General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAl Franken: I have some questions I'd love to see Brett Kavanaugh answer
I wish I could be there. Because I have some questions Id love to see him answer.
1. Judge Kavanaugh, welcome. Id like to start with a series of yes or no questions. The first one is a gimme. Do you think its proper for judges to make determinations based on their ideological preconceptions or their personal biases?
Hell say no, of course.
2. Good. Would you agree that judges should make determinations based on their understanding of the facts?
3. And would you agree that its important for a judge to obtain a full and fair understanding of the facts before making a determination?
This is all pretty standard stuff. Then, however, Id turn to an issue thats received a bit of attentionbut not nearly enough.
4. When you were introduced by President Trump, you spoke to the American people for the very first time as a nominee for the Supreme Court. That is a very important moment in this process, wouldnt you agree?
5. And one of the very first things that came out of your mouth as a nominee for the Supreme Court was the following assertion: No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination. Did I quote you correctly?
This claim, of course, was not just false, but ridiculous. The Washington Posts Aaron Blake (a Minnesota native) called it a thoroughly inauspicious way to begin your application to the nations highest court, where you will be deciding the merits of the countrys most important legal and factual claims.
It would be only fair to give Kavanaugh a chance to retract that weirdly specific bit of bullshit.
6. Do you stand by those words today? Yes or no?
If he says that he doesnt, Id skip down to Question 22. But, if he wont take it back, Id want to pin him down.
7. I just want to be clear. You are under oath today, correct?
8. So, today, you are telling the American peopleunder oaththat it is your determination that [n]o president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.
9. And that determinationit wouldnt be based on your ideological preconceptions, would it?
10. And its not based on any personal bias, is it?
11. No, of course not. That would be improper. Instead, it is based on your understanding of the facts, right?
12. Was it a full and fair understanding of the facts?
Again, if he decided here to fold his hand and admit that he was full of it, Id skip down to Question 22. But if not, Id continue with
13. Great. Judge Kavanaugh, are you aware that there have been 162 nominations to the Supreme Court over the past 229 years?
14. And do you have a full and fair understanding of the circumstances surrounding each nomination?
Of course he doesnt.
15. Of course you dont. So, in actuality, your statement at that press conference did not reflect a full and fair understanding of the factsisnt that right?
16. This was one of the very first public statements you made to the American people as a nominee for the Supreme Court. A factual assertion you have repeated here under oath. And it did not meet your standard for how a judge should make determinations about issues of national importance.
17. Let me ask you about some widely-reported facts. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump selected you from a list of 25 jurists provided by the conservative Federalist Society?
18. Are you aware of any other case in which a President has selected a nominee from a list provided to him by a partisan advocacy group?
19. Are you aware of the widely-reported fact that President Trump spent just two weeks mulling over his selectionwhereas, for example, President Obama spent roughly a month before making each of his two Supreme Court nominations?
20. Let me ask you this. Are you aware of any facts that support your assertion thatand Ill quote it againNo president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination?
21. And yet, you still believe that your assertion was based on a full and fair understanding of the facts?
Then Id try to sum it up.
22. Judge Kavanaugh, do you believe that intellectual honesty and a scrupulous adherence to the facts are important characteristics in a Supreme Court Justice?
23: And would you say that you displayed those characteristics to your own satisfaction when you made in your very first public remarks (and reiterated here today under oath) your assertion that, No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination?
By the way: Once I had him pinned down on his ridiculous lie, Id ask where it came from.
24: Let me ask you about something else. Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, have any input on your remarks at that press conference?
25: Did President Trump, or anyone in his administration, instruct, ask, or suggest that you make that assertion?
I know this might seem like a long chase. Senators have a lot of ground they want to cover in these hearings: health care, choice, net neutrality, and a long list of incredibly important issues on which Kavanaugh has been, and would continue to be, terrible. After all, he was chosen through a shoddy, disgraceful process overseen by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.
And, of course, Kavanaugh is a smart guy. He and his team no doubt know that his easily provable lie is a potential problem, and Im sure theyre workshopping answers at this very moment.
But pinning him down on this is important, for a couple of reasons.
First of all, it was exactly the kind of lie that has been plaguing our discourse for a generation, the kind that has become prevalent under the Trump administration. Its just a totally made-up assertion that is exactly the opposite of the truth, flowing out of the mouth of a committed partisan who doesnt care that its false. And if youre sick of people doing that and getting away with it, at some point someone is going to have to start using a prominent stage to bust these lies. If they go unchallenged, then why would any of these guys stop lying, ever?
More to the point: This episode is a perfect illustration of what the conservative movement has been doing to the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process specifically, and the judicial system generally, for a generation now.
In theory, judges are supposed to be above partisan politics. They dont make law, they interpret it. They dont create the strike zone, they just call balls and strikes. You know the routine.
The truth is, for the last generation, conservatives have politicized the Court, and the courts. Kavanaugh is the very model of a young, arch-conservative judge who has been groomed for moments like this one precisely because conservative activists know that he will issue expansive, activist rulings to further their agenda. He has spent his whole career carefully cultivating a reputation as a serious and thoughtful legal scholarbut he wouldnt have been on that list if he werent committed to the right-wing cause.
Thats why its critical to recognize that the very first thing he did as a Supreme Court nominee was to parrot a false, partisan talking point. Of course thats what he did. Advancing the goals of the Republican Party and the conservative movement is what hes there to do.
When the Kavanaugh nomination was announced, I saw a lot of statements from Senators saying they looked forward to carefully evaluating his credentials and asking him questions about his judicial philosophy. But anyone who ignores the obvious fact that this nomination, and the judicial nomination process in general, has become a partisan exercise for Republicans is just playing along with the farce.
Instead, we ought to be having a real conversation about what conservatives have done to the principle of judicial independenceand what progressives can do to correct it. I can think of no better example of the problem than Brett Kavanaughs nomination and the bizarre lie he uttered moments after it was made official. And I can think of no better opportunity to start turning the tide than Kavanaughs confirmation hearingeven if it means going down a rabbit hole for a few uncomfortable minutes.
https://www.facebook.com/senatoralfranken/posts/1830068093745731
Snackshack
(2,541 posts)That he is unable to ask these questions.
Maraya1969
(22,479 posts)I look forward to it.
Ponietz
(2,966 posts)Done well, is an art form. Some few have the chops, most dont.
mbusby
(823 posts)...verily.
madaboutharry
(40,209 posts)The Senate is a lesser place.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)JDC
(10,127 posts)Heartstrings
(7,349 posts)laid at the alter of the deplorables.....
Still pisses me off righteously!
mountain grammy
(26,619 posts)Cha
(297,184 posts)why we miss Senator Al Franken so much.
spanone
(135,830 posts)K&R...
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)....and it wouldn't matter an iota.
erronis
(15,241 posts)aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Takket
(21,563 posts)hlthe2b
(102,236 posts)on the thinnest of accusations...
betsuni
(25,475 posts)sinkingfeeling
(51,448 posts)Ryan dismisses the idea of even having an ethics complaint against Jim Jordan.
I will not forgive the DNC nor the DSCC for forcing one of our greatest Senators out.
applegrove
(118,636 posts)orally because we know he does not read? The other presidents read up on the records of their supreme court candidates. Sounds to me like trolling either way.
BigmanPigman
(51,590 posts)I think of Al and how much good he did and what an assett he was to the party. I DO hold a grudge and will continue to do so regarding his lack of support from the party, especially a particular senator (you know who I mean).
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)LakeArenal
(28,817 posts)Still stand with Al.
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)I haven't forgotten, and I never will.
lark
(23,097 posts)and I feel the same way. We lost a lion when some Dems pushed him out and I will not forget.
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)to see how some of the senators who were so easily duped by rw interest groups will do with this chance to save America. I think I would have more faith in Franken's ability to protect us than those who fell for the scam.
calimary
(81,222 posts)Ellipsis
(9,124 posts)dflprincess
(28,075 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Because he's so sharp, so articulate, so effective that some saw him as a threat to their career goals. There is no one to replace him.
The country lost, when the Senate lost Franken. IMO.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)the Courts is nominating very young, lightly experienced Republican judges so they will hold that seat far longer than what the average age nominee or judge. This is going on all over the country. Republican county judicial candidates need to be young and loyal to get the local Partys support. The local Democratic Partys have had to respond in kind. The result is a lot of new, relatively inexperienced, hyper-partisan judges courtesy of the Republican Party making everything a partisan issue.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)handmade34
(22,756 posts)copying this script and mailing it to each senator... going to the post office to pick up stamps this morning!!
erronis
(15,241 posts)handmade34
(22,756 posts)note: I use a return zip for area the Senator represents... they are much more likely to pay attention
zentrum
(9,865 posts)than ever and I'm still pissed as hell that he was forced out. He was one of our best Dems, with a huge future.
marieo1
(1,402 posts)Go Al Franken. This is exactly why I was so brokenhearted by what happened to you. We need you, Al Franken. You are the one that will ask the right questions and get the answers. I heard you in Congress before the Kristen Gillebrand thing and I knew you would get to bottom of everything. I hope you haven't given up on all your supporters and will still fight for us as much as you can.
PatrickforO
(14,571 posts)so now he cannot ask those questions. He cannot be our voice.
scarletwoman
(31,893 posts)He was my Senator. And I cannot forgive those other senators who took him away from me/us.
And for what? To show how "pure" they are? To make sure Doug Jones would win his election over Roy Moore?
Was losing Al Franken in order to gain Doug Jones actually worth it? I sure as hell don't think so!
We should have kept our most excellent, irreplaceable Senator Franken and taken our chances with letting that total nutjob Roy Moore win his election.
Why should the elected Dems be so damn afraid of the insane righties? Why aren't they instead devising more effective ways of taking down the rabid right than throwing one of our best under the bus??
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,112 posts)gulliver
(13,180 posts)He's better as a media figure, frankly. I look forward to hearing more from him.
MontanaMama
(23,313 posts)However, I disagree that hes better as a media figure. He was a formidable senator. He will not have enough of a platform as a media figure to lay waste to GOPers as he did in the senate. Americas loss IMO.
orleans
(34,051 posts)i've been thinking about al since kennedy made his i'm-outta-here announcement and how he'd kick ass over whoever was nominated. will anyone have the balls to ask these questions? i'm guessing no.
NBachers
(17,108 posts)national candidate, or a Secretary of a Cabinet-level department.
No support for those Democrats who sabotaged him out of the Senate. I will always remember.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Sloumeau
(2,657 posts)I wish that he had been allowed his day in court. ☺
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)joshcryer
(62,270 posts)What a fucking waste.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)It's just a crying shame. So regrettable. I am still so angry about this.
emmadoggy
(2,142 posts)My heart breaks. It is so WRONG that we lost him, right when we need him the most.
Hekate
(90,667 posts)stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)Franken literally took the pompous hater, Gorsuch, to school over his dissenting opinion in a worker's rights case: Gorsuch wrote that a driver had the obligation to stay & freeze inside his employer's inoperable truck rather than go for help and shelter to save himself.
It was Gorsuch's lowest moment in his Confirmation Hearing. Franken was just being his usual effortlessly brilliant self, when he methodically laid bare Gorsuch's legal ignorance and emotional unfitness to be a judge anywhere
It wasn't just Franken's interrogation of Sessions that threatened the Republicans so much; Franken's Gorsch filetting terrified them maybe even more. .
Martin Eden
(12,864 posts)It's a fucking crime that he was railroaded out of the Senate.
dsc
(52,160 posts)Obama had three nominees not two.
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)Good points about Kavanaugh, and the process the repugs use to put freaks like him into power.
JI7
(89,248 posts)Paladin
(28,254 posts)Instead of lobbing them from the fucking sidelines.
samnsara
(17,622 posts)..I miss AL..
concreteblue
(626 posts)EVERYBODY send this to their Senator! EVERYBODY!!!!!
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Autumn
(45,066 posts)mn9driver
(4,425 posts)So they weaponized #metoo and ratfucked him. And Senate Democrats got suckered into the charade. This event remains a disgrace. And his seat has a good chance of falling into Republican hands this November.
Raastan
(266 posts)Tipperary
(6,930 posts)Damn, I wish he were still there.
Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)He may be billiant, but we sure as shit don't need another lying republican anywhere near the levers of power.
Maraya1969
(22,479 posts)because Franken won't be there the questions won't be asked but I think the exact reason he published the questions is to get someone else to question them!
I didn't even hear that Kavanaugh said that bullshit about his
SCOTUS nomination being the most researched blah blah. But it sounds just like another Trump statement that was put in another Trump lackey's mouth. You can always tell when Trump is writing someone else's words.
Jimvanhise
(301 posts)As far as I can tell Democratic Underground is the only site that will give Franken a voice as all of the other (liberal!) news sites ostracize him.
Texin
(2,596 posts)Of course, Grassley will probably shut her down like he did during Gorsuch's testimony. And it wouldn't surprise me if Amy Klobuchar did this as well.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)I'm hoping you have some cohorts in Congress who are smart enough to confer with you, as you have plenty to offer. Your insights are badly needed right now.
WinstonSmith4740
(3,056 posts)Along with the demand that SHE ask them, since she lead the parade to chase him out.
Of course, that ain't gonna happen, but I'm willing to bet Kamala Harris will ask them!
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)I will never feel good about Gilibrand and the rest of the bandwagon passengers again.
BlueMTexpat
(15,368 posts)there to ask them.
voteearlyvoteoften
(1,716 posts)dem4decades
(11,288 posts)maddiemom
(5,106 posts)CrispyQ
(36,461 posts)Some dem senator, or two, need to run with this. Senator Gillibrand, are you listening?
Saguaro
(79 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 14, 2018, 03:23 PM - Edit history (1)
"No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination". More widely? More people from more backgrounds? You can hear him saying it. I sincerely doubt Kavanaugh writes and speaks at a such simplistic, third grade level.
It's truly a shame that we let Franken get so easily steamrolled. We need his strength and conviction in the Senate now more than ever.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)cp
(6,626 posts)And best interrogator on the Judiciary Committee.
Sigh.
robbedvoter
(28,290 posts)Beartracks
(12,809 posts)Collimator
(1,639 posts)Part of his punishment or plea deal or whatever should be a full disclosure of his hand in the accusations against Franken.
It might be enough to resurrect Franken's political career. Even if it isn't I want Stone to pay first, then we will work out the costs others will have to bear for this political hit job.