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:
sGeVjLI.jpg

kS5AlIA.jpg

Ace Ventura, Pet Detective thinks she's a credible witness so I guess I do too now.

Maybe they should let him ass her a few questions.
 
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.
From a biological standpoint, I'm sure they'll go back and forth on it for a long time, perhaps indefinitely.

But unfortunately, the legal world cannot wait forever. They need to set standards now.

I think (and I'm pulling this out of my ass) that the basic memory model is probably the same. Your brain picks up pieces of the situation, and when replaying the memory, it fills in the gaps as appropriate. Sometimes it fucks up, and this is generally fine for mundane issues, but not really for criminal trials.

I would imagine that the difference between traumatic memories and ordinary memories is that maybe the mind manages to capture those pieces of the situation more strongly than average.

If I'm wrong, and there's a completely different memory model going on, then that would be very interesting. I'd like to see research into that.

But for now, I think this is the best we'll get.

Working with this memory model, it's important to get as much testimony (and work very hard to keep from tainting it in interviews), as soon as possible. Get as much physical evidence as possible. Encourage victims to feel safe, encourage them to feel empowered to report things ASAP. Don't destroy physical evidence. Etc.

But trying to salvage 30 year old cases has way too high an error rate. DNA has exonerated way too many people, where the victim swore up and down they remembered them, for me to feel comfortable with that. Ronald Cotton's case is a fun one. The victim actually looked at the real attacker and said it wasn't him.

And I know this isn't a criminal trial, so the standard of evidence is lower, but I still think it errs on the side of innocence. And when it's hamstringing our political process, I think we should do a thorough check of the facts (which I think we did) and then nip that shit in the bud (which we're doing, hopefully).

And then finally? If you're only talking about social situations? Yeah, sure, believe her if you want.
There used to be a law that provided equality of coverage and while I don't like the idea of that sort of anti-bias censorship, I do like the idea of identifying yourself accurately. Truth in advertising and all that.
That only applied to the radio broadcast spectrum because it's limited. Only so many television stations can broadcast in a certain area because of interference. There can be an infinite number of newspapers, so they never had any legal obligations to be neutral.
God, the Onion has the backbone that the ACLU lost.

Heh, also, it's Fleet Week here. Gonna head down to the inner harbor, get trashed, eat some food, see some ships. With a big dumb grin on my face knowing that people are absolutely losing their shit not 1 hour to the south in DC.

Feels good man.
 
and bring back sundown laws (curfews on America's most prolific homegrown rapists, who aren't white guys named Brett but dusky fellows named Tyrone).
So we fix "rape culture" by bringing back actual racial discrimination, with multi-tiered law systems for the various races? :thinking:
 
Jesus this woman can talk about nothing/facts everyone already knows for a long time, but
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) announced she will vote yes.

How is this woman not considered a democrat?
The facts surrounding Kavanaugh and Ford aren't just unclear, all available facts point to Kavanaugh being innocent. There is nothing that even remotely that indicates Ford has been assaulted or that said boob grope has ruined her life. There is evidence that she has been wrong, and there is also evidence that she has lied about things like the airplane issues, the 2 doors, and the polygraph stuff. She refuses to release therapy notes that would be her best piece of evidence. Her lifelong friend is saying her camp has been calling her to get her to change her story to support Ford's claims. I understand Collins and other Senators can't exactly say that Ford is bullshit publicly, but support for Ford and other more ridiculous accusers is the reason we get this kind of shit in the first place. They need to just ignore people like that. At least she made some comments about echo-chambers.

That was tough to get through.
 
Back