Supreme Court updates seating chart to include Brett Kavanaugh https://t.co/XcEPymUCxU— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) October 8, 2018
Saturday, October 6, 2018
Brett Kavanaugh has taught us all a valuable lesson: in the face of character assassination the right thing to do is to defend your honor— Matt Schlapp (@mschlapp) October 5, 2018
I find myself in an odd position where, for the first time, I see myself, one of the original so-called “Never Trump conservatives,” voting for President Trump in 2020. https://t.co/8tZlJSu93v— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) October 5, 2018
How the senators who delayed Kavanaugh ultimately let him through https://t.co/2y7WJKiIyr— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) October 8, 2018
The Trump Economic Miracle— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 6, 2018
UNEMPLOYMENT LOWEST SINCE 1969... https://t.co/CWEvPVDtpx— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) October 6, 2018
Hispanic Unemployment Record Low... https://t.co/daU1wFf8hg— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) October 5, 2018
Manufacturing confidence all-time high... https://t.co/J39ErOmSNx— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) October 5, 2018
Govt Cuts 1,000 Jobs in Month; Down 16,000 Under Trump... https://t.co/aTjN7uGwcT— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) October 5, 2018
Construction hiring booming -- and many available jobs... https://t.co/rXFpBZVvYm— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) October 5, 2018
UNEMPLOYMENT LOWEST SINCE 1969 https://t.co/kuY48KSRe4— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) October 5, 2018
There are now more jobs available than Americans looking for work! Under GOP leadership, our nation’s economy is officially back on track. pic.twitter.com/U69AddnTNU— CAGOP (@CAGOP) October 4, 2018
U.S. weekly jobless claims near 49-year low; factory orders surge https://t.co/0Hx9HGflwu— Reuters Business (@ReutersBiz) October 4, 2018
POLL: TRUMP APPROVAL 51%... https://t.co/AEm4jdXGGe— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) October 5, 2018
Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh as the Supreme Court's 114th justice, cementing a conservative majority on nation’s highest court: The Mob Defeated, Justice Prevails
Senate CONFIRMS Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court https://t.co/loEL9H4xYm— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) October 6, 2018
Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh as the Supreme Court's 114th justice, cementing a conservative majority on nation’s highest court https://t.co/mKlfztsPAD— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) October 6, 2018
50-48 it's now JUSTICE Kavanaugh— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) October 6, 2018
Brett Kavanaugh will be sworn into the Supreme Court today.— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) October 6, 2018
Chief Justice Roberts will swear Brett Kavanaugh in as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court later today in a private ceremony in the Justice's Conference Room— Scott Detrow (@scottdetrow) October 6, 2018
"The @NRA applauds all senators who voted in favor of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation and would especially like to thank @SenateMajLdr Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman @ChuckGrassley for their leadership in this effort." –@ChrisCoxNRA https://t.co/8QsIDLUubF— NRA (@NRA) October 6, 2018
BREAKING NEWS: The Kavanaugh family arriving at the White House for the official Swearing-in to the Supreme Court, of soon-to-be Justice Brett M Kavanaugh.— vbspurs (@vbspurs) October 6, 2018
Today is a historic day for our country as a majority in the U.S. Senate voted to send a new voice to the Supreme Court who will uphold the timeless vision of America’s founders — Judge Brett Kavanaugh. My full statement below: pic.twitter.com/OYlkQEMOCR— Vice President Mike Pence (@VP) October 6, 2018
The harsh and unfair treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is having an incredible upward impact on voters. The PEOPLE get it far better than the politicians. Most importantly, this great life cannot be ruined by mean & despicable Democrats and totally uncorroborated allegations!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 4, 2018
Congratulations to #SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh! He didn’t deserve to be treated the way he was in this process—no one deserves that. I’m thankful that God overruled. Let’s pray for him & his family in this critical appointment. I’m confident he will do a great job.— Franklin Graham (@Franklin_Graham) October 6, 2018
California's gas prices have increased by 58.5 cents per gallon since January 2018. pic.twitter.com/8HTmp7VIiK— Ted Gaines (@TedGaines) October 2, 2018
HJTA is now on the air with radio ads saying #YesOn6 to repeal the unfair gas tax! This tax increase was never actually necessary and it was imposed by Sacramento with no vote of the people! https://t.co/WY3y2f1V2K #RepealTheGasTax— Vote Yes On Prop 6 (@VoteYesOnProp6) October 1, 2018
Campaigning in #AD60 today with our next governor, @TheRealJohnHCox. We talked to everyday citizens struggling to pay their bills, fight through traffic & navigate the ever expanding bureaucracies. #HelpIsOnTheWay pic.twitter.com/SfCKkb2RQO— Bill Essayli (@BillEssayli) October 2, 2018
Californians must stand for John Cox, a successful businessman and leader who will repeal the unfair gas tax, fix our schools, and make housing and renting more affordable. Add your name if you stand with @TheRealJohnHCox in November! #HelpIsOnTheWay https://t.co/5Z3vbM9xzZ— CAGOP (@CAGOP) October 4, 2018
ICMYI: @TheRealJohnHCox cut Gavin Newsom's lead in half. John Cox is traveling throughout the state, with a message of hope for a better CA. Let's keep the momentum and energy going over the next 34 days and elect John Cox as our next Governor. #CAGov https://t.co/oNkcSALMA5— CAGOP (@CAGOP) October 3, 2018
Red State Dems Voting No on Kavanaugh Should Face the Voters' Wrath— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 6, 2018
Millions of people are leaving California because of Sacramento's war on the middle class. But thanks to #Prop6, we can put them on notice that we've had enough and repeal the unfair gas tax increase. https://t.co/McL6b2uX4P #Yeson6— HJTA.org (@HJTA) October 1, 2018
CA Democratic Attorney General files 44 lawsuits against @realDonaldTrump while less than half of CA students met English standards; less than 4 out of 10 for math. #Priorities #CaDeservesBetter https://t.co/85vbi0Fbja @LATimes @SacBee— CA Senate GOP Caucus (@SenateRepCaucus) October 4, 2018
Nobody likes to see professors accusing other professors of being phonys. But at this late hour, there is no gentle way to save the patient. At the very least we owe it to all the students who might fall into this ruse if we don't shut it down.
I'll say it, bluntly. The grievance study disciplines are fraudulent to the core, intellectually, scientifically and ethically. And the core disciplines of the humanities are disappearing down the same rabbit hole. https://t.co/ltKhYIIlu8— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) October 5, 2018
Friday, October 5, 2018
Kavanaugh Will Join The Supreme Court And Republicans Have The 2018 Momentum. Here's Why. https://t.co/qSFJZiYeO1— Joseph Curl (@josephcurl) October 5, 2018
Susan Collins is dismantling every one of the Democrats’ specious arguments that Judge Kavanaugh would be an ideological nuclear bomb in SCOTUS. Her description of his work & beliefs highlights how obscene & unfair the attacks on him have been. #brava— Tammy Bruce (@HeyTammyBruce) October 5, 2018
A very valuable read from @greggnunziata about the FBI’s superb handling of the supplemental background investigation, even as Democrats politicized the process and even attacked their work. https://t.co/qmzzM7td21— Senator Hatch Office (@senorrinhatch) October 5, 2018
“The vote was 51-49, after key swing Republican senators Susan Collins and Jeff Flake, along with Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, voted to advance the nomination.”https://t.co/g6YuSQdIEv— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) October 5, 2018
.@SenatorCollins on Kavanaugh nomination: "I worry that departing from this presumption [of innocence] could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward." https://t.co/9WPE93BQCF pic.twitter.com/4VM8Cxiw2n— Fox News (@FoxNews) October 5, 2018
What a “feminist” should look like. https://t.co/LVmpY0Bfsb— Sebastian Gorka DrG (@SebGorka) October 6, 2018
Thank you @SenatorCollins — for not giving into the mob.— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) October 5, 2018
Susan Collins On Her Support for Brett Kavanaugh: Full-Text - The Atlantic https://t.co/MDLDF0OSwY— Saul Anuzis (@sanuzis) October 5, 2018
‘@SenatorCollins actually did her homework. Citing caselaw, not yearbooks.— Jennifer Bukowsky (@esqonfire) October 5, 2018
@SenatorCollins gave an eloquent explanation regarding her decision to support Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 5, 2018
Simply put, @SenatorCollins has shown great courage under fire. She has rejected mob rule and embraced the Rule of Law.
My latest, a quick take on Susan Collins’ speech: “The Lecture We Deserve” https://t.co/xd8YmoQKi0— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) October 5, 2018
Most will never know the full extent of the efforts to intimidate & threaten @SenatorCollins on the #Kavanaugh vote. I am not talking about political pressure or people screaming at her in an elevator. I am talking about vicious, vile & dangerous actions. She is legit. https://t.co/XVYQ4pDvg6— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) October 5, 2018
Mr. President, the five previous times that I’ve come to the floor to explain my vote on the nomination of a justice to the United States Supreme Court, I have begun my floor remarks explaining my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion. But today we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional, it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion. The president nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9th. Within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn't even bother to fill in the judge's name on its prewritten press release. They simply wrote that they opposed Donald Trump's nomination of “XX” to the Supreme Court of the United States. A number of senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee's identity was even known.
Since that time we have seen special-interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh's judicial record. Over-the-top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimonies at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines, which although debunked hours later, continued to live on and be spread through social media. Interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination. Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than 30 years. One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom.
Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual senator to decide what the Constitution's advice-and-consent duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the president has brought discretion to consider a nominee's philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee's qualifications as long as that nominee's philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought. I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I’ve never considered the president's identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan nominated by President Obama. And Justice Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Trump. So I began my evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles. 19 attorneys, including lawyers from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge's extensive record. I met with Judge Kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. I listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearings. I spoke with people who knew him personally, such as Condoleezza Rice and many others. And I talked with Judge Kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions. I also have met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents regarding Judge Kavanaugh.
One concern that I frequently heard was that the judge would be likely to eliminate the Affordable Care Act's vital protections for people with preexisting conditions. I disagree with this contention. In a dissent in 7 Sky v. Holder, Judge Kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the ACA on narrow procedural grounds, preserving the law in full. Many experts have said that his dissent informed Justice Roberts' opinion upholding the ACA at the Supreme Court. Furthermore, Judge Kavanaugh's approach toward the doctrine of severability is narrow when a part of a statute is challenged on constitutional ground, he has argued for severing the invalid clause as surgically as possible while allowing the overall law to remain in tact. This was his approach and his dissent in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In his dissent, Judge Kavanaugh argued for, quote, “severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact,” end quote. Given the current challenges to the ACA, proponents, including myself of protections for people with preexisting conditions should want a justice who would take just this kind of approach.
Another assertion that I've heard often is that Judge Kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the president were to come before the court. The basis for this argument seems to be two-fold. First, Judge Kavanaugh has written that he believes Congress should enact legislation to protect presidents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office. Mr. President, I believe opponents missed the mark on this issue. The fact that Judge Kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that he believes that the president does not have such protection currently. Second, there are some who argue that given the current special counsel investigation, President Trump should not even be allowed to nominate a justice. That argument ignores our recent history. President Clinton in 1993 nominated Justice Ginsburg after the Whitewater investigation was already underway, and she was confirmed 96-3. The next year, just three months after independent counsel Robert Fisk was named to lead the Whitewater investigation, President Clinton nominated Justice Breyer. He was confirmed 87-9.
Supreme Court Justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them. Perhaps most notably in the United States v. Nixon, three Nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him. Judge Kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. He has stated that Marbury v. Madison, Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer, and the United States v. Nixon are three of the four greatest Supreme Court cases in history. What do they have in common? Each of them is a case where Congress served as a check on presidential power. And I would note that the fourth case that Judge Kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was Brown v. The Board of Education. One Kavanaugh decision illustrates the point about the check on presidential power directly. He wrote the opinion in Hamdan v. The United States, a case that challenges the Bush administration's military commission prosecution of an associate of Osama Bin Laden. This conviction was very important to the Bush administration, but Judge Kavanaugh, who had been appointed to the DC circuit by President Bush and had worked in President Bush's White House, ruled that the conviction was unlawful. As he explained during the hearing, quote, “We don't make decisions based on who people are or their policy preferences or the moment. We base decisions on the law,” end quote.
Others I’ve met with have expressed concerns that Justice Kennedy's retirement threatens the right of same-sex couples to marry, yet Judge Kavanaugh described the Obergefell decision, which legalized same-gender marriages, as an important landmark precedent. He also cited Justice Kennedy's recent Masterpiece Cake Shop opinion for the Court's majority stating that, quote, “the days of treating gay and lesbian americans or gay and lesbian couples as second-class citizens who are inferior in dignity and worth are over in the Supreme Court,” end quote. Others have suggested that the judge holds extreme views on birth control. In one case Judge Kavanaugh incurred the disfavor of both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with religious objections. Although his critics frequently overlook this point, Judge Kavanaugh's dissent rejected arguments that the government did not have a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception. In fact, he wrote that the Supreme Court precedent strongly suggested that there was a compelling interest in facilitating access to birth control.
There has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. Protecting this right is important to me. To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition but rooted in Article 3 of our Constitution itself. He believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. In other words, precedent isn't a goal or an aspiration, it is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance and fairness.
There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent. The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in Brown v. The Board of Education overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, correcting a grievously wrong decision, to use the judge's term, allowing racial inequality. But someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow long established precedent, except in those rare circumstances where a decision is grievously wrong or deeply inconsistent with the law. Those are Judge Kavanaugh's phrases. As the judge asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded or overlooked. Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight such that the precedent can't be trimmed or narrowed simply because a judge might want to on a whim. In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly. Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 35 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence.
Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold v. Connecticut, a case that struck down the law banning the use and sale of contraceptives. Griswold established the legal foundation that led to Roe eight years later. In describing Griswold as settled law, Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two cases from the 1920s, Myers and Pierce, that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. Finally, in his testimony he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, describing it as precedent on precedent. When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said no. Opponents frequently cite then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn Roe. The republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. During this time Republican presidents have appointed Justices O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy to the Supreme Court. These are the very three justices, Republican president-appointed justices, who authored the Casey decision, which reaffirmed Roe. Furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously opposed each of these justices nominations. Incredibly they even circulated buttons with the slogan "Stop Souter or Women Will Die." Just two years later, Justice Souter co-authored the Casey opinion reaffirming a woman's right to choose. Suffice it to say prominent advocacy organizations have been wrong.
These same interest groups have speculated that Judge Kavanaugh was selected to do the bidding of conservative ideologues despite his record of judicial independence. I asked the judge point blank whether he had made any commitments or pledges to anyone at the White House, to Federalist Society or any outside group on how he would decide cases. He unequivocally assured me he had not. Judge Kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12-year track record as a judge, including for his judicial temperament. The American Bar Association gave him its highest possible rating. Its standing committee on the federal judiciary conducted an extraordinarily thorough assessment, soliciting input from almost 500 people, including his judicial colleagues. The ABA concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament and professional confidence met the highest standards.
Lisa Blatt, who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman in history testified, quote, “By any objective measure, Judge Kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. His opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair.” Ms. Blatt, who clerked for him, is an ardent admirer of Justice Ginsburg, and who is an unapologetic defender of a woman's right to choose, says that Judge Kavanaugh fits within the main stream of legal thought. She also observed that Judge Kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession. That Judge Kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and Chief Judge Merrick Garland voted the same way in 93 percent of the cases that they heard together. Indeed Chief Judge Garland joined in more than 96 percent of the majority opinions authored by Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting only once.
Despite all this, Kavanaugh's record, and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the Senate's advice and consent role was thrown into a tailspin following the allegations of sexual assault by Professor Christine Blasey Ford. The confirmation process now involves evaluating whether or not Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault and lied about it to the Judiciary Committee. Some argue that, because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest courts, public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as abiding to our longest tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.
Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence and fairness do bear on my thinking and I cannot abandon them. In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill-served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy. The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee's otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.
Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.
Mr. President, I listened carefully to Christine Blasey Ford's testimony before the Judiciary Committee. I found her testimony to be sincere, painful and compelling. I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life. Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred. None of the individuals Professor Ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night. Judge Kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of perjury. Mark Judge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault. PJ Smyth, another person allegedly at the party, denied that he was there under penalty of felony. Professor Ford's lifelong friend, Leland Keyser, indicated that under penalty of felony she does not remember that party. And Ms. Keyser went further. She indicated that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know Brett Kavanaugh.
In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence, we also learned some facts that raised more questions. For instance, since these allegations have become public, Professor Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say I was at the party that night. Furthermore, the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that because of the distance she would have needed a ride, yet not a single person has come forward to say that they were the one who drove her home or were in the car with her that night. And Professor Ford also indicated that, even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly and without saying good-bye, and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask why she left, is she okay, not even her closest friend Ms. Keyser. Mr. President, the Constitution does not provide guidance on how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims. It leaves that decision up to each senator. This is not a criminal trial, and I do not believe that the claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of more likely than not as our standard. The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night or at some other time, but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the more likely than not standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the court.
Let me emphasize that my approach to this question should not be misconstrued as suggesting that unwanted sexual contact of any nature is not a serious problem in this country. To the contrary, if any good at all has come from this ugly confirmation process, it has been to create an awareness that we have underestimated the pervasiveness of this terrible problem. I have been alarmed and disturbed, however, by some who have suggested that unless Judge Kavanaugh's nomination is rejected, the Senate is somehow condoning sexual assault. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every person, man or woman, who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be heard and treated with respect. The MeToo movement is real. It matters. It is needed and it is long overdue. We know that rape and sexual assault are less likely to be reported to the police than other forms of assault. On average, an estimated 211,000 rapes and sexual assaults go unreported every year. We must listen to survivors, and every day we must seek to stop the criminal behavior that has hurt so many. We owe this to ourselves, our children and generations to come.
Since the hearing I have listened to many survivors of sexual assault. Many were total strangers who told me their heart-wrenching stories for the first time in their lives. Some were friends that I had known for decades, yet with the exception of one woman who had confided in me years ago, I had no idea that they had been the victims of sexual attacks. I am grateful for their courage and their willingness to come forward, and I hope that in heightening public awareness, they have also lightened the burden that they have been quietly bearing for so many years. To them I pledge to do all that I can to ensure that their daughters and granddaughters never share their experiences. Over the past few weeks I have been emphatic that the Senate has an obligation to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations of sexual assault. I called for and supported the additional hearing to hear from both Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. I also pushed for and supported the FBI’s supplemental background investigation. This was the right thing to do.
Christine Ford never sought the spotlight. She indicated that she was terrified to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and she has shunned attention since then. She seemed completely unaware of Chairman Grassley's offer to allow her to testify confidentially in California. Watching her, Mr. President, I could not help but feel that some people who wanted to engineer the defeat of this nomination cared little, if at all, for her well-being. Professor Ford testified that a very limited number of people had access to her letter, yet that letter found its way into the public domain. She testified that she never gave permission for that very private letter to be released and yet here we are. We are in the middle of a fight that she never sought, arguing about claims that she wanted to raise confidentially.
Now, one theory I’ve heard espoused repeatedly is that our colleague, Senator Feinstein leaked Professor Ford's letter at the 11th hour to derail this process. I want to state this very clearly. I know Senator Dianne Feinstein extremely well and I believe that she would never do that. I knew that to be the case before she ever stated that at the hearing. She is a person of integrity and I stand by her. I have also heard some argue that the chairman of the committee somehow treated Professor Ford unfairly. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chairman Grassley, along with his excellent staff, treated Professor Ford with compassion and respect throughout the entire process. And that is the way the Senator from Iowa has conducted himself throughout a lifetime dedicated to public service.
But the fact remains, Mr. President, someone leaked this letter against Professor Ford's express wishes. I suspect, regrettably, that we will never know for certain who did it. To that leaker who I hope is listening now, let me say that what you did was unconscionable. You have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect but also trusted you to protect her and you have sacrificed her well being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting. My only hope is that your callous act has turned this process into such a dysfunctional circus that it will cause the Senate and indeed all Americans to reconsider how we evaluate Supreme Court nominees. If that happens, then the appalling lack of compassion you afforded Professor Ford will at least have some unintended positive consequences.
Mr. President, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this nomination has reached a fever pitch, even before these allegations were known, and it has been challenging even then to separate fact from fiction. We live in a time of such great disunity, as the bitter fight over this nomination both in the Senate and among the public clearly demonstrates. It is not merely a case of differing groups having different opinions. It is a case of people bearing extreme ill will toward those who disagree with them. In our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as Americans. When some of our best minds are seeking to develop even more sophisticated algorithms designed to link us to websites that only reinforce and cater to our views, we can only expect our differences to intensify. This would have alarmed the drafters of our Constitution, who were acutely aware that different values and interests could prevent Americans from becoming and remaining a single people. Indeed, of the six objectives they invoked in the preamble to the Constitution the one that they put first was the formation of a more perfect union. Their vision of a more perfect union does not exist today. And if anything, we appear to be moving farther away from it. It is particularly worrisome that the Supreme Court, the institution that most Americans see as the principle guardian of our shared Constitutional heritage is viewed as part of the problem through a political lens.
Mr. President, we've heard a lot of charges and counter-charges about Judge Kavanaugh. But as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband and father. Despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our judiciary and our highest court is restored. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Thank you, Mr. President.
Republicans cheer Collins, compare Kavanaugh allegations to McCarthyism https://t.co/9GzRZPeIi2— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) October 5, 2018
It’s truly extraordinary that virtually nobody in mainstream media was making this highly rational argument. https://t.co/RHYERUBwet— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 5, 2018
NR's editorial: "Thank You, Susan Collins" https://t.co/qMO5KgabJK— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) October 5, 2018
A recent report shows the best job markets are in Idaho, New Hampshire, North and South Dakota, and Wisconsin, while many of the worst are in California. How do you think that happened?
A recent report shows the best job markets are in Idaho, New Hampshire, North and South Dakota, and Wisconsin, while many of the worst are in California. How do you think that happened? https://t.co/WoJLEdqYGu #CAEconomy— HJTA.org (@HJTA) October 5, 2018
Can we take a moment today to say a prayer for this incredible man and his family? They are true victims of the sinister left. May god bless them as they enter the final chapter of what truly must be hell for them May god be with them and their family
Can we take a moment today to say a prayer for this incredible man and his family?— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) October 4, 2018
They are true victims of the sinister left. May god bless them as they enter the final chapter of what truly must be hell for them
May god be with them and their family pic.twitter.com/BcNovIsdHK
Thursday, October 4, 2018
In WSJ, Kavanaugh writes of hearing last week, 'I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said.'
Kavanaugh writes op-ed in Wall Street Journal: 'I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge.' https://t.co/adTseCWfan— Byron York (@ByronYork) October 4, 2018
So, in summary, Trump gets his 5-4 advantage on the Supreme Court AND Democrats dramatically increased Republican turnout.
So, in summary, Trump gets his 5-4 advantage on the Supreme Court AND Democrats dramatically increased Republican turnout.— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) October 4, 2018
commit to punishing not just @SenateDems at ballot box, but every Democrat in every race. Only if these tactics are repudiated in an undeniable, impossible-to-refute election declaration in November will they be driven off as was done w/ first wave of McCarthyism.— Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) October 4, 2018
Pres says "Democrats have been trying to destroy" Judge Kavanaugh, since the very first second he was announced. Because he says they know Kavanaugh will protect, uphold and defend the Constitution as written.— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) October 4, 2018
I would like to sincerely thank the media, the pink hat resistance and the Congressional Dems. You have absolutely energized what was a lethargic GOP. You refused to accept results of 2016-we can’t afford to let you continue your contempt for Constitution and rule of law.— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) October 4, 2018
Welp, back to the ”But he's a conservative” strategy. pic.twitter.com/z87NvRWKrn— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) October 4, 2018
What would California do if businesses simply move their corporate headquarters to a less hostile state?
California, that leader in progressive ideology, enacted a new law which “requires publicly traded firms in the state to place at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of 2019 — or face a penalty.”— Freedom Vine: Free Speech Social Media Platform (@freedom_vine) October 5, 2018
Rather than choose a BoD member merely based on sex, what would California do if they simply moved their corporate headquarters to a less hostile state?https://t.co/AIHvyCHIoJ— The American Workplace (@WorkPlaceRpt) October 3, 2018
...It is my contention that this grand unearth-and-destroy spectacle was planned, coordinated, and facilitated by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats and their staffers....
...The hearings were doomed from the very start, when 70 screaming demonstrators (including Women’s March holy warrior Linda Sarsour and actress Piper Perabo) systematically infiltrated the Hart Senate Office Building and disrupted the proceedings in Hour One of Day One. Day Two saw another 72 social-justice mobsters arrested, with more than 200 total taken into custody by Capitol Police by the end of Day Three.
Taxpayers have a right to know who sponsored the deliberate sabotage and abuse of the gallery pass privilege, which has been in place since 1890. As the U.S. Senate website notes, “A code of conduct for visitors to the galleries is set by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and is enforced by the doorkeepers … each gallery pass requires the ‘signature’ of a senator or officer of the Senate.” We’ve seen this partisan-organized circus mayhem before....
A fish rots from the head down. And at the head of the Senate Democrats’ Resistance Wrecking Machine is power-mad Beltway barnacle Senator Dianne Feinstein. If the Senate Republicans can’t man up and take back control of the judicial-nominations process from the saboteurs seated next to them, they deserve to lose their majority.
Wednesday, October 3, 2018
McConnell files cloture to end debate on Kavanaugh nomination. Sets up Friday procedural vote & prospective Saturday confirmation vote— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) October 4, 2018
Leader McConnell has filed cloture on Executive Calendar #1127 – Brett M. Kavanaugh, of Maryland, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States— Senate Cloakroom (@SenateCloakroom) October 4, 2018
Zero-emission California makes zero sense. Hurts middle class the most. "The high cost of a zero-emission California."
‘Very emotional’: Melania Trump visits former slave-holding fort in Ghana https://t.co/jru8XHVsBz— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) October 3, 2018
Day two in #Ghana was so impactful. My visit to Cape Coast castle was a solemn reminder of a time in our history that should never be forgotten. Thank you to Chief Osabarima Kwesi Atta & the chieftains for the warm welcome & cultural ceremony. #FLOTUSinAfrica2018 pic.twitter.com/pdf9yrmQL8— Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) October 3, 2018
Thank you #Ghana! The arrival ceremony, visit to Ridge Hospital, tea at the Jubilee House & meeting the hard workers at the U.S. Embassy made for an amazing first day. Thank you to @RAkufoAddo & the people of #Ghana for such a memorable visit. pic.twitter.com/BCSqgCyGOM— Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) October 3, 2018
.@FLOTUS is in Africa this week, representing the U.S. In addition to Ghana, she will be going to Malawi, Kenya, & Egypt. I am sure she will be an encouragement & a blessing to all those she meets. Pray for her safety & protection as she goes. https://t.co/EXsRTORb3C— Franklin Graham (@Franklin_Graham) October 3, 2018
🇺🇸🇬🇭@FLOTUS holds this precious little guy when she toured the Greater Accra Regional Hospital yesterday with Ghana's First Lady. #FLOTUSinAfrica2018 https://t.co/Zay1wIsLf3 #USinGhana pic.twitter.com/Td7PZmdyOg— US Embassy Ghana (@USEmbassyGhana) October 3, 2018
First Lady Melania Trump arrives on Cape Coast of Ghana and as is tradition, seeks permission from Fante Tribe chieftain to make her visit. As incentive, US Embassy presented Chieftain with basket of liquors & sodas (bottom right of Chieftain photo). (Pool photos by @katierogers) pic.twitter.com/H9ygDgyygS— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) October 3, 2018
Dow opens at record high on boost from financials https://t.co/s7eNKUG6sO— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) October 3, 2018
Wall Street advanced on Wednesday and the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at a record for a second day, after U.S. economic data fueled a rise in Treasury yields, lifting financial stocks....
The ADP National Employment Report showed private payrolls jumped by 230,000 jobs in September, the largest gain since February. A report from the Institute for Supply Management showed services sector activity hit a 21-year high in September.
The data fed expectations for a U.S. Federal Reserve interest rate hike in December. The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note US10YT=RR touched its highest level in over seven years at 3.179 percent and the two-year yield US2YT=RR hit its highest in more than a decade....
Tuesday, October 2, 2018
Christine Blasey Ford’s ex says she coached people on passing polygraphs. He issued his statement in a sworn statement.— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) October 3, 2018
The press and the Ds have picked apart every statement by Kavanaugh, trying to twist his remarks into evidence of lying. I bet the MSM virtually ignores the letter contradicting Prof. Ford’s statement here. The press coverage of this nomination is blatantly biased. https://t.co/HtG6MkOMwm— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) October 3, 2018
Under penalty of perjury Dr. Ford’s boyfriend says the following:— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) October 3, 2018
-Ford never mentioned sexual assault
- Ford never mentioned Kavanaugh
- Ford not scared of confined spaces
- Ford not scared of flying
- Ford knew how to beat polygraph
- Ford cheated on him/committed fraud
Not that indelible in the hippocampus. https://t.co/jH5VmrPVT3— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) October 2, 2018
Monday, October 1, 2018
C. Christine Fair, an associate professor at Georgetown in the School of Foreign Service, tweeted Saturday, saying white Republican men should die and an added bonus would be if women “castrate their corpses and feed them to swine.”
New poll finds women voters less likely to vote for Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill because of her opposition to Kavanaugh.
New poll finds women voters less likely to vote for Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill because of her opposition to Kavanaugh. pic.twitter.com/2iBKAMrPuW— Bre Payton (@Bre_payton) September 30, 2018