I agree. Which is why I’m currently leaning toward “not bluffing”. Notice how Senator Lee chimes in to object to stop the questioning and hands Kavanaugh exactly what to say to Harris. Which Kavanaugh then uses nearly word for word.
And now leaked documents from the pile that the GOP doesn’t want you to see stating that Kavanaugh’s responses stating that he believes Roe v. Wade to be settled law are not what he actually believes.
Not really. From your cite:
This is a nothing burger.
Democrats are right now stating that they will release confidential information and accept the consequences.
Yes, I heard this on NPR this morning. I still think that’s more political theater than anything else. I guess we’ll see what the great reveal is if they choose to do so. I can’t fault them for engaging in an act of civil disobedience as long as they are willing to suffer the consequences, one of which might entail being expelled from the Senate. If you’re in a safe state with a Democratic governor, maybe that’s OK. Otherwise it seems needlessly reckless.
Being expelled from the Senate requires 2/3rds vote (67 Senators), and I’m pretty sure that’s laid out in the Constitution, not the rules of the Senate, so I don’t think they’re actually in any danger.
nm
I just read a quick synopsis of the Bork confirmation hearings, and I don’t see anything strange about it.
What process was started then that could be finally completed 30 years later?
The process of opposing radical-activist conservative jurists.
Orrin Hatch and Brett Kavanaugh positively glowing about the federalist society. Remember when then-nominee John Roberts denied membership?
Your own cite clarifies that this was not Kavanuagh’s personal ststement of belief that Roe is not settled law.
Kavanaugh indicated that not all legal scholars accepted Roe as settled law at the Supreme Court level at the time. Since three sitting justices of the Supreme Court at the time seemed to favor overturning Roe, it seems a factual comment about the state of the legal community in 2003.
The article does set the current count as 4, with Kavanaugh being the potential 5th vote to overturn Roe should he be confirmed. But I expect he will evade answering any direct questions about how he might rule in a future case challenging Roe.
It’s Article I, Section 5. Same part that gives each house the right to set it’s own rules. But 2/3 vote to expel a member is black letter constitution.
Well, OK, but what does “suspend” mean? Is that within the rules of the Senate, if they suspend a member but do not expel him?
Brothers and sisters, pals and gals, this is some hot shit we’re seeing here. The Pubbies want to pretend that their concern, the reason they want to keep documents from us is “national security”. Now, that would be a fair cop, if all of those docs had impact on national security. But if they don’t, that probably means they are hiding something. Yes, likely. Pretty sure.
There are procedures available through the National Archives, but the Pubbies don’t want to wait for that, they want to get their guy on the bench, right now, immediately, at once. So, they gambled on a lie. But young Sen Booker has a spine, a sack and a couple of brass balls to carry in it.
Good on you, Sen. Booker! Sic 'em!
This is more the meat
It might be best to let him in and impeach later. If they don’t have the votes and know it, this might be the best of all possible worlds for them right now. Just keep saying that phrase “Nothing burger” and it will all turn out OK. Meanwhile there a a lot of mini muellers who know how to sandbag an administration of morons. The main thing is to assemble your case before you even ask for the microphone. Do you think they are not doing this?
So violating the norms is terrible, but actually violating the rules is laudable.
The rules of the Senate don’t say they have to vote on a nominee, and darn the Republicans for following the rules. The rules of the Senate do say they need to keep confidential documents confidential, and good for the Democrats for breaking them.
Regards,
Shodan
I have to agree with this. I’m not seeing what was so great about this clear rule-breaking action.
Because the Republicans started it by following the rules to their own advantage. So breaking the rules is only tit for tat.
Besides, Booker can get away with it.
Regards,
Shodan
The president is not OK in the head. It is a problem. That seems to be the working theory behind releasing something outside of rules. What was the rationale behind “The Garland Ignoration”?
Rules get broken in ways we admire all the time. Are you going to pretend that’s not true now? You are committing to be the Rules man for eternity? Just because this thread?
These are not comparable situations.
Could you list some rules that get broken in ways we admire all the time?
The press lives on leaks, which someone has to break a rule to give to them.