And Kennedy decides to fuck us all

[wesw]

jim, yer whistling past the boneyard.

[wesw]

jim, all of the people you mentioned are pukeworthy bootlickers.

your examples are poppycock.

[Lord Jim]

Your posts are pure balderdash wes...

[BoSoxGal]

C’mon LJ, don’t be insulting to balderdash.

[Scooter]

Looks like there's going to be no margin for dissent on the GOP side for tomorrow's vote:

Dem Heidi Heitkamp Tears Up as She Announces Opposition to Kavanaugh

North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat from a heavily Republican state who is up for re-election in November, unequivocally said that she will oppose Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

"I will be voting no on Judge Kavanaugh,” Heitkamp said in a raw interview with CNN on Thursday. "After doing my due diligence and now that the record is apparently closed, I will vote against his confirmation."

Heitkamp’s decision comes after Stanford professor Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school while his pal Mark Judge looked on and laughed. Following Ford’s measured testimony, Kavanaugh spoke in blustery, heated, accusatory, and often disrespectful tones to members of the Judiciary Committee alternately denying the allegations and affirming his status as a good-ole party boy.

Since Ford came forward with allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, two other women have accused him of harassment and/or assault. His former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez accused him of shoving his genitals in her face at a party when they were freshmen while another of Kavanaugh's acquaintances, Julie Swetnick, said she was a witness to how a drunk Kavanaugh would paw at women and grab their genitals at parties.

“When I listened to Dr. Ford testify, I heard the voices of women I have known throughout my life who have similar stories of sexual assault and abuse,” Heitkamp said.

"Countless North Dakotans and others close to me have since reached out and told me their stories of being raped or sexually assaulted — and expressed the same anguish and fear,” Heitkamp continued. “I'm in awe of their courage, too. Some of them reported their abuse at the time, but others said nothing until now. Survivors should be respected for having the strength to share what happened to them — even if a generation has since passed. They still feel the scars and suffer the trauma of abuse."

Heitkamp’s announcement also follows a rally in Mississippi where Trump went on a tear attempting to poke holes in Ford’s story while his supporters laughed and cheered.

The senator pointed out that sending Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court would be for a lifetime appointment, adding that her decision is not "political," she said, alluding to the fact that her decision could negatively impact her reelection bid.

Kavanaugh’s confirmation hinges on four senators who have not yet confirmed how they will vote. Those include West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat in a deeply Republican state, and Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Jeff Flake of Arizona; all Republicans.

“There’s an old saying. History will judge you, but most importantly, you’ll judge yourself,” Heitkamp said. “That’s really what I’m saying. I can’t get up in the morning and look at the life experience that I’ve had and say ‘Yes, to Judge Kavanaugh.’”

[Lord Jim]

The math is pretty simple at this point:

There are four undeclared votes left...(The current count is 48-48)

Three Republicans and one Democrat:

Flake, Collins, Murkowski, and Manchin...

Mitch and Co. can afford to lose two of those and still get the nomination through (with Pence breaking a 50-50 tie) If he loses three of the four the nomination fails...

(Despite his comments last night, there's been no indication that Sasse has changed the yes vote position he had when he voted yes on the nomination in the Judiciary Committee)

[BoSoxGal]

What about Daines being absent?

[Bicycle Bill]

he s hurt me, RR.

Don't forget me, wes.  I think you're a nut-job dipshit who suffers from CRIS (Cranio-Rectal Inversion Syndrome) too.
I'm just not in your face about it as much as LJ is.

-"BB"-

[dales]

Lord Jim opined:

If the party doesn't abandon Trump and turn away from his white nationalist and anti-rule-of-law course, sadly it will face extinction, and it will deserve it...

Can't find much to disagree with there.


Sad.

[BoSoxGal]

Retired Justice JP Stevens spoke out against Kavanaugh today, ‘for the good of the court.’

That is SO huge! And he was a lifelong Republican, too.

Tonight I’m going to pray for Flake, Manchin, Murkowski and Collins to have courage to put institutions ahead of self interest.

[ex-khobar Andy]

And Kavanaugh has written an op-ed in the WSJ.

Does not seem to be paywalled. In case it is, see below. FYI of course. Feel free to Ralph. The comments are predictable.

I was deeply honored to stand at the White House July 9 with my wife, Ashley, and my daughters, Margaret and Liza, to accept President Trump’s nomination to succeed my former boss and mentor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, on the Supreme Court. My mom, Martha—one of the first women to serve as a Maryland prosecutor and trial judge, and my inspiration to become a lawyer—sat in the audience with my dad, Ed.

That night, I told the American people who I am and what I believe. I talked about my 28-year career as a lawyer, almost all of which has been in public service. I talked about my 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the second most important court in the country, and my five years of service in the White House for President George W. Bush. I talked about my long record of advancing and promoting women, including as a judge—a majority of my 48 law clerks have been women—and as a longtime coach of girls’ basketball teams.

As I explained that night, a good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no political party, litigant or policy. As Justice Kennedy has stated, judges do not make decisions to reach a preferred result. Judges make decisions because the law and the Constitution compel the result. Over the past 12 years, I have ruled sometimes for the prosecution and sometimes for criminal defendants, sometimes for workers and sometimes for businesses, sometimes for environmentalists and sometimes for coal miners. In each case, I have followed the law. I do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge.

As Justice Kennedy showed us, a judge must be independent, not swayed by public pressure. Our independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the separation of powers, and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms. As I have said repeatedly, if confirmed to the court, I would be part of a team of nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I would always strive to be a team player.

During the confirmation process, I met with 65 senators and explained my approach to the law. I participated in more than 30 hours of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I submitted written answers to nearly 1,300 additional questions. I was grateful for the opportunity.

After all those meetings and after my initial hearing concluded, I was subjected to wrongful and sometimes vicious allegations. My time in high school and college, more than 30 years ago, has been ridiculously distorted. My wife and daughters have faced vile and violent threats.

Against that backdrop, I testified before the Judiciary Committee last Thursday to defend my family, my good name and my lifetime of public service. My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.

I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.

Going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good. As a judge, I have always treated colleagues and litigants with the utmost respect. I have been known for my courtesy on and off the bench. I have not changed. I will continue to be the same kind of judge I have been for the last 12 years. And I will continue to contribute to our country as a coach, volunteer, and teacher. Every day I will try to be the best husband, dad, and friend I can be. I will remain optimistic, on the sunrise side of the mountain. I will continue to see the day that is coming, not the day that is gone.

[Lord Jim]

I'm just not in your face about it as much as LJ is.

Moi?

Compared to some folks here, I've been a complete pussycat towards wes...

A regular Politeness Man...

[wesw]

I ll see your balderdash and raise you to Flim Flam

[liberty]

This situation is a Democrat invention; the neo-liberals will do whatever it takes to keep a judge that will honestly read the constitution off the court. They went back 35 years to high school when he was a kid they would back as far as elementary school to have their way. If he was a Democrat he would already be sitting on the court.

Remember Bill Clinton.

[wesw]

you guys don t seem energized.....

[Big RR]

And you seem very happy that now the USSC will be branded with the T trademark, so celebrate and keep playing you fiddle Nero.

[wesw]

hey meade, we went with poppycock, balderdash and flim-flammery.

we can t gentle it down much more than that....

[Scooter]

the neo-liberals

Even after having his idiocy pointed out to him, the moron persists in using the word incorrectly. Guess they never taught how to use dictionaries at the University of East Butt Crack.

[wesw]

they are neo liberals.

real liberals believe in free expression and free thought...., and liberty.

real liberals don t need trigger warnings.

funny that the same people who need trigger warnings are the ones shouting and spitting and interrupting peoples meals and blocking our halls of govt.

aren t they afraid they might offend someone?

balderdash, scooter, you are the master of balderdashery!!!!!!!

and no,RR, I m not so happy at all. our system of govt is under attack by dishonest actors.

you would almost think that the Chinese had something on them..... (Feinstein)

I m not happy at all.

standing up to bullies shouldn t be fun, and it isn t...., mostly.

look at scooter. can you honestly day that he hasn t become the bully?

have you?

by the way, the RNC just had it s best fundraising day ever.

and you guys just don t seem energized.

this little gang rape fiasco cost you a lot of votes on YOUR side, what ever happens with the GOP you de energized your blue collar voters, such as you have left.

[Lord Jim]

Collins is due to make an announcement about how she will go on the final vote in about two and a half hours...

There's no indication that Collins will change her vote, but of course the defining characteristic of this sorry process since it began several weeks ago has been one of unexpected surprises...

If Collins were to declare that she is a no on the final vote technically yes would still have the votes needed with a 50-50 split, but at that point the pressure on Machin (another yes for closure who has not yet said how he will vote in the final round) would become enormous.

The polling shows Manchin winning his re-election in West Virginia (which Trump carried by 42 points) easily if he votes for Kavanaugh; but the race becomes a toss up if he votes against...(the decision was a little easier for Heitkamp who is so far behind that she was likely to lose no matter how she voted...)

So, voting yes on Kavanaugh is politically the easier vote for Manchin, so long as the GOP has the votes to confirm him anyway. However, the situation becomes considerably more complicated if his becomes the decisive vote to put Kaavanaugh over the top; that could so anger West VA Dems that they stay home rather than turnout to vote for him, which is another consideration he would have to weigh...

The odds are very strong that nothing will change between the closure vote and the final vote on the nomination, (think having to recover back-to-back on side kicks and score on both recoveries with less than two minutes to play) but stranger things have happened...