Citing judicial ethics concerns, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh declined more than $600,000 that was donated to aid his family during the firestorm over sexual misconduct allegations that plagued his confirmation. The judge’s decision was announced on Tuesday in a message posted on the online fundraising pagethat gathered the funds.
Supreme Court justices are actually not bound by the codified ethics rules that apply to other federal judges, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. However, it appears that Kavanaugh’s statement is drawn largely from those rules, which provide that other than in a few narrowly drawn scenarios, “a judge should not personally participate in fund-raising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose.”
The US Senate has voted to confirm President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, after weeks of rancorous debate.
The Senate backed Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination by 50 votes to 48.
Make not mistake, the controversy over this appointment did not have anything to do with Brett Kavanaugh. Trump could have appointed a new RBG and the same thing would have happened. The anti-Trump derangement coupled with the fury of the midterm elections have pushed the liberals into a mass hysteria.
Thankfully, sanity prevailed and we were able to put a good, smart, man on the court who will respect our constitution.
Congratulations, Justice Kavanaugh.
Good. Stay firm. At some point – hopefully very soon – Senators need to do their jobs and cast a vote.
‘The goal posts keep shifting. But the goal hasn’t moved an inch. Not an inch. The goal has been the same all along. SO let me make it very clear the time for endless delay and obstruction has come to a close,’ McConnell said on the Senate floor on Monday afternoon. ‘We’ll be voting this week.’
Take the vote. More hearings and more delays aren’t going to change anyone’s mind on either side.
Republican senators say the Judiciary Committee plans to vote Friday morning on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
While the GOP swiftly decided on a Friday vote to decide if Kavanaugh will be recommended to the Senate, it remains too close to be sure whether the party will be able to get the 50 votes needed to officially confirm him.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the second ranking-Republican, had said Thursday that the GOP conference would meet and ‘see where we are.’ They later announced that they still intended to vote Friday on Kavanaugh.
That was the most true statement of the day. Like most Americans, I was busy with life today. I tuned in to a bit of the hearing, but most of it was stomach-churning. My thoughts were nicely summed up by Senator Lindsey Graham.
The woman who’s accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assaultwhen both of them were in high school will not testify before the FBI investigates the matter, one of her lawyers, Lisa Banks, said Tuesday night.
In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, reported first on CNN and obtained by ABC News, lawyers for professor Christine Blasey Ford, said “a full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions.”
Grassley had invited both Ford and Kavanaugh to testify before the committee on Monday.
“There’s no reason to have a public hearing Monday. This is being rushed through. It’s too important. It’s not a game. This is a serious situation,” Banks said on CNN.
The tactic here is transparent. Delay, delay, delay. The Democrats want to delay the vote until after the November elections in hopes that they win a majority in the Senate and can spike any Trump nominee from serving. They will keep moving the goal posts and making new demands until November 7th.
On the merits… even if her accusation was credible, which it is not, it is not a federal crime and the statute of limitations has run out. It is an unprovable accusation after 36 years and it is impossible for the accused to prove a negative. That’s why it makes for the perfect character assassination tool.
Take the vote.
This is nuts. Even the BBC reporter has some very valid questions:
There are plenty of reasonable, sensitive questions arising from the Kavanaugh/Ford story.
First and most important, is the alleged incident true? Do the therapists’ notes, which have some flaws, count as corroboration?
If the incident is true, to what extent does it have a relevant bearing on the judge’s character today, 36 years later?
If no other women come forward with similar accusations, should it be dismissed as the egregious but one-off failing of a teenager?
If it’s not true, why was it raised it now and what impact should it have on both the judge and his accuser?
All of these questions are open for debate in a sensible, thoughtful way. I for one don’t have clear answers on any of them.
In the end, this is just going to be a he said/she said about something that happened over 30 years ago. People who don’t want Kavanaugh confirmed are going to insist that the accusation is true. Reasonable people will wonder why this is only coming up now. None of it has anything to do with the character of the man in 2018 or his lengthy tenure as a lawyer and judge.
Take the vote.
It’s a classic tactic, and we see it alive and well in Washington. Kavanaugh is asked if he has a gambling problem. He says “no.” Headline: “Kavanaugh denies having a gambling problem!!!!”
When asked by Whitehouse to detail poker games he’s participated in, the Supreme Court nominee stated, “Like many Americans, I have occasionally played poker or other games with friends and colleagues. I do not document the details of those casual games.”
Whitehouse inquired whether Kavanaugh had any gambling earnings or debt reported to the IRS. He answered “No.” The senator also asked whether he gambled or owed gambling debts to the state of New Jersey.
“I recall occasionally visiting casinos in New Jersey when I was in school or in my 20s,” Kavanaugh responded. “I recall I played low-stakes blackjack. I have not accrued gambling debt.”
As his confirmation hearings begin, an ABC News/Washington Post poll finds the public evenly divided on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court – among the lowest support levels for a high court nominee in polling back to 1987.
Six in 10 Americans also say Kavanaugh should publicly state his position on abortion before being confirmed. And there’s a substantial shift from 2005 in views on how the court should deal with abortion access – fewer say it should make it harder to get an abortion, more say the court should make it easier.
Thirty-eight percent of Americans say Kavanaugh should be confirmed, 39 percent not, with the rest undecided in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. Only two nominees have had weaker public support: Harriet Miers, who withdrew her nomination, in 2005; and Robert Bork, rejected by the Senate in 1987.
The lefty media seems to be in high frenzy about this. I would point out that I highly doubt that 6 in 10 Americans could name 2 things on Kavanaugh’s resume that qualifies him, or disqualifies him, from sitting on the Supreme Court. The reason that this process is set up the way it is and the Justices have lifetime appointments is precisely to insulate them from the whims of public opinion. If we are going to start listening to polls when appointing SCOTUS justices, then we should just make them elected positions like in Wisconsin.
Hopefully the Senate will ignore the manufactured wails from the media and get this done in a professional and efficient manner.
The Democrats are just insane right now.
A former boss and political ally of Brett Kavanaugh, pushing back on a mounting rallying cry of Senate Democrats, said it is “preposterous” to suggest that the Supreme Court nominee should recuse himself from cases involving Robert Mueller’s investigation into President Trump’s ties to Russia, because there is no evidence Kavanaugh and the president made a “deal” about the issue.
“I don’t see the basis for a recusal,” Timothy Flanigan, who served as deputy White House counsel during the early years of the George W. Bush administration, said in an interview for the Yahoo News podcast “Skullduggery.”
When it was pointed out that Trump had nominated Kavanaugh while under investigation by Mueller — and facing a potential subpoena for his testimony — Flanigan replied, “I’m not sure I see the relevance of that.” He added that “unless there was a credible suggestion that … there’s some kind of deal that Brett would vote against [upholding a subpoena to the president], I frankly find that preposterous.”
Since President Trump announced Kavanaugh’s nomination Monday night, a number of Democrats have demanded that Kavanaugh commit to recusing himself from any issues involving the Mueller probe that could end up before the court. They have argued that it would be a conflict of interest for him to rule on issues such as a potential subpoena for Trump’s testimony or whether the president can be indicted — and that his vote on a divided court could be decisive, ultimately determining the fate of Trump’s presidency.
“I don’t think he should be on the court, and you can be sure that me and my colleagues on the Democratic side are going to be asking if he will recuse himself, should he be confirmed,” Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., told reporters.
So because Democrats fantasize that Trump made a deal with Kananaugh over an BS investigation, he should commit to recusing himself on some potential, unnamed case that might come before the Supreme Court? Nuts.