King Will Vote No On Kavanaugh, Shifts More Pressure To Other Maine Senator

[DonViejo]

By Kate Riga
September 13, 2018 8:32 am

Sen. Angus King (I-ME) has confirmed that he will vote against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, setting the spotlight more firmly on his colleague from Maine, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).

According to the Portland Press Herald, King also voted against Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch’s nomination, but his announcement underscores the fact that, assuming that all Democrats and those who caucus with the Democrats vote no, it would only take two Republican votes to derail the nomination.

“Unlike most of our decisions, which can be amended, repealed, or otherwise corrected over time, this is a one-time vote on a lifetime appointment which will likely profoundly affect our country for the foreseeable future,” King said in a statement. “There are no do-overs or second chances on this one; each of us, including the people of Maine, will have to live with the consequences of this vote for years to come.”

“After this intensive process, I have determined that I cannot support this nomination.”

###

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/king-will-vote-no-on-kavanaugh-shifts-more-pressure-to-other-maine-senator

[tblue37]

1. K&R for visibility. nt

[mountain grammy]

2. Many thanks to the Independent Senator from Maine

Meantime so called "real Democrats" Manchin and Heitkamp are hedging because they want to save their own sorry skins. Democrats with no courage hurt us more than Republicans ever could or will.

[NCjack]

10. Hope this SC nomination struggle produces a book "Profiles in Cowardness." nt

[Amimnoch]

17. Yeah right.

Democratic Party Senators from the liberal ( ) states of West Virginia and North Dakota who walk a very tight rope in keeping their Senate seats, one of which is up for election in the unimportant (again ) 2018 elections are being very careful in how they approach this, and that makes them "spineless" to you??

You go ahead with those demands for purity. Personally, I'd rather keep the seats, and hopefully get a Democratic Party Senate majority.. even if it does contain a few "spineless".

Unlike you, I feel having Republicans in those seats would hurt us more. I'd rather accept that Democratic Party Senators from those states are not going to be in line with what I really thing a Democrat should be, and possibly see turtle ousted.

Were we talking about Senators from California, Washington, New York or the like.. You damn skippy we should be outraged if they are hedging.. but when from states like West Virginia, or North Dakota.. FFS, we need to understand that keeping those seats IS the more important thing. They want to save their own sorry skins?? I want to save their sorry skins!!!

On thanking the Senator from Maine.. 100% with you. Hoping this puts enough pressure on Susan to be one of the 2 votes.

[mountain grammy]

18. THIS has nothing to do with "purity"

one of the worst nominees since Clarence Thomas, and he got plenty of Democratic support. We're killing ourselves with political expediency and compromising with amoral people.

I demand good, decent justices be confirmed! If you see that as a demand for purity, you're not being honest.

[Amimnoch]

19. We want the same thing when it comes to SCOTUS Justices.

No argument about him being a horrendous nominee. I'd also throw in that, given the evidence, he should be summarily disqualified for having lied under oath.

The facts is, if King was the Senator of North Dakota, and gave the same great opinion that he did here, his time would be up in November, and the Republican Senate count would be up by one, and that slim chance that we now have to retake the Senate? Gone. It would also be excellent fodder for ousting the Senator in West Virginia in a couple of years.

If we had the Senate Majority right now, Kava-no wouldn't be getting confirmed. We don't, and for everything we are trying to stop it, and every great reason out there to NOT confirm him, that shit's likely to get confirmed anyway.

You cite Clarance Thomas, but I'll see your Thomas and say that this particular Republican legislature would confirm Harriet Miers if the Rumpus put her out.

There is only 1 way to put an end to this madness.. regaining the majority in Congress. Shaming Democratic Party Senators who are serving heavily "red" states is certainly not the way to go, and truth be told.. part of the very reason we are in the mess we are in now.

Neither of us will ever agree with the fence sitting positions of these 2 senators. Pretty safe to say not many here on DU at all agree with it.. but if we're going to get better at beating the Republicans, we've got to start accepting that not all Senators are going to be able to be as progressive as we'd really like the party to be.. not without also accepting being permanantly relegated to being the minority party.

We have to look at who they represent when judging if they're worth supporting the next cycle or now. No openly progressive or liberal Democrat is going to sit the Senate for either North Dakota, or West Virginia. Our choice is going to be people like Manchin and Heitkamp OR tRumpublican types for states like these. The former, while understandilby not really that palatable will at the least help rid ourselves of Turtle, and have someone like Warren or Booker in as our Senate majority leader.. Isn't that worth the bitter pill to you?

[mountain grammy]

20. I don't think being a progressive has anything to do with it..

This is a rigged confirmation of a man who has no problem lying to the Senate. Every Democrat should vote no. Imagine if we get two GOP votes and Kavanaugh is confirmed because Dems voted for him. Would that be acceptable to you? It's not to me.

No defense for these Senators. NONE! This decision will affect generations to come.

[Amimnoch]

22. They didn't "decide" yet, and have only held back from voicing a decision.

Which totally makes sense to anyone who is objective.

I am curious at how this is "rigged"? I'd agree that it's a partisan sham to put a lying SOB with a painfully obvious political agenda on the bench of the court, but I haven't seen anything that indicates rigging this confirmation?

IF he does get actually get confirmed with 2 Republican Senators voting against the confirmation, I'll agree.

Given the ACTUAL voting record of these 2 Senators, you're placing a lot of venom at a big IF


Machin has voted pretty consistently against the Republican Nominees to date, and is pretty consistent with voting down party lines:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/7547/joe-manchin-iii#.W5uU_fZFz8A

Senator Heitkamp's record? same.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/41716/heidi-heitkamp#.W5uXl_ZFz8A

A LOT of Nays in every line where it starts off as "Nomination".


You can continue going after Democrats that don't say things you want to hear. I'll keep going after Republicans that do things that I don't want done.

[mountain grammy]

23. My only "venom" is for Brett Kavanaugh and

anyone who votes to confirm him and I'm not going after Dems who "say what I don't want to hear." But I will NOT support a Democrat who votes for this charade.

Get back to me in a few months when this majority on the Supreme Court starts making rulings that will shatter any and all hope for equality in America's future and then tell me it's not rigged. Right now people who've committed the "crime" of asking for asylum are being locked up. How far do you think someone like Kavanaugh will take this? He's a huge part of the "lock her up" bunch. I'm sure Manchin and Heitkamp will raise hell when they finally do.. right?

If you defend Democrats who say they've seen "no problem" with Kavanaugh, as Heitkamp has said, you know nothing about Brett Kavanaugh.

You can say you'll keep going after Republicans for what they do, but you're fine with Democrats when they vote for it. I'm not.

[bdamomma]

3. K&R

for reviewing.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

4. keep calling

Senate DC phone directory [phone].

[BigmanPigman]

11. You are fantastic!!!!!!

I am calling King to thank him too. Contact info for King...
https://www.king.senate.gov/contact-home. RESISTANCE WORKS!

[Hermit-The-Prog]

21. following your lead

aw shucks!



Been out in dust and heat all day -- summer in September. Danged Chinese climate hoax for sure.

[Solly Mack]

5. Aunt Susan wants a more favored spot in Gilead.

[Nitram]

6. Oh, please, Susan and whoever, save us from this calamity.

[Fred Sanders]

16. Susan flees to Newsmax to whine about the meanies using Citizens United against HER!

Newsmax...need I say more? Except Newsmax then followed up with legal scholar Eric Erickson insisting the opposition was doing something something illegal.

Collins is a fake moderate, her voting record does not lie. Her yes vote on fascist Kavanaugh will leave no doubt.

[Hortensis]

7. WOW!!!! This is fantastic news. Btw, WHY is Murkowski

getting such a break compared to Collins?

Democratic Senator Hirono and Senator Booker put a big spotlight right on Murkowski at the hearings by pointing out Kavanaugh questioned the constitutionality of programs serving native Hawaiians, something believed to be of great significance to Alaskans, and all other indigenous American interests as well.

WASHINGTON D.C. (HawaiiNewsNow) -
U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono released "committee confidential" documents Thursday in which U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh questions the constitutionality of Native Hawaiian programs.

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker also released confidential emails in which Kavanaugh addressed the issue of race while serving in the Bush administration.

The document Hirono released was an email Kavanaugh wrote in 2002, in which he responded to a question about whether Congress should treat Native Hawaiians as it would a Native American tribe.

"I think the testimony needs to make clear that any program targeting Native Hawaiians as a group is subject to strict scrutiny and of questionable validity under the Constitution," he wrote.

Hirono has said Kavanaugh's conclusions on Native Hawaiians are "factually wrong" and incredibly offensive.

Link to tweet

The release came a day after Hirono took Kavanaugh to task about his views on Native Hawaiians, criticizing him for writing in 1999 that he didn't believe the group was indigenous because they traveled to the islands from deeper in Polynesia. (Me: WTF? This guy will manufacture any argument he wants.)

At issue during the hearing: A 1999 op-ed Kavanaugh wrote for the Wall Street Journal, titled "Are Hawaiians Indians? The Justice Department thinks so." In it, Kavanaugh discussed his opposition to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, saying it sets a precedent for states to exclude voters from elections based on race.

The piece was written in response to the Supreme Court case Rice v. Cayetano, in which the Supreme Court ruled that excluding voters because they are not Hawaiian violated the 14th and 15th amendments.

Here's a part exchange on Wednesday between Hirono and Kavanaugh during the hearing:

Hirono: In the piece you wrote, the Native Hawaiian community was not indigenous because, as you say, after all, they came from Polynesia. It might interest you to know that Hawaii is part of Polynesia so it's not that they came from Polynesia, they were a part of Polynesia. ... You also implied that Native Hawaiians couldn't qualify as an Indian tribe and therefore were not entitled to constitutional protections given to indigenous Americans (cont.).

Hirono: It is hard to believe you spent any time researching the history of Native Hawaiians.

Hirono also referenced an email Kavanaugh sent in 2002 saying, "Any programs targeting Native Hawaiians as a group is subject to strict scrutiny and of questionable volatility under the constitution."

Hirono: Do you think Rice v. Cayetano raises constitutional questions when Congress passes laws to benefit Native Hawaiians?

Kavanaugh: I think Congress' power, with respect to an issue like that, is substantial. I don't want to pre-commit to any particular program, but I understand that Congress has substantial power with respect to declaring, recognizing tribes.

Hirono: But you believe that any of these kinds of programs or laws passed by Congress should undergo strict scrutiny and raises constitutional questions?

Kavanaugh: As I sit here today as a judge, I would listen to arguments 16 years ago ... but if I were a judge, I would listen to the arguments to your question, Congress has substantial power with respect to programs like this. I appreciate what you've said about Native Hawaiians ...

Kavanaugh: I think Congress has substantial power of course in this area that you're discussing and I would want to hear more about how Rice applies. I would want to hear the arguments on both sides. I would keep an open mind and appreciate your perspective on this question. ...

Hirono: I think you have a problem here. Your view is that Hawaiians don't deserve protections as indigenous people under the constitution and your argument raises a serious question on how you would vote on the constitutionality of programs benefiting Alaska natives. I think that my colleagues from Alaska should be deeply troubled by your views."

[geardaddy]

13. This should be its own OP!

Thanks for sharing this!

[lagomorph777]

8. How about Manchin and Heidkamp?

Will they caucus with the Democrats?

[BigmanPigman]

9. They are two of the four "iffy" Dems I have been calling.

The other two are Jones and Donnelly. Also, call the 4 "iffy" GOP senators: Collins, Murkowski, Sasse, and Flake.

I called the Dems on the Judiciary Comm to thank them and now I will be calling King as well.

Here is the local contact info for them...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211126759

[lagomorph777]

12. Thanks BP!

[Uncle Joe]

14. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread DonViejo

[dchill]

15. K&R.