![]() During Thursday’s hearing, Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, did not vote). Last year, Gorsuch was confirmed by a 54-45 vote (one member, Republican Sen. ![]() That scenario is within the realm of possibility, but it’s highly unlikely. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. And at least two Republicans would have to vote no as well. Every Senate Democrat would have to vote no, including Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana, the three red state Democrats who are up for reelection in 2018 and who voted for Neil Gorsuch last year. Yes, unless a small handful of centrist senators from both parties upend expectations and vote against the nominee. Here is a look back at the hearing, with a refresher on key issues and questions. The Senate Judiciary Committee vote and a full Senate vote are slated to take place later this month, giving Republicans the opportunity to score a major political win ahead of the November midterms. With the hearing over, attention now shifts to Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote. The Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Brett Kavanaugh came to a close Friday, after four straight days of legal debate, protests, and stories about the federal judge’s career and personal life. And based on Judge Kavanaugh’s thinking at the time, he would give a president plenty of time to destroy the evidence.Presidential power. He says he can attest to that "from personal experience."ĭean tells the committee he is happy to share what he thinks would have happened if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Nixon.ĭean also goes through Kavanaugh’s past statements and writings on whether a president can be indicted while in office, and finds, "under Judge Kavanaugh’s view, even if a president shot someone in cold-blood on 5th Avenue, that president could not be prosecuted while in office. Warning the Supreme Court will be a "weak check, at best, on presidential powers," Dean says, "There is much to fear from an unchecked president who is inclined to abuse his presidential powers." In prepared testimony, Dean says such a court is "deeply troubling" contemporaneous with a "Republican controlled Congress, which has shown no interest in oversight of a Republican president." Watergate era White House counsel John Dean warns that if Kavanaugh is confirmed, “we will have the most pro-presidential powers Supreme Court in the modern era.” ![]() In his dissent, he wrote that the Supreme Court had previously "held that handguns - the vast majority of which today are semiautomatic - are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens." What Kavanaugh has said: In 2011, Kavanaugh dissented from a majority opinion of the DC Circuit that upheld a ban that applied to semiautomatic rifles in the District of Columbia. Sources close to Kavanaugh pushed back saying the nominee had no idea who Guttenberg was and that security intervened to end the exchange.Įastmond also expressed concerns about Kavanaugh's opinions on assault weapons and said too many dangerous people have access to those guns and use them to terrorize Americans. Guttenberg accused Kavanaugh of ignoring him as he tried to shake his hand. ![]() "If Kavanaugh doesn’t even have the decency to shake hands with a father of a victim, he definitely won’t have the decency to make life changing decisions that affect real people," she added. And he needs to listen to us because our lives are just as important as any American’s freedom to own a gun." That gun ended lives all over the country and there’s mass shootings that happen almost every month, and I believe that that gun needs to be banned. And that gun ended seventeen lives on February 14th. The shooter at my school shot thirty-four kids in under six minutes. Blumenthal: "If I were Judge Kavanaugh, who as you know said that assault weapons should not be banned, cannot be banned, under the Second Amendment of the Constitution, what would you say to him?"Įastmond: "That my life along with all the other youth is more important than that gun."īlumenthal: "And if he said to you, you know there is this legal principle that says unless there was a ban, or one analogous to it, at the time of our constitution, or traditionally in our law, what would you say about the real impact of that kind of assault weapon on your life?"Įastmond: "Yeah, it’s unimaginable.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |