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:
What, exactly, do you base this on?
Pretty sure I stated that. He has a substance abuse problem and has poor impulse and emotional control as demonstrated by being a fucking crybaby in his testimony.

Okay there Mr. Teetotaler. It’s good to know that you believe that noone grows or changes from their 17 year old self. I also hope that someday, 20-30 years from now some post of yours from this site costs you a job and destroys your reputation. After all, at least that would have evidence.
I'm not applying for a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the country, am I?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not a Democrat by any means, but I will say this, Kavanaugh does NOT have the temperament to be on the highest court in the land. I don't give a shit if you want to feel superior to lefties or who is to blame or whatever bullshit. He's not right for the role. Period. It's not just lefties who will be hurt by this just like it won't be just lefties hurt by the tax bill and loss of the ACA when that inevitably comes. I like to think of what is good for ALL of us in this country and not a tribal, win/lose bullshit scenario because right now, we're all fucking losing whether you realize it or not. I'll take all my negative bullshit ratings, but this is the fucking truth. This is a frat bro with a substance abuse problem and poor impulse and emotional control. That is not someone you want on a lifetime appointment deciding precedent for the next 30-40 years. I don't care if you want to stick it to lefties or feminists or what the fuck ever, I really don't care what your position is, but ultimately, this foolishness is making us all weaker and smaller.

-Has the highest praises from the BAR association and a very long record of service in one of the most important districts
-Not the right fit for a Supreme Court Justice

Okay.

You sure you aren't a democrat? I'm sorry, but nobody would be bitching about Kavanaugh getting confirmed if he was picked by a different president. There is NO REASON for Kavanaugh to not get confirmed. Also, who the fuck are you to appoint yourself the authority on who has the right temperament and who doesn't? Like the rest of us, you are just some fuck infront of a computer monitor. Don't put on airs like you are even remotely important, because chances are you are not.
 
I'm not being a crybaby you fucking autist. I'm being a realist. It would be nice if other people would.

7 FBI investigations, his Yale credentials, the American Bar Association, 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 13 opinions upheld by the Supreme Court, The New York Times quoting his students, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Merrick Garland (who has voted with Kavanaugh 96.43% of the time), his friends, family and employers AS WELL AS most of Christine Ford's family and all of her friends, boyfriends and witnesses completely disagree with you.

Enjoy 6 more years of tears, friend.
 
Pretty sure I stated that.

Pretty sure you didn't.

He has a substance abuse problem

Again, what exactly do you base this on? Do you have some evidence of this? Because nobody else does. If there was any evidence of this, it would be being screamed to the high heavens in the Senate. It's not.

and has poor impulse and emotional control as demonstrated by being a fucking crybaby in his testimony.

No, a "fucking crybaby" cries. And is useless as a result. He doesn't get briefly choked up a couple times while delivering a speech, while defending himself from being accusations of being a rapist, and then go on to deliver an absolutely fantastic speech. That's exactly not what a crybaby does.

So, again, what do you base this on?

7 FBI investigations, his Yale credentials, the American Bar Association, 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 13 opinions upheld by the Supreme Court, The New York Times quoting his students, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Merrick Garland (who has voted with Kavanaugh 96.43% of the time), his friends, family and employers AS WELL AS most of Christine Ford's family and all of her friends, boyfriends and witnesses completely disagree with you.

I feel like there should be a partridge in a pear tree somewhere here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is he even anti-abortion though? I mean legally speaking, not personally.

There was an e-mail from 2003 where he said Roe v. Wade couldn't truly be considered settled since the Supreme Court has overruled its' precedent before. I guess someone could stretch that to mean he's anti-aboriton but given the context (proofreading an op-ed), it reads like he's just being factually correct.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...6dbbda94dd204fe02af/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

In his 2006 confirmation hearing, he said he would uphold the law of the land, saying that it has been affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey and other cases.

https://www.congress.gov/109/chrg/shrg27916/CHRG-109shrg27916.pdf

Senator SCHUMER. I fail to see the distinction. Let me ask you to answer, since my time is ending here, the two other questions. Do you consider Roe v. Wade to be an abomination? And do you consider yourself to be a judicial nominee, like the President said he was going to nominate people, in the mold of Scalia and Thomas?
Mr. KAVANAUGH. Senator, on the question of Roe v. Wade, if confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be binding precedent of the Court. It’s been decided by the Supreme Court—
Senator SCHUMER. I asked you your own opinion.
Mr. KAVANAUGH. And I’m saying if I were confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, Senator, I would follow it. It’s been reaffirmed many times, including in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Senator SCHUMER. I understand. But what is your opinion? You’re not on the bench yet. You’ve talked about these issues in the past to other people, I’m sure.
Mr. KAVANAUGH. The Supreme Court has held repeatedly, Senator, and I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to give a personal view of that case.

His answer is at the bottom of pg 23.

The 2017 case is a bit more complicated and it's quite a small scope. His dissent starts on pg 35. He maintains her rights to have an abortion but he would rather her be with her sponsor than still in a government detention facility.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C81A5EDEADAE82F2852581C30068AF6E/$file/17-5236-1701167.pdf

So historically, it doesn't seem so.
 
At the end of the day, it's about revenge by proxy.
I'm not a Democrat by any means, but I will say this, Kavanaugh does NOT have the temperament to be on the highest court in the land. I don't give a shit if you want to feel superior to lefties or who is to blame or whatever bullshit. He's not right for the role. Period. It's not just lefties who will be hurt by this just like it won't be just lefties hurt by the tax bill and loss of the ACA when that inevitably comes. I like to think of what is good for ALL of us in this country and not a tribal, win/lose bullshit scenario because right now, we're all fucking losing whether you realize it or not. I'll take all my negative bullshit ratings, but this is the fucking truth. This is a frat bro with a substance abuse problem and poor impulse and emotional control. That is not someone you want on a lifetime appointment deciding precedent for the next 30-40 years. I don't care if you want to stick it to lefties or feminists or what the fuck ever, I really don't care what your position is, but ultimately, this foolishness is making us all weaker and smaller.
Maybe next time someone is getting put in a position of such importance and power, people will learn not to put all their chips on antagonizing him by attempting to discard is lifetime of work by writing him down in history as a sex pest with no evidence whatsoever.
 
There was an e-mail from 2003 where he said Roe v. Wade couldn't truly be considered settled since the Supreme Court has overruled its' precedent before. I guess someone could stretch that to mean he's anti-aboriton but given the context (proofreading an op-ed), it reads like he's just being factually correct.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...6dbbda94dd204fe02af/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

In his 2006 confirmation hearing, he said he would uphold the law of the land, saying that it has been affirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey and other cases.

https://www.congress.gov/109/chrg/shrg27916/CHRG-109shrg27916.pdf

Senator SCHUMER. I fail to see the distinction. Let me ask you to answer, since my time is ending here, the two other questions. Do you consider Roe v. Wade to be an abomination? And do you consider yourself to be a judicial nominee, like the President said he was going to nominate people, in the mold of Scalia and Thomas?
Mr. KAVANAUGH. Senator, on the question of Roe v. Wade, if confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be binding precedent of the Court. It’s been decided by the Supreme Court—
Senator SCHUMER. I asked you your own opinion.
Mr. KAVANAUGH. And I’m saying if I were confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, Senator, I would follow it. It’s been reaffirmed many times, including in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Senator SCHUMER. I understand. But what is your opinion? You’re not on the bench yet. You’ve talked about these issues in the past to other people, I’m sure.
Mr. KAVANAUGH. The Supreme Court has held repeatedly, Senator, and I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to give a personal view of that case.

His answer is at the bottom of pg 23.

The 2017 case is a bit more complicated and it's quite a small scope. His dissent starts on pg 35. He maintains her rights to have an abortion but he would rather her be with her sponsor than still in a government detention facility.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C81A5EDEADAE82F2852581C30068AF6E/$file/17-5236-1701167.pdf

So historically, it doesn't seem so.
From what I understand, there’s a possibility (not guarantee) that if a case was made in a way he could “overturn” it in such a way that the legality of abortion is tossed back to the States to determine. Which of course means women will be chained in basements forcibly gangraped and forced to produce infant after infant against their will.

Edit: basically saying “you’re right this isn’t a Federal level issue, it’s a State level issue”
 
I'm not a Democrat by any means, but I will say this, Kavanaugh does NOT have the temperament to be on the highest court in the land. I don't give a shit if you want to feel superior to lefties or who is to blame or whatever bullshit. He's not right for the role. Period. It's not just lefties who will be hurt by this just like it won't be just lefties hurt by the tax bill and loss of the ACA when that inevitably comes. I like to think of what is good for ALL of us in this country and not a tribal, win/lose bullshit scenario because right now, we're all fucking losing whether you realize it or not. I'll take all my negative bullshit ratings, but this is the fucking truth. This is a frat bro with a substance abuse problem and poor impulse and emotional control. That is not someone you want on a lifetime appointment deciding precedent for the next 30-40 years. I don't care if you want to stick it to lefties or feminists or what the fuck ever, I really don't care what your position is, but ultimately, this foolishness is making us all weaker and smaller.

Stop caring so much about what others think.
 
Wait, i haven't kept up to date with American politics, who's Brett Kavanaugh, why do people (I'm guessing liberals/leftist/democrats) hate him and anything else I'm missing?

Seriously, who is this guy?
To provide some additional context to the explanations you've already gotten, Supreme Court Justices do not have term limits and are not subject to the election process, so they are basically for-life appointments (unless the Justice chooses to resign, or engages in serious misconduct warranting impeachment and removal from office by Congress). Kavanaugh is currently 53 years old, so when he gets confirmed tomorrow, it's extremely likely that he'll be on the bench for the next 35+ years. That's why Dems and progtards/libshits/etc. are having meltdowns, and why they're doubly retarded for going out of their way to turn him into an enemy.
 
Wow, you guys get super salty when your boy faces any criticism. Sad!
IBVdCTo.gif
 
One Of You Should Just Leak Me The FBI Report
It’s the very least you could do.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...h-report-senators_us_5bb79bade4b01470d05146cd
articleheader.jpg

We do not know what was in the FBI’s most recent background check into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The report was locked away in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center, where Democratic and Republican senators read it over in alternating shifts, applying or ignoring the evidence contained therein to a decision that will affect millions and millions of lives.

The only thing less democratic about the process here is basically everything else about the Supreme Court.

But we do know how this profound deficit of the old democratic spirit could be remedied: Senators, just tell me what was in the report. FBI, leak it to me.

Here’s what some Democratic senators have said about the report, which contained summaries of the FBI’s interviews and of which we American citizens are not allowed to know the actual contents.

From Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.):

“One: This was not a full and fair investigation. It was sharply limited in scope and did not explore the relevant confirming facts.

Two: The available documents do not exonerate Mr. Kavanaugh.

And three: The available documents contradict statements Mr. Kavanaugh made under oath.”

From Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) :

“It is simply impossible after seeing the results of the FBI supplemental work — and I hesitate to call it an investigation — that anybody could think that it was in any way shape or form the comprehensive investigation the president promised.”

From Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.):

“The most notable part of this report is what’s not in it.”

And here’s what the Republicans said about the report.

From Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.):

“What we know for sure is the FBI report did not corroborate any of the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.”

From Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.):

“We’ve seen no additional corroborating information.”

There’s no actual way of knowing who’s telling the truth. Democrats will assume Democrats are telling the truth; Republicans will assume the same of other Republicans. The dozen centrists in the country will believe The New York Times opinion section.

Meanwhile, a president whom the majority of the country did not vote for is installing a justice on a Supreme Court that already had a seat hijacked and stolen by Senate Republicans, who were only ever in a position to do so because of decades of gerrymandering and voter suppression.

This is not how a healthy democracy functions. But there is a way to start to correct these profound injustices: What if you just told me what was in the FBI report? You’ll all feel much better! I know I will.

So, are you a senator? An FBI employee who helped with the investigation? Do you want to do me and the country — nay, democracy itself — a solid? Email ashley.feinberg@huffpost.com. It’s the least you could do.

Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here’s how.
http://archive.is/F7J5D
 
Back