Agree Agree:  108
Likes Likes:  83
Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 142021222324
Results 346 to 354 of 354
  1. #346

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Quote Originally Posted by Ti-Amie View Post
    Chris Geidner
    Verified account
    @chrisgeidner

    Breaking: #SCOTUS allows North Dakota voter ID requirement, which had been enjoined during the primaries, to be enforced during the general election.



    NOW the outrage makes sense.

    Stephen Wolf
    ‏Verified account

    More Stephen Wolf Retweeted Ari Berman
    North Dakota has no voter registration, so proof of identity makes sense.
    But Republicans made it so that one's address had to be a residential address instead of a P.O. box knowing full well that Native Americans on reservations rely exclusively on the latter in large numbers
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb




  2. #347

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    The outrage makes sense even without that as a voter ID requirement is nothing but a grandfather clause. You'd be amazed how difficult it is for some people, especially poor and disenfranchised people, to get the birth certificate most states require to get these IDs. And in ND, the official document requirement is something uncommon for those living on reservations in the first place.

    I have no doubt of who the main target of that bill was. But also, North Dakota has a lot of newer residents (oil!), not necessarily from red states, who will have a harder time voting as well. Many live in non-traditional housing (cars and campers are very common) that won't have an address.

  3. #348

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    We just had national elections few days ago in Latvia. You need a passport or a specially issued voters card for that. On the other hand one could vote in any district in the whole country without any prior registration or proof of residence.


    And yes I know why it's done like this in places like ND. Just wanted to note how it's done elsewhere.
    Roger forever

  4. #349

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Not just places like ND and other states with large Native American reservations. All over the country can't have restrictions if they mean for it to be open the way the Voting Rights Act really calls for. It may seem like a long time ago, but Jim Crow laws and pre-Civil Rights Act are still very real things in every state in the country and will be for several more decades. Add that to the record keeping in small towns years ago being shoddy at best, you create a real barrier to voting if you add too many requirements over an address.

    I don't know enough about Latvia's history to know if they have similar problems affecting who does and does not have a passport or a voter's card and how they go about getting them if they don't have them. I know other places do it differently, I'm just not sure they have similar pervasive historical problems.

  5. #350

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    FBI Director Confirms That White House Limited Scope of Kavanaugh Investigation
    Christopher Wray contradicted President Donald Trump’s claim that the FBI could “interview anybody that they want.”
    STEPHANIE MENCIMER OCTOBER 10, 2018 1:36 PM

    FBI Director Christopher Wray confirmed Wednesday that the White House limited the scope of the FBI’s investigation into alleged sexual assault by now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

    Under questioning from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) during a Senate hearing, Wray stated that “the investigation was very specific in scope, limited in scope” and that the White House had set these strict parameters for the probe.

    On September 28, with prodding from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked the FBI to reopen the background investigation into Kavanaugh. The investigation was supposed to shed light on sexual assault allegations by California psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford and others, who have suggested that Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct in high school and college. But Democrats quickly complained that the White House had restricted the ability of the FBI to conduct a thorough investigation.

    Democrats had sent the FBI a list of at least two dozen potential witnesses who were familiar with Kavanaugh—and his drinking habits—during his high school and college years. Many of them have suggested that Kavanaugh’s testimony about his youthful drinking was not truthful, and they had been attempting to reach the FBI to tell their stories. Deborah Ramirez, who accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct at Yale, also submitted at least 20 names to the FBI, requesting they be interviewed to help corroborate her story. But the New York Times reported that the White House and Senate Republicans had limited the FBI to interviewing only four witnesses. Eventually, nine people were interviewed, but they did not include Kavanaugh or Ford.

    In response to the criticism, ...Donald Trump shot back during an interview in the Rose Garden that he had not restricted the FBI in the Kavanaugh investigation. “The FBI should interview anybody that they want within reason, but you have to say within reason,” he said.

    On Wednesday, Harris pressed Wray for details about who in the White House had directed the FBI to keep its investigation so limited. Wray hedged and refused to answer a question about whether White House counsel Don McGahn had been one of the parties involved in restricting the investigation. He also would not commit to turning over to the Senate documentation of any written instructions the White House had given the FBI about the investigation. And when Harris asked Wray whether the FBI had looked into allegations that Kavanaugh had lied to Congress during his confirmation hearing, Wray demurred. “That’s not something I can discuss here,” he said.

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics...investigation/

    Video at the link.
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb




  6. #351

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    The Ethics Complaints Against Justice Brett Kavanaugh Haven't Gone Away
    Ethics experts speculated any complaints would be dismissed after Kavanaugh was confirmed to the US Supreme Court, but for now they're just being transferred to another judicial circuit.

    Zoe Tillman
    BuzzFeed News Reporter

    Ethics complaints filed against Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the weeks leading up to his confirmation to the US Supreme Court are still live, and they're being transferred to another judicial circuit, according to a letter made public Wednesday from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.

    More than a dozen ethics complaints were filed against Kavanaugh in his former court, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. DC Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson and the Circuit Judicial Council — Chief Judge Merrick Garland recused himself — had asked Roberts to transfer the complaints to another circuit, a request that's in line with how federal courts in recent years have dealt with high-profile ethics cases; judges who previously asked for transfers cited a desire to avoid conflict-of-interest issues.

    The Kavanaugh complaints will now go to the 10th Circuit, which is based in Denver and covers six states in the western United States. Roberts' Oct. 10 letter to 10th Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich indicates that the DC Circuit asked him to transfer15 complaints — the earliest transfer request was made Sept. 20, and the latest was made Oct. 5.

    [IMG]https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2018-10/10/16/asset/buzzfeed-prod-web-05/sub-buzz-30547-1539204269-1.png?downsize=800:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto[/IMG]
    US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit / Via assets.documentcloud.org

    It's not clear what will happen next. Ethics complaints against judges who retired or resigned have been dismissed as moot in the past, but judicial ethics experts previously told BuzzFeed News there was no precedent for what happens when a lower-court judge is elevated to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court isn't part of the misconduct review system that covers lower-court judges, and the justices don't have a parallel internal disciplinary process.

    Several ethics complaints filed against Kavanaugh — some have been made public by individuals who filed the complaints, and some have not — concern his public response over the past month to allegations that he committed sexual misconduct when he was in high school and college, his controversial testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 27, and his testimony at his initial confirmation hearing in early September.

    Judicial misconduct proceedings are normally secret, but Henderson released a statement on Oct. 6 confirming that the court had received complaints against Kavanaugh. She said the complaints "do not pertain to any conduct in which Judge Kavanaugh engaged as a judge," only his statements as a Supreme Court nominee. The Washington Post reported at the time that Henderson had asked Roberts to transfer the complaints to another circuit.

    The 10th Circuit previously handled an ethics case out of the federal district court in Washington, DC, that involved a judge facing decades-old sexual misconduct allegations. The circuit dismissed the case last year, finding that allegations pre-dating a judge's time on the bench fell outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary's disciplinary system.

    UPDATE
    October 10, 2018, at 4:51 p.m.
    Updated with additional information from Chief Justice John Roberts' Oct. 10 letter

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...rett-kavanaugh
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb




  7. #352

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Supreme Court justices can be impeached. That's one of the reasons why I was surprised no GOP senators cared about him perjuring himself so many times as it is definitely something that could come up again. Justice Fortas wasn't impeached, but it was headed that way and impeachment proceedings began against him because of an ethics scandal and he was forced to resign. No reason that can't happen with Kavanaugh, likely in a similar manner to that as well if I had to predict how it would play out.

  8. #353
    Contests
    Awards Showcase

    Woody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    4,636
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Quote Originally Posted by JazzNU View Post
    Supreme Court justices can be impeached. That's one of the reasons why I was surprised no GOP senators cared about him perjuring himself so many times as it is definitely something that could come up again. Justice Fortas wasn't impeached, but it was headed that way and impeachment proceedings began against him because of an ethics scandal and he was forced to resign. No reason that can't happen with Kavanaugh, likely in a similar manner to that as well if I had to predict how it would play out.
    Except the bar for impeachment is really high. Like 2/3 of the Senate I think? And at this point, it's really unclear what would ever cause a Republican Senator to cross the aisle.

  9. #354

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Quote Originally Posted by Woody View Post
    Except the bar for impeachment is really high. Like 2/3 of the Senate I think? And at this point, it's really unclear what would ever cause a Republican Senator to cross the aisle.
    Yes, but if you read what I wrote in full, it may not come down to impeachment. Starting the process alone can turn the tide and that only requires a simple majority to begin the process. Similar to Nixon's impeachment proceedings, with Justice Fortas, he was talked into resigning. Part of this was done by fellow Justices who talked to him about the shame it would bring upon the Court. I can see a repeat here depending on the allegations, none of which seem like they'd be good against him if an actual FBI investigation was ever conducted.

    It was certainly a different time, but keep in mind that Fortas' impeachment proceedings and later resignation was about taking money he shouldn't have and a too close relationship and really improper communication with the President. The things Kavanaugh has been accused of are appreciably worse in many respects and more damaging and embarrassing to the Court.

    Also, I think impeachment is thought of by the many as this rarely used process (honestly, I'd love a public poll to see if the general public thinks it's only been used twice). It's rare for sure, but it is used. It just doesn't get much attention because it's not typically the Pres, VP, or SC Justice. But the last federal judge impeached and removed from office in the last 10 years? Repeated acts of perjury under oath.

Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 142021222324

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •