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

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start? "Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work" test "Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working" "Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly" "Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home" "The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity" "How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy" Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes "Greg Gutfeld Cooks Jessica Tarlov and Liberal Media in Brilliant Take on Trump's First Day" 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: 12678 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