I was partially listening while attending to other things. Did Kavanaugh say that he does not vote?
As great as he was doing yesterday, he is struggling today, probably because of exhaustion. The answer to Cory Booker’s taunts is easy:
-
If I am confirmed, Donald Trump cannot do fuck all to me. I have no reason to pledge loyalty to him, unlike members of the White House staff.
-
I could make ten times the amount of money in private practice than I would on the Supreme Court. I am doing this out of a sense of public responsibility and personal pride.
-
So, Senator Booker, take your talking points and your insults and shove them straight up your ass.
*Okay. I might leave off #3, but Booker is out of line.
You were not misinformed. But you appear to be confused.
I think it’s likely that you were told that there was no criminal penalty preventing the release by a senator (or a representative) on the floor of the legislative house. This is because they are protected by the Speech and Debate Clause, Art. I, Sec. 6, Cl. 1:
(emphasis added)
This immunizes members against criminal charges arising from any speech they give, even if it were to reveal classified information.
But it does not immunize them against being questioned in that same place – that is, if their speech flouts a rule of the house, they may be sanctioned by that house. This power comes from Art I., Sec. 5, Cl. 2:
So a senator who openly disregards a rule of the Senate may constitutionally be punished by a majority of the Senate, with censure, reprimand, or expulsion, the latter requiring 67 votes.
Does that help?
No. The cash that could flow to a corrupt SCOTUS Justice would dwarf the sum the individual would make in private practice. (bolding mine)
Booker’s line of questioning was entirely appropriate. Kavanaugh’s financial dealings raise legitimate questions. For example:
I concur that questioning him about his finances is absolutely appropriate.
In summary, there is no criminal liability for Booker’s actions. Thanks for playing along with a long-winded explanation of something entirely tangential to the discussion.
With regard to any position that conveys power at that level, corruption of an incumbent is always a possibility.
He’s one of those guys, you know the type, who always wants to put the bill on his credit card and have folks pay him back in cash so he can score all the frequent flier miles. No Supreme Court Judgeship for you!
Absolutely. And while I think Kavanaugh has an entirely reasonable explanation for the credit card bills, it’s also entirely reasonable to ask about it. He’ll be earning $255,300 per year, which is not munificent in DC and can vanish easily in the hands of a profligate spender and leave him vulnerable to financial temptation.
I know that I’ll never be on the Supreme Court (for various reasons, but especially) because I would have told several Senators to go fuck themselves about four hours ago.
Agree with Mr. Mace. Bricker, how is this legit? He is not seeking this office for treasure. He could make ten times the money in private practice without hearing the nonsense from these Democratic Senators and putting his family through these ridiculous questions. I wonder why anyone would want the fucking job if someone would ask about his spending habits. Who cares?
I mean, they got Bork’s video rentals. Why should people have to expose their private habits to get a job on the Supreme Court? How many quality candidates will say “no thanks” in the future? This is an absolute travesty.
I have two things for you:
We are in a bubble of polarity and ill will in DC, that trump makes and makes worse. I don’t believe that all impeachment fights will always be as polarized as we see today. It depends on many many things. The issue for one. Some issues are not partisan.
No one is invested in the “institutions” this year. If they never do we might not keep democracy. If they do it will represent a reform movement. I can’t see the future but neither can you. We don’t know what the world looks like after a fully naked trump is visible and dealt with by the justice system. We are not in steady state right now. It’s good to remind ourselves of that every now and then.
So the right issue, and a less toxic politics might look different to get rid of bad apples.
You are OK with prosecuting political liars and cheaters right?
What does it say about all the Republicans who said he was breaking the rules?
Post 349:
And while we understand how that can be considered “not munificent” to a single mom working two jobs, it is all the money in the world. Nonetheless, if Kavanaugh was a big spender, he could make ten times that at this point in his career. Why would he take far less pay if he wanted to live a rich lifestyle? It makes no sense.
He has lived on less money on his salary as an appellate court judge. Why would an increase in his pay (which, again, is below what he could make with his very competent skills) be a reason to question his spending?
That they shouldn’t believe the words coming out of Cory Booker’s mouth.
I don’t know. It seems that the precedent has already been set with HRC that we don’t prosecute political liars and cheaters. What sort of criminal prosecution did you have in mind, and for who?
I just filled up another bingo card, should i just throw it on the stack?
If it makes no sense, we should ask some questions about it.
Is Kavanaugh a big spender, living a lavish lifestyle, someone who is going to need/want outside income? Where is that income going to come from if we give him a lifetime appointment making some of the most important decisions our government makes?
There doesn’t seem to be any indication of that.
He has kind of an expensive house, and his kids go to private school. And he has season tickets. Not much in investments, apparently.
His salary as a Supreme Court justice is about $35K more than his salary in his current position, and he earned an additional $27.5K. I see no reason to believe that his earnings apart from his salary will go down when he is confirmed to the Court. They all make serious money from teaching and books. Sotomayor is the only one not to report outside income (apart from expenses on a tour to publicize her book, for which she received $1.9 million in advances).
The Dems at the confirmation hearings are going to be JAQ-ing off, but I doubt they will get any traction.
IIRC the Dems tried something similar during the Bork “hearings”, where it was insinuated that Bork had done something shady in return for a large fee. It turned out that he needed the money because his first wife was dying of cancer.
Regards,
Shodan