Source: http://web.humboldtgop.org/2018_09_30_archive.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 20:15:04+00:00

Document:
Brett Kavanaugh will be sworn into the Supreme Court today.
BREAKING NEWS: The Kavanaugh family arriving at the White House for the official Swearing-in to the Supreme Court, of soon-to-be Justice Brett M Kavanaugh.
Congratulations to #SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh! He didn’t deserve to be treated the way he was in this process—no one deserves that. I’m thankful that God overruled. Let’s pray for him & his family in this critical appointment. I’m confident he will do a great job.
California's gas prices have increased by 58.5 cents per gallon since January 2018.
If you are in #California vote yes on Prop 6!!
How can they afford a war against Trump when they "don't have money for roads"?
Nobody likes to see professors accusing other professors of being phonys. But at this late hour, there is no gentle way to save the patient. At the very least we owe it to all the students who might fall into this ruse if we don't shut it down.
So @realDonaldTrump has accomplished what Nixon, Ford, Reagan, 41 and 43 desired but could not deliver: placing an originalist majority on #SCOTUS.
Thank you @SenatorCollins — for not giving into the mob.
‘@SenatorCollins actually did her homework. Citing caselaw, not yearbooks.
@SenatorCollins gave an eloquent explanation regarding her decision to support Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
Simply put, @SenatorCollins has shown great courage under fire. She has rejected mob rule and embraced the Rule of Law.
Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual senator to decide what the Constitution's advice-and-consent duty means. Informed by Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the president has brought discretion to consider a nominee's philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee's qualifications as long as that nominee's philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought. I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I’ve never considered the president's identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan nominated by President Obama. And Justice Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Trump. So I began my evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles. 19 attorneys, including lawyers from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge's extensive record. I met with Judge Kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. I listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearings. I spoke with people who knew him personally, such as Condoleezza Rice and many others. And I talked with Judge Kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions. I also have met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents regarding Judge Kavanaugh.
One concern that I frequently heard was that the judge would be likely to eliminate the Affordable Care Act's vital protections for people with preexisting conditions. I disagree with this contention. In a dissent in 7 Sky v. Holder, Judge Kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the ACA on narrow procedural grounds, preserving the law in full. Many experts have said that his dissent informed Justice Roberts' opinion upholding the ACA at the Supreme Court. Furthermore, Judge Kavanaugh's approach toward the doctrine of severability is narrow when a part of a statute is challenged on constitutional ground, he has argued for severing the invalid clause as surgically as possible while allowing the overall law to remain in tact. This was his approach and his dissent in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In his dissent, Judge Kavanaugh argued for, quote, “severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact,” end quote. Given the current challenges to the ACA, proponents, including myself of protections for people with preexisting conditions should want a justice who would take just this kind of approach.
There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent. The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in Brown v. The Board of Education overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, correcting a grievously wrong decision, to use the judge's term, allowing racial inequality. But someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow long established precedent, except in those rare circumstances where a decision is grievously wrong or deeply inconsistent with the law. Those are Judge Kavanaugh's phrases. As the judge asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded or overlooked. Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight such that the precedent can't be trimmed or narrowed simply because a judge might want to on a whim. In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly. Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 35 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence.
Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold v. Connecticut, a case that struck down the law banning the use and sale of contraceptives. Griswold established the legal foundation that led to Roe eight years later. In describing Griswold as settled law, Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two cases from the 1920s, Myers and Pierce, that are not seriously challenged by anyone today. Finally, in his testimony he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, describing it as precedent on precedent. When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said no. Opponents frequently cite then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn Roe. The republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980. During this time Republican presidents have appointed Justices O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy to the Supreme Court. These are the very three justices, Republican president-appointed justices, who authored the Casey decision, which reaffirmed Roe. Furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously opposed each of these justices nominations. Incredibly they even circulated buttons with the slogan "Stop Souter or Women Will Die." Just two years later, Justice Souter co-authored the Casey opinion reaffirming a woman's right to choose. Suffice it to say prominent advocacy organizations have been wrong.
Lisa Blatt, who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman in history testified, quote, “By any objective measure, Judge Kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. His opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair.” Ms. Blatt, who clerked for him, is an ardent admirer of Justice Ginsburg, and who is an unapologetic defender of a woman's right to choose, says that Judge Kavanaugh fits within the main stream of legal thought. She also observed that Judge Kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession. That Judge Kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and Chief Judge Merrick Garland voted the same way in 93 percent of the cases that they heard together. Indeed Chief Judge Garland joined in more than 96 percent of the majority opinions authored by Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting only once.
But the fact remains, Mr. President, someone leaked this letter against Professor Ford's express wishes. I suspect, regrettably, that we will never know for certain who did it. To that leaker who I hope is listening now, let me say that what you did was unconscionable. You have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect but also trusted you to protect her and you have sacrificed her well being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting. My only hope is that your callous act has turned this process into such a dysfunctional circus that it will cause the Senate and indeed all Americans to reconsider how we evaluate Supreme Court nominees. If that happens, then the appalling lack of compassion you afforded Professor Ford will at least have some unintended positive consequences.
Mr. President, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this nomination has reached a fever pitch, even before these allegations were known, and it has been challenging even then to separate fact from fiction. We live in a time of such great disunity, as the bitter fight over this nomination both in the Senate and among the public clearly demonstrates. It is not merely a case of differing groups having different opinions. It is a case of people bearing extreme ill will toward those who disagree with them. In our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as Americans. When some of our best minds are seeking to develop even more sophisticated algorithms designed to link us to websites that only reinforce and cater to our views, we can only expect our differences to intensify. This would have alarmed the drafters of our Constitution, who were acutely aware that different values and interests could prevent Americans from becoming and remaining a single people. Indeed, of the six objectives they invoked in the preamble to the Constitution the one that they put first was the formation of a more perfect union. Their vision of a more perfect union does not exist today. And if anything, we appear to be moving farther away from it. It is particularly worrisome that the Supreme Court, the institution that most Americans see as the principle guardian of our shared Constitutional heritage is viewed as part of the problem through a political lens.
A recent report shows the best job markets are in Idaho, New Hampshire, North and South Dakota, and Wisconsin, while many of the worst are in California. How do you think that happened?
Can we take a moment today to say a prayer for this incredible man and his family?
So, in summary, Trump gets his 5-4 advantage on the Supreme Court AND Democrats dramatically increased Republican turnout.
commit to punishing not just @SenateDems at ballot box, but every Democrat in every race. Only if these tactics are repudiated in an undeniable, impossible-to-refute election declaration in November will they be driven off as was done w/ first wave of McCarthyism.
Pres says "Democrats have been trying to destroy" Judge Kavanaugh, since the very first second he was announced. Because he says they know Kavanaugh will protect, uphold and defend the Constitution as written.
I would like to sincerely thank the media, the pink hat resistance and the Congressional Dems. You have absolutely energized what was a lethargic GOP. You refused to accept results of 2016-we can’t afford to let you continue your contempt for Constitution and rule of law.
More and more #WalkAway from Democrats following #Kavanaugh attacks.
What would California do if businesses simply move their corporate headquarters to a less hostile state?
...The hearings were doomed from the very start, when 70 screaming demonstrators (including Women’s March holy warrior Linda Sarsour and actress Piper Perabo) systematically infiltrated the Hart Senate Office Building and disrupted the proceedings in Hour One of Day One. Day Two saw another 72 social-justice mobsters arrested, with more than 200 total taken into custody by Capitol Police by the end of Day Three.
A fish rots from the head down. And at the head of the Senate Democrats’ Resistance Wrecking Machine is power-mad Beltway barnacle Senator Dianne Feinstein. If the Senate Republicans can’t man up and take back control of the judicial-nominations process from the saboteurs seated next to them, they deserve to lose their majority.
Zero-emission California makes zero sense. Hurts middle class the most. "The high cost of a zero-emission California."
The ADP National Employment Report showed private payrolls jumped by 230,000 jobs in September, the largest gain since February. A report from the Institute for Supply Management showed services sector activity hit a 21-year high in September.
Christine Blasey Ford’s ex says she coached people on passing polygraphs. He issued his statement in a sworn statement.
New poll finds women voters less likely to vote for Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill because of her opposition to Kavanaugh.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.