Key Republicans signal satisfaction with FBI report, increasing confirmation odds for Kavanaugh

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Washington Post

Politics

Key Republicans signal satisfaction with FBI report, increasing confirmation odds for Kavanaugh

By John Wagner and Seung Min Kim
October 4 at 3:11 PM

A pair of key Republican senators expressed satisfaction Thursday with a new FBI report, increasing the odds of Senate confirmation this weekend of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump's Supreme Court nominee who has faced sexual misconduct allegations.

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), one of three Republicans who had not indicated how they plan to vote, said Thursday that "it appears to be a very thorough investigation, but I'm going back later to personally read the interviews."

Shortly afterward, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who requested the investigation, told reporters that "we've seen no additional corroborating information." ... Collins, Flake and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) are the critical votes that could ensure Kavanaugh's ascension to the nation's highest court.

On Thursday afternoon, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), a red-state Democrat whose vote Republicans were courting, said she would vote no on Kavanaugh. That leaves Sen. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) as the only Democrat still undecided on the nomination.
....

John Wagner is a national reporter who leads The Post's new breaking political news team. He previously covered the Trump White House. During the 2016 presidential election, he focused on the Democratic campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley. He also chronicled Maryland government for more than a decade. Follow https://twitter.com/WPJohnWagner

Seung Min Kim is a White House reporter for The Washington Post, covering the Trump administration through the lens of Capitol Hill. Before joining The Washington Post in 2018, she spent more than eight years at Politico, primarily covering the Senate and immigration policy. Follow https://twitter.com/seungminkim

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-prepare-to-review-fbi-report-on-kavanaugh-after-early-morning-arrival/2018/10/04/394dbaf8-c7be-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html

---

I know; not that big a surprise.

[Honeycombe8]

1. Odds were always very high that Kav. would be confirmed. They don't care ...

They just don't care about his past or if he lies. He has pledged loyalty to Trump, and promised to vote to overturn Roe, and promised to rule in favor of anything that threatens Trump or the Republicans.

I guess Susan Sarandon's pretty happy about now. The revolution is almost complete. Except it wasn't the revolution she envisioned.

[cstanleytech]

2. Maybe we should make them care? After all we could always repay them in kind for their Benghazi

investigations with one of our own aimed at Kavanaugh.

[Honeycombe8]

3. We can't make people care about something they just don't care about.

We would be in unchartered territory if we go after Kavanaugh. I don't know that it's even possible, unless it's a criminal action.

[cstanleytech]

4. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the Senate from investigating SCOTUS judges.

In fact the Senate is a check on SCOTUS for removing a corrupt SCOTUS judge such as for example one that commits perjury.

[Honeycombe8]

6. It's unprecented. Unchartered territory. We simply don't know if it's possible.

Maybe it is. But if the other side disagrees, which they would, do we litigate it? If so, it goes to the S.Ct. BK would recuse himself, but the others deciding it would be Justices that could be attacked themselves.

It would be a mess. Our reps won't get involved in that. No one of consequence was held accountable for the Great Recession. Our reps were "too busy" doing important things that would affect the economy at the moment.

[cstanleytech]

11. The courts do not have jurisdiction over Senate investigations so litigation is a moot point.

[ArizonaLib]

7. SCOTUS impeachment hearings are not unprecedented nor unconstitutional

Lying to Congress is a crime, and his are easily proven.

Samuel Chase was voted for impeachment in the house but acquitted in the Senate. Could happen the same way this time, but look how long court was in check afterward. Embarking on the process was the right thing to do. He got his day in front of Congress, but it is something no one wants to go through. It also sends the message: "if you don't want your nominees's crap to be shown in front of the country, don't nominate him/her". Democrats have the high ground when it comes to governing. Republicans are out to destroy it.

[GeorgeGist]

9. Then why is it secret?

[aggiesal]

10. I believe it's time to change the way the Supreme Court works ...

When a Democratic President is elected, that President should add 4 more judges to the Supreme Court.
All 13 will hear the case brought to the supreme court, but when it is time to judge, 9 names are drawn
from a hat or random number or ... and those are the only 9 to vote on the case.

Then next case, the 4 that did not get to vote, are now included in the next case, and 5 more are selected
from a hat or random number or ... and those are the 9 to vote on the case

and so on, and so on ...

It is no different than the way gymnastics and ice skating is judged at the international level.
They don't know which judge's score will be used. It is a random draw.

That way, law suits can not be filed knowing which judges will be sitting to hear the cases.

If a judge should die (like Scalia), there will always be 9 judges to hear any case.

This would reduce the back log for each judge, because they will no longer hear each case.

Anyone have an opinion, or a better solution?