OR DOES HE?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Sep. 5, 2018) — On Tuesday this writer sent a comment to the office of Sen. Richard Blumethal (D-CT) regarding the conduct of Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats toward Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) which began seconds into his opening remarks in the confirmation hearings for U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Washington, DC Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.
This writer did not retain a copy of the sent email, as she indicated no response was requested nor expected.
On Tuesday afternoon, the following response came from Blumenthal’s office:
Our message made no mention of “H.R. 24.”
On Wednesday morning, we received a second response which reads:
|Dear Mrs. Rondeau,|
Thank you for your message regarding the pending Supreme Court nomination. I appreciate hearing from you.
Unfortunately, since assuming office, President Trump’s administration has tried its level best to move our country backward by implementing its destructive, deeply unpopular agenda. These efforts have continued with President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Judge Kavanaugh’s record and writings signal an extreme hostility to the precious rights and liberties that make our nation great. I will vote “no” on his nomination.
Judge Kavanaugh has passed the Trump litmus test – screened and vetted by extreme right-wing groups intent on destroying hard-won rights and liberties enshrined in long established law. This litmus test – stated repeatedly and clearly – demands a commitment to overturn Roe v. Wade and eviscerate key healthcare rights including protections for Americans who suffer from preexisting conditions. Also on the chopping block are LGBTQ rights, voting rights, and many civil rights. No other president has set such a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. No other president has allowed himself to be a puppet of extreme right-wing outside organizations, or outsourced the selection to fringe groups such as the Federalist Society.
But even if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, my colleagues should join me in demanding he recuse himself from cases that appear almost certain to come before the Court – cases that will test whether the president can defy a subpoena, pardon his cronies or himself, or even fire a special counsel. If our country is to remain a nation of laws – where no one is above the law – we cannot allow the president to appoint a Supreme Court swing vote to insulate himself from accountability for criminality and wrongdoing.
Furthermore, my Republican colleagues should follow their own precedent by refusing to hold a confirmation vote on any Supreme Court nominee until after the 2018 elections. This precedent was established when Republicans refused to hold even a hearing for President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, because of the upcoming 2016 election. As made clear by the Republican precedent, the American people should have a voice in this process. A decision of this historic magnitude requires more deliberate consideration than is possible in the politically charged months between now and the election. The future of privacy protections, women’s healthcare, and many basic civil rights all hinge on who is chosen as the next Supreme Court justice.
Thank you again for your message. I will be sure to keep your views in mind as I consider how to address the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Kennedy’s retirement. I commit to you that I will not stand by while this administration seeks to take our country backward by nominating a Supreme Court candidate who will undo the tireless work of millions of Americans in moving our country forward.
Our communication did not touch on whether or not Kavanaugh is qualified nor any decisions he might make if confirmed to the Supreme Court by the U.S. Senate through the “advice and consent” clause of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.
It did, however, recount that Blumenthal unequivocally supported a “president” with a birth certificate and Selective Service registration form found to be fraudulent by a criminal investigation. To that, there was no response.