Dems wage war on Kavanaugh, court: New battles over legitimacy, impeachment, recusal | Fox News

Dems wage war on Kavanaugh, court: New battles over legitimacy, impeachment, recusal | Fox News

What to expect now that Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley explains and makes the case for more justices on the court. The narrow confirmation of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh over the weekend marked a major political victory for President Trump – and the beginning of a new battle for Democrats, who are now shifting their message to threaten possible impeachment against the newest high court justice and question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself. After a grueling confirmation fight that included graphic sexual misconduct allegations which the nominee denied, Kavanaugh was confirmed Saturday on 50-48 vote. His ceremonial swearing-in will be held Monday evening.
But as he joins the court, replacing retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, prominent Democrats signal the fight over his seat and the court itself will extend well beyond next month’s midterms.
“Now, they want to impeach him. … It’s an insult to the American public,” Trump said Monday, still fuming over the confirmation process and predicting Republican candidates would only benefit from the controversy in the midterms.
Democrats, though, maintain the fight is energizing their core. “We will not stop marching, we will not stop fighting,” DNC Chairman Tom Perez said in a statement.
Over the weekend, former Attorney General Eric Holder said the court’s legitimacy should be brought into question with the addition of Kavanaugh.
“With the confirmation of Kavanaugh and the process which led to it, (and the treatment of Merrick Garland), the legitimacy of the Supreme Court can justifiably be questioned. The Court must now prove—through its work—that it is worthy of the nation’s trust,” Holder tweeted, referring to former President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee whose confirmation process was blocked by Republicans in 2016.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., top Democrat on the judiciary committee, also tweeted that confirming Kavanaugh “in the face of credible allegations of sexual assault that were not thoroughly investigated, and his belligerent, partisan performance in last Thursday’s hearing undermines the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”
Some in the media advanced another argument to question the court’s legitimacy under its current makeup. Newsweek wrote that Kavanaugh is now the “fourth out of nine justices nominated by a president who did not initially win the popular vote”—referring to President Trump and former Republican President George W. Bush.
Whether the court’s legitimacy really comes into question will be seen when major decisions start coming down. More immediately, though, some Democrats are hinting at impeachment efforts should they win the House in November.
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said the option of impeaching Kavanaugh should not be ruled out and said he would support further investigation into the newest justice.
“If there is conclusory evidence that shows unequivocally that he lied to a Senate committee, that is a crime and he should be held accountable for those criminal acts,” Booker told Yahoo News on Sunday in Iowa, suggesting a probe into whether Kavanaugh perjured himself before the Senate.
He said, though, that Democrats first need to focus on taking back the Senate majority.
“I think that after the dust settles on the night of [November] 6, I think that’s where we start to evaluate … what is the best thing for us to be focusing on in terms of what’s best for America and the American people,” Booker said.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said over the weekend that if the Democrats take back the majority in the House, they will launch a separate investigation into Kavanaugh’s potential perjury and alleged sexual assault.
“It is not something we are eager to do,” Nadler told The New York Times Friday. “But the Senate having failed to do its proper constitutionally mandated job of advise and consent, we are going to have to do something to provide a check and balance, to protect the rule of law and to protect the legitimacy of one of our most important institutions.”
He added: “We have to assure the American people either that it was a fair process and that the new justice did not commit perjury, did not do these terrible things, or reveal that we just don’t know because the investigation was a whitewash.”
Some Democrats even called for considering the impeachment of Justice Clarence Thomas , over sexual harassment allegations he fought off during his 1991 confirmation.
Last month, after an hours-long hearing where both Kavanaugh and one of his accusers, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, testified, there was a bipartisan call for further investigation into the allegations.
Ford accused Kavanaugh of pinning her down to a bed and trying to remove her clothing at a high school party 36 years ago. She believed it to be an “attempted rape,” according to her legal team. Kavanaugh also faced allegations from Deborah Ramirez, who claimed the Supreme Court nominee exposed himself to her at a dorm party during their freshman year at Yale University; and Julie Swenitck, who claimed Kavanaugh drugged the “punch” at parties and was involved in or present at “gang” and “train” rapes while in high school. Kavanaugh denied all the claims publicly.
The White House ordered a week-long FBI supplemental background investigation into the allegations. The report did not find evidence to corroborate the allegations, though Democrats complained that the probe was limited in scope.
Another point of contention going forward may be Kavanaugh’s involvement in a variety of court cases. CNN legal analyst Areva Martin said last week that Kavanaugh should recuse himself from cases involving civil rights, such as gerrymandering.
“Those cases are often brought by political parties, they’re brought by Democrats, so if Judge Kavanaugh believes that this allegation brought by Dr. Ford was somehow orchestrated or engineered by Democratic operatives, how can he be unbiased in a gerrymandering case that’s brought by a Democratic party?” she said on CNN. “His name on the court will always have an asterisk.” Video
But Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz called that comment “ridiculous.”
“He was confirmed, he will serve on the Supreme Court. He will be judged like the other justices,” Dershowitz said on Fox News’“America’s Newsroom” Monday.
Dershowitz also warned Democrats not to move on impeachment.
“Kavanaugh was not my choice—I’m a liberal Democrat—I would have appointed Merrick Garland again, but the Democrats have to be wise and sensible and just and moral and not violate due process and civil liberties,” Dershowitz said. Brooke Singman is a Politics Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @brookefoxnews . Trending in Politics

Read More…

Medical cannabis ‘will be available on prescription within a month’ | Metro News

Share this article via flipboard Copy link 3.8k Shares
Cannabis oil will be available on prescription to people with chronic pain across the UK within a month, it has been reported
Currently cannabis-derived medicines are only prescribed in exceptional circumstances, when permission is granted by a panel of medical experts, but the Home Office is set to relax the rules.
Home Secretary Sajid Javid has sanctioned the ‘rescheduling’ of cannabis-derived medicines in Parliament and an announcement is expected within two weeks paving the way for it to be prescribed almost immediately. Home Secretary Sajid Javid sanctioned the prescription of cannabis-based medicines (Picture: Reuters)
There will be specialist doctors who will prescribe cannabis medicines and patients will no longer be forced to try other drugs before using cannabis-derived treatments.
People suffering with chronic pain, epilepsy, nausea as a result of chemotherapy and MS will be among those who will be first to be prescribed the drugs.
Genevieve Edwards, from the MS Society, told the Sunday Telegraph : ‘This is very encouraging progress for thousands of people with MS who have been forced to choose between living with relentless pain and muscle spasm or breaking the law.’
The turning point in the long-running campaign to legalise medical cannabis treatments was in June when the Home Office allowed Charlotte Caldwell’s 12-year-old son Billy to keep drugs prescribed to him in America after they had been seized at Heathrow Airport. Charlotte Caldwell, mother of Billy Caldwell, had stand off with the Home Office in June (Picture: PA)
Ms Caldwell said: ‘I feel absolutely, truly blessed from the bottom of my heart, that Billy had access to this medicine.’
Both Billy and six-year-old Alfie Dingley, who both suffer from severe epilepsy, have now been prescribed cannabis based drugs in the UK but many families were denied permission.
England’s chief medical officer conducted a review on medical cannabis earlier this year and this convinced the Home Secretary to relax the rules despite Theresa May’s long-standing opposition to softening drug laws.
Cannabis oil and other medicinal cannabis treatments do not produce a high as they do not include the active THD which recreational marijuana contains. Alfie Dingley, aged six, has been prescribed cannabis medicine for his severe epilepsy (Picture: PA)
A Government spokesperson said: ‘We completely sympathise with the families who have been facing desperate situations as they try to find treatment.
‘In July the Home Secretary committed to swift action on behalf of those whose medical conditions could potentially be eased by cannabis-based products and we have announced that cannabis-based products for medicinal use will be available for specialist doctors to prescribe legally from the Autumn.
‘In the interim the expert panel will consider applications for these products. Any proposed course of treatment with cannabis-based medicine must be clinically led.’ Got a story for Metro.co.uk?
If you have a story for our news team, email us at .
You can also follow us on Facebook and Twitter . Advertisement

Read More…

Former Cambridge Analytica chief used N-word to describe Barbados PM | UK news

Alexander Nix, the former chief executive of the elections consultancy Cambridge Analytica , is facing fresh questions about his conduct after a leak of documents revealed he used a highly offensive racial slur to describe the prime minister of Barbados.
The British consultant, who lost his business after an investigation by the Observer exposed the firm’s unauthorised use of data from millions of Facebook users , has been pitching to once again run election campaigns in the Caribbean.
Nix had worked in the region previously for SCL Elections, a sister company of Cambridge Analytica, before both closed down earlier this year.
New details around the firm’s work in the Caribbean – and the tactics it was prepared to use – have emerged from leaked emails and documents relating to SCL.
The Guardian has seen an exchange of messages in which Nix appears to refer to Mia Mottley , who was elected prime minister of Barbados in May, and senator Lucille Moe, who is the country’s information minister, as “niggers”. The messages are dated October 2010.
At the time, it appears SCL was pitching for business with the Barbados Labour party and had apparently attempted to make contact with Moe and Mottley, who was then leader of the opposition.
A member of SCL’s team wrote to Nix on 15 October, saying: “I get the distinct impression they don’t want to talk to us.” To which the SCL Elections boss replied: “they just niggers.”
The Guardian asked Nix about the exchange. He did not respond to a request for comment. He has previously blamed the “global liberal media” for bringing down Cambridge Analytica.
In an emailed statement, Moe confirmed that SCL had contacted the Barbados Labour party in order to offer its services. She said: “We were not comfortable working with them so we took a decision not to engage their services.”
The disclosure is likely to fuel concerns about a return by Nix to the region, where his work was the subject of controversy and denunciations from local politicians long before SCL and Cambridge Analytica came under scrutiny in Britain.
Last month, the Guardian has been told, Nix made contact with the opposition party of St Kitts and Nevis, a state in the eastern Caribbean.
According to a senior source from the Saint Kitts and Nevis Labour party, Nix offered to manage its next campaign. A general election is expected to be called in the coming months, with opposition leader Denzil Douglas hoping to oust the prime minister.
“Nix said although the company has been changed, the people who work there are the same and so they were available to provide services in campaign management,” the source claimed. The offer has not been accepted by the party.
Nix did not, apparently, give the name of his new firm. Since Cambridge Analytica went into administration in May, a number of reports have surfaced of former staff and directors regrouping at new businesses. One former executive, Mark Turnbull, is now managing director of Auspex International , a company launched in July that bills itself as an “ethically based” geopolitical consultancy. Nix has not declared any involvement with Auspex.
SCL and Cambridge Analytica claimed to have advised political parties in more than 100 elections, spanning 30 countries – many of them former British colonies.
Both companies were forced to close following revelations about the behaviour of Cambridge Analytica – and the new leak highlights the array of dirty tricks SCL was prepared to deploy during the Caribbean campaigns.
During the 2010 election in Dominica, for instance, staff pretended to be anthropology researchers from a fictitious London university, complete with a fake logo. As part of its pitch for a campaign in St Lucia the same year, SCL offered to create an NGO from scratch to praise and endorse the party it was working for.
SCL explained that the NGO would organise “events that are bi-partisan in nature (or appear to be)”, “raise issues of interest to the client” and “investigate opposition allegations and neutralize attacks”. The service would cost $20,000 (£15,000) a month.
In addition, SCL proposed carrying out a sting against a rival, who was to be contacted by someone from the firm posing as a representative of a European construction group interested in winning business on the island – in return for a donation to his party.
In the event, no St Lucian election was held that year. The plans were not, therefore, put into effect and there is no suggestion local politicians were informed of or approved these tactics.
SCL worked for the St Kitts Labour party in two previous elections. The first was in 2010, when the firm helped Douglas secure a fourth term as prime minister. His 20-year premiership was eventually brought to an end in 2015 when Labour was once again advised by SCL. His successor, Timothy Harris, is expected to call the next general election later this year or early in 2019.
Additional reporting by Stephanie Kirchgaessner.

Read More…

Trump: Kavanaugh sex assault claims were ‘all made up’ – BBC News

He added: “I think it’s an insult to the American public.” Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Donald Trump’s nominee has been embroiled in a bitter battle over sexual assault allegations.
The allegations against the nominee were “all made up, it was fabricated and it was a disgrace,” Mr Trump said.
Speaking at a police convention in Orlando later, the president said the allegations against the justice were “brought about by people that are evil”. It was unclear if he was referring to the accusers, their lawyers or Democratic lawmakers.
Immediately following Prof Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony last month about her alleged assault to the Senate, Mr Trump called her a “compelling” witness.
But he later questioned her credibility and mocked her at a rally. Image copyright US Supreme Court Image caption Brett Kavanaugh was administered the judicial oath by outgoing justice Anthony Kennedy on Saturday evening
Mr Trump says Democrats will lose in the 6 November congressional elections, which will shape the remainder of his presidency. Where is Justice Kavanaugh?
On Monday evening, Mr Trump will host a swearing-in ceremony for the top judge at the White House.
The 53-year-old justice was sworn in on Saturday evening in a private ceremony at the Supreme Court.
He will take his seat on Tuesday – on the far right of the bench, next to Justice Elena Kagan – hearing immigration and other cases.
Justice Kavanaugh has followed up on his pledge to hire women to serve as his law clerks, becoming the first justice to have an all-female staff. What about Christine Blasey Ford?
Prof Ford – who said the judge sexually assaulted her at a house party in 1982 when they were high school students – has been unable to move back home because of “unending” death threats, according to one of her lawyers.
Lawyer Debra Katz told MSNBC: “It’s going to be quite some time before they’re able to live at home.
“The threats have been unending.
“It’s deplorable. It’s been very frightening.” What Trump’s ‘elevator screamers’ tweet tells us Do Democrats want to impeach Justice Kavanaugh?
A handful of Democratic lawmakers, including congressmen Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Ted Lieu of California, have pressed for Justice Kavanaugh’s removal.
But top Democrat Nancy Pelosi has said trying to impeach the new justice “would not be my plan”.
“Let’s take it one day at a time,” she said last week. “We are not about impeachment.”
Senator Chris Coons told NBC: “I think that’s premature… Folks who feel very strongly one way or other about the issues in front of us should get out and vote.”
A petition to impeach Justice Kavanaugh has more than 150,000 signatures.
Samuel Chase in 1804 was the only justice to be impeached by the House. He was acquitted by the Senate the following year. Meet the Supremes – the judges on the top US court Is Justice Kavanaugh off the hook?
On Saturday, Nancy Pelosi announced she will file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to make public a confidential FBI investigation into the claims against Justice Kavanaugh.
Democrat Jerrold Nadler, who is in line to chair the House Judiciary Committee if his party wins a majority in the mid-terms, said that he would be prepared to open an investigation into the top judge.
Mr Nadler did not address the impeachment question, telling the New York Times the investigation would look into whether Senate Republicans had “whitewashed” the FBI inquiry.
Justice Kavanaugh also faces more than a dozen judicial misconduct complaints over his public statements as a nominee to the Supreme Court.
And the American Bar Association has reopened its evaluation of Justice Kavanaugh’s temperament. Related Topics

Read More…

Should women be spelt womxn? – BBC News

Should women be spelt womxn? By Alex Regan BBC News 10 October 2018 These are external links and will open in a new window Close share panel Womxn – to the untrained eye it may look like a typo.
But when the Wellcome Collection – a museum and library in London – sent a tweet promoting an event using the word it led to a Twitter backlash from hundreds of women, and an apology from the organisation. Report
Like women, womxn refers to females, but it is an attempt to get away from patriarchal language.
Dr Clara Bradbury-Rance, fellow at King’s College London, said the spelling “stems from a longstanding objection to the word woman as it comes from man, and the linguistic roots of the word mean that it really does come from the word man”.
The word is also supposed to be inclusive of trans women, and some non-binary people.
But how is it pronounced? “I’ve heard womxn pronounced in lots of different ways. I’ve heard some pronounce it ‘wo-minx’,” Dr Bradbury-Rance says. Why did the Wellcome Collection use womxn?
The museum was promoting a four-day event called Daylighting, which featured women’s writing, art and ideas. In a tweet, the museum said it was using the spelling womxn because “we feel that it is important to create a space/venue that includes diverse perspectives”.
But the term led hundreds of people, many women, to mock and criticise the Wellcome Collection.
Guardian journalist Hadley Freeman said the museum’s “new gender categories are ‘men’ and ‘other'”.
Suzie Leighton said she would not be referred to as a womxn until men became mxn.
One Twitter user said it was “demeaning and insulting to women”.
Vanessa Bailey called it “nxnsense” and Gillian Craigie referred to it as “a load of bxllxcks”.
Many mocked the spelling, one wrote: “Wxll you xnd your collxborxtors clxxrly hxvx too much timx on your hxnds. Gxt x grip!” Was the term inclusive? Report
The Wellcome Collection said it used the word womxn “with the intention of being inclusive”.
One of the groups that the term was supposed to include was trans women. But campaign group Trans Media Watch said it would never use that term.
Chair Jennie Kermode said: “We would generally just write women in the usual way because we feel it’s important for people to recognise that trans women are women.
“Trans women aren’t a special, separate category.”
One Twitter user said: “I’m not a womxn though, I’m a woman, so I guess that excludes me.” Report
Dr Bradbury-Rance said: “As far as I can tell I think that the problem has been seen as being too simplistic in their suggestion that they’re being all-inclusive.
“To say just using this word makes them completely inclusive in all lots of different ways – trans women, non-binary people.
“They seem to have used womxn as a fix-all.”
A Wellcome Collection spokeswoman said: “We should have put more thought into whether this was the right term to use when communicating about the event.
“We made a mistake, and we should not have used it.
“We’re sorry that we made the wrong call.”
Ms Kermode added the Wellcome Collection had always done its best to be inclusive “across the spectrum”, but added the museum should have anticipated this response. Related Topics

Read More…