Law Justice Brett Kavanaugh Megathread - Megathread for Brett Kavanaugh, US Supreme Court Justice

they're good justices, brentt

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/trump-picks-brett-kavanaugh-for-supreme-court.html

President Donald Trump has picked Brett Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge with extensive legal credentials and a lengthy political record, to succeed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court, NBC News reported.

Kavanaugh, 53, is an ideological conservative who is expected to push the court to the right on a number of issues including business regulation and national security. The favorite of White House Counsel Donald McGahn, Kavanaugh is also considered a safer pick than some of the more partisan choices who were on the president’s shortlist.

A graduate of Yale Law School who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh has the traditional trappings of a presidential nominee to the high court.


If confirmed, the appellate judge would become the second young, conservative jurist Trump has put on the top U.S. court during his first term. Kavanaugh's confirmation would give the president an even bigger role in shaping U.S. policy for decades to come. The potential to morph the federal judiciary led many conservatives to support Trump in 2016, and he has not disappointed so far with the confirmation of conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and numerous federal judges.

At times, he has diverged from the Republican party’s ideological line on important cases that have come before him, including on the Affordable Care Act, the 2010 health care law which Kavanaugh has declined to strike down on a number of occasions in which it has come before him.

Anti-abortion groups quietly lobbied against Kavanaugh, pushing instead for another jurist on Trump’s shortlist, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett, ABC News reported in the run-up to Trump’s announcement.

Kavanaugh received his current appointment in 2006 after five years in the George W. Bush administration, where he served in a number of roles including staff secretary to the president. He has been criticized for his attachment to Bush, as well as his involvement in a number of high-profile legal cases.

For instance, Kavanaugh led the investigation into the death of Bill Clinton’s Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, and assisted in Kenneth Starr’s 1998 report outlining the case for Clinton’s impeachment.

Democrats criticized Kavanaugh’s political roles during his 2006 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Your experience has been most notable, not so much for your blue chip credentials, but for the undeniably political nature of so many of your assignments,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said at the time.

“From the notorious Starr report, to the Florida recount, to the President’s secrecy and privilege claims, to post-9/11 legislative battles including the Victims Compensation Fund, to ideological judicial nomination fights, if there has been a partisan political fight that needed a very bright legal foot soldier in the last decade, Brett Kavanaugh was probably there,” Schumer said.

Kavanaugh's work on the Starr report has been scrutinized by Republicans who have said it could pose trouble for the president as he negotiates with special counsel Robert Mueller over the terms of a possible interview related to Mueller's Russia probe. The 1998 document found that Clinton's multiple refusals to testify to a grand jury in connection with Starr's investigation were grounds for impeachment.

In later years, Kavanaugh said that Clinton should not have had to face down an investigation during his presidency. He has said the indictment of a president would not serve the public interest.

Like Trump's first nominee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy. If he is confirmed, it will mark the first time ever that a current or former Supreme Court justice has two former clerks become justices, according to an article by Adam Feldman, who writes a blog about the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh teaches courses on the separation of powers, the Supreme Court, and national security at Harvard Law School and Yale Law School, and does charitable work at St. Maria’s Meals program at Catholic Charities in Washington, D.C., according to his official biography.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ett-kavanaugh-nomination-by-a-28-point-margin

After a blistering confirmation battle, Justice Brett Kavanaugh will take his seat for oral arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court with a skeptical public, a majority of which opposed his nomination. However, Democrats may not be able to exploit this fact in the upcoming elections as much as they hope, because the independent voters overwhelmingly disapprove of their own handling of the nomination by a 28-point margin, a new CNN/SSRS poll finds.

Overall, just 41 percent of those polled said they wanted to see Kavanaugh confirmed, compared to 51 percent who said they opposed his confirmation. In previous CNN polls dating back to Robert Bork in 1987, no nominee has been more deeply underwater.

What's interesting, however, is even though Democrats on the surface would seem to have public opinion on their side, just 36 percent approved of how they handled the nomination, compared to 56 percent who disapproved. (Republicans were at 55 percent disapproval and 35 percent approval). A further breakdown finds that 58 percent of independents disapproved of the way the Democrats handled the nomination — compared to 30 percent who approved. (Independents also disapproved of Republicans handling of the matter, but by a narrower 53 percent to 32 percent margin).

Many people have strong opinions on the way the Kavanaugh nomination will play out in November and who it will benefit. The conventional wisdom is that it will help Democrats in the House, where there are a number of vulnerable Republicans in suburban districts where losses among educated women could be devastating, and that it will help Republicans in the Senate, where the tossup races are in red states where Trump and Kavanaugh are more popular.

That said, it's clear that the nomination energized both sides, and that the tactics pursued by the parties turned off independent voters in a way that makes it much harder to predict how this will end up affecting election outcomes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So how do you change someone in a moment?

Kavanaugh could have been a moderate swing vote, indeed checking his history he would have been. He would have fairly listened to proposals and evidence before ruling one way or another.

Now I would be amazed if he doesn't spend the next 30 years voting down everything that is proposed by any senator who happens to be a Democrat.

Want to make the SC hyper-partisan? That's how you do it, you pick on sweater dad. You pick on the dude who's had a good career and act as if a series of "victims" were speaking the god honest truth. You pick on a guy who, outside of his job is the epitomy of the everyman and you call him evil.

This whole play by the dems is the epitome of a hail mary backfiring as spectacularly as humanly possible. You now have the Republicans united in a way that would have been unheard of six months ago, and you now have leading Democrats looking unhinged, trying to hide behind wanting due process while ignoring it completely by sitting on evidence for two months.

That's what this just boiled down to optics-wise. The Democrats just called sweater dad everyman an evil rapist with no evidence and a very long line beforehand where they all publicly said they would basically stop at nothing to stop any pick Tump made whatsoever.

They even had a website paid for and ready to start on the next one once he was taken down.

So what will this likely mean?

To be honest we have the same here in the UK with the left wing party seemingly hyper alert and active with a massive groundswell of members... problem is all those members are from a handful of places that were their core and they're not making any kind of breakthroughs anywhere it will matter. Votes simply stacked where they already had huge majorities.
 
and while i'm sympathetic to kavanaugh, i don't believe it's lost on anyone that he's bullshitting at least a little, and almost certainly isn't as squeaky clean as he claimed to be.


I mean it’s pretty cut-and-dry in terms of the allegations. You either believe he had drunken intent to rape a peer at a party 36 years ago/that he was a teenage gang-banger with a trap house in the 80s...or you don’t. Whatever side you fall on depends on how you, the viewer, interpret the evidence presented.

I, personally, have no reason to doubt Kavanaugh, and am very suspicious of Ford’s accusation and testimony. In terms of this trial and the accusation, I think he’s clean. In regards to him personally being “squeaky clean,” and what he’s done in his lifetime that could appear dubious to an outsider, I couldn’t care less because it’s not relavemt to the case.

Some people will like the outcome and some won’t. I mean...people still debate about OJ Simpson’s trial to this day despite the verdict being passed.


I've mostly kept myself out of the loop for this whole thing and have no strong feelings one way or the other, but God-damnit if I didn't say the moral grandstanding on Twitter isn't starting to make me tilt my head. I look at shit like this;

View attachment 553316

And I always think to myself "It's not that simple, is it? There's a catch, right? There's always a catch." I see this logic from ye'ol typical Leftist Twitter all the time that if people just do the thing they want, it's not that big of a deal and everything will be hunky dory.

So I give up. Anyone want to give me a rundown of this shit?

The FBI already said there’s nothing to look into. And unless I’m mistaken, I think rape cases are often handled with local law enforcement and not with FBI involvement.
 
Unrelated to the topic, but yesterday I walked into my house with my roommate sitting on the couch, crying into a tub of ice cream and saying that the GOPs prosecution of a sexual harassment accuser was a sign that Kavanaugh will likely get sworn in and that was a sign that the country was about to collapse, then started blubbering about pernicious radicalism. Fucking liberals, man.
 
The Dems plan, and it's a pretty good plan at it's core, is to pump the outrage machine over Republicans overstepping boundaries. Ushering them back in to congress and eventually the presidency because the public is sick of the GOP's shit.

We have seen this before. Bush's deal was the Iraq War. That put him and the other neocons in the doghouse. It really harmed the party and it took easily a decade for them to recover.

The big problem is that there is no surefire unpopular war or policy that they can harp on. No central focus that they can funnel outrage towards. Instead we have this unfocused scattershot approach that is fatiguing voters and making their claims seem less credible. This is because they are, at their core, out of touch and dependent on ideologues to set their agenda rather than listening to what the public wants or dislikes about the GOP.
 
Shit like this is why people make false accusations, she is literally the only perspn saying this party happened and that it was 100% him but can't remember how she got there, whose house it was or how she got home (which was a good few miles away so it's unlikely she forgot walking that far) but morons like you still think he must have done something for no other reason than you hearing his name.

i never said that kavanaugh is guilty. i think it's stupid and ugly that political realities make it mandatory to posture and lie about shit that really doesn't matter. the only information we have available is that kavanaugh was maybe kind of a shithead when he was 17, and if everyone were honest, they'd shrug and move on. kavanaugh should be able to say "yeah i was a jock, i said and did some douchey shit, but i've since grown up." he can't even admit that much, because it would be instantly blown out of proportion to further attack his character, without anyone stopping to think if it makes sense to go after someone for having said something crass or boozed a little too hard as a teenager, as though they haven't done the same

what i'm complaining about is the systematic and completely unnecessary dishonesty. everyone's walking on eggshells or putting on a show for donors. even normal people happily lie to themselves over politics, and it's obvious because good liars are rare (listen for the false concerned tone with which C-SPAN callers often speak). almost nobody is being real and it's exhausting

sorry if i was unclear in this or my previous post. i'm sick as shit and it's entirely probable that i'm rambling incoherently but can't tell
 
The Dems plan, and it's a pretty good plan at it's core, is to pump the outrage machine over Republicans overstepping boundaries. Ushering them back in to congress and eventually the presidency because the public is sick of the GOP's shit.

We have seen this before. Bush's deal was the Iraq War. That put him and the other neocons in the doghouse. It really harmed the party and it took easily a decade for them to recover.

The big problem is that there is no surefire unpopular war or policy that they can harp on. No central focus that they can funnel outrage towards. Instead we have this unfocused scattershot approach that is fatiguing voters and making their claims seem less credible. This is because they are, at their core, out of touch and dependent on ideologues to set their agenda rather than listening to what the public wants or dislikes about the GOP.

The other big problem is the ultimate end game of that strategy:

A) is ugly for everyone
B) doesn't end well for the party of city-dwelling pacifists who have systematically alienated the police, the military, and 95% of people who own the weapons in this country.
 
"I know we haven't put forward a single piece of evidence that doesn't collapse immediately under a hint of scrutiny, but obviously people wouldn't be so desperate to smear someone if he wasn't bad in some way, right?"

Either you've let emotion over political parties overcome your judgement here or you are arguing in bad faith. Obviously the democrats want to stop any nomination, we saw this with the "XX would destroy women's rights" business. Obviously the democrats aren't afraid to promote, if not outright fabricate 11th hour rape allegations, as we saw with trump.

He was a douchey jock? Because he played sports? Because he was a rich kid at a fancy school? Because he's a problematic white male? What are you basing that on?

It's like you're saying "Look, everyone did bad stuff, so kavenaugh must have done bad stuff, so he should admit it". You're not asking that of anyone else though, because you know that would be a stupid thing for anyone to do, and you have no reason to even believe it's true.

EDIT: Sorry I think I misunderstood MemberSchoolPizzas second post, he wasn't saying what I thought he was. So consider this directed toward the people who are still going along with this idea instead. Consider me dumb, as usual.
 
i never said that kavanaugh is guilty. i think it's stupid and ugly that political realities make it mandatory to posture and lie about shit that really doesn't matter. the only information we have available is that kavanaugh was maybe kind of a shithead when he was 17, and if everyone were honest, they'd shrug and move on. kavanaugh should be able to say "yeah i was a jock, i said and did some douchey shit, but i've since grown up." he can't even admit that much, because it would be instantly blown out of proportion to further attack his character, without anyone stopping to think if it makes sense to go after someone for having said something crass or boozed a little too hard as a teenager, as though they haven't done the same

We don't have "information" that Kavanaugh was a shithead, though. We have a barely credible "witness" who has been all but completely discredited on every factual point she has.

*edit* Damnit, Corbin Dallas Multipass. You said it way better than I did, quicker. Curse you.
 
I've mostly kept myself out of the loop for this whole thing and have no strong feelings one way or the other, but God-damnit if I didn't say the moral grandstanding on Twitter isn't starting to make me tilt my head. I look at shit like this;

View attachment 553316

And I always think to myself "It's not that simple, is it? There's a catch, right? There's always a catch." I see this logic from ye'ol typical Leftist Twitter all the time that if people just do the thing they want, it's not that big of a deal and everything will be hunky dory.

So I give up. Anyone want to give me a rundown of this shit?
They will come up with something else next and demand other accusers also get a Senate hearing. They have already delayed this thing for a long time, and the "one week" investigation could have been part of the background check on Kavanaugh before the initial hearing.

Unrelated to the topic, but yesterday I walked into my house with my roommate sitting on the couch, crying into a tub of ice cream and saying that the GOPs prosecution of a sexual harassment accuser was a sign that Kavanaugh will likely get sworn in and that was a sign that the country was about to collapse, then started blubbering about pernicious radicalism. Fucking liberals, man.
I don't know what your friend is talking about because nobody has been prosecuted and Ford was in no way persecuted. Nobody did anything but lick Ford's feet, and the Sex Crimes Prosecutor (not defense attorney mind you) did the shittiest job at cross examination I have ever seen.
 
Last edited:
he can't even admit that much, because it would be instantly blown out of proportion to further attack his character, without anyone stopping to think if it makes sense to go after someone for having said something crass or boozed a little too hard as a teenager, as though they haven't done the same
I remember him talking about how he, like any other person when he/she was teenager, had done stupid and immature shit in his speech.

EDIT: Holy shit Cory Booker is tripling down on premium-grade bullshit.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The 8 of Spades
Holy fuck can Cory Booker be any more up his own ass? He's just going on about how much he loves being on this committee. Yes we know, because you get to grand stand. At least when Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham speak over their allotted time its to the point of the matter.
I expect him to flog himself and retire to squalor when an accuser eventually comes out against him. This man is eminently punchable.
 
I wouldn't quite agree with that. While the particulars will be forgotten and certain things will get embellished, the left will screech about this for a while. Trump's next SC pick? This will get brought up. Something requires the SC? This will get brought up. Something might require the SC? This will get brought up.

Tentative disagreement. Trump is the left's bete noir, but the only thing that gets brought up w/r/t women these days is Stormy Daniels (and even she's fading into the background) and "grab 'em by the pussy," which is actually on tape. All those women who came out of the woodwork claiming he groped them right before the election promptly vanished back into it once that was concluded, and considering Feinstein throwing Ford's friends under the bus to cover her own ass, I wouldn't be surprised if that happened here with even more gusto. SCOTUS judges generally have a lower profile due to never needing re-election, and the human mind can only retain so many things at once- and the IDpol left, particularly, is prone to latching onto the newest, shiniest outrage to be hysterical about. That's one of the reasons their memory is so sieve-like.

tl;dr: there's way too many scurrilous sex libels floating around to bother remembering one against a guy who will never stand for re-election.

one of the more unpleasant things about this theatre is how bad the acting is. it's like there's a minimum level of transparent dishonesty required to speak at these hearings. i find what the democrats are doing distasteful and lean right, but i can't make sense of why anyone found graham's grandstanding yesterday impressive. is it because he seemed less limp-wristed than usual? [...]

speaking of graham, did anyone else hear him describe himself today not as a "straight white male," but as a "single white male?" :story:

That's exactly it. I saw a comment on Twitter to the effect of, "if this clown show can redpill Lindsey Graham, imagine how the actual men are feeling." That the proceedings were such a travesty that card-carrying members of the Cuck Brigade will nut up and do Picard's "the line must be drawn here!" bit, that's a sign that the left dun goofed and overplayed their "believe wamman" hand. Graham's speech was a microcosm of the right's factions uniting under the "this is such bullshit" banner, with only the most bought-and-paid-for members of the Washington Generals, like Ross Douthat, still gamely trying to lose.

As another kiwi (I'm sorry, I can't seem to find the post right now) noted: Graham should really take point on this stuff going forward, since the odds that he's had- or even attempted- sexual contact with a woman are basically nil.
 
I don't know what your friend is talking about because nobody has been prosecuted and Ford was in no way persecuted. Nobody did anything but like Ford's feet, and the Sex Crimes Prosecutor (not defense attorney mind you) did the shittiest job at cross examination I have ever seen.
First things first, this woman isn't my friend. From what I gathered amid the tears though, she was referring to the fact that Republicans even had the gall to question a woman accusing a cis het WHITE male of sexual harassment.
 
They will come up with something else next and demand other accusers also get a Senate hearing. They have already delayed this thing for a long time, and the "one week" investigation could have been part of the background check on Kavanaugh before the initial hearing.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't it not up to the Dems if it gets delayed or not?
 
Back