Tag: Mazie Hirono

During testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) accused Attorney General William Barr of lying to Congress and tells him he should resign. Committee chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) then accused Hirono of slandering Barr. #Barr #Hirono…

On Jan. 16, the U.S. Senate unanimously adopted a resolution “to reaffirm religious liberty and condemn religious tests for federal officials.” It may seem odd that such an affirmation was necessary, and it is odder still that the proximate occasion of the resolution was the suggestion in confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Knights of Columbus represent a form of dangerous extremism. This line of questioning has been widely criticized as displaying anti-Catholic bias, and certainly the willingness of two senators to depict a Catholic fraternal organization present in parishes across the country and around the world as a danger to the republic is chilling. But there are at least three other factors at play beyond the appearance of anti-Catholic bias. First, as we have pointed out before, Roe v. Wade’s confinement of the abortion question to the judiciary continues to distort the workings of political dialogue and compromise. Unable to debate the abortion question straightforwardly, legislators are left to read tea leaves about what judges might do. And since the American people are not of one mind about abortion, the judicial “settlement” of the issue is in constant need of shoring up, driving its defenders to depict anyone who opposes abortion as dangerously extreme. Second, the current climate of “gotcha” politics is deeply opposed to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association and the rich history of nongovernmental civic institutions building up the fabric of American public life. Many politicians, seeking short-term advantage, are willing to cast suspicion on any connection to a group or issue they oppose. The assumption that membership in a fraternal organization automatically constitutes endorsement of a particular political position—much less bias that would render a nominee unfit to be a judge—is catastrophically narrow. And it is possible for senators to ask a nominees how they will navigate tensions between personal religious values and their judicial duties without assuming that one must violate the other.

(Oct. 6) AP WASHINGTON – Brett Kavanaugh's ascension to the Supreme Court over the weekend, far from settling the fierce debate over his confirmation, has inflamed the nation's political and cultural fissures for the midterm elections next month and well beyond. Sen. Joe Manchin, running for re-election in West Virginia, a state that Trump carried by a wide margin in 2016, was his party’s only vote in favor of Kavanaugh’s nomination. Another Democratic incumbent running in a red state, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, acknowledged that her vote to oppose Kavanaugh bolstered the odds that Republican challenger Rep. Kevin Cramer would defeat her on Election Day.One Democratic senator running for re-election in a state that Trump carried in 2016, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, became the only person in his party to vote in favor of Kavanaugh's nomination. "The politically expedient vote here was a 'yes' vote," Heitkamp said on CBS' "60 Minutes." Democrats said Kavanaugh's confirmation could boost the party's efforts to gain control of the House, however, by rallying voters who believe the president and Senate Republicans refused to treat seriously women's accusations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. Democrats need to flip 23 Republican-held seats to win a majority. VOTE REPUBLICAN!" If Democrats win the House, the Judiciary Committee will open an investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct and perjury against the justice, according to New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who is in line to be the committee's chairman. Meanwhile, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern about whether Americans would continue to have faith in the high court as independent and fair-minded. "In other words, people thinking of the court as not politically divided in the same way, as not an extension of politics, but instead somehow above the fray."

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) says that she believes Christine Blasey Ford's allegations that she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh and says that there was corroboration of Ford's claims.

But Hirono appears to be contending that Kavanaugh is more prone to lie about sexual assault because his approach to judicial interpretation is extreme and deceptive, and because he is probably opposed to Roe v. Wade. These beliefs, she seems to be saying, are indications of bad character. Given the stakes of the nomination battle, politicians and advocates are willing to wield any charge that comes to hand, from the very serious to the barely coherent. Does Hirono actually believe that being pro-life (something Kavanaugh, by the way, has not acknowledged) and a judicial conservative makes someone more prone to lie about attempted rape? The argument might go: Conservatives who talk about judicial restraint are really seeking the outcome of making abortion illegal. Set aside for a moment the question of Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence. That depends on the facts of the case (or cases), which should be carefully and fairly examined. The question I have for my liberal friends is different: Has Hirono let slip what you really think when people — people like me — call themselves judicial textualists who are also pro-life? This is not politics as usual; it is political pyromania. Just like a five-alarm conflagration is probably the wrong time for a fire-safety class, I’m not sure how it is possible to teach the proper way to argue in a democracy during a nomination battle.

She argued that Kavanaugh's denial of sexual misconduct is less credible because "he has an ideological agenda that's very outcome driven, and I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplify his, in my view, inability to be fair in the cases that come before him." Hirono added: "He very much is against women's reproductive choice. So there are so many indications of his own lack of credibility." But Hirono appears to be contending that Kavanaugh is more prone to lie about sexual assault because his approach to judicial interpretation is extreme and deceptive, and because he is probably opposed to Roe v. Wade. Given the stakes of the nomination battle, politicians and advocates are willing to wield any charge that comes to hand, from the very serious to the barely coherent. Does Hirono actually believe that being anti-abortion (something Kavanaugh, by the way, has not acknowledged) and a judicial conservative makes someone more prone to lie about attempted rape? Set aside for a moment the question of Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence. That depends on the facts of the case (or cases), which should be carefully and fairly examined. The question I have for my liberal friends is different: Has Hirono let slip what you really think when people call themselves judicial textualists who are also anti-abortion? I also want to set aside the merits of the abortion issue itself.

She argued that Kavanaugh's denial of sexual misconduct is less credible because "he has an ideological agenda that's very outcome driven, and I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplify his, in my view, inability to be fair in the cases that come before him." So there are so many indications of his own lack of credibility." But Hirono appears to be contending that Kavanaugh is more prone to lie about sexual assault because his approach to judicial interpretation is extreme and deceptive, and because he is probably opposed to Roe v. Wade. Given the stakes of the nomination battle, politicians and advocates are willing to wield any charge that comes to hand, from the very serious to the barely coherent. Does Hirono actually believe that being pro- life (something Kavanaugh, by the way, has not acknowledged) and a judicial conservative makes someone more prone to lie about attempted rape? Set aside for a moment the question of Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence. That depends on the facts of the case (or cases), which should be carefully and fairly examined. The question I have for my liberal friends is different: Has Hirono let slip what you really think when people -- people like me -- call themselves judicial textualists who are also pro-life? I also want to set aside the merits of the abortion issue itself. This is not politics as usual; it is political pyromania.

She argued that Kavanaugh's denial of sexual misconduct is less credible because "he has an ideological agenda that's very outcome driven, and I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplify his, in my view, inability to be fair in the cases that come before him." But Hirono appears to be contending that Kavanaugh is more prone to lie about sexual assault because his approach to judicial interpretation is extreme and deceptive, and because he is probably opposed to Roe v. Wade. These beliefs, she seems to be saying, are indications of bad character. Given the stakes of the nomination battle, politicians and advocates are willing to wield any charge that comes to hand, from the very serious to the barely coherent. Does Hirono actually believe that being pro- life (something Kavanaugh, by the way, has not acknowledged) and a judicial conservative makes someone more prone to lie about attempted rape? Set aside for a moment the question of Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence. That depends on the facts of the case (or cases), which should be carefully and fairly examined. The question I have for my liberal friends is different: Has Hirono let slip what you really think when people -- people like me -- call themselves judicial textualists who are also pro-life? This is not politics as usual; it is political pyromania. Just like a five-alarm conflagration is probably the wrong time for a fire-safety class, I'm not sure how it is possible to teach the proper way to argue in a democracy during a nomination battle.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) says she believes Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has credibility issues and wants an investigation into Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations that she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh during a party in 1982. Kavanaugh is categorically denying…

Donald Trump has received an enormous amount of criticism for the damage he’s done to constitutional and democratic norms. It’s the men in this country. When America was founded, whites had more rights than blacks, men had more rights than women, and rich white men had more rights than everybody else. America has worked -- as a matter of law, politics and moral education -- to live up to our ideals of individual rights, and we’ve made enormous progress. It is of course true that most rapes are committed by men, but that doesn’t mean most men are rapists. Nor does it mean that because some other men committed rape, a man who didn’t is guilty or loses the presumption of innocence. Over and over, opponents of Kavanaugh are arguing that Ford is credible because of the actions of other men. Credible means “believable.” It does not mean “true.” And yet the argument made a thousand times a day on cable news and social media is that because the charge is (allegedly) believable, it must also be believed. Individuals have a right to confront their accuser. Partisans cannot prove an individual’s guilt by invoking the real or alleged crimes of others.