nominations. They have say over appointments.

    that’s nothing but word play.

  99. “that’s nothing but word play.”

    It isn’t. It is a necessary distinction. The Senate have no role in nominations. It is a power reserved solely for the President. The Senate have a role in the comfirmation and appointment of those nominees but have no say in nomination.

    So the Senate did not block Merrick Garland’s nomination. They have no power to do so. Merrick Garland was nominated to the Supreme Court. What the Senate did was block his confirmation by withholding consent for his appointment.

    “No the Democrats have labelled him a sexual predator. The have personally attacked the nominee.”

    So? Parties can do what they wish. What is the issue is what the Senate can do. And the Senate can’t label him a predator. They can block his appointment.

  100. Sen Feinstein waited 6 weeks to release an accusation that she sat on until the confirmation hearings were over.

    She had an obligation to notify the chairman of the committee about the letter, she had an obligation to follow procedure of the hearings.

    Instead she purposefully waited till the hearings were over, and then released information calling him a sexual predator. That is the democrats practicing the politics of personal destruction.

    Garland was never attacked. Obama was blocked from getting his pick a hearing.

    One is procedural one is the destruction of a persons life.

  101. The woman has until 2:30 EST today to respond if she is going to testify or not.

  102. “One is procedural one is the destruction of a persons life.”

    Except his life has not been destroyed. Likely speaking, unless there is a smoking gun, not only will his life not be destroyed but very likely Kavanaugh will be appointed the Supreme Court.

    The Republicans threw the rule book in the bin in 2016. And you cheered them on.

    Stop being a bitch when the other side decide they want to play dirty too.

  103. no the Republicans USED the rule book and even if confirmed this taint will stay with him and his family forever.

    Ask Clarence Thomas.

  104. The taint will stay because there is doubt. There isn’t evidence one way or the other. The taint is there for Clarence Thomas because some people believe he harrased Anita Hill. And for what it is worth I find her account more credible than Christine Blasey Ford’s account.

    Ford made her accusation. Regardless of whether Senate Democrats used that politically (which they have) there was always going to be a huge group of people who will believe her. So it isn’t the Democrats fault that taint is there. It is the accusation, not the political opportunism of the Democrats, that will taint Kavanaugh.

  105. It’s the democrats fault in how it was handled.

    It has just been announced she will testify which she should.

    I hope her testimony causes Flake or Collins to flip and vote no destroying his chances and then Trump can take the list of Judges and pick the most radically conservative constitutionalist on it and as soon as Congress takes a break put her on the Court as a recess appointment.

  106. wait she still hasn’t said she will testify….. just another stall tactic

    WH official tells Fox:
    This is an ask to continue “negotiations” without committing to anything. It’s a clever way to push off the vote Monday without committing to appear Wednesday.

  107. Brett Kavanaugh: Judge accuser agrees to testify next week

  108. Senate Democrats been forcing pro forma sessions during recesses thus preventing Trump from making recess appointments Patrick.

  109. Two can play games

  110. As of now they don’t control the House or Senate those pro forma sessions can be ignored. Obama ignored them.

  111. And the Supreme Court told him he couldn’t ignore them and in a 9-0 decision vetoed his appointments.

  112. One big difference Seamus.

    The Republicans controlled the congress, they still do. The Democrats can hold all the proforma or any kind of meetings the want. They don’t decide when Congress is in Session. The Party in control does.

  113. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) says if Democrats win this November that they will launch investigations into Brett Kavanaugh even if he has already been confirmed to the Supreme Court.

  114. “The Democrats can hold all the proforma or any kind of meetings the want. They don’t decide when Congress is in Session. The Party in control does.”

    And they have promised to filibuster anything that moves if the Republicans don’t agree to pro forma sessions. Which is why the Republicans have always agreed to them. They agreed to them very recently (Trump was going to fire Sessions and make a recess appointment to replace him – the Senate never recessed).

  115. “Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) says if Democrats win this November that they will launch investigations into Brett Kavanaugh even if he has already been confirmed to the Supreme Court.”

    Ultimately it is the role of Congress to investigate federal officers.

  116. Here is a good take on the Kavanaugh situation:

    “I have known Brett Kavanaugh for a long time—in many different contexts. I am fond of him personally. I think the world of him intellectually. I don’t believe he lied in his Senate testimony. I don’t believe he’s itching to get on the Supreme Court to protect Donald Trump from Robert Mueller. I’m much less afraid of conservative judges than are many of my liberal friends. As recently as a few days ago, I was cheerfully vouching for Kavanaugh’s character.

    That said, the allegation against him is, at least so far as one can tell from the press reports, credible, and it deserves to be taken seriously.

    If Kavanaugh were to ask my advice today—and to be clear, he hasn’t done so—I would tell him he almost certainly should have his nomination withdrawn. The circumstances in which he should fight this out are, in my view, extremely limited. I would advise him against letting Senate Republicans ram his nomination through in a fashion that will forever attach an asterisk to his service on the Supreme Court. Assuming she is not impugning him maliciously, Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, deserves better than that. The Court deserves better than that. And Kavanaugh himself, if he is telling the truth about his conduct in high school, deserves better than to be confirmed under circumstances which tens of millions of people will regard, with good reason, as tainted…”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation/571021/

  117. its not just the scandal of the women who alleges misconduct, its the fact that 90% of the documents the senate hearing asked for have not been forthcoming.
    all Kavanagh’s time at the Bush Whitehouse is concealed, its the worst ever .
    In the light of that my man for VP Sheldon Whitehouse wants to open an investigation

  118. its not just the scandal of the women who alleges misconduct, its the fact that 90% of the documents the senate hearing asked for have not been forthcoming.
    all Kavanagh’s time at the Bush Whitehouse is concealed, its the worst ever .
    In the light of that my man for VP Sheldon Whitehouse wants to open an investigation

    They had 307 cases to review of his work as a Judge. More than any other nominee in history. His time in the Bush administration was that as a counsel he presented not just his thoughts, but was the conduit for others. The job also required playing devils advocate.

    No presidential advisor in the role he plaid has ever been turned over due to the fact that no one Republican or Democrat would ever then take the job again.

  119. Peter the person you quote…..Benjamin Wittes yeah a good independent nonbiased source.

    In a post on Lawfare on January 28, 2017 reacting to Executive Order 13769, Wittes characterized the Trump administration as “malevolence tempered by incompetence.”[6] This description received widespread attention and re-use,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] including its being featured in a New York Times op-ed by Paul Krugman.[14]

  120. Executive Order 13769, also called Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, is an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017.

    so your reasonable guy thinks preventing terrorists from entering the country is “malevolence tempered by incompetence.”

  121. Except the fact that EO 13769 did much more than prevent terrorists from getting into the United States. And the Supreme Court pretty much stated had EO 13769 stayed in effect (it was revoked by Trump and replaced with a pared down version) they would have found it unconstitutional.

    But it was called ‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States’. I guess you support Obamacare now? Because who would be opposed to affordable care. It was the Affordable Care Act after all.

  122. Apparently Brett Kavanaugh has had a second accusation levied against him. This one sounds less serious (the first describes a sexual assault or attempted sexual assault). This one sounds like a drunken eejit being a drunken eejit.

    Apparently Kavanaugh thrust his genitals in her face at a drunken party during their freshman year in 1983.

  123. That is not apparent

    A woman Has made the allegation, the truth is not knowable at this time

  124. oh bull this is the bimbo eruption squad in reverse.

    When Bill Clinton ran for President Hillary ran the bimbo eruption squad to destroy any woman he diddled willing to say anything.

    Now they are looking to enrich any bimbo they can get that willing to say anything.

    The porn lawyer says he has a third one now.

    So a man that has a 35yr record of not a single complaint all of a sudden after 6 FBI investigations and not a single woman ever complaining all of a sudden he’s Bill Clinton Jr.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.