Kavanaugh: Now & The Aftermath

[brucejoel99]

KAVANAUGH ACCUSER TELLS HEARING OF HIM TRYING TO FORCE HIMSELF ON HER; JUDGE COMPLAINS OF 'COMPLETE FALSEHOODS'

WASHINGTON (September 24, 2018) -- Confronting a disputed nomination to the Supreme Court and a boiling political furor, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard gripping but contradictory testimony today from Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the woman accusing him of sexual assault.

The proceedings in a jammed hearing room at the Hart Senate Office Building amounted to a political drama centered on two extraordinarily composed figures, Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, a California research psychologist who is currently a professor in clinical psychology at Palo Alto University.

Judge Kavanuagh and Professor Ford, whose alleged encounter is said to have taken place in the summer of 1982 when she was 15 and he was 17, both testified under oath and offered accounts of their social relationship that differed so starkly that Senator Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, said, "One of them is not telling the truth."

Professor Ford complained of a sexual assault in vivid detail and said she had volunteered to bring the issue to the Senate because she felt she "had a duty to report," she said.

Judge Kavanaugh angrily denied the charge and attempted to shoot down the allegation which he referred to as a "complete falsehood."

Testifying first in a hearing that lasted 12 hours and 35 minutes, Judge Kavanaugh sounded by turns defiant and sorrowful in insisting to committee members that he never sexually harassed Professor Ford, depicting himself and his family as victims who were, for lack of a better word, betrayed by a former acquaintance from high school and a Senate confirmation process that had run amok.

In his opening statement in the morning, and even more strongly when he returned to the Congress tonight to testify, Judge Kavanaugh tried to rebut the charges against him by putting the process on trial -- a political process that has been widely disdained as cutthroat and out of control.

He called it "a travesty" that such "sleaze," "dirt," "gossip" and "lies," which he said were improperly disclosed by the committee, should be "displayed in prime time to an entire nation." In answer to a question, he said that he did not watch Professor Ford's testimony.

Professor Ford said that she, too, had been tormented by the issue and the intense scrutiny. Facing sharp questions from Republicans and gentle questioning from Democrats, Professor Ford testified for nearly seven hours. She told of a childhood that sounded like that of Judge Kavanaugh's, dominated by a good upbringing and rigorous education.

"When I realized I had to report my experience," she said, "I felt that I had to tell the truth. I could not keep silent."

Judge Kavanaugh, in his return appearance, said, "I think something is dreadfully wrong with this country when any person, any person, in this country could be sujected to this."

"This is a circus," the judge continued, his voice brimming with outrage. "It's a national disgrace, perpetrated by a committee of the United States Senate."

Under questioning tonight from Senator Flake, Judge Kavanaugh said he did not watch Professor Ford's testimony because he could not bear to watch untruths.

"If you didn't listen," Senator Flake said, that made it difficult "to find out what the actual facts are."

In one of the most emotional moments of the proceedings, Senator Flake said that Judge Kavanaugh's attitude toward Professor Ford's testimony raised questions of "judicial temperament."

"Senator, there is a big difference between approaching a case objectively and watching yourself being attacked," Judge Kavanaugh said in one of a series of remarks denouncing the proceedings.

At times, the nominee seemed barely able to contain his anger, even under friendly questioning from Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, as he denounced "this nonsense, garbage, trash that you've siphoned out of the sewer against me."

"This leaked on me, and it is drowning my life, my career and my integrity," Judge Kavanaugh said. "You have robbed me of something that can never be restored."

Five minutes after the Senate hearing adjourned for the night, Raj Shah, the White House spokesman, said: "Judge Brett Kavanaugh's message tonight was a powerful testament to his integrity and character. He should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. His test speaks for itself."

In wrenching terms in his opening statement this morning, Judge Kavanaugh, a man who rose from being an attorney working for Ken Starr and his controversial investigation of the Clinton administration to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, characterized himself as someone who was never daunted until caught in what he described as a "Kafkaesque" Senate confirmation process.

"But I have not been able to overcome this process," he added. "This is worse than any obstacle or anything that I have ever faced."

Judge Kavanaugh, at the high point of a speech that he said he had written himself, with "no handlers, no advisers," declared: "No job is worth what I've been through -- no job. No horror in my life has been so debilitating. Confirm me if you want. Don't confirm me if you are so led. But let this process end. Let me and my family regain our lives."

Moments after Judge Kavanaugh departed from the packed Senate hearing room, Professor Ford took her seat in the same leather witness chair and described her allegation that Judge Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when both were in high school.

Pressed for details, Professor Ford spoke calmly and willingly but in langauge seldom heard in formal hearings: "Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in 1982. He conducted these acts with the assistance of Mark Judge. The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others," she said. "Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help. Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with Judge, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me. From across the room a very drunken Judge said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop." At one point when Judge jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home."

In a move intended to raise questions about Professor Ford's credibility, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the committee chairman, introduced into evidence an affidavit of Mr. Judge, a classmate of Judge Kavanaugh at Georgetown Preparatory School whom Professor Ford accused of being the third person in the room during the alleged incident.

Mr. Judge said in the affidavit that he had "no memory of this alleged incident." He said, "Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."

But Professor Ford said she was puzzled by the affidavit, saying: "It's meaningless to me. It's simply a false affidavit."

In another disclosure that raised questions about Professor Ford's account, Judge Kavanaugh, under questioning tonight from Senator Hatch, said that "this is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes -- to her or to anyone."

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, the committee ranking member and primary Democratic questioner, told Judge Kavanaugh the committee still had an open mind and urged him to give the panel whatever information he could to defend himself.

"This never happened, this is a false allegation from 36 years ago, and I will defend my integrity in any way that is appropriate," Judge Kavanaugh said.

Professor Ford's attorney, Debra Katz, said after the hearing when asked about Judge Kavanaugh's denials under oath that it was "inconsistent with the testimony" of the professor. "We stand by her testimony," Ms. Katz said.

The scene in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building today was vastly different from what it was during Judge Kavanaugh's four days of testimony three weeks ago, when his character not only went unquestioned, but also was considered one of his strongest assets. Although they split largely on party lines over his judicial qualifications to be an Associate Justice, lawmakers on both sides had praised Judge Kavanaugh for advancing through Yale Law School to the Federal appellate court. Today, however, it was allegations about Judge Kavanaugh's personal conduct that threatened to undo his nomination.

Judge Kavanaugh said his opening statement was not read beforehand by anyone other than his wife, Ashley Estes Kavanaugh, and his chief defender, Senator Jon Kyl. In contrast to his earlier appearance before the committee, Judge Kavanaugh sat alone, without his coaches from the White House behind his side. His wife and Senator Kyl, an Arizona Republican, sat immediately behind him.

Judge Kavanaugh told the committee that his life was permanently altered on Sept. 12, when the existence of a complaint against Kavanaugh, by a "woman, who has asked not to be identified", was made public, in which she accused him of trying to force himself on her when they were both in high school.

"I have never in all my life felt such hurt, such pain, such agony," he said. "My family and I have been done a grave and irreparable injustice. During the past two weeks, I lost the belief that if I did my best, all would work out.

"I called upon the strength that helped me grow up," he said, referring to his formative years. "And it was all sapped out of me. It was sapped out of me because Christine Blasey Ford was a person I considered a fine acquaintance from high school, whom I thought I had treated fairly and with the utmost respect."

Professor Ford was accompanied by her lawyer and by her husband. Like Judge Kavanaugh, the 51-year-old professor in clinical psychology at Palo Alto University described the torment she had endured in the public eye.

"It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my husband, marriage counselor and attorney," Professor Ford said. "Telling the world is the most difficult experience of my life."

She went on to explain why she did not report her allegations years ago. "I was aware that making public such an allegation could affect my future career and did not wish to burn any bridges," she said. "I may have used poor judgment; perhaps I should have taken angry or even militant steps, both when I realized Kavanaugh had risen to become a highly respected and high-ranking member of society in Washington or after I realized it. But I must confess to the world that the course I took seemed to me to be the better as well as the easier approach."

Moments after she had affectionately introduced her husband to the committee, Professor Ford spoke in detail about her allegation that Judge Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted her, as detailed above. Professor Ford also said she had received medical treatment regarding the assault.

From the start, it was clear today's hearing would be an event of high political tension. After Judge Kavanaugh delivered his opening statement, Senator Feinstein proposed to begin questioning him without reference to Professor Ford's confidential statement to Senator Feinstein that had led to the renewed hearings. Senator Feinstein said Professor Ford wanted the document kept confidential.

That prompted Senator Hatch to angrily remind Senator Feinstein that it was nonsensical to ignore a statement that had already been cited in the press.

"It would be the greatest travesty I've ever seen in any court of law," Senator Hatch said, practically shouting, "let alone an open forum in the nomination process of a man for Justice of the United States Supreme Court, to allow her attorney or her or anybody on this committee or anybody else, for that matter, to tell us what can or cannot be used now that this man's reputation has been very badly hurt."

Senator Feinstein shot back that Professor Ford wanted to make her allegations in her own words and not have them disclosed in a confidential letter.

But Senator Hatch said that if the document was not made available to Judge Kavanaugh, "then I'm going to resign from this committee today."

Finally, Senator Grassley called a recess. When the committee reconvened, the chairman said Professor Ford would permit the use of the letter, and she then began her testimony. In a prepared statement and in response to questions from Senator Feinstein, she detailed her allegations.

On cross-examination, Senator Grassley sought to portray Professor Ford as someone who was never troubled by Judge Kavanaugh's behavior until he was nominated for the Supreme Court.

He suggested that Professor Ford was imagining things, and pressed her about why she waited years to come forward, and why she did not tell anybody relevant more details about her allegations..

Professor Ford acknowledged that while she could be faulted in her dealing with the aftermath of her encounter with Judge Kavanaugh, she offered explanations to all the Republicans' questions. She said she was afraid to speak out about him for fear that she would lose her job.

After today's hearing, the committee ultimately chose to recommend that Judge Kavanaugh's nomination be rejected by a narrow margin, a 12 to 9 nearly party-line vote, with Senators Flake and Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, joining all of the committee's Democrats in opposing the nomination after today's hearing. And with the Republican Party holding only a 51 to 49 majority in the full Senate, he is now widely viewed as not having enough support for confirmation when the full Senate is scheduled to vote on Friday. After Professor Ford's public disclosure of her allegation in today's hearing, however, an emotional debate occurred on and off the Senate floor on account of the erupting political firestorm.

[brucejoel99]

Very well formatted!

Astounding presentation! Can't wait for more!

Great, and quickly done TL

Very interesting TL!

Very well formatted!

Thank you all!

A Democrat’s dream! Very few on this forum have not heard the latest chatter! There is a history there, one which has been overlooked. Both Ford’s parents had a foreclosure application rejected in a judgement rendered by none other than Judge Kavanaugh’s mother. I don’t believe sexual misconduct occurred, I think the ‘sexual misconduct’ angle, now so effective a weapon in scuttling the careers & reputation ‘s of Kevin Spacey & Harvey Weinstein has been weaponized as a tool to defeat the Kavanaugh nomination. Ask yourselves this question, why did Dianne Feinstein sit on these allegations for months in end? As a member of a committee considering the nomination of a Supreme Court pick, she had an obligation to table the information before both the committee and the FBI; I think Ford is being coached by Democrats to insist that the FBI investigates her allegations before she testifies before the committee. I find it highly improbable that a person who “suffered” in a manner she claims she “suffered” is now making demands that certain procedures be followed regarding her charges. I think it’s anot frivolous effort by Democrats to stall, delay and possibly derail Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Consider how hell bent Democrats have been in trying to prevent the Kavanaugh confirmation process from reaching its ultimate conclusion. Also consider Feinstein’s motivation in pulling this stunt! Is she not in a tough re-election effort?

Bruh, it's just a TL, calm the f**k down

[brucejoel99]

KAVANAUGH VOWS TO FIGHT FOR COURT SEAT; WANTS 'FINAL DECISION' TO BE MADE BY FULL SENATE

WASHINGTON (September 25, 2018) -- In a surprising announcement delivered Tuesday in a voice quavering with emotion, Judge Brett Kavanaugh refused to withdraw his apparently doomed Supreme Court nomination and insisted on pushing ahead to a "full debate and a final Senate decision."

Charging that he has been the target of a "campaign of lies," Kavanaugh declared: "If I withdraw now, that campaign would be seen as a success, and it would be mounted against future nominees. For the sake of the federal judiciary and the American people, that must not happen. In the days remaining, I ask only that voices be lowered, the facts respected and the deliberations conducted in a manner that would be fair to me and to the infinitely larger and more important cause of justice in America."

Speaking to reporters at the White House after getting President Trump's blessing, Kavanaugh said he harbors "no illusions" about winning confirmation. 53 of the Senate's 100 members have already signaled to or outright declared their opposition to Kavanaugh, a fact that Trump seemed to acknowledge publicly in a Tuesday morning tweet.

Despite the heavy odds against him, Kavanaugh said, "a crucial principle is at stake: the way in which we select the men and women who guard the liberties of all the American people. That should not be done through public campaigns of lies," he said. When judicial candidates are "treated worse than even political candidates," he said, it endangers the independence of judges and erodes public confidence in their impartiality.

Senators opposed to Kavanaugh's nomination, including 4 Republicans thus far (Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine), promptly denied that they have distorted Kavanaugh's record. Most Americans and most senators oppose Kavanaugh because of "his engulfment by a credible sexual assault allegation," said Mike Murphy, a spokesman for the Senate Democratic Conference.

[brucejoel99]

McCONNELL'S STRONG-ARM TACTICS BACKFIRING IN SENATE

WASHINGTON (September 26, 2018) -- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's strong-arm "bullying" tactics appear to be backfiring with some of his Republican senators, Lisa Murkowksi of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine in particular, who are said to resent being bullied to vote to confirm the controversial Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, especially with their being seen as having the political clout to be able to resist such efforts.

"No matter how strong or dominant a personality McConnell thinks he has within the Senate Republican Conference, he is going to have trouble taking on two moderate political institutions as powerful as Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowksi when their minds have been made up," said a source close to one of the senator's offices, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "The Senators have a strong sense of independence and sense of self that says 'I don't get pushed around that way.' And they're choosing to pushing back this time."

In the last two days, McConnell is said to have threatened Murkowski's status as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Collins' status as chairman of the Aging Committee in an attempt to force them to support Kavanaugh's controversial nomination. The strong negative pushback from the two senators' camps and public confirmation of their opposition to Kavanuagh, however, has apparently forced McConnell to realize that not only is there no chance of saving the now-all-but-doomed nomination, but that he himself may have gone one step too far in attempting to force the senators' hands this time.

"It's stunning to think the majority leader believes that this kind of pressure campaign is going to bring the senators to the table when it is actually repelling them," said the source. He said the threats against their committee chairmanships were especially "dumbfounding," and appeared to allude that at the behest of these threats in particular, Collins and Murkowski were said to be in the earliest stages of considering leaving from the Republican Party, though when (and even if) this might ever occur is uncertain.

Rather than inspiring loyalty from the senators, McConnell's "ham-handed" tactics are said to be spurring them to increasingly go their own way, the source said.

"It would not surprise me to begin seeing the majority leader being more and more marginalized, with Senators Collins and Murkowski going forward with their own agenda, and trying to ignore him as best they can," the source said.

Kavanaugh's plunging popularity as a nominee in the wake of a seemingly-credible sexual assault allegation is what is emboldening the senators to exercise their independence, the source said. A poll released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University showed that only 17% of Americans continue to support Kavanaugh's nomination.

"The majority leader is not in a position right now in regards to this nomination to inspire fear or respect in Senators Collins and Murkowski," the source said.

[brucejoel99]

COLLINS AND MURKOWSKI LEAVE REPUBLICAN PARTY

WASHINGTON (September 27, 2018) -- Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowksi bolted the Republican Party and declared themselves Democratic-caucusing independents on Thursday. "Increasingly, we find ourselves in disagreement with our party," they told the assorted press corps.

Collins and Murkowksi, announcing their party departure in the Senate Press Conference Room, made their announcement after an apparently threatening last-ditch effort by Majority Leader McConnell to keep them in the fold.

Their decision to become independents and caucus with the Democratic Party for committee assignment purposes (as Independent Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Collins' fellow Senator from Maine Angus King already do) in the wake of McConnell reportedly threatening to take away their Senate committee chairmanships if they voted to reject the Kavanaugh nomination will give control of the U.S. Senate to the Democrats.

In a statement released immediately after Senators Collins and Murkowski's press conference, current Senate Minority Leader and Majority Leader-Designate Chuck Schumer (D-NY) praised the decision of Collins and Murkowski as both politically and morally correct on behalf of the American people, and announced that they would be promised their chairmanships of the Aging Committee and Energy and Natural Resources Committee, respectively, once the Republican-to-Democratic Senate transition was complete, which is expected to be in about two weeks' time, to offset their threatened loss of committee chairmanships under current Republican control.

"In order to best represent our states of Maine and Alaska, our own consciences and principals that we have stood for our whole lives, we will leave the Republican Party and become independents," Collins and Murkowski said as Senate Democrats could be heard erupting in cheers in the Senate cloakroom.

Collins and Murkowski said that they had been "struggling with a very difficult decision" in regards to the tumultuous Supreme Court nomination process of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the past several days, which they announced during their press conference that they will adamantly vote to reject if and when the nomination reaches the Senate floor.

The senators said as recently as Wednesday when reports of McConnell wielding strong-arm tactics against the two first arose that they had "no thoughts whatsoever" about changing parties. But they said that it being too difficult for GOP members of Congress to take positions at odds with President Trump in general and McConnell's behavior in regards to the Kavanaugh nomination in particular were the last straw.

"We understand that many people are more conservative than we are and they form the Republican Party. Given the changing nature of the national party, it has become a struggle for our leaders to deal with us and for us to deal with them," Collins and Murkowksi said in their published joint statement which they read aloud.

Collins and Murkowski, declaring "We feel as if a weight has been lifted from our shoulders," said they made their decision Wednesday night after meeting with colleagues in the Senate.

"We met with some of our closest colleagues yesterday. It was one of the most emotional times we have ever had in our lives, with some of our closest friends urging us not to do what we were about to do because it affected their lives substantially," they said.

Collins and Murkowski, however, said they felt unwelcome in a caucus so dominated by not only conservatives, but conservatives willing to cede any claim to upholding moral standards, particularly in regards to the Kavanaugh nomination.

"Looking ahead, we can see more and more instances where we'll disagree with the president on very fundamental issues -- the issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decisions, missile defense, energy and the environment, and a host of other issues, large and small," Collins and Murkowski stated.

Republican leaders were quickly furious, to say the least, about Collins and Murkowski's decision. "Our concern for them is that their legacy will be as one of Benedict Arnold," said John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas and the current Senate Majority Whip and Senate Minority Whip-designate.

[brucejoel99]

KAVANAUGH'S NOMINATION IS REJECTED, 55-45; TRUMP 'SADDENED'

WASHINGTON (September 28, 2018) -- One of, if not the, fiercest battles ever waged over a Supreme Court nominee ended today as the Senate decisively rejected the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh in the wake of Professor Christine Blasey Ford's credible sexual assault allegation against him.

The vote was 55 against confirmation and 45 in favor, tying Richard Nixon's 1969 nomination of Clement Haynsworth, a Southern jurist rejected due to his civil rights record and perceived ethical lapses, for the third biggest margin by which the Senate has ever rejected a Supreme Court nomination (behind only the rejection by 9-24 votes of James Madison's 1811 nomination of Alexander Wolcott in second and the rejection by 42-58 votes of Ronald Reagan's 1987 nomination of Robert Bork in first to not only the very same seat which Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to was rejected for but the same vacancy that recently-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose retirement precipitated Judge Kavanaugh's now-failed nomination, was eventually successfully confirmed to fill). Judge Kavanaugh's was the 30th Supreme Court nomination to fail in the country's history, the third in this century, and the first since only two years ago, 2016, when the Senate refused to consider President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. There have thus far been 113 Supreme Court justices in the nation's history.

The vote came three days after Judge Kavanaugh, in the face of expected defeat, said he would not withdraw his name and wanted the full Senate to vote on his nomination. In a statement issued from his chambers at the Federal courthouse here, where he still serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh said he was "glad the debate took place."

"There is now a full and permanent record by which the future may judge not only me but the proper nature of a confirmation proceeding," the 53-year-old judge said.

President Trump, in a tweet, said, "I am saddened and disappointed that the Senate has bowed today to a campaign of political pressure." In the final hours of the three-day debate on the Senate floor, senators turned their attention to the next nominee for the vacancy on the court. The White House is not expected to name a new candidate before the middle of next week, though with the Democrats expected to take over full operational control of the U.S. Senate in approximately two weeks' time thanks to the party switches of now-former Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and with the midterm elections only a little more than a month away, such a nomination could very well face the same fate as Judge Garland's did two years ago.

The President has publicly vowed to find a nominee who will upset Judge Kavanaugh's opponents "just as much" as Judge Kavanaugh himself. President Trump tweeted today, "My next nominee for the Court will share Judge Kavanaugh's belief in judicial restraint -- that a judge is bound by the Constitution to interpret laws, not make them."

Meanwhile, senators on both sides of the debate urged the President to adopt a less confrontational tone.

"I would recommend they not send someone as controversial," Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the outgoing chairman and soon-to-be ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, said at a news conference after the vote. In his closing remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Grassley called Judge Kavanaugh "a great judge who would have adorned the Supreme Court with integrity and honor."

At his news conference, Senator Grassley added that "as a matter of fairness," the next nominee whom President Trump nominates should be given a fair proceeding and be easily confirmed. Justice Neil Gorsuch, whose nomination was confirmed in early 2017, was President Trump's first and, at this point in time, only successful Supreme Court nominee.

Democrats were more pointed in their warnings to the White House.

"If we receive a nominee who thinks like Judge Kavanaugh, who acts like Judge Kavanaugh, and who lacks integrity and honor like Judge Kavanaugh, then he will be rejected like Judge Kavanaugh, just like that," Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont said on the Senate floor while snapping his fingers for emphasis.

While it's understood that no final selection has yet to be made, Trump Administration officials have been relatively open-mouthed about who the next nominee might be, most prominently suggesting conservative Federal appellate judge Amy Coney Barrett, 46, of South Bend, IN, who serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and who was previously one of the finalists for the nomination in the run-up to Kavanaugh's eventual selection earlier this year.

The Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, urged the Administration to consult with the Senate before submitting a new name. In the run-up to their taking control of the Senate, Democratic leaders have warned the White House that the nomination of a conservative would engender deep opposition.

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the current ranking member and soon-to-be chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said after the vote that Don McGahn, the White House counsel, had told her today that no choice had yet to be made but that Administration officials would discuss the matter with Democratic leaders next week.

But Senator Feinstein said she was not certain that the White House was committed to advance consultations. "It may very well be that they will just come up here with a name,'' Senator Feinstein said of the Administration.

4 Republicans joined 49 Democrats and the 2 Democratic-caucusing Independents, Murkowski and Collins, in voting against Judge Kavanaugh, while not a single Democrat joined the 45 Republicans who voted in his favor.

By the time the Senate convened this morning, only three senators had not announced their positions: Republican Senators Bob Corker of Tennessee, Roy Blunt of Missouri, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. All three had chosen to walk back previous public declarations of opposition to the nomination after apparent threats to their status in the Senate by now-outgoing Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky; in the end, they, in addition to Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, who had also previously declared publicly his opposition to the nomination in the aftermath of Monday's tumultuous Judiciary Committee hearing on the topic of the sexual assault allegation levied against Judge Kavanaugh and who had refused to walk back his declaration of opposition in the face of McConnell's threats, voted against Judge Kavanaugh.

The biggest surprise was Senator Blunt, perceived to be a loyal conservative who had been openly and publicly agonizing for the last several days over the decision. The chairman of and soon-to-be ranking Republican on the Senate Rules Committee, Senator Blunt is almost unfailingly loyal to the Administration. But in a brief speech on the Senate floor, he said that Mr. Trump's recent statement that the opposition to Judge Kavanaugh was a "lynch mob" was "simply unbecoming the office of the Presidency."

Senator Blunt said that he wanted to support the nominee. However, he said: "I searched the record. I looked at this distinguished jurist, and I cannot find in him the values of truth, of integrity and honor to enable him to sit on the highest Court of the land."

Although the outcome of the vote today was decided three days ago when the number of senators on record as opposing confirmation reached a majority, a sense of drama nonetheless arose in the Senate chamber when the moment came, shortly after 2 P.M.

The galleries were filled, both with members of the general public and with leaders of organizations that had attempted to play leading roles in lobbying for and against confirmation.

In an ordinary roll-call vote, senators wander through the chamber, chatting with colleagues and voting by a casual hand signal. But for this vote, Senators McConnell and Schumer asked senators to remain at their seats and vote. As the clerk called each name, senators stood up, intoning "aye" or "no" in solemn voices.

But earlier in the day, the scene was less dramatic than poignant. Then, the chamber was nearly deserted save for a few senators making their final speeches and Judge Kavanaugh's wife, Ashley, and two daughters, who sat expressionless in the visitors' gallery. They left before the vote began. Mrs. Kavanaugh and the judge's daughters, Liza and Margaret, had sat with him in his four days of testimony earlier this month before the Judiciary Committee. In his statement today, Judge Kavanaugh said that his family's "love and counsel sustained me throughout the extended process we have been through together."

Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican who, as a then-former Senator was the so-called shepherd of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination through the Senate prior to his re-appointment to the Senate to fill the vacancy created by John McCain's passing, gave a long speech on his behalf this morning, contending that opponents had distorted the nominee's honor and defeated him by making the public afraid of him.

The normally soft-spoken Senator continued, his voice rising: "What has happened to Brett Kavanaugh is wrong. The man's been trashed in our house. Some of us helped generate the trashing, others yielded to it, but all of us are accomplices."

Senator Feinstein replied that Senator Kyl was making "one heck of an indictment of your colleagues" by suggesting that senators had not reached independent decisions on Judge Kavanaugh but had "succumbed to raw pressure."

Senator Feinstein continued: "I have a higher opinion of the ability of my colleagues to do what's right."

Later, in closing the debate, the Judiciary Committee ranking member and soon-to-be chairwoman said: "This has been a great debate, a debate about fundamental principle and, above all else, a debate about values; the fundamental values of truth, integrity, and honor."

Senator Feinstein repeated the statement with which she helped open Judge Kavanaugh's second confirmation hearing earlier this month, and which she attempted to make a theme for the entire proceeding. "Serious questions have been raised about Judge Kavanaugh's record, and serious allegations by Mrs. Ford necessitate a no vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination," she said.

After the vote, Senator Feinstein said that although "I enjoy winning," this particular victory was "less enjoyable than others, because we are talking about a woman who had to come out of the shadows and have her life turned upside down, a respectable woman who just couldn't stay silent about something that happened to her at the hands of this nominee."

The debate thus ended with Judge Kavanaugh's supporters and opponents holding fundamentally irreconcilable views of what had gone wrong for the nominee. His supporters insisted that his actions had been misunderstood and mischaracterized by lies, while his opponents maintained that he lost precisely because the senators and their constituents did understand his actions and values, and rejected them.

[brucejoel99]

Amazing! Curious as to if this will lead to you covering 2020? Or simply just to the mid-terms, I hope 2020 because the more the better!

I don't yet know about 2020 but don't worry, I'll definitely be going into 2019 (midterms included)

[brucejoel99]

DEMOCRATS SETTLE INTO PRE-MIDTERM POWER IN THE SENATE

WASHINGTON (October 10, 2018) -- Senate Democrats stepped into their new role as the chamber's majority party with ease late on Wednesday morning, following a brief series of introductions, a swearing-in ceremony for the new Senate president pro tempore, and a few minutes of congratulatory speeches.

The new-look U.S. Senate was gaveled to order at 11 a.m. The Democrats, who hold a fragile two-seat majority, are in control for the first time since January 2015 when the GOP took over both houses of Congress following the 2014 midterm elections.

Sens. Chuck Schumer and Patrick Leahy of Vermont were recognized as the new Democratic leaders, completing the power switch initiated when Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska announced two weeks ago that they would leave the Republican Party to become independents.

The day began with new Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois taking the chair following a brief invocation to recognize Schumer as the Senate's new majority leader.

Schumer, in turn, moved to appoint Leahy the new Senate president pro tempore, replacing Orrin Hatch of Utah, who is retiring with the midterm election next month.

Once Leahy received the oath of office from Durbin, he assumed the president's chair and gave the floor to Schumer who gave his first speech as majority leader.

Schumer replaces longtime Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, who now becomes Senate minority leader once again.

The New York Democrat said he was humbled by his new position, and mindful that his duty was maintain an air of productivity and civility in the closely divided chamber.

"Polarizing positions are an indulgence," he said, "an indulgence we cannot afford."

"The noise you sometimes hear [here] is the noise of democracy," he said. "It is a beautiful sound, though it may not always be the sound you want to hear."

McConnell, following Schumer on the floor, pledged his aide when appropriate.

"I know, Sen. Schumer, that the weight of this job will be as heavy as the weight on Atlas when he carried the world on his shoulders," McConnell said. "I hope I can help sometimes to make that burden a little lighter."

Schumer, surveying the new landscape before him earlier in the day, admitted there are still fundamental disagreements between Democrats and Republicans. But, he said, the two parties must work out their differences if and when possible.

"My message will be, let's find a way to work together, to find middle ground on the array of issues we all care about -- whether it's taxes, healthcare, immigration, climate change, education, the judiciary," he said.

"There are a lot of things that we can do together, and I'm hopeful that we can find a way and that we can demonstrate that this is a new day," Schumer said.

The shift in power officially took place at the end of business Tuesday, following Sens. Collins and Murkowski's formal exits from the Republican Party conference.

Democrats now have a 51-49 edge.

As a show of good faith to his Republican colleagues, Schumer motioned to name Hatch the Senate "president pro tempore emeritus."

Durbin replaces Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, as majority whip, the No. 2 man in the Senate.

With 30 minutes of ceremony and pleasantries behind them, Senate lawmakers moved on to their ongoing debate over the wait for President Trump to name his second nominee to fill the vacancy of now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court in the wake of the rejection of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination two weeks ago due to a credible sexual assault allegation.

Also settled today was an organizing resolution, passed to set membership ratios for each of the Senate's committees. With the Democrats' ascension to power, they will now enjoy the chairmanships of and one-seat majorities on all of the Senate's committee panels.

[brucejoel99]

TRUMP NOMINATES AMY CONEY BARRETT TO SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON (October 17, 2018) -- President Trump, stung by the failure of his first nomination to the Supreme Court three weeks ago, today nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett and expressed the hope that she could be confirmed quickly in a spirit of fairness.

President Trump emphasized that Judge Barrett "seems to be popular with many senators."

"Maybe the experience of the last month or so has made us all a bit wiser," he said. President Trump's tone today was in marked contrast to the sharply partisan terms he presented in regards to his previous nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, two weeks ago. Then, the President called the Senate's rejection of Judge Kavanaugh a "disservice to the Court and to the nation" and said that "the American people will know what's up" if the Senate did not act quickly.

But beneath the cautious optimism was a general expectation that Judge Barrett faces quite the uphill battle in the Senate, with a bruising battle expected at the very least due to the unexpectedly newfound Democratic Senate majority, as well as a collective belief that President Trump nominated Judge Barrett first and foremost in the hopes of mobilizing his base of Republican voters in the run-up to the midterm elections in three weeks' time.

Judge Barrett, in her brief appearance at the announcement in the East Room of the White House today, said with a slight smile, "I'm delighted with this nomination."

Democrats quickly rejected President Trump's challenge to accept the nomination. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, appeared on the Senate floor shortly after the President's remarks to declare an end to Judge Barrett's nomination, no matter her qualifications. In case there was any doubt, Schumer later called Judge Barrett personally to say that he would not be receiving her in his Capitol office, nor taking any action on her nomination.

"The President must understand that by picking somebody so blatantly hostile to Roe v. Wade, so blatantly hostile to the ACA, that he is helping to potentially cataclysmically tear the country apart in a way it hasn't been for some time, and that is bad for his legacy," Schumer said on the Senate floor. "The President should also understand that our view is this: if he truly wanted to unify the country, then he should have nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill this vacancy. Because, at a time when our politics are so polarized, at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and courtesy and comity are so often treated like they're disposable, this is precisely the time when we should strive for unity and play it straight."

In choosing Judge Barrett, a Notre Dame law professor and former clerk for the late Justice Antonin Scalia who was only confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in late 2017, President Trump opted to select a jurist perhaps better known for her ideological bent and the role of her Catholic faith in judging than for longstanding judicial qualifications or her meticulous work ethic and adherence to legal principles.

White House officials considered, and rejected, advice from supporters who urged President Trump to pressure Democrats by nominating a more moderate judicial selection, choosing instead to zero in on a conservative champion who might excite the core Republican supporters that they need energized for next month's midterm elections.

Many conservatives expressed pleasure with that decision. Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, said it was "profoundly pleasing that President Trump has used this opportunity to add the voice of another judicial constitutionalist to the Supreme Court rather than instead put forward a nominee who'd be seemingly designed to appease intransigent Democrats."

White House officials also said that President Trump and his aides, led by outgoing White House Counsel Don McGahn, made the calculation that selecting a nominee previously confirmed on the basis of their legal credentials would expose the Democratic opposition as based solely on politics. The President passed over two other federal appellate judges on his short list who might have achieved those goals: Thomas Hardiman, 53, for whom it was now the third time in less than two years that Hardiman was Trump's runner-up for a Supreme Court nomination, and Raymond Kethledge, 51, a federal judge with a loyally conservative record and, as a Michigan outdoorsman, a Washington outsider image that could help him.

"To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Amy Coney Barrett doesn't even deserve a hearing, let alone an up-or-down vote, to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court, when a lot of Americans believe otherwise -- that would be unacceptable," President Trump said.

President Trump had previously considered Judge Barrett for the same Supreme Court vacancy earlier this year before choosing to instead nominate Judge Kavanaugh, and after his nomination failed, some aides viewed her as an "in-case-of-emergency-break-glass" candidate whom, as a woman, they could nominate under the precipice that they needed a nominee who was a stark contrast to the previous nominee's credible allegation of sexual assault.

Yet Senate Democrats went so far as to suggest today that if they, as expected, retain their recently-gained Senate majority in three weeks' time, they will only be open to considering Judge Garland as an alternative to a conservative nominee such as Judge Barrett, especially after her nomination automatically expires upon the expiration of the 115th Congress on Jan. 3, though President Trump would be expected to automatically re-nominate her and proceed with her nomination unimpeded. And even as Judge Barrett prepared to begin meeting with senators on Thursday, there was no evidence that any Democratic senators would be softening their stances anytime soon.

A statement from Senate Democrats said that no Democratic Senators would be agreeing to meet with Judge Barrett, especially prior to the midterm elections and during the sequential lame-duck session. And only three Senate Democrats, Senators Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, all facing difficult re-election challenges in Republican-leaning states, said they would be open to considering the nomination of Judge Barrett during the 116th Congress if Senate Democrats were to retain their majority with the upcoming election and President Trump were to re-nominate Judge Barrett upon the 115th Congress' expiration on Jan. 3.

The White House reached out to Judge Barrett, along with a number of other potential nominees, days after the rejection of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination on Sep. 28. President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Mr. McGahn jointly interviewed her last Thursday even as the President's short list, which included her name and those of Judges Hardiman and Kethledge, leaked in the news media, alarming the West Wing officials who were trying to keep the process out of the spotlight and, as always, trying to keep a lid on internal leaks.

President Trump spent Friday and Saturday in Texas and Tennessee, attending Republican fund-raisers and rallies for incumbent Senator Ted Cruz's re-election campaign and Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn's campaign, respectively, before spending spending Saturday night and Sunday at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey, playing a round of golf on Sunday before returning to Washington late Sunday night and informing his top aides soon afterward that Judge Barrett would be his pick.

McGahn was one of only about a half-dozen top aides who knew the choice as planning for the public rollout of the nominee kicked into gear. Much of the work could be prepared without knowing the specific nominee, but on Wednesday, White House videographers recorded Judge Barrett for the gauzy biographical video that they released Wednesday night.

It came out just after President Trump appeared in the East Room to introduce Judge Barrett and challenge Democrats to give her a fair shot.

"So I am asking the Democrats in the Senate to give her a fair hearing, and a vote," President Trump said. "If you don’t, then it will not only be an unacceptable avoiding of your duty, it will show the nation that our sacred process for nominating and confirming judges is beyond repair."

[brucejoel99]

DEMOCRATS WIN CONTROL OF CONGRESS, CAPTURING HOUSE, 273-162, AND EXPAND NEW SENATE MAJORITY, 55-45

WASHINGTON (November 7, 2018) -- In a rout once considered almost inconceivable, and in perhaps the most inconceivable way that could have been considered, Democrats captured control of the House of Representatives on Tuesday and expanded their recently-gained majority in the Senate, riding a wave of voter discontent to regain total control of Congress after 8 years of near-domination by the Republican Party and deal a setback to President Trump just two years after his upset victory.

A Democratic resurgence, propelled by a deeply controversial President and a forceful opposition to the Trump-Republican agenda, delivered defeats to House Republicans from the Northeast to the South and across the Midwest. The tide swept aside dozens of lawmakers, regardless of their seniority or their voting records, upending the balance of power for the second half of President Trump's term.

The shift dramatically alters the government's balance of power, leaving President Trump with zero GOP congressional control to drive any of his legislative agenda. Democrats hailed the results of a midterm election marked by deep dissatisfaction with the president, and vowed to investigate administration policies and decisions.

In the House, Democrats had won or were leading in 273 seats, while Republicans had won or were leading in 162 seats. With a 273-162 majority, Democrats would have 55 more seats than the number necessary to hold the barest of majorities in the 435-member chamber. Without losing any seats of their own, Democrats captured 78 GOP-held seats, far surpassing the 31 seats the party won in their last so-called "Blue Wave," the sweep of 2006.

"The American people's voice was heard at the ballot box," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who is positioned to once again become the Speaker of the House. "We have real work to do, and this is not the time for celebration."

As watershed elections go, this one rivaled the Democrats' takeover in 2006, which made Pelosi the Speaker of the House the first time around, and the first Democrat to run the House since the Newt Gingrich-fueled Republican Revolution of 1994. This time, the shift comes in the midst of a deeply unpopular presidency, a Republican Party scarred by controversy and just two years from a highly-anticipated presidential contest.

President Trump watched the election returns with his family at the White House and, in a surprisingly affable tweet shortly after midnight, offered his congratulations to Speaker-elect Pelosi and said he hoped they could work together on the way forward as Washington prepares for divided government.

The Democrats, in a continuation of their good fortunes in regards to the Senate that began with the late-September party switches of Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, will also have four new senators on their side of the aisle as a result of Tuesday's balloting. Two of them, Senators-elect Jacky Rosen and Beto O'Rourke defeated sitting Republican senators from Nevada and Texas, respectively. The other two, Senators-elect Kyrsten Sinema and Phil Bredesen, replaced retiring senators from Arizona and Tennessee, respectively. Thus, the Democrats will now hold a 55-45 majority in the Senate.

"Tonight, the American people have made clear they are tired of the embarrassments that have made up the last two years," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, now secure in his place to remain Senate Majority Leader when Congress reconvenes in January.

The most expensive midterm election campaign in the nation's history, fueled by a raft of both contributions from outside interest groups and small individual contributors alike, and millions in donations to candidates in both parties, played out across a wide battleground that stretched from Alaska to Maine. The Democratic tide swept into statehouse races, too, with Republicans poised to lose the majority of governorships, particularly those in key presidential swing states, like Florida and Ohio, where term-limited Governors Rick Scott (who suffered his own personal defeat last night as well in Florida's Senate race at the hands of the re-elected Democratic incumbent, Bill Nelson) and John Kasich, respectively, will be replaced by Governors-elect Andrew Gillum, the Bernie Sanders-endorsed progressive-style candidate and outgoing Mayor of Tallahassee, and Richard Cordray, the former state Attorney General and Obama-era Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (also known as the brainchild agency of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who was easily re-elected in her own right last night as well).

One after another, once-unassailable Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Representatives Steve Chabot of Ohio, Dana Rohrabacher of California, Leonard Lance of New Jersey and John Culberson of Texas fell to little-known Democratic challengers.

"Voters sent a message that making America great again has not happened fast enough," said Ronna Romney McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee and niece of 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who was successful in his quest last night to become the next Senator from Utah.

Democrats did not achieve the most perfect of victories, however, with a big surprise of the night coming out of New Jersey. Senator Bob Menendez was thought to be one of the safest incumbents in his party despite having gone through an embarrassing and politically damaging corruption trial one year ago, but instead found himself only narrowly prevailing against his wealthy Republican challenger, former pharmaceutical executive Bob Hugin. Their race was marked by Hugin's relentless negative ad campaign and deep pockets, combined with Menendez's deep unpopularity among New Jersey voters, and its tight result is surprising for a state that the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, carried by 14 points over then-candidate Trump two years ago.

Elsewhere across the country, in the previously-thought-to-be-reliably-red state of Texas, Sen. Cruz, a former presidential primary candidate against then-candidate Trump in 2016 and the most surprising of the two GOP incumbents to lose re-election bids, lost to his Democratic opponent, Congressman O'Rourke, with the final count by The Associated Press showing O'Rourke with 2,428,075 votes and Cruz with 2,408,979, a difference of only 19,096. Cruz, however, is currently awaiting the results of a statewide post-election canvass of votes and has not yet conceded the race. Beside the O'Rourke-Cruz race, the Nevada Senate contest also resulted in the Democratic candidate, Congresswoman Rosen, beating incumbent Senator Dean Heller.

The outcome on Tuesday was nothing short of a remarkable comeback for Democrats two years after they suffered a crushing upset defeat in the White House, four years after Republicans swept control of the Senate, and eight years after they had done the same with the House. It places the party back in the driver's seat in terms of policy, posing new challenges to President Trump as he faces a tough two years in his term, but also for Democrats -- led by Speaker-elect Pelosi -- as she suddenly finds herself once again in a position of responsibility, rather than being simply the outsider.

In the House, Democrats found victories in most corners of the country, including seven seats in Pennsylvania, seven in Ohio, four in Florida, Illinois and Virginia and three in Georgia. Republicans braced for the prospect of historic defeats, far more than the 23 seats the Democrats needed to win control. Democrats reached their majority by taking seats east of the Mississippi even before late results flowed in from farther West.

Throughout the evening, in race after race, Democratic challengers defeated favored Republican opponents, including incumbents, despite being at significant fund-raising disadvantages. Left-leaning groups invariably came to the rescue as well, helping level the playing field, including in Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District, the seat of retiring House Speaker Paul Ryan, in which ironworker Randy Bryce defeated Bryan Steil, a lawyer and former staffer for Ryan; Ohio's 1st Congressional District, where Chabot, an 11-term incumbent, lost to Aftab Pureval, a local clerk of courts; New Jersey's 7th Congressional District, in which Lance, who was seeking his 6th term, succumbed to Tom Malinowski, an Obama-era Asst. Secretary of State; and Texas' 7th Congressional District, where Culberson, a 9-term incumbent, lost to his Democratic challenger, Houston attorney Lizzie Fletcher.

Republicans argued that the Democratic triumph was far from complete, particularly in the Senate, pointing to the safe-election of Romney over his once-favored Democratic opponent, Jenny Wilson, a member of the Salt Lake County Council, and other races. In Wyoming, incumbent Sen. John Barrasso defeated Gary Trauner, a Jackson Hole businessman and former U.S. House candidate. In Nebraska, incumbent Sen. Deb Fischer triumphed over Jane Raybould, a Councilwoman from Lincoln. And in Mississippi's two Senate elections, Republican incumbent Sen. Roger Wicker beat back a Democratic challenge from state Rep. David Baria in Mississippi's regularly scheduled Senate race, while in the special election for the state's other Senate seat to fill the vacancy caused by Thad Cochran's resignation earlier this year on account of poor health, Cindy Hyde-Smith, the Republican appointed by Gov. Phil Bryant to fill the vacant seat in the interim, and Mike Espy, the former Clinton-era Secretary of Agriculture, are advancing to a Nov. 27 runoff.

But Republicans conceded that their plans for a Red Wave did not meet expectations, party strategists said, and extraordinary efforts that President Trump made during the campaign appeared to have borne little fruit.

The President casted himself as the star of the midterm elections, eagerly inserting himself into hotly contested races, headlining big rallies in pivotal districts and states, and maximizing his fundraising efforts for Republican candidates, spending 40 days on the campaign trail between Aug. 1 and Election Day, seemingly all to no avail despite the President's appeals to Republicans in many states that he carried two years ago.

In governors' races, Democrats won several contests in the nation. They held onto governorships in Hawaii, New York and California (with Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom set to replace long-time popular term-limited incumbent Governor Jerry Brown), and had seized seats now occupied by Republicans in Maine, New Mexico and Illinois (where Democrat J. B. Pritzker, wealthy venture capitalist and brother of Obama-era Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, defeated the unpopular incumbent Republican, Gov. Bruce Rauner). In Nevada, Steve Sisolak, a Democrat and Clark County Commissioner, easily took the post that Brian Sandoval, a popular moderate Republican, is leaving behind.

Though Republicans, who before the election held 33 governors’ seats compared to 16 for the Republicans (plus a lone independent, Alaska Gov. Bill Walker, who was defeated in his reelection bid by Republican State Senator Mike Dunleavy, who won with a plurality of the vote due to the contest being a three-way race thanks to the presence of former U.S. Sen. Mark Begich as the Democratic nominee), were expected to face such losses, there were also bright spots. In Maryland, moderate incumbent Gov. Larry Hogan easily defeated the Democrat, Ben Jealous, even as Democrats were expected to pick up seats in the state legislature and the congressional delegation. In Massachusetts, Gov. Charlie Baker won a second term.

As the election results rolled in, with Democrats picking up victories shortly after polls closed in states across the South, East and the Midwest, FOX News personalities Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity (as well as major Republican Party leaders such as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise) made urgent appeals during their network's broadcast that there was still time for voters in other states to cast their ballots.

But the mood in Republican quarters was glum, with few early signs of optimism in House or Senate races that were called early in the evening. Exit polls that were conducted with voters across the country also provided little sense of hope for Republicans, with Democrats gaining a majority of independents, college-educated people and suburbanites -- all groups whose support Republicans needed to secure to hope for victory.

"We've come to take our government back," Senator-elect O'Rourke told cheering supporters who gathered in El Paso, TX. "They say that the U.S. Senate is the world's most deliberative body. I'm going to ask them to deliberate on this: The American people are unhappy with what's going on in Washington."

The election was very much a referendum on President Trump and the Republican agenda, according to interviews with voters that were conducted for the National Election Pool, a consortium of television networks and The Associated Press, with a wide majority of the electorate saying that the country was seriously off track. Nearly nine in 10 voters said they were worried how the GOP agenda's major focal points of health care and tax reform would impact them, and about 4 in 10 said the President's deeply controversial actions in office were worrying.

The surveys found that voters were even more dissatisfied with Congress now than they were in 2010, when Republicans reclaimed control from the Democrats. Preliminary results also indicated an electorate far more liberal than the midterm electorate four years ago in 2014, a sign of much stronger turnout by people leaning toward Democrats.

Most voters said they believed President Trump's policies would hurt the country in the long run, rather than help it, and a large share of voters all across the country said they'd be intending to support any Democratic candidate rather than President Trump's reelection bid in two years.

The Democratic winds began blowing back in December 2017 when Republicans lost the seat long held by former Senator and current Attorney General Jeff Sessions of Alabama, with the major upset victory of Doug Jones serving as a motivating force for the budding Blue Wave and a burst of inspiration for Democratic candidates across the country to step forward and challenge Democrats everywhere.

On Tuesday, the President did not leave the grounds of the White House, taking a respite from months of campaigning across the country, so he could meet with his inner-circle of top advisers to plot a way forward for his administration and his own looming re-election campaign. The White House said President Trump would address the governing challenges that await him with the new Congress during a previously scheduled joint-foreign leader press conference on Wednesday.

"My hope is that Democrats can work with me. Obviously, I know I could work with them as long as they're reasonable," President Trump said in a radio interview on Hannity's radio program earlier on Tuesday as he spent the final hours of the midterm campaign trying to persuade Republicans in key states to take time to vote. Later, President Trump shot out one tweet after another, urging his voter base to help preserve the Republican majority and his agenda in particular.

"Whether I'm gonna able to make America great again over the next couple of years depends on the Democrats not obstructing, obstructing, obstructing," President Trump said in his interview with Hannity.

There was little Republican terrain across the country that seemed immune to Democratic encroachment, with many of the most competitive races being waged in states that President Trump carried strongly only two years ago. From Pennsylvania to Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Florida and Ohio -- all places that were kind to the Republican ticket in 2016 -- Democrats worked aggressively to find new opportunities.

For all the drama surrounding the final day of the midterm campaign, more than 24 million Americans had voted before Tuesday, a trend that has grown with each election cycle over the last two decades, as 37 states now offer ways for voters to practice democracy in far more convenient ways than simply waiting in line on Election Day.

[brucejoel99]

Did Abrams, Gillum, and/or Cordray win???

Gillum & Cordray did win as mentioned in the post, just realized I forgot about Abrams but yeah she did lol

[brucejoel99]

Did James Smith win in SC?

Yeah, but it was really close: 50.4 to 49.6

[brucejoel99]

Did James Smith win in SC?

Yeah, but it was really close: 50.4 to 49.6

Hell yeah! 

When you have time, could you post the maps, please?  Senate and Governors, obviously, since the House would be a headache to work with.

2018 MIDTERM ELECTIONS: NOVEMBER 6, 2018


SENATE ELECTIONS

Arizona: Kyrsten Sinema (D), succeeds Jeff Flake (R)
California: Dianne Feinstein (D), re-elected
Connecticut: Chris Murphy (D), re-elected
Delaware: Tom Carper (D), re-elected
Florida: Bill Nelson (D) re-elected
Hawaii: Mazie Hirono (D), re-elected
Indiana: Joe Donnelly (D) re-elected
Maine: Angus King (D) re-elected
Maryland: Ben Cardin (D), re-elected
Massachusetts: Elizabeth Warren (D), re-elected
Michigan: Debbie Stabenow (D), re-elected
Minnesota: Amy Klobuchar (D), re-elected
Minnesota-Special: Tina Smith (D), re-elected
Mississippi: Roger Wicker (R), re-elected
Mississippi-Special: Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R) and Mike Espy (D), advancing to runoff
Missouri: Claire McCaskill (D), re-elected
Montana: Jon Tester (D), re-elected
Nebraska: Deb Fischer (R), re-elected
Nevada: Jacky Rosen (D), succeeds Dean Heller (R)
New Jersey: Bob Menendez (D), re-elected
New Mexico: Martin Heinrich (D), re-elected
New York: Kirsten Gillibrand (D), re-elected
North Dakota: Heidi Heitkamp (D) re-elected
Ohio: Sherrod Brown (D), re-elected
Pennsylvania: Bob Casey (D), re-elected
Rhode Island: Sheldon Whitehouse (D), re-elected
Tennessee: Phil Bredesen (D), succeeds Bob Corker (R)
Texas: Beto O'Rourke (D), succeeds Ted Cruz (R)
Utah: Mitt Romney (R), succeeds Orrin Hatch (R)
Vermont: Bernie Sanders (D), re-elected
Virginia: Tim Kaine (D), re-elected
Washington: Maria Cantwell (D), re-elected
West Virginia: Joe Manchin (D), re-elected
Wisconsin: Tammy Baldwin (D), re-elected
Wyoming: John Barrasso (R), re-elected

GUBERNATORIAL ELECTIONS

Alabama: Kay Ivey (R) re-elected
Alaska: Mike Dunleavy (R), succeeds Bill Walker (I)
Arizona: David Garcia (D), succeeds Doug Duecy (R)
Arkansas: Asa Hutchinson (R) re-elected
California: Gavin Newsom (D), succeeds Jerry Brown (D)
Colorado: Jared Polis (D), succeeds John Hickenlooper (D)
Connecticut: Ned Lamont (D), succeeds Dan Malloy (D)
Florida: Andrew Gillum (D), succeeds Rick Scott (R)
Georgia: Stacey Abrams (D), succeeds Nathan Deal (R)
Hawaii: David Ige (D) re-elected
Idaho: Brad Little (R), succeeds Butch Otter (R)
Illinois: J.B. Pritzker (D), succeeds Bruce Rauner (R)
Iowa: Fred Hubbell (D), succeeds Kim Reynolds (R)
Kansas: Laura Kelly (D), succeeds Jeff Colyer (R)
Maine: Janet Mills (D), succeeds Paul LePage (R)
Maryland: Larry Hogan (R) re-elected
Massachusetts: Charlie Baker (R) re-elected
Michigan: Gretchen Whitmer (D), succeeds Rick Snyder (R)
Minnesota: Tim Walz (D), succeeds Mark Dayton (D)
Nebraska: Pete Ricketts (R) re-elected
Nevada: Steve Sisolak (D), succeeds Brian Sandoval (R)
New Hampshire: Chris Sununu (R) re-elected
New Mexico: Michelle Lujan Grisham (D), succeeds Susana Martinez (R)
New York: Andrew Cuomo (D) re-elected
Ohio: Richard Cordray (D), succeeds John Kasich (R)
Oklahoma: Kevin Stitt (R), succeeds Mary Fallin (R)
Oregon: Kate Brown (D) re-elected
Pennsylvania: Tom Wolf (D) re-elected
Rhode Island: Gina Raimondo (D) re-elected
South Carolina: James Smith (D), succeeds Henry McMaster (R)
South Dakota: Kristi Noem (R), succeeds Dennis Daugaard (R)
Tennessee: Bill Lee (R), succeeds Bill Haslam (R)
Texas: Greg Abbott (R) re-elected
Vermont: Christine Hallquist (D), succeeds Phil Scott (R)
Wisconsin: Tony Evers (D), succeeds Scott Walker (R)
Washington, D.C.: Muriel Bowser (D) re-elected
Wyoming: Mark Gordon (R), succeeds Matt Mead (R)

[brucejoel99]

Loving this Freedom Timeline. Can we get the Hyde-Smith/Espy run-off results, please? And impeach Kavanaugh from the Court of Appeals?

Thanks! And I wasn't gonna make an article out of it but Cindy wins: Hyde-Smith 51.1 - Espy 48.9

Oh, & let's just say we haven't seen the last of Brett Kavanaugh...

[brucejoel99]

Can you please alter the arc of history to make this timeline occur in the real world?

Well now the premise of this TL may come true...

Is this mans predicting the future?

I sure wish & hope so lmao

[brucejoel99]

I'm skeptical Collins and Murkowski would ever defect from the GOP. Also don't see Dems making such huge gains in the midterms.

But a great, well written TL!

Well the theme I was trying to hit home is that it wasn't just Kavanaugh that caused them to switch, it was all the s**t they've suffered under Mitch that causes it; Kavanaugh & Mitch threatening them over it is the so-called straw that breaks the camel's back, if you will.

Thank you nonetheless for the compliment, though!

[brucejoel99]

It doesn't matter, Murkowski, is assured to affirm Kavanaugh anyways, Collins and Ernst and Gardner are gone in 2020 anyways.

In response to the above:

Bruh, it's just a TL, calm the f**k down

[brucejoel99]

It doesn't matter, Murkowski, is assured to affirm Kavanaugh anyways, Collins and Ernst and Gardner are gone in 2020 anyways.

Also, I never even brought 2020 up so Idk why you did but, regardless, none of that is certain & Murkowski is nowhere near "assured to affirm Kavanaugh anyways," so stop talking out of your ass

[brucejoel99]

Love these results. Trump got trumped.

Mhmm lol thanks

is this the future

I wish!

NUT

You're welcome?

Do you have a time machine or something? Except for Graham, he's Kavanaugh's staunchest defender.

Yeah, I honestly only picked Graham b/c when the allegations first came out, I thought I remembered hearing something about him being more open to hearing about them than other Republicans; boy have the tides turned.

Do you have a time machine or something? Except for Graham, he's Kavanaugh's staunchest defender.

We need to know what's next. Write on!

Coming right up...

[brucejoel99]

THE DEMOCRATS' SUPREME COURT GAMBLE IS PAYING OFF: DEMS UNLIKELY TO END SCOTUS BLOCKADE SOON

WASHINGTON (November 9, 2018) -- The Senate Republican leadership came back Thursday, thundering at Democrats about their refusal to even consider a Supreme Court nominee after Tuesday's midterm election. With the Republican electoral defeat, the nomination of President Trump's second nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, seemingly all-but-died with the election of a renewed Democratic majority in the Senate.

As of now, it appears that the prospect is that Barrett will be waiting as a nominee, perhaps in vain, for up to 2 years, well over the 293-day wait President Obama's 2016 nominee, Merrick Garland, experienced before his nomination expired.

To sum up events to date, after Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement last June, President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh, of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in July to fill the vacancy that had been created. After his nomination eventually fell apart in September and failed in the wake of sexual assault allegations, however, President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, last month.

But ever since Democrats regained a majority in the Senate, however, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has proclaimed that there will be no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever, on any Supreme Court nomination until the American people got to vote on a new president in 2020 unless and until President Trump nominated Judge Garland himself to the Supreme Court. The idea, of course, is that if the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee were to win the presidency, he or she would fill the vacancy instead of President Trump, unless he were willing to nominate President Obama's own former pick to the Supreme Court.

Since then, Schumer has brooked no serious opposition. For instance, when Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, poked her nose out earlier this week after being safely re-elected to suggest that Democrats might hold hearings on the Barrett nomination sometime during the next Congress, the next day -- her nose pretty obviously smashed in -- she quickly backtracked.

If President Trump fails in his 2020 re-election bid, then the Barrett nomination will truly be dead. And moreover, the next president is, at least by the actuarial numbers, likely to have more vacancies to fill in the future. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85, and Justice Stephen Breyer is 80.

Of course, how all this balances out is important as well. If Schumer sticks to his guns and doesn't allow a vote for two years, the Supreme Court will remain short-handed and sometimes tied on important issues for years to come.

The president elected in 2020 would likely announce a nominee's name in February 2021, two-and-a-half years after Kennedy's retirement. Next would come confirmation hearings, followed by written questions, a committee vote, and a floor debate and vote. Add all that up, and even Barrett herself would only be able to hear the last oral arguments of the October 2020 court term, in April 2021. So, for all practical purposes, there would have been a Supreme Court vacancy for nearly three terms. And that is a new normal that scares a lot of people -- Republicans especially right now.

[brucejoel99]

HOW TRUMP AND SCHUMER CAME CLOSE TO A SUPREME COURT DEAL OVER CHEESEBURGERS

WASHINGTON (December 14, 2018) -- President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, apparently come close to an agreement to facilitate a Supreme Court confirmation after having lunch on Friday. But their consensus broke down later in the day when the President and his Chief of Staff demanded more concessions on appointment provisions, according to people on both sides familiar with the lunch and follow-up calls between President Trump and Senator Schumer.

The negotiations between President Trump and Senator Schumer, fellow New Yorkers who have known each other for years, began when the President called Senator Schumer on Friday morning, giving the White House staff almost no heads-up. In a lengthy phone conversation, both men agreed to attempt to seek a deal on a Supreme Court appointment rather than continue the up-to-two-year delay currently being forced by Democratic Senators on Capitol Hill.

Less than an hour later, Senator Schumer was meeting with President Trump over cheeseburgers in the President's study next to the Oval Office. The White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly, was there, as was Senator Schumer's chief of staff, Mike Lynch.

As the meal progressed, an outline of an agreement was struck, according to one person familiar with the discussion: Senator Schumer said yes to setting the court at ten members and discussed the possibility of providing a swift confirmation for the currently pending nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy on the court created by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy earlier this year. In exchange, the President agreed to nominate Judge Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and President Barack Obama's 2016 nominee to fill the vacancy on the court created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia (eventually filled by President Trump's nominee, Neil Gorsuch), to the new seat that is to be created, on the condition that one of the proposed-to-be 10 seats from the Supreme Court would be eliminated as it becomes vacant upon the next death, resignation, or retirement of a justice, thus reducing the size of the court back to nine justices.

Senator Schumer left the White House believing he had managed to make a deal with the President that his predecessor as majority leader, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, never could: facilitate as the Senate majority, and benefit politically from, the confirmation of an opposition-party President's Supreme Court nomination, which would also include the added benefit of not having the Supreme Court be short-handed for up-to-two years, even if such benefit came with an ideologically tied Court.

"In my heart, I thought we might have a deal today," Senator Schumer recalled later that day on the Senate floor, shortly after he had been greeted with a surprisingly blistering White House statement that "Senate Democrats own the Supreme Schumer Showdown."

President Trump, a onetime real estate mogul whose book "The Art of the Deal" proclaimed his mastery of negotiation, has struggled at times to seal deals as President. He inserted himself into health care negotiations in March 2017, only to see talks in the House collapse. In September 2017, a deal-making dinner with "Chuck and Nancy" -- Senator Schumer and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, then the House minority leader and currently Speaker-designate -- later devolved into angry recriminations. Last January, a proposed deal over government funding saw a government shutdown ensue after talks with Senator Schumer and the then-Senate Democratic minority collapsed. And he has so far failed to bring his promised trade talks to a close.

On Friday afternoon, when Senator Schumer was back on Capitol Hill, President Trump called Senator Schumer, a person familiar with the call said, and told him that he understood they had agreed on the creation of two new Supreme Court seats, not one, and thus the confirmation of three new Justices in total, including Judge Barrett, Judge Garland, and an as-yet-to-be-named choice for the President to decide. Senator Schumer told the President, the person said, that Democrats would oppose the creation of two new Supreme Court seats rather than one because they saw it, in addition to the nomination of Judge Barrett, as the facilitation of a conservative majority.

A White House official said that Senator Schumer raised the possibility of withdrawing Judge Barrett's nomination and nominating a moderate centrist to fill the Kennedy vacancy instead, rather than facilitating any Court enlargening, but President Trump told Senator Schumer to work out the details of any further agreement with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader.

A short time later, Senator Schumer called the President, the person said, but the conversation drove the pair even further apart. The proposals offered by Democrats thus far were not good enough, President Trump told Senator Schumer. The President said he needed to be able to tell his base of political support that he understood "that the best defense of our liberty is a judicial branch immune from political prejudice where judges that apply the Constitution as written."

As the day wore on, Senator Schumer got a call from Kelly that seemingly dashed all hopes for a Trump-Schumer deal in regards to the Supreme Court. Kelly, supposedly a behind-the-scenes hard-liner on ensuring judicial appointments continue to ensure Republican support for President Trump, the person familiar with the call said, outlined a long list of White House objections to the deal.

A White House official familiar with the call said Kelly urged Senator Schumer to work out details of any agreement with Senator McConnell.

In a Twitter post at 4:28 p.m., President Trump vented his pessimism on Twitter, returning to his administration's efforts to try to make sure that Democrats receive the blame from voters angry about two years with a short-handed Supreme Court.

"Not looking good for our great Judiciary on the Supreme Court right now," President Trump wrote. "Dems want a Vacancy in order to hopefully get the pick if they beat me in 2020 (they WON'T and CAN'T), and they don't realize the people aren't with them."

With talks between President Trump and Senator Schumer over, Senator Schumer lamented the failure to reach a deal with the president, and blamed President Trump for abandoning an agreement that was within reach.

"What happened to the President Trump who asked us to come up with a deal to make the Supreme Court work and promised to take the heat for it?" Senator Schumer asked on the Senate floor. "What happened to that President Trump?"

The invitation for Senator Schumer to come to the White House for a face-to-face with the president had been a heart-stopping moment for conservatives that conjured up their worst fears: a closed-door deal between Mr. Trump and the wily Democrat.

With President Trump impatient to begin a golf-and-fund-raising weekend at Bedminster, his New Jersey golf club, there was the prospect that the President would publicly side with his Democratic adversaries, who refused to facilitate any Supreme Court confirmation for any potential nominee except for Judge Garland.

Privately, President Trump's impulses had led him to ignore political protocols and his own Republican allies, like Senator McConnell, who had groused about the President in recent days that the Senate shouldn't consider any Supreme Court nominee "unless it's somebody who's actually of his own choosing."

The lack of any success between Senator Schumer and President Trump was a failure of what might have been.

Once, in the days after the 2016 election, Senator Schumer saw a path toward working with President Trump. Just as Senator McConnell did at the time, Senator Schumer believed he would be able to guide Mr. Trump -- who has few fixed positions -- toward his own initiatives.

Senator Schumer is one of the few elected officials in Washington with whom President Trump had something of a bond before he won the presidency. An adviser to President Trump once pointed out that if the President had to choose between spending time with Senator Schumer or Senator McConnell, he would pick the Democratic leader almost every time.

Senator Schumer appeared on a Season 5 episode of "The Apprentice," the reality TV show that helped President Trump create a brand in the eyes of millions of voters as a take-charge businessman. During the show, Senator Schumer predicted that the then-businessman Trump was "going to go places."

During the transition, Senator Schumer appeared on a panel at an event held by the Partnership for New York City, a business group, where Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law, also spoke. Senator Schumer told attendees that the Democrats had stymied their chances with a message that failed to track more closely with President Trump's calls for fair trade.

After the failed negotiations on Capitol Hill and at the White House, Democrats predicted that the public would blame President Trump and his Republican allies for the Supreme Court vacancy, citing the past example of the Republicans' decision to decline to consider Judge Garland's nomination in March 2016.

Throughout the day, President Trump told aides that he knows he is going to get blamed for the vacancy, regardless of what happens and how it goes down.

But at the White House, President Trump's aides maneuvered to try to shield the President from any political damage. At the same time, they waged an intense public relations campaign to argue that Democrats should shoulder the responsibility for not keeping the functions of the judicial branch operating.

President Trump delayed his afternoon departure for Bedminster, and aides said he had called members of both parties in hope of averting a two-year vacancy that could have unpredictable repercussions for the presidential election.

In the morning, Kelly seemed resigned to failure, promising to "manage the vacancy differently" than President Barack Obama's administration did in 2016. He accused President Obama of "weaponizing" that vacancy in an attempt to maximize outrage against Republicans.

[brucejoel99]

The lame duck session is going to be a freakshow...

Yup.

The president elected in 2020 would likely announce a nominee's name in February 2021, two-and-a-half years after Kennedy's death.

Whoops

Pedantry aside, I really enjoy this though!

Whoops indeed, thanks for letting me know though so I can fix it lol

[brucejoel99]

AMY CONEY BARRETT'S SUPREME COURT NOMINATION JUST DIED WITH THE OLD CONGRESS

WASHINGTON (January 3, 2019) -- The gamble by Senate Democrats is paying off: Judge Amy Coney Barrett has waited 78 days, and that's just the beginning. Her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has sat gathering dust in the Senate for that long, expired at noon Thursday -- just as the 116th Congress was sworn in on the first day of its legislative session.

As he said he would on Oct. 17, the day Barrett was nominated to fill the vacancy left by Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement and the subsequent rejection of the initial nominee, Judge Brett Kavanuagh, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) refused to consider a nominee for any Supreme Court vacancy that existed while a Democratic majority held the Senate unless and until Judge Merrick Garland was nominated and confirmed to the Court, in retribution for the Republicans' previously-unprecedented blockade of Judge Garland's nomination to the Court in 2016 when he was President Barack Obama's pick to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia that was ultimately successfully filled by a nominee selected by President Donald Trump, Neil Gorsuch. And all Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the Senate Judiciary Committee chairwoman, played along.

The tactic has worked thus far, and it now appears that President Trump will no longer have the opportunity to pick Kennedy's replacement for the duration of his term (potentially the first of two) in office. With help from his inner circle, word is that he's considering his options moving forward in regards to the Court.

During a holiday celebration last month, President Trump acknowledged Barrett for her distinguished service as a judge of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, a position to which Trump nominated her to earlier in his term -- all but confirming that it was the end of the road for his nominee.

Barrett, for her part, has yet to put herself back on the calendar of the Seventh Circuit -- a strong signal that she's all up for continuing to drag on this fight over the course of the next two years rather than go back quietly into the night by resuming her lifetime appointment on the Seventh Circuit. President Trump, however, has yet to confirm that he intends to renominate Barrett to the Court with the sitting of the new Congress in light of the initial nomination's expiration.

Some still held fast to the hope, however remote, that Trump would attempt to invoke his recess-appointment power and put Barrett on the Supreme Court for up to a year. But that shortsighted (and potentially unconstitutional) play would've created a crucial vacancy on the Seventh Circuit, which currently has a firm Republican-appointed majority that may face some risk were it to be short-handed for the foreseeable future.

Still, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders lamented Thursday (in perhaps a bit of unironic irony in the eyes of Democrats) that Barrett has not gotten a chance to make her case to the American public and the Senate on why she has the credentials to serve on the nation's highest court, which has remained short-handed since Kennedy's retirement.

"Amy Coney Barrett is a patriot, and she deserves far better treatment than she's receiving from Democrats in the United States Senate," Sanders said. "But because she's the bigger man, she's ready to continue to hope to serve this country with honor and distinction as a nominee, pending confirmation, for appointment to the United States Supreme Court."

She added that the inaction on Barrett could create complications for Democrats' own legislative initiatives -- solely by virtue of the party of the nominating president.

"Democratic senators are blocking an eminently qualified Supreme Court nominee, whose qualifications are not in question, simply because she was nominated by President Trump," Sanders said. "How then can Democrats go to Republican senators and say that they should support legislation put forward by the Democrats in Congress?"

In a lengthy statement from the Senate floor last month, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, actually said (with a straight face) that he'd never seen anything like the Barrett blockade in his more than four decades in Congress.

"Democrats got to roll the dice this year, subjecting the Supreme Court and the American people to their purely political gamble," Grassley said. "They will tell us they have won for the time being. But there is no victor -- for their partisan game, this body, the Supreme Court and the American people all suffer."

Trump argued as much in a tweet he sent out in October. "We CAN'T allow this to become the New Normal," he said of the Barrett gridlock.

The last time the White House tweeted about the judge -- from an account created specifically to promote the nominee -- was Nov. 6. That's the same day a major effort on behalf of the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative campaign to get the nominee confirmed, went all-but-dormant for the time being.

[brucejoel99]

RIP FF

is this the future

Obviously not.

Ok, from here on out this timeline goes on as the timeline that should've been lol