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:
Never ending salt, sourced from local cows.
D09766BF-DE87-462C-BAEE-440D07A29798.jpeg


Quick run out and buy plan B if you’re a whore and for your whore friends!!

ABABE1EA-0B9B-4D9D-A155-E45896F2B89E.jpeg


Yes, women openly hating women today. So much women hating going on.
46739330-DA67-4D5F-83A0-66BC1BE1094C.jpeg
 
Also: did the Democrats honestly think they were going to keep this SCOTUS seat open or out of Trump's sway?

Their best case scenario was delaying it for a little bit before seeing some other person from Trump's list of nominees making it on. I guess they forgot about that...

They've been counting on the Blue Wave giving them the senate. At that point they fully intended to keep any SCOTUS pick out, yes, absolutely they figured they could.
 
Also: did the Democrats honestly think they were going to keep this SCOTUS seat open indefinitely or free from Trump's pick?

Their best case scenario was delaying it for a little bit before seeing some other person from Trump's list of nominees making it on. I guess they forgot about that...

Democrats and thinking.

hahahahaha Trump.jpeg
 
Got a link to that? All I've seen is his stock photo.
Trying to find what I remember seeing, but it might have been thoughts implanted by radio laser satellites and fluorite in the water, etc.

On a lol note they typoed the dude's name in that article as "Cocko".

Edit: I can't produce. Just assume I'm exceptional at this point.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ohoolihan and unfer
Also: did the Democrats honestly think they were going to keep this SCOTUS seat open or out of Trump's sway?

Their best case scenario was delaying it for a little bit before seeing some other person from Trump's list of nominees making it on. I guess they forgot about that...
Its the "impeach trump, get Mike "LGBTQ BBQ" Pence" principle. Anything beyond immidiate "WE MUST MAKE GRONALD GRRUMPFFFKKKFFF ANGRY!" is utterly beyond these cretins since they just assume that making big scary "U AM BIGUT!" noises will make their opposition back down, and thus they will dedicate 1000% of their time and effort into pointless horseshit that at best if successful will annoy trump and the republicans for a brief time while doing nothing to actually defeat them, and at worst if successful will make shit soooo much worse for the dems in the long term.

For example, they now have a supreme court justice who is probably just itching to do everything in his power to make these fucktards scream and cry and beg and whimper for the next 40 goddamn years. If they had done literally nothing they would simply have another fairly conservative guy taking the place of a very slightly less conservative guy.

And THATS before we get to how bad this is going to impact the "blue wave" this november
 
Avenatti is cruising on a bullet train to disbarrement. The ABA does not take kindly to unethical conduct and fraud.
Britbong here. Are there professional ethics violations in California/America for bringing disrepute to the profession? I've looked at the way he has conducted himself online, calling respected Harvard law academics has-beens and other such terms, in addition to his other behaviour.

Such behaviour would possibly end up with some form of ethics complaint in my neck of the woods (UK Ethics rules = Breaching Core Duty 3 - Compromising honesty and integrity and Core Duty 5 - not to behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or the profession at all times, his online activity and constant behaviour would likely warrant some form of complaint)

Is there anything of the sort in the US, or are ethics violations reserved for more serious matters of misleading the court?
 
They've been counting on the Blue Wave giving them the senate. At that point they fully intended to keep any SCOTUS pick out, yes, absolutely they figured they could.

Last I checked, the Democrats' prospects at picking up the House were marginal and their chances at the Senate were optimistic to put it mildly. The Blue Wave will probably be seen as overestimated come November 6th.

I suspect that this episode was more likely just the same "here's how we can still win __" blindness that's kept them hypnotized since Election Day at the latest. They mistook blocking Kavanaugh as a victory in itself when (even if successful) it'd just be a hiccup to the Republicans, who could then just put someone else up for the nod.
 
Last I checked, the Democrats' prospects at picking up the House were marginal and their chances at the Senate were optimistic to put it mildly. The Blue Wave will probably be seen as overestimated come November 6th.

I don't think you're wrong, but that's not how they saw it. Until fairly recently, the mantra was very much "The repubs are screwed come November".
 
Someone told me Ginsberg said something about stepping down rather than serving with the Kav. Fingers crossed.

Short of some old-age revelation / soul searching, I can't see her voluntarily stepping down while Trump is still in office. She knows doing so would turn the court conservative, especially if Thomas decides to retire while Trump is in office.
 
Is there a political equivalent of exceptional individual strength? Because Trump basically has it. He's the most ridiculous president in this nation's history, and somehow, he can't stop winning.
It's truly amazing.

Trump may or may not be a good politician, depending on how you define things. Trump may or may not be a good businessman, depending on how you define things.

Trump's a good showman, though. And he recognized that politics had become showmanship. He knows how to play the media cycle better than any president in history.
 
Just a quick little peek into the Brett Kavanaugh tag on Tumblr:
View attachment 559782
:story:

These people realize that when you accuse someone of sexual assault and go through the judicial process, it doesn't involve the Supreme Court, right?

They act like it means no one will ever be convicted of rape again. I seriously doubt any of these people complaining openly for social media attention have made statements to the police or even made an effort to go through any of the proper (and super simple) protocols. Like they give you free mental healthcare and personal attendants (during the trail) that these people obviously need.
 
Back