CHRISTINE FORD vs KAVANAUGH - 36 YRS AGO WHO REMEMBERS ALL DETAILS ACCURATELY?

CHRISTINE FORD vs BRETT KAVANAUGH - 36 YRS AGO WHO REMEMBERS ALL DETAILS ACCURATELY?

DIDN’T THIS INCIDENT OCCURR IN HIGH SCHOOL?

I’M NOT MOCKING CHRISTINE FORD NOR AM I TRYING TO SOUND HYPOCRITICAL BUT WHY IS IT ALWAYS LIKE THIS FOR GOP SCOTUS COURT NOMINEES? WHY??

I WAS TRYING TO REMAIN SILENT BUT I HAD TO SPEAK UP.

THIS DRAMA IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING WOMEN, IT’S STRAIGHT POLITICAL THEATER.


Post Sources: BBC News, Fox News, NBC News, Washington Post, Youtube


***** Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh hearing: Key takeaways so far


With a seat on the Supreme Court hanging in the balance, Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh are appearing in front of senators to state their case and share their stories. Here are some of the key takeaways so far.

Everyone knew what Christine Blasey Ford was going to say before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday morning. Her formal opening statement was released to the public on Wednesday evening.

Reading what she was going to say and hearing her speak it, in a quiet, sometimes faltering voice, are two very different things, however.

The committee hearing began with statements by Republican chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein, and the exchanging accusations of political obfuscation and procedural misconduct threatened to cover the proceedings in a political fog.

For a taut 20 minutes, however, Ms Ford cut through the fog with searing emotion. She spoke of traumatic memories and decades of shame; of a civic duty to come forward and recent months of hounding media and death threats.

The images of her speaking - the first glimpse the public at large has had of her besides a few grainy photos - will linger well beyond Thursday's hearing or even Brett Kavanaugh's ultimate professional fate.


Once Ms Ford concluded, the fog descended again. Thanks in large part to a disjointed format that featured five-minute segments alternating between veteran sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, a surrogate questioner for the Republicans, and Democratic senators, there was little flow to proceedings.

It was as if viewers were flipping back and forth between a CourtTV criminal cross-examination and a public-access television congressional hearing.

Democrats succeeded in gleaning a few memorable moments from Ms Ford. She said she was 100% certain that Brett - referring to Mr Kavanaugh repeatedly by his first name - was the teenager who assaulted her.

She also, in reply to a question by Vermont Democrat Pat Leahy, recounted how the enduring recollection she has from the incident was Mr Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge, laughing as they stumbled down the stairs after the alleged attack.


Ms Mitchell, in her interrogation, pulled at a number of threads in Ms Ford's story.

Who drove her to and from the house on the night of the party?

Why did she tell Senate investigators that she couldn't meet them in Washington because she was afraid of flying if she frequently travelled by air for pleasure?

Did she or did she not share her 2012 therapist records with a reporter from the Washington Post?

That final line of questioning is key, since it's those records that help corroborate that Ms Ford had spoken about the assault well before Mr Kavanaugh became a candidate for the Supreme Court.

The other questions seemed more geared toward undermining Ms Ford's credibility - the kind of strategy useful during depositions or trials to undermine a jury's trust in a witness or, perhaps, force them to crack under the accumulated pressure of the interrogation.

Every five minutes, however, Democrats threw Ms Ford a lifeline.


In the end, however, Ms Mitchell herself seemed slightly exasperated by the format she was working under. When it comes to trying to arrive at the accurate recollection of trauma, she said, "there's no study that shows that this setting, in five-minute increments, is the best way to do that.

As the first half of the hearing drew to a close, the senators began to argue about entering various outside statements into the record, only to be interrupted by one of Ms Ford's lawyers.

"Can we be excused?" he asked.

With the partisan fog thick again, it's a sentiment many Americans may have shared.

NEIL GORSUCH: DEMS STOP THE BULL & GIVE UP-OR-DOWN VOTE NOW

NEIL GORSUCH: DEMS STOP THE BULL & GIVE UP-OR-DOWN VOTE:

GORSUCH IS NOT ROBERT BORK.

GORSUCH IS BALANCED, QUALIFIED AND FIRMLY UPHOLDS US CONSTITUTION.


Sources: CBS News, CNN, The Hill, YouTube


***** McConnell Says "Give Gorsuch An Up-Or-Down Vote"


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is calling for Democrats to give President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, an up-or-down vote.

In a piece published Monday in Politico, McConnell called Gorsuch an "exceptional nominee." He said Gorsuch is recognized as "an accomplished, principled and fair jurist," adding that when he was nominated to his current seat on the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, "no one cast a single negative vote against his nomination."

"Now, Schumer says he has such 'serious concerns' about Gorsuch that he’s threatening to filibuster his nomination and leave open the seat indefinitely," McConnell said.

"What changed?"

Gorsuch hasn't changed, McConnell said.

"So why would Democrats contemplate doing something so radical and out of the mainstream now — against a superbly qualified judge Democrats didn’t raise objections to before, a man Democrats have praised many times since?" he asked.

"Turns out, much of the opposition we’re seeing from far left groups and Democratic senators isn’t really about Judge Gorsuch at all. It’s about President Donald Trump."

McConnell went on to blast the Democrats for vowing to fight whomever the president tapped for the Supreme Court before Trump even named his nominee.

The Senate majority leader acknowledged the Democrats are having a "rough time coming to grips with the election results."

"I realize that Leader Schumer in particular is under immense pressure from the radical fringes of our politics," he wrote.

"But he and his party can’t allow themselves to be led around by the far left."

McConnell said he's been consistent in his belief that the next president should select the next Supreme Court justice.

He said he maintained that opinion — even when many believed former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton would be elected.

"But now the election season is over, and we have a new president who has nominated a superbly qualified candidate to fill that ninth seat," he said.

"Democrats now have a choice. They can tear our country apart further, or they can stand up and lead. I invite Leader Schumer and his party, who repeatedly declared how necessary it was to have nine justices on the court, to now follow through on their refrain of 'we need nine' by giving this tremendously well-qualified nominee fair consideration and an up-or-down vote."

JANET YELLEN Confirmed By Congress As First Female Federal Reserve Chair! Congrats!!

#JanetYELLEN

JANET YELLEN has been Confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the First FEMALE Federal Reserve Chair. CONGRATS!





ARTICLE: "Janet Yellen Will Be A Fed Chair For The Real, Every-Day Economy"


Janet Yellen, vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, was confirmed Monday by the Senate to succeed chairman Ben Bernanke as the next head of America’s central bank. Her term, which begins February 1st, will mark an important shift in the direction of the bank’s policy efforts, as it begins to “taper” back the last five years of unconventional monetary policy, which have resulted in the Fed pouring some $3.8 trillion into the U.S. economy following the financial crisis.

While Yellen’s appointment marks continuity with the Bernanke era, and with the Fed’s policy of “quantitative easing” of which she was one of the chief architects, it also heralds a number of firsts. Yellen is the first woman to head the central bank, but even more important, she’s also its first openly reform-minded, Keynesian-oriented leader. A stellar academic economist and 36-year Fed veteran with a particular focus on the human impact of unemployment, Yellen has said on many occasions that the last five years of crisis, joblessness and slower growth, “aren’t just statistics to me.”

While former Fed colleagues like Donald Kohn, Alan Blinder, and Larry Meyer cite her as among the most data-driven and analytical economists around, she’s also someone who’s more interested in clear, well articulated ideas with real world impact than creating the cleverest mathematical models. That commitment was partly inspired by her Yale mentor, the legendary liberal economist James Tobin, who argued that the first priority of economics was to improve the lives of real people.

You can bet that Yellen will be keeping that in mind as she slowly and carefully continues the paring back of quantitative easing that began in December. The challenge will be to keep both the markets and the economy steady as the central bank exits from the largest bout of unconventional monetary policy in history. While the Fed’s dual mandate of keeping inflation and unemployment low will be her first task, there’s currently no conflict there, since inflation is running far below the 2 % target that Yellen herself crafted, meaning that tapering doesn’t need to be rushed. She’ll also have her eye on banking reform. Blinder, who was the Fed vice chair back in the 1990s when Yellen was a governor, remembers speaking with her “many times about how the Fed was being too lax on regulation.” And since then he adds, “things have only gotten worse.”

To do all that, she’ll need to build consensus among a group of Federal Reserve governors who are increasingly independent. Fortunately, says Kohn, who worked with her as a Fed staffer in the mid 1990s, “Janet brings a CEO-type skill set to this job.” He and many others say she’s a “listener and a questioner” who likes to surround herself with the smartest people possible, hear out their arguments, challenge them on any weaknesses, then take her own decisions.

It’s a managerial strategy that seems to have worked, as Yellen has the best track record on policy predictions of any Fed leader since 2009. While she’s often characterized as the “nicest” big name economist around, no one should mistake that for a lack of spine. “She can get at the strengths and weaknesses of someone’s arguments so quickly,” says Berkeley professor and Haas School of Business colleague James Wilcox, “but so politely. She’s got that iron fist in a velvet glove quality.” It’s a quality that will likely serve her well as she steers the most important institute in America today towards a new era of monetary policy.


Sources: Bloomberg News, TIME, UCBerkley, Youtube

Anita Hill vs Virginia Thomas "Catfight": No Apology More Vengeance

Anita Hill: No Apology Coming For Thomas Testimony


Anita Hill, whose accusations of sexual harassment almost derailed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' high court nomination, has no plans to apologize for the charges she made nearly two decades ago.

The response from Hill, now a law professor at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, comes following a voice-mail message left for her by Thomas' wife, Virginia, over the weekend, requesting an apology.

Charles Radin, the Brandeis director of news and communications, said Hill received the voice mail and turned it over to the campus Department of Public Safety, which then turned it over to the FBI.

Special Agent Jason Pack, an FBI spokesman in Washington, declined to comment late Tuesday.

"I certainly thought the call was inappropriate," Hill said in a statement to CNN issued by Brandeis. "I have no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony."

In a statement to CNN, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas said: "I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get passed what happened so long ago. That offer still stands, I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended."

According to a source at Brandeis, who spoke on condition of not being identified, the message left over the weekend said:

"Good morning, Anita Hill, it's Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology some time and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day."

Virginia Thomas is a conservative activist who founded the organization Liberty Central.

Hill declined comment to CNN affiliate WCVB outside her Waltham home on Wednesday, saying, "Please, let me go teach my class."

Then-President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas -- a then-43-year-old conservative from Pinpoint, Georgia -- to the Supreme Court in 1991.

The nomination was "instantly controversial," according to an outline of the incident posted on the website for the Center for History and New Media, part of a history class syllabus.

African-American organizations, including the NAACP and the Urban League, opposed it, fearing that Thomas' conservative stance on issues such as affirmative action would reverse gains his predecessor, Justice Thurgood Marshall, had helped achieve, the outline said.

However, the nomination proceeded to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where the first few days of his confirmation hearings were uneventful, according to the historical account. "When asked about his stance on legal abortion, [Clarence] Thomas claimed that he had not formulated an opinion and the issue was dropped."

The nomination went before the full Senate, but a media frenzy developed when Hill -- then a law professor at the University of Oklahoma -- came forward and alleged that Thomas had sexually harassed her years earlier, when he was head of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission and she worked for him, the outline said. The Senate Judiciary Committee launched an investigation.

Hill actually had made the allegations during interviews with the FBI, but they were leaked to the press just before the final Senate vote on Clarence Thomas, according to the Museum of Broadcast Communications' website. The Senate delayed the vote in order to hear more about Hill's allegations.

In three days of televised hearings that transfixed Americans, Hill testified that Thomas repeatedly requested dates with her and engaged in inappropriate discussions including references to pornographic material.

In his testimony, Clarence Thomas denied the allegations and called the hearings "a national disgrace ... a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves," according to the museum.

Two days later, Clarence Thomas was confirmed on a 52-48 vote.

"Although the hearings themselves had no legal significance, to many observers they symbolized a public referendum on sexual harassment and other gender inequities in late twentieth-century America," according to the broadcast museum. The incident has been credited with increasing public awareness regarding gender discrimination and motivating female voters in the 1992 elections, which saw a record 29 women elected to Congress.

"Many feminist groups refer to Anita Hill as the mother of a new wave of awareness of gender discrimination, particularly given the attacks on her credibility that she withstood from the white male senators," the museum said.

Harriett Woods, then-president of the National Women's Political Caucus, was quoted by the museum as saying, "Anita Hill focused attention on the fact that there were no women in that Senate panel making decisions about people's lives."


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Google Maps

Kagan Grilled On Blocking Military Recruiters & DADT

Republican Senators Bring Up Kagan's Record On Blocking Military Recruiters


Senate Republicans and Solicitor General Elena Kagan are facing off over whether her objection to the military's ban on openly gay soldiers and her decision to restrict recruiters at Harvard Law School disqualify her from serving on the Supreme Court.

Just minutes into Kagan's confirmation hearing Monday, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions charged she had "kicked the military out of the recruiting office" at Harvard, "in violation of federal law."

"Her actions punished the military and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting two wars overseas," Sessions said. "I can't take this issue lightly."

The recruitment matter is one of the few points on her resume that Republicans have been able to use against her. Her policies and writings on the issue call up broader themes of patriotism and equal rights, both emotional topics at a time when the nation is at war and both parties are gearing up for the midterm elections. In some measure, the November balloting will be a referendum on her patron, President Barack Obama.

At the very heart of Kagan's decision at Harvard is an even more sensitive topic — her opposition to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on openly gay soldiers.

Republicans contend that Harvard was the wrong venue for Kagan's "personal political grievance" and that briefly restricting the recruiters on campus broke the law. They conclude with questions about whether Kagan is anti-military and unfit to make impartial decisions on the high court.

Republicans have a tough case to make.


Sources: CNN, Yahoo News, Youtube, Google Maps

Kagan Pledges Fairness, Modesty & Neutrality If Confirmed

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Kagan Pledges Open Mind, Impartiality If Confirmed To U.S. Supreme Court


U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday that justices on the nation's highest court should be even-handed and impartial in order to promise "nothing less than a fair shake for every American."

In her opening statement to her confirmation hearing, Kagan sought to address Republican concerns that her background as an academic and policy specialist in the Clinton administration would bring a liberal bias in her court rulings.

The role of the Supreme Court is "to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint," Kagan said.

"I will make no pledges this week other than this one -- that if confirmed, I will remember and abide by all these lessons," she said after describing her experiences as a Supreme Court clerk, law school professor and U.S. solicitor general. "I will listen hard, to every party before the court and to each of my colleagues. I will work hard. And I will do my best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle, and in accordance with law."

If confirmed by the 19-member committee and then the full Senate, Kagan would be the 112th Supreme Court justice and the fourth woman to sit on the nation's highest court.

While her confirmation is considered likely, Republican senators on the panel questioned Monday whether Kagan can be an impartial justice, displaying a partisan divide over President Barack Obama's second Supreme Court nomination since he took office in January 2009. The Senate confirmed Obama's first candidate, Sonia Sotomayor, last year.

The committee's seven Republicans used their opening statements to challenge Kagan's judicial experience and her ability to put aside personal politics, and the 12 Democratic members praised Kagan's qualifications and welcomed her possible presence on a court they criticized for what they called conservative activism.

Kagan sat impassively in the packed room, sometimes taking a sip of water, as the senators outlined the questioning she will face in coming days.

Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said Kagan would be an independent Supreme Court justice, and that he advised her to be open in expressing her judicial philosophy at her confirmation hearing.

Citing her record as the first woman to be dean of Harvard Law School and the first woman solicitor general of the United States, Leahy said America is "a better country for the fact that the path of excellence Elena Kagan has taken in her career is one now open to both men and women."

However, the ranking Republican on the panel, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said Kagan lacks judicial experience and has a record of supporting liberal political causes.

"While academia certainly has value, there is no substitute, I think, for being in the harness of the law, handling real cases," Sessions said.

Other Republicans said Kagan's experience as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall indicated she would seek to push society toward desired ideological or political ends, rather than apply existing law.

"Will the Constitution control her, or will she try to control the Constitution?" asked Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "Does she believe that judges may control the Constitution by changing its meaning?"

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California accused Republicans of casting a "drift net" for any disqualifying fact in Kagan's record, saying the GOP effort failed.

"I believe you are eminently confirmable," Feinstein said, turning the tables on Republican concerns about Kagan's lack of judicial experience by saying: "Frankly, I find this refreshing."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Other Democrats harshly criticized the current Supreme Court for what they characterized as rulings based on conservative activism. They cited the Citizens United ruling in January, in which the high court voted 5-4 to give big businesses, unions and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, which they said threatens a century of government efforts to regulate the power of corporations to bankroll American politics.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, called the Supreme Court's shift to the right under Chief Justice John Roberts "palpable."

"In decision after decision, this court bends the law to suit" a conservative political ideology, Schumer said, calling Kagan "a terrific antidote to the lack of practical real-world understanding of the court."

However, Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said Kagan's record is full of "warning signs" that she may be what he called a "results-oriented" justice -- which is conservative code language for liberal activism.

Citing her record as clerk for Marshall, Kyl said many of her memos then "appeared to be based largely on her own liberal political views."

"This kind of naked political judgment appears frequently throughout Kagan's work as a Supreme Court clerk," Kyl said.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois responded that America is a better nation due to Marshall's personal empathy in ruling on influential civil rights cases.

"Our Supreme Court is badly in need of a person of your skill and knowledge and background," Durbin said.


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post

Ben Bernanke's Confirmation Uncertain After Scott Brown's Election

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Ben Bernanke No Sure Bet In The Senate



Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke may be Time magazine’s Man of the Year – but he hasn’t convinced senators he’s the man for the job.

In the wake of Tuesday’s Massachusetts stunner, Bernanke’s chances of returning for a second term as head of the Fed were thrown into doubt, as a pair of liberal Democratic senators on Friday jumped on the dump-Bernanke bandwagon.

It was no idle threat. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he’d call a vote next week but couldn’t say for sure Friday that he has the 60 votes to confirm Bernanke by the time his term expires Jan. 31.

That raised the prospect of a fill-in Fed chief, which would shock a skittish stock market that already dipped 5 percent in three days.

And a Bernanke defeat would be a stunning blow to President Barack Obama, who interrupted his Martha’s Vineyard vacation to re-appoint Bernanke over the summer and now is forced to salvage a nomination that once seemed a shoo-in.

Blame the Scott Brown brushfire. Brown’s upset Senate victory in Massachusetts put the nation’s populist angst on vivid display – the same forces that have led senators, left and right, to target Bernanke for the past few months.

The anti-Bernanke fervor picked up steam this week after Brown’s victory, as senators turned up the volume on their complaints that Bernanke has been too beholden to Wall Street bankers and not attentive enough to the pain for middle-class families.

“It is time for a change – it is time for Main Street to have a champion at the Fed,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Friday in announcing her plan to vote against Bernanke. “Dr. Bernanke played a lead role in crafting the Bush administration’s economic policies, which led to the current economic crisis. Our next Federal Reserve Chairman must represent a clean break from the failed policies of the past.”

On Friday, the White House was moving to firm up Bernanke’s chances. Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner were working the Hill by phone to help him.

And Reid, who had withheld his endorsement of Bernanke after meeting him Thursday, signed on Friday, highlighting Bernanke’s role in staving off a worse recession – the work that won him Time’s honor and plaudits from many economists.

In an election year that’s being driven by populist voter rage over the state of the economy, many lawmakers are wary of casting a vote to support one of the chief architects of the U.S. response to the crisis.

But Bernanke’s supporters tout his role in staving off economic Armageddon once the crisis started and injecting more than $1 trillion in new money into the economy to prevent the economy from shutting down in 2009.

“I don’t want to see the Fed destroyed,” said Ernest Patrikis, a partner at the law firm White & Case who spent 30 years as an official at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. “People are so upset that they’re flailing left and right. We’re killing the dollar and confidence in the United States as a place to invest. There are issues that are so much more important than getting elected.”

At the Federal Reserve, where one source describes the mood as “weary exasperation,” aides scrambled to put together a plan for what happens if Bernanke does not receive a confirmation vote before his term ends.

In the event that Bernanke isn’t confirmed, several sources say, Federal Reserve Board Vice Chairman Donald Kohn likely would be elevated to acting chair of the U.S. central bank. Bernanke would be entitled to stay on the board until his term as a Fed governor expires in 2020, but the sources said Bernanke could instead return to a professorship at Princeton University.

Possible successors to Bernanke include three people currently advising Obama on the economy, former Fed chief Paul Volcker, Larry Summers and Christina Romer.

Kohn was traveling in Europe at the end of the week on Fed business, but strategy on the Bernanke confirmation was being led by former Enron lobbyist Linda Robertson, who is viewed as an effective advocate for the banking chief on Capitol Hill.

On Wall Street, executives predicted a dire market reaction if Bernanke’s confirmation fails. “A decision to kill the Bernanke nomination will cause a large and disturbing upset in global financial markets,” said economist Joseph Brusuelas. “Not just equities, but the dollar and interest rates will be immediately impacted.”

Wall Street lobbyists in Washington said they were quietly making the case for Bernanke on Capitol Hill, but were hamstrung by the politics. Because Bernanke has been criticized as too close to Wall Street, they said, the surest way to seal his fate would be for financial lobbyists to make a full court press to save his nomination.

“Three months ago, we thought this was a slam dunk,” said one financial services executive. “And today people think this may not even be a layup. There’s lots of concern in the markets that the politics of the Senate might derail him.”

And at the White House, staffers strategized over how to finesse the delicate politics of confirming a man who has become increasingly linked with the Wall Street bailout policies of the past year and a half. “[White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel] and the other people are all engaged,” said an administration source.

“As the President has said before, he has a great deal of confidence in what Chairman Bernanke did to bring our economy back from the brink,” said White House spokesman Bill Burton. “And he continues to think that he's the best person for the job, and will be confirmed by the United States Senate.”

In the Senate, though, leadership aides said neither Democratic nor Republican leaders were whipping the vote as of Friday, a testament to how fractured the caucuses of both parties are on the fate of Bernanke. Democratic leadership aides said they did not have the votes to confirm Bernanke without significant support from Republicans.

Bernanke has come under fire from the left for being too close to Wall Street, and from the right for his role in extending government control of the financial markets. And both sides have complained that the Fed’s policy of lowering interest rates to spur the economy was part of the problem that led to the crisis of 2008.

And although most Senate watchers continued to predict that Bernanke will squeak through, speculation turned to what happens if he is rejected – and just who might take over one of the most powerful economic positions on the planet.

All the angst puts a rare spotlight on the otherwise-obscure vice chairman of the Fed, Kohn. Officials said Kohn sees the world largely the same way as Bernanke, and the Fed under his control wouldn’t take radically different steps than it has under Bernanke’s reign. “There’s no daylight that I'm aware of between Kohn and Bernanke,” said one former Fed official. “[Kohn has] spent his entire career at the Fed. He’s a creature of the institution.”

Kohn, a native of Philadelphia, is seen as a vital inside player inside the central bank. “He’s the glue that holds the Fed together,” said Patrikis. “If he were the acting chairman, it would be steady on course.”

Democratic leaders on the Hill have very little time left to gather votes before the Jan. 31 deadline. By Senate procedural rules, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would need to file cloture – the procedural move to force debate – on the nomination by sometime Tuesday morning to ensure a final vote during the normal workweek,. The move is necessary because several Republicans and Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders plan to filibuster Bernanke nomination.

Late Friday, Reid released a statement offering an endorsement of Bernanke – but did not indicate when he will call a vote. “No one pretends for a minute that our economy is back at full capacity,” Reid said. “But Chairman Bernanke has worked hard to strengthen the economy in recent months . …He also deserves recognition for what didn’t happen: An expert on the Great Depression, Chairman Bernanke helped steer us away from a second one.”

But the Friday announcements by Boxer and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) opposing Bernanke brought the total of publicly declared “no” votes on both sides of the aisle to about a dozen.

And there are even more undecideds.

“I’m cogitating on it,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). But he’s far from sold on Bernanke. “I just have some uneasy feelings that his mindset is not where we need to be in terms of the Federal Reserve right now.” Harkin said the White House had not reached out to him to support Bernanke.

Dodd, who defended Bernanke against liberal critics during the Democratic caucus lunch Wednesday, told reporters Friday that he doesn’t know where the votes stand but he believes his Democratic colleagues who plan to oppose the Fed chairman are making a mistake.

"If you want to send a worse signal to the markets right now and send us in a tailspin, it would be to reject this nomination. This is not naming someone to be an assistant secretary to something -- this is the most important central banker in the world,” Dodd said.


Sources: Politico, MSNBC, TIME

Politico Reveals G.O.P.'s Strategy To Destroy Sotomayor's Confirmation Hearings...Culture Wars!

Politico----


Senate Republicans are finalizing their line of attack against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, casting the nominee as a biased, closed-minded judge who’s on the wrong side of Gun Rights and Affirmative Action cases.

In other words, they want to fire up the culture war issues heading into next week’s confirmation hearings — and perhaps awaken an apathetic conservative base that has been sluggish in its reaction to the Supreme Court nominee.

But GOP insiders are wary of going too far with attacks on the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court, so they plan to needle her on very specific cases, rulings and writings. Expect to hear plenty about the liberal Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, the Ricci discrimination case and her views on guns.

It’s a strategy born in large part out of necessity. One month after President Barack Obama unveiled Sotomayor as his nominee, Republicans have yet to uncover a smoking gun in Sotomayor’s past, and her confirmation is seen by many as a fait accompli.

“I think the Sotomayor strategy is pretty obvious,” said one GOP leadership aide. “Respectfully asking questions but very pointedly asking about the appearance of favoritism. Americans don’t like the idea that a judge might play favorites.”

And that’s where Judiciary Committee Republicans hope to keep their focus.

“There are some real questions, and she has done some things that raise real questions in people’s minds — and they have to be explored,” said Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, one of the senior Republicans on the committee.

Republicans realize that the concerted last-minute push to brand Sotomayor as a judge prone to partiality presents them with their only shot at creating at least some doubt among undecided senators.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a Judiciary Committee member, told POLITICO Tuesday that Sotomayor risked losing Democratic support if she emerged from the hearings with the appearance of a closed-minded jurist — a scenario, he warned, that could put Sotomayor in a tough spot.

“If she does poorly at the hearing and comes across as someone who seems as an activist, is not qualified for the job, that could hurt her,” Graham said. “That she embraces some judicial theories that would make red-state Democrats uncomfortable — that’s the only way I think she’d get off-track.”

Republicans began this final pre-hearing push Tuesday, taking to the Senate floor to pick apart specific parts of Sotomayor’s record.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) harped on Sotomayor’s appellate decision in the Ricci v. DeStefano case, which was reversed last week when the Supreme Court determined that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., had been discriminated against on a promotion exam.

“In the Ricci case — her third and final reversal of this term — Judge Sotomayor was so wrong in interpreting the law that all nine justices, of all ideological stripes, disagreed with her,” said McConnell. “As we consider her nomination to the Supreme Court, my colleagues should ask themselves this important question: Is she allowing her personal or political agenda to cloud her judgment and favor one group of individuals over another, irrespective of what the law says?”

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has latched onto Sotomayor’s work with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund — an organization, Sessions argued, that took an aggressive stance in criticizing the process of standardized testing.

He didn’t hesitate to mention that Sotomayor had worked for PRLDEF years prior to her decision in the Ricci case — and to suggest that her decision in the case had been influenced by her personal bias.

“And so we’re left to wonder: What role did the judge’s personal experience play when she heard the case? Did her personal views, as she as stated, quote ‘affect the facts she chose to see?’” Sessions said at the end of a scathing 18-minute floor speech.

Republicans are still undecided about whether to use delay tactics to slow down the Judiciary Committee’s vote. One Senate Republican aide said Tuesday that all options were on the table.

Democrats, knowing they probably have the votes to confirm Sotomayor, are almost dismissive of the GOP attacks.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) is casting Sotomayor as an experienced judge with a rich background — and as someone whose record puts her in the mainstream of American legal thought.

As McConnell and Sessions headed to the floor to blast Sotomayor, Leahy held a news conference to unveil a host of Sotomayor endorsements from law enforcement officials.

“It can be said with confidence that Judge Sotomayor is unquestionably a consensus judge on criminal justice issues,” Leahy said. “In fact, Judge Sotomayor’s criminal justice record proves she is a moderate judge whose decisions in criminal cases rarely differ from those of her colleagues on the federal bench.”

Asked earlier if the Republican critique of Sotomayor as a closed-minded jurist had any merit, Leahy responded only: “No.”

Sources: Politico, Day Life

Sotomayor's Confirmation Hearings To Begin In July....Early Start Angers G.O.P.

Politico----

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy’s move to set a July 13 start date for Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination hearings has infuriated Republicans, who are threatening to slow walk every step of the confirmation so they can have more time to dig through her judicial and personal history.

The aggressive scheduling move — carried out without informing Republicans on the Judiciary Committee — threatens to harm the decent rapport the panel has had since Sotomayor’s nomination last month. Some Republicans, like Tom Coburn of Oklahoma have already threatened to boycott the confirmation hearings.

"I don't think it’s a good way to begin the proceedings,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, who added that he was “surprised” by Leahy’s move. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) both took to the Senate floor to criticize the hearing schedule.

But on Tuesday, Leahy indicated he was tired of Republican attacks on Sotomayor, arguing that it took John Roberts only 72 days to be confirmed from the time he was nominated and that Sotomayor’s confirmation is on a similar timeline.

“There is no reason to unduly delay consideration of this well-qualified nominee,” Leahy said. “Indeed, given the attacks on her character, there are compelling reasons to proceed even ahead of this schedule. She deserves the earliest opportunity to respond to those attacks.”

Leahy told POLITICO he had a “long talk with the president” — who, Leahy said, is supportive of the hearing schedule.

“I want to be fair to the nominee and allow her the earliest possible opportunity to respond to the attacks made about her character,” Leahy explained. “It is not fair for her critics to be calling her racist without allowing her the opportunity to respond.”

Several Republicans said they were upset with Leahy for scheduling the hearing without much GOP input and indicated they may use delay tactics in committee and on the floor to give themselves more time.

“I’m not sure we’ll be ready,” said Coburn, who sits on the Judiciary Committee. “If I’m ready to attend, I will attend. If I’m not, I won’t.”

Asked if he’d skip the hearing if he felt rushed, Coburn said: “I’m certainly not going to ask questions if I’m not prepared.”

“This seems like a unilateral and political decision by Leahy and Senate Democrats,” said one Republican Senate aide, adding: “[Leahy] knows that the longer this nomination sits, the public support for her will begin to dwindle.”

Republicans argue that they would need to read 76 cases a day to get prepared for the hearings.

“She has 10 times as many decisions as Roberts did,” said Kyl, who is also on the Judiciary Committee.” “It takes a long time to go through that material. We’ll simply have to wait and see how that review goes. I’ve checked, and it’s not going really fast. It’s hard to do.”

But Leahy pushed aside concerns about workload, saying that members have staffs for a good reason.

“If we can’t get that done, shame on us,” he retorted.

And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that if Sotomayor’s nomination is stalled until after the August recess, it would be the longest period of time a Supreme Court nominee would have to wait for hearings to start.

“There’s no reason this can’t be done,” Reid told reporters. “If [Republicans] want to take more time than has ever been taken in the history of this country, then something is wrong.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, upped the Democratic offensive, saying Sotomayor shouldn’t be treated any differently than Roberts or Samuel Alito in terms of scheduling.

“Unlike the case for Justice Roberts or Justice Alito, her entire record is already publicly available and is hardly inscrutable. There is no need to insist that her confirmation process take any longer than theirs did,” Schumer said.

At the very least, Leahy’s decision irked Sessions, who complained that Leahy did not talk to him about the scheduling before announcing the July 13 date. The two men met to discuss timing last week.

“I’m really a bit surprised,” Sessions said. “I don’t think our side has the time to do this right. ... That’s a rushed time frame, and I don’t think that’s necessary. I have serious doubts about [the time frame], but we’re going to be working on it.”

Whatever the case, Leahy appears unwilling to budge on the July 13 date.

Asked if the date was set in stone, Leahy responded: “Yes.”

Meanwhile, Sotomayor continued to make the rounds in the Senate, and on Tuesday, Florida Republican Mel Martinez stopped just short of pledging his support after a closed-door meeting with her, but he made little secret that he was leaning in that direction.

“I am going to withhold any judgment about her nomination until after the Judiciary Committee hearings,” Martinez told reporters today, then added: “I am very, very impressed with her — not only her personal qualities but also her qualities as a judge.”

Sources: Politico, Flickr, Wikipedia

Senators Leahy & Sessions Reject G.O.P. Sotomayor "Reverse Racist" Claims.... Baloney!

This morning on Meet the Press David Gregory interviewed both Senator Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Sessions (R-AL), asking to give their perspective on Judge Sotomayor's "Wise Latina" remarks.

Check out how they both responded. Their statements especially Senator Sessions' comments, may in fact surprise you.

David Gregory (Meet the Press): "Calling her a Racist; Reverse Racist. Do you think that's appropriate? Do you that's fair? Do you think she's a Racist? Do you think Conservatives should stop using those words (Reverse Racist; Racist)?"

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL): "I read her speech. I'm troubled by her speech. I would not use such loaded words (Racist; Reverse Racist). They would not be words I would use. I don't think that, that's an appropriate description of her (Sotomayor). I would prefer that they (Conservatives) not. We should not demagogue race. Its an important issue in our country. We need to handle it with the respect and care it deserves."


David Gregory: "Are you troubled by her (Sotomayor's) remarks?"

Senator Leahy (D-VT): "We'll have to talk to her about her remarks and we will during the hearing. I totally reject those kind of claims made by leaders of the Republican Party like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. To call her or equate her with the head of the KKK or call her a Bigot. This is Baloney!"

"Nothing in her background would indicate that she is a bigot or equivalent to the KKK or anything else."

"This is a woman who has a compelling story."

"It is about qualifications."

"It would be ridiculous to think that someone's life experience would not affect them."


(Senator Sessions explains why he would not label Judge Sotomayor as a Reverse Racist or Racist.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Senator Leahy calls use of the word "Racist" when describing Judge Sotomayor Baloney!)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sources: Meet the Press, MSNBC, Day Life, Wikipedia