The Supreme Court nomination process is complete. But it was not without fraught contention. Thanks to the support of more moderate Republicans the U.S. Senate was able to get the votes necessary to confirm Justice Kavanaugh to the bench.
Senator Susan Collins of Maine, in particular, was one who received a lot of attention for her decision to support Justice Kavanaugh after there was speculation that she would not. Now it is revealed what was the last straw that led Senator Collins to cast the vote the way she did.
Senator Collins indicated that it was after the allegations of Julie Swetnick that she decided to support Justice Kavanaugh. Swetnick had alleged that parties took place, where Justice Kavanaugh was present, where there were lines of students (particularly men) to rooms that had women in them. She further alleged that women were inside being gang-raped.
These allegations were something that Senator Collins could not believe. Collins indicated she felt these claims were outlandish and merely parroting what others were already saying in the meeting. The fact that Stormy Daniels attorney, Michael Avenatti had thrown himself into the controversy by becoming Swetnick’s lawyer also did not lend her any credibility.
Avenatti may be a Republican operative cuz no one could pull off this self-sabotage, unless it was deliberate.
— GregGutfeld (@greggutfeld) October 5, 2018
THIS is why Democrats did NOT want Michael Avenatti to get involved in this fight. Collins is specifically citing Swetnick's "gang rape" accusation as something that made her think she needed to give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt.
— Rachael Bade (@rachaelmbade) October 5, 2018
Her full speech before the Senate prior to the cloture vote gave a lengthy description of why she believed that Justice Kavanaugh should be confirmed. NBC News reported the following on part of Senator Collins speech,
“Mr. President, the five previous times that I have come to the floor to explain my vote on the nomination of a justice to the United States Supreme Court, I have begun my floor remarks explaining my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion.
But today we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion.
The President nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9th. Within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn’t even bother to fill in the Judge’s name on its pre-written press release – they simply wrote that they opposed “Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States.” A number of Senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee’s identity was even known.
Since that time, we have seen special interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial record. Over-the-top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimony at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines which, although debunked hours later, continue to live on and be spread through social media. Interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination.
Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than thirty years. One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom.
Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual Senator to decide what the Constitution’s “advice and consent” duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the President has broad discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought.
I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I have never considered the President’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, who were nominated by President Obama, and Justice Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Trump.
So I began my evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles. Nineteen attorneys, including lawyers from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge’s extensive record. I met with Judge Kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. I listened carefully to the testimony at the Committee hearings. I spoke with people who knew him personally, such as Condoleezza Rice and many others. And, I talked with Judge Kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions.
I have also met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents, regarding Judge Kavanaugh. One concern that I frequently heard was that Judge Kavanaugh would be likely to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) vital protections for people with preexisting conditions. I disagree with this contention. In a dissent in Seven-Sky v. Holder, Judge Kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the ACA on narrow procedural grounds, preserving the law in full. Many experts have said his dissent informed Justice Roberts’ opinion upholding the ACA at the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, Judge Kavanaugh’s approach toward the doctrine of severability is narrow. When a part of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, he has argued for severing the invalid clause as surgically as possible while allowing the overall law to remain intact.
This was his approach in his dissent in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (PPH v. CFPB). In his dissent, Judge Kavanaugh argued for “severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.” Given the current challenges to the ACA, proponents, including myself, of protections for people with pre-existing conditions should want a Justice who would take just this kind of approach.
Another assertion I have heard often is that Judge Kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the President were to come before the Court. The basis for this argument seems to be two-fold. First, Judge Kavanaugh has written that he believes that Congress should enact legislation to protect presidents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office. Mr. President, I believe opponents miss the mark on this issue. The fact that Judge Kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that he believes that the President does not have such protection currently.”
Share if you agree what Senator Collins did was the right thing to do.
Share if you believe that Justice Kavanaugh did not commit the crimes that people accused him of.
Share if you think that what Democrats did to the process of Supreme Court nominations is disgusting.
Trending Now on Right Wing News
Kamala Harris Literally SPEECHLESS When Reporter Asks About Jussie Smollett Hoax – WATCH
Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris claimed the now-debunked attack on ‘Empire’ actor Jussie Smollett was a modern-day lynching. “JussieSmollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery. This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.” She had no evidence and now that it has been exposed as a hoax, Harris has nothing to say. Go figure.
When confronted over the hoax out of Chicago, Harris was literally dumbstruck and could not answer reporters over it. Smollett hired two Nigerian brothers and paid them $3500 at the time, promising $500 more when they got home to Nigeria, to stage a fake hate crime after an alleged racist letter Smollett received didn’t get enough attention. Upon hearing about the alleged hate crime, Harris accepted it at face-value despite the obvious holes in Smollett’s initial story.
Evidence has been uncovered from the hardware store where rope and bleach were purchased by the brothers who were acquaintances of Smollett’s. When confronted by a reporter on Monday asking her if her opinions regarding the Smollett incident have changed in light of the new evidence, Kamala Harris struggled to utter a phrase before side-stepping the issue. “Which tweet? What tweet?” Harris asked as the reporter questioned her about the “modern-day lynching” comment. Nice… that’s Politics 101 for corruptocrats.
“Um … I … I … Okay, so I will say this about that case, the facts are still unfolding, and, um, I’m very, um, concerned about obviously, the initial, um, allegation that he made about what might have happened,” she said. “And it’s something we should all take seriously whenever anyone, um, alleges that kind of behavior, but there should be an investigation. And I think that once the investigation has concluded then we can all comment, but I’m not going to comment until I know the outcome of the investigation.” Say what? Wow… that was simply unintelligible.
.@JussieSmollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery.
This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 29, 2019
Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman for the Republican National Committee, roundly criticized Harris for seemingly not remembering her being quick to blame Trump supporters for the Jussie Smollett attack. Harris has a convenient memory. “Kamala Harris had no problem using inflammatory rhetoric to tie the #JussieSmollettHoax to @realDonaldTrump & his supporters,” tweeted McDaniel. “Now that she has the facts, why can’t she even remember her divisive language? Why is she giggling about it?”
Harris has not even deleted her tweet in support of Smollett as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did. The California senator’s deflection reflects that of Cory Booker. He told people to withhold judgment until more facts came out. “The information is still coming out. I’m going to withhold until all the information actually comes out from on the record sources,” Booker said over the weekend. He just took Smollett’s claims at face value with no evidence as Harris did.
“The vicious attack on actor Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern-day lynching. I’m glad he’s safe,” Booker tweeted in response to the attack. “To those in Congress who don’t feel the urgency to pass our Anti-Lynching bill designating lynching as a federal hate crime– I urge you to pay attention.”
.@KamalaHarris's face and pause when asked about her previous tweet that the attack on Jussie Smollett was a "modern-day lynching" is something to behold
h/t @ThePowersThatBe pic.twitter.com/o9m7S0FTJ9
— David Rutz (@DavidRutz) February 18, 2019
I think we’ve seen enough facts to know the whole thing is yet another leftist hoax. We don’t need to wait any longer on this incident – it is not aging well for the left. The Chicago police are no longer looking at Smollett as a victim here.
From Fox News:
“Smollett, who is black and openly gay, claimed he was assaulted by two men who yelled racist and anti-gay slurs– as well as the phrase “This is MAGA country!” — as Smollett was walking to his Chicago apartment. Chicago police arrested and questioned two Nigerian brothers in the alleged attack, but released them on Friday without charges. Investigators said they’ve requested a follow-up interview with Smollett, but the actor’s representatives said there have been no plans to meet with police for the time being.”
Now that she has the facts, why can't she even remember her divisive language? Why is she giggling about it? pic.twitter.com/imY8lxm89m
— Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) February 18, 2019
You know it’s funny… Harris and Booker never call for due process when accusing the right. But now they’re all for it because it’s one of their own. How hypocritical can you get?
For instance, during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, they immediately believed Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation of sexual assault against the judge without a shred of evidence or a corroborative witness. And despite evidence vindicating Kavanaugh, they smeared him night and day. After all, he’s not a Hollywood celebrity or anointed by the left. I guess that makes all of this okay.
DONATE NOW TO BUILD THE WALL WITH BRIAN KOLFAGE, CLICK BELOW:
HA Ha! McConnell To Call Vote On Ocasio’s Green New Deal, Schumer’s PISSED
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who on a good day looks like he’s sucking on a lemon, ripped into Republicans for planning to force a vote on the Green New Deal. They want everyone on record concerning where they stand for this insanity. Schumer doesn’t want the Dems pinned down and he’s really ticked at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for calling the vote. McConnell is trolling the Dems and I love it.
Schumer called the plan a “stunt,” a “cheap, cynical ploy” and “a game of political gotcha.” Considering Schumer wrote the proverbial book on dirty politics, he should know. Actually, it is a valid move to make politicians say they are either for or against the Green New Deal. “The Republican leader announced he’s going to bring up a resolution he intends to vote against,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “Now that is what the American people hate about Congress — the pointless partisan games.” No sir… they hate the corrupt leftists tearing us apart.
Dear @SenateMajLdr McConnell:
Stop trying to distract from the fact that the GOP has no plan on climate change.
I'm headed to the Senate Floor to issue you a challenge to admit for the first time:
1. Climate change is real
2. It's caused by humans
3. Congress needs to act
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) February 14, 2019
Schumer isn’t the only Democrat calling foul here. They are terrified of being tied to a plan that would literally destroy the US and everything we hold dear. But most of the Democratic field running for the presidency in 2020 has already rallied behind the deal. Even so, Schumer, joined by colleagues on the Senate floor, said: “Bring it on.” He said Democrats “believe that we need to do something about climate change” and added: “Do Republicans?” Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with greed, graft, and corruption.
McConnell promised a Senate vote on the Green New Deal last week. He wants Democrats to go on record. Nice tee-up for the 2020 race and reelecting Trump. “I’ve noted with great interest the Green New Deal,” McConnell told reporters. “And we’re going to be voting on that in the Senate. We’ll give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal.”
The Green New Deal was put forth by Democratic Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). She wants to transform our economy and way of life in an attempt to fight faux climate change. It recently came under scrutiny after revelations that a related FAQ document included passages promising a job to “all people of the United States” – including those “unwilling to work” – and suggesting air travel could be made obsolete. And don’t even get me started on eliminating cow farts.
“We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast,” the now-deleted document also read. Then Ocasio-Cortez and her minions tried to claim that the doc was concocted by Republicans. She lied her ever-loving head off.
From Fox News:
“But McConnell’s move to bring the plan to a vote on the Senate floor will be a key test for Democratic presidential candidates such as Sens. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, who are running on the progressive platform in 2020.
“While backing of the far-left proposal will ultimately improve their liberal bona fides and their support from the Democratic base, the support of the plan will undoubtedly be the target of attacks during the general election.
“President Trump has already begun attacking the Green New Deal, claiming it would “shut down American energy” and describing it as “a high school term paper that got a low mark” during a rally Monday in El Paso, Texas.
“Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, said that McConnell’s plan to bring the plan to the vote will only show “just how out of touch Republican politicians are with the American people.”
“Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass, a co-sponsor of the plan, also decried McConnell’s move.
“Don’t let Mitch McConnell fool you: this is nothing but an attempt to sabotage the movement we are building. He wants to silence your voice so Republicans don’t have to explain why they are climate change deniers. McConnell wants this to be the end, this is just the beginning,” Markey said.”
This is an attempt to wake America up and show them what will happen if the Democrats seize control. Al Gore never went away, he just co-opted the millennials and power-hungry climbers in the Democratic Party.