Americans Want Immigrants To Get A Court Hearing Before Deportation

The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between March 22nd and 25th of a nationwide sample of 1,600 adults (including 1,440 registered voters). The margin of error is 3.4 points for adults and 3.3 points for registered voters. 

GOP Asked A Question That They Can't Answer

The Republicans tried to trip up Ketanji Brown Jackson by asking her to define a "woman". She didn't fall into their silly trap. But when asked to define it themselves, the GOP senators couldn't do it!

The following is from Ja'han Jones at MSNBC.com:

Of all the questions asked of Judge (soon-to-be Justice, hooray!) Ketanji Brown Jackson during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, one of the most ridiculous ones came — unsurprisingly — from Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. 

Blackburn asked Jackson if she could “provide a definition for the word ‘woman.’” The question was a clear attempt to push some of the transphobic rhetoric that’s become common in the conservative movement. 

But Jackson didn’t take the bait. 

That line of questioning had me wondering, though: How does one — especially Blackburn — answer that question? There’s enough information readily available online for even the layman to know the definition isn’t nearly as simple as someone's genitalia or their ability to give birth. Some women are born without either. 

Nonetheless, the conservative movement celebrated the question as though it were some kind of “gotcha” moment — as though Jackson were a simpleton for not answering it. But as HuffPost discoveredthis week, many Republicans themselves can’t accurately define what a woman is. The outlet asked Blackburn and several other GOPers for their definitions, and the answers are hilariously bad. 

Blackburn said a woman is someone with “two X chromosomes.” Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas took the same route, arguing that chromosomes define a woman.

Wrong. Some women are born without two X chromosomes while some men are born with two. 

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said a woman is, simply, “my wife.” Not sure whether he meant all women on Earth are his wife or that his wife is the only woman on Earth.

Either way: wrong. 

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said a woman is “an adult female of the human species,” but good luck defining “female” without running into the same issues you find in defining “woman.” 

Wrong. 

Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri claimed a woman is “someone who can give birth to a child” and “someone who has a uterus.”

Wrong. 

Asked whether a woman who has a hysterectomy is still a woman, Hawley said he didn’t know. I sure hope the women in his family never have to undergo such a procedure and face his judgment. 

Regardless: wrong.

The true answer to this complex question is that “woman” is a rather nebulous word without a clear definition — that’s why the concept of gender fluidity exists. But Republicans are set on turning back the clock to a bygone era of simple-minded gender politics, and they’re happy to remain ignorant, even if it means they look like fools parading as geniuses.

Ketanji Brown Jackson Has Strong Public Support

 

The charts above are from a recent Gallup Poll -- done between March 1st and 18th of a nationwide sample of 1,017 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

Trump Impeachment Hearing Had An Inauspicious Start

The chart above shows the Nielsen TV rating numbers for the opening day last Wednesday of the Trump impeachment hearings. The numbers, to say the least were very disappointing. According to Nielsen, only about 13.8 million people watched.

Nielsen numbers don't include PBS, C-SPAN, or those who streamed the proceedings live on their phones or computers -- but I doubt the total including those would be much higher. The nearly 14 million viewers would make up only about 10% of the voters in the 2016 election.

Democrats were hoping that the hearings being telecast would convince more voters that Trump should be removed from office after being impeached. They noted that the public only turned on Nixon after viewing his impeachment hearings (by the end of those hearing about 85% of U.S. households had viewed at least some of those hearings). But if that's going to happen, then the viewership must increase substantially.

Will the viewership increase as the hearings continue? or have most voters already made up their minds on whether Trump should be impeached and removed from office? I fear the latter may be the case.

The GOP Has No Credible Defense Of Trump's Criminality

(Cartoon image is by Clay Jones at claytoonz.com.)

The public impeachments hearings have started, and the nation was able to hear from two career government officials on Wednesday. Both were able to verify that Donald Trump attempted to bribe or extort the Ukrainian government into helping him to smear one of his likely Democratic opponents (Joe Biden). It simply can no longer be denied that happened.

But the congressional Republicans are still trying to defend Trump. And since they can no longer deny the facts, their defense is pathetic and not credible.

Here's some of what the editorial board of The New York Times had to say about their efforts:

And those Americans who tuned in also learned that the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee have set themselves a degrading task. Rather than engage the facts about Mr. Trump’s Ukrainian escapade, they are twisting them and eliding them and inventing new ones they’d prefer. They spent most of Wednesday stuffing straw men and then ostentatiously knocking them down.

Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio set their tone and pace, apparently betting that a sustained note of incredulity and a motor-mouth delivery could distract listeners from the fragility of his arguments. He insisted the president couldn’t possibly have done anything wrong because, in the end, Ukraine got its money without committing to any investigations.

This point of view has radical implications for America’s system of justice and overcrowded prisons, if Mr. Jordan in fact truly believes that all inmates convicted of attempted crimes are innocent of wrongdoing. . . .

As they have in the past, Mr. Trump’s backers piously insisted on Wednesday that the president cared only about rooting out corruption. It is just a coincidence, in this telling, that the prime target of the investigation Mr. Trump was demanding happened to be Joe Biden.

No one who doesn’t mainline Fox News was buying it on Wednesday. The witnesses made clear how far this targeted Trumpian initiative deviated from the systematic, broad-gauge anticorruption efforts American diplomats have been seeking in Ukraine for years. . . .

Over and over, the Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee attempted to cast the hearings as a sham, a Democratic plot to remove the president. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent declined to play along. They came across not as angry Democrats or Deep State conspirators, but as men who have devoted their lives to serving their country, and for whom defending Ukraine against Russian aggression is more important to the national interest than any partisan jockeying. . . .

Another popular Republican argument on Wednesday was that Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent were offering nothing but hearsay. Of course, this wouldn’t be an issue if Mr. Trump were not obstructing the inquiry by refusing to allow White House officials, including the people who were on the call, to testify. (In fact, one of those officials — Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman — did go before Congress, and Republicans rewarded him by speculating that he was a Ukrainian double agent.)

Perhaps the most telling remark was offered by a Republican staff lawyer, Stephen Castor, who suggested that while the president’s behavior may have been highly irregular, “it’s not as outlandish as it could be.” Here’s a tip: When “not as outlandish as it could be” is your strongest defense, it’s time to rethink your position.

GOP Resorts To Theatrics - It's The Only Option They Have

On Wednesday, some House Republicans stormed the hearing room where testimony was to be heard concerning Trump's impeachment. They claimed they were opposing the "secret" process that was unfair. That was a lie. They want Americans to think the Democrats are meeting in secret and excluding Republicans. But note the list above. It's the names of the Republican House members who are in those hearings, and have the right to question witnesses.

Why then, did those Republicans stage their little bit of political theater? Because it's all they have left to defend Donald Trump. All of their other arguments have failed.

Here's some of what The New York Times editorial board had to say about it:

Around 10 a.m. Wednesday, a gaggle of conservative House members on Capitol Hill staged a “protest,” barging into the secure room — called a SCIF — where members of three House committees were preparing to hear testimony from Laura Cooper, a deputy assistant secretary of defense.

Shepherding the demonstrators was Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, one of President Trump’s fiercest apologists, whose account live-tweeted the stunt: “BREAKING: I led over 30 of my colleagues into the SCIF where Adam Schiff is holding secret impeachment depositions. Still inside — more details to come.”

This was not a fringe move. Representative Steve Scalise, the minority whip, was among the sea of dark-blue suits that surged into the hearing room.

Chaos ensued. There were shouting matches. Some of the invading members brought along their cellphones, though they are prohibited inside the secure room. Ms. Cooper’s testimony was delayed, and Democrats called in the sergeant-at-arms for help restoring order.

Some time after 2 p.m., Mr. Scalise and several of his fellow protesters re-emerged to complain to the assembled media about the “Soviet-style tactics” of the inquiry.

The entire spectacle was a circus — which was the point. This was a publicity stunt aimed at delegitimizing the impeachment investigation that Mr. Trump and his defenders have portrayed as a partisan inquisition. If a few rules and national security precautions got violated along the way, so be it. Mr. Gaetz & Co. were happy to oblige a president who has demanded to be protected at all costs.

In fact, Mr. Trump is said to have given them a thumbs-up the day before. On Tuesday, he “met with about 30 House Republicans at the White House to talk about the situation in Syria and the impeachment inquiry,” at which time the members “shared their plans to storm into the secure room,” Bloomberg News reported. Mr. Trump told them he thought it was a good idea.

Why wouldn’t he? As more and more testimony is disclosed, it becomes clearer that the president’s only defense against impeachment is to distract from the facts and complain about how unfairly he’s being treated.

So many of the defenses he floated early on have crumbled under the weight of subsequent revelations. . . .

Despite claims by the president and his die-hards, Democrats are not conducting “secret,” “Soviet-style” proceedings. At this stage, witness interviews are being conducted in private, with public hearings to be held later. This may not please Republicans, but it is not a sinister miscarriage of justice.

There are, in fact, plenty of good reasons Democrats are operating behind closed doors for now. The House’s impeachment inquiry is not a trial. It is more akin to a grand jury proceeding, where information is gathered and considered for the purposes of handing up an indictment. Any trial would be held in the Senate, with Mr. Trump represented by lawyers able to make all the substantive and process challenges he liked.

On Wednesday, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio complained that Republicans were demonstrating out of frustration “at the idea that they can’t be a part of this.” Nonsense. Republicans are in every hearing room that Democrats are in and able to ask their own questions. During Mr. Taylor’s testimony Tuesday, Mr. Jordan had praised the Republican lawyers for their questioning of the witness.

Accusing Democrats of mishandling the process certainly fits with Mr. Trump’s enduring sense of victimhood. The strategy also works to inflame the party’s base against the opposing team, while allowing Republican lawmakers to avoid defending Mr. Trump’s behavior. 

But, mostly, it’s about all they’ve got.

Kavanaugh Evaded Answering Too Many Hearing Questions

The Senate Republicans (and Donald Trump) said they were proud of Kavanaugh's performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday. They were evidently living in some kind of dream world, because Kavanaugh (in addition to be strident and angry) evaded answering far too many questions.

Here is how Axios.com called it:

We went through the transcript of the hearing and noted every single time a question was asked of Ford and Kavanaugh. (We didn’t include the times a questioner didn’t ask an explicit question.) Then we noted every instance in which answered the question or said they didn’t know the answer — and we also noted every time they either refused to answer or gave an answer that didn’t address the question. Here are the results:

Senate Republicans Put On A Shameful Bit Of Theater

The Senate Judiciary Hearing was held on Thursday, and both Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh testified. Dr. Ford was credible and believable. Kavanaugh was not. But none of it makes a bit of difference anyway.

This was not an effort to get the truth. If it had been, they would have asked the FBI to investigate the new charges against Kavanaugh. They would have had other accusers testifying. And they would have had witnesses testifying that could corroborate their stories (or disprove them). But they didn't have any of that.

They didn't have it because this was nothing more than a bit of political theater. It was just an attempt by the Senate Republicans to try to provide some cover for what they have intended to do all along -- ignore all evidence and confirm Kavanaugh. Graham (pictured) made that very clear when he spent his time trying to turn Kavanaugh into the victim (he's not) and vilifying Democrats for trying to get the truth (even though all their efforts were blocked by the Republicans).

Kavanaugh's nomination will go to the Senate floor, and he will be confirmed. It's just false hope to think that Collins, Murkowski, Corker, or Flake will block the nomination. They are Republicans, and they will toe the party line. None of them have the courage to vote their convictions. That type of Republican hasn't existed since the death of John McCain.

I hope I'm wrong, But I wouldn't put any money on that remote possibility. I just hope decent Americans were watching -- and will punish the Republicans in November for putting a sex abuser on the Supreme Court.

GOP's Benghazi Sideshow Is Not Working Out For Them

(This political caricature is by DonkeyHotey.)

The opposition to Obamacare is dissipating (at least the desire for repealing it), and the GOP still doesn't have a credible plan to create new jobs (but just want more tax cuts for the rich) -- so the Republicans dug up an old issue to try and smear the Democrats in this election year. They decided to hold more hearings on the tragedy at Benghazi (as if that dead horse hadn't been beaten enough).

But just as they get their new sideshow underway, it is derailed by reality. The ringleader of the Benghazi attack is arrested by the Obama administration (killing any accusations that the president won't punish the evil-doers). But it gets even worse for the GOP. They were hoping their hearing would prove the attack was long-planned by terrorists (and ignored by the Obama administration). But it now comes out that the ringleader of the attacks has told numerous people that the Benghazi attack was a retaliation for a right-wing anti-muslim video on the internet (just as the Obama administration had said it was).

They have done their best to turn the Benghazi tragedy into some kind of scandal (ignoring the fact that they were the ones to cut over $300 million from the diplomatic security budget), but their faux scandal is falling apart before their eyes -- just like the other false scandals they have tried to hang on the president.

It probably doesn't matter too much anyway. A new Gallup Poll (done between June 5th and 8th of a random national sample of 1,027 adults, with a margin of error of 4 points) shows that most people weren't paying any attention to the new Benghazi hearing anyway. A significant majority of Independents, Democrats, and the general public were not paying any attention to the hearing. It seems that the Republicans were just preaching to the choir (their own base) -- and 42% of them weren't listening either.

Ted Cruz - The New Joe McCarthy ?

Texas has had some embarrassing senators -- from John Tower and Kay Bailey Hutchinson to its current senior senator, John Cornyn. But after being in office for only a little more than a month, Ted Cruz (pictured above) has set a new low for senators from the Lone Star State. He did it by questioning the patriotism of a man who spent his life in Cruz's own party. Cruz sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee -- the committee tasked with looking at the nomination of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense.

Now I can understand why some Republicans might not approve of Hagel's nomination. Hagel has never been an extreme right-winger. Having been a decorated soldier who fought in Vietnam and knows first hand the horror of war, Hagel has questioned the necessity of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also thinks war must be a last resort, to be engaged in only after all other efforts have failed -- with countries like Iran and North Korea. And he understands that there are two sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and both sides must be listened to and considered.

A lot of Senate Republicans don't agree with Mr. Hagel, and I have no problem with them voting against him when his nomination finally reaches the Senate floor. But Cruz has gone much further. He crossed the line of political opposition, and has entered into character assassination by using baseless innuendo -- much like that done by another former senator, the odious Joe McCarthy. McCarthy needed no proof to label anyone he didn't like as a communist. Just making the charge was enough for him, and he ruined the lives of many innocent people with his baseless charges.

Now Cruz is engaging in that same type of character assassination making charges with any kind of proof to back them up. Chuck Hagel has always been a loyal American (whether you agree with his policy stands or not), and he was thoroughly investigated by the FBI after being nominated to be Secretary of Defense (as all nominees are investigated). And absolutely nothing was found.

But that didn't stop Cruz from wondering in committee whether Hagel might be on the payroll of a foreign power like North Korea or Saudi Arabia. Cruz had no evidence that anything like that might be true. He just tossed out the charge to smear Mr. Hagel. And it was an inexcusable breach of senate ethics and decorum -- so much so that he was called on it by Senators Nelson (D-Florida) and McCain (R-Arizona). More needs to be done. At the very least, Republican Senate leaders need to take Cruz aside and read him the riot act -- because if he is allowed to continue with this kind of behavior, it will reflect badly on both the Senate and the Republican Party (not to mention the state of Texas and the nation).

The days of Joe McCarthy were a dark time in senate history, and in the history of this nation. We don't need another Joe McCarthy -- even if that would make some sick teabaggers very happy.

Keller Hearing Starts Today

On September 25, 2007, Judge Sharon Keller of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decided to close the court offices at 5:00pm and go home. On a normal day that would be appropriate, but on that particular day an execution was scheduled in Huntsville.

Out of both tradition and good sense, the Court of Criminal Appeals stays open late on execution dates just in case of some kind of emergency. And an emergency happened that day. Attorneys for the condemned man had computer problems. That meant the only way they could file an appeal was to contact the court (which Keller had closed). The man was executed that night without his attorneys being able to file their last appeal.

Now it doesn't matter whether the man deserved to be executed or not, or whether the last minute appeal would have stopped the execution or not. The fact is that he should have had to opportunity to file that appeal, but the callous action of Judge Keller prevented that.

Today, Judge Keller goes on trial for judicial misconduct. The judge hearing the special trial will present a report to the Texas Judicial Commission. It will be up to that commission to dismiss the charges, censure her, or recommend her removal from the bench.

In her defense, she says no one ever told her of the computer problems. The problem with that argument is that if she'd kept the court open late as she should have, the attorneys would have been able to both tell her of the problems and file their appeal.

I think Judge Keller should be removed from the bench. Taking a life is the most extreme action the state can take, and it should be done right if at all, with the rights of the condemned man protected. We need to replace her on the court with someone who observes the rules and protects everyone's rights.

Texans deserve no less.