Katie Porter 'Strongly' Disagrees With Dianne Feinstein About The Coney Barrett Hearing
Here it is in a nutshell - exactly what's wrong with American politics today.
In a moment of honesty and clarity, Feinstein says the Amy Coney Barrett hearings have been “one of the best set of hearings that I’ve participated in.”
Her own party attacks her for not following party lines and adhering to the party agenda.
Many progressives were dismayed this week upon hearing Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) heap praise on this week’s confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, calling them “one of the best set of hearings that I’ve participated in.”
The comments from the 87-year-old Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee ― accompanied by her embrace with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) afterward ― symbolized to progressives the party’s inability to play hardball on court nominations and sparked an outcry among some groups who called for her removal from the panel.
“She has undercut Democrats’ position at every step of this process, from undermining calls for filibuster and Court reform straight through to thanking Republicans for the most egregious partisan power grab in the modern history of the Supreme Court,” said Brian Fallon, founder and executive director of Demand Justice, a progressive judicial advocacy group.
On Friday, Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.), a progressive rock star who has expressed interest in serving in the Senate, also said she disagreed with the senior senator from California.
“I disagree strongly with Sen. Feinstein that that set of hearings was one of the best or was even acceptable,” Porter said in an interview with HuffPost. “I think Amy Coney Barrett did not answer basic questions about her beliefs and stonewalled repeatedly. We got many fewer direct answers than we have out of most Supreme Court hearings.”
“I thought it was a very poor set of hearings,” Porter added.
Democrats succeeded in landing few, if any, blows against Barrett, a conservative judge who once clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. They railed against the process as “illegitimate” and a “sham,” especially after Republicans blocked President Barack Obama from appointing a Supreme Court justice in a similar election year. And they cast the nomination as a vote that could threaten the future of the Affordable Care Act.
Even before this week’s hearings began, Democrats expressed concern that Feinstein — the second-oldest lawmaker in Congress who won reelection in 2018 ― wouldn’t be up to the task of leading her party in the Supreme Court battle. Those concerns only deepened among some Democrats after the hearings ended.
“It’s very hard to watch a colleague in decline. That this is occurring publicly is even harder,” one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told HuffPost on Thursday.
The first rule of dealing with those in power is don't ever volunteer an opening. It's easy to be patient knowing that they're powerless to stop her getting a lifetime appointment to a seat of power that will rule over them for decades to come.
shooting through the windshield is as stupid as stupid gets, being a badged officer in a land of laws...sorry, no weapon control, no way to control that bullet once it exists that windshield, they're not paid to kill innocent civilians, that's not acceptable at all (good thing i'm not a judge, no need for a jury, i'd imprison the trainers of these thugs)
and that vehicle? that's a weapon
Other people have been charged for letting their vehicle roll away from them...old granny hits the accelerator and not the brake pedal, that happens to untrained people, people who's initial training has long gone out the window...these guys are trained professionals, they gets trained regularly on how to drive but they receive probably zero training on how to shoot through windshields...i'm just catching some long odds here, long in my favor
they punch computer buttons while they handle the steering wheel at high speeds...from what i know at the moment, no one got that rod in the head or the arms...did that happen and I missed it? if so, i'm completely out of my mind and that's not the first tyme either
we saw the passenger bail out of a moving vehicle, then retreat instead of viewing up close the situation and attempting to salvage the cruiser. it's not like they were under fire, they were not being attacked at that time, the threat had long since removed themselves from the situation they created, by running away
and let's presume for a moment, the driver, let's assume he got speared...and his partner flees???
we can't have it both ways, this lunatic should have remained behind bars which i'll bet, that's where he recently came from and these cops, unless physically unable to do so, they must control themselves or they're all licensed to kill any of us, on a lark, with zero justice unless we're black or gay, barely gay doesn't work anymore
idk, did i miss anything? i don't wanna be 100 feet down range from a person like the pole thrower and i catch a 9mm, fk that and since when has that been an acceptable outcome????????????
you've got enough adrenaline to hit a mic button, drive a vehicle at high speed, not be able to avoid getting the vehicle speared, having to bail out, through the passenger side, probably 'through' the attached to the dash computer, basically because the spear is on fire, leaving your weapon vulnerable to injure or maim another, not seem to be interested in rescuing anything of your own personal stuff, then become fascinated by the fire enough to forget to continue to chase the perp who for all he knows, ran a half a block, then stopped to catch his breath
my 20/20 hindsight is crazy right now because i don't understand how I could contain my anger and not chase and catch and Mash that perps face into the pavement...oh, just because
i suppose i don't have enough self control to understand when i've lost, idk
maybe it comes with an administrative letter explaining how to properly do it and i tossed my copy in the trash, i really don't know
A CNN analyst who tried to bully a colleague's daughter whom he impregnated into getting an abortion, and who then refused to pay child support, "accidentally" showcased his schvantz during a Zoom call with other reporters.
CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin Suspended by The New Yorker For Exposing His Penis During Zoom Call
CNN legal analyst and writer Jeffrey Toobin was suspended by The New Yorker for exposing his penis during a Zoom call with his fellow magazine colleagues.
Toobin told Vice in a statement: “I made an embarrassingly stupid mistake, believing I was off-camera. I apologize to my wife, family, friends and co-workers.”
A spokeswoman for The New Yorker said, “Jeffrey Toobin has been suspended while we investigate the matter.”
The New Yorker has suspended reporter Jeffrey Toobin. Sources tell VICE it’s because he exposed himself during a Zoom call last week between members of the New Yorker and WNYC radio.
“I believed I was not visible on Zoom. I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video,” he added.
Toobin’s Conde Nast email has been disabled and he has not tweeted since October 13. He did, however, appear on CNN, where he is the network’s chief legal analyst, on Saturday. “Jeff Toobin has asked for some time off while he deals with a personal issue, which we have granted,” CNN said in a statement.
Toobin may have been suspended by The New Yorker, but he appeared on CNN on Saturday.