1. The key issue here is CONTEXT. The quotations by Kavanaugh that people are fixating on must be read in light of the entire 2004 hearing transcript, which is available here: http://bit.ly/2M3VIUv - #SCOTUS #KavanaughHearings
-
-
Show this thread
-
2. A crucial background fact: at the
@WhiteHouse, different lawyers in the Counsel's Office get different circuit courts as their portfolios when it comes to nominations. See, e.g., here (noting Cheryl Stanton handling the 5th Cir.):http://bit.ly/2NTfm7kShow this thread -
3. At Kavanaugh's 2004 hearing (Elie erroneously says it was 2006), in response to Senator Ted Kennedy, Kavanaugh explained that Bill Pryor's 11th Cir. nomination wasn't in Kavanaugh's portfolio: "not... assigned to me,""not one... I worked on personally."pic.twitter.com/slYE251Rsn
Show this thread -
4. Later in the same colloquy, Kavanaugh restated the point in slightly different words: "the way the work is divvied up, that wasn't one of the ones I" (and then he was cut off, but presumably he would have said something like "assigned" or "given").
#SCOTUSpic.twitter.com/dg6Et7rKOT
Show this thread -
5. Sandwiched in between these two perfectly clear explanations is the language that
@ElieNYC,@nycsouthpaw and others fixate on: "I was not involved in handling [Pryor's] nomination."pic.twitter.com/mIUiYEb2ai
Show this thread -
6. Yes, Kavanaugh could have been more precise. But read in context, in light of statements he made immediately before & after, it's clear that all he was saying was that the Pryor nom/11th Cir. wasn't under his official
@WhiteHouse purview.Show this thread -
7. The "not involved" statement that Kavanaugh's critics rip out of context CANNOT be fairly read as a blanket denial of any and all involvement, especially based on other testimony given by Kavanaugh in the very same colloquy.
Show this thread -
8. Kavanaugh explicitly ADMITTED, for example, that he might have attended a moot session for Pryor, and/or read & discussed news articles about the Pryor nom (but understandably didn't want to go into detail about
@WhiteHouse internal deliberations).pic.twitter.com/K9nOo4uf2X
Show this thread -
9. Even if you want to over-read the "not involved" line, perjury requires specific intent to mislead - which Kavanaugh obviously did not have, having ADMITTED to at least SOME involvement with the Pryor nom.https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1747-elements-perjury-specific-intent …
Show this thread -
10. So, in conclusion, this "perjury" argument is without merit -- an unfair and unfounded attack against Judge Kavanaugh. Vote against him if you disagree with his jurisprudence, fine -- but please don't slander him. Thanks.
#SCOTUS#KavanaughHearingsShow this thread -
P.S. I have done two additional threads on "perjury" allegations related to
#Memogate and NSA surveillance: 1. Memogate: https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1037928034224033792 … 2. NSA surveillance:https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1038195699513520129 …Show this thread -
P.P.S. More tweets on the "perjury" claims: 3. Pickering: https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1038617313933750273 … 4. Addressing "OK, maybe he didn't commit perjury, but wasn't he misleading/incomplete/not totally forthcoming? Shouldn't we demand more for
#SCOTUS?"https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1038630129025646593 …Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why would you dunk on an employee that your founding company hired? He won a contest to work for you? Terrible.
-
This is not a personal attack. Rather, it is an intelligent critique.
-
I wasn't make an ad hominem attack,
@ABookishMind; I was respectfully disagreeing with@ElieNYC (and we have been disagreeing in the pages of@ATLblog for years, often in actual formal debates). -
I understand. It looks like you're both on good terms. I'm sorry for what I said.
-
No need to apologize! I just wanted to be clear that I don't see such disagreements as personal (even if, in this day and age, many people do).
-
Lawyers are good people (generally) My husband is one.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Time for a non lawyer, but one who is highly versed in SCOTUS law and big law litigation, to give my two cents on Kavanaugh, Roe and the SCOTUS. Preamble. Lifelong conservative GOP because grew up NYC in 1970s and saw my city,state and country go to hell under decades of Dem rule
-
The Supreme Court has always been political debating back to Marshall v Mad. Establishing jusicial review. Lochner and then the new deal cases were political as was the switch in time. Since FDR, SCOTUS has taken a liberal activist view, esp. on social policy. Culminating w/ Roe.
-
I am personally reluctantly pro choice(it is taking of life)and believe that is where the vast majority of the USA is: safe legal and rare. That said, most good left and right legal scholars think Roe was wrongly decided. The trimester test alone has been made moot via science.
-
SCOTUS that passes Roe, gay marriage, etc. is one that is usurping the legislature, not good on its face. Shame on both parties for letting this happen. when and if roe overturned be careful what you wish for as abortion will still be legal and choice side will win the vote.
-
The drama of the pro choice left. Coat hangers, rape incest. Please. Abortion will be legal and back to the states and I predict that congress will be forced to pass pro Choice legislation that allows termination for early unwanted pregnancies and for birth defects like downs.
-
Drama? Women will probably be able to get an abortion in, say NYC but there will be states where it will be outlawed, and who knows if Congress will pass a law, and when, and what it will look like. What about the women left out in the cold in the meantime? So casual about it.
-
Exactly right. This person has judicial/Federalist view about how law is implemented, making it seem like her opinion is built into our system. Wrong. It's one opinion, not a framework that fits for abortion or other issues not best left to states.
-
When life's two most important, highly personal decisions - who to marry and when/how many children to have - depend on your state of residence, something is seriously wrong. This is the U.S.A. - these rights must be federally protected.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.