Ruth Bader Ginsburg returns to Supreme Court bench in public session on Alabama-based case
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was back on the Supreme Court bench on Tuesday, eight weeks after surgery for lung cancer. Wearing her customary black robe and ornamental collar, the 85-year-old justice walked unassisted to her seat beside Chief Justice John Roberts when the court began its public session. Ginsburg smiled as the justices stood before taking their seats, but no mention was made in the courtroom of the fact that she was returning after an absence. As she often does, Ginsburg asked the first question during the hourlong argument, and nothing about her appearance or demeanor seemed out of the ordinary. She went on to speak about a half dozen times. The case the court was hearing involves a 2011 patent law, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, with the justices being asked to answer whether the United States Postal Service counts as a “person” under the law. Ginsburg’s first question was to attorney Beth Brinkmann, who was arguing for Alabama-based Return Mail Inc. The company owns a patent that was invalidated after a challenge by the Postal Service. Ginsburg wanted clarity on Brinkmann’s argument in the case. Later, Ginsburg asked attorney Malcolm Stewart, arguing for the government on behalf of the Postal Service, why it would be that the government is treated differently under the law, with the government getting “two bites of the apple” while “everybody else gets just one.” It was not clear how the case would come out, with both liberal and conservative justices seeming unsatisfied by arguments on both sides. Ginsburg had returned to the Supreme Court building on Friday for the first time since her surgery in December, but that was for the justices’ private conference. She also was captured on camera on Monday by the TMZ website walking through a Washington airport. Ginsburg was absent from the court in January as she recovered from the surgery. She missed six days on which the court heard a total of eleven arguments. But the court said she participated in the court’s work during her absence. The court will hear one more argument on Wednesday before hearing cases again on three days next week. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Supreme Court returns to gun rights for 1st time in 9 years
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will take up its first gun rights case in nine years, a challenge to New York City’s prohibition on carrying a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun outside the city limits. The court’s decision to hear the appeal filed by three New York residents and New York’s National Rifle Association affiliate could signal a revived interest in gun rights by a more conservative court. The case won’t be argued until October. The challengers are represented by prominent lawyer Paul Clement, who has been urging the justices to elaborate on the extent of constitutional gun rights the Supreme Court declared in decisions in 2008 and 2010. The court had previously rejected several appeals. The court may be more willing to take on a gun rights case now that Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired and been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was President Donald Trump’s second high-court nominee to be confirmed. Clement says the case “is a perfect vehicle to reaffirm that those decisions and the constitutional text have consequences.” Joining in support of gun rights, 17 states said the court should break its years-long silence and use the case to define the scope of gun rights under the Constitution and the level of scrutiny, or skepticism, judges should apply to gun laws. New York’s ordinance allows people licensed to have handguns to carry them outside the home to gun ranges in the city. The guns must be locked and unloaded. The city residents who filed suit want to practice shooting at target ranges outside the city or take their guns to second homes elsewhere in New York state. Lower courts had rejected the challenge. The city’s top lawyer, Zachary Carter, urged the court to reject the case, arguing that the restrictions allowed New York police to reduce the number of guns carried in public. There are seven shooting ranges in the city and at least one in each of the city’s five boroughs, Carter said. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Alabama asks Supreme Court to review abortion ruling
Alabama is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the state’s attempt to ban the most commonly used procedure in second-trimester abortions. State lawmakers voted in 2016 to ban the abortion procedure known as dilation and evacuation. A federal judge blocked the law as an unconstitutional restriction on abortion access. Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office asked the high court Thursday to review an August ruling by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in upholding that decision. Courts have blocked similar laws in Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas. Court records show 93 percent of abortions in Alabama occur before 15 weeks of pregnancy. For the 7 percent of abortions that occur later, 99 percent are by dilation and evacuation. A statement from Marshall’s office calls the procedure “dismemberment abortion.” Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Supreme Court to hear closely watched Alabama double jeopardy case
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments about an exception to the Constitution’s ban on being tried for the same offense. The outcome could have a spillover effect on the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The justices are taking up an appeal Thursday from federal prison inmate Terance Gamble. He was prosecuted separately by Alabama and the federal government for having a gun after an earlier robbery conviction. The high court is considering whether to overturn a court-created exception to the Constitution’s double-jeopardy bar that allows state and federal prosecutions for the same crime. The court’s ruling could be relevant if President Donald Trump were to pardon someone implicated in special counsel Robert Mueller‘s probe and a state wanted to pursue its own charges against that person. Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein joked at a Washington event before the term began in October that the high court case should be called New York v. Manafort, a reference to former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. Trump has refused to rule out an eventual pardon for Manafort, who has been convicted of federal financial fraud and conspiracy crimes. It’s by no means certain that the high court ruling will affect future prosecutions. But Trump’s Justice Department is urging the court not to depart from what it says is an unbroken line of cases reaching back nearly 170 years in favor of allowing prosecutions by state and federal authorities. Thirty-six states that include Republican-led Texas and Democratic-led New York are on the administration’s side, as are advocates for Native American women who worry that a decision for Gamble would make it harder to prosecute domestic and sexual violence crimes. Civil rights scholars at Howard University adopt a sort of middle ground that urges the court to at least preserve the federal government’s ability to lead civil rights prosecutions against people who have been acquitted of state charges. Civil rights charges to fight crimes of racial violence have been a key tool for federal prosecutors, especially when Southern juries were unwilling to convict defendants. The most recent example the scholars cited is the successful federal prosecution of Los Angeles police officers who had been acquitted of state charges in the beating of Rodney King. On the other side, liberal and conservative groups say that the huge growth in federal criminal prosecutions in recent decades makes it urgent for the court to rein in successive prosecutions for the same crime. Reinforcing the seemingly odd alliances in play on this issue, the unlikely high court duo of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas first suggested in 2016 that the topic “bears fresh examination in an appropriate case.” At least four justices — the minimum required to hear arguments — felt Gamble’s situation is that appropriate case. There is no dispute that Gamble’s arrest in 2015 for possessing a 9 mm handgun led to state and federal charges. He pleaded guilty in state court and tried to have the federal charge dismissed. When that failed, he pleaded guilty in federal court as well, with the idea of mounting the constitutional challenge that is now before the Supreme Court. Gamble is not scheduled for release from prison until 2020, nearly three years later than he would have been freed from conviction on state charges alone, his lawyer, Louis Chaiten, wrote in court papers. The relevant portion of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment says that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Chaiten said the language is clearly on Gamble’s side. “The text of the Double Jeopardy Clause contemplates no exceptions to its blanket guarantee of protection from double prosecution and punishment for the same offense,” Chaiten wrote. The administration countered that the American legal system has long viewed violations of state and federal law as separate offenses, even if they result from the same conduct. The court should not “invite the serious practical consequences of categorically precluding politically accountable officials from ever determining that a separate prosecution is warranted — which would hamstring state, tribal and federal law enforcement,” Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall wrote. A decision in Gamble v. United States, 17-646, is expected by late June. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Alabama to ask Supreme Court to review abortion
Alabama will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the state’s effort to ban the most commonly used second trimester abortion procedure. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office asked the court Tuesday for an additional 30 days to file its petition for review. Alabama lawmakers in 2016 voted to ban the abortion procedure known as dilation and evacuation. A federal judge blocked the law as an unconstitutional restriction on abortion access. The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in August upheld the decision. Politicians seeking to ban the procedure refer to it by the nonmedical term “dismemberment abortion.” “The constitutionality of a state ban on dismemberment abortion is an important question of national significance. Litigation over similar abortion laws is pending in several other courts,” lawyers for Alabama wrote. Courts have blocked similar laws in Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson in 2016 blocked enforcement of the Alabama law, saying the ban would cause Alabama women to lose access to abortion in the state after 15 weeks of pregnancy because of the unavailability of other methods. Alabama, with support from other conservative states, appealed the decision. The 11th Circuit in August upheld Thompson’s decision, although Chief Judge Ed Carnes wrote that “dismemberment” is an accurate description for the procedure. The Center for Reproductive Rights has described dilation and evacuation as the most common abortion procedure in the U.S. in the second trimester. According to court records in the case, 93 percent of abortions in Alabama occur before 15 weeks of pregnancy. For the seven percent of abortions that occur after 15 weeks, 99 percent of them are by dilation and evacuation. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Brett Kavanaugh confirmed: Senate OKs Supreme Court nominee
The bitterly polarized U.S. Senate narrowly confirmed Brett Kavanaugh on Saturday to join the Supreme Court, delivering an election-season triumph to President Donald Trump that could swing the court rightward for a generation after a battle that rubbed raw the country’s cultural, gender and political divides. The near party-line vote was 50-48, capping a fight that seized the national conversation after claims emerged that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted women three decades ago — which he emphatically denied. Those allegations magnified the clash from a routine Supreme Court struggle over judicial ideology into an angrier, more complex jumble of questions about victims’ rights, the presumption of innocence and personal attacks on nominees. Acrimonious to the end, the battle featured a climactic roll call that was interrupted several times by protesters in the Senate Gallery before Capitol Police removed them. Vice President Mike Pence presided over the roll call, his potential tie-breaking vote unnecessary. The vote gave Trump his second appointee to the court, tilting it further to the right and pleasing conservative voters who might have revolted against GOP leaders had Kavanaugh’s nomination flopped. Democrats hope that the roll call, exactly a month from elections in which House and Senate control are in play, will prompt infuriated women and liberals to stream to the polls to oust Republicans. In final remarks just before the voting, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said a vote for Kavanaugh was “a vote to end this brief, dark chapter in the Senate’s history and turn the page toward a brighter tomorrow.” Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York looked ahead to November, appealing to voters beyond the Senate chamber: “Change must come from where change in America always begins: the ballot box.” Rep. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, confronting a tough re-election race next month in a state that Trump won in 2016 by a landslide, was the sole Democrat to vote for Kavanaugh. Every voting Republican backed the 53-year-old conservative judge. Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, the only Republican to oppose the nominee, voted “present,” offsetting the absence of Kavanaugh supporter Steve Daines of Montana, who was attending his daughter’s wedding. That rare procedural maneuver left Kavanaugh with the same two-vote margin he’d have had if Murkowski and Daines had both voted. Republicans hold only a 51-49 Senate majority and therefore had little support to spare. It was the closest roll call to confirm a justice since 1881, when Stanley Matthews was approved by 24-23, according to Senate records. Within minutes, dozens of political and advocacy groups blasted out emailed reactions. Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY’s List, which contributes to female Democratic candidates, assailed the confirmation of “an alleged sexual assailant and anti-choice radical to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. But we will carry that anger into the election. Women will not forget this.” Kay Coles James, president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, called the vote “a victory for liberty in America” and called Kavanaugh “a good man and good jurist.” The outcome, telegraphed Friday when the final undeclared senators revealed their views, was devoid of the shocks that had come almost daily since Christine Blasey Ford said last month that an inebriated Kavanaugh tried to rape her at a 1982 high school get-together. Since then, the country watched agape as one electric moment after another gushed forth. These included the emergence of two other accusers; an unforgettable Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at which a composed Ford and a seething Kavanaugh told their diametrically opposed stories, and a truncated FBI investigation that the agency said showed no corroborating evidence and Democrats lambasted as a White House-shackled farce. All the while, crowds of demonstrators — mostly Kavanaugh opponents — ricocheted around the Capitol’s grounds and hallways, raising tensions, chanting slogans, interrupting lawmakers’ debates, confronting senators and often getting arrested. Trump weighed in Saturday morning on behalf of the man he nominated in July. “Big day for America!” he tweeted. Democrats said Kavanaugh would push the court too far, including possible sympathetic rulings for Trump should the president encounter legal problems from the special counsel’s investigations into Russian connections with his 2016 presidential campaign. And they said Kavanaugh’s record and fuming testimony at a now-famous Senate Judiciary Committee hearing showed he lacked the fairness, temperament and even honesty to become a justice. But the fight was defined by the sexual assault accusations. And it was fought against the backdrop of the #MeToo movement and Trump’s unyielding support of his nominee and occasional mocking of Kavanaugh’s accusers. About 100 anti-Kavanaugh protesters climbed the Capitol’s East Steps as the vote approached, pumping fists and waving signs. U.S. Capitol Police began arresting some of them. Hundreds of other demonstrators watched from behind barricades. Protesters have roamed Capitol Hill corridors and grounds daily, chanting, “November is coming,” ”Vote them out” and “We believe survivors.” On Friday, in the moment that made clear Kavanaugh would prevail, Collins delivered a speech saying that Ford’s Judiciary Committee telling of the alleged 1982 assault was “sincere, painful and compelling.” But she also said the FBI had found no corroborating evidence from witnesses whose names Ford had provided. “We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy,” said Collins, perhaps the chamber’s most moderate Republican. Manchin used an emailed statement to announce his support for Kavanaugh moments after Collins finished talking. Manchin, the only Democrat supporting the nominee, faces a competitive re-election race next month in a state Trump carried in 2016 by 42 percentage points. Manchin expressed empathy for sexual assault victims. But he said that after factoring in the FBI report, “I have found Judge Kavanaugh to be a qualified jurist who will follow the Constitution.” Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who has repeatedly battled with Trump and will retire in January, said he, too, planned to vote for Kavanaugh’s confirmation. In the procedural vote Friday that handed Republicans their crucial initial victory, senators voted 51-49 to limit debate, defeating Democratic efforts to
For Brett Kavanaugh, path forward could be like Clarence Thomas’
When Clarence Thomas arrived at the Supreme Court in 1991 after a bruising confirmation hearing in which his former employee Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment, fellow justice Byron White said something that stuck with him. “It doesn’t matter how you got here. All that matters now is what you do here,” Thomas recounted in his 2007 memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.” That view could be tested again if lawmakers confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who’s facing allegations by California college professor Christine Blasey Ford that he sexually assaulted her when they were in high school. Kavanaugh, who like Thomas has denied the allegation against him, is scheduled to appear before lawmakers at a hearing Monday, with the outcome of his nomination uncertain. If Kavanaugh does become a justice, court watchers will be looking to see whether his smooth-turned-tumultuous confirmation affects him on the bench and whether having two justices who faced allegations about their treatment of women alters the public’s perception of the court, particularly on future rulings about abortion and gender discrimination. Thomas’ high-profile public showdown with Hill came to define his confirmation process, which he has called a “nightmare” and which Hill has called a “bane which I have worked hard to transform into a blessing.” Those who have studied or know Thomas say his confirmation didn’t change the kind of justice he has become. He is now 70 and the most conservative member of the court. But some observers suggest that — rightly or wrongly — it affected his public and private reception, particularly in his early years as a justice. Ralph A. Rossum, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and the author of a 2013 book about Thomas’ legal philosophy, said Thomas’ “long and withering” confirmation didn’t make him any less willing to write unpopular opinions or interpret the Constitution as he sees it. “What it didn’t do is influence him on the bench,” said Rossum, who pointed to a dissent Thomas wrote shortly after joining the court, a case where only he and Justice Antonin Scalia would have ruled against an inmate beaten in prison. But Rossum said Thomas’ confirmation experience did seemingly make him “more gun-shy to be in public.” “I think he was always a private man, and it made him even more of a private man,” Rossum said. Law schools, generally only too happy to have justices speak at their events, also seemed to shun Thomas initially, Rossum said. It took a year and a half after he joined the court for him to give his first public speech. Since then, he has sometimes drawn protests when he makes appearances, but those are largely prompted by his conservative judicial philosophy. Hill’s allegations do resurface periodically, such as in 2010, when Thomas’ wife put them back in the news by leaving a telephone message for Hill suggesting she consider apologizing. Or, in the last year, as stories about the #MeToo movement have referenced Thomas. Former Missouri Sen. John Danforth, a longtime friend of Thomas’ who guided his confirmation, wrote in a 1994 book about the confirmation process that Thomas “has thought of the charge of sexual harassment as ‘a stain that won’t come off.’” But Thomas wasn’t changed by “the ordeal” he went through, Danforth said in a telephone interview. “He’s just the same, and he’s really a happy person, too,” he said. Danforth said Thomas “rose from the dead” after being confirmed. At a swearing-in ceremony at the White House ahead of joining the court, Thomas talked about moving on. “Today, now, it is a time to move forward, a time to look for what is good in others, what is good in our country,” he said. But not everyone believes that Thomas was able to move on so quickly. The hearings made him a recognizable face where before, as a judge, he enjoyed walking anonymously to lunch with his clerks, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin wrote in his book “The Nine.” After his confirmation, Thomas stopped driving his black Corvette to work because the car was too recognizable, Toobin has written. And for years, Thomas purportedly kept in his desk a list of the roll-call vote on his confirmation. As for Thomas’ colleagues, they were cordial but not overly welcoming, Toobin wrote. Thomas, for his part, has denied that his reception was anything less than friendly, writing that all his colleagues treated him with the “utmost kindness and consideration.” But the confirmation process tainted how he felt about becoming a justice at the time. Thomas declined an invitation from the White House to watch as senators voted on his confirmation, and he was taking a hot bath when his wife told him he’d been confirmed 52-48. His response, according to his memoir: “Whoop-dee damn-doo.” Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Doug Jones: ‘Hit the pause button’ on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote
Alabama’s newly elected U.S. Sen. Doug Jones says the U.S. Senate ought to “hit the pause button” on vote to confirm President Donald Trump‘s U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Jones made the comment via Twitter Sunday evening after the woman who accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her during their teenage years identified herself in a report from The Washington Post on Sunday afternoon. Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor in Northern California, said Kavanaugh tried to “attack [her] and remove [her] clothing” during a party when both of them were high school students in Maryland in the early 80s. Jones tweeted, “We cannot rush to move forward under this cloud.” “This was a very brave step to come forward. It is more important than ever to hit the pause button on Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote until we can fully investigate these serious and disturbing allegations. We cannot rush to move forward under this cloud,” Jones tweeted. This was a very brave step to come forward. It is more important than ever to hit the pause button on Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote until we can fully investigate these serious and disturbing allegations. We cannot rush to move forward under this cloud. https://t.co/SIHzdnnOFJ — Doug Jones (@SenDougJones) September 16, 2018 Kavanaugh, in a statement Monday, called the allegation “completely false.” The White House said it stood by Kavanaugh’s previous denial of any such incident.
Doug Jones says SCOTUS confirmation hearing unfair, should have been delayed
Sen. Doug Jones is facing mounting pressure from his constituents to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, yet on Wednesday Alabama’s newly elected Senator said he thinks the hearings should have been delayed. Jones, like many of his Democratic colleagues, think the delay is necessary due to the more than 42,000 pages of documents that were sent to the Judiciary Committee late Monday from Kavanaugh’s tenure in the George W. Bush White House. “As I’ve said before, it’s regrettable that Supreme Court nominations have become the subject of such partisan bickering, which was on full display at the hearing today,” Jones said in a statement via WHNT. “I am very concerned that a significant amount of Judge Kavanaugh’s record has been withheld from the U.S. Senate and the American public. He continued, “This hearing should have been delayed in order to gather and review all of the facts—rather than hide them—and approach this process with the thoroughness and transparency that it demands. This is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in our land; it is not a decision that should be rushed. The process as it is playing out right now is not fair to the nominee, the Court, the Senate, or the American people.” But Republican’s are pushing back against the left’s assertions “Helpful reminder: Democrats didn’t show up to see sensitive documents that were made available to them, the idea the hearing should be delayed because they haven’t read material is quite laughable,” tweeted Sen. Orrin Hatch‘s office. Helpful reminder: Democrats didn’t show up to see sensitive documents that were made available to them, the idea the hearing should be delayed because they haven’t read material is quite laughable. #KavanaughConfirmation — Senator Hatch Office (@senorrinhatch) September 4, 2018 Hatch’s office continued to set the record straight, tweeting the process has not been rushed. Myth: “this has been rushed.” Fact: that’s nonsense, this has been an appropriately paced, deliberate process. Kavanaugh was nominated 64 days ago ✅ Sotomayor was confirmed in 66 days ✅ Roberts in 23 days ✅ Kennedy in 65 days ✅ Ginsburg in 42 days#KavanaughConfirmation Not the first time he’s asked for a delay This is not the first times Jones had said the hearings should have been delayed. On Aug. 25, Jones called for the Senate to hit the “pause button” on confirmation hearings in order to review his voluminous record. The Alabama Democrat said his chief concern was having time to see the full documents from Kavanaugh’s past work, including his time on Bush’s staff, which were just released this week. Jones has yet to say how he’ll vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation. He has previously said he plans to meet with him following the confirmation hearings.
Poll: Many voters indifferent to Brett Kavanaugh nomination
Does Brett Kavanaugh belong on the Supreme Court? It’s a question that may be consuming Washington, but one that elicits a shrug from many Americans. And there’s also no nationwide consensus on whether the Senate should vote on his nomination before Election Day. That’s according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, released Wednesday, that finds nearly half of Americans — 46 percent — don’t have a strong opinion on President Donald Trump‘s nominee to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy on the high court. That ambivalence runs even deeper among independent voters, as fully two-thirds say they’ve not formed an opinion on whether the federal appeals court judge deserves a promotion. Some people who haven’t yet formed an opinion say they need more information. While the parties have clashed over whether Kavanaugh should receive a vote before Election Day, Americans are evenly divided on that question: 51 percent saying go now and 48 percent preferring lawmakers wait until after voters have cast their ballots. Count Bob Tomlinson, 61, of Three Rivers, Michigan, among the indifferent undecideds. He doesn’t have an opinion on when the Senate should vote, but he has read some concerns about Kavanaugh’s views on executive authority and whether a sitting president can be indicted “or held accountable even.” “I do want to learn a little bit more before I make up my mind on the guy,” he said. Tomlinson and the rest of the county will get that chance next week, when the Senate Judiciary Committee begins confirmation hearings on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Republicans hope to have Trump’s nominee confirmed by the start of the court’s new session on Oct. 1. The tepid interest is a world away from Washington, where the partisan combat over Kavanaugh has been red hot. Conservative groups are spending millions on television ads designed to pressure Democratic senators to buck their party and support Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The ads mostly target voters in Indiana, West Virginia, Alabama and North Dakota, all states Trump handily won in 2016. Meanwhile, liberal groups are running anti-Kavanaugh ads in Maine and Alaska in the hope that Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who support abortion rights, will decide to vote no. Among all Americans, those who do have an opinion divide about evenly, with 25 percent in favor of Kavanaugh’s elevation to Supreme Court justice and 29 percent opposed. Those opinions are divided primarily by partisan lines. “From what I’ve studied, he’d be a great candidate, No. 1, and the other reason is, I don’t trust the Democrats,” said Martin Stefen, 73, of Carson City, Nevada. He’s among the 78 percent of Republicans who believe a Senate vote should happen before the election. More than half — 56 percent — say they favor Kavanaugh’s confirmation, with just 4 percent opposed. Kavanaugh spent about five years working in the White House under President George W. Bush as a legal counsel and then as staff secretary. He has served for 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, authoring some 300 legal opinions. Stefen said he views Kavanaugh as someone who “wouldn’t go along with politics” from the bench. “He’d be ruling fair and square, no matter what,” Stefen said. Among Democrats, 69 percent prefer the Senate wait until after the midterms to vote. A 54 percent majority oppose confirming Kavanaugh, while just 5 percent say they favor doing so. Senate Democrats have described the process for vetting Kavanaugh as broken and have called for Republicans to hold off on hearings and a vote. “If we do it before the midterms, it’ll go too quickly and we’ll have too many conservatives on the court, and I don’t think that’s a good thing,” said Anna Horton, 50, of Fountain, Colorado, who prefers that lawmakers wait. Horton said she is concerned about what Kavanaugh’s confirmation would mean for issues such as gun control and the environment. But her chief concern boils down to seeing red flags about any nominee who would be selected by Trump. “I just have a lot of mistrust for this administration,” she said. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,055 adults was conducted Aug. 16-20 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.2 percentage points. Republished with permission from the Associated Press.
Alabama bus company on the road with Concerned Women of America to promote SCOTUS confirmation
The once-retired driving force (literally) behind the Republican Party is back on the road. Montgomery’s own Johnny Williams, owner and operator of Johnny Williams Bus Charters, came out of retirement this year has found himself back on the road driving a bus for Concerned Women of America (CWA) in an eight-state tour to promote the confirmation of President Donald Trump‘s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. CWA, the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, kicked off the #WomenforKavanaugh Bus Tour on August 8 in Des Moines, Iowa. The tour endeavors to rally conservative women to use their voices to support Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States. “This is the moment conservative women and evangelical voters have been waiting for and a huge reason why they voted for President Trump,” said Penny Nance, CEO and President of CWA. “This grassroots bus tour will utilize CWA state directors, chapter leaders, and volunteers across the nation to rally behind Judge Kavanaugh and demonstrate that he is abundantly qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court.” Williams, who has made his living doing bus tours for candidates and issues campaigns has driven candidates for almost every level of government. He said the CWA is a old client of his and when they called for help wit the bus tour he said yes. “We got back in there to help, because we’ve get Kavanaugh in there,” Williams said referring to getting Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court. Williams recognizes just how important the tour is in his home state of Alabama where newly elected U.S. Senator, Democrat Doug Jones is still on the fence about confirming Kavanaugh. “We need to keep the pressure on Doug Jones,” Williams told Alabama Today. Which is precisely why the CWA Bus Tour will make a stop in a suburb of Birmingham, Ala. in hopes of encouraging Alabamians to put the pressure on Jones to support Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The tour will conclude at on Thursday, August 23 from 12-1 p.m. at at Hoover Tactical. A full list of stops are below: Wednesday, August 8: Des Moines, Iowa Thursday, August 9: Des Moines and Corning, Iowa Friday, August 10: Indianapolis, Ind. Saturday, August 11: Charleston and Fairlea, W. Va. Sunday, August 12: Louisville, Ky. Monday, August 13: St. Louis, Mo., with stop-offs at Hazelwood, Mo., and St. Charles, Mo. Tuesday, August 14: Jefferson City, Mo., with stops in O’Fallon, Wentzville, Columbia Wednesday, August 15: Sedalia, Mo. Thursday, August 16: Sioux Falls, S.D., with stop-offs in Omaha, Neb.; Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Sioux City, Iowa Friday, August 17: Fargo, North Dakota Thursday, August 23: Birmingham, Ala. For the most updated list of tour stops, please check out the CWA Facebook page.
Doug Jones town hall meeting dominated by Supreme Court discussion
U.S. Senator Doug Jones hosted his second town hall meeting since his special election victory in December on Monday night, but the conversation over the course of the evening remained fixated on one topic: whether or not Jones will confirm President Donald Trump‘s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. “I am doing a lot of work on the Supreme Court nominee,” Jones told the crowd, according to the Alabama Political Reporter. “He will be there for life twenty, thirty years, maybe more, we do not know.” One constituent told Jones that most Alabamians support Kavanaugh and asked how he could vote in opposition to the majority of his constituents. “I am going to exercise an independent view,” Jones responded according to the Alabama Political Reporter. “Most of those constituent views are based on 30 second TV ads. My vote is going to be based on what I believe. I am going to be an independent voice for Alabama and that is what I intend to do come Hell or high water.” Several organizations have called on Jones to both support and vote against Kavanaugh. Last week, the National Rifle Association’s political arm the Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) posted a video asking voters to tell Jones they support Kavanaugh by signing a pledge on their website. In July, Organizing for America emailed Alabama democrats asking them to reach out to Jones to urge him to vote against Kavanaugh. Jones previously stated he would keep an open mind on the issue and that those groups airing ads were wasting their time. “I’m not worried about the ads. I tell folks, ‘Ads on both sides, they are really wasting their money.’ I have a process I’m going through to do what I think is my job and ads from interest groups really don’t mean that much to me at all,” Jones told the Associated Press.
