Kavanaugh confirmed

[living_stradivarius]

For weeks MSM made it look like his confirmation was in severe jeopardy. And the sheep took the bait. Reality check.

[lennygoran]

Collins, Flake-really let me down-what a ridiculous rushed investigation. Collins so sure Kavanaugh's a moderate Republican like she is-naive or really phony. And the assault charges and drinking sure need further investigation-if only the Dems can take the House. Regards, Len

[Belle]

I live in fear for Judge Kavanaugh and his family. These unproven allegations have been used to whip people into hysteria. Among them is likely to be someone with no off-switch. If there is violence against him or his family, up to an assassination (not unheard of in modern America), then those who chose to use this method to gain political advantage will be responsible. It should be remembered that these accusations are not only unproven but untested and possibly too weak to present to a court.

[lennygoran]

It should be remembered that these accusations are not only unproven but untested and possibly too weak to present to a court.

Belle what should be remembered is that they didn't do a full FBI investigation-hopefully that will eventually happen. Regards, Len

[Belle]

My concerns are with that family's safety, particularly those 2 girls who are very likely to be subjected to bullying at school. Just dreadful. I know about these things because of my son's high level political job.

[RebLem]

My concerns are with that family's safety, particularly those 2 girls who are very likely to be subjected to bullying at school. Just dreadful. I know about these things because of my son's high level political job.

Apparently, you are unconcerned for Dr. Ford's safety, who is living in hiding, having had to move several times, because of threats of violence to her and members of her family.

What I suggest we all contemplate is the self-entitled and childish way in which Kavanaugh responded to Ford's testimony, with his "How dare you attack precious, entitled ME" attitude. If he is that way at age 53 when he is sober and as mature as he is ever going to be, imagine what he must have been like when he was 17 and drunk.

Furthermore, the people who think Kavanaugh should not be deprived of a SCOTUS seat because of what he did when he was a 17 year old high student, even if the accusations are true are the same people who thought Barack Obama shouldn't become president because of things he did in grade school.

[Belle]

I don't know anything about the political things you're talking about since I don't follow US politics. But I suggest that Judge K is in far greater danger because he has been successful in his endeavour and because of that the good Doctor isn't of very much more interest. And Dr. Ford must have known what she was doing. I wouldn't have touched it with a barge pole! What I've wondered through all of this is the actual elephant in the room.. who was in loco parentis during all these so-called parties? Why were 15y/o girls allowed to go, unaccompanied, to serial parties and drink alcohol with males who were also minors? What message did this send to young people? These questions demand an answer so I'll cut to the chance; if anyone is to 'blame' it is the parents of these young people.

I've got no time whatsoever for personal attacks on anybody - in politics or otherwise - as I think it's the cowards way. Even the rat's way. And two wrongs do not make a right.

We have reached a stage in the culture of both our countries where people are targets for what they say and think. Democracy is degraded by this and god knows it is suffering enough depredations without adding that to the mix. One day a person of leadership and conviction with stand up and say "enough"!! This is what is happening in Europe and Scandinavia now.

I'd hate to be held account for what I said and did as a teenager - particularly what I said, being very 'lippy'. "The Social Network" provides a window into the behaviour of undergrads at Harvard and it isn't pretty - for both males or females.

Just hold your nose, if all this offends you, and pray for Donald Trump to be defeated at the next election. I don't like our opposition here one bit, but if the people vote for them at the next election I'll support their decision begrudgingly (as I've always done) because it will mean an instant reduction in my retirement income of 30% - an amount I cannot possibly hope to recoup elsewhere at my age.

[lennygoran]

What I suggest we all contemplate is the self-entitled and childish way in which Kavanaugh responded to Ford's testimony, with his "How dare you attack precious, entitled ME" attitude. If he is that way at age 53 when he is sober and as mature as he is ever going to be, imagine what he must have been like when he was 17 and drunk.<

Exactly what I've been doing-his arrogance, his cover up, his lying about the drinking, the sexual assault... Now I'm contemplating just how bad it will be if the Dems don't take back the House. Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

Judge Karen Henderson, a former colleague of Kavanaugh who sits on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, has forwarded a dozen complaints of Kavanaugh's alleged judicial misconduct (lodged before the collateral matter of sexual imposition was ever raised publicly) to SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts, who can if he thinks it necessary appoint a group of judges to launch an inquiry. These complaints concern BK's veracity under oath and his judicial temperament.

Never happened before with a Supreme Court appointee.

[lennygoran]

These are very complaints having to do with BK's veracity under oath and his judicial temperament.

I supply a word here: very SERIOUS complaints!!! Regards, Len

PS-I thought I saw originally you posted the article as well-did you delete it?

[david johnson]

Belle speaks truth

[jserraglio]

Belle speaks truth

If only Brett had done likewise, we might be in a different place. Too bad.

I said a few things I should not have said.

[lennygoran]

Belle speaks truth

If only Brett had followed her lead, we might be in a different place. Too bad.

I'd like to explore this-let's say Kavanaugh took advantage of his exchange with Sen. Amy Klobuchar to say something like this-"gee I might have blacked out and if I did this terrible assault to Dr. Ford it's just horrible-if I did something like this I completely apologize for such a disgraceful act." And if he had not come back after break with the belligerent partisan and disrepectful comments like what goes around comes around etc.

Would that have made it better or worse for him iyo? Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

Chief Justice John Roberts Accused of ‘Cover Up’ for Sitting on Kavanaugh Misconduct Complaints https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ch ... omplaints/

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has received over a dozen official judicial misconduct complaints leveled against U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court Judge and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

So far he has not forwarded the complaints to a proper judicial panel. Now, some critics are calling foul and accusing Roberts of mounting a cover-up in favor of the controversial Supreme Court nominee.

Those official misconduct complaints were forwarded to Roberts by a fellow member of Kavanaugh’s court. While U.S. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland would traditionally have overseen those complaints, Garland chose to recuse himself on the matter, according to Buzzfeed News.

In his stead, U.S. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson fielded the multiple complaints against Kavanaugh. Judge Henderson dismissed many complaints filed against the Supreme Court nominee as “frivolous,” but found substantial merit in over a dozen of the complaints she reviewed.

According to the Washington Post, Henderson began forwarding the complaints she deemed valid onto Roberts. Henderson sent them to Roberts so that Kavanaugh’s fellow judges on the D.C. Circuit would not have to assess the serious and substantive issues raised against a colleague.

In a statement released early on Saturday afternoon, Judge Henderson noted, “Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (28 U.S.C. §§351-364) any person may file a misconduct complaint against a federal judge in the circuit in which the federal judge sits. After the start of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, members of the general public began filing complaints in the D.C. Circuit about statements made during those hearings.”

Henderson’s statement continued, clarifying the conduct at issue. She wrote, “The complaints do not pertain to any conduct in which Judge Kavanaugh engaged as a judge. The complaints seek investigations only of the public statements he has made as a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Law&Crime briefly explained the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act in a previous article regarding two of the official ethics complaints filed against Kavanaugh. That article noted:

[T]he Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (JCDA) and the Judicial Conference of the United States’ Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability [are] essentially various standards of professional behavior codified in federal law and by which all U.S. judges are expected to abide or face censure, impeachment and/or removal from the bench.

The Judicial Conference is a little-known but hugely influential body which is responsible for making national policy for and overseeing all U.S. federal courts. The conference derives its authority from 28 U.S.C. § 331. Under the JCDA, any U.S. citizen may file a complaint against a federal judge over perceived ethics violations. Proceedings under the JCDA are governed by the conduct and disability rules and ultimately overseen by the Judicial Conference.

Roberts’ decision to sit on the complaints against Kavanaugh stands in stark contrast to how he handled a similar complaint–centered around allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment–filed against Kavanaugh’s mentor, now-former judge Alex Kozinski.

In that case, Chief Justice Roberts forwarded the Kozinski complaint to another circuit the day after he received it. Thus, Roberts’ decision here raises some serious questions.

New York University Law School Professor and legal ethics expert Stephen Gillers noted, in comments to the Post, “If Justice Roberts sits on the complaints then they will reside in a kind of purgatory and will never be adjudicated. This is not how the rules anticipated the process would work.”

Jeff Hauser is a public policy advocate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He was also one of the first to sound the alarm bells about Roberts’ alleged cover-up of the dozen-plus Kavanaugh complaints. In comments to Law&Crime, Hauser elaborated on his initial characterization of Roberts’ inaction.

“Our system of judicial ethics demands that judges act on behalf of their institution rather than their party,” Hauser said. “Judge Karen Henderson, who was both a Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointee, seems to have overcome her partisan ties and recognized the seriousness of claims against Kavanaugh. It is alarming that Roberts cannot match Henderson’s integrity.”

[lennygoran]

Now, some critics are calling foul and accusing Roberts of mounting a cover-up in favor of the controversial Supreme Court nominee...New York University Law School Professor and legal ethics expert Stephen Gillers noted, in comments to the Post, “If Justice Roberts sits on the complaints then they will reside in a kind of purgatory and will never be adjudicated. This is not how the rules anticipated the process would work.”

Wow that's more bad news-I heard Roberts would become the new swing vote on deciding tied decisions to keep the Supreme Court's integrity in tact-so much for that. As an aside Gillers was in my junior high school class growing up in Brooklyn! Regards, Len

PS-I looked him up on wiki-imagine Clinton as JKerry's VP pick!

Stephen Gillers is a professor at the New York University School of Law. He is often cited as an expert in legal ethics.

After graduating from Brooklyn College he received his J.D. in 1968 from the New York University School of Law.

Professor Gillers' political activism includes calling on then-presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004 to name former U.S. President Bill Clinton as his running mate. NY Times Op-Ed

Professor Gillers has also been critical of U.S. Supreme Court Justices accepting paid trips to legal seminars. [1]

Professor Gillers annually co-authors Regulation of Lawyers: Statutes and Standards (with Professor Roy Simon of Hofstra).

[Belle]

Belle speaks truth

Thanks, sir. I'm very genuinely concerned about a nation I care about and friends who live there who are reasonable and very intelligent people.

It's now the job of a President to calm these waters, which are only being further whipped up with this sort of dangerous and inflammatory stuff.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/opin ... naugh.html

Australians are looking on in horror!!

[jbuck919]

I'd just like to point out that even if the Democrats take over all the rest of government, it won't make much difference. The Supreme Court can overturn any law or even a presidential directive on a whim and has been doing so since John Marshall was Chief Justice.

[jserraglio]

I'd just like to point out that even if the Democrats take over all the rest of government, it won't make much difference. The Supreme Court can overturn any law or even a presidential directive on a whim and has been doing so since John Marshall was Chief Justice.

Even Mitch McConnell might disagree with that statement, though he'd no doubt welcome it as evidence that he had an ally who espoused SCOTUS supremacism.

Suppose the Dems win only the House of Reps. That alone would make a significant difference, if only as a check on the executive by the House's inherent authority to oversee, investigate and appropriate for the executive branch, to say nothing of its power to initiate legislation or block whatever cockamamie legislation Trump and the Senate concoct.

[jbuck919]

I'd just like to point out that even if the Democrats take over all the rest of government, it won't make much difference. The Supreme Court can overturn any law or even a presidential directive on a whim and has been doing so since John Marshall was Chief Justice.

Even Mitch McConnell might disagree with that statement, though he'd no doubt welcome it as evidence that he had an ally who espoused SCOTUS supremacism.

Suppose the Dems win only the House of Reps. That alone would make a significant difference, if only as a check on the executive by the House's inherent authority to oversee, investigate and appropriate for the executive branch, to say nothing of its power to initiate legislation or block whatever cockamamie legislation Trump and the Senate concoct.

Our late member Ralph Stein, a constitutional lawyer, claimed that all that was necessary to abolish the death penalty was for Congress to pass a law doing so. I think that this was one of the rare cases where he was wrong. Any state can sue to overturn such a law based on the fact that the death penalty is allowed by the Constitution for murder and treason, and with Supreme Court constituted as it now is, that state might very well prevail. Then there is the huge range of issues that are not covered by the Constitution at all, though the Supreme Court always pretends it is only interpreting that document. I mean, unlimited political contributions are free speech and there can be no law limiting them?

[jserraglio]

Our late member Ralph Stein, a constitutional lawyer, claimed that all that was necessary to abolish the death penalty was for Congress to pass a law doing so. I think that this was one of the rare cases where he was wrong. Any state can sue to overturn such a law based on the fact that the death penalty is allowed by the Constitution for murder and treason, and with Supreme Court constituted as it now is, that state might very well prevail.

If and only if, given its deference to the federal legislative branch as the voice of the people, the SCOTUS would even agree to review the case. No, I'm afraid that as a practical rather than a theoretical matter Ralph got it right on this one too. Can't say I'm surprised.

It's one thing to say that the SCOTUS as presently constituted is likely to rule unwisely. I would agree with that. Quite another to argue that it makes little difference which party controls the Legislature b/c in theory the Court can overrule any law it pleases. If I believed that, I wouldn't bother to vote next month.

[lennygoran]

Suppose the Dems win only the House of Reps. That alone would make a significant difference, if only as a check on the executive by the House's inherent authority to oversee, investigate and appropriate for the executive branch, to say nothing of its power to initiate legislation or block whatever cockamamie legislation Trump and the Senate concoct.

I agree and am hoping for this-it sure looks like they'll only get the House if that. I'm so anxious to see those tax returns! Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

it sure looks like they'll only get the House if that. I'm so anxious to see those tax returns!

They may not even get the House. Dems historically do not turn out for midterms the way the GOP do. Polls are one thing. Turn out is quite another matter. We shall see. I've already got a mail-in ballot my wife will fill out for me.

[lennygoran]

They may not even get the House. Dems historically do not turn out for midterms the way the GOP do. Polls are one thing. Turn out is quite another matter. We shall see. I've already got a mail-in ballot my wife will fill out for me.

Yeah I agree and am quite worried-the Republican dirty tricks and voter suppression tactics don't help. This sure can't be good news for Mueller, Rosenstein and company. Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

Yeah I agree and am quite worried-the Republican dirty tricks and voter suppression tactics don't help. This sure can't be good news for Mueller, Rosenstein and company.

If you're worried, I'm doubly worried: the danger to the republic posed by right-wing nutjobs should not be underestimated.

[lennygoran]

If you're worried, I'm doubly worried: the danger to the republic posed by right-wing nutjobs should not be underestimated.

My worry began after I saw this TV special some time ago. Regards, Len

https://www.thedocumentarygroup.com/sin ... y-on-MSNBC

[jserraglio]

My worry began after I saw this TV special some time ago. Regards, Len

https://www.thedocumentarygroup.com/sin ... y-on-MSNBC

The ice-cream flavor of the month appears to be fascista.

[lennygoran]

The flavor of the month appears to be fascista.

Is it time for a MOB burger or ice cream? Regards, Len

https://www.yelp.com/biz/marinos-mob-bu ... m-prescott

[jbuck919]

Our late member Ralph Stein, a constitutional lawyer, claimed that all that was necessary to abolish the death penalty was for Congress to pass a law doing so. I think that this was one of the rare cases where he was wrong. Any state can sue to overturn such a law based on the fact that the death penalty is allowed by the Constitution for murder and treason, and with Supreme Court constituted as it now is, that state might very well prevail.

If and only if, given its deference to the federal legislative branch as the voice of the people, the SCOTUS would even agree to review the case. No, I'm afraid that as a practical rather than a theoretical matter Ralph got it right on this one too. Can't say I'm surprised.

It's one thing to say that the SCOTUS as presently constituted is likely to rule unwisely. I would agree with that. Quite another to argue that it makes little difference which party controls the Legislature b/c in theory the Court can overrule any law it pleases. If I believed that, I wouldn't bother to vote next month.

They were a justice away from overturning Obamacare, and then it was only because Roberts wanted to show that SCOTUS was not a rubber stamp for the Right. Then they upheld it for the wrong reason (it is a tax), and threw the Right a bone by canceling the requirement that states raise their Medicaid standards at the expense of the federal government. Since when are states allowed to decide which federal laws to obey and which not to? (And I'm not talking about marijuana.) People will die because of this new court, for one reason or another, and the Republicans don't give a s*it.

As for the death penalty, it should long ago have been abolished on the basis of equal justice under law. It is obvious that it is inflicted disproportionately on certain groups. If separate facilities are inherently unequal and have to be abolished, then so should the death penalty, not to mention the development of thinking on cruel and unusual punishment.

[jserraglio]

they upheld it [Obamacare] for the wrong reason

So when it came down to cases, instead of constitutional theories, the Court with a potential conservative majority did not overturn this landmark Democratic legislation because it so pleased but, as it most often does, deferred to the legislature. The implication being that which party controls Congress really does matter.

Now that I've been reassured that it will make a big difference if the Dems win control of the House, I will cast my ballot blithely for them come November.

[jbuck919]

they upheld it [Obamacare] for the wrong reason

So when it came down to cases, instead of constitutional theories, the Court with a potential conservative majority did not overturn this landmark Democratic legislation because it so pleased but, as it most often does, deferred to the legislature. The implication being that which party controls Congress really does matter.

Now that I've been reassured that it will make a big difference if the Dems win control of the House, I will cast my ballot blithely for them come November.

I'll do the same, but don't hold out much hope. It was the supposed swing vote Anthony Kennedy, who addressed Trump as "My dear Mr. President" in his resignation letter, who practically begged Roberts on bended knee to declare Obamacare unconstitutional.

[jserraglio]

I'll do the same, but don't hold out much hope. It was the supposed swing vote Anthony Kennedy, who addressed Trump as "My dear Mr. President" in his resignation letter, who practically begged Roberts on bended knee to declare Obamacare unconstitutional.

Hoping Roberts will again try to balance the Court's two radical wings on landmark issues like Roe v. Wade and thereby avoid civil strife.