Justice Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing *DISCUSSION AND LIVE COMMENTARY*

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Dinner break now. When the committee returns, we'll hear from the presidential contenders (along with Tillis and Cornyn), and then we do expect a more lightning-style third round before the closed session.

[Alabama_Indy10]

I am Spartacus moment lol

I'm not meaning to pick on you, but this is rather aimed at everybody focusing on Booker's and Harris's grandstanding (even if they're at least partially right), Hirano being a dim bulb, etc.

Is THIS really your take away from these hearings? Why is it so telling the same people running on about these matters are the same ones who don't utter a word about what Kavanaugh actually is saying, or the highly concerning positions being uncovered?

They’re working so hard to make these hearings all about them so I’m just giving them the attention they so desperately want.

That is the lamest act of dodging a question I've seen since---well, since this afternoon's hearing to be honest. But still weak deflection.

Seriously though, what do you expect? Supreme Court confirmation hearings are nothing but deflections and non committal answers.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Also, context for the perjury thing. It's honestly a nothingburger that Leahy/Durbin is taking out of context: https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1037818136349814784 (READ the entire twitter thread before commenting)

[Badger]

I am Spartacus moment lol

I'm not meaning to pick on you, but this is rather aimed at everybody focusing on Booker's and Harris's grandstanding (even if they're at least partially right), Hirano being a dim bulb, etc.

Is THIS really your take away from these hearings? Why is it so telling the same people running on about these matters are the same ones who don't utter a word about what Kavanaugh actually is saying, or the highly concerning positions being uncovered?

They’re working so hard to make these hearings all about them so I’m just giving them the attention they so desperately want.

That is the lamest act of dodging a question I've seen since---well, since this afternoon's hearing to be honest. But still weak deflection.

Seriously though, what do you expect? Supreme Court confirmation hearings are nothing but deflections and non committal answers.

So you're actively ignoring Kavanaugh's answers and the evidence revealed about extreme positions he's adopted, and instead enjoying what moments of "herp derp, Hirano's dum!" you can find. Thanks for clarifying.

[Pandaguineapig]

I'm guessing T-Bone is the one who advised Booker on his Spartacus strategy

[Alabama_Indy10]

I am Spartacus moment lol

I'm not meaning to pick on you, but this is rather aimed at everybody focusing on Booker's and Harris's grandstanding (even if they're at least partially right), Hirano being a dim bulb, etc.

Is THIS really your take away from these hearings? Why is it so telling the same people running on about these matters are the same ones who don't utter a word about what Kavanaugh actually is saying, or the highly concerning positions being uncovered?

They’re working so hard to make these hearings all about them so I’m just giving them the attention they so desperately want.

That is the lamest act of dodging a question I've seen since---well, since this afternoon's hearing to be honest. But still weak deflection.

Seriously though, what do you expect? Supreme Court confirmation hearings are nothing but deflections and non committal answers.

So you're actively ignoring Kavanaugh's answers and the evidence revealed about extreme positions he's adopted, and instead enjoying what moments of "herp derp, Hirano's dum!" you can find. Thanks for clarifying.

Did you read what I just wrote? I didn’t say anything about “Hirano”

[Calthrina950]

I am Spartacus moment lol

I'm not meaning to pick on you, but this is rather aimed at everybody focusing on Booker's and Harris's grandstanding (even if they're at least partially right), Hirano being a dim bulb, etc.

Is THIS really your take away from these hearings? Why is it so telling the same people running on about these matters are the same ones who don't utter a word about what Kavanaugh actually is saying, or the highly concerning positions being uncovered?

They’re working so hard to make these hearings all about them so I’m just giving them the attention they so desperately want.

That is the lamest act of dodging a question I've seen since---well, since this afternoon's hearing to be honest. But still weak deflection.

Seriously though, what do you expect? Supreme Court confirmation hearings are nothing but deflections and non committal answers.

So you're actively ignoring Kavanaugh's answers and the evidence revealed about extreme positions he's adopted, and instead enjoying what moments of "herp derp, Hirano's dum!" you can find. Thanks for clarifying.

It still befuddles me as to why you identify as a Republican on here. I am not in favor of Kavanaugh's nomination, but your responses concerning it fit in with your posts on other issues. They are virtually indistinguishable from the posts of left-leaning users on this forum.

[136or142]

Also, context for the perjury thing. It's honestly a nothingburger that Leahy/Durbin is taking out of context: https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1037818136349814784 (READ the entire twitter thread before commenting)

Nothing in there discusses the false claims of Kavanaugh not being aware of the documents stamped confidential.  Leahy said outright on CNN "Kavanaugh was not truthful."

Again, ultimately Kavanaugh is either completely unethical or he's stupider than either Mazie Hirono or Donald Trump's supporters, and in neither case is he qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

[Progressive Pessimist]

In the context of the job he held at the time (Staff Secretary), it would not have raised a red flag to see a set of documents from democratic staffers or republican staffers from either house of congress and he would not necessarily know the source of each document he filed or passed to another staffer.

Bullocks. 

Steve Bullocks?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I am Spartacus moment lol

I'm not meaning to pick on you, but this is rather aimed at everybody focusing on Booker's and Harris's grandstanding (even if they're at least partially right), Hirano being a dim bulb, etc.

Is THIS really your take away from these hearings? Why is it so telling the same people running on about these matters are the same ones who don't utter a word about what Kavanaugh actually is saying, or the highly concerning positions being uncovered?

They’re working so hard to make these hearings all about them so I’m just giving them the attention they so desperately want.

That is the lamest act of dodging a question I've seen since---well, since this afternoon's hearing to be honest. But still weak deflection.

Seriously though, what do you expect? Supreme Court confirmation hearings are nothing but deflections and non committal answers.

So you're actively ignoring Kavanaugh's answers and the evidence revealed about extreme positions he's adopted, and instead enjoying what moments of "herp derp, Hirano's dum!" you can find. Thanks for clarifying.

It still befuddles me as to why you identify as a Republican on here. I am not in favor of Kavanaugh's nomination, but your responses concerning it fit in with your posts on other issues. They are virtually indistinguishable from the posts of left-leaning users on this forum.

He's been traumatized by the hostile takeover of the GOP by Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6Uo1nNt6LU

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Length of Second Round: 9 hours, 4 Minutes

Third round currently in progress.

[136or142]

I am Spartacus moment lol

I'm not meaning to pick on you, but this is rather aimed at everybody focusing on Booker's and Harris's grandstanding (even if they're at least partially right), Hirano being a dim bulb, etc.

Is THIS really your take away from these hearings? Why is it so telling the same people running on about these matters are the same ones who don't utter a word about what Kavanaugh actually is saying, or the highly concerning positions being uncovered?

They’re working so hard to make these hearings all about them so I’m just giving them the attention they so desperately want.

That is the lamest act of dodging a question I've seen since---well, since this afternoon's hearing to be honest. But still weak deflection.

Seriously though, what do you expect? Supreme Court confirmation hearings are nothing but deflections and non committal answers.

So you're actively ignoring Kavanaugh's answers and the evidence revealed about extreme positions he's adopted, and instead enjoying what moments of "herp derp, Hirano's dum!" you can find. Thanks for clarifying.

It still befuddles me as to why you identify as a Republican on here. I am not in favor of Kavanaugh's nomination, but your responses concerning it fit in with your posts on other issues. They are virtually indistinguishable from the posts of left-leaning users on this forum.

He's been traumatized by the hostile takeover of the GOP by Trump.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6Uo1nNt6LU

It was much more a friendly merger than a hostile takeover.

[Alabama_Indy10]

How late is this going tonight?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

How late is this going tonight?

This is the last public round of questions. The committee will have a closed session before they're allowed to sleep though.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Booker just touting his presidential campaign right now, he's given up all appearance of taking his hearing seriously.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

3rd round clocks in at 2 hours, 17 minutes. That wraps up today's public portion. Tomorrow, we'll hear from four panels of outside witnesses.

I will have a statement on the nomination out shortly.

[Calthrina950]

Booker just touting his presidential campaign right now, he's given up all appearance of taking his hearing seriously.

Booker disgraced himself at the hearing today. The memos that he demanded turned out to contain little of substance (that is, they didn't have what the Democrats wanted them to have). Booker's behavior has further reduced my already low opinion of him.

[eric82oslo]

Booker just touting his presidential campaign right now, he's given up all appearance of taking his hearing seriously.

Booker disgraced himself at the hearing today. The memos that he demanded turned out to contain little of substance (that is, they didn't have what the Democrats wanted them to have). Booker's behavior has further reduced my already low opinion of him.

He was doing this for the sake of the public. You don't believe in transparency? Really? You prefer to continue the millenia old tradition of high level and high ranking corruption instead? In what universe exactly could transparency be something negative?

[Calthrina950]

Booker just touting his presidential campaign right now, he's given up all appearance of taking his hearing seriously.

Booker disgraced himself at the hearing today. The memos that he demanded turned out to contain little of substance (that is, they didn't have what the Democrats wanted them to have). Booker's behavior has further reduced my already low opinion of him.

He was doing this for the sake of the public. You don't believe in transparency? Really? You prefer to continue the millenia old tradition of high level and high ranking corruption instead? In what universe exactly could transparency be something negative?

There's a difference between transparency and showboating. And Booker was engaging in the latter today. He was doing this to produce material and credibility for his upcoming presidential campaign. Harris was doing the same. These are ambitious, scheming politicians, and the hearing gave them an opportunity to flaunt themselves to their base.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

All right. With questioning of the nominee now concluded, I want to address several matters that have come up during the hearing and discuss the overall process. If you're not interested in reading an effortpost, scroll to the bottom of the post for my partial endorsement.

First, I want to tie up some loose ends with the Perjury issue. To the extent that it is about the handling of the Successful Circuit Court nomination of William Pryor, the twitter thread posted earlier makes it clear that was taken out of context. To the extent that it is about that not noticing or remembering that a certain document was marked confidential and from a Senate staffer, I will just say that Staff Secretaries handle tons and tons of documents and a lot of it is just filing work. They're not necessarily deeply involved in x nomination or issue, and honestly, if you handed me a thousand papers to sort through for the day, as I imagine happens in this job, I'm not sure I'd remember the source or details of all of them either. Also, I seem to remember you guys having no problem with Hillary Clinton not recognizing a few of her emails were marked classified, so the hypocrisy is quite large here. At the end of the day, I truly do understand why Senator Leahy and Senator Durbin are bringing this up, but I just don't see it as something worth caring about.

Next, I'm going to very briefly address guns. While I do wish the nominee was a bit less conservative on the issue, at the end of the day I've previously accepted that an assault weapons ban may in fact be unconstitutional, and I was put mostly at ease when the nominee agreed to keep Senator Blumenthal's personal experience regarding the issue in mind.

Now, on the nominee more generally. First, I want to note several ways in which this nominee is, in my opinion, better than Justice Gorsuch. This nominee explicitly stated that Brown vs. Board of Education was correctly decided without even being directly asked that question (remember that Gorsuch had to be badgered into saying it was a "correct application of precedent"), and additionally expressed his agreement with other key precedents of the court such as Griswold vs. Connecticut. We also got several clear signals that this nominee will do as I desire and overturn Roe vs. Wade, unlike Gorsuch who spent three days giving mostly pro-choice answers. Gorsuch's record was populated with cases where he went out of his way to spite the little guy, the famous truck driver case being the most prominent. With this nominee, the issue hardly came up because his record simply doesn't have those cases. Instead, we have a nominee who has a record of ruling against the Bush Administration, against the Republican National Committee, and in one case, even ruling for Emily's list. It is truly refreshing to hear this. This nominee was also far more courteous with Senators, and far more forthcoming in his answers to tough questions.

I would also like to say that this nominee alleviated several concerns I had coming into this hearing. He was clear from the beginning that he believes U.S. v. Nixon was correctly decided. He made clear that he is grounded in precedent over his personal views. He made clear that he correctly applied U.S. v. Nixon when working for independent council Kenneth Starr. He also made clear that he believes in the philosophy of only striking down the specific unconstitutional portion of a law or agency rather than declaring that one bad line means one must throw out the whole law.

However, I am left with some real concerns. This nominee's view of special counsels and presidential power at large still seems unnecessarily expansive and a gift to President Trump. I am also somewhat concerned about his refusal to condemn President Trump's attacks on the Judiciary (Gorsuch was, under pressure, willing to call them "disheartening" and "demoralizing"). Also, while I am pleased and treat as a plus the fact that he realizes that we are far from racial equality in this country, I do not like that he has made absolute statements that he has not retracted with regard to the constitutionality of affirmative action.

I am also disappointed with the way this nomination was handled. While I agree with Chairman Grassley that the release of certain documents would have been nothing more than contributing to a fishing expedition led by Senators already opposed to the nominee, the fact remains that 42,000 documents were dropped without warning the night before the hearing, that the committee confidential designation was used far too much and was not fixed until the last moment, and that this nomination did not follow the standards of past nominations with regards to document release, regardless of the impressive raw number of documents. I also feel that this hearing was rushed, and that the Chairman should have worked to create greater unity in the committee by delaying it a couple of weeks. This is a lifetime appointment to what is essentially being 1 of 9 kings, and we need to take it very seriously and should not rush it. So, while I do feel that protesters and select democrats have not treated this hearing or this nominee with the respect both deserve, I do not believe this nomination was handled correctly.

Because of this process, I believe we must make Republicans put up the votes on the Senate Floor to allow this nomination to be considered, and therefore I urge a NO vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination.

With respect to the committee-stage vote and the final passage vote, while I do not currently believe there is sufficient disharmony between me and the nominee to justify derailing him entirely, it is clear he is not my ideal, and for that reason I will delay a final decision until we hear from outside witnesses tomorrow.

[136or142]

Booker just touting his presidential campaign right now, he's given up all appearance of taking his hearing seriously.

Booker disgraced himself at the hearing today. The memos that he demanded turned out to contain little of substance (that is, they didn't have what the Democrats wanted them to have). Booker's behavior has further reduced my already low opinion of him.

The hearings are largely a sham anyway.  With the thousands of documents that were withheld for obvious political reasons and nothing to do with 'national security' and Kavanaugh's answer to provide any meaningful answers beyond the nonsensical "I can't answer hypothetical questions" why should the Senators take the process seriously?

The questioning by Senator Whitehouse and especially Senator Leahy have thoroughly exposed Kavanaugh as a lying sleazebag with no integrity whatsoever, and yet this won't turn a single member of the lying sleazebag Republican Party to vote against him.

Your selective OUTRAGE! is tiresome and silly.

[136or142]

All right. With questioning of the nominee now concluded, I want to address several matters that have come up during the hearing and discuss the overall process. If you're not interested in reading an effortpost, scroll to the bottom of the post for my partial endorsement.

First, I want to tie up some loose ends with the Perjury issue. To the extent that it is about the handling of the Successful Circuit Court nomination of William Pryor, the twitter thread posted earlier makes it clear that was taken out of context. To the extent that it is about that not noticing or remembering that a certain document was marked confidential and from a Senate staffer, I will just say that Staff Secretaries handle tons and tons of documents and a lot of it is just filing work. They're not necessarily deeply involved in x nomination or issue, and honestly, if you handed me a thousand papers to sort through for the day, as I imagine happens in this job, I'm not sure I'd remember the source or details of all of them either. Also, I seem to remember you guys having no problem with Hillary Clinton not recognizing a few of her emails were marked classified, so the hypocrisy is quite large here. At the end of the day, I truly do understand why Senator Leahy and Senator Durbin are bringing this up, but I just don't see it as something worth caring about.

Next, I'm going to very briefly address guns. While I do wish the nominee was a bit less conservative on the issue, at the end of the day I've previously accepted that an assault weapons ban may in fact be unconstitutional, and I was put mostly at ease when the nominee agreed to keep Senator Blumenthal's personal experience regarding the issue in mind.

Now, on the nominee more generally. First, I want to note several ways in which this nominee is, in my opinion, better than Justice Gorsuch. This nominee explicitly stated that Brown vs. Board of Education was correctly decided without even being directly asked that question (remember that Gorsuch had to be badgered into saying it was a "correct application of precedent"), and additionally expressed his agreement with other key precedents of the court such as Griswold vs. Connecticut. We also got several clear signals that this nominee will do as I desire and overturn Roe vs. Wade, unlike Gorsuch who spent three days giving mostly pro-choice answers. Gorsuch's record was populated with cases where he went out of his way to spite the little guy, the famous truck driver case being the most prominent. With this nominee, the issue hardly came up because his record simply doesn't have those cases. Instead, we have a nominee who has a record of ruling against the Bush Administration, against the Republican National Committee, and in one case, even ruling for Emily's list. It is truly refreshing to hear this. This nominee was also far more courteous with Senators, and far more forthcoming in his answers to tough questions.

I would also like to say that this nominee alleviated several concerns I had coming into this hearing. He was clear from the beginning that he believes U.S. v. Nixon was correctly decided. He made clear that he is grounded in precedent over his personal views. He made clear that he correctly applied U.S. v. Nixon when working for independent council Kenneth Starr. He also made clear that he believes in the philosophy of only striking down the specific unconstitutional portion of a law or agency rather than declaring that one bad line means one must throw out the whole law.

However, I am left with some real concerns. This nominee's view of special counsels and presidential power at large still seems unnecessarily expansive and a gift to President Trump. I am also somewhat concerned about his refusal to condemn President Trump's attacks on the Judiciary (Gorsuch was, under pressure, willing to call them "disheartening" and "demoralizing"). Also, while I am pleased and treat as a plus the fact that he realizes that we are far from racial equality in this country, I do not like that he has made absolute statements that he has not retracted with regard to the constitutionality of affirmative action.

I am also disappointed with the way this nomination was handled. While I agree with Chairman Grassley that the release of certain documents would have been nothing more than contributing to a fishing expedition led by Senators already opposed to the nominee, the fact remains that 42,000 documents were dropped without warning the night before the hearing, that the committee confidential designation was used far too much and was not fixed until the last moment, and that this nomination did not follow the standards of past nominations with regards to document release, regardless of the impressive raw number of documents. I also feel that this hearing was rushed, and that the Chairman should have worked to create greater unity in the committee by delaying it a couple of weeks. This is a lifetime appointment to what is essentially being 1 of 9 kings, and we need to take it very seriously and should not rush it. So, while I do feel that protesters and select democrats have not treated this hearing or this nominee with the respect both deserve, I do not believe this nomination was handled correctly.

Because of this process, I believe we must make Republicans put up the votes on the Senate Floor to allow this nomination to be considered, and therefore I urge a NO vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination.

With respect to the committee-stage vote and the final passage vote, while I do not currently believe there is sufficient disharmony between me and the nominee to justify derailing him entirely, it is clear he is not my ideal, and for that reason I will delay a final decision until we hear from outside witnesses tomorrow.

The documents marked 'confidential' unlike the Clinton documents were from Leahy's office, and he didn't just 'file them' he refers to their contents in other emails.  There is simply no way Kavanaugh could not have known that:
1.they were confidential
2.they were from Leahy's office

Kavanaugh is lying about this and either is too stupid to realize the wrongness of his actions or is too unethical.


If you see these documents, they have 'confidential' written in a vertical manner right down the entire page.  Part of Hillary Clinton's defense was that the handful of documents in her question were improperly marked as such, and this has been acknowledged to be the case. 

So, you are both wrong on the substance of Leahy's claims and of what Kavanaugh knew and did, and you are wrong to label Hillary Clinton's defenders as 'hypocrites.'

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

From Booker's email release, Kavanaugh on native-american related legislation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While in most cases I do agree that affirmative action is just reverse racism, there may be some limited cases in which a temporary program with a definite expiration may be legitimate, and the absolute statement contained here seems over the top. Additionally I grant that his calling a separate government program a "naked racial set-aside" is an unhelpful exaggeration.

This is certainly important information as I continue to consider my eventual endorsed position regarding this nomination.

Wow! The bolded part above is REALLY extreme/

Has Richmond v Croson been overturned?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

First Panel is being questioned

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

(I am slightly behind) Whitehouse openly chewing gum as he questions the ABA.