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

"Democratic Overreach on Immigration Beckons" How to negotiate to buy a car Trump warns of a 'massive Armada' headed towards Iran End Times Prophecy: Trump Says Board of Peace Will Override Every Government & Law – 10 Kings Rising Maine's legendary 'Lobster Lady' dies after working until she was 103 and waking up at 3am every day Hannity Says Immigration Raids at Home Depot Are Not ‘A Good Idea’ TREASON: Their PRIVATE CHAT just got LEAKED. "Homan Plans to Defy Spanberger After ‘Bond Villain’ Blocks ICE Cooperation in VA: ‘Not Going to Stop’" "DemocRATZ Radical Left-Wing Vision for Virginia" "Tim Walz Wants the Worst" Border Patrol Agents SMASH Window and Drag Man from Car in Minnesota Chaos "Dear White Liberals: Blacks and Hispanics Want No Part of Your Anti-ICE Protests" "The Silliest Venezuela Take You Will Read Today" Michael Reagan, Son of Ronald Reagan, Dies at 80 Patel: "Minnesota Fraud Probes 'Buried' Under Biden" "There’s a Word for the West’s Appeasement of Militant Islam" "The Bondi Beach Jihad: Sharia Supremacism and Jew Hatred, Again" "This Is How We Win a New Cold War With China" "How Europe Fell Behind" "The Epstein Conspiracy in Plain Sight" Saint Nicholas The Real St. Nick Will Atheists in China Starve Due to No Fish to Eat? A Thirteen State Solution for the Holy Land? US Sends new Missle to a Pacific ally, angering China and Russia Moscow and Peoking DeaTh noTice ... Freerepublic --- lasT Monday JR died "‘We Are Not the Crazy Ones’: AOC Protests Too Much" "Rep. Comer to Newsmax: No Evidence Biden Approved Autopen Use" "Donald Trump Has Broken the Progressive Ratchet" "America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!" "Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded" Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR! British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames "Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe. "The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent" CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino) Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting! POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25 2026 in Bible Prophecy 2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat 🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025 Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong England is on the Brink of Civil War! Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible 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: 17442 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 # 61. #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   Replies to Comment # 61. #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   End Trace Mode for Comment # 61. 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