KAVANAUGH FACES UNPRECEDENTED DISAPPROVAL | Monday Hearing In Jeopardy | Should Lifetime Appointments Be No Longer
September 21, 2018
Thursday, DR. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD said she is open to testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about her experience with JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH in high school, but she’s not willing to do so on Monday. In an email sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, her lawyer said Ford “would be prepared to testify next week,” as long as conditions are determined that are “fair and which ensure her safety.” The email also insisted that Ford still has a strong preference for an investigation to occur prior to her providing testimony.
FRIENDS IN ALL THE RIGHT PLACES|
Democratic operative RICKI SEIDMAN is helping advise CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD. Seidman has previously worked as an investigator for SENATOR TED KENNEDY, and was involved with ANITA HILL’S decision to testify against CLARENCE THOMAS.
FROM BAD TO WORSE|
Turns out, things aren’t looking so hot for BRETT KAVANAUGH after all. A new USA Today/Ipsos Public Affairs Poll finds an unprecedented level of disapproval for a nominee to the Supreme Court. Those surveyed say by 40 percent-31 percent that the Senate shouldn’t vote to approve his nomination, the first time a plurality of Americans have opposed a Supreme Court nominee since polling on the issue began.
IT ALL COMES BACK TO YOU|
For The New Yorker, Jeannie Suk Gersen explains what a serious investigation of BRETT KAVANAUGH might look like, as well as what some of the consequences of such an investigation might be. She adds that if any sexual-misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh from the time since he became a judge were to surface, he could be investigated by a judicial council. Of course, the person who would have to call for such an investigation would be none other than the the chief judge of the District of Columbia Circuit – MERRICK GARLAND.
SCOTUS VIEWSThe Atlantic
“That Ford, a professor and research psychologist who has a reputation for particularly careful scholarship, might in fact have multiple, complicated, and eminently logical reasons for not coming forward until she did seems not to have occurred to Carlson. (Or at least not to the character he plays on TV.) Nor does it seem to have occurred to the many others who—not wanting to cast direct doubt on a woman’s stated experience, but at the same time, perhaps, very much wanting to—have navigated this particular collision of #MeToo and partisan politics by focusing, in their public doubt-casting, on the question of timing. Why didn’t she say anything sooner? No, but really, why?”VICE
“Instituting Supreme Court term limits wouldn’t cure the underlying toxicity of our politics, but at least it would limit that toxicity’s impact in one key arena. How these term limits would work can be debated, but one idea is to create 18-year terms and stagger them so that each president is guaranteed two appointments per term. Given what happened to Garland, you’d also probably want to end or at least limit the Senate’s power to block nominations, though you could leave intact the legislative branch’s ability to impeach justices in extreme circumstances.”The Washington Post
“In short, Ford has a powerful story to tell. In trying to jam her into their abbreviated, one-sided process, Senate Republicans open the door to far more dangerous options, where the American people get to judge for themselves whether she is credible. As Kavanaugh’s approval rating slides, Republicans need to consider whether it is worth unleashing a firestorm to defend a nominee who might be a further drag on their midterm races.”