Kavanaugh/Blasey Ford Sexual Assault Allegations Hearing

[Audrey2]

I don't think there are many people, outside of the FOX faithful, who don't think the "investigation" is a sham. Dollars to doughnuts, they only talked to those who could give Kavenaugh good reviews, not people with concerns. The Republicans (probably even the few holdouts) are satisfied because the "investigation" won't turn up anything, even though many others know better and have experienced him at his worst.

We have devolved so much politically, since Howard Dean was blackballed by the Democrats in 2004 for seeming unhinged when he yelled after coming in third at the Iowa Democratic Caucuses. Now, you can act even more unhinged at your Senate hearing and (probably) voted onto the Supreme Court.

[Howl]

I'd also be very interested in hearing from people who currently socialize with Kavanaugh and have witnessed his current drinking habits.  Seemingly no one investigated his mysterious disappearing debt. However, at this point, I think it's a done deal and he will be the next SC justice. 

 

[SassyPants]

This just sucks...especially in the light of Russian interference in our election process, the fact that Trump received fewer votes than Clinton and the razor thin winning margins in the swing states (the ones targeted by the Russians) that gave Trump the EC win. At least Trump is gone in a max of 6 years. We'll be stuck with this asshat forever.

 

We are literally being held hostage!!!

Edited October 4, 2018 by SassyPants

[Cartmann99]

 

[Cartmann99]

 

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by Cartmann99
Added stuff

[Rachel333]

This has really been getting to me. I've had horrible anxiety all week and am just incredibly sad. I don't even know why I seem to be handling this so much worse than all the other awful things that have happened within the past two years.

[Mecca]

FYI, when I went back to school for a career change in the area of law several years back, I was assigned to work in Corker’s office for an internship. At that time I was instructed by the manager (field director) of that office to hang up on people and ignore constituents concerns if they leaned a certain way. Instead, I was assigned to look through newspapers, magazines and the internet to cut articles and pictures out for Coker’s scrapbook. I was shocked and disgusted by the way his staff worked in that office and asked my adviser to be removed and placed elsewhere. I swear on everything I own this is the truth. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by Mecca

[Mecca]

FYI, I also was witnessed Corker’s long time secretary that was with him when he was Mayor of Chattanooga put constituents on speaker phone in the office and make fun of them. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by Mecca

[Cartmann99]

Holy shit!

 

[47of74]

They had that fuck Grassley on the news spouting off and I called bullshit on him right in front of the parental units.  I hate Grassley as much as I hate that orange fuck in the White House.

[Cartmann99]

Orrin Hatch is a jackass:

 

[Rachel333]

The TIME magazine cover for the October 15 edition:

[Cartmann99]

[SassyPants]

32 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

Can you imagine a female SCJ candidate pulling the "I was emotional card"?

Holy hell, that would be an automatic disqualifier!

[Mecca]

Kavanaugh was emotional alright. It was not about him being a son, husband and dad. It was about him being pissed off that someone dared to questioned his sorry privileged ass. I have this suspicion that if a woman wrote that op-ed, the Right would be singing a much different tune. Hillary Clinton was questioned by a committee for hours and not once did she sling snot about working out with weights with friends and a coach. Kavanaugh sounded  and acted like an idiot. Full stop. He has zero business sitting on the SC because he proved he has zero character. He spouted off conspiracy theories and was highly disrespectful. 

And yes, I know this may not be the nicest thing in the world to say, but I hate Kavanaugh. I hope he gets the worst case of jock itch and his junk falls off. 

 

[Cartmann99]

 C-span2 starts their coverage tomorrow morning at 9:30 am ET:

Quote

9:30AM

U.S. Senate 10/05/2018

9 hours, 0 minute

The Senate plans a morning vote on whether to limit debate on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. A final vote is possible Saturday

https://www.c-span.org/schedule/?channel=2

[AmazonGrace]

America is run by idiots

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by laPapessaGiovanna
Post repeated itself

[neurogirl]

Even though her poll numbers are less-than-optimistic, red state democratic senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota is going to vote NO on Kav.

 

 

[thoughtful]

8 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

America is run by idiots

 

I loved hearing Rachel Maddow say "mishegas" on television.

http://www.jewish-languages.org/jewish-english-lexicon/words/382

 

[fraurosena]

If, like me, you don't know what cloture means in the Senate, here's an article explaining it:

What is cloture and why is the Senate using it more often?

Quote

A vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the US Supreme Court is expected this weekend, after Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell filed a late-night motion for a “cloture” vote to be held tomorrow (Oct. 5).

What does cloture mean, exactly, and why does it keep coming up in Senate votes?

The cloture process essentially limits debate on any bill or motion before the Senate, establishing a 30-hour window before a final vote must be held, and eliminating the ability of opposing Senators to filibuster—to hold the floor indefinitely—and delay a vote. The exact timing of the cloture vote tomorrow hasn’t been made public yet, although some reports say it is expected to happen in the morning. A final vote on Donald Trump’s nominee to serve on America’s highest court could then happen as soon as the next day.

What is a cloture vote?

Cloture is basically a vote to go ahead on a vote, a procedural oddity of the Senate that allows a majority leader to “push past a recalcitrant minority,” as Pew Research Center explains. Cloture is a “is a blunt tool for managing the Senate,” as Brookings Institution’s Sarah Binder put it.

Traditionally, 60 senators must vote for a cloture motion to pass, but Democrats, in 2013, and Republicans, in  2017, invoked the “nuclear option,” which allows a simple majority of just 51 senators to approve it (even though official Senate rules still say 60 votes are needed).

Cloture votes are now more prevalent

In the 2013-14 Congress, after Barack Obama won his second term, there was a massive rise in cloture motions. They more than doubled to 252 from 115 in the previous session. In 2013-14, a Republican minority led by McConnell  filibustered dozens of Obama nominees, and Democrats used cloture votes to push past them.

[graph]

The rise in cloture votes illustrates how the “the politics of presidential nominations have changed dramatically in the past few decades,” Pew Research Center said.

At the beginning of the Trump administration, Democrats retaliated, filibustering Trump nominees. Republicans used cloture to push past those moves. They even invoked allowing a simple majority to confirm Trump’s nomination of Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch, which set a new precedent for the cloture vote.

The jump in the use of cloture is rooted in the fact that there’s very little middle ground between the political parties. Once known for the stability of its debate procedures, the Senate turned into a “parliamentary arms race” in the early 2000s, Brookings Institution said in 2010: “Each party assumes that the other party will fully exploit its procedural options.”

McConnell escalated the situation, vowing to make Obama a “one-term president” in 2010. When that failed, McConnell moved to obstruct his agenda and block Obama’s last Supreme Court nominee in 2016.

The Senate is more deeply divided, ideologically, than perhaps at any time in modern history. GovTrack, which follows members’ positions on various issues, shows there is very little overlap between Republicans and Democrats—and therefore little room for compromise or agreement. The chart below, which assigns a liberal-conservative score to each senator based on the bills they have co-sponsored, illustrates the wide spread:

[graph]

 

 

[neurogirl]

The Senate voted 51-49 in favor of cloture, with final vote expected tomorrow (Saturday). All eyes will be on Flake (and Collins and Manchin). While I certainly hope they all vote against Kavanaugh on Saturday, I'm not holding my breath, and I don't envy their position.  

[Cartmann99]

 

[fraurosena]

23 minutes ago, Cartmann99 said:

 

Does anyone know what this could mean? I have questions:

1. Is the possession of a permit to practice law a prerequisite to be confirmed to the SC, or to stay on the SC?
    
2. Is a certain 'standing' with the bar association a prerequisite for confirmation to the SC, or to stay on the SC?
    
3. Could the bar association revoke his 'judgeship', his permit to practice law (disbarring), or alter his 'standing'?
    
4. If they can revoke his 'judgeship', permit to practice law (disbarring), or alter his 'standing', would he immediately be banned from the SC?

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by fraurosena

[Cartmann99]

I never knew that much about Senator Tillis of North Carolina before this whole  Supreme Court nominee process started. I now want to get pictures of him to put on the bottom of my cats' litterboxes.

Don't you love when men pat women on the head and tell them they are just confused about who assaulted them?  

[candygirl200413]

So Flake, of course, says now he's voting Yes because people need to stop believing that he'll do the right thing.

With Murkowski presumably voting no tomorrow it's all up to Collins and Manchin. So based on what you just shared @fraurosena on cloture, if they voted 51-49 against closure basically a filibuster and all that would happen?