SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

User avatar
dunstvangeet
Posts: 493
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:53 am

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1126

Post by dunstvangeet » Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:27 pm

Sam the Centipede wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:53 am
Mikedunford wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:08 am
2: Gamble should win his case. Punishing someone twice for exactly the same crime is an affront to human rights - and that's clear from what happened to Gamble.
However, I can see that neither side (state or federal) would be happy if avoiding conviction in one trial gave the perp a sort of immunity in the other jurisdiction.
So, my question to you is with the Civil Rights cases of the 1960s. In the 1960s, you had a southern judiciary that thought that lynching a black man was no big deal. They would refuse to convict on that basis alone. To combat this, the Federal Government stepped in and started trying these same people for the violation of civil rights (a Federal Crime) for the same incidents as the what they had been found "Not Guilty" of in state court. So, would you say that it was justice for this to happen? Or should the Federal Government have been barred from doing this, given that they had been found "Not Guilty" in State Court?



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9719
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1127

Post by Mikedunford » Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:56 pm

dunstvangeet wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:27 pm
Sam the Centipede wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:53 am
Mikedunford wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:08 am
2: Gamble should win his case. Punishing someone twice for exactly the same crime is an affront to human rights - and that's clear from what happened to Gamble.
However, I can see that neither side (state or federal) would be happy if avoiding conviction in one trial gave the perp a sort of immunity in the other jurisdiction.
So, my question to you is with the Civil Rights cases of the 1960s. In the 1960s, you had a southern judiciary that thought that lynching a black man was no big deal. They would refuse to convict on that basis alone. To combat this, the Federal Government stepped in and started trying these same people for the violation of civil rights (a Federal Crime) for the same incidents as the what they had been found "Not Guilty" of in state court. So, would you say that it was justice for this to happen? Or should the Federal Government have been barred from doing this, given that they had been found "Not Guilty" in State Court?
Howard University filed an amicus (in support of neither side) on exactly this issue, to clarify that such prosecutions do not implicate double jeopardy.

This is (or at least should be) correct. Double jeopardy only kicks in when the elements of the second crime are identical to the first. The felon in possession case would be double jeopardy but for the dual sovereign doctrine - the only difference in the charges is who is filing them; both crimes require exactly the same misconduct. The civil rights prosecutions for homicide do not involve exactly the same misconduct - there's an element in the federal offense (intent to deprive the victim of civil rights) that is missing from the state charge.

As I said earlier, double jeopardy is complex.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 11183
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1128

Post by Kendra » Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:05 pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... bd2c8d7ba8
AREA HEADMASTERS WARN PARENTS OF STUDENT PARTIES
Article from 1990. I am sure all these parties didn't start until after Kavanaugh graduated. :sarcasm:



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1129

Post by TollandRCR » Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:08 pm

Good article about the fragile masculinity being displayed by Kavanaugh and by Trump every day.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ry-730645/


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18874
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1130

Post by Volkonski » Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:43 pm

Looks like Trump is hobbling the FBI in its investigation. :madguy:


NBC News

Verified account

@NBCNews
Following Following @NBCNews
More
NEW: White House limits scope of the FBI's investigation into the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
tek
Posts: 2715
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1131

Post by tek » Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:01 pm

the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview
Annnnd here we go...


A truckload of bricks
In the soft morning light

Sunrise
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1132

Post by Sunrise » Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:36 pm

tek wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:01 pm
the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview
Annnnd here we go...
:smokeears: :smokeears: :smokeears: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :twoup: :twoup: :twoup:


"I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept."
Angela Davis

User avatar
SuzieC
Posts: 1232
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 1:27 pm
Location: No longer a Swing State Central
Occupation: Attorney since 1977. Litigator for 33 years. For 8 years so far Admin Law Judge for 3 state agencies.

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1133

Post by SuzieC » Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:37 pm

Avenatti will have something to say about that.



User avatar
tek
Posts: 2715
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1134

Post by tek » Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:40 pm

Let's see if Jeff Flake can find his retractable spine and say "Uh, no, that's not gonna do.."

hahahahahahaha I crack myself up :cry:


A truckload of bricks
In the soft morning light

TexasFilly
Posts: 17964
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1135

Post by TexasFilly » Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:57 pm

This will fool the women in this country who have been enraged since Thursday!


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill! I believe Dr. Ford!

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18874
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1136

Post by Volkonski » Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:19 pm


Ken Dilanian

Verified account

@KenDilanianNBC
Following Following @KenDilanianNBC
More
It’s not just that they aren’t allowed to investigate the third accuser’s claims. They also won’t look into his drinking at Yale or pull Mark Judge’s employment records or take other basic investigative steps, we are told. Unless something changes.


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

TexasFilly
Posts: 17964
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1137

Post by TexasFilly » Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:35 pm

The two different women who had first hand knowledge of his drinking at Yale were on CNN last night. It's been confusing to me because they have similar first names (Lizzy and Lynne), but they spoke on camera last night and both agreed Bart was lying about his drinking.

Then add in not only his freshman roommate who he disparaged at the hearing (Rouche) but a second roommate who moved in, Kit Winter:
Especially disgusting was the shared bathroom, which was always covered in vomit. Kavanaugh and his crowd, whom Winter characterizes as “loud, obnoxious frat boy-like drunks” were the hardest drinkers on campus even back then, when hard drinking did not hold the stigma it does today. In a statement earlier this week, Roche recalled Kavanaugh “frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk,” and Winter corroborates that recollection. “There was a lot of vomit in the bathroom. No one ever cleaned it up. It was disgusting. It wasn’t incidental. It wasn’t, ‘Oh, this weekend someone puked in the bathroom.’ People were constantly puking in the bathroom. Constantly.” Lori Adams, a retired psychiatrist in Underhill, Vermont, was a friend of Winter’s at Yale. “I remember,” she says, “that you couldn’t use the bathroom because his roommates vomited all over the floor and didn’t clean it up.” (Winter clarifies that Roche wasn’t much of a drinker and that although he himself drank a fair amount during freshman year, he very rarely drank to the point of throwing up.)
https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/kavanaug ... -room.html

Gosh, that's 5 former Yalie's who've gone public about Kavanaugh's lies about his drinking, and they won't be interviewed by the FBI?

Wall to wall witnesses will be on cable TV news for the next week.


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill! I believe Dr. Ford!

User avatar
tek
Posts: 2715
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Happy Valley, MA
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1138

Post by tek » Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:10 pm

As far as I can tell, it is McGhan who gets to set the parameters of the FBI investigation.

Anybody see a problem with that?


A truckload of bricks
In the soft morning light

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 27135
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1139

Post by Foggy » Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:17 pm

FB_IMG_1538263016382.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Mr. William L. Bryan is the root of a great deal of criminal mischief. And yet, Mr. Bryan remains at large.

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 2899
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1140

Post by Dan1100 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:30 pm

Yashar Ali
🐘
‏Verified account @yashar

In-Box: The Senate Judiciary Committee has "referred for criminal investigation apparent false statements made to committee investigators alleging misconduct by Judge Brett Kavanaugh." Chairman Chuck Grassley named an individual in a letter to AG and FBI Director.
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1046194363771092993

On the surface, a ruthless effort to silence prospective witnesses.

However, perhaps someone should explain to Senator Grassley the legal concept of "opening the door."

edit:
Yashar Ali🐘Verified account @yashar
7m7 minutes ago

2. Based on the statement it appears to be the man who called @SenWhitehouse's office and claimed he was aware of an incident where Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge assaulted a woman on a boat in Rhode Island in 1985. He later recanted/apologized.
story linked to second tweet


“I don’t look to the teachings of Jesus for what my political beliefs should be.”

-Jerry Falwell, Jr.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28577
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1141

Post by Addie » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:36 pm

WaPo
FBI contacts second woman who has accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct

The FBI has begun contacting people as part of an additional background investigation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, including a second woman who alleges that the Supreme Court nominee sexually assaulted her.

The bureau has contacted Deborah Ramirez, a Yale University classmate of Kavanaugh’s who alleges that he shoved his genitals in her face at a party where she had been drinking and become disoriented, her attorney said Saturday.

“She has agreed to cooperate with their investigation,” Ramirez attorney John Clune said in a statement. “Out of respect for the integrity of the process, we will have no further comment at this time.”

President Trump ordered the new background investigation of his nominee on Friday under pressure from key members of his party.

Late Saturday, Trump said the FBI investigation “will be a blessing in disguise. It will be a good thing.”
Adding:
Think Progress: White House denies limiting FBI probe into Supreme Court pick Kavenaugh

"The scope and duration has been set by the Senate," White House spokesman Raj Shah said.
LA Times: Trump says FBI has 'free rein' in Kavanaugh investigation, yet he's put strict limits on agents' work



User avatar
Addie
Posts: 28577
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1142

Post by Addie » Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:42 pm

Judiciary.senate.gov - Press Release
September 29, 2018

Judiciary Committee Refers Potential False Statements for Criminal Investigation

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today referred for criminal investigation apparent false statements made to committee investigators alleging misconduct by Judge Brett Kavanaugh. In a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Chris Wray, Chairman Chuck Grassley sought a criminal review of the actions by a named individual who provided Congress with the information, diverting Committee resources from an ongoing investigation.

Committee investigators have actively pursued a number of tips the committee has received regarding the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, though the committee has not been able to substantiate any allegations of wrongdoing by Judge Kavanaugh. One tip was referred to the committee by staff for Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I). While Whitehouse referred the accuser to a reporter, the committee took the claim seriously and questioned Judge Kavanaugh about the allegations under penalty of felony. Judge Kavanaugh denied any misconduct. After the transcripts of that interview became public, the individual recanted the claims on a social media post.


“The Committee is grateful to citizens who come forward with relevant information in good faith, even if they are not one hundred percent sure about what they know. But when individuals provide fabricated allegations to the Committee, diverting Committee resources during time-sensitive investigations, it materially impedes our work. Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal. It is illegal to make materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements to Congressional investigators. It is illegal to obstruct Committee investigations,” Grassley said in the letter.


Grassley has called on the Justice Department and the FBI to review the matter as a possible violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1505, portions of the U.S. code criminalizing the sharing of materially false information with committee investigators and obstruction of proceedings of congressional committees.

Grassley letter to DOJ and FBI is available HERE.


-30-



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1143

Post by TollandRCR » Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:21 pm

I have learned a lot in the past two weeks. Like other sociology teachers in introductory classes, I taught the statistics and the reasons why it is usually not reported. (Students often doubted the statistics on assaults on males.)

I did not connect emotionally to these statitics. I did not reaize that many women live in fear. Although I talked about it, I did not connect with the lasting harm that sexual assaults cause.

I think that I and many males are learning a painful lesson. It might be too much to hope that sexual assaults will reduce in number. It might be possible for more women to go for help and report the crime to the police. I just hope the society can cope with that and that male privilege is dead.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1144

Post by TollandRCR » Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:26 pm

Grassley's letter to the DOJ and FBI might backfire on him. If charges were to be brought, then a serious investigation would be required.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1145

Post by GreatGrey » Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:20 pm

Well now the ShitGibbon says he didn’t limit scope.



An Hatch sez hurry the fuck up.



I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 1755
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1146

Post by Gregg » Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:09 am

TollandRCR wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:26 pm
Grassley's letter to the DOJ and FBI might backfire on him. If charges were to be brought, then a serious investigation would be required.

Maybe they should be investigating the at least 4 things that Kavanaugh said that are provably false. :-

Off Topic
Just a slightly off topic question, but say, hypothetically, the next President decided we need to have 13 Supreme Court Justices instead of 9, its not in the COnstitution so it seems to me that all that would be required is fof him or her to nominate 4 more Justices and the Senate to confirm them. Something tells me that's just too simple, but what exactly would be required? I know FDR tried it. In any event, since the only thing required would be some form of Congress going along with it, could McConnel's blowing up the judicial filibuster be thrown back in his face and do it with just 50 + 1 votes?


Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 1755
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1147

Post by Gregg » Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:20 am

A little digging, it seems that all it would take is for a new law, so both houses of Congress, but simple majorities.
This should be a campaign issue.


Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 2899
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1148

Post by Dan1100 » Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:22 am

Gregg wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:09 am
TollandRCR wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:26 pm
Grassley's letter to the DOJ and FBI might backfire on him. If charges were to be brought, then a serious investigation would be required.

Maybe they should be investigating the at least 4 things that Kavanaugh said that are provably false. :-

Off Topic
Just a slightly off topic question, but say, hypothetically, the next President decided we need to have 13 Supreme Court Justices instead of 9, its not in the COnstitution so it seems to me that all that would be required is fof him or her to nominate 4 more Justices and the Senate to confirm them. Something tells me that's just too simple, but what exactly would be required? I know FDR tried it. In any event, since the only thing required would be some form of Congress going along with it, could McConnel's blowing up the judicial filibuster be thrown back in his face and do it with just 50 + 1 votes?
The number of judges on the Supreme Court is determined by Judiciary Act of 1869. So Congress would have to pass a law amending the Judiciary Act and the President would have to sign it.

Here is where Roosevelt started to do it and it has the details of what is required. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_ ... ll_of_1937

It will be an issue in the 2020 Presidential election (11 though, not 13).

edit: I posted before your second post. It isn't a budget issue, so unless they change the Senate Rules, it would require 60 Senators.


“I don’t look to the teachings of Jesus for what my political beliefs should be.”

-Jerry Falwell, Jr.

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9570
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1149

Post by GreatGrey » Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:23 am

1997 New York Times book review of “Wasted” by Mark Judge.
https://nyti.ms/2R8r148

It’s just 1 paragraph.
Mark Gauvreau Judge has written a naive, earnest book that might have been subtitled ''I Was a Teen-Age Alcoholic'' if weren't so, well, naive and earnest. Judge's youth in suburban Washington was rich in all the usual adolescent traditions, like drinking large amounts of beer, engaging in wordless arguments with his father and passing out on the beach. He attended Roman Catholic schools, and most of his experiences are straight out of the parochial school playbook. Like most everybody else, he alternated between deception and rebellion in school, and he recounts the obligatory run-ins with nuns (he stole pens!) and, later, priests (he dressed up as a priest and tried to cover someone's house with toilet paper!). This is well-traveled territory, and Judge's writing does not allow for any interesting detours -- especially when he starts dropping phrases like, ''Only years later would I understand what was happening.'' What was happening, he later reveals, is that he was becoming an alcoholic. The last third of ''Wasted'' is devoted to this realization and his response to it, and while his candor and perseverance are admirable, his experiences here are even less interesting than his thin yarns of Catholic-school shenanigans. Like most new converts, Judge is a zealot, and his proselytizing style becomes tiresome. In the end, ''Wasted'' does stand as a cautionary tale -- not necessarily for alcoholics, but for anyone who wants to write about alcoholism.


I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1485
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 am
Location: The Left Coast

Re: SCOTUS: Kavanaugh Nomination Hearings, September 4 2018

#1150

Post by much ado » Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:25 am

Gregg wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:09 am
TollandRCR wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:26 pm
Grassley's letter to the DOJ and FBI might backfire on him. If charges were to be brought, then a serious investigation would be required.

Maybe they should be investigating the at least 4 things that Kavanaugh said that are provably false. :-

Off Topic
Just a slightly off topic question, but say, hypothetically, the next President decided we need to have 13 Supreme Court Justices instead of 9, its not in the COnstitution so it seems to me that all that would be required is fof him or her to nominate 4 more Justices and the Senate to confirm them. Something tells me that's just too simple, but what exactly would be required? I know FDR tried it. In any event, since the only thing required would be some form of Congress going along with it, could McConnel's blowing up the judicial filibuster be thrown back in his face and do it with just 50 + 1 votes?
The Judiciary Act of 1869 sets the number at 9. Congress would have to change it.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869
Edit: Ninja'd by Dan1100



Post Reply

Return to “Brett Kavanaugh - Nomination for Supreme Court”