Warm Southern Breeze

"… there is no such thing as nothing."

Posts Tagged ‘Senate Judiciary Committee’

Amy Coney Barrett: Will she follow the law of recusal?

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Thursday, October 15, 2020

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the President’s nominee to be a Supreme Court Justice, has dodged the question of recusal on any potential case which might come before her which would be brought by the President on any matter pertaining to the 2020 General Election. She dodged because she replied that she would follow the law of recusal.

She said in part that, “I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal. … I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not. But I can’t offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.”

When asked about the law of recusal, she said in part that, “I can’t offer an opinion on recusal without short-circuiting the entire process.”

When specifically asked about election cases, she stated to the effect that it wasn’t a question she could answer “in the abstract.”

Obviously, she is aware of the law’s requirements, but what is concerning is if she will obey (follow) the law.

There could be an argument made that she has no interest in the case, per se, at least insofar as she was not a member of the President’s administration, nor had she done any work for him.

There are several disconcerting aspects of this matter, none of which concern her judicial temperament, nor her judicial philosophy, nor her rulings. First is that she has allowed herself to be used by the GOP and the President to force her, as their nominee, through the confirmation process in the midst of an ongoing election. Already, millions of people have voted.

Secondarily is Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s actions, in conjunction with the President’s efforts, to rush the nominee through the process. Rushed things are rarely done with high quality, or long-term thoughtfulness. Further, that “Moscow” Mitch McConnell has deliberately stalled, or “killed” well over 400 bills from the House of Representatives is prima facie evidence of his contempt for the Constitution, and legislative process. And that he has similarly refused to act upon any bill which would first, and foremost, deal with the matter of the coronavirus, aka COVID-19, and the needs of the people for their health, their needs for economic sustenance, and more, is again, hard-core evidence not merely of a lack of caring, but is an abandonment of his responsibilities to the American people, not merely to the citizens of Kentucky whose interests he is supposed to represent.

To the extent that Amy Coney Barrett participates in that wretched process, she is complicit in it all. She has, in effect, become a political tool, and is doing so knowingly.

Were she to have requested a delay of her hearings until after the election – a delay of a few mere weeks – she would likely have not garnered such opposition. For she is, in my considered estimation, more than a well-qualified jurist, and would be a good addition to the United States Supreme Court. Even 88 University of Notre Dame faculty members wrote an open letter to her, stating that it was “vital” that she “issue a public statement calling for a halt to your nomination process until after the November presidential election.”

In the letter, those faculty members also wrote in part that, “The rushed nature of your nomination process, which you certainly recognize as an exercise in raw power politics, may effectively deprive the American people of a voice in selecting the next Supreme Court justice,” and stated that “you can refuse to be party to such maneuvers. We ask that you honor the democratic process and insist the hearings be put on hold until after the voters have made their choice.”

And goodness knows, we need more legal diversity on the nation’s highest court, and I don’t mean to refer to sex, ethnicity, or any physical factor – I mean to refer to the schools of law which the nominees have attended. And as she herself has noted,

“I would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the Court. I would be the first Justice to join the Court from the Seventh Circuit in 45 years. And I would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend law school at Harvard or Yale. I am confident that Notre Dame will hold its own, and maybe I could even teach them a thing or two about football.”

Would she be my pick?

Perhaps not, but again, it is the rushed nature of this event which is most exceedingly distasteful. Hypocrisy has neither a pleasing aroma, nor taste.

Finally, there are other matters concerning the Supreme Court which desperately need to be addressed, which undoubtedly will not have an opportunity to be discussed simply because of the Senate Majority Leader’s deliberately destructive tactics to “kill” legislation.

The verbatim transcript of her remarks has not yet been prepared by the Congressional Record. When it is ready, it will appear here:
https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/senate-event/328163?s=1&r=8

Hearings to examine the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, of Indiana, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 116th Congress (2019-2020)

Committee: Senate Judiciary
Related Items: PN2252
Date: Tuesday October 13, 2020 (9:00 AM EDT)
Location: 216 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Website: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/

And so, for your benefit, here is the law of recusal to which she referred. You can, and should, read it for yourself. It’s not difficult to understand, and is straightforward, without mumbo jumbo jargon.

28 USC 455: Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
Text contains those laws in effect on October 12, 2020

From Title 28-JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART I-ORGANIZATION OF COURTS
CHAPTER 21-GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO COURTS AND JUDGES

Jump To:
Source Credit
Amendments
Change of Name
Effective Date

§455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in - Did they REALLY say that?, - Even MORE Uncategorized!, - Politics... that "dirty" little "game" that first begins in the home., - Read 'em and weep: The Daily News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Day 1: Judge Amy Coney Barrett Brings 6 Little Human Shields To Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Monday, October 12, 2020

––Day 1: Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing: Blumenthal Urges Barrett To Recuse From Cases Involving Election––

Perhaps you’ve read, and therefore know, my earlier opinion on that matter.

I have also said that she should recuse herself, because he and his campaign are PLANNING on a Supreme Court fight in the course of this election – much WORSE than Bush v Gore, which will make that case look like a cakewalk. And, the President is COUNTING ON HER SUPPORT.

He has said as much:

“We need 9 justices. You need that. With the unsolicited millions of ballots that they’re sending, it’s a scam; it’s a hoax. Everybody knows that. And the Democrats know it better than anybody else. So you’re going to need 9 justices up there. I think it’s going to be very important. Because what they’re doing is a hoax, with the ballots. I think this will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it’s very important that we have 9 justices. I think it’s better if you go before the election because I think this scam that the Democrats are pulling, it’s a scam, this scam will be before the United States Supreme Court. And I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation. If you get that. I don’t know that you’d get that. I think it should be 8-to-nothing or 9-to-nothing, but just in case it would be more political than it should be.”

(Hearing him talk is like listening to the idiotic babbling of a toddler – incessantly repeating himself.)

He is suborning her prejudicial support of his court case. That is a corrupt practice, not only for an independent judiciary, but for the Office of the President.

Precedent for recusal could be found in Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in - Did they REALLY say that?, - Politics... that "dirty" little "game" that first begins in the home., - Read 'em and weep: The Daily News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Sen. Lindsey Graham on SCOTUS pick: “I want you to use my words against me.”

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, September 20, 2020

“I want you to use my words against me:
If there’s a Republican president in 2016,
and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term,
you can say ‘Lindsey Graham said,
‘Let’s let the next President,
whoever it might be,
make that nomination,”
and you could use my words against me,
and you’d be absolutely right.”

– South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, to the Senate Judiciary Committee March, 10, 2016

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4907933/user-clip-sc-sen-lindsey-graham-judiciary-committee

BACKGROUND: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had earlier died unexpectedly during his sleep while on a hunting trip in Texas on February 3, 2016, thus creating an opening on the nation’s highest court. Within an hour of the national notice of Justice Scalia’s death, Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) had issued a statement to the effect that he would not grant any consideration (floor vote) to any nominee from President Barack Obama.

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had made his intentions known that he would follow the so-called “Biden Rule,” which referred to then-Delaware Senator Joe Biden’s speech on the Supreme Court confirmation process, given June 25, 1992 on the Senate floor. [C-SPAN linked video]

NOTE: Senator Biden’s verbatim remarks on Thursday, June 25, 1992 may be found in the Congressional Record, Volume 138, part 12, beginning on page 16307, and continuing through to page 16321. At that point, Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina began to make his responses, all of which are found on page 16321. The file may also be downloaded from this site here: Congressional Record Senate 6-25-1992 Biden–Reform of Confimation Process speech aka “Biden Rule”

In that speech, Biden argued that then-President George H.W. Bush should wait until after the November General Election to put forth any nominee to any potential Supreme Court vacancy which might arise during the summer, or if not, should establish a precedent, and nominate a moderate whom would be acceptable to the then-Democrat-controlled Senate.

Republicans later began to refer to that concept as the “Biden rule,” though Biden reiterated that he had always thought that the President and Congress should “work together to overcome partisan differences” when considering judicial nominees.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, (R)

Linked above from C-SPAN are South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham’s full remarks (approximately 6 minutes) to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 10, 2016 on the matter of consideration of SCOTUS nominees in an election year.

In his remarks, he noted that he had voted FOR Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor NOT because he agreed with them ideologically, but because he thought they were qualified.

In those same remarks, he also warned also of an increasing tendency of the Senate toward rancor, like in the House of Representatives, and of ideological partisanship accompanying judicial nominees, some of which COULD in the FUTURE be significantly detrimental to the nation because of a nominee’s unfitness for the bench, and an ideological unwillingness of the controlling party to compromise, or for an unwillingness of dissenting members in the controlling party to vote against an unqualified candidate put forth by the controlling party.


C-SPAN VIDEO DESCRIPTION: The Senate Judiciary Committee held a business meeting on whether to hold a hearing on a Supreme Court justice nomination to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in - Did they REALLY say that?, - Politics... that "dirty" little "game" that first begins in the home., - Read 'em and weep: The Daily News, End Of The Road, WTF | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Judge Brett Kavanaugh: Liar On The Federal Bench

Posted by Warm Southern Breeze on Sunday, July 8, 2018

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh (b.1965), United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Brett Kavanaugh, who has been said to be under consideration as a SCOTUS nominee to replace retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, for whom he also clerked during the October Term 1993, presently has lifetime tenure as a Federal Circuit Court Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In May 2006 when he last appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee as a nominee for that position, he was asked Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in - Did they REALLY say that?, - Politics... that "dirty" little "game" that first begins in the home., - Read 'em and weep: The Daily News | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: