The Senate shouldn’t be sleeping on Whitaker’s unconstitutional appointment

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER NEWS)

 

The Senate shouldn’t be sleeping on Whitaker’s unconstitutional appointment

The resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his replacement with “acting Attorney General” Matthew Whitaker has proven quite controversial since it was announced. Big-name, right-of-center constitutional experts — including, it appears, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas by a backdoor route — have opined that it is straight-up unconstitutional.

It is a conclusion that’s hard to disregard on its merits. But the failure of the administration to respect the “advice and consent” clause of the Constitution is not the only reason why the Senate should be pushing back, and hard, on the acting attorney general situation.

There’s a far more straightforward reason: The appointment of Whitaker is a blatant power grab, and no senator worth his salt should be willing to give up his power over the staffing of the administration.

[Read more: Maryland challenges Whitaker’s appointment as acting AG]

That is especially so if the politician in question is named Mitch McConnell.

The Republican Senate majority leader from Kentucky regards himself as being “in the personnel business.” What McConnell means by that is that the most important impact he and his colleagues can have in government is getting people they like confirmed to high office, where they can make legally bulletproof decisions that will shape the future of this country for decades to come.

The area where this is most evident, pertinent, and with the longest-term consequence is in the judiciary. But Senate-confirmable administration posts count as well — not only those confirmed or blocked, but also those thwarted or prevented behind the scenes.

Why, then, would McConnell — let alone his other 99 colleagues — allow their power to be grabbed in such an overt and easily stopped manner by any president? Why not demand that if President Trump wants Whitaker, he put him forward as a nominee for attorney general? And if he does not want Whitaker, why not demand he name his preferred successor to Sessions right now, so the Senate can get on with the constitutionally mandated confirmation process?

The reality is, Trump should have had a nominee’s name ready to announce the second news broke of Sessions’ resignation. It’s not like he hasn’t had time to think about it. Rumors that Sessions would exit after the midterm elections have been swirling D.C. for months now. Trump has wanted him gone for much longer than that.

But it is simply unacceptable that the Senate would not be forcing the president to get on with it now. Every day he delays is an erosion of the Senate’s power and reason for existence.

Under former President Barack Obama, we saw a consistent erosion of the notion that administrations need to adhere to constitutional law.

That was actually the problem at issue in the case that George Conway, Kellyanne Conway’s husband, and former Solicitor General Neal Katyal cited in their op-ed last week dubbing the “acting attorney general” situation unconstitutional.

And Thomas, Trump’s “favorite justice,” considered what the Obama administration did with National Labor Relations Board appointments to be not merely unlawful but unconstitutional — and he was right.

Trump can and should do better than Obama did in this regard. But so should McConnell, if he really is in the personnel business. The majority leader should not tolerate this unconstitutional power grab, which overtly and directly hurts him and his caucus.

Liz Mair is president of Mair Strategies and strategist to the Swamp Accountability Project.

Republican Politicians Honor White Male Rapists?

(THIS ARTICLE CAME TO ME FROM A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE IN ILLINOIS, HE SENT IT TO ME THROUGH FB)

 

18 hrs

Image may contain: text

Folks: How Do We Personally Believe In The Independence Of OUR OWN: Supreme Court?

Folks: How Do We Personally Believe In The Independence Of OUR OWN: Supreme Court?

 

Well Folks, do We? This is a case where 1/3 of Our National Government is in the hands and minds of just 9 of Our own People. I personally would not want to have to be a judge, at any level. Not with all the sins that I know that I have  committed. I don’t want to have to have a job of being a Judge where what the 9 of you say, is final. Folks, that’s just like being one step away, or below, God! I am not saying that this Job can’t be done, but to be Truly Independent of the Other 2 Branches of Our Government, at every level is necessary. To me, and I know that I could be wrong, but I believe that in Our Country’s Supreme Court Job Description, that Job Description is to make sure that all Laws are Constitutional! Now again, do the Nine Folks we now have on The Nations Top Court realize the weight upon each of them to be in charge of 1/3 of Our Government? Personally, there is no way, no amount of money that could get me to want that Job. Think of the pressure on all 9 of these folks to be, Honest. Has Our Nations Supreme Court become nothing but pawns of Big Politics, and Big Money? Do you have the Intelligence, and the Morals, do you Mr. Kavanaugh? What are you walking into Mr. Kavanaugh, do you really know? Well folks, as a very dear friend of mine used to say once in a while, “we shall see what we shall see.” Fore without an independent Supreme Court, there is no Democracy and as little as 9 people holds in their hands the weight of 1/3 of the Constitutional Government. Their sort of like those “Super Delegates” the Democrats been hosting, aren’t they? Except if you can totally control one of these 3 Branches of our Government, 9 people could control our Country. How much weight is on Mr. Kavanaugh? How much weight is on all 9 of these people? As I said earlier, I wouldn’t want this job no matter what the pay. When we add in the reality that another 1/3 of Our Government is in the hands of just One Person. Folks this means that 2/3 of Our whole Government is the Hands of 10 people. That is too much power if those positions aren’t filled with quality persons, now who decides what “Quality” is. Now Folks, does this help you see why I would not want to ever have to be in the place of one of these nine Folks.

Roe V Wade Gets Struck Down In 2019: Now Where Do We Go As A Country?

Roe V Wade Gets Struck Down In 2019: Now Where Do We Go As A Country?

 

If, big if, but if the Republicans can hold onto the Congress and the Senate, then Roe V Wade will be over turned in 2019. I believe that this is the only way that the Republicans could get their votes on the Supreme Court. Thus their goal is to rule via the Supreme Court over the next 20-30 years of life in America. But my question is a simple one. When all abortions in the U.S. are ruled to be murder, how is our society going to respond? I believe that the biggest single reason that the Democrats lost the so-called Christian Right, is the abortion issue. This has got to be the only reason that the “Christian Right” would stay hooked to an habitual liar, fraud and thief like Donald Trump, his Family and fellow soon to be felons. Folks if this scenario I mentioned did happen, (with or without the help of Nannie Vlad), then the other will soon follow. But no, I do no expect the Fake News Fraud-in-Chief to ever spend a real day in a prison or ever be a felon, step #3 is good ole dependable hypocrite Mikie to give out full pardons to all the good -ole-boys.

 

Democrats like Nancy Pelosi in their ego actually believe that we the Sheep want them back in Office, no, no, no, you angry old lady, we just want the Hell rid of Donald Trump and his group of habitual lying kiss-asses that surround him. If the Democrats do win the Congress back in November and they then are stupid enough to vote this hateful Relic to lead them again, they deserve their own dirt. Personally, I believe that every single person who is in any level of Politics reaches the age of 70, they must retire. If you can Constitutionally mandate age discrimination as is done in the minimum age of a President, why should we not have a maximum age. If your 70th birthday would occur while you are still in Office, then you can not be a candidate for that Office. There has to be a limit somewhere in order to try to put a cap on some of this madness.

Honestly: Is There Anyone Who Didn’t Know What The Outcome Would Be?

Honestly: Is Their Anyone Who Didn’t Know What The Outcome Would Be?

 

Folks, please don’t even say to your self, that you didn’t know for sure or not, that Judge Brett Kavanaugh would end up on the SC.  Am I being cynical? I don’t mean to be, that is not my intent. I very seldom seem to be surprised by how politicians end up voting. I pretty much believe that the vast majority of people, are not at all surprised either. The votes tend to always be lined up with their Initial.

Lindsey Graham, Brett Kavanaugh, and the unleashing of white male backlash

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF VOX NEWS)

 

Lindsey Graham, Brett Kavanaugh, and the unleashing of white male backlash

“I’m a single white male from South Carolina, and I’m told I should just shut up, but I will not shut up.”

Friday morning, during a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said probably the most honest thing about this hearing that a Republican has said during the entire process.

“I’m a single white male from South Carolina, and I’m told I should just shut up, but I will not shut up,” Graham said.

Graham is elevating the stakes of the Kavanaugh hearing. No longer is this about Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, or what he may have done to her in suburban Maryland in 1982. It’s about beating back the challenge from feminists and people of color demanding a seat at the table; it is about showing that white men in power are not going anywhere — that they will not listen, will not budge, and will not give ground to #MeToo or the Black Lives Matter movement.

This was always the subtext of the Republican approach to the sexual assault allegations. But now Graham has officially made it the text: Voting “yes” on Kavanaugh is the battle cry of the reactionary man.

Lindsey Graham, Donald Trump, and backlash politics

Donald Trump’s 2016 election is now widely understood among social scientists to be a kind of backlash to social progress. The backlash against a black president gets the bulk of the attention, but there’s also good evidence that a sexist backlash to the prospect of a woman president played a major role.

Research by three political scientists — Brian Schaffner, Matthew MacWilliams, and Tatishe Nteta — found extremely strong correlations between an individual’s scores on measures designed to estimate racist and sexist sentiments and their likelihood of supporting Trump:

Brian Schaffner/Matthew MacWilliams/Tatishe Nteta

There is not a single, discrete backlash in the United States in the Trump era. There’s a more wholesale one, directed not just against racial minorities but decades of social progress for all sorts of different marginalized groups. Trump is a living, breathing avatar of this kind of politics. But at the outset of his presidency, it was an open question as to how far Republican members of Congress would be willing to buttress the president on these points.

Graham just showed that he’s pretty willing indeed.

The specific language that he used — “I’m a single white male from South Carolina, and I’m told I’m just supposed to shut up” — is a direct reference to one of the core arguments used by feminists and social justice activists: that white men in positions of privilege don’t have direct experiences with hostile sexism or racism, and should listen to the people who have.

Graham is saying he cannot, and will not, listen: He will vote for Kavanaugh regardless of what Ford said, and will defend him in the face of any criticism about the gender and power dynamics at work.

“I will not shut up” is a perfect mantra for Trumpian backlash politics. There is no risk that white men are, in mass, going to be silenced: They occupy the commanding heights of power in every walk of American life. The demands that they be quiet at times are a response to the over representation of their voices, that they understand what life is like for more vulnerable people and then change the way they act accordingly.

But Graham is not willing to give even that little ground. His rage on this point, one shared by Trump’s base, has been palpable throughout this process. During Thursday’s hearing, he interrupted Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor that Republicans had deputized to ask questions during the hearing, to deliver a furious rant in defense of Kavanaugh.

“To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics,” Graham said during Thursday’s hearing.

After Graham spoke, Mitchell was denied a single additional question. The Republicans on the committee, all white men, took turns apologizing to Kavanaugh for what he had gone through.

The literal silencing of Mitchell, and the stolid refusal to credit Ford’s account of Kavanaugh’s behavior, shows just how much contempt the modern Republican Party has for the idea of taking women’s equality serious seriously. The Kavanaugh confirmation has been a defiant attempt to show that #MeToo does not speak for the country, and a declaration that the white men the movement has targeted will not back down.

There is no better epitaph for this whole sorry episode than a white man from South Carolina saying he will not shut up.

Brett Kavanaugh and pals accused of gang rapes in high school

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE DAILY NEWS)

 

Brett Kavanaugh and pals accused of gang rapes in high school, says lawyer Michael Avenatti

Brett Kavanaugh and pals accused of gang rapes in high school, says lawyer Michael Avenatti
Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women. (Win McNamee / Getty Images)

 

Lawyer Michael Avenatti told the Senate Judiciary Committee late Sunday that he has multiple witnesses who can say Brett Kavanaugh participated in gang rapes of drunken women during high school.

“We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the early 1980s during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them,” Avenatti said in an email to Mike Davis, chief counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Avenatti did not disclose any details or identities of his witnesses.

Avenatti, who made a name for himself as porn star Stormy Daniels’ lawyer, aired the allegations Sunday night as another allegation against Kavanaugh emerged in The New Yorker.

Judge, Kavanaugh’s high school friend, has previously denied that any sexual misconduct took place.

Michael Avenatti

@MichaelAvenatti

My e-mail of moments ago with Mike Davis, Chief Counsel for Nominations for U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. We demand that this process be thorough, open and fair, which is what the American public deserves. It must not be rushed and evidence/witnesses must not be hidden.

Avenatti hinted at the nature of his allegations when he suggested to the Senate Judiciary Committee a series of questions to ask Kavanaugh.

One of his questions: “Did you ever target one or more women for sex or rape at a house party? Did you ever assist Mark Judge or others in doing so?”

Also, Avenatti suggested asking Kavanaugh: “Did you ever attend any house party during which a woman was gang raped or used for sex by multiple men?”

And: “Did you ever witness a line of men outside a bedroom at any house party where you understood a woman was in the bedroom being raped or taken advantage of?”

Avenatti also said Kavanaugh should be asked if he ever tried to prevent men from raping or taking advantage of women at any house party.

The new allegations follow the claims of Christine Blasey Ford, who claims that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her at a high school party.

In this Tuesday, Aug. 14, 2018, file photo, attorney Michael Avenatti talks to the media in Houston.
In this Tuesday, Aug. 14, 2018, file photo, attorney Michael Avenatti talks to the media in Houston. (Marie D. De Jesus / AP)

 

Ford, who was 15 at the time, told the Washington Post that then-17-year-old Kavanaugh pushed her into a bedroom, groped her and tried to pull off her clothes while covering her mouth with his hand so she couldn’t scream.

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” she said. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

Kavanaugh has denied Ford’s allegations.

“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation,” he said in a statement distributed by the White House. “I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

Late Sunday, Deborah Ramirez told the New Yorker that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her at a dorm party when they were both at Yale.

She said Kavanaugh “thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.”

“Brett was laughing,” she told the magazine. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.”

Kavanaugh also denied Ramirez’s accusations.

Kavanaugh: Republican Leadership Broke The Four Rules Of Crisis Management

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF FORBES)

 

20,976 views 

Kavanaugh: How The Republican Leadership Broke The Four Rules Of Crisis Management

Steve Denning

In July 9, 2018, Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to fill the place on the U.S. Supreme Court vacated by Justice Kennedy, with the prospect of ensuring a Republican majority for another generation.

Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Supreme Court associate justice nominee Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

However, in its actions over the last ten days, the Republican leadership has jeopardized its goals through its failure to respect the rules of crisis management:

  • Recognize the crisis as a crisis
  • Get out as much information as possible as soon as possible, particularly any negative information
  • Avoid saying anything that has to be withdrawn
  • Avoid doing anything that looks like a cover-up

The Confirmation Hearings

Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee took place on September 4-7. The hearings were interrupted numerous times by Democratic senators and protesters. By the end of the hearings, a slight plurality of Americans surveyed did not approve of Kavanaugh’s nomination—a first for Supreme Court nominees.

Nevertheless, it appeared that the Republican leadership was on track to accomplish its primary goal, i.e. having Kavanaugh appointed to the court, and possibly preserve its other goals, such as maintain support of Republican women going into the mid-term elections.

The Crisis

On September 12, , the existence of a complaint against Kavanaugh, by a “woman, who has asked not to be identified”, was made public, in which she accused him of trying to force himself on her when they were both in high school. She said the incident happened in 1982, when he was 17 and a student at Georgetown Preparatory School, and she was a 15-year-old high school student. The woman stated that she was able to free herself and that she has sought treatment for psychological distress subsequently.

MORE FROM FORBES

On September 13, Senator Feinstein referred the matter to the FBI, including the identity of the accuser.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, California, Photographer: Aaron P. Bernstein/Bloomberg

On September 14, Kavanaugh issued a statement through the White House that said, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

On September 16, the accuser was publicly revealed by The Washington Post, to be Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a respected professor of psychology at Palo Alto University. She has written or co-written several books and many scholarly articles. She lives in Palo Alto, California, with her husband, whom she married in 2002, and two sons. In 2017 she participated in a local Women’s March protesting Trump and attended a March For Science in San Francisco to protest Trump administration cuts to research, but does not appear to have been active in Democratic politics.

Recognize The Crisis As A Crisis

The first failure of the Republican leadership was the failure to recognize the crisis as a crisis. The Republicans first instinct was to brush aside the accusation as partisan politics and press ahead with a quick vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination. A single accusation from one woman 36 years ago was presented as “a little hiccup.” (Senator Heller)

However, once the identity and professional background of the accuser became known, first to the FBI on September 13, and then to the public on September 16, it became apparent that she deserved to be heard, as Senator Flake and Collins insisted. In effect, if the Republican leadership had pressed ahead, it would have been at risk of not having enough Republican votes for success.

What the Republican leadership hadn’t initially grasped was that this was a real crisis for Kavanaugh’s nomination. It would have been one thing if the accusation was being made by a partisan politician. It was another when it was made by a well-respected professor, with no active record in partisan politics and no particular axe to grind. Coming in the midst of the #MeToo movement, the accusation was bound to be a sensation.

Getting All The Information

The White House issued a short, categorical denial on September 14. It wasn’t until a week later that Kavanaugh sat down with the White House for a lengthy briefing session trying to ascertain all his answers to possible questions. (Even then, Kavanaugh refused to answer some questions that he saw as too personal.) In between, a steady flow of information has come into the public arena that has made the accusation steadily more credible.

According to Ford, Kavanaugh’s friend, Mark Judge, was in the room when Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her. Judge has written about how much alcohol he and his classmates consumed while in high school and other raunchy behavior. (Judge has said he does not remember the event and doesn’t want to testify.)

It emerged that Georgetown Prep, Kavanaugh’s private, all-boys school, fostered a world of rowdy parties, excessive alcohol, drugs, and misogynist attitudes to women. These elite schools were even “bastions of misogyny,” according to Greg Jaffe, who attended one and is now a reporter for the Washington Post.

Kavanaugh himself seemed to be alluding to this culture, when Kavanaugh said in a 2015 speech at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law, “Fortunately, we had a good saying that we’ve held firm to, to this day… which is, ‘What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep.’ That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.”

Efforts To Contain The Inquiry

Once the Republican leadership accepted the need to hear Ford, they then tried to limit the inquiry to testimony from Kavanaugh and Ford alone, with no witnesses and no FBI inquiry. The reasons were not persuasive.

  • “The FBI doesn’t investigate these kinds of matters.” (It does so all the time.)
  • “There is no time to investigate.” (The Anita Hill investigation was completed in 3 days)
  • “There is no need to investigate.” (If so, why was there a hearing?)

The Republicans also allowed themselves to get into a defensive crouch, giving the impression that Dr Ford was the one who wanted the truth to be told and they didn’t.

  • Ford wants to the FBI to investigate. Kavanaugh doesn’t.
  • Ford wants other witnesses to be heard. Kavanaugh doesn’t.
  • Ford wants the alleged eye-witness to testify. Kavanaugh (and the eye-witness) don’t.
  • Ford has taken a lie detector test. Kavanaugh hasn’t.

Republicans In Denial

As these details were emerging, Republican leaders began making defenses and raising questions that would later have to be modified or withdrawn:

  • “It must have been someone else.” (Ed Whelan)
  • “Dr. Ford is mixed-up or confused.” (Senator Hatch)
  • “If it had happened, it would have been reported at the time.” (Trump)

U.S. President Donald Trump Photographer: Neeta Satam/Bloomberg

  • “There are gaps in Dr. Ford’s narrative, which raise doubts about her veracity. (Senator Cornyn).
  • “Others have vouched for Dr. Ford’s character, so it couldn’t have happened.” (Trump)
  • “It happened so long ago, we can never know, one way or the other.” (Senator Cornyn).
  • Even if it did happen, it doesn’t matter. Boys will be boys. That was a different time.

Jumping The Gun: The Semblance Of An Inquiry

Having once crossed the threshold and accepted that there was going to be an inquiry, the Republican leadership then said things suggesting that it wasn’t a real inquiry, thereby undermining their own credibility,

“In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the United States Supreme Court,” McConnell said to applause from religious conservatives at the Value Voters Summit on Friday. “So my friends, keep the faith, don’t get rattled by all of this. We’re going to plow right through it and do our job.”

On September 21, after days of relative restraint, President Trump suggested that the accusation couldn’t be true because it wasn’t lodged with authorities at the time, thus revealing his conclusion, even before hearing from Dr. Ford.

Multiple Deadlines Maximized Public Attention

The sensational nature of the accusation increased public attention to the Kavanaugh nomination. That attention was further accentuated by the multiple shifting deadlines. The hearing was first scheduled for September 20. Then once it was agreed that Dr Ford would be heard, she imposed conditions. She was then asked to reply by September 21, then September 22, and then September 23, with no answer as to whether the vote might be on September 24 or a hearing on September 27. It was as if the Republican leadership wanted the public to follow the “would she/won’t she” nature of the negotiation.

Net Result

It remains to be seen what happens at the hearing of Ford and Kavanaugh, now apparently confirmed for September 27. Through failure to adhere to the rules of crisis management, there is now greater-than-zero chance that Kavanaugh will not be confirmed.

Moreover the Republicans have guaranteed that Democrats will be even more energized going into the mid-term elections in November. The Republican brand with women also risks being further weakened.

Perhaps most seriously, through politicizing the nomination process, the authenticity and apolitical character of the Supreme Court has been jeopardized.

Note: The author is registered as an independent.

My new book, “The Age of Agile” was published by HarperCollins in 2018. I consult with organizations around the world on leadership, innovation, management and business narrative. For many years I worked at the World Bank, where I held many management positions, including di…

MORE

Steve Denning’s most recent book is The Age of Agile (HarperCollins, 2018)

Over Turning Supreme Court Rulings

Over Turning Supreme Court Rulings 

 

If you live here in the U.S. and you pay any attention to the national news you probably know of a man named Brett Cavanaugh who is President Trumps hand-picked Judge to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Kennedy. Quite honestly the more I dig into the life and character of Judge Cavanaugh the less I want to see him confirmed by the Senate for this post. In this article I am not going to get into all of the reasons that I believe he is a very bad choice to be on the Bench but I am going to discuss the politics being injected into the choosing of Supreme Court Justices these days. As most of you probably know there are nine Justices that sit on the Bench and they are appointed to lifetime positions.

 

Of the eight current Justices it is considered that 4 are ‘liberal’ and 4 are ‘conservative,’ so this makes this 9th members spot very important to the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans want to get Mr. Cavanaugh confirmed before the mid-term elections that are being held in 7 weeks because they know if the Democrats are able to take control of the Senate that a ‘conservative’ like Mr. Cavanaugh will not happen because the Democrats would have the votes to block it. One of the big reason that the Republicans want Mr. Cavanaugh on the Bench is because they want to get some existing laws changed and they could do it with a 5 to 4 margin in the Supreme Court.

 

Laws that the Republicans want over turned are things like ‘Roe V Wade’ which legalized abortion back in 1973, Gay marriage and ‘The Affordable Care Act/Obama Care.’ To me I have always felt that the purpose of the Supreme Court is for them to decide what is legal or not legal via the U.S. Constitution. The Court was set up by our Nations Founding Fathers about 240 years ago in an attempt to eliminate politics from the decision-making process of what is Constitutionally legal, or not. The term being thrown around in the Senate hearings is “precedent”, meaning, Judge Cavanaugh, do you believe in it? Judge, do you believe that once a law is in place that has been voted on by prior Supreme Court Justices should not be ‘revisited’? The purpose of these 9 Justices is for them to make their decisions on what our Nations Constitution says, not on what their personal likes or dis-likes are nor what their political view points are.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I personally believe that there have been Supreme Court decisions in the past that I think were bad decisions, ones that I wish the Court had ruled differently on like Roe V Wade. There is another Court decision from about 1963 where a Court ruling made it to where District Attorneys can not be criminally or materially sued for their Court decisions. The 1963 Ruling was because the Justices at the time believed that D.A.’s would always be honest and would never do things like obstruct justice in court decisions. I have often wondered if those Justices were actually that naive, or really just that stupid. But, I believe that once a Supreme Court Decision has been made that said decision should not be able to be ‘revisited’, that ‘precedent’ should always hold. Yet the validly of this line of though depends on all Supreme Court Justices, on every case, on every vote to be made by their interpretation of the Nations Constitution, if this is not what they are doing then in my opinion it is they who are breaking the laws of the every Constitution they have sworn to uphold.

Brett Kavanaugh Refers To Birth Control As ‘Abortion-Inducing Drugs’

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE HUFFINGTON POST)

 

Brett Kavanaugh Refers To Birth Control As ‘Abortion-Inducing Drugs’ At Confirmation Hearing

Trump’s Supreme Court nominee defended his support of Priests for Life on the third day of his hearing.

On the third day of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he referred to contraception as “abortion-inducing drugs.”

Judge Kavanaugh was responding to a question from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Thursday about his 2015 dissent in the Priests for Life v. HHS case. Kavanaugh had sided with the religious organization, which didn’t want to provide employees with insurance coverage for contraceptives.

Aaron Rupar

@atrupar

Kavanaugh seems to refer to birth control as “abortion-inducing drugs”

Priests for Life, a Catholic group that opposes abortion rights, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services in 2013 over the provision under the Affordable Care Act that required certain health care providers to cover birth control. The group argued that the provision was a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ― the same premise of the Hobby Lobby lawsuit in 2014.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled against Priests for Life in 2014. When the group tried and failed to get a full court hearing the next year, Kavanaugh dissented to lay out why he would have ruled for them.

This year, the group celebrated Kavanaugh’s nomination.

“We at Priests for Life have personal experience of Judge Kavanaugh’s approach to religious freedom, because he sided with us when we had to defend our religious freedom in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,” Father Frank Pavone, the organization’s national director, said in July.

“At a time when these freedoms need more defense than ever,” he went on, “we urge the Senate to conduct a swift and fair confirmation process, focused on the excellent qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh, and not on the politics of personal destruction that the Democrat Left are such experts at carrying out.”

Following Kavanaugh’s remarks on Thursday, Dawn Laguens, executive vice president at the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said it was “no wonder” activists have been so emphatic in protesting his nomination.

“Kavanaugh referred to birth control ― something more than 95 percent of women use in their lifetime ― as an ‘abortion-inducing drug,’ which is not just flat-out wrong, but is anti-woman, anti-science propaganda,” Laguens told HuffPost. “Women have every reason to believe their health and their lives are at stake.”

“Let me break it down for you, Brett,” she went on. “Birth control is basic health care. Birth control allows women to plan their futures, participate in the economy, and ― for some women with health issues like endometriosis ― allows them to get through the day.”

Bob Bland, co-president of the Women’s March, called Kavanaugh’s potential ascent to the Supreme Court “an emergency, all-hands-on-deck moment for women across America.”

“We know Brett Kavanaugh is against abortion, and now we know he thinks birth control is abortion,” Bland said Thursday.

Cruz, who brought up the Priests for Life case at Thursday’s hearing, used language similar to Kavanaugh’s when he referred to contraception as “abortifacients” at a 2013 summit. The religious right’s use of terms like “abortifacient” and “abortion-inducing drugs” has long been criticized by medical and pro-abortion rights communities.

Language has been amended to more precisely describe the timeline of the Priests for Life case.