Skip to toolbar
HomeUncategorized9/28 Open Thread
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Re: the Judiciary Committee meeting going on now.

Sen Blumenthal has made a motion to subpoena Mark Judge and come testify before the Committee. The 6 sentence statement is too cursory.


Grassley is reading a letter from Mark Judge, restating his denial. They have called a vote on the motion. It fails.


The official vote is scheduled now for 1:30 due to other impending business.


Can’t the full Senate vote stop this? Murkowski, Collins, Mnuchin?


If they vote against, they can. A big if though, especially for the two Republicans.


Manchin. Mnuchin is a totally different dick.


thx.i could have looked it up.


Booker and Harris left the Judiciary Cmte meeting.

No one has brought up that the ABA has strongly recommended a delay.


Orrin Hatch: we cannot allow for more smears on Judge Kavanaugh.


Orrin shut the f up!


Orrin Hatch–someone needs to drop him in boiling oil alive. Mr. I-Hate-The-Bill-of-Rights!


What will happen with Merkeley trying to file an injunction?


I don’t think it has much chance. Probably more to make a point


The Senate can still stop this.


This why the Dems taking at least the House in November is crucial

At least four Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are pushing to investigate, and possibly impeach, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

“Someone committed perjury under oath in the Senate Judiciary Committee and I think it was Judge Kavanaugh and therefore he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and should not serve as a judge on any court,” said Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) in a comment to HuffPost Friday. Gutiérrez is retiring at the end of his term so will not be present for the next Congress.

Gutiérrez joins Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is the ranking member of the committee. Democrats have a strong chance of retaking the House majority in the November elections, meaning they would have the power to push forward on investigations.



This is so enraging to so many, I just hope it is also getting through to some Trump supporters just how awful it will be to have this man on the USSC. It’s a shameful, maddening tragedy.



The top-ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler of New York, has yet to call for such an investigation. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who unsuccessfully challenged Nadler for the ranking member position this year — and could challenge him for the chair should Democrats win back the chamber — said Tuesday evening that she was in wait-and-see mode. She told The Intercept, “I think we ought to just wait and see what the rest of the week and next week brings before we jump to conclusions.”<a href="http://&quot;

"before we jump to conclusions"? i'm hoping she means that K may be stopped before anything more is necessary.


These last 24 hrs have been devastating.

I agree with Joan Biskupic, I think this was a “turning point”, a turn onto a very dark road.

For Supreme Court, Kavanaugh marks partisan turning point

Judge Brett Kavanaugh delivered the angriest partisan message heard from a Supreme Court nominee in modern times.

The judge who previously served as a top aide to President George W. Bush and worked for independent counsel Ken Starr’s investigation of President Bill Clinton tossed aside his earlier judicious language of neutrality.

His declaration was the product of his personal anger, to be sure, and the move of a nominee whose professional and personal fate was on the line. But the result — of his rhetoric and the overall tenor of the nomination — means he could forever be marked as a politician on the bench rather than a neutral jurist.

His language provided a striking departure from the usual “judges as umpires” that Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005, had invoked. Justice Neil Gorsuch, during his 2017 confirmation hearing, contended that, “There is no such thing as a Republican judge or a Democratic judge. We just have judges in this country.”

But it’s not just the Supreme Court that has been tainted by the extreme partisanship, angry bellowing, and threats of revenge.

“I know I am a single white male from South Carolina and I’ve been told shut up, but I will not shut up,” Graham, who put his fury on display during the hearing less than 24 hours earlier, said.

“Elections do matter,” he said. He later signaled he wanted to be committee’s next chairman, and that, if he did, he would hold a grudge against Democrats.

“If I am chairman, next year, if we keep the majority and Sen. Grassley moves over,” he said. “I’m going to remember this.”

“If you try to destroy somebody you will not get away with it,” Graham said.

As Graham spoke, Democrats at times mumbled to themselves and shook their heads, clearly frustrated with the senator’s partisan tone. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., seemed in disbelief with the way Graham was speaking.


To the loyal, populist supporters of President Donald Trump, Kavanaugh succeeded in looking like a victim of elitist politicians. But to the rest of us, he just looked like an entitled, privileged white male, whining because he’s unaccustomed to losing anything — much less a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court that he always expected to get.

That Republicans probably will confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court despite what happened on Thursday says something about this country, namely that white male privilege still means a lot. But it also says something that so many Americans saw through his act and were turned off by his defensive and tearful testimony.

The white male victimhood narrative is prevalent in Republican circles these days. But as the demographics of the U.S. begin to look a lot more like those of California, it’s a narrative that clearly won’t last.


I can’t wait, literally. :O)

i guess the supporters might be “populist,” in a sense, though not much care for abused women, in this instance.

Trump certainly is NOT a populist, although the MSM may use the term, in a way to link the word to something awful.


Yeah I noticed that populist should have been crossed out


not your writing. also, not sure we can cross stuff out, unless you know the code. if you do, please share. :O) i work in about an hour, so won’t be around after that much, if at all.


No just that the author should have omitted the word