Kavanaugh and Perjury

[_Gunnar]

Given the compelling evidence that Brett Kavanaugh has committed perjury on multiple occasions, which is an impeachable offense for a judge, why do we even need the allegations of Christine Ford to reject his nomination to the Supreme Court? The GOP seems determined to push through his nomination despite the demonstrated instances of his perjury in both the past and during his current hearings. Does anyone seriously believe they would be similarly willing to overlook demonstrated instances of perjury if the nominee were a Democrat nominated by a Democrat President?

Suppose, despite the current allegations of sexual assault, Kavanaugh gets confirmed anyway by the current Senate. If the November midterm elections result in a majority in both House and Senate, he could still be theoretially impeached and removed from the Supreme Court, based on that compelling evidence of perjury, couldn't he? In that case, confirmation of someone as potentially impeachable as he, at this point, might actually be more advantageous to the Democrats than the confirmation of another equally or even more conservative, but unimpeachable nominee.

Despite compelling evidence of multiple counts of perjury, the Republicans on the Senator Judiciary Committee have shown no concern thus far over these facts, nor of his advice during the Bush administration that a president should not be subject to any criminal proceedings while in office.

President Donald Trump could have chosen any of a number of staunchly conservative judges who haven’t voiced an opinion that presidents should be beyond the reach of criminal justice while in office, and who haven’t committed perjury multiple times in testimony before the Senate.

In the past, far lesser revelations have resulted in the withdrawal of a nominee, or rejection by the Senate. But the current Senate leadership seems more concerned with pushing forward partisan political views than with assuring that a nominee appointed to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court has respect for the justice system and has not himself violated federal laws. Nor has the President shown any concerns about his nominee's serious legal and ethical lapses.

[_Xenophon]

So I think there are a couple of issues here, Gunnar. Although you are right there is probable reason to consider perjury I'm skeptical that we would actually see a Supreme Court judge impeached (it isn't exactly a common historical practice). Generally I think if you're going to stop a Supreme Court pick, the time to do so is prior to confirmation.

I also think that there are matters of public opinion to consider in this, like it or not, and convincing the public that perjury is a good enough reason to impeach someone can be difficult. Compare that with how quickly support for Kavanaugh dropped after the accusations came out and we see why the current method is maybe a bit more effective (again, ignoring questions on validity). I also think your strategy above is heavily dependent on gaining control of both House and Senate which is going to be a difficult win, to say the least. And I suspect it would be difficult to go back and remove him later down the line when you maybe finally take the Senate back.

[_Gunnar]

Thanks for that explanation, Xenophon. I found it both plausible and instructive. You're right, of course, that preventing the confirmation of a nominee to Supreme Court in the first place would be much easier than impeaching a sitting Supreme Court Justice, But I would like to believe it would be possible to successfully impeach a particularly dishonest, incompetent or dishonorable one.

Samuel Chase is the only Supreme Court Justice who was ever impeached, and he was acquitted. He was impeached on grounds of letting his partisan leanings affect his court decisions. Can you imagine anyone today using or admitting that as the sole or primary grounds for impeaching a Supreme Court Justice today? Sure, Justices are not supposed to let partisan bias affect their court decisions, but I doubt it is true that partisan bias never really plays any part--at least subconsciously.

Perjury, on the other hand, is or ought to be valid grounds for impeachment, especially egregious if committed by someone charged with the responsibility of impartially administering justice under the rule of law. I would hate to think that a Supreme Court Justice in particular could regularly commit that act with impunity, or even without ever being called on it by their fellow Justices.

[_Xenophon]

No disagreement from me that perjury should be grounds for removal from any position of public service, my comments were just more aimed at the political viability of the tactic.

[_cinepro]

Given the compelling evidence that Brett Kavanaugh has committed perjury on multiple occasions,

Perjury charges aside, that is a terribly written article that apparently wasn't even proofread before being posted.

As for the charges themselves, I'm not sure any of them would stick. Just based on what the article says, the first charge is based on the assumption that "George Bush's wireless wiretapping system" is what is being referred to when Kavanaugh mentions the "random/constant surveillance of phone and email surveillance of noncitizens in the U.S." It could be different programs.

The second charge is based on the assumption that Kavanaugh's response "call me" is indicating that he was involved in the vetting process. We don't know why Kavanaugh wanted a call or what was discussed in the call (if there was one), so it's an assumption that he was involved.

The issue with the stolen Democrat talking points seems stickier, as discussed in this article. It's hard to deny Kavanaugh received stolen documents and knew it was confidential information.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... rings.html

[_EAllusion]

Removing Kavanaugh from office would require 66 Senate votes. Democrats are not going to get to 66 Senate votes and no more than a handful Republicans will vote out a conservative justice no matter what they did. The idea that it is realistic to impeach and remove him no matter what you think you got on him seems extremely naïve to the political reality.

Either you dilute his power by packing the Supreme Court or you just accept that Republicans took your lunch money and contend with an activist conservative Court. There's no other real option.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

why do we even need the allegations of Christine Ford to reject his nomination to the Supreme Court?

You mean allegations coupled with the following facts:

1) She doesn't know what party. You can't just say, "Yeah I was at a party and Kavanaugh piledrived my cervix into the ground because he had one too many red cups with his frat buddies."

2) She isn't sure about the time period. You can't just say, "Yeah it was probably a Christmas, or Halloween, or Cinco de Mayo party for sure."

3) If she's not sure when, where, and who was there, then it makes it really difficult to determine the veracity of these allegations.

4) She doesn't know who was at the party other than herself, Kavanaugh, and his buddy.

There's no way this crap show stops Kavanaugh from making it to the Supreme Court, and this cynical #metoo BS moment is just going to cost real victims support in the future.

eta: This retarded #metoo nonsense has little to do with the truth and everything to do with the Democrats' end game to keep this Supreme Court seat open through the midterm election.

- Doc

[_aussieguy55]

Drudge in his yearbook "Bart have you boofed yet? (means had sex)

Asks about Devils Triangle" = Two men having sex with girl the same time.

[_EAllusion]

Notice how Doc goes from arguing there isn't enough evidence to implying that lack of sufficient evidence is enough to conclude she isn't a "real victim." Of course, sexual assault, or the attempt of it in the case of this allegation, rarely produces evidence beyond witness testimony because of the nature of the crime. That tells you something about whom he'd be willing to describe as "not a real victim" if he was consistent in his thinking. Would it be any wonder when women don't come forward?

[_DoubtingThomas]

eta: This r____ #metoo nonsense has little to do with the truth and everything to do with the Democrats' end game to keep this Supreme Court seat open through the midterm election.

Democrats have a better chance of getting 51 seats if Kavanaugh is confirmed. It will help them politically.

[
There's no way this ____ show stops Kavanaugh from making it to the Supreme Court, and this cynical #metoo ____ moment is just going to cost real victims support in the future.

Why are you making a judgement? Isn't it best to be impartial?

3) If she's not sure when, where, and who was there, then it makes it really difficult to determine the veracity of these allegations.

Not necessarily. You simply interview all Kavanaugh's high school friends and classmates.

1) She doesn't know what party. You can't just say, "Yeah I was at a party and Kavanaugh piledrived my cervix into the ground because he had one too many red cups with his frat buddies."

"Welcome to PragerU -- the "university" that gets its science wrong"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIwKhX-1gZQ