Collins And Murkowski Hedge Their Bets
Wanna bet on a sure thing?
Party before country
Party before the will of the people
Party above all else
ALWAYS
Iâm surprised, said no one ever
Murkowskiâs response was reportedly more tepid, saying only that she intends to participate in a ârigorous and exactingâ vetting process.
And then sheâll vote yes.
This was all lost after the 2016 election was certified. If Kavanaugh isnât approved, Trump will just keep nominating similar justices until one is. Donât put this on âmoderateâ Republican Senators.
Why do Republican men hate women?
The only people that hate women more than Republican men are Republican women.
Kavanaugh has argued that because Presidents can be removed via impeachment, they should not be subject to either investigations or litigation while in office.
But if even investigations must be deferred until the president is out of office, then on what basis can he be impeached?
If we see him eating French mustard, well, thatâs a simple open-and-shut case, no investigation needed; but what if the TV machine never shows him making unsavory deals with unsavory people? Without the power to investigate, how do we find out? And when?
True that.
I donât know why we still play this game. Murkowski and Collins will both vote yes and 2-3 red state Dems will too.
I suppose there needs to be a fight, but this âcan we count on X to vote no?â is very, very tired by now.
If I were able to ask questions at the hearing, I would ask only one and I already know the answer. âAre you a member of the Federalist Society?â I would then yield my time after saying, âThanks, that is all I need to know about how you will rule on virtually any case.â
Edited to remove stray comma.
Of course they do.
At this point, I wouldnât bother asking anything if the candidate is nominated by a Republican.
This President could slit an infantâs throat on live television and the current House would fail to impeach him. Granting the slim chance they did muster sufficient votes to do so itâs a lock there arenât 67 votes in the Sentate to convict him at trial. How does Kavanaughâs legal opinion merit respect when he fails to account for a Congress viewing the continuance of a singular personâs hold on the Presidency as paramount above all else?
This one does not.
The key mayâmayâbe the term âcriminal investigations.â And by that token, Muellerâs probe of tRump may not be criminal, if as is widely assumed, Mueller concludes that the president may not be indicted while in office.
Would I expect Justiice Kavanaugh to espouse that position if it came before the court? A big, fat NO.
(If I were a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, my first question would be whether he would recuse himself should any issue arising out of investigations of tRumpâs conduct come before the court. Iâm sure the answer would be an evasion, which would tell us all we need to know.)
Next time, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give me some warning when you hint at implying that the esteemed senior Senator from Maine might POSSIBLY end up saying âThat whole âvote againstâ thing? Just kidding!â I needed to go out and buy a defibrillator to get my heart started again, such was the shock. SHOCKED!
Yet another traitorous Rethug. I wish the MSM would stop referring to ANY of them as moderates. Theyâre anti-American, fascistic, power-hungry traitors. Every fucking one of them.
Yet it is a commonly held view among many legal scholars. And Kavanaughâs reasoning mirrors an OLC advisory*, which many cite when wanting to exempt a President from the laws governing the rest of the populace. Itâs not as if Kavanaugh is some whack job muttering in an alley on this one. He has a great deal of company in this philosophy.
*Of course many argue the OLC has no damned right decreeing how the law should treat a President suspected of serious crimes, let alone precluding reasonable, impartial pursuit of charges.
I am going to bombard R Senators with faxes of pictures of coat hangers
Edited to override auto correct
âHeâs still learning!â
âWell, that baby mustâve done something REALLY BAD to deserve that.â
âFAKE NEWS!â
âWho you gonna believe, the president*. or your lying eyes?â
And from Susan Collins: âWell, Iâm considering thinking about discussing whether something un-statesmanlike was done, and Iâm deeply concerned, but the Constitution doesnât specifically prohibit murdering babies.â
As much as weâd like to see a younger version of RBG on the court, it ainât going to happen until we take back the White House. Weâll put up a good fight, but my sense is Kavanaugh gets through.
Interestingly, it seems that the ultra conservatives arenât dancing in the streets over this pick.
David French is a jerk, FTR, and this column shows his disdain for anyone who dares to think that there shouldnât be a religious test for jurists. However, take a look at one of Kavanaughâs rulings on access to contraceptivesâ he could indeed turn out to be a surprise vote on a few issues.
Again, Kavanaugh is the best pick of a slew of bad choices, but this Coney Barrett woman sounds far worse.
Similarly:
There is a lot to go over. But letâs start with the Starr Report, look at [Kavanaughâs argument] that merely delaying an interview with an Independent Counsel or Special Counsel constitutes obstruction of justice and is an impeachable offense. Senators should also closely probe his claim that a President lying to the public or even to his staff can be and should be an impeachable offense. That is highly interesting.
(Paragraph written by Our Gracious Host.)