Tag Archives: US Senate

national news

Sen. Flake admits it: Lame-duck status enabled compromise

Jeff Flake has admitted something many of us knew already but it still is a bit of a surprise to hear him actually acknowledge it out loud — and on national television to boot!

Sen. Flake, an Arizona Republican, appeared tonight on “60 Minutes” in the wake of his stunning proposal to delay a Senate vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. He pitched the idea that the FBI needs to conduct a week-long investigation into allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman when he and the accuser were teenagers.

The senators agreed with him. Flake then voted “yes” along with his 10 GOP colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee to recommend Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Then came the question from “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley: Could he have made that proposal were he running for re-election? Flake said “no.” There was no chance he could — or would — do such a thing, he said. The mood on Capitol Hill just doesn’t allow compromise. The mood is too toxic, too divisive.

Flake announced several months ago that he would leave the Senate. Since his announcement he has become a staunch critic of Donald Trump and many of his fellow Republicans. He blames the president for fomenting the politics of anger and lays blame on congressional Republicans for refusing to stand up to the president.

He talked about his week-delay compromise with a good Senate friend, Democrat Chris Coons of Delaware.

This is how it has come down. Senators and House members are having to declare their intention to retire from public life for them to show the kind of courage they ought to show even when they must face the voters at election time.

It’s a sad time, ladies and gentlemen.

legal news

How would ‘Justice’ Kavanaugh handle this?

Brett Kavanaugh’s future as a possible U.S. Supreme Court justice is in doubt. However, his nomination to the court is far from a dead duck.

The FBI is conducting an investigation into at least two of the accusations that Kavanaugh assaulted women sexually many years ago. The U.S. Senate will then get to vote on whether to confirm him.

Suppose, then, he becomes Justice Brett Kavanaugh. What happens when the court gets a case involving the constitutionality, say, of a court ruling involving a case involving sexual assault?

Might that happen? Well, it damn sure could. Given all the attendant publicity that has erupted around Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation process, I doubt seriously anyone down the road is going to forget what we’ve heard about what allegedly occurred when Kavanaugh was a high school student. That he allegedly pinned a young woman to a bed, sought to disrobe her, sought to have his way with her sexually.

How does a Supreme Court justice with that kind of accusation hanging over his head rule on a future case involving a similar circumstance?

national news

Trump’s amorality on full display

Donald J. Trump has earned the title of Most Amoral President in U.S. History.

It is with that dubious distinction that I find it amazing, astonishing and altogether outrageous that this president can speak to any issue involving sex, sexual assault or sexual harassment.

It’s all on the front burner these days as the U.S. Senate considers whether to confirm a Trump nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Brett Kavanaugh is under some intense scrutiny these days as he seeks confirmation to the highest court after at least three women have accused him of assaulting them sexually.

I am left to wonder: What has become of our moral compass?

An admitted sexual assailant was elected president in 2016; he once bragged about grabbing women by their “pu***” because his “celebrity status” allowed him to get away with it. He acknowledged walking in on half-dressed women during his days as proprietor of a beauty pageant.

Now he has nominated someone to the high court who stands accused of attacking a woman when they were both teenagers. Judge Kavanaugh has denied the accusation in the most fervent manner possible. The FBI is now looking into the pending accusations before the Senate will consider voting on whether to confirm him.

I keep circling back to the president. He has attacked the credibility of one of Kavanaugh’s accusers, much as he has done with the many women who have accused him of groping them. He stands foursquare with men who have faced credible charges by women who accuse them of sexual misbehavior; he is doing so yet again with Judge Kavanaugh.

And then we have the likes of the Rev. Franklin Graham, one of Trump’s more ardent evangelical supporters, saying something truly astonishing, that what Kavanaugh allegedly did to Christine Blasey Ford doesn’t really matter because they were teenagers at the time.

What in the name of sexual assault is Rev. Graham talking about?

I’ve long thought of the Republican Party as an organization that stood tall and firm on the side of moral rectitude. Yet, Republican No. 1, the president of the United States, assumed office after blazing a career-long trail of sexual misconduct.

Dear reader, we have entered a strange new world. Man, oh man. I need to find a way out of here.

national news

Jeff Flake: profile in courage

Jeff Flake’s demonstration of political courage almost made me rethink my long-standing opposition to term limits for members of Congress.

I’ll reiterate: almost.

Flake is a Republican member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that on Friday recommended the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to a seat on the Supreme Court. Flake is not running for re-election this year. Thus, his lame-duck status has enabled him to grow a pair of, um, stones that he otherwise likely wouldn’t have grown.

You see, Flake — after announcing his decision to support Kavanaugh’s nomination — came back to the committee hearing room and asked that the Senate delay a full confirmation vote for a week to allow the FBI to do an additional investigation into some serious allegations leveled against Kavanaugh.

Christine Blasey Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her. They were teenagers when the even allegedly occurred. She presented a compelling case against Kavanaugh. Ford persuaded me that her allegation is credible enough to disqualify Kavanaugh from obtaining this lifetime judicial appointment.

Flake was cornered in a Capitol Building elevator by two women — sexual assault survivors, apparently — who demanded that he “listen” to the concerns of other victims.

Flake responded by making his request of the Senate. The Senate agreed. The president then called on the FBI to conduct a limited probe into the allegations. It should take about a week or so to complete.

I applaud Sen. Flake for his political courage, although the courage is watered down a bit by the fact that he isn’t facing Arizona voters this fall. He is free, therefore, to speak from his heart. He did so.

If only other members of the Senate and the House of Representatives could demonstrate such guts when they have to face the voters as they seek re-election.

Having said all that, I remain committed to the notion that voters in each state and House district have it within their power to boot out scoundrels at election time.

Flake, though, must have emerged as a GOP hero in this ongoing — and terribly frustrating — political battle of wills.

national news

Judge shows his partisan streak

I now believe that if Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be disqualified from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court, he demonstrated that reason with his impassioned denial of the accusation of a sexual assault.

He came off as a partisan. Kavanaugh managed to blame the assault on his character on those who were angry that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election and “left-wing” political activists who oppose him for his judicial philosophy.

I am scratching my head and am trying to remember when I’ve ever heard a Supreme Court nominee resort to that kind of attack.

Robert Bork didn’t assert partisan angst in 1987; Clarence Thomas didn’t blame Democrats for the troubles he encountered in 1991. The Senate rejected Bork’s nomination and barely approved Thomas’s selection to the high court.

Brett Kavanaugh, though, has just revealed his deep bias against Democrats and political progressive who, in his mind, are out to destroy his nomination to the nation’s highest court.

I already have stated my belief in the accusation brought by Christine Blasey Ford who contends that Kavanaugh assaulted her sexually when they were teenagers. But when Kavanaugh sat down in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, his anger was palpable, as was his deep bias against those with political views that differ from his own.

Yes, I intended to keep an open mind with regard to Brett Kavanaugh. For the longest time I was able to meet that standard.

My formerly open mind has closed. I have heard enough, from Christine Ford and from Judge Kavanaugh. Moreover, I have seen enough from Kavanaugh to believe that he cannot interpret the U.S. Constitution dispassionately without regard to political motivations of those who might present cases before the Supreme Court.

Weird.

national news

Now the SCOTUS fight is on hold, waiting for the FBI

The U.S. Senate has done the correct thing in delaying the confirmation vote on the man who wants to join the U.S. Supreme Court. It will wait a week to allow the FBI to do — presumably — a thorough check on some serious allegations leveled against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

It all came to a head this morning when Senate Judiciary Committee member Jeff Flake asked for the delay, sought the FBI investigation and seemed to attach his upcoming Senate vote on whether the Republican leadership would agree to his request.

It did. So now Kavanaugh gets to wait another week.

Christine Blasey Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when the two of them were in high school. Kavanaugh denies her allegation.

I am one American who believes Ford, but I’m sitting out here in the Flyover Country peanut gallery.

The FBI probe well might produce some more evidence to either prove or disprove what Ford has alleged. The FBI ought to talk to a Kavanaugh friend who reportedly witnessed what Ford has alleged occurred.

I have to hand it to Sen. Flake, a lame-duck Republican, who’s going out with a serious bang. He isn’t running for re-election, but he isn’t going out quietly.

I have sought to keep an open mind on this nomination. I have concluded that I believe Ford. Thus, I don’t believe Kavanaugh should get a lifetime job handing out opinions at the highest level of our nation’s judicial system.

However, I want to maintain my open mind as far as the FBI probe goes. I just want it done thoroughly and that the FBI reaches some conclusion about the veracity of what has been alleged.

Let the probe begin.

national news

After the hearing, they’re going to vote anyway … wow!

A congressional hearing that was billed as a seminal moment in U.S. political history has produced, um, apparently nothing.

The Senate Judiciary Committee — which heard from two people at the center of a firestorm — is going to vote Friday on whether to confirm one of those principals to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

To which I only can say: Holy cow, man!

Judge Brett Kavanaugh denied passionately the accusation leveled by Christine Blasey Ford. They both talked to the Senate committee. Ford said Kavanaugh attacked her when they were both in high school; Kavanaugh denied it.

Who’s more credible? I believe Professor Ford.

Thus, I would hope the Senate panel would delay this confirmation vote until it could gather more information.

The so-called “elephant in the hearing room” was a man who reportedly witnessed the alleged attack. That would be Mark Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh. Judge has been nowhere to be seen or heard.

I believe Judge should testify as well.

It won’t happen, apparently. The Judiciary Committee is stampeding forward — or so it appears — with a vote on whether to recommend Kavanaugh’s nomination.

This process has been called a “disgrace” and a “sham” by those who support Judge Kavanaugh. I agree with them. It has been both of those things.

The disgraceful sham, though, well might play out when the Senate Judiciary Committee rushes to judgment with its vote.

national news

The accuser is believable

1 Comment

Christine Blasey Ford was a believable accuser today.

The question now, in my mind, is whether the man she accused of assaulting her when they were both teenagers should take a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I don’t believe he should.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh defended himself vigorously today in testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. He was angry at what he called a hit job by left-wing supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who lost the 2016 presidential election to Donald J. Trump.

He cried a bit, too.

Kavanaugh has called his confirmation process “a national disgrace.”

It wasn’t pretty, this hearing today. Indeed, it was damn ugly. It was hideous.

But at the end of it, I came away believing the woman who has accused the Supreme Court nominee of a sexual assault.

This means the Senate panel that will recommend whether to confirm or reject Kavanaugh should vote “no” on this nomination.

I realize fully that my feelings on this matter won’t surprise regular readers of this blog. I wanted to watch the two principals face the Senate panel. I wanted to read their body language. I wanted to keep an open mind, and I believe I did.

My mind is now made up. Christine Ford made the case to my satisfaction. This American, yours truly, does not want Brett Kavanaugh to be granted a lifetime job in which he would interpret the constitutionality of federal laws.

I believe the president should look elsewhere.

local news, political news, State news

Beto vs. Cruz: Round One

I had wanted to attend the first debate between Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke. It took place this evening in Dallas, at Southern Methodist University … just a few miles south of where I live.

But wouldn’t you know it? Family business took me away from the Metroplex and my wife and I are spending a few nights in Amarillo.

Cruz, the Republican U.S. senator, is trying to fend off a challenge from O’Rourke, the Democratic U.S. House member who wants to join the Club of 100, aka the U.S. Senate.

By all accounts, the men exchanged in a lively exchange. They traded a few insults, but generally minded their manners while talking to and about each other.

I am glad that these two fellows faced off in person. They’ll have two more of these joint appearances, in Houston and San Antonio.

From what I have read, I take heart in the view that O’Rourke did well in his debate with Cruz, a noted debater whose skills were honed at Harvard.

The event did include some tense moments, such as this one, as reported by CBS News:

The two also disagreed over what the punishment should be for the police officer who shot and killed Botham Jean, an unarmed black man, in his own apartment. Cruz said that O’Rourke had compared police officers to the “modern Jim Crow,” which he said was “offensive.” O’Rourke denied that he said police officers specifically were the “modern Jim Crow,” and accused Cruz of dissembling.

“This is your trick in the trade: to confuse, and to incite fear,” O’Rourke said to Cruz. He accused the senator repeatedly of misrepresenting his words.

What might we expect during the second and third debates? That well might depend on what polls show about the state of this campaign. It isn’t supposed to be this close … but it damn sure is! The candidates are running neck and neck in a state that has leaned Republican for the past two decades.

I’ll stipulate for the umpteenth time that I want O’Rourke to win this contest. There. That said, I also know it’s a steep climb for the young congressman from El Paso.

My hope is that if he fares as well in the next two debates as he did in this first one, O’Rourke will do just fine, although “just fine” doesn’t mean necessarily that I predict he’ll actually win.

Then again, I hope for all the world that O’Rourke can take down the Cruz Missile.

local news, political news, State news

O’Rourke, Cruz settle it: three debates … bring it!

2 Comments

Beto O’Rourke pitched initially a plan to stage six debates with the man he wants to beat in this year’s midterm election to the U.S. Senate seat in Texas.

Ted Cruz balked. Ah, but the candidates have settled on three debates. One in Dallas, one in Houston and one in San Antonio.

This is good news for Texans who are interested in this contest. O’Rourke is the Democratic challenger to the Republican Cruz. I’ve already laid out my preference: I want O’Rourke to win.

But the notion that the men will debate three times is good for the process. The Dallas event will focus on domestic policy; same for the Houston debate; the San Antonio debate is going to focus half on domestic, half on foreign policy.

Debates are an important element in helping voters decide for whom to vote. Polling in this race suggests a still-large body of undecided Texans, although I remain a bit dubious that those who say they’re undecided are actually telling pollsters the truth.

But I’m glad that O’Rourke and Cruz will share a stage. They’ll get to answer questions, perhaps will get to pepper each other with questions. They’ll get to demonstrate their mental acuity and quickness on their feet.

It well might be that six debates would have been too much. Voters can — and often do — grow weary of seeing and hearing too much from politicians.

I’ll settle for three debates.

Bring it, gentlemen!