-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Trump announces federal appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh as nominee for Supreme Court
- Thread starter ZiggyPalffyLA
- Start date
Happened once in like the 1800s.
Also, doesn't need 2/3 vote from the House I don't believe, only a majority. It's the Senate that needs 2/3.
It's almost as if they were penned by different authors.
Stop getting bent out of shape over NYT's op-ed section.
This is pretty much the long and short of it. Everything else is noise for Trump.
If I were the wife of Brett Kavanaugh, I would've lobbied H A R D for him to rescind his SCOTUS nomination. That family is going to be the subject of public scorn and ridicule for the foreseeable future. I feel badly for his children—no way would I want to put my own through that.
You know, everyone talks about whether or not a president can be indicted seemingly based on the principle that in the execution of his presidential powers, he'd be so open for attack that it would be crippling to any legitimate action, right? So I get that argument. But what about shit he did before he was president? Why should that be protected? Is that still an open question?
the guy is a de-regulator,
corporations >>>>>>>>>> people
this what Kavanaguh is really about
everoyne goes on about abortion, gay rights and stuff
what he really is about is sell everyone out for the corporate fat cat elites and starts with total de-regulation
corporations >>>>>>>>>> people
this what Kavanaguh is really about
everoyne goes on about abortion, gay rights and stuff
what he really is about is sell everyone out for the corporate fat cat elites and starts with total de-regulation
I...what? those two things contradict each other. Like he's worried about Verizon's 1st amendment protections but not the American peoples'? Can only entities with enough money have(buy) 1st amendment rights or something?
Especially under Trump of all people. I wonder how Neil Gorsuch's family feels.
It took Kavanaugh three years to be confirmed by Congress for the D.C. Appeals Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh
That means he is get a fast track nomination then with the current make up of the Senate.
It wouldn't be a proper GOP stance if it wasn't absolutely contradictory and hypocritical.
If Trump is indicted on charges of obstruction of justice and has appointed a judge with a bias towards protecting himself from said inditement? This opens some uncharted territory.
No one knows for sure what happens then, but I'd say it at least brings into question the legitimacy of the pick.
They're not exactly immune from being booted out. If Democrats can retake full control of congress in the future, I can easily see them booting out Trump's picks while replacing them with real judges who are legitimate & have experience (unlike Neil Gorsuch).
Don't know if having a Democrat president is also required to do so.
Last edited:
It's not really contradictory since the second issue, anyway, is not about vindicating the rights of corporations over people but about whether, consistent with Fourth Amendment case law, individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phone data that should require a warrant to search. Kavanaugh presumably concluded that since cell phone users voluntarily transmit and expose their data to carriers, they do not maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in it.
Sounds like a good chunk of the GOP to me. Don't know why you're confused.
Could be significantly worse but this is still detrimental blow towards progress.
Anyone who sat out in 2014 and 16 is to blame for this shit.
Anyone who sat out in 2014 and 16 is to blame for this shit.
He still seems to be giving a full-fledged defense for 1st amendment rights for corporations, while bending over backward to
try and justify getting rid of due process for citizens in this specific case.
It is still a very contradictory stance and to argue otherwise is fairly ridiculous IMO.
Saw a few rumors floating around that Kennedy has been telling people that he would only retire if Kavanaugh was given the nomination.
You really think he will?
Wouldn't conservatives forgoe this process just to push him through? When have they given a shit to what democrats or independents think
I find that hard to believe. Kavanaugh doesn't appear to share Kennedy's ideology at all.
You'd need a blue tsunami to get the necessary votes to impeach a Supreme Court justice. And the president would pick replacements (although a Senate majority could stall/reject those indefinitely, perhaps leaving only RBG, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Roberts in the SC -- might as well remove Alito and Thomas in this fantasy).
Agreed. There would have to be some really crazy stuff (or personal shit) that comes out to torpedo Kavanaugh in this Senate. Not just ultra-conservative/pro-Trump opinions.
Stop. Acknowledgement of the law and prior decisions doesn't mean anything. That's the base requirement of being a federal judge.
Kavanaugh ruled against access to abortion in that case (and was overturned on appeal). The danger is not that the Supreme Court will reopen settled abortion or gay marriage cases and reverse them -- it's that the Court will reinterpret them very narrowly and give states the ability to de facto ban those activities in future cases.
For example, states could implement unachievable building, training, insurance, counseling, or staffing requirements that would make abortion providers go out of business or make abortions such a time-consuming and costly process that no one could afford them, and the new Supreme Court would say that's okay (because the restrictions are not "undue" and it's not an explicit ban).
I agree with this. Plus having a Democrat president would be even better, as he would be the one to replace Trump's Supreme Court judges with better choices of his own.
The best that Democrats in Congress can do while Trump's in office (presumably that they also take the Senate after this year), would be to indefinitely stall his choices.
Last edited:
If the opinions raise the specific issues that come to mind, there is case law to support both of his conclusions. So I'm not sure that it's fair to say that he "bends over backwards" to help or hurt certain types of parties or claims. In general, that would really only be evident if he was coming to different conclusions on fundamentally similar cases lacking a meaningful distinction. But again, these two cases presented different constitutional issues. And it's not, as I think you suggest, generally inconsistent to maximize constitutional rights in one instance but minimize them in another: a judge applying the constitution may do so simply because different constitutional rules or standards require different results. FWIW, without knowing the details of the opinions he wrote or joined, I'm disinclined to agree with him on these issues.
I would agree with you on the bolded if both cases dealt with the same parties and his stance was dependent on the actual constitutional issues.
The problem is that on the whole he seems to be okay with giving leeway to corporations, while not giving the same to private citizens.
It's so transparent with these people that the content of the cases/issues doesn't actually matter, just who they are going to affect.
I mean, you don't even have to take the second example into consideration to consider that. Anyone who wants to nix net neutrality
because it infringes on the first amendment rights of corporations are trying to directly trample on the first amendment rights of normal citizens.
So yes, just like almost every other Republican under the sun he is a walking contradiction that happens to always lean towards corporate interests.
Not in an election year. SCOTUS will be a hot button item in 2018 and could be do or die for the GOP. Either they can campaign on the people's champion SCOTUS pick, or will need to spin heavily to explain why he's on the bench once the full story is revealed. Smart senators would wait for the whole picture before hitching their wagons.
I'm a trans woman. I'm getting my medication for transitioning from Planned Parenthood. Said medication and my doctor's appointments are covered by insurance I get through the ACA. And I live in a red state.
The Supreme Court as conservative as Trump is making it is going to fuck me up.
The Supreme Court as conservative as Trump is making it is going to fuck me up.
I think a broad survey of his decisions is required to say whether he puts his thumb on the scales as a judge. Whether he did so in the net neutrality case I could speak to a bit since I read his dissenting opinion, though it was some time ago. IIRC, Kavanaugh's hangup was not with the balance between normal people's free speech interests (kind of important to note that individuals don't have First Amendment rights implicated) and ISP free speech rights, but with the substantiality of the harm to societal free speech that he thought the arguably relevant SCOTUS precedent required. He thought that the FCC had not cited sufficient evidence that without net neutrality there would be throttling, blocking, etc.
I see where you're coming from, but did the dissenters also cite sufficient evidence that the current net neutrality laws are significantly hindering the free speech of corporations and their business operations?
Absolutely. All Trump cares about is himself. And to that end, he's probably paid for many abortions of women he's knocked up over the years outside of his marriages. He probably secretly loves the right to have an abortion.
Yeah, I'm inclined to also believe that there's no way the GOP would be able to get away with nominating this guy with such a small majority. The most moderate senators would be much more willing to risk the Dems taking back the senate and effectively demanding a supreme court pick or just denying Trump a SC pick at all, rather than give the Dems the chance to use "they don't want you to see Kavanaugh's bad shit" as a scare campaign in the midterms.
To the poor sods in US ERA :
You post this like a joke, but the truth is, they really should. America is down the rabbit hole and it isn't coming back.
I refuse to believe this until after November.
If we somehow don't regain the House though, it'll be another watershed moment where things go from bad to unimaginably worse.
Democrats are a complete joke. Stick to one fucking reason that you won't entertain any other judge other than Merrick Garland and defend Obama. Instead you have shit like "Americans must speak in November", or Russia or some other nonsense. What if they don't win the senate in November, what shit will they fling at the wall?
They're doing the best they can with what little Americans gave them to work with in 2016. And for the record, we've already had Senators announce they'll oppose him for a variety of reasons including women's reproductive rights, LGBT rights, pre-existing conditions, and his stance that a sitting president shouldn't be indicted.