One of the most well known conservatives in media here made some comment on radio about voter fraud, and the person who runs the county election office invited him down. To his credit he went to the meeting and later recanted, telling his radio audience (mostly right wing Trump fans) that he was wrong. Voter fraud did not exist as he thought it did.
The closest thing I have seen to voter fraud here was someone actually in the counties office who was involved in some local election mail in ballot stuff. She was fired and charged with a crime.
We had that here in Oregon, might be the same case⌠She took a box or boxes of ballots that were marked for Democrats and threw them away, was caught and yeah not just fired but charged with a crime. And even that, was not voter fraud, not the way itâs been discussed though.
So sure, for the next few elections, try to get people out but the biggest bang for our buck is to stop treating long lines and inconvenient locations like they somehow make the process better.
I do think that this is the key, âa nominee with an evenly divided net confirmation rating may not be as imperiled in the Senate as he used to be â as long as his party is behind him.â
Very different circumstance for each of these nominees.
He has nothing approaching the history of Bork, who was the guy who caved to Nixon on the saturday night massacre, and he holds what are essentially maximum qualifications for the job, unlike Harriet Miers.
It would probably help Kavanaugh if he didnât seem to be all about letting the President have no checks on him.
When you come out and say an 8-0 decision against Nixon was decided wrong⌠people are gonna notice, especially when you have someone obviously more corrupt than Nixon that isnât even remotely good at hiding it.
Saying a unanimous vote was wrong is kind of iffy on itâs own as it is. I donât have the confidence in Kavanaugh that I did in Gorsuch. He feels a lot more like a person I donât want on the Court deciding things than anyone I can remember other than maybe Thomas. And my hatred for Thomas is legend.
The only way Iâd consider him viable at this point is if he swore to recuse himself on anything involving Trump, but I donât see that ever happening.
Iâm not saying they should all be locked inside the largest hive of â not bees, no, yellow jackets. Yellow jackets are assholes â ever found, but Iâm just saying it wouldnât be the worst outcome.
CNN reports that Kavanaugh has privately told Senators that he stands by his view that a sitting president cannot be indicted, though he was vague about whether this was just a matter of DOJ policy or of the Constitution. Whatâs weird is that he said Congress should pass a law making it possible to indict a president after they leave office, which implies that he thinks ex-presidents canât be indicted under current law.
He has apparently mitigated this view somewhat by saying that the Mueller probe itself is appropriate rather than illegal, and that Congress could impeach a president and once he was no longer president he could be indicted (assuming a new law? Or not?).
Of course this means Congress can effectively protect a president from the law, perhaps in perpetuity.
Despite that, his private arguments seem to have had the effect of mollifying the usual cast of concerned, moderate Republican Senators. Flake has declared himself unconcerned about Kavanaughâs views in this area, while Tillis says Kavanaughâs arguments are sensible.
He has only now to pretend to be respectful of stare decisis to win over the Senators pretending to care about Roe v. Wade, and heâs in.