It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is to vote next week on Kavanaugh, announced cryptically that she had received "information from an individual concerning the nomination."
She said the individual wanted to remain anonymous and had declined to press the issue themselves.
"I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities," Feinstein said, without giving further detail.
The New York Times, citing officials familiar with the matter, said it involved "possible sexual misconduct" between Kavanaugh and a woman when they were both in high school.
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: vinifalou
Have the left lost their collective minds?
They lost it a looongggg time ago.
This Feinstein BS is BS
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Whatthedoctorordered
Thats because Facebook is a median of stupidity.
Please, get real. The world is watching this mess.
The woman who is the subject of the letter is now being represented by Debra Katz, a whistleblower attorney who works with #MeToo survivors. Joseph Abboud, an attorney at Katz’s firm, said that the firm was declining to comment. Emma Crisci, a spokesperson for Eshoo, declined to comment on the letter her office sent to Feinstein, saying that the office has a confidentiality policy when it comes to constituent casework. A spokesperson for Feinstein did not respond to requests for comment.
When Justice Scalia died suddenly in February, President Obama was gifted the opportunity to fill his third seat on the Court. He had previously replaced David Souter with Sonia Sotomayor and John Paul Stevens with Elena Kagan. Neither of those appointments shifted the Court’s ideological balance, as in each case Obama replaced, broadly speaking, a judicial liberal with another liberal. Replacing Scalia, on the other hand, was going to be a monumental shift in the Court. Scalia was one of the most conservative justices in the history of the Supreme Court. An Obama replacement would give the Court its fifth liberal and shift it to the left in historically significant ways. President Obama and Democrats were salivating at the opportunity.
The Republicans, though, were having none of it. Through unflinching and unified obstructionism combined with Tuesday’s election of Donald Trump, they succeeded in stealing the seat right out from under President Obama’s nose. It was a staggering case of grand theft judiciary.
This all started almost immediately after Scalia’s death, with the Republicans claiming a new theory that a president should not be able to appoint a justice during an election year; rather, the people should be allowed to speak and decide on the direction of the Court, they said. Never mind that justices have been confirmed regularly throughout history in election years, and that presidents have constitutional authority to appoint judges to the federal judiciary in all four years of their term, not just their first three, and that the Court would have to (and continues to) function with only eight justices. The Republicans understood the stakes of shifting the Court’s ideology, so they put up a united obstructionist front and never wavered in saying they would not confirm an Obama appointee this year.