Supreme Court

Elizabeth Warren slammed over editing of Kavanaugh video

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, drew criticism Tuesday after sharing a clip of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh discussing his days at Georgetown Preparatory School. The editing of the clip seemed designed to fuel the fire over the sexual misconduct allegations against the judge. In the short video posted on Warren’s Twitter page, Kavanaugh is heard speaking at Columbus Law School at the Catholic University of America in 2015 about his school years. “But fortunately we had a good saying that we’ve held firm to, to this day,” Kavanaugh says in the video. “As the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is ‘What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep.’ That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.” Warren quickly jumped to denounce Kavanaugh’s comments, which were revealed in the wake of the allegations of sexual misconduct raised by Christine Blasey Ford, who claims the high court nominee drunkenly forced himself on her during a house party nearly four decades ago. “I can’t imagine any parent accepting this view,” Warren tweeted. “Is this really what America wants in its next Supreme Court Justice?” But the clip shared by Warren, though first unearthed by MSNBC, cuts out Kavanaugh’s previous remarks indicating he’s talking about his three friends. “I, by coincidence, three classmates of mine at Georgetown Prep were graduates of this law school in 1990 and are really really good friends of mine,” Kavanaugh said in a recording of the full speech, naming his friends. “And they were good friends of mine then, and they are still good friends of mine as recently as this weekend when we were all on email together,” he added. He then made the “what happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep” joke. Mark Hemingway, a writer for the conservative Weekly Standard, slammed Warren for trying to suggest Kavanaugh was admitting improper behavior in the video rather than making a joke. “This has zero bearing on whether Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford, and the party of underage abortion and birth control on demand suddenly becoming neopuritans is a tad pathetic,” he tweeted. “Like MSNBC, Sen. Warren is passing around a truncated version of the Kavanaugh video, in which he makes a joke about three ‘really, really good friends of mine,’ in order to smear him,” Oklahoma attorney Gabriel Malor tweeted. “As we know, Warren is very comfortable misleading people. Her constituents deserve better,” he added, comparing Warren’s clip to a video posted by U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., which recently came under fire for depicting Kavanaugh as anti-women. Harris, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee — which will decide if Kavanaugh gets a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court — tweeted out the clip earlier this month, which shows Kavanaugh mentioning the term “abortion-inducing drugs,” a term that Harris slammed as “a dog whistle for going after birth control.” But the fact-checkers didn’t find Harris’ commentary or the edited video even remotely accurate. The Washington Post gave the senator four Pinocchios, its most egregious rating, saying the post omitted crucial facts such as that Kavanaugh was actually quoting the terminology used by the plaintiff in a 2013 court case rather than stating his personal views. Even more partisan fact-checkers such like PolitiFact also found Harris’ attack wasn’t based on truth. “In Harris’ tweet, Kavanaugh appears to define contraception as abortion-inducing. But the video failed to include a crucial qualifier: ‘They said.’ In fact, he was citing the definition of the religious group Priests for Life. He has not expressed his personal view,” PolitiFact’s check said.

Both Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) are nauseating, agenda-driven, self-righteous, extreme-liberal liars.  Shame on both of them for such brazen deception!  Even the extreme liberal Washington Post gave Kamala “four Pinocchios” for her deceit!  Unfortunately this is par for the course with these two..  Judge Kavanaugh has an impeccable record, and fake story being promoted to derail his nomination is an insult to him, and frankly to the Senate.  He should be confirmed, and hopefully will be in the next week or two, and we can put an end to this ridiculous circus that is a national embarrassment.

Brett Kavanaugh responds to 1,287 written questions from senators, nearly all from Dems

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday released Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s responses to over 1,200 questions submitted by mostly Senate Democrats following his four-day hearings earlier this month. Kavanaugh’s responses, which amounted to more than 260 pages, answered the senators’ questions on topics that ranged from abortion, executive power and his personal finances. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., took to questioning Kavanaugh’s stance on abortion after he reportedly said in a 2003 email that he considered Roe v. Wade to be “settled law,” an answer she considered to be too vague. “If confirmed, I would respect the law of precedent given its centrality to stability, predictability, impartiality, and public confidence in the rule of law,” he said in his response. He also addressed a similar question to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, saying that the email “commented on the views of legal scholars. It did not describe my own views.” Kavanaugh was also asked about an incident during the hearing when he turned away from the father of shooting victim that approached him during a recess. Kavanaugh said that after a day packed with demonstrators, and not realizing who the man was, “I assumed he was a protestor.” “I unfortunately did not realize that the man was the father of a shooting victim from Parkland, Florida. Mr. Guttenberg has suffered an incalculable loss. If I had known who he was, I would have shaken his hand, talked to him, and expressed my sympathy.” Kavanaugh was also asked about the tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt he amassed after regularly buying Washington National tickets for years. He said he split the tickets with a “group of old friends.” “We would usually divide the tickets in a ‘ticket draft’ at my house. Everyone in the group paid me for their tickets based on the cost of the tickets, to the dollar. No one overpaid or underpaid me for tickets. No loans were given in either direction,” he said. Kavanaugh described himself as a “huge sports fan” who has attended “a couple of hundred regular season games.” Kavanaugh’s responses come ahead of the Judiciary Committee’s scheduled Thursday meeting to consider his confirmation. A vote is expected later this month.

Baseball tickets?  That’s what these obnoxious, self-righteous Dems in the Senate are asking this man about?!  Seriously?!?  What a bunch of tools..  Brett Kavanaugh is an OUTSTANDING, and eminently qualified candidate to serve on our Supreme Court.  Once he’s confirmed, President Trump can say to America, “you’re welcome.”

Brett Kavanaugh backed by Bob Bennett, Bill Clinton’s Paula Jones-era lawyer

Bob Bennett, the lawyer who represented former President Bill Clinton during the Paula Jones sexual misconduct case, declared his support on Tuesday for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, referring to the nominee as “the most qualified person any Republican President could possibly have nominated.” In a letter exclusively obtained by Fox News, written to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Bennett detailed his relationship with Kavanaugh, with whom he spent time during Ken Starr’s investigation into Clinton. Kavanaugh, 53, assisted Starr in writing his report in the 1990s, which laid out the legal framework for supporting Clinton’s impeachment on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, linked to his affair with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Bennett noted that while he and Kavanaugh worked for different teams during the investigation, the two were able to avoid “falling prey to that trap” of treating the opponent as a “villain.” The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judge, Bennett wrote, “has had an innate sense of fairness and civility that has governed his relationships with allies and adversaries equally.” Bennett also said lawyers “love” to argue their cases to Kavanaugh, who will then treat each one fairly. “To him, it does not matter whether you are bringing a ‘conservative’ case or a ‘liberal’ case,” Bennett said. “What matters is whether you can support your case with solid arguments grounded in the law.” Bennett added that attorneys think “Brett is a ‘judge’s judge'” and that when Kavanaugh “rules against parties, they know he gave them a fair hearing and thoughtful explanation for his position.” Bennett said that if the Senate does not confirm Kavanaugh to the recently vacated Supreme Court seat held by Justice Anthony Kennedy, “it would undermine civility in politics twice over.” “First in playing politics with such an obviously qualified nominee, and then again in losing the opportunity to put such a strong advocate for decency and civility on our Nation’s highest court,” Bennett wrote. Confirmation hearings for Kavanaugh are expected to begin Sept. 4.

Name a Supreme Court justice? More than half of Americans can’t, survey says

If Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court wins approval from the U.S. Senate, he’ll join a very exclusive club — so exclusive, in fact, that he may feel almost anonymous. That’s because more than half of Americans cannot name a single member of the nation’s highest court, according to a recent survey. The C-SPAN/PBS survey, which questioned 1,000 likely voters between Aug. 13-15, found that 52 percent of Americans were unfamiliar with the current eight members of the court. (Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas.) Yet despite the shocking results, the survey marked an improvement over last year, when 57 percent of Americans couldn’t name a single Supreme Court justice. The most identifiable justice, according to this year’s poll, is Ginsburg, known to 25 percent of survey respondents. Interestingly, more men than women — 26 percent to 24 percent — could name the notorius RBG. Generally, self-identified Democrats were better than Republicans at naming members of the court, with 48 percent of Dems able to name at least one justice versus 45 percent for GOPers. Older people were also more likely to name a justice. The majority of adults age 50-64 and those age 65 and older were able to name a single court justice. Gorsuch, who joined the court just last year, was recalled by a mere 6 percent of respondents, despite extensive media coverage of his nomination and confirmation. As for Kavanaugh, President Trump’s pick to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy was known to 35 percent of respondents, but unknown to 60 percent.

More evidence that American Civics is not taught in our schools.

French: Colorado Defies the Supreme Court, Renews Persecution of a Christian Baker

Even after a 7–2 Supreme Court decision protecting Colorado custom baker Jack Phillips from overt religious discrimination, the state is doubling down. It’s participating in and empowering a grotesque campaign of discrimination and harassment that should shock the conscience of sensible Americans. Phillips, you’ll recall, is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the bakery at the epicenter of one of the most contentious cases of the Supreme Court’s last term. Phillips had refused to design a custom cake to celebrate a gay wedding, and a clear majority of SCOTUS ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated his right to free exercise of religion by demonstrating overt religious animus against him. Commissioners not only denigrated the sincerity of his religious-liberty argument, they applied overt double standards (by allowing bakers to refuse to create anti-gay messages) that were clearly discriminatory. So Jack won. Colorado lost. But Jack’s ordeal, it turns out, was far from over. By standing up for his First Amendment freedoms, Phillips put a target on his back, and bad-faith, malicious actors aimed and fired. Here’s what happened. According to a verified complaint filed today by my old colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom, on June 26, 2017 — the very day the Supreme Court granted Jack’s request to review his wedding-cake case — a lawyer named Autumn Scardina called Masterpiece Cakeshop and “asked Masterpiece Cakeshop to create a custom cake with ‘a blue exterior and a pink interior’ — a cake ‘design’ that, according to the lawyer,” reflected “the fact that [the lawyer] transitioned from male-to-female and that [the lawyer] had come out as transgender.” Lest anyone wonder whether this request was made in good faith, consider that this same person apparently made a number of requests to Masterpiece Cakeshop. In September 2017, a caller asked Phillips to design a birthday cake for Satan that would feature an image of Satan smoking marijuana. The name “Scardina” appeared on the caller identification. A few days earlier, a person had emailed Jack asking for a cake with a similar theme — except featuring “an upside-down cross, under the head of Lucifer.” This same emailer reminded Phillips that “religion is a protected class.” On the very day that Phillips won his case at the Supreme Court, a person emailed with yet another deliberately offensive design request.

To actually read this offensive request, and the rest of the article by attorney Army Reserve officer David French, click on the text above.  David was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq.  Clearly the State of Colorado has it out for Mr. Phillips, and is brazenly assaulting his religious freedoms in defiance of the Supreme Court.  Unreal..

In wake of Supreme Court’s anti-union ruling, nonmembers seek repayment of dues

The labor movement unions suffered a major hit to the pocketbook after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public sector unions could not force nonmembers to pay dues — and now some of those who had paid for years say they want their money back. Mark Janus, the Illinois state employee who won the Supreme Court case in June, became the latest to demand repayment from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, for what he estimates is roughly $2,000 in dues he is owed. All told, billions of dollars could be at stake for hundreds of thousands of government workers. But first they will have to prove they’re entitled to collect on the old payments. “It’s quite clear workers can go and get refunds for whatever the statute of limitations is in their state,” said Patrick Semmens, vice president of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, who represented Mr. Janus. Others aren’t so sure, saying the justices didn’t say anything about repayments. “In my view, it’s very unlikely that there will be any retroactivity with respect to this decision, and the reason for that is the Janus decision overruled 41-year-old precedent,” said Mitchell Rubinstein, a New York based lawyer. “It changed existing law.” The high court overturned a 1977 case when it ruled 5-4 in Mr. Janus’ favor. The justices said Mr. Janus was right to complain about being forced to pay dues to a labor union that then used his money to advocate for public policies on education or health care that he disagreed with. The court said the dues were an infringement on Mr. Janus’ free speech rights. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said losing access to non-members’ money could be “unpleasant” for the unions but Americans’ First Amendment rights needed to be maintained. “It is hard to estimate how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment. Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely,” Justice Alito wrote. Even before the ruling, Mr. Semmens‘ organization was battling on behalf of Debora Nearman, an Oregon state employee who objected to her union’s dues. She recently settled with Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 503 for roughly $3,000, the amount permitted under the statute of limitations in Oregon for claims brought when civil rights are violated. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation also is representing a class-action lawsuit of more than 30,000 employees in California who are suing the SEIU over its policies, and seeking reimbursement in light of the Supreme Court’s latest ruling. “We actually estimated for them that the over 30,000 workers could be entitled to over a $100 million in refunds,” Mr. Semmens said.

Coulter: Kavanaugh Threatens The Left’s Right to Cheat

The fact that the media responded to the nomination of a Supreme Court justice by obsessively covering Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Russia and NATO proves that Trump has checkmated them with Brett Kavanaugh. Liberals know they can’t stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation, so they’d just as soon not hear any news about it at all. Please cheer us up with stories about Paul Manafort’s solitary confinement! But there was one very peculiar reaction to the nomination. The nut wing of the Democratic Party instantly denounced Kavanaugh by claiming that his elevation to the high court would threaten all sorts of “rights.” Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted: “Our next justice should be a champion for protecting & advancing rights, not rolling them back — but Kavanaugh has a long history of demonstrating hostility toward defending the rights of everyday Americans.” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tweeted: “If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court it will have a profoundly negative effect on workers’ rights, women’s rights and voting rights for decades to come. We must do everything we can to stop this nomination.” If only these guys could get themselves elected to some sort of legislative body, they could pass laws protecting these rights! Wait, I’m sorry. These are elected United States senators. Of all people, why are they carrying on about “rights”? If senators can’t protect these alleged “rights,” it can only be because most Americans do not agree that they should be “rights.” That’s exactly why the left is so hysterical about the Supreme Court. They run to the courts to win their most unpopular policy ideas, gift-wrapped and handed to them as “constitutional rights.” What liberals call “rights” are legislative proposals that they can’t pass through normal democratic processes — at least outside of the states they’ve already flipped with immigration, like California. Realizing how widely reviled their ideas are, several decades ago the left figured out a procedural scam to give them whatever they wanted without ever having to pass a law. Hey! You can’t review a Supreme Court decision! Instead of persuading a majority of their fellow citizens, they’d need to persuade only five justices to invent any rights they pleased. They didn’t have to ask twice. Apparently, justices find it much funner to be all-powerful despots than boring technocrats interpreting written law. Soon the court was creating “rights” promoting all the left’s favorite causes — abortion, criminals, busing, pornography, stamping out religion, forcing military academies to admit girls and so on. There was nothing America could do about it. OK, liberals, you cheated and got all your demented policy ideas declared “constitutional rights.” But it’s very strange having elected legislators act as if they are helpless serfs, with no capacity to protect “rights.” It’s stranger still for politicians to pretend that these putative “rights” are supported by a majority of Americans. By definition, the majority does not support them. Otherwise, they’d already be protected by law and not by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s latest newsletter. On MSNBC, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said people storming into the streets and making their voices heard about Kavanaugh is “the remarkable part about a democracy.” Actually, that isn’t democracy at all. Liberals don’t do well at democracy. Why don’t politicians run for office promising to ban the death penalty, spring criminals from prison or enshrine late-term abortion? Hmmm … I wonder why those “I (heart) partial-birth abortion!” T-shirts aren’t selling? Unless the Constitution forbids it — and there are very few things proscribed by the Constitution — democracy entails persuading a majority of your fellow Americans or state citizens to support something, and then either putting it on the ballot or electing representatives who will write it into law — perhaps even a constitutional amendment. Otherwise, these “rights” whereof you speak are no more real than the Beastie Boys’ assertion of THE RIGHT TO PARTEEEEEEEE! Gay marriage, for example, was foisted on the country not through ballot initiatives, persuasion, public acceptance, lobbying or politicians winning elections by promising to legalize it. No, what happened was, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court suddenly discovered a right to gay marriage lurking in the state’s 223-year-old Constitution — written by the very religious John Adams. (Surprise!) After that, the people rose up and banned gay marriage in state after state, even in liberal bastions like Oregon and California. The year after the Massachusetts court’s remarkable discovery, gay marriage lost in all 11 states where it was on the ballot. Everywhere gay marriage was submitted to a popular vote, it lost. (Only one state’s voters briefly seemed to approve of gay marriage — Arizona, in 2006 — but that was evidently a problem with the wording of the initiative, because two years later, the voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.) Inasmuch as allowing people to vote resulted in a resounding “NO!” on gay marriage, liberals ran back to the courts. Still, the public rebelled. The year after the Iowa Supreme Court concocted a right to gay marriage, voters recalled three of the court’s seven justices. A handful of blue state legislatures passed gay marriage laws, but even in the Soviet Republic of New York, a gay marriage bill failed in 2009. And then the U.S. Supreme Court decided that was quite enough democracy on the question of gay marriage! It turned out that — just like the Massachusetts Constitution — a gay marriage clause had been hiding in our Constitution all along! Conservatives could never dream of victories like this from the judiciary. Even nine Antonin Scalias on the Supreme Court are never going to discover a “constitutional right” to a border wall, mass deportations, a flat tax, publicly funded churches and gun ranges, the “right” to smoke or to consume 24-ounce sugary sodas. These are “constitutional rights” every bit as much as the alleged “constitutional rights” to abortion, pornography, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, the exclusionary rule and on and on and on. The only rights conservatives ever seek under the Constitution are the ones that are written in black and white, such as the freedom of speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Mostly, we sit trembling, waiting to see what new nonexistent rights the court will impose on us, contravening everything we believe. So when you hear liberals carrying on about all the “rights” threatened by Kavanaugh, remember that by “rights,” they mean “policy ideas so unpopular that we can’t pass a law creating such rights.”

Exactly!!  And well said, Ann.  Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter is responsible for that spot-on op/ed.  Please consider this your Read of the Day.  If you read just one article here at The Daily Buzz (and who would do such a silly thing?!), then READ THIS!!!  Then, please forward on to all of your friends and family members, especially those who are liberals or Dems…and watch their heads explode.    🙂