It's becoming hard for her to do it because of where the California Democratic Party has gone. When I was a kid in California in the '80s, she and Jerry Brown were viewed as Left wing crackpots. Only people like Ron "Red" Dellums were considered further Left and not by much. Now, Feinstein and Brown are some of the most conservative Democrats in California politics. The party's slouch toward Left-wing lunacy is leaving them behind.
It's mostly partisan hackery. The unitary executive theory is basically a subset of the separation of powers doctrine. It's the idea that all executive power is held by the President. Sounds pretty uncontroversial, and of course, if you read Article II of the Constitution, it seems pretty clear. However, when you think about the implications of it, you can see why it attracts controversy. If all executive power is held by the President, that means that it can't be given to independent regulatory agencies or to other branches of government. It also means that the President can hire or shitcan anybody he wants anybody who works for an executive branch agency. Two reasons why Democrats don't like this doctrine. First, it's a proxy issue for Robert Mueller. They want to keep Trump from firing Mueller, and if they take control of Congress, they will almost surely try to enact some sort of statutory protection to keep Trump from firing him. If you're a believer in the unitary executive theory, you're going to strike such a protection down as unconstitutional. Second, Kavanaugh voted (unsuccessfully) to strike down the Consumer Financial Protection Board by applying the unitary executive theory (though he doesn't call it that). Democrats are bitter about that, because the CFPB was one of the crowning achievements of Dodd-Frank and the Obama Administration and is Elizabeth Warren's pet agency. I think the freakout is overblown though. CFPB is a horse **** agency, and I'm not even talking about its purpose or what it does. I'm talking about how it's structured. It's an independent agency (meaning the agency doesn't answer to the President) and is run by a single director rather than a board or multiple commissioners. In other words, the director answers to nobody - not the President, not a cabinet official, not even a board. Congress has never set up an agency that way in 240 years. You can vote to strike down such an abomination without being a militant advocate of the unitary executive theory. Basically, if you have any respect at all for the President's executive authority, you should vote to strike down that disgrace of an agency. But that pisses Liz Warren off, so we have to throw a fit about it.
And that's now backfiring because the progressives are wondering just like the rest of us at why she sat on this - and does she not truly care about the "fact" that this woman was raped or assaulted or whatever. Ironically she's doing the smart political move, but because she didn't posture appropriately, she's going to go down in flames.
@Mr. Deez Thank you for your usual comprehensive response. I didn't know that about the CFPB. Sounds typical. It's almost as if they set it up that way to invite attacks from the Republicans so they can then say, "See, they don't care about you." Almost if not truly Machiavellian. Is the Director appointed? If so, by whom?
I'm sure that was a factor, but there's another big factor. I think Democrats viewed the 2008 election as comparable to the 1932 election - the beginning of long-term Democratic dominance of federal power. So they figured that they'd get to choose the director for the foreseeable future. They would choose someone who was a loyal partisan (like Warren) who would use the agency to shake down the financial industry for campaign money. By making the director independent, even if the financial sector complained to the politicians, they could throw up their hands and say, "sorry guys, he's independent - can't do anything about him." He's appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once confirmed, he holds his position for a five-year term (which gives him even greater insulation from the President) and can only be terminated for cause.
So the chick who claims she was "assaulted"by Kavanaugh and his friend has come forward to say the "assault" derailed her. Oh and by the way ( not that there is anything political about this) She lives in California and is a Democrat. California professor Christine Ford claims Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her: 'It derailed me' she was so derailed she couldn't speak about it for nearly 40 years. She couldn't even speak about it when Kavanaugh was up for the DC Circuit. She could only bring herself to speak about it right before confirmation.What a vile disgusting Dem. I think I will come out and accuse DiFi of sexual assault. Her word against mine and believe me I would have been traumatized.
Sen Grassley says: "The committee vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination will proceed as scheduled, next Thurs. Here’s what we know: Judge Kavanaugh has undergone six FBI full-field investigations from 1993 to 2018. No such allegation resembling the anonymous claims ever surfaced"
For her part, Sen Feinstein says it was Ford’s 'choice' to come forward, but Ford says it really wasn’t. So we’ve got another purported victim outed because liberals have lost their minds. On top of that, does anyone trust the FBI anymore in light of the way they treated the Trump Campaign?
I try to not to be blindly loyal. Let’s assume the story is true. It happened 37 years ago. Beto did stupid **** too and no one is asking him to step down. Kavanaugh is 3 years older than me. I can attest to wild drunken HS parties. Millennials don’t do that anymore. Anyway, are we going to end the careers of everyone from that age group?
mc That is very admirable of you. For my part I wonder why she did not come forward on his other confirmations? She said she did not think his low character is someone we should have as SCOTUS But it was ok for him to be DC Circuit judge? Strange standards of hers
One of the aspects of this latest end-of-the-shot clock desperation heave by Dems is that it highlights how Rs do not rally quickly in support in their own people. It is quite the contrast from the Ds who, if they know how to do anything well, it is to circle the wagons. This behavior has schooled journalists that sleaze tactics work. As a consequence, we will absolutely see more of this going forward. We can look forward to a parade of "stunning" and "brave" accusers who suddenly remember something that happened 30-40 years ago which they didn't report at the time. (ex, one of the accusations against Moore was from 40 years ago). So I ask you this -- why would any decent family man ever risk making a run at political office if a four decade old accusation can rip his reputation and home/political life to shreds? This is blood sport. It is not about any purported concern for women or sexual assault. It is about taking scalps. Are people still calling Mike Pence Rule ridiculous?
This **** coming out 30-40 years after the so-called sexual assault(and always at election time or a confirmation) is getting ridiculous. Society needs to quit believing these people.
Perhaps the solution to end this madness is for Rs to only nominate female conservatives in the future? There are many of them. Some of them are even more conservative than Kavanaugh. Oh, and they ..... live longer too. If that is what liberals want, then maybe we should just let them have it?
Hopefully it will be millions of leftist, socialist women. We could use a good cleaning of the old DNA pool.
It would have credibility if it had come out months ago. The fact that it came out now shows that Feinstein doesn't care one bit about this woman. She's a political tool. That is what is despicable; the use of an allegation and this woman's life in a ruthless manner. The accusation and the timing is all that matters.
These days the girls are the aggressors, or so I'm told from my teenage sons. You nailed it with video games and internet porn for the boys. Neither of those activities carry the drama of a teenage girl, either.
They don't, but if the scales don't balance out in time, we'll have to fear for the survival of the species.
My son told me that every girl he meets in college claims to have laid four or five guys in high school. He doesn't know what to think about that.
Remember when it used to be bad for girls to brag about how many guys they've slept with and how guys would brag about how many girls they've slept with? Now its the exact opposite and the guys are afraid of going to jail for bragging.
They might be doing that to signal to your son that they're easy lays. Is it true? Hard to say. Back in my day ('90s and early 2000s), girls lied in the other direction - claimed to be "cleaner" than they actually were, but back then internet porn wasn't a big thing. And most guys I knew (including me) didn't want a girl who was filthy. Perhaps nowadays they feel the need to signal their sluttiness in order to compete with intent porn. "Yes, unlike the porn actress, I'll cost you a meal and maybe a movie ticket, but unless you say something really stupid, I'll give you the real thing. It'll be worth the investment." That's too honest and direct, so instead, they just illustrate how easy they are and say the same thing passively - in typical chick style.
Jeff Flake is going to vote No unless the accuser is permitted to testify. Link. And of course, the media is licking his nuts for this. This is why it matters when you throw away Senate seats. If your majority is this small, one guy with an axe to grind can shut you down. Roy Moore, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Richard Murdock, and Todd Akin were costly. We should have a six-seat majority, not one seat. If we did, nobody would care what Jeff Flake did.
Breaking: An anonymous source is claiming that at age 9 Judge Kavanaugh committed a crime against humanity by putting ketchup on his tacos
