Judge Amy Coney Barret Does Not Think SCOTUS 5-4 Split Decisions Are A Sign Of Political Partisanship

Federal Appeals Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett At Hillsdale College In May 2019

In an interview at Hillsdale College in May 2019, Federal Appeals Court Judge and now Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said she does not think the increasing 5-4 split decisions at the U.S. Supreme Court are a sign of political partisanship. This is a very strange assessment given the fact that much of the public angst against the U.S. Supreme Court can be attributed to the increasing number of these 5-4 split decisions between the 5 conservative and 4 liberal justices, which people have reasonably attributed to partisan political differences.

Judge Barrett’s strange position that Supreme Court 5-4 split decisions are not as a result of partisan political differences will certainly draw the attention of Democratic Senators at her confirmation hearings, which are already expected to be the most contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings ever.

Bottom line folks, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the U.S. Supreme Court, Americans better get used to “non-partisan” 6-3 split decisions on ACA, voting rights, DACA, Trump’s tax returns, 2020 election challenges…….. Simply put, get used to “non-partisan” 6-3 split decisions on steroids!!

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Amy Coney Barrett Feared “A Very Marked Shift” In SCOTUS Composition If Hillary Clinton Won In 2016

University of Notre Dame Law Professor Amy Coney Barrett giving a presentation at Jacksonville University On November 3, 2016 , five days before the general elections

An interesting presentation then Professor Amy Coney Barrett gave at Jacksonville University in November 2016, five days before the elections, begs for further scrutiny now that President Trump has formally nominated her to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat left vacant after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In her hour long presentation at Jacksonville University, which reasonable people will agree was highly impressive, Professor Barrett delved into a whole host of issues dealing with the U.S. Supreme Court and its Justices. Of particular relevance today, is the fear Professor Barrett expressed of “a very marked shift” in the Supreme Court to the left, were Hillary Clinton to win the presidency in 2016.(see clip below)

Professor Barrett’s concerns in November 2016 are of particular concern today because the “very marked shift” in the U.S. Supreme Court she feared in 2016 has come to pass. The only difference is that the marked shift in the court has been to the right, with Trump as President. More importantly, the very concerns she had about a future President Clinton replacing Justice Scalia with a liberal, is the exact situation we currently find ourselves in, with President Trump getting ready to replace liberal Justice Ginsburg with her–a staunch conservative. Given her fears in 2016, should Trump have nominated someone more liberal to replace Justice Ginsburg? In other words, is Judge Amy Barrett only worried about the U.S. Supreme Court markedly shifting to the left but okay if the shift is to the right?

Specifically, then Professor Barrett argued in her presentation that whoever won the presidency in 2016, who she assumed like many would be Clinton, would have a chance to replace up to four Supreme Court justices, given their advanced ages. Clinton, she argued, would not only fill the vacant Scalia seat with a reliable liberal, tipping the balance of the court leftward, but would also likely replace Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy with much younger reliable liberals, essentially turning the U.S. Supreme Court into a reliably liberal court. Trump on the other hand, Professor Barrett argued, would fill the vacancies with a “mixed bag” of justices resulting in a somewhat center-right court but definitely not a far right Supreme Court.

Reasonable people will agree that with the appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump has already shifted the U.S. Supreme Court to the right. Trump’s nomination of conservative Judge Amy Barrett to replace reliably liberal Justice Ginsburg will therefore lead to the very “marked shift” in the U.S. Supreme Court that then Professor Amy Barrett feared with a Clinton presidency. The question Democratic Senators need to confront Judge Barrett with at her confirmation hearings, is whether she is now comfortable with the marked shift in the Supreme Court to the right. Should Trump have nominated a Supreme Court justice more in the mold of Justice Ginsburg to prevent the marked shift to the right?

It bears pointing out however that Professor Barrett espoused an interpretation of the role of judges generally, and supreme court justices in particular, that many legal scholars will find very refreshing. She stated very clearly that the role of a judge is not to placate to the partisan political camps but rather to follow the law, wherever it leads. She illustrated her point with Justice Scalia, who sided with the liberal justices time and time again on criminal law issues even though as a conservative, Republican voters expected him to be a “law and order” judge, always siding with law enforcement in criminal cases. Professor Barrett said Justice Scalia did so not because he liked criminals, but because that was what the text of the constitution required him to do. This should be a warning shot to Trump Republicans who are fast-tracking her confirmation in the hopes that she will rubber stamp GOP policy positions at the Supreme Court.

Bottom line folks, as things currently stand, Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s ascension to the U.S. Supreme Court is all but certain. There’s literally nothing Democrats can do procedurally or otherwise, to stop her confirmation to the high court. One only hopes that during her confirmation hearings, Democratic Senators will confront her with tough questions, among them, her fears in 2016 of a “marked shift” in the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court. Specifically, Democratic Senators should ask Judge Barrett why she feared a marked shift of the high court to the left but is now seemingly comfortable with a marked shift to the right, thanks to her confirmation.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Faces Behind Dark Money Group Buying Judges

There’s been a lot of concern in recent years about the increasing politicization of our judiciary both at the state and the federal level. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Brennan Center and a battery of little known “court watcher” groups like Justice at Stake have been in the forefront of this war for years. This issue was even addressed by an esteemed panel of state and federal judges at an event that was televised on CSPAN. Simply put, state high courts and federal courts have become too politicized, and there is a lot of dark money dictating which judges end up in these highly influential courts.

It is however the 2018 highly contentious Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation process that elevated the court politicization debate to a national stage and audience. The reverberations from the 2018 Kavanaugh confirmation process are still heard to this day and with them, mounting questions as to who/what are the powers behind the judges that end up being confirmed to the nation’s highest courts. Well, one name came up in the wake of the Kavanaugh confirmation process–The Judicial Crisis Network (JCN)

We now know that JCN spent a staggering $22 million dollars just to ensure that Kavanaugh got confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court and that $17 million dollars of that came from one mysterious donor. A reasonable argument can be made that this mysterious donor essentially bought Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court seat.

Prior to Kavanaugh, JCN pumped a lot of money into Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation and according to media reports, they also played a very active role in blocking President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merick Garland. So while a lot of the vitriol is directed at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for blocking Garland’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, it is very important to remember that McConnell was largely playing to the tunes of the JCN who by all accounts appear to be literally buying judgeships both at the state and federal level.

As your trusted grassroots reporter doing what the mainstream media is afraid to do, Yours Truly is therefore forced to dig into the JCN and expose the faces of those seemingly purchasing our judiciary and turning our courts away from their original mission of impartial administration of justice, into partial instruments for the satisfaction of JCN’s political interests–a total travesty!!

Here are the faces behind JCN

According to this 2015 Daily Beast piece titled “The JCN Story: Building a Secretive GOP Judicial Machine”, Carrie Serevino who is JCN’s Chief Counsel, essentially runs this secretive outfit. She however enjoys the support and funding from high powered conservatives like lawyer Ann Corkery, real estate magnate Robin Arkley II, and Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo. The Federalist Society as you know handpicked Kavanaugh and has a list of other Supreme Court nominees ready for Trump in case another Supreme Court vacancy arises. Lawyer Ann Corkery is tied to the Wellspring Committee which funds JCN and has deep ties to the Koch Brothers.

Bottom line folks, it is no secret that our judiciary which the founding fathers hoped would strive for the impartial administration of justice, has fallen prey to Carrie Serevino’s JCN and other Conservative dark money groups. No reasonable person can ever conclude that Carrie Serevino’s JCN, a Conservative political outfit, is pouring all this money to ensure that judges they pick end up in influential state and federal courts, without the expectation that the said handpicked judges will decide cases in JCN’s favor. Simply put folks, Carrie Serevino’s JCN has purchased our judiciary and turned it into what our founding fathers would roundly rebuke–a partial, bought judiciary. Its about time Democrats and the mainstream media took Carrie’s JCN and its shadowy funders to task!!

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Gillibrand Slams McConnell For Harming SCOTUS “Almost Irreparably”

At a town hall in New Hampshire, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand blasted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying by blocking President Obama’s Supreme Court pick Merrick Garland, McConnell had harmed the U.S. Supreme Court “almost irreparably”

Senator Gillibrand addressed a whole host of issues at the New Hampshire town hall (which Yours Truly strongly recommends that any Democrat watch) most notably her long record in Congress for fighting corruption/getting money out of politics. However it was her answer as to how she would handle the U.S. Supreme Court if elected President that caught Yours Truly’s attention the most.

When asked by the town hall moderator whether she would be in favor of term limits for federal Supreme Court justices, Sen Gillibrand emphatically said “Yes” adding;“I think what has happened by this President[Trump] and Mitch McConnell is the extreme politicization of the court. I’ve never seen it worse than it is today and the fact that Mitch McConnell denied the vote and the hearing on Merrick Garland is outrageous and I don’t think we’ve recovered from it….It was a stolen justice….. I think they[Trump and McConnell] have harmed our courts almost irreparably.”

It cannot be left unsaid that even though Senator Gillibrand came into the 2020 Dem presidential nomination contest as one of the top contenders, her campaign has not lived up to its billing. As a matter of fact most Democrats will agree that she has seriously under-performed especially given the fact that she almost failed to make the cut for the recent debate. There is a divergence of opinions among cable TV pundits as to why Sen Gillibrand’s campaign has not caught fire yet. As for Yours Truly, the answer to that is very simple. For Sen Gillibrand to become a top-tier presidential candidate, her campaign should tone down a little on the uber-feminist message and instead focus on her real and provable congressional record of fighting corruption in Washington. Simply put, if Senator Gillibrand becomes the anti-corruption candidate— going after lobbyists, lamenting the swamp, and even going after Trump’s elusive tax returns–the future is bright for her presidential campaign.

Bottom line, even though she gets very little credit from grassroots Democrats (especially post-Al Franken), Sen Gillibrand has been a Dem stalwart with a stellar congressional record to prove it. Yours Truly strongly believes that in the coming months, especially if she keeps touting her anti-corruption record, she will become a top-tier presidential candidate. And while you are at it Sen Gillibrand, keep slamming Mitch McConnell over his Supreme Court chicanery. McConnell bashing is an absolute win win among grassroots Democrats.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out.

You may reach the author via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Will Dems Subpoena Justice Kennedy’s Son Over Deutsche Bank?

President Trump with Justice Anthony Kennedy(Retired)

In the days following the June 2018 announcement by Justice Anthony Kennedy that he was retiring from the Supreme Court, there was rampant speculation that his resignation was not entirely voluntary but rather that the Trump administration engineered/even forced him out for fear that the GOP may lose their U.S. Senate majority to the Democrats in the November 2018 elections. In essence, the Trump administration did not want Justice Kennedy to retire at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate because that would make it difficult for any Trump SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed.


Speculation that the Trump Admin forced out Justice Kennedy took a whole new turn after the New York Times did a bombshell piece revealing that Justice Kennedy’s son Justin Kennedy had been a longtime financier for Trump. Specifically, that Justin Kennedy was Trump’s financier at the troubled Deutsche Bank which has come under international scrutiny over allegations that it is the bank of choice for Russian money launderers

Justin Kennedy, the son of Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

Justin Kennedy was apparently the global head of real estate capital markets at Deutsche Bank which leaves absolutely no doubt that he would be the point man at Deutsche Bank for Trump’s vast real estate empire. Part of the bombshell NYT piece read;“During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history.” 

With Special Counsel Mueller increasingly zeroing in on Trump’s business ties to Russia and news that German authorities recently raided the troubled Deutsche Bank, the question now being raised is whether with their new found majority in the House, Democrats will subpoena Trump-related Deutsche Bank records and specifically whether they will call Justin Kennedy to testify about his financial dealings with Trump. Justin Kennedy’s testimony in Congress could also lay to rest the lingering speculation as to whether his dad was forced by the Trump administration to resign from the U.S. Supreme Court before the November 2018 elections.

Bottom line given the serious questions being raised about Deutsche Bank’s ties to President Trump and its troubling history as a conduit for Russian money laundering, it would be Congressional malpractice if House Democrats did not call Justin Kennedy to testify about his role at the troubled bank and specifically, find out what criteria Deutsche Bank used to justify loaning Trump so much money when other “mainstream” banks declined to do so. Was Russia the source of these loans to Trump?. Grassroots Democrats would also like to know whether Kavanaugh played any part in Justice Kennedy’s retirement–essentially engineering his own ascendancy to the U.S. Supreme Court

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




You may also reach the author directly via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Chief Justice Roberts Says SCOTUS Is Independent. Is It?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell with C.J. John Roberts

In a rare public address Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court talked about the recent contentious Kavanaugh confirmation process and reiterated how important it is that the public views the High Court as independent. C.J. Roberts said regarding judicial independence, “Our role[Supreme Court] is very clear. We are to interpret the constitution and the laws of the United States and ensure that the political branches act within them. That job obviously requires independence from the political branches.”

The problem with that is the person at the center of the public’s disaffection with the Roberts Supreme Court, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has also recently spoken about the Roberts Court. Sen McConnell and by extension his GOP’s view of the Roberts Supreme Court is in stark contrast to what Chief Justice Roberts says. Specifically, there is no question that according to Sen McConnell and his GOP, they have fought hard to pack the Roberts Supreme Court with conservative judges for the express purpose of getting favorable decisions from the court..

Sen McConnell recently said at a press conference following Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. “If you want to have a long term impact, and obviously all of us would like to do that, the single most significant way to do it is judicial appointments and my party has not been in this position all that long. You can go back 100 years and only 20 of the last 100 years have Republicans had the Presidency, the House and Senate the same time, and so these opportunities have not come along that often for us and I do think it is the most consequential thing that I’ve been involved in in my time as leader.”

So what is a regular American looking at Chief Justice Roberts’ remarks about judicial independence and Senator McConnell’s partisan political remarks about judicial appointments supposed to think? Why would Sen McConnell and his GOP block President Obama’s rightful nominee Garland and then ram through Kavanaugh if the end result was to have an independent Supreme Court? Reasonable people would agree that if the Supreme Court was truly independent as Chief Justice Roberts argues, there would be more consensus in the senate confirmation process. In other words the fact that the senate confirmation fights have become so bitter is in itself proof of a partisan Roberts Supreme Court.


Bottom line as Yours Truly said in an earlier post, the Roberts Supreme Court has a serious credibility problem. It is sad to say it but most Americans are more inclined to believe Sen McConnell’s narrative over that of C.J. Roberts–that Republicans have made the Roberts Supreme Court a conservative court with the express intention of using the High Court to advance their Republican agenda–a partisan political court. Simply put, there is no way any reasonable person looking at the way Sen McConnell blocked Obama’s nominee Garland, rammed Kavanaugh through, and then gave a press conference bragging about his legacy of steering the court to the right, can ever conclude that the Roberts Supreme Court is somehow an independent court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




Roberts Supreme Court Helping GOP Disenfranchise Minority Voters

Conservatives on the Roberts Supreme Court

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has for a long time covered stories about the GOP’s various efforts at minority voter suppression, the latest one being the effort by North Dakota Republicans to suppress the vote of Native Americans in the state who were key to Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp‘s win in 2012. According to Maddow, right after Sen Heitkamp’s win in 2012, North Dakota state GOP officials embarked on a scheme to suppress the vote of her key Native American voting base.

The GOP suppression scheme of choice was to require all Native Americans to present an ID with a street address in order to vote, something they knew many tribal IDs don’t have because they live in reservations. According to O.J. Semans, Executive Director of Four Directions, a Native American advocacy group, “The street addresses is very common maybe in cities but on reservations, street addresses literally do not exist.”

So you ask, “Well @Emolclause if Maddow has covered a lot of GOP voter suppression stories why is this North Dakota case special?” Here’s why. According to Maddow, a very troubling pattern is developing. Unlike in previous cases where such blatant GOP voter suppression tactics were being easily struck down in federal court, now it appears that the conservatives at the Roberts Supreme Court are increasingly affirming these shocking GOP voter suppression tactics–yeah you heard that right–the conservatives in the Roberts Supreme Court are helping the GOP cheat in elections.The conservative majority at the Roberts Supreme Court knows full well that imposing the street address requirement on Native American voters in North Dakota will suppress their vote but they still affirmed the challenged GOP state law–the height of injustice.


Sadly the injustice by the conservative majority at the Roberts Supreme Court doesn’t end there. Maddow recently did a story about how Texas GOP officials are trying to suppress the vote of students at the predominantly Black Prairie View A & M University which is located in predominantly White Whaler County(you’ll probably remember Whaler County due to Sandra Bland). At issue here is whether the Black PVAMU students should vote in Whaler county simply because they attend school there. According to Maddow a decades old Supreme Court precedent already settled this issue in the Black students’ favor but now Texas @GOP officials are bringing the issue back because of a recent Roberts Supreme Court decision.

Maddow’s guest Mike Siegel a Dem congressional candidate said, “This very late change to the voting status of the students is something that would not have been allowed under the previous version of the Voting Rights Act. Texas used to be in pre-clearance and this is something that because its an impediment to voting wouldn’t have been allowed but for that recent Supreme Court[Roberts] decision that invalidated part of the Voting Rights Act.”

Bottom line one is left wondering what the founding fathers would think of the Roberts Supreme Court which is now literally helping a major political party disenfranchise voters of color? It is already very hard for Americans to respect the Roberts Supreme Court which now features Kavanaugh given his very shady confirmation process. Now that on top of that the court is literally helping GOP to disenfranchise minority voters, only God knows what the future holds for the once hallowed High Court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




Sen Susan Collins’ Insult To Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

Fresh from perpetrating her “No Corroboration” fraud on Americans to get Justice Brett Kavanaugh confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sen Susan Collins(R-ME) showed up on CNN’s State of The Union to explain her highly suspicious YES vote. In her interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Senator Collins essentially repeated the fraudulent “No Corroboration” theory she had previously laid out in her 45 minute nationally televised speech Friday. The CNN State of The Union segment is available here but the relevant clip is below.

She however brought up a new concept in her interview with Dana Bash which Yours Truly considers a total insult to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and that is, that Dr. Ford was assaulted by “someone else”, not by Kavanaugh. So you ask. “But @Emolclause, how is that an insult to Dr. Ford?” Here’s why. We all remember very well that during her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Dr. Ford said very clearly that she was 100% certain that it was Kavanaugh who assaulted her. More importantly when asked by Senator Patrick Leahy(D-VT) what her strongest memory was of the decades old incident, Dr Ford responded that it was the “uproarious” laughter by Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge that still torments her to this date—Yours Truly talked about this in a previous post.

To believe Sen Collins’ new stance that “someone else” attacked Dr Ford, you also have to believe that the “uproarious” laughter Dr Ford tearfully testified torments her to this day either never happened or Mark Judge was laughing with “someone else”—a total insult. Think about that folks, in order to justify her fraudulent “No Corroboration” theory, Sen Collins now says Dr. Ford is being delusional when she talks about the “uproarious” laughter that still torments her to this day.

You don’t have to take Yours Truly’s word for it regarding Sen Collins’ insult to Dr. Ford. Dem Senator Mazie Hirono said the same thing when she appeared on the same show with Dana Bash.


Its also very important to point out that Dana Bash strangely never asked Senator Collins about Kavanaugh’s other accusers. Surely CNN’s Dana Bash knows that Dr Ford was not Kavanaugh’s only accuser. If Sen Collins thought there was “No Corroboration” re Dr. Ford , what does she think about Debbie Ramirez’s allegations? One would think MSM’s Dana Bash would challenge Sen Collins’ “No Corroboration” theory with questions about Ramirez and other accusers for example, Were they questioned by the FBI? If not, how can she credibly characterize the FBI investigation as “thorough” or “comprehensive”? and so on….

A lot of people waking up to watch Sen Collins’ first TV interview after the highly controversial Supreme Court confirmation expected these kinds of questions from MSM’s Dana Bash but predictably, it turned out be yet another terrible disappointment by the hapless MSM, which essentially gave Sen Collins a platform to justify her fraudulent “No Corroboration” theory.

Bottom line Sen Collins’ new stance that ” someone else” attacked Dr Ford is an insult to Dr Ford and indeed all other women survivors of sexual assault across the nation. It would be helpful if on her next interview someone in the MSM asks her about Ramirez and other Kavanaugh accusers and whether the supplemental FBI probe included them. More importantly the MSM should ask Sen Collins how she concluded that the FBI inquiry was “thorough” and “comprehensive” when it clearly left out a lot of willing witnesses—the aforementioned “No Corroboration” fraud.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




The Seriousness Of Trump’s Attack On Dr Christine Blasey Ford

Yours Truly recently wrote about how the modern GOP has officially become the anti-woman party. Little did we know however that just a few days after that, President Trump would cement this GOP anti-woman legacy into history with his shameful attack on Dr Christine Blasey Ford, a sexual assault survivor, at one of his political rallies. Never would anyone have imagined that a sitting President of the United States would use the presidential podium to lobby verbal attacks at a sexual assault victim, whether they believed the allegations or not.

So you say, “But @Emolclause, Trump is an equal opportunity verbal attacker. It is very convenient how you are singling out the ‘seriousness’ of his verbal attack on Dr. Ford.” Well here’s why Trump’s attack on Dr.Ford is not only very serious, but also differs significantly from his verbal attacks on others. When Dr Ford appeared before the senate judiciary committee, she was asked by Sen Patrick Leahy (D-VT) what still hurts her the most about the decades old incident. Dr Ford responded that what she still remembers to this day is Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge laughing “at her expense”. Specifically Dr Ford said:
“Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two [Kavanaugh & Mark Judge], and their having fun at my expense.”

Well, Trump and his adoring fans at the Southaven, Mississippi rally did exactly that. Trump basically called Dr Ford a liar to “uproarious” applause from his fans, essentially punishing Dr Ford all over again. This is totally unacceptable and reprehensible behavior by anybody let alone a sitting President of the United States. Even in the hyper partisan political times we find ourselves in, all reasonable people will agree that there is absolutely no excuse for mocking a sexual assault survivor from the presidential podium.


Bottom line women voters you have a choice this November. A lot of this anti-woman madness we are witnessing from the GOP can be cured by multitudes of women registering to vote and then “neutering” the anti-woman GOP in November by voting in Democrats both at the federal and state levels. Simply put there is a very viable solution to this GOP anti-woman madness–The Vote!!

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out




The FBI Must Investigate Kavanaugh’s Debt

After the last minute maneuver by GOP Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona that led President Trump to order the FBI to look into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a partisan divide has emerged as to what exactly the FBI is allowed to look into.

Naturally the Republicans, fearful that a full blown FBI probe into Kavanaugh’s background will dig up damaging info, are advocating a “limited scope” inquiry in which they want the FBI to look into Dr Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations only. The GOP argument, presented today by White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway is that the FBI inquiry should not be a “fishing expedition.” Democrats on the other hand want a full blown FBI probe into all the sexual misconduct allegations made against Kavanaugh(4 so far), plus a look into whether he perjured himself during this and previous confirmation hearings.


One issue however that is strangely left out of the mix is the Kavanaugh family debt. According to a Yahoo News article, the Kavanaughs have racked up tens of thousands of credit card debt spanning all the 12 years preceeding 2017. According to the Yahoo News piece, there are conflicting explanations given by Kavanaugh and the Trump White House as to the origins of the Kavanaugh family debt.

Another very interesting tidbit from the Yahoo piece is that in 2017, a year before Trump nominated Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court, the credit card debt suddenly disappeared. Again, there are conflicting versions as to how the Kavanaugh family debt got cleared, with Kavanaugh saying one thing and the Trump White house saying something else. So there are conflicting stories from Kavanaugh and the Trump White House regarding both the origin and disappearance of his credit card debt.

Kavanaugh’s finances strangely never came up during his confirmation hearings. It goes without saying however that a judge’s finances are always an important line of inquiry especially as relates to recusals that may be necessitated by financial conflicts of interest.

Bottom line now that the FBI has a week to look into Kavanaugh’s background, Dems must insist that the feds also clear up discrepancies regarding the Kavanaugh family debt. Simply put, the FBI should find out what exactly led to the Kavanaugh family debt and what exactly cleared it up.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out