Showing posts with label male entitlement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label male entitlement. Show all posts

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Angry entitled white men in the GOP

Two candidates for a seat in Minnesota's House of Representatives had a little debate: GOP incumbent Duane Quam and Democratic challenger Jamie Mahlberg.
Quam and Mahlberg passed a single microphone back and forth as they discussed a variety of issues. But when Mahlberg answered a question about how to address education funding, Quam raised a card to signal he wanted to offer a rebuttal.

  The Hill
Let's have a look at how he handled that...



He snatched the microphone out of her hand, and when he was finished, he threw it on the table in front of her.  I dare say he wouldn't have done that to a male opponent.  

He "apologized" later.
“I respect Jamie and my actions at last night’s forum did not reflect that,” he said in the statement. “Unfortunately, my nerves got the best of me with our timed responses and I was not as graceful as I should have been while we shared the microphone. My sincere apologies to Jamie and I look forward to continuing a positive campaign.”
His nerves didn't get the best of him. His sense of entitlement and contempt for the woman who dared to challenge his position did.  His inner pig came out.

 ...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Petition to impeach Kavanaugh

A petition calling for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to be impeached has gathered over 155,000 signatures in the wake of his confirmation and multiple allegations of sexual assault brought against him.

  The Hill




...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Sunday, October 7, 2018

At least it leaks

Christine Blasey Ford had just finished testifying. [...] President Trump called Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, and they agreed she was impressive. “We’re only at halftime,” Mr. McConnell said, trying to be reassuring.

Mr. Trump thought it was time to bring in the F.B.I. to investigate, as many opponents of Judge Kavanaugh had urged, but when he called the Hart Building, Donald F. McGahn II, his White House counsel, refused to take the call. Instead, Mr. McGahn cleared the room and sat down with Judge Kavanaugh and his wife, Ashley Kavanaugh. The only way to save his nomination, Mr. McGahn said, was to show the senators how he really felt, to channel his outrage and indignation at the charges he had denied.

Judge Kavanaugh did not need convincing. He was brimming with rage and resentment, so when he went before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he did not hold back. [...] In their war room, White House aides watching on television cheered and pumped their fists.

  NYT
Trump is getting his MAGA wish to revert to an earlier time, at least in the White House. They are regressing. Perhaps this is why the comments coming out of the White House and off the Hill are so cocky. Since they thought that was a sterling performance and it gave them all erections, they think all the Republicans in the country feel the same. I wonder.
At one point, a dubious Mr. Trump asked Mr. McConnell if Senate Republicans were really committed to seeing it through. Mr. McConnell said absolutely yes.

“I’m stronger than mule piss” on this guy, he answered.
Thus providing his own very appropriate sobriquet, which I will be happy to use from now on: Mule Piss Mitch.
Mr. Trump was not especially enthusiastic about making Judge Kavanaugh his second Supreme Court nominee in the first place. The judge’s prior service as a White House aide to President George W. Bush made him suspect to Mr. Trump, who did not relish the idea of “a Bush guy” as his choice. Indeed, Mr. McConnell had warned against Judge Kavanaugh because of his paper trail, viewing other candidates as more easily confirmed.

Aides, led by Mr. McGahn, convinced Mr. Trump that Judge Kavanaugh would be the choice that would best suit the conservative movement, whose support has meant so much to the president.

[...]

That was why even after the formal interview, they arranged for Mr. Trump to have a second meeting with Judge Kavanaugh, this one including their wives for nearly two hours in the White House residence the night before the announcement in July.

The White House set up a larger operation than it did for Justice Gorsuch, opening a war room on the fourth floor of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with 11 lawyers and a couple of communications specialists aided by a team of lawyers at the Justice Department. They treated it as if it were a campaign, lining up more than 600 supportive statements and placing more than 200 op-ed pieces, not just in national newspapers but in those from key states like Maine, Arizona, Alaska and West Virginia. Outside groups on both sides aired millions of dollars worth of advertising.
Let me guess: they already knew something about Kavanaugh's temperament and background. Oh, what am I saying? Of course they already knew about his shady finances - SOMEbody paid off that large debt.
Mr. McGahn, who is stepping down after this nomination, devoted much of his time to the battle, talking with Mr. McConnell nearly every day and calling another half dozen senators most days. He and his team decided early on to hitch their wagon to Mr. McConnell, at times intentionally walling themselves off from the president and the White House.

They conducted more than a half-dozen mock hearings, including one that ran for more than 12 hours, to prepare Judge Kavanaugh for the real thing.
And then the charges from Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez hit.
Mr. Trump talked with Mr. McGahn and they agreed that Judge Kavanaugh had to personally confront the charges immediately before support eroded among Republicans. They did what had never been done in a Supreme Court confirmation and put him on television to be interviewed, choosing Mr. Trump’s favorite network, Fox News.

Judge Kavanaugh, joined by his wife, seemed flat and mechanical as he retreated to the same talking points denying the allegations. Mr. Trump, who styles himself a master of television, thought his nominee came across as weak.
And then Julie Swetnick appeared.
Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a key swing Republican, was so troubled that she took a copy of Ms. Swetnick’s statement, highlighted and marked up, to a meeting of Republican committee chairmen. Senator John Cornyn of Texas went through it point by point with her to debunk it. [...] No one came forward to corroborate the allegation, and news reports surfaced about past lawsuits in which Ms. Swetnick’s truthfulness was questioned.

“This was a turning point,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. “That allegation was so over the top, it created a moment that was scary, quite frankly. But that moment was quickly replaced by disgust.”

[...]

Mr. Durbin agreed that he “looked at it with a degree of skepticism,” but he said that the notion that Mr. Avenatti tipped the scale was “wishful thinking” by Republicans who were bent on confirming Judge Kavanaugh at all costs.

[...]

The moment of maximum danger, that hour after Dr. Blasey’s testimony on Sept. 27, sent a panic through Republican circles. Some in the White House and on Capitol Hill began privately speculating about when Judge Kavanaugh might withdraw. Dr. Blasey appeared so human, so guileless, so believable that even Mr. Trump called her “very credible.”

But Judge Kavanaugh’s angry outburst rallied Republicans. He went so far in expressing rage that he blamed the allegations on a plot to take “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” and he sharply challenged two of the Democratic senators about their own drinking. During a break, Mr. McGahn told him he had to dial it back and strike a calmer tone. When he returned to the committee room, Judge Kavanaugh moderated his anger and apologized to one of the senators.

[...]

Republican senators met that night just off the Capitol Rotunda. Ms. Collins said she would find it hard to vote yes without a sworn statement from Judge Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge denying that he saw what Dr. Blasey described. Aides to Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Judiciary chairman, got a fresh statement from Mr. Judge within three hours to satisfy her.
They've played her before. They knew they could do it again.
That night Mr. Graham went to dinner at Cafe Berlin with Ms. Collins, Mr. Flake and Ms. Murkowski. They discussed whether a limited F.B.I. investigation might assuage them.

The list of four witnesses they selected, however, later struck Democrats as so constrained that they demanded a more expansive investigation. In the end, the F.B.I. interviewed 10 people, but not many others Democrats recommended.

[...]

Ms. Murkowski was struggling with what to do. She asked the committee staff to question Judge Kavanaugh’s friends about their understanding of terms from his yearbook like “boofing” and “Devil’s Triangle” to see if they matched his.
And since we don't get to see the FBI report, we don't know if they did. We DO know that some tried to get in touch with the FBI, and failing, went to reporters saying that indeed Kavanaugh was lying about those things.
Among those she heard from was Mr. Bush, who while no fan of Mr. Trump’s intervened nonetheless on behalf of his former aide, Judge Kavanaugh. The former president also called Ms. Collins three times as well as Mr. Flake and other Republicans.

If Mr. Flake was moved by the protesters, though, other Republicans were not. Some like Mr. McConnell and Mr. Graham got their backs up. “The tactics that were used completely backfired,” said Mr. McConnell. “Harassing members at their homes, crowding the halls with people acting horribly, the effort to humiliate us really helped me unify my conference. So I want to thank these clowns for all the help they provided.”

Less helpful may have been Mr. Trump’s decision to mock Dr. Blasey during a rally in Mississippi on Tuesday night, mimicking her telling senators she did not recall certain details about the alleged assault. Aides and senators had been urging him not to attack her directly for fear of alienating the very undecided senators he needed, and, indeed, Mr. Flake, Ms. Murkowski and Ms. Collins all condemned his remarks. But White House aides insisted that the president’s outburst fortified Republicans.
I don't doubt it a bit. They're a cruel lot, and they get high off each other's cruelty.
Ms. Collins spent nearly five hours reading all of the interview summaries and reams of raw material from the F.B.I.’s tip line. Ms. Murkowski returned to the secure room as late as 10:30 at night to go through it again, after meeting earlier in the day with sexual assault survivors.

[...]

Mr. McConnell and Mr. Cornyn were having lunch in the Senate Dining Room during a break when Ms. Collins came in. They invited her to join them and she disclosed that she too would vote yes on final confirmation. She later delivered a 45-minute floor speech explaining that the allegations simply were not corroborated.
And neither were they contradicted, but she must not have had a problem with that.
Mr. Grassley, the committee chairman, was in tears and retreated to a cloakroom to collect himself.
Snowflake.
The final vote came on an overcast Saturday afternoon. The suspense was gone, but the emotion was not. Right after the final tally was read by Vice President Mike Pence, presiding in his role as president of the Senate, a woman yelled from the gallery: “This is a stain on American history. Do you understand that?”

One level down, off the floor of the Senate, Mr. McGahn and White House aides assembled in the vice president’s office. Aides to Mr. Grassley and Mr. McConnell gathered in the leader’s suite for a celebratory toast.

When Mr. Pence walked down the long marble steps toward his motorcade, hundreds of protesters, framed by the Supreme Court in the background, chanted, “Vote them out!”
Did Mule Piss Mitch thank those clowns?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

And another 30

Susan Collins deserves at long last to pass from the Senate and possibly from memory

Collins's speech is going to go down as a landmark in the annals of congressional smarm. It was too long. It was badly delivered. It made little or no coherent sense. Beyond the aesthetic, it was a suicide note delivered on behalf of her entire political identity.

This was perhaps my favorite passage—and by "favorite," I mean, "completely detached from any possible empirical reality on any plane of existence in this particular universe."
My fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions.
My fervent hope is that I will awaken tomorrow with six pounds of gold in each of my shoes, but I'm not counting on leprechauns.

[...]

[E]ven if you ignore the what Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward to tell the Senate, this is a guy who by temperament alone doesn't deserve the promotion he now apparently will get, and that even if you ignore the privilege-fueled tantrum he directed at the Senate Judiciary Committee, this is a guy whose judicial philosophy was not nurtured in academia or in the actual practice of the law, but in the rage-furnaces of modern conservative Mordor, and that these, taken in tandem, make him somebody who shouldn't be allowed within five blocks of the Supreme Court.

Moreover, [...] the stories about him are going to keep piling up, which in turn will make the FBI's perfunctory seven-day "investigation" look ever more like at best inadequate, and at worst, a deliberate cover-up.

[...]

[B]y not interviewing witnesses who were virtually begging to talk to its gumshoes, the FBI has guaranteed that these witnesses will tell their stories somewhere.

  Charles P Pierce
Collins' fellow Maine Senator, Independent Angus King, released this statement:
U.S. Senator Angus King (I-Maine) released the following statement after reviewing the FBI’s supplementary background investigation into Judge Brett Kavanaugh:

“The FBI report that I reviewed today does not confirm or contradict Judge Kavanaugh’s statements, nor does it undermine the credible testimony of Dr. Ford. For me, my decision is based on Judge Kavanaugh’s record, which indicates an overly rigid judicial philosophy that would threaten protections for healthcare, personal liberty and a women’s right to choose, the environment, and campaign finance laws; it is based on his refusal to recuse himself from any cases that may come before the court involving presidential power as it applies to the President who nominated him for the seat; it is based on his partisan behavior during last week’s hearing, which does not match the temperament and impartiality needed to serve on our nation’s highest court; and it is based on the voices of Maine women who in recent weeks have shared with me their deep concern about this nomination. Based upon what I’ve seen, read, and witnessed, I remain a no vote on his confirmation.”

  King.Senate.Gov
Hear, hear.

While I'm in Charlie Pierce's neighborhood, I want to share with you what he had to about the cloture vote advancing Kavanaugh's nomination to a vote by the entire Senate. He was so right.
Now, there will be 30 hours of debate, and then a vote, in which nobody will get to hide. We will get to see how counterfeit those heartfelt concerns of Jeff Flake and Young Ben Sasse really are. We will get to see again that Lisa Murkowski's centrism is real, while we'll get to see how completely artificial Susan Collins's "centrism" really is. We will get to see how utterly reckless Mitch McConnell is in perpetuating the power down through the generations, the Constitution and the republic be damned. We will get to see the steel in Heidi Heitkamp, who has gone all the way out on a very tremulous limb, and we will get to see, finally, what Joe Manchin is willing to sell cheap in order to stay in office.

We will see the true depth of the loyalty the congressional majority has to the developing oligarchy, to its dedication to rolling back the achievements of 20 years of civil rights progress, and to the heedless savage who sits in the White House.

[...]

Kavanaugh's entire career prior to being installed in the federal court where he now sits was as a partisan lawyer, the political equivalent of an ambulance chaser. That was the part of him that came out in his now infamous tirade. That was where "revenge for the Clintons" came from. That was where all that business about money from "left-wing opposition groups." What is this guy going to do when one of those groups comes before the Supreme Court as a litigant?

  Charles P Pierce
I think we know.
And what if his pronounced deference to executive power comes into conflict with the president* who pushed him onto the Court? Is there anybody who has watched Kavanaugh's performance since his nomination who thinks he actually would step away from cases like that? This is his dream shot, and now he's aflame with vengeance. They're going to have to tie him to his chair to keep him from doing an end-zone dance.

Saturday, October 6, 2018

The Kavanaugh saga has barely begun

Multiple ethics complaints have been filed against Kavanaugh in [...] the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, about his testimony in recent weeks in the US Senate and his response to allegations of sexual misconduct. The chief judge of the circuit normally handles ethics cases, but they have discretion to step aside if they conclude “circumstances warrant disqualification,” under the federal judiciary’s rules.

If the chief judge is disqualified, the complaint falls to the next most senior judge of the court, in this case Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who issued Saturday’s statement [that Chief Judge Merrick Garland has recused himself from those complaints]. The fact that the statement came from the DC Circuit suggests it hasn’t been transferred to another circuit.

  Buzzfeed
Merrick Garland is the chief judge of that court. There's no legal reason for him to recuse himself, but he recognized the "appearance" of bias that might sully the court's reputation and did the proper thing.

Any bets on whether Kavanaugh will recuse himself from ANY case?

In fact, if the complaints against him were ultimately taken to the Supreme Court, we really will have a Constitutional crisis.
BuzzFeed News has confirmed at least three complaints filed in the DC Circuit against Kavanaugh; two relate to his responses to allegations of sexual misconduct, including his controversial Senate testimony on Sept. 27, and one is about his Senate testimony at his first hearing in early September. Judicial misconduct complaints are normally not made public, but the people who file them aren’t prohibited from discussing them.

[...]

Judicial ethics experts previously told BuzzFeed News that they expected the complaints filed against Kavanaugh to be dismissed if he’s confirmed to the Supreme Court. Lower court judges are subject to a code of conduct and an internal misconduct review system, but Supreme Court justices are not. Still, ethics experts said that Kavanaugh’s partisan rhetoric in his Senate hearing last week — including railing against “left-wing” groups — could be an ethical issue that follows him whether or not he is confirmed to the Supreme Court.
We're about to find out.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Your 9th Supreme Court judge

Kavanaugh’s written draft of his statement to the Judiciary Committee, submitted on Sept. 26, was nonpartisan. It spoke of “a frenzy to come up with something—anything … that will block a vote on my nomination.” But while Ford was testifying on the morning of Sept. 27, Kavanaugh, by his own account, rewrote his remarks instead of watching her testimony. After the word “frenzy,” he inserted the phrase “on the left.” And before the words “grotesque and obvious character assassination,” he inserted “anger about President Trump,” “revenge on behalf of the Clintons,” and “left-wing opposition groups.” These revisions weren’t the work of a man defending his honor. They were carefully crafted appeals to political tribalism.

[...]

In 1998, while working for independent counsel Ken Starr, Kavanaugh wrote an angry memo against President Clinton. Kavanaugh urged Starr to “make [Clinton’s] pattern of revolting behavior clear—piece by painful piece.” Afterward, according to colleagues, Kavanaugh “immediately regretted” his explosion. Kavanaugh has also behaved violently at least twice after drinking, according to witnesses and a police report. There’s the Kavanaugh who apologizes, and then there’s the Kavanaugh who keeps doing things that require apologies.

  Slate
For those of you who haven't experienced it, that is also the mark of an alcoholic. And of an abuser. I wouldn't be surprised to find out his wife and children are abused.

Murkowski won't have to voice a "no" today




That's only making her vote seem less in opposition to Kavanaugh, because she doesn't need to do that for Kavanaugh to be seated.  If she voted no, then the final vote would be 50-49.  Also, even if it were 50-50, Pence would break the tie in favor of Kavanaugh.  In fact, Manchin could clean up his act and vote no, and it would still not be enough as long as Pence gets to be the tiebreaker.  The only way Kavanaugh wouldn't be seated is if Manchin changed his vote and Murkowski voted no instead of present. 

Kavanaugh is going to be seated.  And all hell is going to break loose.  And the Trump cabal will continue paving the way to an autocracy.

Murkowski's Kavanaugh vote



Compared to Susan Collins.

UPDATE:

Jesus Fucking Christ, Fox News





Dishonest and disingenuous

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) on Friday said that the U.S. Senate will be not be intimidated by "paid protesters" in its quest to vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

"Our vote today was important not only because it will allow us to move forward and conclude this process," Cornyn said on the Senate floor after the chamber voted in favor of ending debate on Kavanaugh's nomination. "It was important because it showed that the U.S. Senate will not be intimidated.

"We will not be bullied by the screams of paid protesters and name-calling by the mob."

  The Hill
John Cornyn knows the protesters are not paid by anyone, whereas, John Cornyn is a paid corporate agent.  John Cornyn is a shithead.  Texas women: you know what to do in 2020 when he runs for re-election.

And, speaking of disgusting old man whores...
The Salt Lake Tribune Editorial Board ripped Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (R) in a fiery editorial for his part in a “despicable attack” launched on Julie Swetnick, the third woman to publicly come forward with sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

“The despicable attack launched by Sen. Orrin Hatch and the Senate Judiciary Committee — more precisely, the Republicans on that committee — on one of the women who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault is a textbook example of why more victims do not come forward,” the board wrote on Thursday.

“Worse, it betrays a positively medieval attitude toward all women as sex objects who cannot be believed or taken seriously,” the board continued.

[...]

“What we now know for sure is that Hatch and others working for the Judiciary Committee have, without question, tried to slime one of Kavanaugh’s accusers in a way that is widely, and accurately, described as ‘slut-shaming,’” the editorial concluded.

“Except it is Hatch and his allies who should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves."

The Salt Lake Tribune is Utah’s biggest newspaper.

  The Hill
Hatch, whose office has been front and center in the smearing of Kavanaugh's accusers, has said he's retiring. Let's see if he sticks to it. If not, hopefully Utah will dump him. That old asshole has been in Congress 41 years. It's time for Congressional term limits.



Paid protesters is the go-to argument for every protest the GOP witnesses.

Friday, October 5, 2018

Men supporting women





These men got arrested for their trouble.

The Kavanaugh saga is far from over

Collins condemned Democrats for having their minds made up before Kavanaugh was nominated (as if Republicans did not), expressed dismay at misrepresentations of his record (though not his flood of deceptions), and decried the “dark money” mobilized to oppose him (the dark money mobilized to back him didn’t seem to annoy her).

Meanwhile, her treatment of the Christine Blasey Ford affair was so shamelessly disingenuous that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that her call for an FBI inquiry was really about gaining the cover to do what she intended to do all along. Hearing her speak, it seemed she regarded the biggest injustice in the whole saga to be the fact that Ford’s charges were leaked, putting Republicans through the inconvenience of having to deal with them.

[...]

Now, with Kavanaugh poised to be confirmed, we’re sure to hear an updated taunt: Not only did you stupid Democrats not stop Kavanaugh, Republican voters are so mad they’re going to flock to the polls.

Of course, these days every event generates its own backlash, and Kavanaugh’s coming confirmation will likely make Democrats, particularly Democratic women, even more angry and motivated than they have been up until now.

[...]

When we look back on the Kavanaugh controversy, we’re probably going to say that as painful as it was, it accelerated vital societal change. The contrast between Ford (poised under great stress, seemingly sincere in her posture that she had come forward to help the country) and Kavanaugh (angry, unhinged, resentful at seeing his ascension challenged, sneeringly contemptuous of opposition lawmakers, especially female ones such as Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)) will be burned in our minds forever.

[...]

Beyond this, the hearing — and this whole saga — surely will have a major cultural impact. More and more women are coming forward to tell their stories of harassment and assault, in many cases trauma they’ve kept silent about for years or decades.

  WaPo
Expect the backlash from entitled and angry white men to be fierce (it's already happening).
Who can forget the paroxysm of rage that Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) flew into — not at children being separated from their parents or thousands dying in Puerto Rico — but at the idea that one rich white guy might not get the lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court to which he was entitled?

Then there’s the role of President Trump. From the outset of this whole affair, his aides pleaded with him to lay low and not attack Ford. But of course, he could not maintain that posture for long and finally let ‘er rip at a rally, mocking not just Ford, but the very claim itself.

[...]

This perfectly captured the Republican closing argument for Kavanaugh, which was basically that Ford’s charges should never have gotten the full examination that they did end up getting, that the huge swaths of America who were deeply moved by her willingness to carry this banner can be brushed aside with a contemptuous tweet, and that the real victim in this whole affair was (naturally) Kavanaugh. Republicans had tried to keep this subtle — the sugar coated version was that of course Republicans take the charges and the broader issue seriously, but, hey, Kavanaugh was also equally credible, and this whole thing is unresolvable, so it would be equally wrong to derail him over it. As always, Trump ripped off the mask.

Indeed, this whole debate, while no doubt emboldening sexual assault survivors to come forward and forcing a national reckoning around the issue, also revealed the power of the forces arrayed against change. Now Kavanaugh’s ascension probably means those forces will succeed in taking a shiv to women’s reproductive rights.

Collins on Friday assured us up and down that this will not happen. Well, her speech will make for fun viewing in a couple of years. Oh, by the way, Collins is up for reeleection in 2020.
And a two million dollar fund has already been collected to back whoever her opponent may be.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 10/7:
A crowdfunding effort to raise money against Sen. Susan Collins's (R-Maine) potential 2020 opponent broke $3 million in contributions Friday.

The campaign, organized by Be A Hero Team, Maine People's Alliance and Mainers for Accountable Leadership, was conditional on Collins's vote in the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and after pledging her support for the nominee Friday the money will now go to her potential opponent.

  The Hill

More reason than being a teen drunk and misogynist to keep Kavanaugh off the bench

In spite of the sexual assault allegations against him, Brett Kavanaugh is set to receive a Senate vote on Saturday confirming him to the Supreme Court. Since Christine Blasey Ford came forward three weeks ago with her account of an attempted rape, attention has focused on alleged Kavanaugh transgressions involving sex and alcohol. But from the moment Trump put his name forward, Mother Jones has been reporting on numerous other episodes from his past that make him a potentially problematic pick for a lifetime appointment to the country’s highest court.

[...]

1. He appears to have lied repeatedly to Congress while under oath.

[...]

2. He made Russian election interference easier and Robert Mueller’s job harder. In a 2011 ruling, he gutted part of a law restricting foreign influence in US elections.

3. His finances are the murkiest of any recent Supreme Court nominee.

[...]

4. He believes assault weapons can’t be banned because they’re “common.” And he defended that opinion in his confirmation hearing.

5. He has close ties to a disgraced judge accused of repeated sexual misconduct.

[...]

6. He wanted to ask Bill Clinton extremely lewd questions.

[...]

7. He has a track record of ruling for whoever’s more powerful. A study found that he backs federal agencies only when doing so helps big corporations.

8. He’s not a fan of affirmative action. Newly released emails show he took a dim view of a government program to support minority-owned businesses.

9. There are serious questions about his judicial temperament.

[...]

10. He could undo efforts to restore the Supreme Court’s integrity.

  Mother Jones
[L]osing ourselves in this political circus and the subsequent media frenzy surrounding Kavanaugh’s sexual past glosses over another aspect of his professional career that should concern every single individual: his promotion of the national security state.

The PATRIOT Act

[...]

According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), which filed a Freedom of Information Act Request for Kavanaugh’s official government correspondence records [...] , the Supreme Court Justice nominee referred to the PATRIOT Act as a "measured, careful, responsible, and constitutional approach” in an email sent to a colleague.

[...]

Kavanaugh was also one of the individuals tasked with its drafting. He has been definitively credited with the line, “…the new law will update laws authorizing government surveillance.” [...] If he is the constitutionalist he has claimed to be on several occasions, then he would know that the Constitution already prohibits the government from broad, warrantless searches of this nature. This is not a protection that can simply be “updated.”

[...]

The Torture Memos

[...]

In 2006, when Judge Kavanaugh was being questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee as he waited to be confirmed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, he went on the record stating that he knew nothing of these memos before their public release. At several points during his hearing, he denied having anything to do with these memos specifically stating that he was “not involved” in any conversations regarding the rules governing the detention of combatants He also denied ever having seen the correspondence at all.

[...]

The reason this has raised red flags for those already skeptical about Kavanaugh is that his position at the time dictated that memos and other written correspondence would have passed by his desk at some point before reaching their end recipient.

Enemy Combatants

Additionally, a year after the 2006 hearing, the Washington Post reported on a contentious meeting that had occurred in the White House in 2002. The conversation was centered on speculation as to whether or not the Supreme Court would accept the Bush Administration’s assertion that they could label an American citizen an “enemy combatant” at their discretion, allowing the person in question to be locked up for an indefinite amount of time.

As per the Washington Post’s reporting, Judge Kavanaugh was not only present at this meeting but was specifically summoned to weigh in on the matter since he was himself a former clerk for swing vote judge, Justice Kennedy. At the meeting, he voiced his concerns that Justice Kennedy and other swing voters on the Supreme Court would never side with the administration’s controversial decision. This meeting was brought up again just a couple of weeks ago, addressing the concerns some Senators still have over Kavanaugh’s insistence that he had no role in such conversations when it appears that he did.

Senator Durbin, who sat on the Senate Judicial committee in 2006 sent Kavanaugh a letter in which he states, “it appears that you misled me,” but he never received a response, even after he followed up with Kavanaugh recently after he had received the Supreme Court nomination.

Metadata: Due Process for Me, Not for Thee

[...]

[I]n a ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh ruled that “the Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.” He also later stated that “that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program.” Again, a rather odd conclusion for a staunch “constitutionalist” to support.

[...]

This mass surveillance of the American people not only violated the specific statutes in the Fourth Amendment that specified how individuals could be searched by the state, but it also violated the right of due process— the same due process that Kavanaugh has asked be upheld while he undergoes the confirmation process.

  Foundation for Economic Education


...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

The bottom line on Susan Collins











That says something about Collins, and nothing about SCOTUS nominees.

Her formal statement at leasts indicates she has considered and has arguments for why she will vote to seat Kavanaugh.  Too bad he's a lying sack of shit.

Also, she cites his high rating by the American Bar Association, when the ABA just put out a letter saying they were having to reconsider.

But here's where she goes off the rails...
The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.

Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.

  Susan Collins
The presumption of innocence has a follow-up: hearing and weighing of the allegations. Just because it's an "outlandish allegation" does not mean it's automatically untrue. The fact that it was not permitted to be investigated is more outlandish than the allegation. And not just outlandish, but suspicious, and Collins cannot legitimately use this as an objection without the benefit of an investigation to weigh that presumption. She knows better than this. And it's a shameful peg on which to hang her pro-Kavanaugh hat.

And, finally...
[W]e’ve heard a lot of charges and counter charges about Judge Kavanaugh. But as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband, and father. Despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our Judiciary and our highest court is restored.
Did she not hear his opening screed before his testimony about this being a vendetta on behalf of the Clintons? Does she think he sounded like someone who would work to LESSEN partisan divisions? Really, Susan?
Immediately following Collins’ speech, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who was previously undecided, announced he would join Collins in voting to confirm Kavanaugh in the final vote set to be held Saturday.

[...]

Suggesting on Twitter that she would be interested in running against Collins, [former Obama Administration National Security Adviser Susan] Rice said she had not yet made a final decision.

“Many thanks for the encouragement,” Rice said. “I’m not making any announcements. Like so many Americans, I am deeply disappointed in Senator Collins’ vote for Kavanaugh. Maine and America deserve better.”

If she does officially choose to run, Rice already has $2 million in campaign money waiting for her.

Immediately proving to be a lucrative fundraising effort for her future, yet-to-be-determined, Democratic appointment, Collins's speech brought in tens of thousands of dollars in just a matter of minutes to a crowdfunding campaign that’s been established to be donated to her future opponent, assuming Collins votes yes on Kavanaugh.

The crowdfunding campaign is led by progressive activist Ady Barkan and two grassroots organizations—Maine People's Alliance and Mainers for Accountable Leadership. Donations poured in during the GOP senator’s speech, tipping it over the $2 million mark as Collins was speaking. The total amount of money raised spiked by more than $26,000 over the course of 14 minutes from 3:17 p.m. to 3:31 p.m. Collins began speaking shortly after 3 p.m. and finished around 3:50 p.m.

[...]

As of Friday afternoon, the effort had raised more than $2,020,000, with many of the donations for $20.20 in reference to when Collins will be up for re-election.

  Newsweek




Because she doesn't want to believe that someone in her class of people would do "outlandish" things.

UPDATE:



UPDATE:
A crowdfunding effort to raise money against Sen. Susan Collins's (R-Maine) potential 2020 opponent broke $3 million in contributions Friday.

The campaign, organized by Be A Hero Team, Maine People's Alliance and Mainers for Accountable Leadership, was conditional on Collins's vote in the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and after pledging her support for the nominee Friday the money will now go to her potential opponent.

  The Hill

Kudos to Lisa Murkowski



Murkowski had to go with the voters in her state of Alaska, and deserves credit for that.  This is going to cost her in the Senate.  She'll not be getting any cooperation or support from her Republican colleagues after this.

Similarly, I assume Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat from West Virginia, voted according to what would likely keep him a seat in a conservative state.  I hope he didn't throw that away, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him lose that seat anyway, running against the current AG.

This was, of course, just a vote to move the vote to the final vote tomorrow.  Interestingly, Republican Steve Daines won't be there.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  It's "about the credibility and the integrity of our institutions."  Statement from Lisa Murkowski.






Not from Collins, you won't.

Hatch again



They can afford to lose one.  Mike Pence is the tie-breaker.  (And that's a rule that ought not exist.)



I had forgotten this about Hatch.  Flake and Coons discussed pairing in their Atlantic Festival talk.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE  10/6:

Trump has put Daines on notice:



Fucking incredible.