One red state dem voting against Kav
A Red-State Senator Just Issued a Moving Statement On Why She’s Voting Against Kavanaugh
@edgarblythe,
A group of us just went to twitter to thank Senator Heitcamp.
Her brother's comments were terrific. She has to face herself every day.
__
She is behind in the polls, so may as well vote the way she thinks is right.
U.S. Sen. Tim Scott has made up his mind about Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Scott on Monday broke his days-long silence and publicly pledged to support Kavanaugh’s nomination to serve on the Supreme Court days after a highly emotional Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday captured the attention of the nation.
But Scott said his choice was not an easy one.
In an emailed statement Monday, Scott called the past few weeks “gut-wrenching.”
“Barring the discovery of any new information by the FBI investigation, I plan to vote for Brett Kavanaugh. This is not an easy decision, but the available evidence leads me to it,” Scott said in a 484-word statement.
He joins South Carolina U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham in backing President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.
But where Graham’s nearly 5-minute diatribe during the judiciary hearing turned him into the de facto spokesman for Republican anger toward the Democrats’ handling of the Kavanaugh hearings, Scott stayed silent and stayed away from sharing his thoughts with the media.
In the weeks that followed Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her while both were still in high school, Scott said he heard from many of his female friends who opened up to him about their own experiences.
“There is no doubt that many women have been fearful, ashamed, humiliated, angry, or have had many other emotions that have led them to not tell their stories. I will never blame a victim for feeling this way – we should be supporting those who have been traumatized instead of constantly trying to tear them down,” Scott said in his statement. “We must learn from our past in order to build a safer future.”
That future, he continued, must include a commitment to finding the truth.
In her testimony, Ford maintained she was “100 percent” certain that Kavanaugh was the person who attempted to rape her at a high school party in 1982. Ford was the first woman to come forward in recent weeks with allegations against Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh has emphatically and repeatedly denied all of the claims.
Scott said the testimony from both Kavanaugh and Ford has left America grappling with a situation where evidence is critical to determining what happened. Though Scott commended Ford for her courage, he said existing evidence has not been enough to prove Kavanaugh was the person who attacked Ford.
“My heart breaks for Dr. Ford as she obviously still confronts a trauma that occurred while she was a teenager. However, none of the evidence we have points to Brett Kavanaugh as guilty of these crimes,” Scott said. “Any lawyer will tell you that she said-he said situations are some of the hardest and most painful cases to review, and that remains true here.”′
Scott’s decision comes after the Senate Judiciary panel on Friday voted along party lines to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate. The vote was then delayed so that the FBI could conduct an investigation of its own into the allegations.
Kavanaugh confirmation *updates
http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/
From the beginning I've thought he was going to make it in and I only wavered a week ago, as Dr. Ford's testimony moved me emotionally ... and the nominee's stunned. It only took a few hours, though, and the psychotic rant of Lindsey Graham -- and the Republican base's high-fiving and 'owning the libs' -- to bring me back to Trumpworld reality. Not even Jeff Flake forcing the FBI (whitewash of an) investigation re-changed my mind.
This whip count from Dustin Rowles at Pajiba makes a little sense.
Look: It’s all going to come down to a handful of people. I don’t know how it’s going to go, but my guess is this: Democrat Joe Manchin will flip and vote for Kavanaugh (it’s what his West Virginia constituents would want, and he’s got a sizable lead in the polls, so he’s not worried about being voted out either way). Manchin’s vote will give Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski cover to vote against Kavanaugh (as their Alaska and Maine constituents want), and it will come down to Jeff Flake, who ultimately will vote for Kavanaugh, providing the GOP with 50 votes. Pence will break the tie. Kavanaugh will be confirmed. There will be another Women’s March like gathering before the midterms, and the GOP will pay for it at the ballot box, although it won’t stop Brett Kavanaugh from repealing Roe v. Wade.
What's missing here is Heitkamp from North Dakota -- losing badly in the polling for re-election -- voting for Kavanaugh. Joe Donnelly of Indiana is making progress but it's still close; he'll vote 'yes' to reinforce that small lead. Tester of Montana could be a 'no' on Kavanaugh but will likely be an 'aye' as Trump's visits to Big Sky country and the mood of voters there shows some tightening. These three Blue Dogs give Flake an opportunity to flake out and vote no, and Bitch McConnell still would not need Pence's tie-breaker.
I think it goes more like that.
Update: And with this news, it won't even be that close.
Update II:
David S. Cohen
✔
@dsc250
Heitkamp a NO!
http://www.wday.com/news/government-and-politics/4508688-exclusive-heitkamp-reveals-kavanaugh-vote-and-reasoning-wday …
1:08 PM - Oct 4, 2018
EXCLUSIVE: Heitkamp reveals Kavanaugh vote and reasoning to WDAY...
FARGO -- U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp will vote NO on U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination. Heitkamp sat down exclusively with WDAY News to share what she will do when the...
wday.com
39
16 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Given her polling, it's a very brave vote because it probably dooms her re-election fate. That would give the GOP a flip in the Senate. And unless Heitkamp is joined by a few other hardy souls, I don't see how it -- or the mass protests inside the Hart Senate office building happening this afternoon -- changes the final outcome.
Update III: Tester and Donnelly are both no votes. That leaves an unofficial whip count at 48-48 with four -- Collins, Manchin, Murkowski, and Flake -- still on the fence (but not what I would call undecided, just undeclared). I see but one potential 'aye' among those, and even if there were two, Pence breaks the tie. Grassley said within the past hour that the vote will be held Saturday.
Look how fluid the situation has been just this afternoon, though.
Posted by PDiddie at Thursday, October 04, 2018
It's more important in my view to vote against Kavanaugh than to re-elect the red state Dems, if they are going to vote as Repubs anyway. The damage that Judge is expected to do will last a lot longer than their political careers.
CAN ANYTHING PREVENT ROE V. WADE FROM BEING OVERTURNED?
Conservatives came close to overturning the landmark abortion decision in 1992. What stopped them then might provide a clue to what will happen now.
JACK HERRERAAUG 24, 2018
The battle over abortion in the United States flared up this week after Senator Susan Collins met with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. As Kavanaugh, a pro-life district judge from D.C., stands poised to replace outgoing Justice Anthony Kennedy on the court, the effort to preserve Roe v. Wade has become existential for those on both sides of the debate: Pro-choice supporters worry that Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court could put the 1973 decision that decriminalized abortion in danger of being overturned; pro-life advocates, meanwhile, are worried by Kavanaugh's apparent reference to Roe as "settled law."
This would not be the first time a slide to the right on the Supreme Court has thrown the future of Roe v. Wade into question; two decades ago, in 1992, a then-newly conservative court came within one vote of dismantling Roe. Understanding how the 1992 showdown played out could illuminate what might happen if Kavanaugh takes over Kennedy's chair—and what, if anything, prevents a justice who disagrees with Roe from overturning it.
In 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the most important abortion case since Roe, made it to the Supreme Court. Casey began in a district court in Pennsylvania, where attorneys representing Planned Parenthood made the case that the state's abortion regulations—which included requirements that a woman seeking an abortion notify her husband in writing—violated the rights and liberties outlined in Roe.
Conservatives had, at that time, taken a stronghold on the court. Of all those who'd ruled in favor of Roe, only Harry Blackmun—who wrote the original majority opinion—remained. While Casey wasn't the first abortion case since Roe, it was the first to be heard by such a solidly conservative court.
Sensing Roe's vulnerability, pro-life supporters pounced.
"What happened when everyone was gearing up for Casey was that pro-life groups said: 'This is our chance to overturn Roe. This is our moment,'" says Carol Sanger, a professor of law at Columbia Law School. Conservative groups wrote a number of amicus briefs pushing for the court to "correct the mistake" made in 1973.
Four justices agreed that Roe was a mistake. In their opinion, Justices Antonin Scalia, William Rehnquist, Byron White, and Clarence Thomas argued that Roe had been incorrectly decided. Had their opinion been joined by one more member of the court, Roe might have been overturned.
However, three conservative justices united to offer an opinion few expected. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, and David Souter (all nominated by Republican presidents) wrote a plurality opinion that refused to overturn Roe.
Sanger explains the unique O'Connor-Kennedy-Souter decision: "They said, 'If we had been on the court in 1973, we're not saying that we would have voted [in favor of the decision]. But we're not on the court then. We're on the court now, two generations later.'"
In essence, the O'Connor-Kennedy-Souter decision was not about whether or not they agreed with the original Roe v. Wade decision. It was about why, and when, the Supreme Court should overturn rulings made by previous justices. In this way, the decision not to overturn Roe came not from contemporary arguments about abortion, but rather from a commitment to the rule of law—itself a foundation of the American legal system.
"Generally with our legal system we believe ... that law is more durable than people," Sanger says. "We want to have law that people can trust and rely on in even if we have a political system that puts different people in office."
In their opinion, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter wrote that, because two generations of Americans had been raised in a country with legalized abortion, undoing Roe risked endangering people's ability to rely on a steady legal system. To justify overturning the law, the justices needed to prove not just that the Roe decision was incorrect, but also that it had created an "intolerable" situation—an extraordinary scenario that warranted ruling against past precedent. The three justices ruled that Roe had not created such a situation; Blackmun and one other justice, John Paul Stevens, signed on to this specific part of their opinion, and Roe was preserved.
It's 2018, and O'Connor and Souter are gone from the court. Kennedy—the swing vote—is leaving, and both pro-life and pro-choice activists are trying to predict what will happen when Kavanaugh takes his seat. Could the court's newest justice unite with the other conservatives on the bench to finally "correct the mistake" made in Roe, as the decision approaches its 50th anniversary?
Answering that question means figuring out whether conservatives value precedent over ideology. In Kavanaugh's conversation with Collins, he stated his belief that Roe is "settled law" and deserves respect under the principle of "stare decisis." ("Stare decisis" is the latinate lawyer-speak for respecting precedent in the interest of preserving rule of law.)
While that might sound encouraging to the pro-choice camp, past justices have made similar statements and have gone on to undo precedent. It is not impossible that Kavanaugh and the court's other conservative justices could arrive at an opinion that finds, four generations after the Roe decision, that the precedent has finally created an intolerable situation and deserves to be overturned.
However, the issue of "stare decisis" could be beside the point. According to Sanger, if the important principle in Roe is that those seeking abortion deserve access to those services, the Supreme Court could issue—and has issued—rulings that deny such access in huge swaths of the country. And they can do this all without overturning Roe.
In the 1992 Casey decision, the O'Connor-Kennedy-Souter opinion clearly established that states have a right to strongly regulate abortion. Flexing within the latitude granted by Casey, many states have found ways to narrow access to abortion by passing strict regulations on how and when abortions can be performed. Even though abortion remains legal in the U.S., access to abortion is extremely limited in many parts of the country.
No state has gone further than Texas: In 2013, the state passed a law declaring that abortion clinics must meet strict requirements to remain in operation—for example, mandating that clinics expand their hallways to make room for two gurneys—which pro-choice advocates say are effectively designed to shut down clinics. The law proved devastating for abortion providers: of the 42 abortion providers in the state, only 19 survived. That left roughly one abortion clinic per every 744,000 women in Texas.
In 2016, Texas' regulations were challenged in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. The case was heard by an eight-person Supreme Court (President Barack Obama's attempt to fill the seat left by the deceased Scalia had been blocked by the Republican-controlled Senate). In the decision, Kennedy again proved a moderate and joined the court's four liberal justices. If Casey set the expectation that states can stringently regulate abortion, Whole Woman's Health drew the line in the sand in how far a state can go.
But in the two years since that case, the court has radically changed. Neil Gorsuch has taken Scalia's seat, and Kavanaugh will now almost certainly replace Kennedy. In new cases, it is likely that the court will allow states remarkable latitude in limiting abortion, even as they maintain Roe. In essence, they can leave Roe in place and still limit abortion.
It seems this is what a "legal abortion" will look like in the U.S. in coming decades: access to abortion in small pockets of geographic space, and short time windows within a pregnancy. The right to abortion, and rule of law, will be preserved in name, if not in essence.
@edgarblythe,
I actually agree wholeheartedly.
Another NO
Alabama Democratic Senator Doug Jones told CNN Friday that Brett Kavanaugh’s Wall Street Journal op-ed backfired, and solidified the senator’s decision to vote no on his confirmation.
Lisa Murkowski Declares Brett Kavanaugh ‘Not Right’ For Supreme Court
A few events and a few developments (not Kavanaugh-related)
-- Beto's response to Obama's non-endorsement: "Don't think we're interested."
This seems to have provoked some consternation among white neoliberals concern-trolling on behalf of black Democratic voters. There also seems to be a complete lack of awareness on their part as to the price paid for chasing Republican centrists and independent conservatives. Now I don't give one solid **** for Barack Obama or his policies or his endorsements, as you all should know; I just find it highly amusing that establishment Democrats remain this clueless.
(If you think Obama didn't call these folks to make sure they would accept his stamp of approval ... I have a bridge to sell you.)
O'Rourke is under stress to go negative from his supporters, who are being scared by Ted Cruz's onslaught of negative teevee advertising against the Democrat. We're way beyond yard sign wars. Lying and smearing were always going to be what Cruz does because that's who he is.
That was a tactic that failed repeatedly before. Maybe not any longer.
His campaign is now consumed with shaping Beto O’Rourke as the embodiment of a uniquely dangerous and unhinged opposition. Despite his warm and fuzzy rhetoric, Cruz insists that the El Paso congressman, much like Obama, is a radical. In fact, Cruz says, he’s further left than Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren and even Bernie Sanders.
In Cruz’s portrayal, O’Rourke is a gun-grabbing tax-hiker who wants to abolish ICE, open the borders, legalize narcotics and obstruct Trump. And he wants senior citizens’ crown jewel — Medicare — to become fully socialized.
[...]
Heading into the final stretch, Cruz has dialed up his extremist caricature of O’Rourke with the explicit intent of scaring the bejeezus out of old, white and conservative Texans — the bedrock of a typical midterm electorate. His campaign, along with a battalion of billionaire-backed super PACs, has unleashed a barrage of attack ads. The offensive has included a Willie Horton-style ad falsely claiming that O’Rourke supports decriminalizing illegal border crossings; the ad features mugshots of undocumented immigrants who repeatedly crossed the border and committed heinous crimes.
In one of the most heated moments during their first debate, Cruz lashed out at O’Rourke, twisting recent comments he made about how the criminal justice system has become “the new Jim Crow” into an attack on police officers. Asked whether he’s concerned about police violence against unarmed black people, Cruz gave a perfunctory response about his concern for all people’s rights (echoing the “All Lives Matter” line). Then, with a somber tone that crescendoed into indignation, he said he’d been to too many police officer funerals because of the “irresponsible, hateful rhetoric” that he accused O’Rourke of using.
The black vote shouldn't be staying home or skipping his line because Beto is too afraid to take Obama's endorsement. But they might. Just sayin'.
There's some rumoring among the elite set that polls are starting to break Cruz's way. I suppose we will see by Monday or so. In the meantime, Henson and Blank at the Texas Politics Project have slightly updated their 9/12 blog post, excerpted and linked here, and posted it at The Conversation, changing the headline to "Beto won't beat Ted".
PDiddie
http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/
@edgarblythe,
Someone needs to talk to Manchin.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/05/manchin-murkowski-vote-buck-party-lines-in-key-vote-on-kavanaugh.html
Quote:Two key senators, one Democrat and one Republican, voted against their parties on Friday in a dramatic showdown on the floor of the Senate over the question of whether to advance Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to a confirmation vote this weekend.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., voted yes; Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voted no.
Manchin and Murkowski, both thought to be swing votes on Kavanaugh's confirmation, left their decisions to the last minute.
Quote:Manchin's 'yes'
Manchin is one of three Democrats who voted to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch to the high court last year. The other two, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, both voted against Kavanaugh on Friday.
Manchin is running for re-election in November in a deep-red state that President Donald Trump carried with nearly 70 percent of the vote in 2016.
Quote:Murkowski's 'no'
Murkowski seemed pained as she revealed her vote on Friday, whispering "no" and looking straight ahead.
"I believe Brett Kavanaugh is a good man," she told reporters Friday. But, she added that she thinks he is "not the right man for the court at this time."
On Thursday, Alaska's senior senator spent hours in private meetings with Alaskan women who opposed Kavanaugh's confirmation, including a number of sexual assault survivors, NBC News reported.
Murkowski had also faced pressure from Alaska Natives, a significant voting bloc that makes up more than 15 percent of the state's population.
Native groups worried about Kavanaugh's judicial stance on indigenous rights, as well as the possibility that a conservative court could damage President Barack Obama's signature health-care legislation. Activists also worried about Kavanaugh's previous rulings siding with business interests over environmental groups.
"Alaska Natives have a long and proud history of defending this land and its resources. We have no intention of staying silent now," Richard Peterson, president of the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, wrote in a letter addressed to Murkowski, Reuters reported.
can't imagine Manchin retaining his seat
he had nothing left to lose - other than respect - now both sides hate him
@edgarblythe,
Chicago Officer Jason Van Dyke Guilty Of Murder In Laquan McDonald Shooting
What was that????? Arch-Angel Bernie????? Sweet Jesus, Mary and Joseph
I don't know the source of the picture. But I definitely would love to have him as president.
