Virginia's Public Square
Virginia's Public Square
The war between Democrats and Republicans have made a position in the federal government which should be solely non-political, a very political, possibly even ideological seat, with the qualifications being based not on interpretation of Supreme Court precedence, but an adherence to the victim versus oppressor ideology.
After weeks of extraordinarily emotional, dramatic, and political feelings in Washington and around the country, the Senate Judiciary Committee met this morning to finally vote to confirm D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, just three minutes into opening remarks, several Democrats walked out of the vote.
Judge Kavanaugh has faced great scrutiny from Senate Democrats and progressives across the county as protests occurred not only before the confirmation hearings began, but when they started as the first day was interrupted by chants from almost 200 Kavanaugh dissenters.
When the discussions over Roe v. Wade ended, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford entered the picture with allegations of sexual assault against the Supreme Court nominee from 36 years ago in high school in suburban Maryland. The letter written to her local Congresswoman, which was later leaked to the press, has been at the heart of the turmoil of the confirmation process.
In the weeks following, more women came forward with uncorroborated allegations, but it was Ford, a clinical psychology professor from Palo Alto, California, who appeared before the Senate to testify on Thursday. Judge Kavanaugh gave an emotional testimony just after the accuser.
“We’re ramming through this nomination process,” said many Senate Democrats, but the vote was scheduled less than 24 hours after the unprecedented testimonies.
Friday morning, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee attempted to move the vote to the afternoon. After a few minutes of aggressive back and forth chatter, a vote to delay to 1:30 was beat.
When committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) gave his opening remarks, he went into a forceful shot at Democrats saying, “I found Dr. Ford’s testimony credible…I found Mr. Kavanaugh.”
He added that after yesterday, “there’s simply no reason to deny Judge Kavanaungh a seat on the Supreme Court…based on the evidence presented to us.
Grassley also charged that the questions asked of Judge Kavanaugh on part of Democrats during yesterday’s testimony were “unequivocally and universal hostile.”
Not long after he began talking, multiple senators walked out.
Still in her seat, Senator Dianne Feintstein (D-CA) remarked, “I have never seen any nominees for any position behave in that manner,” speaking to yesterday’s testimony by Judge Kavanaugh in front of the committee. Feinstein said she was “embarrassed” by his candor when questioned by Democratic senators.
In the hall just outside the committee room, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that Republicans “bent over backward to let Mrs. Ford be heard.”
Since there are a list of other judicial nominees to vote on, a vote is still set for 1:30.
When reporters asked the Democrats that walked out if their “seat would be empty at 1:30,” most said they “do not know.”
Recently, ranking Senate Judiciary Committee member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was sent a letter from Democratic Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (CA-18), who received it from someone affiliated with Stanford University, which entailed an alleged incident between Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh and a female with whom he went to high school in suburban Maryland decades ago. Days after the news of the mystery letter surfaced, its author has finally been revealed.
The Washington Post reports that Christine Blasey Ford, a clinical psychology professor at Palo Alto University in California, wrote the formerly confidential letter charging that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, with the article on the alleged incident stating that Ford feared for her life and that Kavanaugh “might inadvertently kill me.”
CNN reported the full text of letter sent to Senator Feinstein. Ford stated in letter:
“Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980’s. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.”
The allegations have drawn a blanket denial from Judge Kavanaugh who has stated, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.” The situation has continued the roiling nomination process that has made the confirmation hearings of nominees Robert Bork in the late 1980s and Clarence Thomas in the early 1990s look like an absolute cakewalk.
One interesting development that occurred today detailed that Ford, not herself but her family, has another connection to Judge Kavanaugh, not himself but his family. An article from Powerline details the narrative discussed on the Rush Limbaugh Show today that ties together the families of Ford and Kavanaugh. Court documents show that Judge Martha Kavanaugh, Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s mother, ruled against Ralph and Paula Blasey, Christine Blasey Ford’s parents, in a foreclosure case over 20 years ago.
A few details of the 1996 case over which Judge Martha Kavanaugh presided were relayed via Twitter, containing mostly embedded tweets from a the user, but also two screenshots from Maryland’s case search site. Laura Ingraham also tweeted out a story from America First Media Group that details the development.
According to a report from Mediaite, the foreclosure case “was dismissed before the judge had to rule on it,” and the property “is still in the family’s name.”
The Daily Caller stated that public records show that at the end of the case, adjudicated in the Montgomery County Circuit Court system, Judge Martha Kavanaugh “did not rule on decisions related to possible seizure of the property. Rather, it appears the Blaseys reached a settlement with their bank before their property was lost.”
As well, it was reported that Judge Martha Kavanaugh “granted uncontested motions brought by UMLIC [United Mortgage & Loan Investment Corporation] to dismiss the case after the settlement was reached,” which appears to be the extent of her involvement in the matter.
Furthermore, on the grounds of person political affiliation, Fox News reports that Ford is a “registered Democrat who has given small monetary donations to political causes,” donating to ActBlue, a non-profit group that aims to help Democrats and progressive candidates. She has also given money to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Friends of Bernie Sanders, according to filing reports from the FEC.
Ford is also one of the thousands of medical professional signatories who supported a Physicians for Human Rights letter in June decrying the practice of separating children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border and urging the Trump Administration to cease the actions.
Additionally, there are pictures surfacing on the Internet with Ford attending rallies wearing a pink “brain cap,” those that were inspired by pink “p**** hats,” which are often worn at women’s groups marches, alluding to increased levels of her left-leaning political activism in the Trump era.
Another interesting twist in the story as told by the Pacific Pundit is that Ralph Blasey III, Ford’s brother, was formerly employed at the Washington, D.C., offices of Baker & Hostetler LLP – the same firm that made payments of over $500,000 to Fusion GPS.
Fusion GPS is the research firm that paid former British spy Christopher Steele to conduct reconnaissance on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. However, the article states that Ralph Blasey III was not employed by Baker & Hostetler at the time of the “Steele dossier” formulation, which posited that then-candidate Trump was colluding with Russian officials to sway the 2016 election.
Regardless, Ford has stated through her lawyer, Debra Katz, a whistleblower attorney who works with “#MeToo” survivors, that she is willing to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify about the alleged incident. A date has not yet been set.
“The fact that Kavanaugh’s mother ruled against Ford’s parents doesn’t prove Ford is lying,” the author of the Powerline piece says. “Her allegation, coming so many years after the fact,” however, “having been presented so late and with little detail as to time and place, is probably not susceptible to being ruled out means that, if not ‘ruled in’ conclusively, the story should not preclude Kavanaugh’s confirmation. We have statutes of limitations for a reason.”
Last week, a letter, signed by 65 women from a wide range of political backgrounds, all of whom have known Judge Kavanaugh in the past, stated that the Supreme Court nominee “has behaved honorably and treated women with respect,” with the signatories relaying information about how the women have known him over the years and how he has “stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee is still slated to vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh Thursday, but it seems that this new development could delay that. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that Ford could possibly testify as early as Tuesday, to rectify the recently-surfaced allegations against the nominee.
The one word – the only word – that can accurately describe these situations and the entire confirmation hearing process of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court is – wait for it – unprecedented.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have been railing against the document dump the night before the beginning of the days-long confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh; however, there are now calls of hypocrisy as a Kavanaugh-related document is in the possession of the panel’s top Democrat, who refuses to disclose it. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) holds a letter, reportedly from a California constituent, wherein in purportedly describes an incident involving the Supreme Court nominee and a woman while they were in high school decades ago.
As reported by The Intercept, news of the alleged incident was relayed to someone affiliated with Stanford University, who authored the letter and sent it to Democratic Congresswoman Anna Eshoo (CA-18), which was then passed on to Feinstein.
This week, Feinstein was approached by Democrats on the committee about the letter, but she refused to inform even her own party about its contents. Democrats say they want their own opportunity to gauge whether or not the letter should be made public, rather than leaving it to Feinstein to make that call herself.
The only thing known about the woman who is the subject of the letter is that she is now being legally represented by Debra Katz, a whistleblower attorney who works with “#MeToo” survivors.
According to a press release from the senator’s office, all Feinstein has had to say is, “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”
Even though the alleged woman’s name was redacted in the correspondence, apparently Ronan Farrow knows more about the situation than anyone. As stated in Hot Air (ironic), here’s the scoop:
“The allegation dates back to the early nineteen-eighties, when Kavanaugh was a high-school student at Georgetown Preparatory School, in Bethesda, Maryland, and the woman attended a nearby high school. In the letter, the woman alleged that, during an encounter at a party, Kavanaugh held her down, and that he attempted to force himself on her. She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand. She was able to free herself. Although the alleged incident took place decades ago and the three individuals involved were minors, the woman said that the memory had been a source of ongoing distress for her, and that she had sought psychological treatment as a result.”
Judge Kavanaugh has stated, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.” Even a classmate of his said, “I have no recollection of that.”
Farrow has been one of the arbiters of investigative reporting during #MeToo movement. In nearly every case he has covered he cites testimony from friends and family of the alleged victim, creating an entire picture of an incident. However, when it comes to Judge Kavanaugh and the mysterious woman, none of that is provided. There is no mention of a friend, family member, nurse, doctor, police report – nothing. Considering the woman is said to have sought psychological help to deal with her distress, there should at least be some type of evidence.
Following this development, a tweet was sent out from the Senate Judiciary Committee about a letter than was sent to Feinstein and the committee’s chairman Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA). The letter, signed by 65 women from a wide range of political backgrounds, states that Judge Kavanaugh “has behaved honorably and treated women with respect,” with the signatories relaying information about how the women have known him over the years and how he has “stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity.”
On Twitter, the correspondence from the committee’s page says:
“65 women of bipartisan backgrounds who knew Judge Kavanaugh in high school: “For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect” & has “stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity” #SCOTUS”
The Sacramento Bee reports that Feinstein’s 2018 election opponent, California State Senator Kevin de León, says the ranking member’s actions are evidence of “a failure of leadership.”
“The American people deserve to know why the Ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee waited nearly three months to hand this disqualifying document over to the federal authorities and why Sen. Feinstein politely pantomimed her way through last week’s hearing without a single question about the content of Kavanaugh’s character,” de León, a fellow Democrat, said in a statement.
As the days pile on and the chaotic scene within the halls of the upper chamber continue, it seems that Democrats, undoubtedly, are looking for a “gotcha” moment – tantamount to the Anita Hill controversy during the confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas. These hearings have gone far beyond that, and are even more petulant than those occurring when Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court.
The highest court in the land is supposed to be non-political.
Well, it still is, and will always be.
However, what is political is the circus-like atmosphere on the Hill that is reported by those in the media as “news.” There is no news here; it’s character assassination broadcast from sea to shining sea.
Following Senator Mark Warner’s refusal to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, Virginia’s other senator, Tim Kaine, will also not support him, revealing an animus towards President Donald Trump – angering many Virginians.
Even though Judge Brett Kavanaugh has provided the Senate Judiciary Committee with clear answers to their concerns surrounding his past rulings, even how he may rule in some cases, issues surrounding abortion rights and executive powers, it is not enough for Virginia Senator Mark Warner, who will vote “no” to confirm the D.C. Circuit Court judge to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The beginnings of Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh erupted in chaos Tuesday morning as both Democratic senators and protesters within the chamber interrupted opening remarks from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA). Just seconds after he began speaking, chants and screams from the crowd were the background of the objections from Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) who said, “We cannot possibly move forward,” after receiving a load of 42,000 documents relating to the nominee’s work with past administrations the night before the start of the hearings.
Grassley responded saying she was “out of order,” but other Democrats joined in the criticism to back up Harris. In a report from Fox News, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) even moved to adjourn the session to have time to review the documents.
The move from the Connecticut senator was met with applause from the audience, both elected leaders and protesters alike.
Last night, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) took to Twitter railing against the document dump.
“The Senate was just given an additional 42,000 pages of Kavanaugh documents the NIGHT BEFORE his confirmation hearing. This underscores just how absurd this process is. Not a single senator will be able to review these records before tomorrow.”
Judge Kavanaugh, inarguably, has one of the longest records of any Supreme Court nominee in recent memory. He has served for more than a decade on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, penning over 300 opinions. As well, he worked as former President George W. Bush’s White House counsel, and before was integral in the impeachment proceedings into former President Bill Clinton while working with Ken Starr.
The confirmation hearings, if continued, will take place over four days, with the issues of abortion rights, the Second Amendment, executive powers, among others laying the groundwork for questions thrown at Kavanaugh. Reportedly, Democrats have viewed thousands of the recently released documents, but are pleading for more time so any and all issues with his previous rulings can be analyzed.
In reference to being asked about political biases on the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh said “a good judge must be an umpire.”
The Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative political campaign organization, has put out a $1.4 million ad to promote and secure the confirmation of D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court after the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. In the past few days, the ads appeared in at least four states and to the national audience.
In a CBS News interview, Carrie Severino, a former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network said Kavanaugh is a “rockstar” of the federal courts.
On Twitter, Severino said:
“Brett Kavanaugh is a home run. Like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh is brilliant, fair and independent, committed to following the law and honoring the Constitution. I look forward to the confirmation of another great justice.”
As an author of nearly 300 opinions during his 12 years on the federal bench, Severino said during the interview that Kavanaugh is “known on the D.C. Circuit as someone who has a real expertise in the important questions of the constitutional limits on government, the separation of powers, and major administrative law issues that come before that court, specifically.”
She went on to say that the judge has taught as Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown law schools, leading him to be nationally-recognized, even insofar as the “Supreme Court is often adopting his opinion in at least 11 different opinions,” Severino said.
The states in which the ad was most-heavily placed were Alabama, Indiana, West Virginia, and North Dakota, all of which are states that President Donald Trump carried in 2016 that currently have a Democratic senator running for re-election. Regardless, of the validity of the ad, and whether one likes Kavanaugh or not, something like this has never happened before – there has never been an ad promoting a Supreme Court justice as a political issue.
The judicial branch of the government, explicitly, must remain apolitical. Everyone understands that a judge has his or her political biases, but rule in cases on an apolitical stance, forwarding the principles of the Constitution, only.
Democrats, rather, progressives, are bloviating that the confirmation of Kavanaugh will usher in the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, ending life on Earth as we know it. None other than the most volatile expression which makes the sentiment up is the belief that Kavanaugh will overturn the landmark case Roe v. Wade (1972), wherein a woman’s right to an abortion was read out of the privacy clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Kavanaugh, however, has stated that he will uphold the notion of stare decisis, respecting the decisions of his predecessors.
As well, the “political lean” of the Court does not really alter with the addition of Kavanaugh. Now that Kennedy has stepped down, Chief Justice John Roberts may have to take a influential role in being the designated “swing voter,” as Kavanaugh is more conservative than Roberts, but nothing changes.
Most constitutional scholars would even say that keeping a fairly balanced court – 5-4 either way – is the best thing to do when replacing a justice.
Still, the fact that a political ad was sent out to pressure politically vulnerable senators to confirm Kavanaugh, most of whom already will vote for him, may lead to setting a dangerous precedent in mixing political campaign issues with the apolitical nature of the Supreme Court. Many thought the highest court in the land was still the island of purity in a quagmire of political muck; but it seems that it too is being pulled closer towards the shores of the briney, breaucratic deep.