TheRepLawyer blog has moved to the RNLA's new website: http://www.rnla.org/blog. This site will remain active as an archive of the RNLA's historical blog posts.
We invite you to visit the new blog at http://www.rnla.org/blog. The first blog post on the new website is now live, and all future blog posts will be posted there. Thanks for reading!
Monday, September 17, 2018
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Sen. Collins Will Not Be Swayed by Abhorrent, Potentially Illegal Intimidation from Liberals on Kavanaugh
Radical liberal organizations are trying to intimidate Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine into voting against the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, even resorting to potentially illegal bribery and threatening her staff members. The Wall Street Journal described the abhorrent campaign of intimidation against Senator Collins:
But Senator Collins deserves credit for not giving into the intimidation and remembering that her duty as a senator is to do what is right and represent the people of Maine, not bow to the radical liberal interests controlling the Democratic Party.
A crowdfunding website is trying to strong-arm Senator Susan Collins, the Republican from Maine, by giving more than $1 million to her 2020 opponent—unless she opposes Judge Kavanaugh. . . . It isn’t clear this is even legal. We’re all for citizens exercising their free-speech rights, including campaign donations, for or against political candidates. But federal law defines the crime of bribery as “corruptly” offering “anything of value” to a public official, including a Member of Congress, with the intent to “influence any official act.” The crowdfunders in this case are offering something of value—withholding funds from her opponent—in return for a Supreme Court confirmation vote. . . .
Another pressure tactic, one Ms. Collins says she finds “incredibly offensive,” is “the out-of-state voicemails being left on the answering machines of my state offices.” Many of the messages are profane. “In one case—and we are going to turn this over to the police, but unfortunately, of course, the person didn’t leave a name or number—but they actually threatened to rape one of my young female staffers.”
The Senator’s office also has been receiving coat hangers in the mail, a grisly attempt to insinuate that a Justice Kavanaugh would restrict abortion rights. About 3,000 have arrived so far. “I am pleased to say,” Ms. Collins says with a small chuckle, “we had a group that has a thrift shop that helps low-income women ask us for 300 of the hangers. So at least 300 of them have gone to a very good cause.”But Senator Collins will not be intimidated. Instead, she will do her job under the Constitution's advice and consent requirement and evaluate Judge Kavanaugh based on his qualifications and his record:
Even diehard opponents of Judge Kavanaugh must recognize the unseemly nature of this bid to intimidate a U.S. Senator. Not that it will work. “I’m going to do what I think is right,” Ms. Collins says. “I am going to cast my vote—as I have done on all of the other Supreme Court nominees that I’ve been called upon to consider—based on his qualifications, his character and integrity, judicial temperament, his record, and his respect for the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution.”The lengths to which liberals and Democrats are willing to go to oppose Judge Kavanaugh show that they have no genuine basis for their opposition in either his qualifications or record and the depths to which they will descend to resist President Trump. They are even willing to make unsubstantiated allegations of perjury against Judge Kavanaugh and mischaracterize his testimony during the hearings last week to such an extent that even The Washington Post's Fact Checker awarded the description four Pinocchios and said that "Democrats should drop this talking point."
But Senator Collins deserves credit for not giving into the intimidation and remembering that her duty as a senator is to do what is right and represent the people of Maine, not bow to the radical liberal interests controlling the Democratic Party.
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Kavanaugh's Post-9/11 Decisions Prove His Commitment to the Rule of Law
RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote today in the Daily Caller about how Judge Brett Kavanaugh's personal experiences on and after 9/11 and his subsequent actions demonstrate his independence and his respect for the rule of law:
In response to questions from Senators Lindsay Graham and John Cornyn, Brett Kavanaugh described how he was at the White House that Tuesday morning, in the West Wing, when the second World Trade Center Tower was hit and the world realized that this was not an accident but a deliberate act of terrorism. . . . Kavanaugh recounted how . . . the focus of President George W. Bush on September 12 was that this sort of attack would not happen again, and how he was with Bush every day from 2003 to his confirmation in 2006, seeing firsthand the former president’s commitment to preventing another terrorist attack.Brett Kavanaugh favored a race-neutral approach to protecting Americans against a future terrorist attack and specifically rejected racial profiling just four months after 9/11:
Security measures that might seem unthinkable to us now, including racial profiling, enjoyed widespread support among people, politicians and government staff alike. Brett Kavanaugh had the integrity and moral courage to stand against the popular fervor to provide security at almost any cost and only support security measures that were correct both legally and morally.
After joining the D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh overturned the conviction of Osama Bin Laden's bodyguard and driving because the conviction violated the Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws (in Hamdan v. US):
When Sen. Cornyn wondered how Judge Kavanaugh could possibly do that, he responded, “The rule of law applies to all who come before the courts of the United States.” He said even enemy combatants and non-citizens are entitled to “equal justice under law.”
Mr. Thielen concluded:
As we pause this week to remember the horrific terrorist attacks of 9/11, the lives lost and the heroic sacrifices of many Americans on that morning seventeen years ago and in the years since, let us not forget that respect for the rule of law is what sets us apart from so many other places where terrorism flourishes and what makes us a target for violent extremists in the first place. . . . America is great because a judge who experienced the effects of and response to terrorism firsthand can follow the Constitution, even when it compels an unpopular result in favor of a terrorist.
On this day and every day, let us remember that the "rule of law and respect for the Constitution creates the freedom that protects us all." By protecting that freedom, we honor the memory and sacrifice of those who died on September 11, 2001, and all who have given their lives since to protect us from the threat of terrorism.
Monday, September 10, 2018
All Citizens Are Entitled to an Impartial FEC
(This is the fourth in a series of five posts on the demonstrated bias of Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub. The first installment is here, the second here, the third here, and the last installment will be posted in the next few days.)
Former FEC Chairman Brad Smith was the first to warn the American public, detailing the legal problems presented by Commissioner Weintraub's actions in a June 2017 blog post at the Institute for Free Speech. According to Chairman Smith, "Federal Election Commissioner Ellen Weintraub's actions in recent months cast serious doubt on whether she can continue to credibly carry on her duties as a Commissioner. She should recognize this predicament and do the honorable thing, which is to resign." Chairman Smith outlined federal law that requires government officials to act without bias and documented Weintraub's violations of that legal duty.
Chairman Smith also explained the corrosive effects of the anonymous AltFEC Twitter feed in 2017, before it was widely known that the AltFEC twitter feed is sponsored by Weintraub's staff.
Liberal defenders like Professor Rick Hasen rallied to Weintraub's defense. Hasen called Chairman Smith "mean spirited" for his analysis of Weintraub's bias. No doubt Professor Hasen has exhibited some mean spiritedness on his own blog. More important than his one-sided view of campaign finance discourse, however, apparently liberals like Hasen thinks it's okay for Democratic law enforcement officials like Loretta Lynch and Ellen Weintraub to enforce the law with prejudice. They are not in the least bit concerned for "good government" when it comes to law enforcement bias, which is its own form of corruption.
But Chairman Smith was right and it shouldn't take a national controversy like Lois Lerner or Peter Strozk to restore the appearance of fairness and impartiality. Weintraub's demonstrations of bias are worse than the Peter Strozk controversy. Her public political jabs at the President go well beyond private texts and emails. And her votes to punish Trump demonstrate that she will use her public office to get the President. Yet, there has been little outcry about it.
The FEC is a law enforcement agency. Commissioner Weintraub is a law enforcement official. Nobody looking at this evidence could reasonably conclude that Commissioner Weintraub is unbiased, fair and neutral in her approach to President Trump. Nor is she known throughout Washington, DC as a dispassionate, objective regulator. Rather, she has a reputation as a flamboyant, outspoken ideologue, given to partisan infighting and polarization on the Commission. The strong opinions she and her confidential counsel have expressed about President Trump (and other Republicans) taint everything the FEC does.
President Trump is entitled to not only actual neutrality but the absolute appearance of neutrality in the enforcement of campaign finance laws by the FEC. That neutrality does not exist so long as Commissioner Weintraub and her office participate on Trump cases. Like the FBI fired Peter Strozk, Commissioner Weintraub should do the right thing and remove herself from all cases related to Donald Trump.
Former FEC Chairman Brad Smith was the first to warn the American public, detailing the legal problems presented by Commissioner Weintraub's actions in a June 2017 blog post at the Institute for Free Speech. According to Chairman Smith, "Federal Election Commissioner Ellen Weintraub's actions in recent months cast serious doubt on whether she can continue to credibly carry on her duties as a Commissioner. She should recognize this predicament and do the honorable thing, which is to resign." Chairman Smith outlined federal law that requires government officials to act without bias and documented Weintraub's violations of that legal duty.
Chairman Smith also explained the corrosive effects of the anonymous AltFEC Twitter feed in 2017, before it was widely known that the AltFEC twitter feed is sponsored by Weintraub's staff.
Liberal defenders like Professor Rick Hasen rallied to Weintraub's defense. Hasen called Chairman Smith "mean spirited" for his analysis of Weintraub's bias. No doubt Professor Hasen has exhibited some mean spiritedness on his own blog. More important than his one-sided view of campaign finance discourse, however, apparently liberals like Hasen thinks it's okay for Democratic law enforcement officials like Loretta Lynch and Ellen Weintraub to enforce the law with prejudice. They are not in the least bit concerned for "good government" when it comes to law enforcement bias, which is its own form of corruption.
But Chairman Smith was right and it shouldn't take a national controversy like Lois Lerner or Peter Strozk to restore the appearance of fairness and impartiality. Weintraub's demonstrations of bias are worse than the Peter Strozk controversy. Her public political jabs at the President go well beyond private texts and emails. And her votes to punish Trump demonstrate that she will use her public office to get the President. Yet, there has been little outcry about it.
The FEC is a law enforcement agency. Commissioner Weintraub is a law enforcement official. Nobody looking at this evidence could reasonably conclude that Commissioner Weintraub is unbiased, fair and neutral in her approach to President Trump. Nor is she known throughout Washington, DC as a dispassionate, objective regulator. Rather, she has a reputation as a flamboyant, outspoken ideologue, given to partisan infighting and polarization on the Commission. The strong opinions she and her confidential counsel have expressed about President Trump (and other Republicans) taint everything the FEC does.
President Trump is entitled to not only actual neutrality but the absolute appearance of neutrality in the enforcement of campaign finance laws by the FEC. That neutrality does not exist so long as Commissioner Weintraub and her office participate on Trump cases. Like the FBI fired Peter Strozk, Commissioner Weintraub should do the right thing and remove herself from all cases related to Donald Trump.
Friday, September 7, 2018
Top Ten Moments and Takeaways from Kavanaugh Hearings
The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court adjourned this afternoon at 4:15.
After four long days of hearings, Americans now have a glimpse of a man and judge who is kind, thoughtful, humble, intelligent, and intellectually curious, possesses incredible endurance, has an encyclopedic knowledge of the law, has a consistent judicial philosophy of looking first to the text of the relevant law at issue, works very hard to get the right answer in each case and be fair to all litigants, and has a deep respect for the Constitution, the separation of powers, federalism, and the rule of law. And we also have a depressing picture of what the next two years of Democratic presidential primary will look like.
Here are the top ten moments and takeaways from the hearings.
1. Judge Kavanaugh's poise, including his serious responses to Democrats' questions that were trying to trap him, have him disclose his personal policy views, or commit on how he would rule in future cases:
2. Judge Kavanaugh's repeated description of the proper role of a judge, including a deep and consistent interpretive philosophy relying on the text of the Constitution and statutes:
3. Judge Kavanaugh's repeated description of the separation of powers:
4. How those who knew Judge Kavanaugh and have practiced before him praised him highly both personally and as a judge, while the third-party witnesses from Democrats largely made policy points:
5. Senator Ben Sasse's civics lesson on Tuesday (and great questions throughout):
6. Senator Cory Booker's "Spartacus" moment that wasn't (but then after Sen. Booker was criticized for claiming courage for releasing documents cleared for release, he then did release confidential documents in violation of Senate Rules):
7. Refreshingly serious questions and dialogue with Judge Kavanaugh from Senators Chris Coons and Amy Klobuchar, even if their interpretations of cases and legal theories were often misguided. But unfortunately for Sen. Klobuchar's presidential ambitions, it's unlikely that deeper thinking about the law will mean much to the increasingly liberal, outcome-oriented Democratic base:
8. Senator Kamala Harris' bizarre questions about conversations with anyone at Kasowitz Benson Torres, a law firm with over 350 people, that ultimately proved to be only an attempt to cast unfounded aspersions at Judge Kavanaugh:
9. Judge Kavanaugh's tattered pocket Constitution, which Senator Harris disparagingly referred to as "that book that you carry":
10. Chairman Grassley's leadership throughout, from being gracious to the Democrats despite their obvious lack of good faith to correcting many of the Democrats' misstatements using his prerogative as Chair to allowing Judge Kavanaugh to respond at the end of a questioning period when a Democrat hadn't allowed the Judge to answer. Likewise, the good points and questions made by the Republican members of the committee:
After four long days of hearings, Americans now have a glimpse of a man and judge who is kind, thoughtful, humble, intelligent, and intellectually curious, possesses incredible endurance, has an encyclopedic knowledge of the law, has a consistent judicial philosophy of looking first to the text of the relevant law at issue, works very hard to get the right answer in each case and be fair to all litigants, and has a deep respect for the Constitution, the separation of powers, federalism, and the rule of law. And we also have a depressing picture of what the next two years of Democratic presidential primary will look like.
Judge Kavanaugh: I'm optimistic about the future of America and the future of our independent judiciary. If confirmed, I will always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018
Here are the top ten moments and takeaways from the hearings.
1. Judge Kavanaugh's poise, including his serious responses to Democrats' questions that were trying to trap him, have him disclose his personal policy views, or commit on how he would rule in future cases:
But Judge Kavanaugh is keeping his composure and not being distracted (though it's certainly distracting for the watchers). https://t.co/XzQ28psS8X— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 5, 2018
Democrats' legal theory boils down to policy outcomes / legal realism. That's why they always disparage nominees of Republican presidents' efforts to articulate a consistent interpretive theory and claims to decide cases on neutral principles. https://t.co/IfO5PDsbsV— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 7, 2018
2. Judge Kavanaugh's repeated description of the proper role of a judge, including a deep and consistent interpretive philosophy relying on the text of the Constitution and statutes:
Judge Kavanaugh: My personal beliefs are not relevant to how I decide cases. Role of precedent is to ensure stability & predictability in the law, which is critically important. People rely on decisions of the courts. Precedent reinforces independence & impartiality of judiciary.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 5, 2018
Judge Kavanaugh responding to 1st question from Chairman Grassley: First quality of a good judge in our Constitutional system is independence, which comes directly from Article III. Guaranteed by the Founders in structure, so immune from public and political pressure.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 5, 2018
Judge Kavanaugh: Courts upset compromises involved in legislative process if they do not stick to the text of the law as written, as passed by Congress and signed by the President.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
Sen. Lee and Judge Kavanaugh just had a great exchange on the nature of originalism and textualism and what interpretive methods judges should use.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 5, 2018
Judge Kavanaugh: Good judge is impartial, interprets the law as written. Treats litigants with respect. Writes understandable opinions. Civility and collegiality. Understands that decisions affect real people in the real world. Pays attention to precedent.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 5, 2018
Judge Kavanaugh: Being a good judge requires backbone & courage. Respect for precedent, which comes from "judicial power" in Art. III. Paying attention to the words written in Constitution & statutes. Not doing what judge wants to do or deferring when executive rewrites the laws.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 5, 2018
3. Judge Kavanaugh's repeated description of the separation of powers:
Judge Kavanaugh: Separation of powers protects individual liberty because it responds to the concern the Framers had about the accumulation of power in one body leading to tyranny.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 5, 2018
4. How those who knew Judge Kavanaugh and have practiced before him praised him highly both personally and as a judge, while the third-party witnesses from Democrats largely made policy points:
Lawyer Lisa Blatt has argued 35 cases before Supreme Court, more than any other woman. Liberal, Democrat, pro-abortion. But urges Senate to confirm Kavanaugh - "By any objective measure, Judge Kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court."— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018
Former DSG Mahoney: Judge Kavanaugh is one of the hardest working judges, renowned for his work ethic. Most of the appellate bar in DC has argued before him and knows him; don't know anyone who doesn't put him in the highest category; thought Kavanaugh should be nominee.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 7, 2018
5. Senator Ben Sasse's civics lesson on Tuesday (and great questions throughout):
Sen. Sasse's (first) civics lesson during #KavanaughConfirmation: Congress punts power to executive branch agencies because legislators don't want to take responsibility for tough decisions. People lose ability to speak through elections. No accountability over 4th branch.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018
Sen. Sasse: Constitution places policymaking power in Congress. Congress should be responsive to politics, not judiciary.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018
Sen. Sasse: Legislature supposed to be center of politics, but has deferred to executive. So political battleground has transferred to Supreme Court as place to control. Legislature, not courts, designed to be controversial. Leaves power with people.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018
Sen. Sasse: Supreme Court becomes substitute political battleground. Look for nine justices to be super-legislators. That's why people want "empathy" from justices.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018
Sen. Sasse: So question before committee is whether Judge Kavanaugh has temperament and character to set aside his personal views as irrelevant when he goes to work every day and judge cases on the laws.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018
6. Senator Cory Booker's "Spartacus" moment that wasn't (but then after Sen. Booker was criticized for claiming courage for releasing documents cleared for release, he then did release confidential documents in violation of Senate Rules):
This exercise today is a reminder that these documents could have been made public if members had simply asked the committee— Senator Hatch Office (@senorrinhatch) September 6, 2018
It wouldn’t have allowed for a “Spartacus” moment but it would have followed with the protocol @ChuckGrassley offered for weeks
https://t.co/wuWbgr6Tq0
Sen. Tillis warns of consequences of making Senate Judiciary an untrusted body to receive documents under the Presidential Records Act. Suggests that senators release all email records related to Kavanaugh nomination immediately, says he is willing to do so.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
Let me get this straight: "Spartacus" Booker violates Senate rules to leak confidential documents which show Kavanaugh giving reasonable legal advice in support of positions Booker himself believes? Beyond unhinged.— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) September 6, 2018
So the political "courage" by Dem senators this morning was purely (not just mostly) political theater. https://t.co/yPutYb9IPZ— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
“You know... I knew Spartacus.” pic.twitter.com/94eGPCkOp1— Senator Hatch Office (@senorrinhatch) September 6, 2018
7. Refreshingly serious questions and dialogue with Judge Kavanaugh from Senators Chris Coons and Amy Klobuchar, even if their interpretations of cases and legal theories were often misguided. But unfortunately for Sen. Klobuchar's presidential ambitions, it's unlikely that deeper thinking about the law will mean much to the increasingly liberal, outcome-oriented Democratic base:
Yes, Senators Klobuchar and Coons have asked questions about cases and legal interpretation and had real debates with Judge Kavanaugh. Their questions have been a refreshing break from the political theater of their Dem colleagues. https://t.co/ztzfxpIkRC— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 7, 2018
8. Senator Kamala Harris' bizarre questions about conversations with anyone at Kasowitz Benson Torres, a law firm with over 350 people, that ultimately proved to be only an attempt to cast unfounded aspersions at Judge Kavanaugh:
More political theater from a 2020 Dem presidential candidate. Shocking. https://t.co/SyTY7PKHC7— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
9. Judge Kavanaugh's tattered pocket Constitution, which Senator Harris disparagingly referred to as "that book that you carry":
Judge Kavanaugh notes that his tattered pocket Constitution is old enough to not contain the 27th Amd, ratified in 1992. He has written in 27th Amd. He uses it in teaching his Harvard Law classes, which he starts with tour of the Constitution.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
.@KamalaHarris just talked pejoratively about “that book that you carry” referring to the Constitution on Judge #Kavanaugh's table #SCOTUS— Raj Shah (@RajShah45) September 6, 2018
10. Chairman Grassley's leadership throughout, from being gracious to the Democrats despite their obvious lack of good faith to correcting many of the Democrats' misstatements using his prerogative as Chair to allowing Judge Kavanaugh to respond at the end of a questioning period when a Democrat hadn't allowed the Judge to answer. Likewise, the good points and questions made by the Republican members of the committee:
Chairman Grassley: Glad American people have finally had an opportunity to hear from Judge Kavanaugh. Answers have been compelling. Record proves that unquestionably qualified to serve on Supreme Court. Also very impressed with Judge as a person, lifetime of public service.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 7, 2018
Chairman Grassley responds to Dems' interruptions - assertion of executive privilege over Bush docs in accordance with Supreme Court interpretation of executive privilege - types of decisions requiring confidentiality. In accordance with treatment of Kagan records.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018
Chairman Grassley says he will let people speak but not accommodate all obstruction. But hearing will go on until finished, no matter how long Dems make it last.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 4, 2018
Sen. Tillis challenges people to actually read Judge Kavanaugh's opinions and see how thoughtful they are. Hard to believe claims when see how often other judges agree with Kavanaugh. Don't judge someone based on someone else's judgment. Judge based on body of work.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
It is ironic that Senator Ben Sasse , a non-lawyer, is asking better, more substantive questions and commentary than many Democrat Senate Judiciary Committee Members who are lawyers. #ConfirmKavanaugh— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 5, 2018
Thursday, September 6, 2018
Highlights and "Low" Lights from Day 3 of Kavanaugh Hearings
The morning of Day 3 of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings began with an hour of debate / grandstanding about the documents.
The only problem is that the documents had already been approved for public release just before 4 AM, due to the hard work of the staff overnight. Not to be deterred from his moment of resistance in the limelight, Sen. Booker started releasing still-confidential documents.
Sen. Tillis warned of the consequences of making Senate Judiciary a untrustworthy body for receiving confidential documents:
The senators starting asking questions an hour into the hearing, with Democratic Senators largely trying to have Judge Kavanaugh commit to ruling in a certain way on future cases or share his personal views. Judge Kavanaugh once again avoided all the Democrats' traps and shone with his vast and detailed understanding and knowledge of the law and legal theory:
Sen. Booker stole the show (it was very clearly a "show") by saying he was going to release documents designated as "committee confidential," inviting the consequences for the release of the documents and calling himself "Spartacus":Sen. Lee points out that the issue with the Kavanaugh documents is the Presidential Records Act, a law of Congress' own creation. The custodian of the documents has given them to Senate Judiciary with the understanding that they'll be confidential, with exceptions on request.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
The political theater just kicked up a notch. It is outrageous that Senator Booker is unilaterally releasing confidential documents as a campaign stunt.— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) September 6, 2018
The only problem is that the documents had already been approved for public release just before 4 AM, due to the hard work of the staff overnight. Not to be deterred from his moment of resistance in the limelight, Sen. Booker started releasing still-confidential documents.
But Sen. Booker's original document release showed that Judge Kavanaugh was opposed to racial profiling:Throughout the afternoon, SenBooker is now releasing additional documents still under the "Committee Confidential" classification. His team points out he is now actually violating the Senate process for the documents - which they also maintain he did last night during hearing.— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) September 6, 2018
Let me get this straight: "Spartacus" Booker violates Senate rules to leak confidential documents which show Kavanaugh giving reasonable legal advice in support of positions Booker himself believes? Beyond unhinged.— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) September 6, 2018
Sen. Lee on emails questioned by Sen. Booker: Once again, I can't see this as anything but something that helps you, with Republicans and with Democrats.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
Sen. Tillis warned of the consequences of making Senate Judiciary a untrustworthy body for receiving confidential documents:
Sen. Tillis warns of consequences of making Senate Judiciary an untrusted body to receive documents under the Presidential Records Act. Suggests that senators release all email records related to Kavanaugh nomination immediately, says he is willing to do so.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
The senators starting asking questions an hour into the hearing, with Democratic Senators largely trying to have Judge Kavanaugh commit to ruling in a certain way on future cases or share his personal views. Judge Kavanaugh once again avoided all the Democrats' traps and shone with his vast and detailed understanding and knowledge of the law and legal theory:
Sen. Hatch: Never have I seen the constant interruptions we've had during this hearing. Confirmation hearings are supposed to be chance to hear from nominee, but this has been a circus. Worst is the attacks against people who are just in the room to support the nominee.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
Judge Kavanuagh: Mens rea requirements are important because under due process clause, it's not right to convict someone based on a fact they didn't know. Dissented from en banc case where mandatory minimum sentence was elevated based on fact that defendant didn't know.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
Sen. Hatch asks about applying old statutes to new technologies. Judge Kavanaugh says always look first to text of statutes. Balance of 4th Amendment liberty and privacy vs. law enforcement use of technology enormous issue going forward, e.g. Carpenter case last term.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
Sen. Lee follows up on Sen. Booker's questions on emails last night, when Kavanaugh didn't have emails, noting that it would be hard for any lawyer to remember advice they provided in emails 18 years ago.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
Judge Kavanaugh: I have never taken a position on constitutionality of indicting a sitting president. DOJ has longstanding position under presidents of both parties that sitting president may not be indicted. It's a timing / deferral question, not an immunity question.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
Judge Kavanaugh: Courts upset compromises involved in legislative process if they do not stick to the text of the law as written, as passed by Congress and signed by the President.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
Judge Kavanaugh: Part of stability, predictability, impartiality, public confidence in the rule of law is stare decisis. But Brown v. Board shows its not absolute, and that's a good thing. But important to rule of law.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
Sen. Crapo notes that if anyone is worried about whether Judge Kavanaugh looks out for the "little guy," they just need to read his cases. https://t.co/OiQ2gTsuNw— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
Judge Kavanaugh notes that his tattered pocket Constitution is old enough to not contain the 27th Amd, ratified in 1992. He has written in 27th Amd. He uses it in teaching his Harvard Law classes, which he starts with tour of the Constitution.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
Noting that his potential would be "endless" in private sector, Sen. Tillis asks why Judge Kavanaugh is doing this. Kavanaugh: From a young age, I've been committed to public service following example of my mom.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
More political theater from a 2020 Dem presidential candidate. Shocking. https://t.co/SyTY7PKHC7— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 6, 2018
Judge Kavanaugh: Equal justice under the law means that everyone who ends up in an American court is entitled to due process and equal protection. Will prevail on law and facts, not based on identities of the parties or political views. Foundation of the rule of law we hold dear.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 7, 2018
The RNLA will continue live-tweeting the hearing tomorrow, when the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear from invited witnesses on Judge Kavanaugh.Judge Kavanaugh: Original meaning of the words of Constitution control over the words of any individuals involved in drafting. Notes from Convention and Federalist Papers are fascinating, can help understand, but they don't control over actual words of Constitution.— RNLA (@TheRepLawyer) September 7, 2018
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Day 2 - Kavanaugh Shines on Legal Philosophy and Role of a Judge
The second day of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing is ongoing and expected to end after 10:00 PM. During this marathon day (fortunately for his endurance, Judge Kavanaugh has run actual marathons), Judge Kavanaugh has remained poised and engaged in substantive discussions of cases and legal theories with senators, often recalling specific citations (down to sections of opinions) without referencing his notes. He has shown why he is extremely well-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, as the ABA itself acknowledged. While protestors continued to interrupt throughout the day, Democratic senators have not engaged in the indecorous grandstanding of yesterday.
You can review the hearing's event on RNLA's Twitter feed, and we will continue live-tweeting the hearing until it concludes.
Also of note, current and former RNLA women leaders submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee leaders expressing support for Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation:
You can review the hearing's event on RNLA's Twitter feed, and we will continue live-tweeting the hearing until it concludes.
Also of note, current and former RNLA women leaders submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee leaders expressing support for Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation:
As educated, professional women, we are often told that we should endorse the progressive policy agenda and support judges who will enact progressive policy changes from the bench and by not doing so, we are betraying our sex.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The policies and laws that best protect the rights of women are the policies and laws that protect the rights of all people. Therefore, the type of judge who best protects the rights of women is the type of judge who protects the rights of all people who come before his or her court by interpreting statutes and regulations as written, according to the text of the Constitution, with respect for the proper role of the courts in our system of separation of powers.
Judge Kavanaugh is precisely this type of judge. Throughout his twelve years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, he has consistently evaluated the text of the relevant legal authorities and applied them to the facts in the case. He has done so even when the outcome of the case was one that he personally would not have chosen. It is clear in Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive record that he understands his role of as that of judge, not policymaker.
In addition to his impressive record, Judge Kavanaugh is the son of a woman lawyer and has been a mentor to women lawyers, hiring women as 25 of his 48 law clerks. Twenty-one of his women clerks went on to clerk at the Supreme Court. As his women clerks noted in a letter to you, they had “uniformly positive experiences with the Judge as a boss on issues of gender and equality in the workplace.” This kind of mentorship is vital to helping young women attorneys succeed in our chosen profession.
Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated his durable commitment to the rule of law and sought to interpret the Constitution and the law impartially, and he should receive the support of Americans of all political and ideological beliefs.
Instead, he has been attacked for political gain, and even more bizarrely, attacked for being an enemy of women. This not only degrades the civil discourse in our country and undermines the role of the judiciary in our constitutional system but also wrongly uses women as partisan pawns. These attacks on Judge Kavanaugh by liberals and Democrats have belittled the role and individual beliefs and achievements of women, while ignoring the very real contribution that Judge Kavanaugh has made in advancing the careers of women attorneys.The hearings will continue all week with further rounds of questioning from senators tomorrow and expert testimony on Friday. RNLA will live-tweet the proceedings throughout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)