# Senate Judiciary Committee wil vote on Kavanaugh



## task0778 (Sep 25, 2018)

on Friday at 9:30 am, per CNN.

According to Taylor Foy, a spokeman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), committee rules state that a planned voted must be posted three days in advance.   The Dems tried to delay the Thursday hearing, but Grassley said no.   Whether Ford shows up is up to her, but it appears the vote will happen either way and that is a good thing.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 25, 2018)

task0778 said:


> on Friday at 9:30 am, per CNN.
> 
> According to Taylor Foy, a spokeman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), committee rules state that a planned voted must be posted three days in advance.



Grassley's letter to Feinstein was nuclear to let her know he's not postponing jack shit. GggggggggggO Grassley!

I love this old dude.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 25, 2018)

Grassley grew a set....  Who Knew....


----------



## miketx (Sep 25, 2018)




----------



## tinydancer (Sep 25, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Grassley grew a set....  Who Knew....



Actually I became a big fan when he started driving the inquiry to Fusion GPS which led to the discovery of the collusion between the DOJ and Fusion with Nellie Ohr as the link. He really did kick start this drive down the pathway to discovering all the plots against the President.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2018)

Expel Feinstein right after confirming Kavanaugh.  This shit needs to end


----------



## Oddball (Sep 25, 2018)

Looks like Grassley used his high spot in the waiver order so that he could use the spine today.


----------



## JBvM (Sep 26, 2018)

task0778 said:


> on Friday at 9:30 am, per CNN.
> 
> According to Taylor Foy, a spokeman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), committee rules state that a planned voted must be posted three days in advance.   The Dems tried to delay the Thursday hearing, but Grassley said no.   Whether Ford shows up is up to her, but it appears the vote will happen either way and that is a good thing.


It's a good thing for Clarence Thomas. Now he will get a soul mate on the Court he can exchange Trump-style stories with ala the Hollywood Access tapes


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Sep 27, 2018)

WSJ just stated to confirm him.


----------



## task0778 (Sep 27, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Expel Feinstein right after confirming Kavanaugh.  This shit needs to end



I think the Senate is going to have to change their ways, at least in this process.   I don't think they should have hearings open to the public in the 1st place, there's no need to allow the screamers and shouters in there to disrupt the proceedings.   They can televise it so we can watch if we want to, or tape it or whatever.   It can all be done behind closed doors, with reporters to tell us what happened later.

I think if somebody submits an accusation to the Committee before the hearings start then it should be checked out.   NOT by the FBI, but by a bipartisan group of Senate investigators;  the Senate has money allocated for this purpose, that's what they're for.   If the accuser wants to remain confidential, fine.   Leave his or her name out of it but still check out the allegation.   BUT - frankly, once the hearings start, any new allegations should not be heard in the Committee or influence them.   No delays, it isn't fair to the nominee to drag this process out.  New allegations can still be validated by Senate investigators and reported to the full Senate and the President instead.   Maybe the President will decide to pull the nomination;  if not and the Committee wants to revote, fine they can do so.  Then the full Senate can do their thing.


----------



## Geaux4it (Sep 27, 2018)

Welcome to the Supreme Court Mr Kavanaugh

-Geaux


----------



## GoDemocratic (Oct 1, 2018)

Look, even the President said she was very credible. The only evidence we have is her lie detector test. Let the FBI look into it 
so we can have a professional opinion instead of a bunch of senators that want to ramrod it through without due diligence. It 
seems like the objection is the delay instead of important thing, is he lying?.


----------



## chops_ (Oct 1, 2018)

I don't know if there is anytime left. But maybe Trump could appoint Amy Coney Barrett? What do we know about her? (Other than what we read online). 

I ask this because, even if Kavanaugh is nominated...the whole SCOTUS will be tainted. Thanks to the left and those who derailed him. We need a fresh start. 
Yes, I know the midterms are coming in November. Any chance maybe after the midterms if the Republicans can take the House and Senate?


----------



## joaquinmiller (Oct 1, 2018)

ςђσps said:


> I don't know if there is anytime left. But maybe Trump could appoint Amy Coney Barrett? What do we know about her? (Other than what we read online).
> 
> I ask this because, even if Kavanaugh is nominated...the whole SCOTUS will be tainted. Thanks to the left and those who derailed him. We need a fresh start.
> Yes, I know the midterms are coming in November. Any chance maybe after the midterms if the Republicans can take the House and Senate?



If the Repubz lose the Senate - which is unlikely - they can still ram a nominee onto the USSC between Election Day and January 3, 2019.  And they probably would.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 1, 2018)

LOL!

The FBI's investigation into Kavanaugh is far more Constrained than previously known,
and experts say 'it would be Comical if it wasn't so important'

https://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-gop-limits-kavanaugh-fbi-probe-experts-react-2018-9

"...*The White House counsel Don McGahn, who is in charge of Guiding Kavanaugh's confirmation process, is ALSO Directing the FBI on the scope of its background check. *

"That seems like a clear conflict of interest,"...​`


----------

