flyangler

Judge Kavanaugh SCOTUS Confirmation Hearing Thread

Rate this topic

195 posts in this topic

Confirmation hearings start this week and should prove to be entertaining, and hyper-partisan, and sad at the same time. I thought it would be helpful to start a new thread covering the hearings and confirmation process. 

 

Question: On the scale of past confirmation hearings, where will this one lie? Worse than Bork or Thomas, or less? And how hyperbolic will be the Media's coverage? 

 

Why that second question? Well there is this just about the documents, of which nearly 1,000,000 pages have been submitted already, including 440,000 pages from Kavanaugh's days in Bush 43 WH. Note the title in this CNN article, where they mention the 440,000pages provided and Chuckie Schumer's comments. Think Chuckie is being a little over-the-top? 

 

Trump admin withholds 100,000-plus pages of Kavanaugh docs

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter 

Updated 7:11 PM EDT, Sat September 01, 2018

 

(CNN)The Trump administration will hold back more than 100,000 pages of documents related to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's service because the White House and the Department of Justice have determined they are protected by constitutional privilege, according to a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

William Burck, a lawyer charged by former President George W. Bush with reviewing the documents housed in the presidential library, disclosed the exemptions in a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Friday. Burck explained that, in all, he received just under 664,000 pages of documents and that Bush had directed him to "proceed expeditiously" and "err as much as appropriate on the side of transparency and disclosure."

 

Burck said he has given the committee "every reviewable" document that he received except those that fell into exemptions that included "presidential records protected by constitutional privilege."

 

The disclosure comes days before Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings, which are slated to begin Tuesday, and intensifies a battle between Grassley, who says he has produced a record number of documents, and Senate democrats who question the review being led by lawyers for the Trump administration and Bush. Democratic senators argue that Grassley is refusing to produce documents from Kavanaugh's years serving as staff secretary in the White House from 2003 to 2006.

 

Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer called the decision to withhold the documents a "Friday night document massacre."

"President Trump's decision to step in at the last moment and hide 100,000 pages of Judge Kavanaugh's records from the American public is not only unprecedented in the history of Supreme Court nominations, it has all the makings of a cover up," he said in a statement. 

 

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee countered that Burck's letter provided a "full accounting" of Kavanaugh's records and that Grassley has expanded access to confidential material beyond that for any other Supreme Court nominee. In a release, the committee pointed out that Grassley had promised to facilitate the release of another set of documents, currently available only to members, if senators keep their requests targeted to specific documents.

 

White House principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah responded on Twitter to Schumer by saying that the Senate Judiciary Committee requested access to "non privileged" presidential records. "That has been satisfied to the tune of over 440,000 pages of executive branch documents, more than what was produced for the past five #Scotus nominees combined," he wrote.

(snipped)

 

 

 

 

Edited by tomkaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, there will be ball tonguing and congratulatory back slapping, followed by finger wagging and gnashing of teeth until the vote. There will be laughing and joy followed by phony outrage. It will be the **** show of **** shows!

And when I can, I’ll watch :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, Stonesipher said:

So they are holding back approximately 20% of his docs. Question, would you be ok with that if it was an Obama or Clinton nominee?

They have already provided more docs, than were provided for Kagan and Sotomayor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end he's in - unless Mueller tries to tie him into to his investigation ;) 

Lot's of potential grandstanding soundbites for future campaign advertisements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, Riverboat33 said:

They have already provided more docs, than were provided for Kagan and Sotomayor.

That’s not an answer to the question It’s not about how many submitted but how many held back. So I ask again, would you be ok if it was a democratic nominee with 20% being held back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN is already launching a "missing documents" campaign.

 

Just took a look at their homepage.  Full blown propaganda rag.  It really is amazing how willing they've become to push agendas rather than news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 mins ago, Stonesipher said:

That’s not an answer to the question It’s not about how many submitted but how many held back. So I ask again, would you be ok if it was a democratic nominee with 20% being held back?

 

What kind of documents are being held back, and does it matter if attorney/client privilege is at issue? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 mins ago, Nessmuk said:

 

What kind of documents are being held back, and does it matter if attorney/client privilege is at issue? 

We don’t know now do we?  Yet we are supposed to decide this without all the facts 

Edited by Stonesipher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe he has written over 300 opinions.  If that's not enough for them to figure out who he is screw em. They're already not voting for him so what difference does more paper that they'll not read anyway make. Which one, by reading one sheet will change their mind and vote?

Edited by Rickman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 mins ago, Rickman said:

I believe he has written over 300 opinions.  If that's not enough for them to figure out who he is screw em. They're already not voting for him so what difference does more paper that they'll not read anyway make. Which one, by reading one sheet will change their mind and vote?

My guess would be the one that is being withheld, don’t you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 mins ago, Stonesipher said:

We don’t know now do we?  Yet we are supposed to decide this without all the facts 

:laugh: You read obamacare before they passed it? 

 

“Facts”...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, charloots said:

:laugh: You read obamacare before they passed it? 

 

“Facts”...lol

This is a LITTLE different don’t you think, you know making laws that the whole country will have to live by every time they come to session.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 mins ago, Stonesipher said:

So they are holding back approximately 20% of his docs. Question, would you be ok with that if it was an Obama or Clinton nominee?

Not a question which can be answered. There were Kagan docs held back from her time in Clinton WH. While that was during the impeachment days, it was not during anything as tumultuous the post 9/11 period and the GWoT. There really is no comparing the two individuals' experiences. 

 

Here is a primer on such privilege published by the very liberal Center for 

American Progress which pretty much argues it is the then and current administrations' responsibility to make that call. It was written during the Kagan confirmation review. 

 

https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2010/06/01/14579/a-primer-on-executive-privilege-for-the-kagan-nomination/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.