Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh

[theymos]

I was disappointed that Trump picked Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. He's the kind of person who Romney or Bush would've picked: similar to John Roberts. So his basic philosophy will be to allow burning the constitution just so long as it's a slow burn. Gorsuch on the other hand is a very strict constitutionalist, and was a truly excellent pick -- his selection proved that Trump can on occasion be better than the typical centrist Republicans and Democrats who we've been afflicted with for decades.

I expect Kavanaugh to make it through the Senate unless some major scandal is revealed. On the Republican side, probably even Rand Paul will find it politically impossible to vote against him unless he's already destined to lose, and a few democrats will likely also be pressured to vote for him (though their votes will be unnecessary).

What do you think?

[1714943482]

1714943482

[1714943482]

1714943482

[1714943482]

1714943482

[1714943482]

1714943482

[Flying Hellfish]

I agree I haven't read anything yet to indicate his nom won't get through.

I wonder how much influence Kavanaugh's apparent dislike of the EPA had on Trump.

I get concerned when in 2018 people are talking about Roe v Wade and taking away the decision of a women on what the fuck to do with her own body.  Frankly speaking it disgusts me to see people want to take away a person choice.  Safe, educated legal abortion being under attack in 2018 is mind boggling to me, but I guess that's the liberal in me coming out as I get older!

I can't see Kavanaugh's stance on Roe v Wade but he does come across as a bit of a conservative, along with a nod from a stong anti abortion POTUS, I can see why some Americans might be concerned.

[BADecker]

Kavanaugh, considered by many as being part of the swamp, might appear to be a bad choice for Americans. But that's okay, because none of the choices have to affect Americans if they don't want.

What I mean is, Americans have the right by all kinds of law, and simply by right without law backing, to freely associate. On top of that, both the 6th and the 7th Amendments uphold jury trial (jury trial would still exists without the Amendments). And how powerful is the jury - yes, the little, 12-person, local jury? Powerful enough to nullify any and all laws on a case-by-case basis. More powerful than any judge or group of judges.

Point 1? The people have become so lax that they expect Government to obey the Amendments automatically. This, shows, when people are shocked that Government often goes against the Amendments... that freedoms are being eroded, so to speak. But it doesn't have to be this way. Jury nullification can be used to put down any law and any judicial ruling... at least so that the law or ruling are of no effect.

Point 2. People are getting together under the right of free association (which is solid law with many court rulings) and are starting to find out how to use jury nullification, and how to inform the juries of their freedoms and duties.

The important point is that the Amendments are against us. Why? Because we have all the rights that they offer us without them. The big one is the right to contract. The only way Government has any legal authority over any of us is if we contract to let it have such authority. And the way we so contract is often by letting them run all over us. We do this because we expect the Amendments to protect us. So we don't exercise our contracting muscle, but instead become weak in understanding contract law inside the Constitution.

The Amendments are what takes the focus off standard contract law in the Constitution which has been shown to state that if you have the right to contract in, you have the right to contract out. And if you are out, Government has no authority over you... not even Trump's or Kavanaugh's government.

[mymenace]

Seems like a great pick to get the ball rolling.

A lot of problems with Supreme Court judges over the last 4 years

[Divine.bc]

My understanding is that he is a pretty good pick. I hear that he is pretty close to the center politically and I don't think that is bad. I kinda wish Trump would have picked someone a little younger though. But, Kavanaugh is in his 50s and the people on the Supreme Court tend to stick around for a while, so I guess that's not too bad.

Just as a side note, I think it is so silly when the left talks about reversing roe vs. wade. I very seriously doubt that they are going to go back and dust that one off. And even though I personally don't believe that abortion is a good thing, I would be upset if they did reverse it at this point. The decision has been made, move on to other things.

[bill gator]

a person should be able to take responsibility for their own decisions and ramification of those decisions. 

One would think that taking responsibility would equate to raising the baby after conceiving it. Those tests are quite often false-positives, and I have heard countless stories that parallel exactly yours. Congratulations on having a healthy child, that's really great to hear.

There are particular groups in America that continually abort baby girls until they are pregnant with a boy. It's difficult to draw a line that anybody is pleased with.

I think at this point I should split the topic as I seem to have taken it way off topic!

I'll see myself out, I do honestly enjoy these kind of conversations. I don't know very much, so I'm always interesting in hearing someone out.

[squatz1]

Just read this article relating to Kavanaugh. I think he knew that he was going to be picked to be on the court at some time, and knew that if he made a REPUBLICAN decision on the constitutionality of ACA he would never be able to make it past a deadlocked Senate.

Check this article out folks, it's a good read on how he dodged making a ruling on the ACA thing. - https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/07/10/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-penned-healthcare-dissent-focused-on-tax/#69066c604d6c

[Quickseller]

There was a WSJ opt-ed published a few days before he was nominated, and the WSJ editorial board has published multiple editorials (citations available upon request) supporting him since he was nominated.

From what I can gather, Kavanaugh is a constitutionalist who will uphold the constitution as written. I am not aware of any appellate court opinions or speeches in which he advocated for rights enumerated in the constitution to not be upheld -- if someone has an example please post one here.


I fully expect Kavanaugh to be fully smeared by democrats during confirmation hearings, similar to what they did to Boark and every nominee since. 

[theymos]

From what I can gather, Kavanaugh is a constitutionalist who will uphold the constitution as written. I am not aware of any appellate court opinions or speeches in which he advocated for rights enumerated in the constitution to not be upheld -- if someone has an example please post one here.

He's bad on the 4th amendment:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/396251-amash-slams-kavanaugh-over-views-on-government-surveillance

[Quickseller]

Unfortunately, Kavanaugh hasn't ruled on many 4th amendment cases, so it is difficult to gauge on these types of cases in the SC.

In regards to the specific case the article referenced, he opined that government collection of metadata was similar to the government obtaining a pen register without a warrant, which is legal as per Smith V Maryland, and being that the SC handed down Smith, it is binding on all lower courts under vertical stare decisis. He did not have the authority to overrule the Supreme Court.

From the looks of it, congress passed a law that essentially obtains a pen register on all phones in the US. Since Smith says that a pen register is not a "search" under the constitution, this is not unconstitutional. This is similar to how, under the first amendment, I can hand out a flyer advertising the benefits of bitcoin to you if I saw you walking on the sidewalk at Trade and Tryon in downtown Charlotte, just as I have the right to hand out a similar flyer to everyone that walks by that intersection.

Another interesting case he has ruled on is United States v. Askew. His opinion starts on page 54. This case stems from a situation in which a suspect was being frisked that is clearly per Terry v. Ohio, the suspect resisted being entirely frisked, and the police subsequently unzipped the suspects jacket, finding a gun. Kavanaugh argued that because the unzipping of the jacket occurred after an attempt to legally frisk the suspect, the unzipping was legal. To my knowledge, there is no SC precedent that supports or rejects this conclusion, however I would note the police would have found the gun had the officer completed the Terry search without interference.  

[Flying Hellfish]

So Dems got a delay, the republicans couldn't ram the vote through.  

All the Dems need is Murkowski and Collins and they are targeting those two women hard.

Both of those women are going to have a hard time voting for a nominee that is anti abortion, hostile on native rights and is accused of attempted rape.

This is gonna sink his nom IMO.  Would be nice to see him not get through and then have a wave of blue in the midterms and then a less conservative nominee should get in!

[Quickseller]

The timing is clearly political, and will probably result in all accusers of these types of crimes having less credibility.

The claim in itself is not credible IMO, it is missing too many details and it doesn’t look like it can be corroborated.

I think there will be pressure on a small number of democrats to vote for him who represent “red” (leaning) states.

I think this might have had a bigger chance of derailing the nomination if it didn’t come out at a clearly politically motivated time.

[Moloch]

[Flying Hellfish]

The timing is clearly political, and will probably result in all accusers of these types of crimes having less credibility.

The claim in itself is not credible IMO, it is missing too many details and it doesn’t look like it can be corroborated.

I think there will be pressure on a small number of democrats to vote for him who represent “red” (leaning) states.

I think this might have had a bigger chance of derailing the nomination if it didn’t come out at a clearly politically motivated time.

It's cute you claim missing details and then dismiss it all without hearing Dr. Fords testimony??  It doesn't have to be corroborated (even though it is despite your claim to the contrary) because this isn't ever going to a court of law.  The senate and the judiciary committee are not bound by the "beyond a reasonable doubt" status of a court of law.

BTW especially since this isn't a court of law the lie detector test Dr. Ford took, the revelation in 2012 (pre political motivation) to her therapist (which IS corroborated by her husband BTW) is all going to be brought up! If you think the democratic senators questioning her are not going to bring up the lie detector test she took you're crazy bro, they will be parading that test high and far.

If you think a nominee being accused of attempted rape is not going to affect his nomination than just LOL.

I've seen no information at present that would indicate anything but the dems towing the party line on this one.  It would certainly complicate things if there was info to the contrary.

If you actually payed attention to what the dems are doing you would see that it is all laser focused at swinging Harris and Murkowski, this means they have 49 votes and only need those 2 women to vote no.

Clarence Thomas lost a hell of a lot more than 2 votes when he was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill.  Now 27 years later a nominee is accused of attempted RAPE by a Dr. It really doesn't seem like much of a stretch to see a this affecting his nomination in a very negative way LOL yay!

The only hook Kavanaugh had open to him was that he was a minor and hammered. But by him categorically denying it happened he has turned this into a situation where one of them is lying and one of them is telling the truth.

When the dems questions him I guarantee the only thing Kavanaugh is going to say is "I don't have any recollection of that event taking place so I can not answer that question" and the dems will make him repeat that all fucking day long

Dr. Ford on the other hand is likely to give detailed accounts of the events of the night and other things from around the time.  She said she feared for her life, but ya Im sure this is no big deal and all politically motivated lmfao.

I pray to Satoshi that the republicans will try to smear Dr. Ford in front of Senator Harris and Murkowski, it would show the right has learned nothing in 27 years hahahahahahaha.

My cousins to the south can rest a little easier knowing that ~50% of the American people are one step closer to keeping their right to choose for themselves.  Crazy we still have to fight for this in 2018 but we should keep on fighting no matter what.

[popcorn1]

I pray to Satoshi that the republicans will try to smear Dr. Ford ..

Judge Brett Kavanaugh's mother was involved in the foreclosure of the family home of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused him of sexual assault..

[Moloch]

Maybe we could have sex cards    you flash you sex card meaning you both want it without trying the grope thing then that way no getting blamed for sexual assault..
OH and stick it on the blockchain

That wouldn't work nowadays.  You can have a signed contract and the woman still has the right to change her mind, even during sex.

I don't understand how someone could be having sex and suddenly change their mind, but I don't understand most of what people do...

[popcorn1]

Maybe we could have sex cards    you flash you sex card meaning you both want it without trying the grope thing then that way no getting blamed for sexual assault..
OH and stick it on the blockchain

That wouldn't work nowadays.  You can have a signed contract and the woman still has the right to change her mind, even during sex.

I don't understand how someone could be having sex and suddenly change their mind, but I don't understand most of what people do...

might be sticking it in the wrong hole .. But imagine just as you ejecting and she says no  be everywhere all in her face and everything
while your butt is jerking up and down splirt splirt  everywhere ..

Or what about this she says no but you already cum   to late do i get sued?  because i had full sex even though she never?  i mean sometimes a man can stick it in have 2 pumps and then we are done we explode    so does we get done for rape ?..

[CoinCube]

The timing is clearly political, and will probably result in all accusers of these types of crimes having less credibility.

Agreed, and this is sad. If the charges are false which is quite possible those who are behind it are throwing the real victims of terrible crimes under the bus in a desperate attempt to halt a qualified nominee who's ideology they dislike.

Facts so far as reported by the media:

1) The accuser in this case has not yet provided any evidence (other then therapist notes from 2012) to corroborate her claim of assault from 36 years ago. Both of the men she claims were present deny it vociferously.  

2) The accuser has not provided a location of the crime, or a definitive time the alleged crime occurred.

3) The accuser told no one of the alleged assault at the time. She mentioned it to her therapist in 2012. The therapist notes state that in 2012 she claimed there were 4 attackers not 2 and Kavanaugh's name was not mentioned in the notes.

4) Ms. Ford is reported to have requested anonymity and stated that she did not want to come forward but is also reported to have taken a polygraph test in August.

5) The accuser attorney said Ms. Ford was willing to testify before the Judiciary committee but she has yet to respond to the Senate's official request that she do so.

The facts so far do not inspire a lot of confidence in the truthfulness of the accusation but she deserves the opportunity to testify under oath and present her charges.

  

[CoinCube]

What a shocking development Kavanaugh accuser is now refusing to testify in front of the senate.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45568450
"The woman who accuses Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her will not testify to the Senate next week, says her lawyer."

[theymos]

The "#MeToo" stuff is often guilty-until-proven-innocent, which I absolutely hate, but the accuser in this case apparently has some years-old records of the accusation. It may be a stronger case than usual, though it still has plenty of the guilty-until-proven-innocent smell, and CoinCube brings up a lot of interesting points that I hadn't heard in the media coverage of this.

Whether it's true or not, I wouldn't be surprised. Kavanaugh has been groomed by the Federalist Society for decades, so the Democrats could've easily set up the accuser's corroborating records long in advance. I really wouldn't put it past them. But I also wouldn't put it past Kavanaugh to sexually assault someone; it sounds like he was part of a disgusting rich-kids culture where that kind of thing could easily happen.

It was politically a smart move by the democrats to delay the announcement until now. If the Republicans force through the nomination, then the Democrats can use that as "Republicans hate women!" in the election. If they stop it, then that's a win for the democrats in itself.

Personally, I hope that Kavanaugh gets replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, though that's probably unlikely.