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:
Yes. All women are to be believed. Unless they contradict the narrative by not corroborating the accuser's story. Don't believe those ones.

They'll be roundhouse kicked into submission by gay male hairdressers who are not afraid to "stand up for the rights of women" soon enough....
 
Last edited:
Amy Schumer telling cops she wanted to be arrested. What are the chances she gets shivved in jail?

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1047935698555338752

sam kinnison kavanaugh.jpg
 
Amy Schumer telling cops she wanted to be arrested. What are the chances she gets shivved in jail?

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1047935698555338752

View attachment 559089

Any shiv would have to get through quite a bit of fat before it hit anything vital.

I do like how she went for the "I dare you to arrest me!" route you see in movies and shit when the protagonist is taking a stand and being brave. She probably thought it'd go like in the movies where the authorities stand down and the triumphant music score kicks in. Except this is the real world, and the capitol police just went "lol, wish granted" and hauled her and that thot Emily polishnameOwski off to jail for the night. You know, until Chuckie bails her out and tries to use it to pump his cred with the woke millenial crowd.
 
Pokéfags bitching and moaning about politics they can barely understand is such a good source of salt, and the Kavanaugh hearing has been causing so many folks to froth at the mouth that I expect it to blow up again next month like it did 2016 election night. (The Serebii political thread is 500 pages of brain cancer, so this is the page this screencap's from. Bulbagarden may be funnier/worse for all I know.)

Screen shot 2018-10-04 at 4.44.32 PM.png

I'll take "Reasons Why Democrats Keep Bleeding Voters" for $400, Alex.
 
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.

I mean, they're free to leave if they don't like it. Claim refugee status and see how many people are willing to take them with open arms.


Not the coat hanger!
 
At a lemon party in Florida, Senile Stevens just said Kavanaugh is unfit for SCOTUS, which is gold coming from the appointee of a President who was never elected, and confirmed unanimously by a somewhat sane Democratic majority who did the same for O'Connor and Scalia.
Former Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens on Thursday said Brett Kavanaugh's behavior during last Thursday's contentious Judiciary Committee hearing should sink his nomination.

Kavanaugh, at times emotional, testified that he was the victim of a far-left smear campaign aimed at preventing a generational rightward shift on the Supreme Court. In the past several weeks, he has been accused of engaging in gang rapes and sexual misconduct dating back more than three decades -- claims that he has denied and that the FBI, in a supplemental inquiry concluded earlier this week, could not corroborate.

FOX NEWS POLLS SHOW KAVANAUGH SLUGFEST WILL LIKELY HELP GOP IN MIDTERMS, AS REPUBLICAN ENTHUSIASM SURGES

But Stevens, who was an associate justice on the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010 and gradually shifted to become a reliably liberal justice, suggested Thursday that Kavanaugh went too far in defending himself. At one point, the judge responded to a question about his past drinking habits from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., by repeatedly asking if she'd ever had alcohol-related blackouts. Later in the hearing, he apologized for the remark.

“I thought [Kavanaugh] had the qualifications for the Supreme Court, should he be selected,” Stevens said at a closed event held by a retirement group in Boca Raton, according to The Palm Beach Post. “I’ve changed my views for reasons that have no relationship to his intellectual ability … I feel his performance in the hearings ultimately changed my mind.”

Stevens added, “I’ve never really been a political person.”

Fox News has confirmed Stevens' remarks.

STEVENS SAYS GETTING RID OF SECOND AMENDMENT IS ONLY WAY TO SEE TRUE PROGRESS ON GUN VIOLENCE

The 98-year-old, since retiring, called for the repeal of the Second Amendment in a New York Times op-ed earlier this year. "Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the NRA’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option," Stevens said at the time.

Thousands of law professors this week signed a letter agreeing that Kavanaugh's temperament should keep him off the court. Democrats have increasingly cited his combative responses at last Thursday's hearing as disqualifying.

“I think there’s merit to that criticism and I think the senators should really pay attention that,” Stevens said Thursday.

CHRISTINE FORD'S EX-BOYFRIEND CONTRADICTS HER TESTIMONY ON POLYGRAPH EXAMS, PTSD

JULIE SWETNICK'S EX-BOYFRIEND SAYS SHE 'EXAGGERATED EVERYTHING,' THREATENED TO KILL HIS UNBORN CHILD

Current and former justices on the Supreme Court, in keeping with their traditional reluctance to engage in heated political matters for fear of compromising the court's appearance of neutrality, generally have not weighed in on the allegations surrounding Kavanaugh.

Retired Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose retirement and personal recommendation led to Kavanaugh's nomination, refused to comment on the matter when asked last month. But he did, in general terms, lament the state of the nation's discourse.

“Perhaps we didn’t do too good a job teaching the importance of preserving democracy by an enlightened civic discourse,” he said, according to the Associated Press. “In the first part of this century, we’re seeing the death and decline of democracy.”
 
Last edited:
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.

Let’s talk about accusations of sexual crime, and standards and burdens of proof, and evidence. Fair warning: this is only interesting if you also are a sperg, or if you have a particular interest in the prosecutorial decision making around sexual crimes.

NB: None of this is a comment on the specifics of Ford v Kavanaugh, because as I have previously autistically sperged at great length, I don’t care about the specifics of the allegations or the consequences; my autism is confined to the process. So I do not draw any conclusions whatsoever about BK from these comments, I’m just autistically compelled to write them.

Okay. My qualifications to know something about this, being appropriately vague, are academic work in this field, legislative work on it, and practical experience of advancing these cases in court proceedings. I know a bit about how this is supposed to be done, and how it actually shakes out in practice. (I’m also a britfag, so if I use the wrong terms of art for issues in American law, it’s because I’ve never learnt a bloody thing about American criminal procedure. Sorry.)

The first thing to note is that in sexual crimes, there is a uniquely low rate of conviction following complaint. There is a very simple reason for this, and it’s not any of the ones usually screamed about in thinkpieces.

It’s because at a fundamental level, it’s bloody hard to prove. It is an evidentiary nightmare. Sexual crimes usually happen in private residences - so no CCTV. The people present at the time are usually one victim and one accused - so one witness, then. The forensics are close to meaningless in cases with adult victims because the accused can simply say “they consented” and that gives a perfectly law abiding explanation for the forensics. The complainer is normally left alive - so no body to use in evidence. They tend to be only mildly to moderately injured, so they present late or not at all to medical services, which means no record of serious injury to corroborate their complaint that the sexual acts were not consensual. They tend to report to the police late - so their statements are not contemparenous. They overwhelmingly tend to know, and in fact to be related to, the accused - so making a defence that “it was consensual” prima facie more credible.

The best way as a sperg I can summarise this is: you have a squad of Guardsmen with Imperial flashlights, and you have to keep making a 6 on 1d6 to make your saving throw. Now make at least half a dozen in a row for each Guardsmen. You’re going to lose a lot of the squad. You drop an awful lot of complaints before you get anywhere near the court, and this is usually nothing to do with the credibility of the complainant. It’s to do with the scarcity of evidence. (We will come back to credibility.)

There is a reason we don’t meaningfully bugger about with the difficulty of this process, though, and we call it things like “due process” and “the right to a fair trial”. A prosecution can only succeed if the jury believe beyond a reasonable doubt (we will come back to this) that the accused did the acts detailed in the charge to the complainer, and the complainer didn’t consent. If at any point, the prosecution fails to convince the jury of anything material to them reaching that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution fails. That’s how the presumption of innocence in criminal trials works.

The jury must be convinced of two things: one - the acts complained of actually happened (the actus reus of the crime) and two - the accused had the correct state of mind required to make them criminally responsible for the act (the mens rea). The mens rea of sexual crimes against adults is intent. You cannot “accidentally” sexually offend against someone; you must have had the intent to perform the act plus the knowledge they did not consent, or no reasonable belief that they did consent. If you advance sufficient evidence in your defence that you reasonably believed them to be consenting, you cannot be convicted. For illustration, the reason Brock Turner was convicted was that the jury did not believe, on the basis of the evidence at trial, that he had any reasonable belief the victim consented.

Now, the standard of proof the jury requires is “beyond reasonable doubt”. That does not mean beyond any doubt. The doubt has to be reasonable. For example, “The victim was my girlfriend at the time and had consented in similar circumstances before” may (I stress may; there is case law in various jurisdictions that says otherwise, but every sexual crime trial turns on its own facts and circumstances) satisfy a jury that the accused had a reasonable belief that the victim was consenting. “I received a message from God via my tinfoil hat saying she really wanted to do it” however is not likely to meet that threshold, even if a sincerely held belief. The jury is not required to be utterly convinced beyond all possibility of rebuttal.

This is important because sexual crime trials are often characterised as “he said, she said”, and in public discourse there is often an assumption that follows afterwards that the jury has assessed the credibility of both complainants and decided the case on the basis of ‘who they thought was lying’. This is entirely untrue. It is completely possible, indeed common, for the jury to decide the case on a point of evidence (which we looked at above) which is not related to the credibility of the complainant. It is also possible for them to decide that they have enough reasonable doubt about the reasonableness of the accused’s belief in the victim’s consent that they cannot convict, even though they believe that the victim did not in fact consent.

This is a long winded way of saying that a jury can, and often do, believe that a complainant is credible - that they are telling the truth - and still find that they cannot, on the evidence in front of them and in accordance with the law, convict the accused.

The reason that convictions relating to falsely accusing someone of sexual crime against you are so rare is because that, if anything, is even more difficult to prove. You must show that the complainant knowingly and intentionally gave false evidence. It is hard as hell to disprove a defence of “I was drunk/I was traumatised/I couldn’t remember everything/I got it honestly wrong/it all happened a long time ago”. And to prove the contrary again beyond a reasonable doubt.

Some accusations are false. Most accusations are credible. Our system is designed in such a way that a credible accusation is not in and of itself enough. The corollary of that is that a credible accusation that does not result in a conviction is not prosecuted as a false accusation unless it is provably false.

When A complains of a sexual crime, and accuses B, and B defends themselves against the accusation, the protections built into the criminal law operate to give all the benefit of reasonable doubt to B. And to protect the public at large from false convictions, this is exactly how it should be.

But it does not mean, and it never has done, that A is lying.
 
Last edited:
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.

I think it's also possible something happened between her and Kavanaugh, just not something as serious as she's claiming. Like he tried to make out with her and she shoved him off and that was the end of it or they consensually fooled around and she later regretted it, shit like that.

Idk the fact that her claim is that he almost raped her instead of that he flat out raped her makes me think there might be a grain of truth to the story. It feels like if you're gonna concoct a false accusation completely out of thin air, you might as well go with full blown rape instead of just attempted, especially since that was the claim in most of the major, proven false accusation cases.

The idea that someone did try to rape her, just not Kavanaugh is interesting and would explain a lot. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say for now that's probably what most likely happened.

Idk I'm high as fuck right now*yawn*
 
The 98-year-old, since retiring, called for the repeal of the Second Amendment in a New York Times op-ed earlier this year. "Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the NRA’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option," Stevens said at the time.

μολὼν λαβέ you dried up old house pinko cocksucker.
 
View attachment 559088
I'll take "Reasons Why Democrats Keep Bleeding Voters" for $400, Alex.
For the follow up I'll take "why are all of these nutjob leftists getting shot by CCW holders" for $800.

You don't have any right to harass, threaten, or intimidate your political enemies in public. That is an infringement of their liberty. People will fucking kill you for that. Silencing people by force is a deadly serious proposition. You idiot.
 
Amy Schumer telling cops she wanted to be arrested. What are the chances she gets shivved in jail?

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1047935698555338752

View attachment 559089
Sometimes in blue cities police will "arrest" prominent protestors who request it for publicity, to build good relations with people (as if that actually would be a good way), or to prevent them from doing something that actually causes problems. Now I don't think that's what happened here, but you have to wonder.

Who are all those people on the balconies? Staffers or press? There kinda seems to be more of them than protestors.
 
For the follow up I'll take "why are all of these nutjob leftists getting shot by CCW holders" for $800.

You don't have any right to harass, threaten, or intimidate your political enemies in public. That is an infringement of their liberty. People will fucking kill you for that. Silencing people by force is a deadly serious proposition. You idiot.

To quote SCJ Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The right to swing your fist ends where the other fellow's nose begins."

Justice Holmes also said that the law was supposed to guarantee the right of the free exchange of views for everyone.

If he were alive today, I'm sure this Kavanaugh hearing farce and the current political climate would assuredly make him wonder if returning to the casket wouldn't be such a bad idea.
 
I think it's also possible something happened between her and Kavanaugh, just not something as serious as she's claiming. Like he tried to make out with her and she shoved him off and that was the end of it or they consensually fooled around and she later regretted it, shit like that.

Idk the fact that her claim is that he almost raped her instead of that he flat out raped her makes me think there might be a grain of truth to the story. It feels like if you're gonna concoct a false accusation completely out of thin air, you might as well go with full blown rape instead of just attempted, especially since that was the claim in most of the major, proven false accusation cases.

The idea that someone did try to rape her, just not Kavanaugh is interesting and would explain a lot. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say for now that's probably what most likely happened.

Idk I'm high as fuck right now*yawn*

That or it's because she's slowly backpedaling because she accused a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE NOMINEE OF RAPE, with no evidence to prove it happened at all.
 
So what exactly is the consensus, beyond bias? The back and forth is to be expected, but was it yet found as to whether or not she lied?

I just got home and haven't been keeping up, pardon.
 
Back