Mixing
Will Democratic senators be permitted to ask questions of Dr. Blasey Ford?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Acknowledging that the conditions of hearing currently scheduled for Thursday is fluid, so what will actually happen is speculative, I am asking what I think is a process question.
Reportedly, the majority members of judiciary committee are considering hiring an non-member to question Dr Ford in the public hearing as a proxy for being questioned by of the committee.
This seems to suggest that any member (R/D/I) that wants to exercise their privilege to question a witness is precluded from doing so. One supposes that the chairman would refuse to "give the floor" to other members.
Is my understanding correct, that ALL members could be silenced?
Also, is there any historical precedence for this?
united-states senate senate-rules
asked 3 hours ago
BobE
2,2131723
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Acknowledging that the conditions of hearing currently scheduled for Thursday is fluid, so what will actually happen is speculative, I am asking what I think is a process question.
Reportedly, the majority members of judiciary committee are considering hiring an non-member to question Dr Ford in the public hearing as a proxy for being questioned by of the committee.
This seems to suggest that any member (R/D/I) that wants to exercise their privilege to question a witness is precluded from doing so. One supposes that the chairman would refuse to "give the floor" to other members.
Is my understanding correct, that ALL members could be silenced?
Also, is there any historical precedence for this?
united-states senate senate-rules
asked 3 hours ago
BobE
2,2131723
I don't have any reference for this, but I just assumed time would be allotted as it is normally between all members of the committee, but that Republican members of the committee would cede their allotted time to whomever they're bringing in to ask questions. If this is the case, then any Democratic members could similarly cede their own time to someone they brought in, or keep it to ask questions themselves. But this is a good questions, I'd like to see if my theory is supported by statements from the committee.
– BradC
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Acknowledging that the conditions of hearing currently scheduled for Thursday is fluid, so what will actually happen is speculative, I am asking what I think is a process question.
Reportedly, the majority members of judiciary committee are considering hiring an non-member to question Dr Ford in the public hearing as a proxy for being questioned by of the committee.
This seems to suggest that any member (R/D/I) that wants to exercise their privilege to question a witness is precluded from doing so. One supposes that the chairman would refuse to "give the floor" to other members.
Is my understanding correct, that ALL members could be silenced?
Also, is there any historical precedence for this?
united-states senate senate-rules
asked 3 hours ago
BobE
2,2131723
Acknowledging that the conditions of hearing currently scheduled for Thursday is fluid, so what will actually happen is speculative, I am asking what I think is a process question.
Reportedly, the majority members of judiciary committee are considering hiring an non-member to question Dr Ford in the public hearing as a proxy for being questioned by of the committee.
This seems to suggest that any member (R/D/I) that wants to exercise their privilege to question a witness is precluded from doing so. One supposes that the chairman would refuse to "give the floor" to other members.
Is my understanding correct, that ALL members could be silenced?
Also, is there any historical precedence for this?
united-states senate senate-rules
united-states senate senate-rules
asked 3 hours ago
BobE
2,2131723
asked 3 hours ago
BobE
2,2131723
edited 2 hours ago
asked 3 hours ago
BobE
2,2131723
asked 3 hours ago
BobE
2,2131723
asked 3 hours ago
BobE
2,2131723
2,2131723
I don't have any reference for this, but I just assumed time would be allotted as it is normally between all members of the committee, but that Republican members of the committee would cede their allotted time to whomever they're bringing in to ask questions. If this is the case, then any Democratic members could similarly cede their own time to someone they brought in, or keep it to ask questions themselves. But this is a good questions, I'd like to see if my theory is supported by statements from the committee.
– BradC
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
I don't have any reference for this, but I just assumed time would be allotted as it is normally between all members of the committee, but that Republican members of the committee would cede their allotted time to whomever they're bringing in to ask questions. If this is the case, then any Democratic members could similarly cede their own time to someone they brought in, or keep it to ask questions themselves. But this is a good questions, I'd like to see if my theory is supported by statements from the committee.
– BradC
2 hours ago
I don't have any reference for this, but I just assumed time would be allotted as it is normally between all members of the committee, but that Republican members of the committee would cede their allotted time to whomever they're bringing in to ask questions. If this is the case, then any Democratic members could similarly cede their own time to someone they brought in, or keep it to ask questions themselves. But this is a good questions, I'd like to see if my theory is supported by statements from the committee.
– BradC
2 hours ago
I don't have any reference for this, but I just assumed time would be allotted as it is normally between all members of the committee, but that Republican members of the committee would cede their allotted time to whomever they're bringing in to ask questions. If this is the case, then any Democratic members could similarly cede their own time to someone they brought in, or keep it to ask questions themselves. But this is a good questions, I'd like to see if my theory is supported by statements from the committee.
– BradC
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
My understanding is that the Republicans want to have outside counsel to ask questions on their behalf, not necessarily as the sole questioner in the hearings.
Ford's team still wants questioning only by senators, while some on the committee are pushing for a female outside counsel to do at least part of the questioning for the majority. Ford's lawyers also still want some others to testify or be subpoenaed, including Kavanaugh's high school friend Mark Judge, who was identified by Ford as someone else in the room during the alleged assault.
CNN.com - Kavanaugh's accuser accepts request to speak to Judiciary Committee next week
This would mean it would be fine for the Democrats to ask their own questions, and then it offers the GOP a chance to ask hard questions through a woman offering those questions. It is to avoid the optics and a repeat of old white men attacking someone showing up claiming to be a victim, and some of those old white men are the same ones who went after Anita Hill.
While political, by nature, this entire process is especially being driven by mid-term election politics. While there would normally be no reason to oppose having an outside counsel offering questions, or for Senators to want to have an outside counsel offering questions and taking their moment in the TV spotlight, the Democrats and Republicans are both very aware of the history of the Thomas/Hill hearings. The Dems want those optics, so the Democrats are wanting only the Senators to offer their own questions, so they can't hide behind a woman asking their questions if it comes down to what may be perceived or intentionally framed as smearing an accuser again. Mid-term politics is also behind the drive to push this through now, with this candidate, by the GOP, and the repeated efforts to slow and delay the process by the Democrats.
While the article cited states that Ford's lawyers oppose questioning by outside counsel, I'm making the assumption that Dems support that notion, though I may be mistaken on that.
answered 1 hour ago
PoloHoleSet
10.1k12350
I haven't actually seen anything yet, but I think your assumption is probably correct, that Dems support Ford's lawyers. However, since the Dems are in the minority, can the committee (by majority vote) simply decide that all questioning shall be done by an outside counsel? That is to say, can the committee or the chairman establish rules for that particular hearing? Moreover, has the "notion that all or some members" relinquish their privilege to question a witness to a non-member have some precedence.
– BobE
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
No. So what's going on is that as it stands, the Republicans membership of the committee does not have any female members seated on the committee. Some of them want to have a female aid ask their questions for them, some out of genuine respect for Dr. Ford's sensitivities, others to avoid the optics of a bunch of old men asking questions about rape, and some for a mixture of both. I'm not aware of any rules stating committee membership cannot name an aide to ask in their place, so long as the aide asks only the Senator's questions (Senators are quite busy not to mention... old... and holding a hearing while one is on sick leave would seem a poor excuse to cancel on those before the committee, and deny senators their right to ask questions).
Order of questioning usually starts with the chair of the committee (from the majority party), then the ranking member (from the opposition party). Following that, the order is always Majority-Opposition-Maj-Oppo until everyone has their turn. There is a time limit, but I do not know how long this one will be. I also cannot speak to what determines the particular order of the questioning for any one side (that is, among Republicans, who goes after the chair as the next majority call. Same wit the Democrat after the Ranking member).
Now, having said that, there are a few demands from Dr. Ford that are without any precedent and part of this demand is rather bad form. This demand in particular has also banned questioning from Kavanaugh's attorney. Additionally, Kavanaugh was requested to be banned from the room during testimony and must testify first. While the senate does not typically hold hearings on criminal matters, there is Constitutional Precident that holds that the accused be given the right to face his accusers, and examine witnesses and evidence of any wrong doing in addition to being allowed to present his or her own defense to the charges. Be cause of this, in the United States court system, while the term for the accuser changes between the various court systems (prosecution (criminal), plaintiff (civil), appellant (appeals), ect.) must always make their case first, so that the defense (defense (criminal and civil), respondent (appeals), ect.) can no the exact nature of the charges against them.
These are violations of all of the 6th amendment rights afforded to the defense and at least in part the 5th amendment. It should be stated that as the Senate is not deciding on guilt, but on the merits of the accusation as consideration for Kavanaugh's appointment, so this is not a full trial, but a probative manner. However, the request in question, along with the request for Kavanaugh's testimony to her accusation before they are made officially is highly unusual as they require Kavanaugh to testify truthfully vague denials to what will likely be specific details, with no ability to know the details, nor provide evidence that is favorable to him.
answered 2 hours ago
hszmv
3,734317
4
Your initial "no" is vague: Are you saying "no, Democratic senators won't be able to ask questions"? Because that doesn't seem to match the rest of your first paragraph (about questioning alternating between party). Your final paragraphs also seem to be editorializing, and don't directly answer the question.
– BradC
2 hours ago
1
"While the Senate does not hold hearings on criminal matters" - and then you spend the bulk of your answer talking about provisions that apply to that, while making a disclaimer that it doesn't really apply to this....so, the bulk of your answer is talking about legal provisions that do not apply. -1 for misdirection.
– PoloHoleSet
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
My understanding is that the Republicans want to have outside counsel to ask questions on their behalf, not necessarily as the sole questioner in the hearings.
Ford's team still wants questioning only by senators, while some on the committee are pushing for a female outside counsel to do at least part of the questioning for the majority. Ford's lawyers also still want some others to testify or be subpoenaed, including Kavanaugh's high school friend Mark Judge, who was identified by Ford as someone else in the room during the alleged assault.
CNN.com - Kavanaugh's accuser accepts request to speak to Judiciary Committee next week
This would mean it would be fine for the Democrats to ask their own questions, and then it offers the GOP a chance to ask hard questions through a woman offering those questions. It is to avoid the optics and a repeat of old white men attacking someone showing up claiming to be a victim, and some of those old white men are the same ones who went after Anita Hill.
While political, by nature, this entire process is especially being driven by mid-term election politics. While there would normally be no reason to oppose having an outside counsel offering questions, or for Senators to want to have an outside counsel offering questions and taking their moment in the TV spotlight, the Democrats and Republicans are both very aware of the history of the Thomas/Hill hearings. The Dems want those optics, so the Democrats are wanting only the Senators to offer their own questions, so they can't hide behind a woman asking their questions if it comes down to what may be perceived or intentionally framed as smearing an accuser again. Mid-term politics is also behind the drive to push this through now, with this candidate, by the GOP, and the repeated efforts to slow and delay the process by the Democrats.
While the article cited states that Ford's lawyers oppose questioning by outside counsel, I'm making the assumption that Dems support that notion, though I may be mistaken on that.
answered 1 hour ago
PoloHoleSet
10.1k12350
I haven't actually seen anything yet, but I think your assumption is probably correct, that Dems support Ford's lawyers. However, since the Dems are in the minority, can the committee (by majority vote) simply decide that all questioning shall be done by an outside counsel? That is to say, can the committee or the chairman establish rules for that particular hearing? Moreover, has the "notion that all or some members" relinquish their privilege to question a witness to a non-member have some precedence.
– BobE
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
My understanding is that the Republicans want to have outside counsel to ask questions on their behalf, not necessarily as the sole questioner in the hearings.
Ford's team still wants questioning only by senators, while some on the committee are pushing for a female outside counsel to do at least part of the questioning for the majority. Ford's lawyers also still want some others to testify or be subpoenaed, including Kavanaugh's high school friend Mark Judge, who was identified by Ford as someone else in the room during the alleged assault.
CNN.com - Kavanaugh's accuser accepts request to speak to Judiciary Committee next week
This would mean it would be fine for the Democrats to ask their own questions, and then it offers the GOP a chance to ask hard questions through a woman offering those questions. It is to avoid the optics and a repeat of old white men attacking someone showing up claiming to be a victim, and some of those old white men are the same ones who went after Anita Hill.
While political, by nature, this entire process is especially being driven by mid-term election politics. While there would normally be no reason to oppose having an outside counsel offering questions, or for Senators to want to have an outside counsel offering questions and taking their moment in the TV spotlight, the Democrats and Republicans are both very aware of the history of the Thomas/Hill hearings. The Dems want those optics, so the Democrats are wanting only the Senators to offer their own questions, so they can't hide behind a woman asking their questions if it comes down to what may be perceived or intentionally framed as smearing an accuser again. Mid-term politics is also behind the drive to push this through now, with this candidate, by the GOP, and the repeated efforts to slow and delay the process by the Democrats.
While the article cited states that Ford's lawyers oppose questioning by outside counsel, I'm making the assumption that Dems support that notion, though I may be mistaken on that.
answered 1 hour ago
PoloHoleSet
10.1k12350
I haven't actually seen anything yet, but I think your assumption is probably correct, that Dems support Ford's lawyers. However, since the Dems are in the minority, can the committee (by majority vote) simply decide that all questioning shall be done by an outside counsel? That is to say, can the committee or the chairman establish rules for that particular hearing? Moreover, has the "notion that all or some members" relinquish their privilege to question a witness to a non-member have some precedence.
– BobE
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
My understanding is that the Republicans want to have outside counsel to ask questions on their behalf, not necessarily as the sole questioner in the hearings.
Ford's team still wants questioning only by senators, while some on the committee are pushing for a female outside counsel to do at least part of the questioning for the majority. Ford's lawyers also still want some others to testify or be subpoenaed, including Kavanaugh's high school friend Mark Judge, who was identified by Ford as someone else in the room during the alleged assault.
CNN.com - Kavanaugh's accuser accepts request to speak to Judiciary Committee next week
This would mean it would be fine for the Democrats to ask their own questions, and then it offers the GOP a chance to ask hard questions through a woman offering those questions. It is to avoid the optics and a repeat of old white men attacking someone showing up claiming to be a victim, and some of those old white men are the same ones who went after Anita Hill.
While political, by nature, this entire process is especially being driven by mid-term election politics. While there would normally be no reason to oppose having an outside counsel offering questions, or for Senators to want to have an outside counsel offering questions and taking their moment in the TV spotlight, the Democrats and Republicans are both very aware of the history of the Thomas/Hill hearings. The Dems want those optics, so the Democrats are wanting only the Senators to offer their own questions, so they can't hide behind a woman asking their questions if it comes down to what may be perceived or intentionally framed as smearing an accuser again. Mid-term politics is also behind the drive to push this through now, with this candidate, by the GOP, and the repeated efforts to slow and delay the process by the Democrats.
While the article cited states that Ford's lawyers oppose questioning by outside counsel, I'm making the assumption that Dems support that notion, though I may be mistaken on that.
answered 1 hour ago
PoloHoleSet
10.1k12350
My understanding is that the Republicans want to have outside counsel to ask questions on their behalf, not necessarily as the sole questioner in the hearings.
Ford's team still wants questioning only by senators, while some on the committee are pushing for a female outside counsel to do at least part of the questioning for the majority. Ford's lawyers also still want some others to testify or be subpoenaed, including Kavanaugh's high school friend Mark Judge, who was identified by Ford as someone else in the room during the alleged assault.
CNN.com - Kavanaugh's accuser accepts request to speak to Judiciary Committee next week
This would mean it would be fine for the Democrats to ask their own questions, and then it offers the GOP a chance to ask hard questions through a woman offering those questions. It is to avoid the optics and a repeat of old white men attacking someone showing up claiming to be a victim, and some of those old white men are the same ones who went after Anita Hill.
While political, by nature, this entire process is especially being driven by mid-term election politics. While there would normally be no reason to oppose having an outside counsel offering questions, or for Senators to want to have an outside counsel offering questions and taking their moment in the TV spotlight, the Democrats and Republicans are both very aware of the history of the Thomas/Hill hearings. The Dems want those optics, so the Democrats are wanting only the Senators to offer their own questions, so they can't hide behind a woman asking their questions if it comes down to what may be perceived or intentionally framed as smearing an accuser again. Mid-term politics is also behind the drive to push this through now, with this candidate, by the GOP, and the repeated efforts to slow and delay the process by the Democrats.
While the article cited states that Ford's lawyers oppose questioning by outside counsel, I'm making the assumption that Dems support that notion, though I may be mistaken on that.
answered 1 hour ago
PoloHoleSet
10.1k12350
answered 1 hour ago
PoloHoleSet
10.1k12350
answered 1 hour ago
PoloHoleSet
10.1k12350
answered 1 hour ago
PoloHoleSet
10.1k12350
10.1k12350
I haven't actually seen anything yet, but I think your assumption is probably correct, that Dems support Ford's lawyers. However, since the Dems are in the minority, can the committee (by majority vote) simply decide that all questioning shall be done by an outside counsel? That is to say, can the committee or the chairman establish rules for that particular hearing? Moreover, has the "notion that all or some members" relinquish their privilege to question a witness to a non-member have some precedence.
– BobE
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
I haven't actually seen anything yet, but I think your assumption is probably correct, that Dems support Ford's lawyers. However, since the Dems are in the minority, can the committee (by majority vote) simply decide that all questioning shall be done by an outside counsel? That is to say, can the committee or the chairman establish rules for that particular hearing? Moreover, has the "notion that all or some members" relinquish their privilege to question a witness to a non-member have some precedence.
– BobE
16 mins ago
I haven't actually seen anything yet, but I think your assumption is probably correct, that Dems support Ford's lawyers. However, since the Dems are in the minority, can the committee (by majority vote) simply decide that all questioning shall be done by an outside counsel? That is to say, can the committee or the chairman establish rules for that particular hearing? Moreover, has the "notion that all or some members" relinquish their privilege to question a witness to a non-member have some precedence.
– BobE
16 mins ago
I haven't actually seen anything yet, but I think your assumption is probably correct, that Dems support Ford's lawyers. However, since the Dems are in the minority, can the committee (by majority vote) simply decide that all questioning shall be done by an outside counsel? That is to say, can the committee or the chairman establish rules for that particular hearing? Moreover, has the "notion that all or some members" relinquish their privilege to question a witness to a non-member have some precedence.
– BobE
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
No. So what's going on is that as it stands, the Republicans membership of the committee does not have any female members seated on the committee. Some of them want to have a female aid ask their questions for them, some out of genuine respect for Dr. Ford's sensitivities, others to avoid the optics of a bunch of old men asking questions about rape, and some for a mixture of both. I'm not aware of any rules stating committee membership cannot name an aide to ask in their place, so long as the aide asks only the Senator's questions (Senators are quite busy not to mention... old... and holding a hearing while one is on sick leave would seem a poor excuse to cancel on those before the committee, and deny senators their right to ask questions).
Order of questioning usually starts with the chair of the committee (from the majority party), then the ranking member (from the opposition party). Following that, the order is always Majority-Opposition-Maj-Oppo until everyone has their turn. There is a time limit, but I do not know how long this one will be. I also cannot speak to what determines the particular order of the questioning for any one side (that is, among Republicans, who goes after the chair as the next majority call. Same wit the Democrat after the Ranking member).
Now, having said that, there are a few demands from Dr. Ford that are without any precedent and part of this demand is rather bad form. This demand in particular has also banned questioning from Kavanaugh's attorney. Additionally, Kavanaugh was requested to be banned from the room during testimony and must testify first. While the senate does not typically hold hearings on criminal matters, there is Constitutional Precident that holds that the accused be given the right to face his accusers, and examine witnesses and evidence of any wrong doing in addition to being allowed to present his or her own defense to the charges. Be cause of this, in the United States court system, while the term for the accuser changes between the various court systems (prosecution (criminal), plaintiff (civil), appellant (appeals), ect.) must always make their case first, so that the defense (defense (criminal and civil), respondent (appeals), ect.) can no the exact nature of the charges against them.
These are violations of all of the 6th amendment rights afforded to the defense and at least in part the 5th amendment. It should be stated that as the Senate is not deciding on guilt, but on the merits of the accusation as consideration for Kavanaugh's appointment, so this is not a full trial, but a probative manner. However, the request in question, along with the request for Kavanaugh's testimony to her accusation before they are made officially is highly unusual as they require Kavanaugh to testify truthfully vague denials to what will likely be specific details, with no ability to know the details, nor provide evidence that is favorable to him.
answered 2 hours ago
hszmv
3,734317
4
Your initial "no" is vague: Are you saying "no, Democratic senators won't be able to ask questions"? Because that doesn't seem to match the rest of your first paragraph (about questioning alternating between party). Your final paragraphs also seem to be editorializing, and don't directly answer the question.
– BradC
2 hours ago
1
"While the Senate does not hold hearings on criminal matters" - and then you spend the bulk of your answer talking about provisions that apply to that, while making a disclaimer that it doesn't really apply to this....so, the bulk of your answer is talking about legal provisions that do not apply. -1 for misdirection.
– PoloHoleSet
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
No. So what's going on is that as it stands, the Republicans membership of the committee does not have any female members seated on the committee. Some of them want to have a female aid ask their questions for them, some out of genuine respect for Dr. Ford's sensitivities, others to avoid the optics of a bunch of old men asking questions about rape, and some for a mixture of both. I'm not aware of any rules stating committee membership cannot name an aide to ask in their place, so long as the aide asks only the Senator's questions (Senators are quite busy not to mention... old... and holding a hearing while one is on sick leave would seem a poor excuse to cancel on those before the committee, and deny senators their right to ask questions).
Order of questioning usually starts with the chair of the committee (from the majority party), then the ranking member (from the opposition party). Following that, the order is always Majority-Opposition-Maj-Oppo until everyone has their turn. There is a time limit, but I do not know how long this one will be. I also cannot speak to what determines the particular order of the questioning for any one side (that is, among Republicans, who goes after the chair as the next majority call. Same wit the Democrat after the Ranking member).
Now, having said that, there are a few demands from Dr. Ford that are without any precedent and part of this demand is rather bad form. This demand in particular has also banned questioning from Kavanaugh's attorney. Additionally, Kavanaugh was requested to be banned from the room during testimony and must testify first. While the senate does not typically hold hearings on criminal matters, there is Constitutional Precident that holds that the accused be given the right to face his accusers, and examine witnesses and evidence of any wrong doing in addition to being allowed to present his or her own defense to the charges. Be cause of this, in the United States court system, while the term for the accuser changes between the various court systems (prosecution (criminal), plaintiff (civil), appellant (appeals), ect.) must always make their case first, so that the defense (defense (criminal and civil), respondent (appeals), ect.) can no the exact nature of the charges against them.
These are violations of all of the 6th amendment rights afforded to the defense and at least in part the 5th amendment. It should be stated that as the Senate is not deciding on guilt, but on the merits of the accusation as consideration for Kavanaugh's appointment, so this is not a full trial, but a probative manner. However, the request in question, along with the request for Kavanaugh's testimony to her accusation before they are made officially is highly unusual as they require Kavanaugh to testify truthfully vague denials to what will likely be specific details, with no ability to know the details, nor provide evidence that is favorable to him.
answered 2 hours ago
hszmv
3,734317
4
Your initial "no" is vague: Are you saying "no, Democratic senators won't be able to ask questions"? Because that doesn't seem to match the rest of your first paragraph (about questioning alternating between party). Your final paragraphs also seem to be editorializing, and don't directly answer the question.
– BradC
2 hours ago
1
"While the Senate does not hold hearings on criminal matters" - and then you spend the bulk of your answer talking about provisions that apply to that, while making a disclaimer that it doesn't really apply to this....so, the bulk of your answer is talking about legal provisions that do not apply. -1 for misdirection.
– PoloHoleSet
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
No. So what's going on is that as it stands, the Republicans membership of the committee does not have any female members seated on the committee. Some of them want to have a female aid ask their questions for them, some out of genuine respect for Dr. Ford's sensitivities, others to avoid the optics of a bunch of old men asking questions about rape, and some for a mixture of both. I'm not aware of any rules stating committee membership cannot name an aide to ask in their place, so long as the aide asks only the Senator's questions (Senators are quite busy not to mention... old... and holding a hearing while one is on sick leave would seem a poor excuse to cancel on those before the committee, and deny senators their right to ask questions).
Order of questioning usually starts with the chair of the committee (from the majority party), then the ranking member (from the opposition party). Following that, the order is always Majority-Opposition-Maj-Oppo until everyone has their turn. There is a time limit, but I do not know how long this one will be. I also cannot speak to what determines the particular order of the questioning for any one side (that is, among Republicans, who goes after the chair as the next majority call. Same wit the Democrat after the Ranking member).
Now, having said that, there are a few demands from Dr. Ford that are without any precedent and part of this demand is rather bad form. This demand in particular has also banned questioning from Kavanaugh's attorney. Additionally, Kavanaugh was requested to be banned from the room during testimony and must testify first. While the senate does not typically hold hearings on criminal matters, there is Constitutional Precident that holds that the accused be given the right to face his accusers, and examine witnesses and evidence of any wrong doing in addition to being allowed to present his or her own defense to the charges. Be cause of this, in the United States court system, while the term for the accuser changes between the various court systems (prosecution (criminal), plaintiff (civil), appellant (appeals), ect.) must always make their case first, so that the defense (defense (criminal and civil), respondent (appeals), ect.) can no the exact nature of the charges against them.
These are violations of all of the 6th amendment rights afforded to the defense and at least in part the 5th amendment. It should be stated that as the Senate is not deciding on guilt, but on the merits of the accusation as consideration for Kavanaugh's appointment, so this is not a full trial, but a probative manner. However, the request in question, along with the request for Kavanaugh's testimony to her accusation before they are made officially is highly unusual as they require Kavanaugh to testify truthfully vague denials to what will likely be specific details, with no ability to know the details, nor provide evidence that is favorable to him.
answered 2 hours ago
hszmv
3,734317
No. So what's going on is that as it stands, the Republicans membership of the committee does not have any female members seated on the committee. Some of them want to have a female aid ask their questions for them, some out of genuine respect for Dr. Ford's sensitivities, others to avoid the optics of a bunch of old men asking questions about rape, and some for a mixture of both. I'm not aware of any rules stating committee membership cannot name an aide to ask in their place, so long as the aide asks only the Senator's questions (Senators are quite busy not to mention... old... and holding a hearing while one is on sick leave would seem a poor excuse to cancel on those before the committee, and deny senators their right to ask questions).
Order of questioning usually starts with the chair of the committee (from the majority party), then the ranking member (from the opposition party). Following that, the order is always Majority-Opposition-Maj-Oppo until everyone has their turn. There is a time limit, but I do not know how long this one will be. I also cannot speak to what determines the particular order of the questioning for any one side (that is, among Republicans, who goes after the chair as the next majority call. Same wit the Democrat after the Ranking member).
Now, having said that, there are a few demands from Dr. Ford that are without any precedent and part of this demand is rather bad form. This demand in particular has also banned questioning from Kavanaugh's attorney. Additionally, Kavanaugh was requested to be banned from the room during testimony and must testify first. While the senate does not typically hold hearings on criminal matters, there is Constitutional Precident that holds that the accused be given the right to face his accusers, and examine witnesses and evidence of any wrong doing in addition to being allowed to present his or her own defense to the charges. Be cause of this, in the United States court system, while the term for the accuser changes between the various court systems (prosecution (criminal), plaintiff (civil), appellant (appeals), ect.) must always make their case first, so that the defense (defense (criminal and civil), respondent (appeals), ect.) can no the exact nature of the charges against them.
These are violations of all of the 6th amendment rights afforded to the defense and at least in part the 5th amendment. It should be stated that as the Senate is not deciding on guilt, but on the merits of the accusation as consideration for Kavanaugh's appointment, so this is not a full trial, but a probative manner. However, the request in question, along with the request for Kavanaugh's testimony to her accusation before they are made officially is highly unusual as they require Kavanaugh to testify truthfully vague denials to what will likely be specific details, with no ability to know the details, nor provide evidence that is favorable to him.
answered 2 hours ago
hszmv
3,734317
answered 2 hours ago
hszmv
3,734317
answered 2 hours ago
hszmv
3,734317
answered 2 hours ago
hszmv
3,734317
3,734317
4
Your initial "no" is vague: Are you saying "no, Democratic senators won't be able to ask questions"? Because that doesn't seem to match the rest of your first paragraph (about questioning alternating between party). Your final paragraphs also seem to be editorializing, and don't directly answer the question.
– BradC
2 hours ago
1
"While the Senate does not hold hearings on criminal matters" - and then you spend the bulk of your answer talking about provisions that apply to that, while making a disclaimer that it doesn't really apply to this....so, the bulk of your answer is talking about legal provisions that do not apply. -1 for misdirection.
– PoloHoleSet
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
4
Your initial "no" is vague: Are you saying "no, Democratic senators won't be able to ask questions"? Because that doesn't seem to match the rest of your first paragraph (about questioning alternating between party). Your final paragraphs also seem to be editorializing, and don't directly answer the question.
– BradC
2 hours ago
1
"While the Senate does not hold hearings on criminal matters" - and then you spend the bulk of your answer talking about provisions that apply to that, while making a disclaimer that it doesn't really apply to this....so, the bulk of your answer is talking about legal provisions that do not apply. -1 for misdirection.
– PoloHoleSet
1 hour ago
4
4
Your initial "no" is vague: Are you saying "no, Democratic senators won't be able to ask questions"? Because that doesn't seem to match the rest of your first paragraph (about questioning alternating between party). Your final paragraphs also seem to be editorializing, and don't directly answer the question.
– BradC
2 hours ago
Your initial "no" is vague: Are you saying "no, Democratic senators won't be able to ask questions"? Because that doesn't seem to match the rest of your first paragraph (about questioning alternating between party). Your final paragraphs also seem to be editorializing, and don't directly answer the question.
– BradC
2 hours ago
1
1
"While the Senate does not hold hearings on criminal matters" - and then you spend the bulk of your answer talking about provisions that apply to that, while making a disclaimer that it doesn't really apply to this....so, the bulk of your answer is talking about legal provisions that do not apply. -1 for misdirection.
– PoloHoleSet
1 hour ago
"While the Senate does not hold hearings on criminal matters" - and then you spend the bulk of your answer talking about provisions that apply to that, while making a disclaimer that it doesn't really apply to this....so, the bulk of your answer is talking about legal provisions that do not apply. -1 for misdirection.
– PoloHoleSet
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33880%2fwill-democratic-senators-be-permitted-to-ask-questions-of-dr-blasey-ford%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
I don't have any reference for this, but I just assumed time would be allotted as it is normally between all members of the committee, but that Republican members of the committee would cede their allotted time to whomever they're bringing in to ask questions. If this is the case, then any Democratic members could similarly cede their own time to someone they brought in, or keep it to ask questions themselves. But this is a good questions, I'd like to see if my theory is supported by statements from the committee.
– BradC
2 hours ago