There is a person who makes the SCOTUS justice nomination hearings riveting tweet by tweet.
A journalist who focuses on law/justice her name is Jessica Mason Pieklo and her twitter handle is @Hegemommy
Yesterday was just speeches, no questions of the nominee. I learned a lot following her yesterday and today.
Here is the start of her thread today:
) of the highlights IMO:
>> Second shout to Brown v Board of Education
. Kavanaugh also says he's tried to always be a collegial judge. Reminder: not being an *a$$h*le shouldn't be the floor for being a lifetime appointee to the Supreme Court
>> Kavanaugh says he's always looking for how to apply precedent to the cases before him. Again, I suggest y'all read his opinions in Garza v Hargan
to see how he "applies" precedent like PP v. Casey
>> Feinstein asks Kavanaugh if US v. Nixon
was wrongly decided Kavanaugh doesn't give a yes or no answer. Says its one of the greatest moments in SCOTUS history
>> Feinstein presses again: was it rightly decided? Kavanaugh stammers: I've said yes, then walks that back by explaining it is tied to the specific regulations and facts of the case So.... not good precedent Kavanaugh?
>> So this isn't a trial, but there are a lot of trial tactics happening here
. Hatch is rehabilitating the witness in Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh insists he told the truth in his previous hearing
>> Kavanaugh says he's proud of his record hiring women clerks
Hatch metaphorically slaps Kavanaugh on the back for this. Then he pivots to Kozinski who left the 9th circuit because of harassment and abuse allegations. Kavanaugh clerked for Kozinski
>> Kavanaugh says women need better reporting tools on workplace harassment
. You know what also works? Class action lawsuits and not forcing these claims into mandatory arbitration
>> Hatch now wants to talk about the Chevron doctrine
. This is a line of precedent that directs the federal courts to defer to federal agency interpretation of the law if the law is ambiguous. Conservatives are coming for Chevron. It might not survive this next SCOTUS term
>> Hatch has introduced legislation to undo Chevron FWIW Kavanaugh says this is an issue of "liberty"
>> Now Leahy is up
. Starts directly with whether or not Kavanaugh lied to him the first time around It's already a tense exchange
>> It is pretty apparent based on Leahy's questions that Kavanaugh was in possession of stolen emails that he used to shepherd Bush judicial nominees so that's something
>> Kavanaugh insists this is just how judicial nominations proceed
>> The tone of this exchange is very moderated but this is high Senate drama. Leahy is fully making the case for Kavanaugh as a liar and a thief
>> This is a super fine line Leahy is walking here because the penalty for breaking confidentiality can be expulsion from the Senate
>> Grassley now gavels Leahy out of time. Leahy objects and Grassley gives him another minute Leahy asks Kavanaugh if Trump has the absolute power to pardon himself Kavanaugh says dunno never thought about it
>> Leahy asks if the president has the power to pardon someone in exchange for a promise that person won't testify again them Kavanaugh refuses to answer
>> Leahy repeats his question: While in the White House did you ever work with John Yoo on warantless surveillance Kavanaugh says "after 9-11 it was all hands on deck" That's a yes folks
>> Kavanaugh is a visibly different witness after that exchange. Leahy shook him.
>> The point Graham is making is that presidents appoint judges who share their philosophy. He's right. He's also confirming Kavanaugh is the fifth vote to kill/gut Roe and upend most the New Deal
>> Graham using his time to subtweet the "undecided" Senate voters to say they need to suck it up and vote yes
>> Graham asks the dumbest question yet
which is "can you and four other judges just decide to overturn Roe v Wade" The point he's making is that there needs to be litigation in the pipeline. Update: There are at least 13 cases right now in that pipeline!
>> I take that back.
Graham just asked Kavanaugh if he'd listen to both sides when hearing a challenge to Roe. That's the dumbest question yet.
>> Durbin pivots to Kavanaugh's dissent in Garza v. Hargan and Kavanaugh's use of "abortion on demand"
Durbin laying out all the legal hurdles the undocumented minor in Garza cleared before asking Kavanaugh why he'd block that legal process
>> Do you believe this is "abortion on demand" Durbin asks directly. Kavanaugh again offers a narrative answer instead of yes or no
>> Kavanaugh gives a long answer about how because she's a minor it's different Durbin says yes and this patients already had a lawful judicial bypass so at this point it's not This is a smart line of questioning to unpack Kavanaugh in Garza
>> In all this droning on Kavanaugh says its not the court's job to re-write the constitution which is a big old hello to conservatives who don't believe in a constitutional right to privacy
>> Kavanaugh takes the courageous position
and says that Plessy was wrongly decided.
love it. Plessy was the separate but equal decision that upheld segregation)
>> This anti-trust line of questioning
is really dry but super important in highlighting just how far to the right Kavanaugh is on issues of corporate power broadly.
>> Kavanaugh says the Court in Brown made the right call even though they knew they would face public backlash Is this signaling
he DNGAF about public outcry over a Roe reversal
>> Generally speaking, Kavanaugh is pro-dark money
>> Now Sen. Whitehouse is asking about the Pacific Legal Foundation [and by proxy other right wing litigation mills like Alliance Defending Freedom
>> Whitehouse is explaining how these litigation mills go out and plaintiff shop and intentionally *lose* cases so they can appeal and run up to a conservative SCOTUS Ex A: Alito did this with what would ultimately become the union busting Janus case
>> Kavanaugh says he's not familiar with this phenomenon (shrugging emoji)
>> Sen. Whitehouse connecting all the dots on the conservative corporate capture of the federal judiciary
>> Klobuchar moves to Kavanaugh's dissent that would have found the CFPB unconstitutional That's Consumer Finance Protection Bureau
>> Klobuchar asks Kavanaugh if he thinks other independent agencies are constitutionally suspect
Kavanaugh says well we have precedent and I respect that
>> Kavanaugh is hedging here but an important point is that he would like to have these agency positions removable at will [rather than for cause] IE he wants to make these agencies explicitly partisan
>> Klobuchar pivots to Net Neutrality
. Spoiler: Kavanaugh is against it
>> Klobuchar is doing a very good job of making the case that Kavanaugh is broadly anti-agency. That means he's anti-precedent here
>> Now Klobuchar asks Kavanaugh about the constitutionality of campaign contributions.
Kavanaugh trying to paint himself as moderate on this issue. Klobuchar notes that his opinion left open the possibility of unlimited foreign contributions on *issues* *cough NRA RUSSIA cough*
>> Next topic: anti-trust SCOTUS
has made it harder to enforce anti-trust laws. This comes at a time of industry consolidation. Klobuchar lists the Kavanaugh cases that would make this problem worse
>> Basically under Kavanaugh's legal thinking mergers would be easier ie markets would be made less competitive Did you ever study the Guilded Age? The Robber Barons? That's what we're talking about here
>> This anti-trust line of questioning is really dry but super important in highlighting just how far to the right Kavanaugh is on issues of corporate power broadly.
>> Cruz says Kavanaugh voted with Garland
93% of the time Yeah but that 7%? Cases like Garza v Hargan which brings us back to the "overheated rhetoric" of the protesters and Senate Democrats amirite
>> How would you describe a judicial activist
, Cruz asks Kavanaugh says that's someone who lets their personal political preference dictate their decisions
>> Again I am re-upping my request for a protester to figure out how to show up in Beto O'Rourke cosplay
and skateboard past Kavanaugh when Cruz questions him
(sierra: more lovely snark)
>> One important aspect of federalism
conservatives don't talk about is the idea that your constitutional rights don't depend on what state you happen to reside. So... voting rights. Abortion. Just spitballing here but these seem like important federalism questions
>> oooooh substantive due process! I love substantive due process! Too bad SCOTUS has largely rendered substantive due process meaningless
>> Substantive due process would put teeth into the promises of non-discrimination in public education, for example. Procedural due process means we all get the same process/treatment from the government. Substantive tells us what those rights look like actualized in policy
>> Coons holding tight and pressing Kavanaugh on whether or not he thinks the president can fire the special counsel
. Kavanaugh is uncomfortable but still maintaining a filibuster
>> Coons wants to know if the prosecutor is fireable at will or for cause Remember in earlier testimony about Kavanaugh's dissent in the CFPB case? The one that would make agency heads fireable at will .... We can extrapolate from there
>> Coons pressing Kavanaugh on precedent and the difference between Kavanaugh saying something is 'settled' versus 'rightly decided'
Remember there are Trump nominees not willing to say Brown v Board of Ed. was rightly decided. Kavanaugh has at least distinguished himself here
>> Coons has spent the last 30 minutes showing that Kavanaugh is widely in favor of shielding the executive
from investigations and prosecutions
>> Blumenthal asks Kavanaugh if while in the White House he promoted the belief that Roe
is not settled law among legal scholars Kavanaugh basically confirms this
>> Kavanaugh going to Casey and the fact that it affirmed Roe but also upheld Pennsylvania abortion restrictions. This is a guarantee he'll uphold any restriction under Casey and call it upholding precedent
>> Blumenthal pivots to the lawsuit challenging the pre-existing conditions ban in the ACA
launched by conservative states [arguments next week good god it never stops!] Can the president refuse to enforce the ACA even though the SCOTUS has upheld the statute he asks?
>> Kavanaugh doesn't answer directly vol 384756>
>> So Blumenthal's point is that by refusing to regulate assault weapons
Congress has de-facto given those weapons Second Amendment
protections which is not very originalist when you think about it>>
>> Flake asks Kavanaugh who his judicial heroes
are My mom, Kavanaugh says Justice Kennedy
as a model of independence
>> Also Justice Scalia Rehnquist
too no surprises here folks
>> Also cites Thurgood Marshall
and the work he did to overturn Plessy v Ferguson
Again, this is a common anti-choice whistle on Roe
>> Hirono has had an absolutely stunning series of questions taking Kavanaugh to task for an op-ed he wrote suggesting native Hawaiians aren't really indigenous
>> Booker takes a third tactic to try and get Kavanaugh to say if he sees affirmative action
[more or less that's what this line of questioning in about] as racial entitlements
>> Booker asks Kavanaugh if the SCOTUS cases upholding race-conscious policies are rightly decided Kavanaugh won't answer
>> Booker pushing Kavanaugh on voter ID laws
and his opinion that would have signed off on South Carolina's Voter ID law despite real evidence of the law's discriminator purpose and effect
>> Senator Harris up and asks immediately if Kavanaugh has discussed the Mueller investigation
with anyone Kavanaugh says well it's in the news Harris drills down what about with anyone from Trump's lawyer's law firm? Kavanaugh gets real nervous and asks if she has something
>> Harris asks a yes or no question and Kavanaugh wants to know if she's referencing a specific person Harris has an email I'm sure of it
>> I think you're thinking of someone and you don't want to tell us, Harris says Lee jumps in to raise an objection Harris is here for it
>>> Asks Kavanaugh if he, like Trump, thinks there was "blame on both sides" wrt Charlottesville
. Kavanaugh doesn't answer
>> Harris asks Kavanugh if he thinks the contraception privacy
were correctly decided? Kavanaugh doesn't answer
>> The sexual privacy cases are key in recognizing LGBTQ rights
Kavanaugh still won't say they are correctly decided
>> Harris tells Kavanaugh that even Alito said those cases were correctly decided Kavanaugh said he agrees with Alito but won't actually say the words "they were correctly decided"
>> Kavanaugh says he can't name any Harris asks Kavanaugh as a factual matter whether 5 SCOTUS justices can overturn precedent
. Kavanaugh cites Brown v Board
Edited by sierraleone, 06 September 2018 - 04:28 AM.