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:
I'd have botched the entire thing if I had to risk something like this scowling at me for the rest of their life

View attachment 558984
>you can't spell truth without Ruth

So Ruth is omniscient now? Or should we just listen to her unquestioningly because BELIEVE WAMMEN!?
 
"if judge kavanaugh is confirmed, we will see a wave of frustration and anger and backlash that makes 1992 look like a ripple"

what did she mean by this? :o

edit: no seriously this is practically inciting riots at this point. she's doing it in that 'i don't endorse but what do you expect' kind of way.

what else could she possibly have been referring to?

edit #2: wait, i guess she was referring to clarence thomas's nomination, there's more context that i missed the first time around.
clip:
 
Last edited:
Can we get a flowchart of when to believe the womenfolk? This is getting complicated
No because that would be concrete rules. The narrative doesn't want you to have that because if you knew when you could feel safe about being right, you'd feel okay challenging them when you knew they got something wrong. They want you to always be afraid enough that you submit without thinking.

Fuck me, now Kavanaugh shouldn't be on the USSC because he drank in college the same as everyone questioning him. This is getting sadder than the Clinton impeachment.
 
I mean, we will never be able to know either way with absolute 100% certainty, but may I ask; what have you seen that gives the accusations enough credibility that you're undecided?
I guess because there's not really any evidence to say he didn't do it either. I like to assume people claiming to be sexual violence survivors are telling the truth (especially since I'm :optimistic: and want to believe most people aren't awful enough to do something as shitty as lying about rape). Therefore I guess I don't want to write her off as definitely lying without any undeniable proof she is (like a record showing she wasn't even living in the same state as him the year it happened or some shit like that). That said, she definitely has motivation to lie and treating Kavanaugh as if he's definitely 100% guilty is fucked.

Literally only two people on the planet can know for certain whether it did or didn't happen. Either way, the Dems especially have done nothing to endear themselves to me and I'm far less likely to vote for them in the midterms than I was before this whole clusterfuck started.
 
https://grrrgraphics.com/fords-problem-glasses/

ford_problem_glasses.jpg
 
"if judge kavanaugh is confirmed, we will see a wave of frustration and anger and backlash that makes 1992 look like a ripple"

what did she mean by this? :o

edit: no seriously this is practically inciting riots at this point. she's doing it in that 'i don't endorse but what do you expect' kind of way.

what else could she possibly have been referring to?
The post-Clarence Thomas confirmation Year of the Woman aka what gave us Senator Feinstein in the first place. Basically more Blue Wave delusion, maybe she's expecting to see Brianna Wu actually make it into Congress on top of the usual TDS chimping.
 
No because that would be concrete rules. The narrative doesn't want you to have that because if you knew when you could feel safe about being right, you'd feel okay challenging them when you knew they got something wrong. They want you to always be afraid enough that you submit without thinking.
women who want to carry firearms for self-defense purposes are a great example of this: in some areas, like college campuses, they literally aren't allowed to do so (and therefore can't do so on their commutes to and from those areas), while tyrone and jamal are free to thumb their nose at the law

you don't have to #believewomen when they say they want to carry guns to protect themselves when travelling alone. and ironically, tyrone and jamal are the primary reason those areas restrict guns, even if no democrat politician will openly say so.
 
I guess because there's not really any evidence to say he didn't do it either. I like to assume people claiming to be sexual violence survivors are telling the truth (especially since I'm :optimistic: and want to believe most people aren't awful enough to do something as shitty as lying about rape). Therefore I guess I don't want to write her off as definitely lying without any undeniable proof she is (like a record showing she wasn't even living in the same state as him the year it happened or some shit like that). That said, she definitely has motivation to lie and treating Kavanaugh as if he's definitely 100% guilty is fucked.

Literally only two people on the planet can know for certain whether it did or didn't happen. Either way, the Dems especially have done nothing to endear themselves to me and I'm far less likely to vote for them in the midterms than I was before this whole clusterfuck started.

You're not supposed to prove a negative in the court of law, it's not possible. The burden of proof is on the ACCUSER, not the defendant. So far, Ford has failed horrendously.
 
No because that would be concrete rules. The narrative doesn't want you to have that because if you knew when you could feel safe about being right, you'd feel okay challenging them when you knew they got something wrong. They want you to always be afraid enough that you submit without thinking.
It is also much easier to change feelings than facts. Just appeal to emotions to prove your case. No evidence needed.
 
I believe that's a man.

View attachment 559016
What event are they surviving here? Do women normally die from getting their boobs grabbed and catcalled?

You survive a plane crash in the Andes by eating your friends. You are a victim of sexual assault and harassment. Stop conflating the two. It's not the same thing.

This newspeak is starting to bother me with how openly emotionally manipulative it is.
 
I guess because there's not really any evidence to say he didn't do it either. I like to assume people claiming to be sexual violence survivors are telling the truth (especially since I'm :optimistic: and want to believe most people aren't awful enough to do something as shitty as lying about rape). Therefore I guess I don't want to write her off as definitely lying without any undeniable proof she is (like a record showing she wasn't even living in the same state as him the year it happened or some shit like that). That said, she definitely has motivation to lie and treating Kavanaugh as if he's definitely 100% guilty is fucked.

Literally only two people on the planet can know for certain whether it did or didn't happen. Either way, the Dems especially have done nothing to endear themselves to me and I'm far less likely to vote for them in the midterms than I was before this whole clusterfuck started.
You don't feel that's an unreasonable threshold of evidence to deny a SCOTUS nomination?

If we honestly say the standard for confirmation of a justice is that it's up to the accused party to provide "undeniable proof" that the accusations are wrong, then it's impossible to ever confirm anyone to the supreme court. It's not possible to prove a negative.

Obviously the hearings isn't a criminal court case and we shouldn't need guilt of misdeeds to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but surely we should demand a minimum level of credibility of the accusations?
 
Back