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 guess because there's not really any evidence to say he didn't do it either.

But... you realize that concretely disproving something is inordinately harder than proving it, right? Which is one of the reasons why our legal system works the way it does?

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).

Setting aside that "survivor" automatically sets up the scenario to presume she's telling the truth about having been raped in the first place...

People lie about basically everything, for basically every reason. They lie for short term gain, they lie because they are ashamed of the truth, they lie to hurt people, they lie sometimes for absolutely no reason. We know people lie about crimes all the time; our court system would be a lot simpler if they didn't. They'll lie even when it's in their best interest to tell the truth - which is almost always.

So this "wouldn't lie about rape" idea rests on the assumption that humans will behave in a fundamentally inhuman way about exactly one behavior.

And that idea is dead out the gate anyways... we know, we absolutely, unquestionably know that people will lie about rape - we have case after case of proof. The Duke case and Mattress Girl are just two high-profile examples, but you and I both know I could sit here compiling a huge list of false rape cases.

There's being an optimist, and there's just ignoring reality.

---

Look. Again, I'm honestly not trying to attack you. But this whole "believe women" (or, more accurately and inclusively, believe rape accusers) thing is deeply problematic. It's fine applied on a personal level. If a person says "I was raped", you should behave as if they were. You offer your sympathy and your aid to them. That's well and good. But it has to end when it turns into accusations. Belief alone is not enough to condemn a person. It's dangerously illogical, inherently unjust, and frankly just plain not fair. Society can't operate that way. And no matter what anyone says, it *is* condemnation to accuse a person of rape with no proof. Even if you never try to prosecute them in a legal sense, you're destroying their good name, potentially forever. As a society, "rapist" is one of the worst things you can be branded. For a reason. And that reason needs to stay around. But it won't, at this rate.
 
If you didn't get a chance to watch the #BelieveWomen protests on Periscope, you missed out.


View attachment 558967
View attachment 558970
View attachment 558971
View attachment 558973
View attachment 558974

They aren't sending their best, folks.

That last picture looks like they straight cleaned up a homeless person how doesn't know what going on except they'll be getting $60 at the end of the day.

The midget in the picture above has a pretty sweet rack though.
 
(especially since I'm :optimistic: and want to believe most people aren't awful enough to do something as shitty as lying about rape)
glue any good dildos to your forehead lately?
sWlaQzd.png
 
If you didn't get a chance to watch the #BelieveWomen protests on Periscope, you missed out.


View attachment 558967
View attachment 558970
View attachment 558971
View attachment 558973
View attachment 558974

They aren't sending their best, folks.
Haha is that Linda “I <3 Sharia” Sarsour? The woman who is fine with oppressing women and who threatened/harassed a sexual assault survivor who accused one of Linda’s co-workers at some dodgy Muslim ngo?

Even CNN can't ignore the horrible truth that's dawning on them.

View attachment 558878

Yikes, maybe the democrats will learn...hahahaha yeah right.
 
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

At least there isn’t likely to be much left to said life. Let’s just say it would be poor judgement for RBG to be signing any long term leases at her age and health.

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).

You might want to ask Emmett Till about that?
 
People lie about basically everything, for basically every reason. They lie for short term gain, they lie because they are ashamed of the truth, they lie to hurt people, they lie sometimes for absolutely no reason. We know people lie about crimes all the time; our court system would be a lot simpler if they didn't. They'll lie even when it's in their best interest to tell the truth - which is almost always.

So this "wouldn't lie about rape" idea rests on the assumption that humans will behave in a fundamentally inhuman way about exactly one behavior.

---

Look. Again, I'm honestly not trying to attack you. But this whole "believe women" (or, more accurately and inclusively, believe rape accusers) thing is deeply problematic. It's fine applied on a personal level. If a person says "I was raped", you should behave as if they were. You offer your sympathy and your aid to them. That's well and good. But it has to end when it turns into accusations. Belief alone is not enough to condemn a person. It's dangerously illogical, inherently unjust, and frankly just plain not fair. Society can't operate that way. And no matter what anyone says, it *is* condemnation to accuse a person of rape with no proof. Even if you never try to prosecute them in a legal sense, you're destroying their good name, potentially forever. As a society, "rapist" is one of the worst things you can be branded. For a reason. And that reason needs to stay around. But it won't, at this rate.

In all fairness, could you remember something that happened 30 years ago with perfect clarity, especially if it was something awful that you'd rather forget?

I think your first paragraph quoted above ascribes a certain malice. It is entirely possible that they are not telling the factual truth simply because they do not remember it correctly. Time and trauma take their toll on the human memory. Could they have been coached into making their testimony as emotionally manipulative as possible? Absolutely. But I don't think we can immediately leap to the conclusion that it's a malicious attempt to slander the accused every single time.

I agree that "innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental cornerstone of our legal system. However, rape is a difficult case to prove even under ideal circumstances. Unfortunately, this principle doesn't seem to apply in the court of public opinion.
 
I think your first paragraph quoted above ascribes a certain malice. It is entirely possible that they are not telling the factual truth simply because they do not remember it correctly. Time and trauma take their toll on the human memory. Could they have been coached into making their testimony as emotionally manipulative as possible? Absolutely. But I don't think we can immediately leap to the conclusion that it's a malicious attempt to slander the accused every single time.

All I'll say on whether or not it was done with malicious intent is that during the original hearing (or whatever the formal name for it is where she was under oath in public) I noticed that she kept saying how she wanted to help.

Not to get closure. Not to get vengeance. Not to get justice.
 
All I'll say on whether or not it was done with malicious intent is that during the original hearing (or whatever the formal name for it is where she was under oath in public) I noticed that she kept saying how she wanted to help.

Not to get closure. Not to get vengeance. Not to get justice.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure she meant helping to stop the sexual menace known as Republicans.
 
In all fairness, could you remember something that happened 30 years ago with perfect clarity, especially if it was something awful that you'd rather forget?

I'm not condemning a person for not being able to remember all the details. I'm just saying that without those details, without some ability to verify the accusations, that an accusation alone is not enough.

I think your first paragraph quoted above ascribes a certain malice. It is entirely possible that they are not telling the factual truth simply because they do not remember it correctly. Time and trauma take their toll on the human memory. Could they have been coached into making their testimony as emotionally manipulative as possible? Absolutely. But I don't think we can immediately leap to the conclusion that it's a malicious attempt to slander the accused every single time.

The whole #MeToo movement is largely silent on the "spotty memory" angle. The rallying cry is not "Believe Survivors, Because Their Memory is Spotty." Time and time again we hear that we're supposed to believe them because they wouldn't lie. Which is exactly what I was responding to.
 
I'm not condemning a person for not being able to remember all the details. I'm just saying that without those details, without some ability to verify the accusations, that an accusation alone is not enough.



The whole #MeToo movement is largely silent on the "spotty memory" angle. The rallying cry is not "Believe Survivors, Because Their Memory is Spotty." Time and time again we hear that we're supposed to believe them because they wouldn't lie. Which is exactly what I was responding to.
Lol calm down
 
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.

I think it's distinctly possible that the situation she described actually happened to her in HS or college, but I'm also convinced Kavanaugh had nothing to do with it. Who knows how she associated him with it (assuming it happened), but her own witnesses strongly denied the accusation and her HS best friend not only denied it, but also said she never even met Kavanaugh. Cherry-picked witnesses that should be biased in the accuser's favor said "no way that happened", and no other evidence was presented. Game over. Even at the lowest burden of proof, the 51% rule only used by university kangaroo courts and other garbage-tier "justice" systems, I would clear Kavanaugh with no hesitation.

Your expectations for burden of proof are unrealistic. Think about what burden of proof you would like applied to yourself or a loved one who was falsely accused of a horrible crime. Go down that path, and you'll realize why modern media lynchings are so goddamn despicable.
 
For a while now, I haven't been believing the "Blue Wave" crap. Now I'm almost 100% certain that the GOP is going to GAIN a few seats when even CNN is half-assedly admitting defeat.

The Democrats played themselves over this Kavanaugh bullshit. They were already losing their grip on male voters, and this crap may be a final nail in the coffin for their midterm hopes. Their heads are so far up their own asses that they STILL can't see how they are losing support more and more. And now that I've caught wind of a DC "Walk Away" March being planned in late October, I'm just convinced that November will be overall very bad for progressives. To which I say, "GOOD."

But, given how the Democrats have been acting since Trump won the election, I'm sure they will quadruple-down on the accusations of "sexism, racism, islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, RAPEpublican, etc ..." after they lose in November. "OMG the majority of the country is full of bigots and rapists!" will be their go-to.
 
Back