[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel Today I turned 50! San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport! Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next' Will it ever end? Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar? Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception. Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam Terrorists shut down Park Avenue. Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala. The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear? France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England. George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed. Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus. In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Senate panel formally postpones Kavanaugh vote Source: The Hill URL Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate ... mally-postpones-kavanaugh-vote Published: Sep 18, 2018 Author: Jordain Carney Post Date: 2018-09-18 21:19:28 by Hondo68 Keywords: JJ Swamp posponed indefinately, yet to say when Senate, panel will vote, no comment Views: 9944 Comments: 133 The Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday formally postponed a vote on Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination, canceling a meeting set for later this week where a vote was initially expected to happen Staffers for Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent out a notice that the Thursday business meeting had been canceled. The Senate is expected to leave town for the week on Tuesday. The delay for a vote to advance Kavanaugh's nomination was widely expected following allegations from Christine Blasey Ford, a professor who alleges that Kavanaugh held her down and tried to remove her clothes at a party in the early 1980s when both were in high school. Kavanaugh has denied the allegations. Grassley announced this week that Kavanaugh would testify before the Judiciary Committee for a second time next Monday, days after the initial committee vote was scheduled Grassley has yet to say when the Senate panel will now vote on Kavanaugh's nomination The chairman declined to comment when leaving a closed-door meeting of Judiciary Committee Republicans on Monday night. Grassley also dodged questions about it on Tuesday morning during an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt Kavanaugh's nomination first appeared on the Judiciary Committee's agenda roughly a week after the initial round of hearings took place. President Trump on Tuesday ramped up his defense of Kavanaugh amid the allegations, saying he "is not a man who deserves this." Poster Comment: Kavanaugh confirmation before midterms will result in GOP loss of the HOR, he's that bad. The GOP wing of the party will totally lose the HOR if they confirm *JJ Swamp before the midterm elections. *Jesuit Judge Swamp Now Kavi can go back to picking up Hillary's spent shell casings, and other cover up ops to protect her. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 63. #1. To: hondo68 (#0) Grassley announced this week that Kavanaugh would testify before the Judiciary Committee for a second time next Monday, days after the initial committee vote was scheduled. Now Christine Blasey Ford's by her attorneys want a full FBI investigation before appearing. The FBI has never investigated alleged crimes which cannot prosecuted. The FBI also lacks jurisdiction to investigate non-federal crimes. The blatant purpose of delay, delay, delay becomes ever more obvious with this farce. Ford is never going to appear. As the Judiciary Committee has recognized and done before, an FBI investigation of the incident should be the first step in addressing her allegations. A full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions. Ltr of Christine Blasey Ford attorneys to Sen Grassley (18 Sep 2018) re FBI investigation https://www.scribd.com/document/388942511/Ltr-of-Christine-Blasey-Ford-Attorneys-to-Sen-Grassley-18-Sep-2018-Re-FBI-Investigation nolu chan  posted on  2018-09-18   21:22:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: nolu chan (#1) (Edited) "Dr." Ford can shove her lies up her barack and fuck off; enough of this lying leftist. And no more bullshit about Strong Independent Leftist Womyn anymore either. Shove that up your baracks too, 'Rats. Call the vote, Grassley, and get it done. Then we move on to replacing the decrepit old bridge troll next year with Amy Coney Barrett. Hank Rearden  posted on  2018-09-18   21:31:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: Hank Rearden (#4) Call the vote, Grassley, and get it done. A committee vote to recommend or not recommend the nomination is not an actual necessity. The necessity is to report the nomination out to the Senate. It may be reported out with a recommendation to approve, to disapprove, or with no recommendation. Even where the committee majority is against the nomination, it is still reported out to the Senate for their consideration. It may be reported out with or without a printed report. The chair of the Judiciary Committee may file a one page document reporting a nomination to the Senate. Only two nominations have been reported out without recommendation; Wheeler H. Peckham in 1894 (rejected by the Senate) and Clarence Thomas in 1991 (approved by the Senate). Just get it done before going out of session. nolu chan  posted on  2018-09-18   22:49:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: nolu chan (#10) (Edited) A committee vote to recommend or not recommend the nomination is not an actual necessity. I think you're an attorney, right? Well, believe it or not, I actually knew all that but didn't want to complicate my answer. Plus, politics dictates the committee vote be taken to report a recommendation, and Grassley's not going to call the vote until he's sure he'll get a positive result - however much arm-twisting that takes. I'd forgotten about Clarence Thomas' outcome, though. Hank Rearden  posted on  2018-09-19   18:54:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: Hank Rearden (#61) politics dictates the committee vote be taken to report a recommendation, and Grassley's not going to call the vote until he's sure he'll get a positive result - however much arm-twisting that takes. https://www.scribd.com/document/388944844/CRS-Report-Supreme-Court-Appointment-Process-Roles-of-the-President-Judiciary-Committee-and-Senate-2010 Text at page 32-35, footnote 123 at page 32. Reporting the Nomination Usually within a week of the end of hearings, the Judiciary Committee meets in open session to determine what recommendation to “report” to the full Senate. The committee may report favorably, negatively, or make no recommendation at all. A report with a negative recommendation or no recommendation permits a nomination to go forward, while alerting the Senate that a substantial number of committee members have reservations about the nominee. If a majority of its members oppose confirmation, the committee technically may decide not to report a nomination, to prevent the full Senate from considering the nominee. However, since its creation in 1816, the Judiciary Committee’s almost invariable practice has been to report even those Supreme Court nominations that were opposed by a committee majority,123 thus allowing the full Senate to make the final decision on whether the nominee should be confirmed.124 This committee tradition was reaffirmed in June 2001 by the committee’s then-chair, Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), and its then-ranking member, Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), in a June 29, 2001, letter to Senate colleagues. The committee’s “traditional practice,” their letter stated, ... has been to report Supreme Court nominees to the Senate once the Committee has completed its considerations. This has been true even in cases where Supreme Court nominees were opposed by a majority of the Judiciary Committee. We both recognize and have every intention of following the practices and precedents of the committee and the Senate when considering Supreme Court nominees.125 In recent decades, reporting to the Senate frequently has included a printed committee report, although the three most recent Supreme Court nominations were reported without printed reports.126 Prepared behind closed doors, after the committee has voted on the nominee, the printed report presents in a single volume the views of committee members supporting a nominee’s confirmation as well as “all supplemental, minority, or additional views ... submitted by the time of the filing of the report....”127 No Senate committee, however, is normally obliged to transmit a printed report to the Senate. Instead, the chair of the Judiciary Committee may simply file a one-page document reporting a nomination to the Senate and recommending whether the nomination should be confirmed. A printed report, it can be argued, is valuable in providing for Senators not on the Judiciary Committee a review, in one volume, of all of the reasons that the committee’s members cite for voting in favor or against a nominee.128 A written report, however, might not always be considered a necessary reference for the Senate as a whole. For instance, in some cases, Senators not on the Judiciary Committee might believe they have received adequate information about a nominee from other sources, such as from news media reports or gavel-to-gavel video coverage of the nominee’s confirmation hearings.129 Further, preparation of a written report will mean additional days for a nomination to stay with the committee before it can be reported to the Senate.130 In some situations, this might be viewed as creating unnecessary delay in the confirmation process, particularly if there is a desire to fill a Court vacancy as quickly as possible.131 The Senate usually, but not always, has agreed with Judiciary Committee recommendations that a Supreme Court nominee be confirmed.132 Historically, negative committee reports, or reports without recommendation, have been precursors to nominations encountering substantial opposition in the full Senate, although a few of these nominations have eventually been confirmed by narrow margins.133 - - - - - - - - - - 123 Since its creation in 1816, the Judiciary Committee has reported to the Senate 106 Supreme Court nominations. Of the 106, seven were reported unfavorably—those of John Crittenden (1829), Ebenezer R. Hoard (1869), Stanley Matthews (1881), Lucius Q.C. Lamar (1888), William B. Hornblower (1894), John J. Parker (1930), and Robert H. Bork (1987). Two were reported without recommendation—those of Wheeler H. Peckham (1894) and Clarence Thomas (1991). See CRS Report RL33225, Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 - 2009: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President (under heading “Nominations Reported Out of Committee to Full Senate”). - - - - - - - - - - nolu chan  posted on  2018-09-19   19:55:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 63.         There are no replies to Comment # 63. End Trace Mode for Comment # 63. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com