Kavana(ugh)

[hodad]

The whole process of the Kavanaugh confirmation has shown just how morally bankrupt the GOP has become.  We could say "never mind" about the blatant and open hypocrisy of rushing his confirmation after blocking Garland for a year.  This sort of hypocrisy defines the modern GOP.  We could say "never mind" about the hypocrisy of hiding Kavanaugh's govt. record after demanding complete transparency of Obama's court nominees.  Again, hypocrisy of the least subtle and most shameless variety is what we've come to expect of the GOP. 

Now I guess we should only be mildly surprised that they don't mind that he's repeatedly lied under oath to the Senate.  I mean, really, he's going to rule in favor of corporations and against minorities and abortions--what's a little lie among friends.  And I guess it's only natural that they wouldn't care that he's complicit in crimes committed against other Senators (hackergate)--I mean, they were Democrats after all, and is a crime committed against a Democrat really a crime at all? 

But then there's this other matter of sexual assault.  What Ms. Ford is doing is not something you enter into lightly.  She's taken a polygraph, she has older evidence of her talking to others about the case.  There's a chance, however remote, that she's mistaken about the identity of the perpetrator, but I'd say it's pretty certain she was assaulted.  That's traumatic, and if Republicans were decent, they'd treat her with respect and consideration, and take her testimony seriously. 

Well, the GOP hoi polloi are busy sending her death threats.  That's certainly respectful.  Grassley refuses to allow the FBI to investigate--takes too much time, and they might actually find something.  And of course, the FBI is less kind to people who lie to them than GOP Senators are.  Fox News is calling her  a lunatic, pretty much straight out.  And various senators are working hard to cast doubt/throw shade on her and her story. 

In the real world, rumors are swirling of other incidents involving Kavanaugh.  There's at least one report that the incident was a subject of prep school gossip after it occurred.  And there's mounting evidence that Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker through high school and college--some of that evidence coming from his own mouth. 

If the GOP had even a shred of dignity left, they'd sh!tcan Kavanaugh's nomination, lick their wounds and move on.  But no.  There's truly nothing good, decent or honorable left to the Grand Old Party.  Pathetic.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Wow,, not much there worth responding to but this is an interesting example of team politics run amok.

The SCOTUS candidate was vetted multiple times by FBI for previous appointments and always passed.

The statute of limitations expired for the hypothetical crime accusation decades ago so there is no basis for criminal prosecution, even if there was solid evidence that seems to be sorely lacking and/or sketchy at best. 

The timing of this is hard to rationalize for any reason other than to delay the party line vote, where all the democrats have already declared that they won't vote for him.

An interesting difference between now and the similar Hill/Clarence Thomas hearing about sexual misconduct accusations, is the recent cultural shift driven by the #metoo movement. The modern accuser is likely to get a much kinder and gentler questioning session than Anita Hill did (might even hold it in closed session).

This senate confirmation hearing (that concluded Sept 7th) is not the appropriate venue to establish guilt or innocence surrounding a new accusation about a several decades old event.

The democrats have been throwing increasingly desperate strategies at delaying the Kavanaugh vote, this one is resonating with modern culture, but trying Kavanaugh in the court of public opinion, with a biased media is far from blind justice.

This could set interesting and dangerous legislative precedent for blocking future appointments. I have warned before we will see more of these sexual misconduct accusations targeting high profile business and public celebrities. Of course I could not anticipate something like this.

A number of things don't make sense but one obvious lesson, if you truly want to remain confidential, don't contact your legislator.

Both parties involved have been invited to testify on the subject. Kavanaugh has agreed to, so we'll see what they learn and where this goes. I suspect a "he said/she said" outcome might win the Democrats the delay they desperately want. 

JR

 

[hodad]

The statute of limitations expired for the hypothetical crime accusation decades ago so there is no basis for criminal prosecution, even if there was solid evidence that seems to be sorely lacking and/or sketchy at best. 
JR

Not in Maryland.  No statute of limitations.

 

[Gold]

The statute of limitations expired for the hypothetical crime accusation decades ago so there is no basis for criminal prosecution, even if there was solid evidence that seems to be sorely lacking and/or sketchy at best.

No one is talking about criminal prosecution. Straw man argument. This is about character.

The timing of this is hard to rationalize for any reason other than to delay the party line vote, where all the democrats have already declared that they won't vote for him.

The accuser asked not to go public first and when stuff started leaking she decided to go public. I don't doubt there is some aspect of the timing causing maximum damage.

This senate confirmation hearing (that concluded Sept 7th) is not the appropriate venue to establish guilt or innocence surrounding a new accusation about a several decades old event.

The democrats have been throwing increasingly desperate strategies at delaying the Kavanaugh vote, this one is resonating with modern culture, but trying Kavanaugh in the court of public opinion, with a biased media is far from blind justice.

Again a straw man argument. This is a job interview not a court.

This could set interesting and dangerous legislative precedent for blocking future appointments. I have warned before we will see more of these sexual misconduct accusations targeting high profile business and public celebrities. Of course I could not anticipate something like this.

Why dangerous? Supreme Court Justices should be Boy or Girl Scouts.

The reason he won't be confirmed, and he won't, is of course not all about this accusation. It's because he has no business being on the Supreme Court. He is too political. Ken Starr's right hand man on the Clinton impeachment, Lead counsel in Bush v Gore.

 

[hodad]

The timing of this is hard to rationalize for any reason other than to delay the party line vote, where all the democrats have already declared that they won't vote for him.

JR

So how is it that not releasing documents--or even  allowing them to be released--is not a partisan move to speed the nomination through with a minimum of scrutiny?  As noted, Republicans did not treat Obama's Supreme Court nominees that way.  They also hesitated not at all to delay Merrick Garland's hearing for ONE YEAR for partisan gain. 

Also, if this is not the appropriate venue for this issue to play out, then why are Republicans insisting that it NOT be the subject of an FBI investigation?  Wouldn't that be a more appropriate venue? 

 

[JohnRoberts]

Not in Maryland.  No statute of limitations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/can-allegation-against-kavanaugh-lead-to-criminal-charges/2018/09/18/1b5298ea-bb73-11e8-adb8-01125416c102_story.html?utm_term=.8808785ab6e6

COULD KAVANAUGH FACE STATE CHARGES?

The allegations Ford detailed to The Washington Post appear to be misdemeanors that would be beyond the statute of limitations under Maryland law, said Randolph Rice, a Baltimore-based attorney who specializes in sex crimes.

The allegations could be interpreted as second-degree assault and a fourth-degree sex offense, Rice said. But both charges are misdemeanors and would be far beyond the statute of limitations, which is typically one or three years, depending on the offense.

I guess different lawyers can have different opinions.

I doubt the Washington Post is very sympathetic to President Trump or his appointments.

=====

This statute of limitations is just a BTW in passing about criminality.  If he actually did this it would be deplorable, but it is unlikely we will ever know with certainty what happened.

This pattern of behavior does not seem consistent with the man today who is appointed to the Supreme Court.

@Gold... sadly politics has become political (more partisan as if that was even possible).

Interesting times.

JR

 

[dmp]

The reason he won't be confirmed, and he won't, is of course not all about this accusation. It's because he has no business being on the Supreme Court. He is too political. Ken Starr's right hand man on the Clinton impeachment, Lead counsel in Bush v Gore.

Agreed - he has no business being on the supreme court.
Kavanaugh: "what happens at Georgiatown prep, stays at georgetown prep"
There are a few confirmations of the account coming out from other classmates.

The more light this puts back on the Clarence Thomas hearing the better. He should have never been appointed.

 

[hodad]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/can-allegation-against-kavanaugh-lead-to-criminal-charges/2018/09/18/1b5298ea-bb73-11e8-adb8-01125416c102_story.html?utm_term=.8808785ab6e6


This pattern of behavior does not seem consistent with the man today who is appointed to the Supreme Court.


JR

I'll defer to the sex crimes lawyer as to what charges would likely be filed.  As to pattern of behavior:  seems very much to fit with who the man was when young, and not far from where he is now. 

There's pretty strong evidence he was knowingly complicit in hackergate (Leahy just gave us a taste.  I'm sure there's more in the 10s of thousands of documents the Rs are withholding).  And he lied to the Senate about it.  There's some evidence (also, much more being withheld by Rs) that he was very much involved in the Bush White House's rationalizations of the use of torture. 

He's a sleazy guy, and very much a political animal.  There's extensive evidence that he abused alcohol as a youth.  While certain Republicans will never be convinced, I think evidence against Kavanaugh will continue to mount.

 

[boji]

Not to kick a dead horse, but I was prompted to look up limitation statutes, and found the language mushy and overridable  by things like 'seriousness'.    :

 

[living sounds]

At this point it doesn't matter any more. Republicans desperately need to make this go away. It's a loose-loose situation for them and will cost them dearly in the midterms no matter what happens. The midterms already didn't look good for the GOP before, and now they also got a ruling that forces disclosure of big money donors. Pretty much a perfect storm for Democrats, it's really quite beautiful...

The only thing that can help Rupublicans now are the criminally unsafe voting machines, of which many demonstrably allow hacking that cannot even be noticed.

 

[hodad]

Oh, but it does matter.  Republicans (deservedly) are on the verge of becoming the party of the past.  They are incapable of holding control without engaging in extreme gerrymandering, voter suppression, and a reliance on an archaic electoral system. 
Trump lost the popular vote by 3 MILLION, and the D-to-R voter advantage in House races is even bigger than that.  With demographic changes, they will soon be relegated to near irrelevance. 
However, having that ultra-reliable hard-right ideologue on the Supreme Court gives them a glimmer of hope that their race will survive, and perhaps someday rise again to fight for their lofty ideals of racism, plutocracy and environmental recklessness. 

I'm old enough to remember when Republicans, despite their flaws, might have had a shred of decency.  Heck, even Nixon had enough common decency to resign.  Those days are long gone.  Today's Rs have left behind the "moral" part of moral relativism.  It's power & money at this point.  Morality is for Democrats and chumps.

 

[Jarno]

What I do not understand is why on earth would a political party be so keen on interfering with the justice system, why not stick to the legislative end?
God knows a lot is needed to govern a country, stick to that and do not misuse the justice system for political purposes.

To me the ONLY reason why someone would reach across the boundaries given by the separation of powers, is alternative motives, not good governance. And, as an outsider, it is appalling to see that so many people accept this from their chosen representatives, in the name of "toe the party line". The republicans have alternatives motives but stick together, and the democrats are grasping at straws and have no singular story. I do hope the general public finally realizes something needs changing, but I will not hold my breath.

 

[hodad]

Well, consider this:  there are people who voted for Trump, an admitted serial sexual assaulter, because they wanted a Republican to appoint a replacement to Scalia's seat.  They would put an avowed criminal, a man who talked openly about making unwanted sexual advances on women, in the White House because they are that obsessed with the Supreme Court. 
The current rush to get Kavanaugh appointed is due to the US political situation as well--elections are coming and Rs are afraid of the power they're about to lose.  And Trump wants a judge on the Supreme Court who has said that a sitting President should not be tried for his crimes.  Kavanaugh has also shown himself to be a reliable party stooge, almost certain never to abandon his extreme right wing principles. 

And because they have surrendered themselves completely to amorality and hypocrisy, Rs who once had fits about the color of Obama's suit are now dismissing sexual asault as "not a crime" or "past the statute of limitations" or whichever excuse is handy at the time. 

 

[Jarno]

My point was, and the Democrats are doing this as well, why would the legislative power mess with  justice? Trias politica/ separation of powers is there for a reason, politicians go manage a country and make laws, leave it to other people to exercise them.
The whole "R" vs. "D" discussion is moot, and the sooner everybody realises this, the better off everyone will be.

 

[JohnRoberts]

What I do not understand is why on earth would a political party be so keen on interfering with the justice system, why not stick to the legislative end?
God knows a lot is needed to govern a country, stick to that and do not misuse the justice system for political purposes.

To me the ONLY reason why someone would reach across the boundaries given by the separation of powers, is alternative motives, not good governance. And, as an outsider, it is appalling to see that so many people accept this from their chosen representatives, in the name of "toe the party line". The republicans have alternatives motives but stick together, and the democrats are grasping at straws and have no singular story. I do hope the general public finally realizes something needs changing, but I will not hold my breath.

Don't assume partisan rhetoric is literal truth. As I have shared before people are watching two different movies here. So democratic truth is different from republican truth, not to mention more extreme factions (Bernie truth, etc). Not to mention "my truth"  .

I don't expect my comments to be received thoughtfully. If interested maybe google "judicial activism". Even Jefferson and Hamilton disagreed about strict interpretation of the constitution ("strict construction"). When unsuccessful getting legislation passed to effect change (because it is hard), there is a temptation to try to make law with overreaching judicial opinions. The SCOTUS is the hall monitor to reverse judicial excess, so integrity of the court is very important.   

I am more interested in governance than politics which is pretty ugly these days, and getting worse in anticipation of the midterm vote.  Buckle up it will be a bumpy ride.

Good luck.

JR

PS: I have a hard time watching business news these days because politics has corrupted the reportage with one network spinning everything negative, the other network cheerleading for the administration.  : I find satellite radio less irritating.

 

[pucho812]

I don't see the losing power as the left claim, the economy is doing well, 4%GDP people tend to like that action.  so they stick with it.

 

[hodad]

John questioned whether this "upstanding" Supreme Court nominee could have committed sexual assault.  A look at DC prep schools from the 80s.  Lots of drinking and drugs, sexual assault was prevalent although not pervasive.    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/these-are-the-stories-of-our-lives-prep-school-alumni-hear-echoes-in-assault-claim/2018/09/19/b6343f74-bc2e-11e8-b7d2-0773aa1e33da_story.html?utm_term=.9ee26021dcff

Kurt Eichenwald talks about why people don't report, and often don't talk about sexual assaults.  Yes, he really dislikes Trump, but this isn't about that.  Much more about the human side than the political side.  https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/1042766368851017728

Pucho, the economy was going strong under Obama.  Why on earth would anyone vote for a Republican?  (Don't need an answer, but it's something to think about when you consider what might motivate people in an election.)

 

[Matador]

The SCOTUS is the hall monitor to reverse judicial excess, so integrity of the court is very important.   

I think Gorsuch (and to a lesser extent, Kavanagh) would disagree with this, as both are staunchly against chevron deference.  If overturned, would usher in a new era of 'judicial excess'.

Can I interpret your initial response, which focuses on the questionable timing of such an accusation, means there is no basis and shouldn't factor in the decision process?

 

[Jarno]

The idea that economic growth has got to do whether a Democrat or Republican sits in a weirdly shaped office is misguided.

The only thing that matters is to not make stupid decisions, and be diligent about governance, and that's where things are going off the rails currently.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I think Gorsuch (and to a lesser extent, Kavanagh) would disagree with this, as both are staunchly against chevron deference.  If overturned, would usher in a new era of 'judicial excess'.

It seems we have discussed this before and the chevron deference seems related to administrative actions (excess?) not specifically judicial overreach, while SCOTUS are also over all government constitutionality.  The buck stops with them and I favor strict interpretation of the constitution.

Can I interpret your initial response, which focuses on the questionable timing of such an accusation, means there is no basis and shouldn't factor in the decision process?

No I mean exactly what I said. The timing is (very) questionable, not to mention the additional delay while Sen Dianne Feinstein held it private.  The accuser will get her public or private (or whatever) hearing, but very odd for a decades old event to result in fresh accusations literally after the confirmation hearing was already completed and team politicians throw everything but the kitchen sink at it trying to delay the appointment until after the mid-terms . 

I will leave it to the court of public opinion (where this is being litigated) to draw their own conclusions about motives and veracity. It is all too easy for me to be jaded and cynical about the appearance of team politics behind this.

JR

PS: This makes me glad I am not a public official.  BTW don't watch old movies from the 30's half those guys would end up in #METOO jail.  :