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:
This is going to sound terrible, but I'm honestly surprised the FBI said "Fuck it, there's no evidence." With the whole Russia tangle and everything else that's going on, I would have been prepared to bet that they'd go out of their way to tank Trump's nominee. But I suppose it's a mistake to think of any group as a single monolithic entity--someone's still on the job at the Bureau. (Shame me for being jobist, I suppose.)

And if there's no evidence at all ... Well, shit, what can you do? We can't convict someone purely on one person's word; that way lies madness and thoughtcrime trials. I'm starting to believe that something awful really did happen to Ford, and that she may be mistaken or coached into saying it was Kavanaugh, but if that's the case, she needs therapy and compassion--not to be paraded on national TV while people try to use her for their own ends.
 
These are the brave militant protesters btw

a80c4bb09ea9f95a2a912384a24d43c009be5ad55fecc1a3a7b09f9f51cb7b68.png


BE AN HERO

I appreciate that old saw where they put the camera at a very low angle to make the crowd seem larger, when in reality its barely four people deep.
Maybe five, counting the additional space hambeasts occupy.

This is going to sound terrible, but I'm honestly surprised the FBI said "Fuck it, there's no evidence."

Well, the FBI would have to write a report and list the evidence for any conclusions and there being none, they can't. Even if they wanted to do so.
 
Something I want to note about this is the op-ed in the NYT saying traumatic memories are more reliable:
We're a c-hair away from bringing back the "recovered memories" scam that propagated the satanic cult abducting children hoax of the 80s. All because it's worth it to block a republican from nominating a supreme court justice.
 
This is going to sound terrible, but I'm honestly surprised the FBI said "Fuck it, there's no evidence." With the whole Russia tangle and everything else that's going on, I would have been prepared to bet that they'd go out of their way to tank Trump's nominee. But I suppose it's a mistake to think of any group as a single monolithic entity--someone's still on the job at the Bureau. (Shame me for being jobist, I suppose.)

And if there's no evidence at all ... Well, shit, what can you do? We can't convict someone purely on one person's word; that way lies madness and thoughtcrime trials. I'm starting to believe that something awful really did happen to Ford, and that she may be mistaken or coached into saying it was Kavanaugh, but if that's the case, she needs therapy and compassion--not to be paraded on national TV while people try to use her for their own ends.

I think they did it (and don't quote me on this) because - simply put - the establishment Dems and their buddies have wasted everyone's fucking time repeatedly with shit like this for over a decade now, and as a result the Feds have gotten more and more prone to calling out bullshit. Like, both sides have tried to weaponize the FBI for a bit now, but one side is infamously worse about it, and we all know it.
 
We're a c-hair away from bringing back the "recovered memories" scam that propagated the satanic cult abducting children hoax of the 80s. All because it's worth it to block a republican from nominating a supreme court justice.
I'm actually quite surprised there haven't been more comparisons to the Satanic Panic of the 1980s. It was the first thing that came to my mind when all this started and "recovered memories" started popping up. When it turned out Brett Kavanaugh was secretly the leader of a gang rape squad, I figured we'd hit it, but apparently people can't learn lessons from the past and so history must repeat itself.
 
I'm actually quite surprised there haven't been more comparisons to the Satanic Panic of the 1980s.

Because the people who lived through it are old now, and we all know old people don't deserve to vote, have sexist/racist beliefs/need to die off, etc.

SO when they start raising alarm bells, the new crop of moral panickers say "sit down Gramps, you don't understand the stakes we're dealing with here, this is SERIOUS, this is the FUTURE of the country, and when that's on the line, breaking rules and being zealots is not only acceptable but IMPERATIVE"
 
Last edited:
This is going to sound terrible, but I'm honestly surprised the FBI said "Fuck it, there's no evidence." With the whole Russia tangle and everything else that's going on, I would have been prepared to bet that they'd go out of their way to tank Trump's nominee. But I suppose it's a mistake to think of any group as a single monolithic entity--someone's still on the job at the Bureau. (Shame me for being jobist, I suppose.)

And if there's no evidence at all ... Well, shit, what can you do? We can't convict someone purely on one person's word; that way lies madness and thoughtcrime trials. I'm starting to believe that something awful really did happen to Ford, and that she may be mistaken or coached into saying it was Kavanaugh, but if that's the case, she needs therapy and compassion--not to be paraded on national TV while people try to use her for their own ends.

At first my thought was something happened to Ford but it was uncertain whether it was quite as she said it was or that Kavanaugh was involved. But since then too much weird stuff with her story has come out. Here I'm not just referring to the inaccuracies, but especially the weird thing with her putting a second door on her house (years before she said she did) to cordon off part of the house to rent out to the marriage counselor she revealed the alleged abuse to in 2012 and whom she bought the house from in 2007. The stuff her ex-boyfriend said (though admittedly it may or may not be true, we don't know) adds to the impression something very strange is happening - here I'm not just referring to having coached someone on a polygraph, but to the fact she attempted to defraud him and cheated - indicating a willingness to be rather dishonest.
In the absence of a reasonable explanation I think it's most likely she's just a crazy partisan now, although I respect that thinking her allegations are still plausible is a reasonable opinion.
 
I'm actually quite surprised there haven't been more comparisons to the Satanic Panic of the 1980s. It was the first thing that came to my mind when all this started and "recovered memories" started popping up. When it turned out Brett Kavanaugh was secretly the leader of a gang rape squad, I figured we'd hit it, but apparently people can't learn lessons from the past and so history must repeat itself.
Well you certainly can count on the media to drown out any attempts to point it out publicly, since it's commonly accepted that it was a hoax. And even if they wanted to make it legitimate again to use as a tactic that would come too close to legitimizing christians and christians are all evil.
 
Well you certainly can count on the media to drown out any attempts to point it out publicly, since it's commonly accepted that it was a hoax. And even if they wanted to make it legitimate again to use as a tactic that would come too close to legitimizing christians and christians are all evil.
Wasn't it the media's fault in the first place? Always needing a bigger hit, more shock, so they pressure the psychologists to juice the kids for more lurid and horrific details. Whatever it takes to sell more papers. Of course nowadays it's all about the likes and stopping the Right By Any Means Necessary.
 
I'm actually quite surprised there haven't been more comparisons to the Satanic Panic of the 1980s. It was the first thing that came to my mind when all this started and "recovered memories" started popping up. When it turned out Brett Kavanaugh was secretly the leader of a gang rape squad, I figured we'd hit it, but apparently people can't learn lessons from the past and so history must repeat itself.

I've mentioned it to a few people in real-world conversations about this... And you know what? Almost every single time, I've had to first explain the Satanic Panic. Apparently nobody has heard of the Satanic Panic. It's basically a culturally-forgotten memory. The only people I've talked to who know about it are people from subgroups that have been proximal to satanic panics of their own - D&D nerds, metal heads, pagans, etc. The wider world, not so much.
 
Wasn't it the media's fault in the first place? Always needing a bigger hit, more shock, so they pressure the psychologists to juice the kids for more lurid and horrific details. Whatever it takes to sell more papers. Of course nowadays it's all about the likes and stopping the Right By Any Means Necessary.
Oh yeah, it was. Outrage clickbait was not invented with the internet by any means. I just don't think they'd want to bring up the satanic panic again because even if average people don't think about it much, it's discredited enough that it wouldn't do them any favors. Or maybe the obvious placement of good christians as the moral people in that panic is more of an incentive not to bring it back because they can't drop the line that christians are all evil.
 
Amazing. I wonder though...
Where will these people be when Ford has been Loretta Fuddy'd?
Well I see that Muslim woman whose name I don't care enough about to remember or look up, but I'm going to assume she'd be laughing and wishing Loretta had had her vagina sewn shut. These people don't represent woman, only the women they like and agree with. Any woman who reaches a conclusion other than the established narrative can go fuck herself. Seriously, fuck these awful human beings.
 
I've mentioned it to a few people in real-world conversations about this... And you know what? Almost every single time, I've had to first explain the Satanic Panic. Apparently nobody has heard of the Satanic Panic.
It really does have a lot of parallels to the "Believe all women, especially the unbelievable ones" movement going on today. At one point during the McMartin Preschool trial, one of the kids who had been fed recovered memories said that the satanists were taking kids down into secret tunnels below the school and feeding them to lions.
So... they dug up the site looking for tunnels! I think they even went back more than once when they didn't find any. Or, you know, any trace of lions :lol:

Recommended reading: The Abuse of Innocence, written about the McMartin trial right as the panic was burning out
Recommended watching:
To see what kind of nonsense was taken seriously for a few years. This was used as a police training video!
 
Something I want to note about this is the op-ed in the NYT saying traumatic memories are more reliable: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/opinion/kavanaugh-christine-ford-sexual-assault.html

Obviously the NYT has a huge influence, particularly over politicians and the democratic base. However, I have read in a couple of places now that the view expressed in this op-ed is at best one of the major views in a hotly contested issue and at worst rather heterodox and intentionally misleading. Here's an article arguing for that other point of view: https://quillette.com/2018/10/04/on-the-fallibility-of-memory-and-the-importance-of-evidence/

I have never read much on the reliability of memory so cannot weigh in meaningfully on which is correct, but I thought it important to note what those who read the MSM but don't dig deeper might be relying on when insisting for the veracity of Ford's memory about the most traumatic stuff.


One of our collected and studied subjects actually just did a fairly good easy to understand video on this subject. It’s actually quite informative. Yeah she’s a cow, but I trust her more than the NYT Op-Ed pages
 
Back