Trump announces federal appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh as nominee for Supreme Court

Gold Arsene

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
30,757
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.
Even if I wanted to(I don’t) how do you propose I just up and move to a different country?

I don’t have that many skills that would benefit much anyone.

I don’t have a lot of money.

I have no family anywhere outside the US.

People always post this shit like it’s some easy thing and all it does is further raise my anxiety.
 

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,776
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.
Yeah, this is not happening unless a Justice runs afoul of the law and is impeached.
 

phonicjoy

Member
Jun 19, 2018
2,995
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.
The "corporations are people too" thing is so confusing to me. We have a distinction between "natural persons"(humans) and "persons for the law" here. Doesn't that distinction exist in the US? That would seem unworkable.
 

Pikachu

Traded his Bone Marrow for Pizza
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,295
So confirmation is going to be ten minutes long, right? Why with the majority?

Severely doubt those Rs rumored to flip will do it for someone so R-standard.
 

GaimeGuy

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,093
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.
It takes only a senate majority to put Trump's picks on the courts.

It takes a house majority and a 2/3rds Senate majority to remove them once they're in, though.

And they're in for life.
 

Ac30

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,528
London
But the quantity of files potentially at issue in Kavanaugh's case could be unprecedented. Former officials believe millions of pages of emails and other documents circulated through Kavanaugh's office during his time as staff secretary. If Senate Democrats insist on receiving every page, the confirmation process could grind to a crawl.
Lol

It took Kavanaugh three years to be confirmed by Congress for the D.C. Appeals Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh

Yeah, he’s a partisan nut, but Rs have 50 votes and that’s all that matters now.
 

Ac30

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,528
London
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’ll say that he’s under investigation and can’t appoint someone or come up with something new. Same shit the Republicans did when they announced prior to the election they wouldn’t let Hillary appoint a justice either because reasons.

Everything is a partisan joke now.
 

GaimeGuy

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,093
They’ll say that he’s under investigation and can’t appoint someone or come up with something new. Same shit the Republicans did when they announced prior to the election they wouldn’t let Hillary appoint a justice either because reasons.

Everything is a partisan joke now.
Oh come on.
 

LukeOP

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,749
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.
What a shitty fucking opinion. Let’s apply it to healthcare. Because I went to go see a doctor for treatment, it is not reasonable to expect privacy regarding my health.
 

Ottaro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,868
Source familiar tells NBC that Justice Kennedy had been in negotiations with the Trump team for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh (his former law clerk) Kennedy felt comfortable retiring - @LACaldwellDC & @frankthorp
 
Oct 27, 2017
9,615
Absolute scumfucking traitor piece of shit. This kind of back channel negotiation should be fucking illegal. Kennedy is straight up admitting to a coup.
 
Oct 27, 2017
9,615
This experiment in republic government is failing hard. Checks and balances my ass. It's all been gentleman's agreements, handshakes, and naive faith. Nothing hard-coded to prevent this.
 

Beartruck

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,939
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.
"Insufficient evidence" is basically judicial code for "please go away". After all, how do you define what is sufficient?

In the issue of gerrymandering, Kennedy asked for sufficient evidence that partisan gerrymandering were being used in an unfair way. He was brought a mountain of evidence only to dismiss it anyway.

And like someone else said, this burden of proof is a one way street here. The corporation is not asked to provide definitive evidence that the government is imperiling their free speech rights. It's not even a free speech issue(com cast can say whatever they want) and he just swallowed it whole.
 

LukeOP

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,749
This experiment in republic government is failing hard. Checks and balances my ass. It's all been gentleman's agreements, handshakes, and naive faith. Nothing hard-coded to prevent this.

Along the way we have had great men suggest fixes, namely big business in politics, but they have all been ignored.

We could have limped along but Citizen United fucked this country and fucked it hard.
 
Oct 27, 2017
9,615
The old man gets to die knowing he got to wash his hands of it all and that his successor will do the really dirty work. Good job scumfuck.
 

Powdered Egg

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,405
Justice Kennedy is corrupt as fuck lol. Lent Trump millions and gets to choose his successor. If he's never prosecuted I'll vote and my vote will make him cry.
 

PrimeBeef

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,840
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?
You. Conservatives believe money equals speech and corporations are people. The funny thing is Scalia, claiming himself a Constitutional textualist, one who believed there was no flexibility in the word of the costutution, was pretty adamant a out stripping citizens rights in favor for corporate rights.

It's the continuation of the fleecing of America by the GOP, since 1980.
 

GaimeGuy

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,093
What the fuck Kennedy?

Serves for life, appoints his successor when did we become a Kritarchy?
 

GaimeGuy

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,093
This experiment in republic government is failing hard. Checks and balances my ass. It's all been gentleman's agreements, handshakes, and naive faith. Nothing hard-coded to prevent this.
What do you think government is? It's an institution/institutions run by people. No system can vest itself from people operating in bad faith.

The problem is that Americans deify the system as something more than a man made construct. Decades later, There goes humility,
 

ahoyhoy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,315
That means he is get a fast track nomination then with the current make up of the Senate.
Yep. They'll speed the vote through immediately after the hearing is held before the controversies start up in earnest.

After he's on the court officially, none of this shit will matter.
 

blinky

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,329
Not the worst choice.

He should be confirmed pretty easily, right?
Basically, yeah. Kavanaugh is the kind of justice that literally any Republican president would have nominated (as was Gorsuch). He'll get all 51 GOP votes and a couple of Democrats.
 

Isak_Borg

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
539
If Trump is impeached and removed from office would we consider his supreme court appointments as tainted and ask them to step down?
 

Branduil

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,705
I like how court-packing is some horrible, monstrous thing for Democrats to even consider but blocking a Democratic president from making a pick and then allowing a judge to hand-pick his for-life successor is somehow cool.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,671
"Job-killing regulations," give me a fucking break

You can't talk up how low unemployment is and how great the economy is doing, and at the same time bash environmental and labor regulations as killing jobs! We're already at just about full employment, how can you have that if so many jobs are being killed?!

Nixon wasn't working with the Russian government to undermine American ideals.
No, but he did collude with the Vietnamese to prolong the war and his electoral chances.

I like how court-packing is some horrible, monstrous thing for Democrats to even consider but blocking a Democratic president from making a pick and then allowing a judge to hand-pick his for-life successor is somehow cool.
The problem with packing the court is that once you open that door, both parties will never stop packing SCOTUS with judges of their choosing. Sounds great if Democrats decide to add 3-4 more liberal justices to the bench. Less great if Republicans start adding another half-dozen conservatives to it.
 

MDS

Banned
Jun 26, 2018
120
There
Nixon wasn't working with the Russian government to undermine American ideals.
If it is was disqualifying for judges to be appointed by somone engaged in shady foreign dealings to get electeed then (off the top of my head) Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kennedy should all have been removed
 

RDreamer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,395
How about voting to get a more liberal court? You’re exhibiting the worst of America.
Look, abolishing the supreme court is obviously ridiculous and reactionary, but at a time like this you can't really blame someone. I'm really starting to get sick of this "just vote" thing, because it basically ignores the context of the situation we're in. People did "just vote." They voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama and he had a supreme court pick stolen. They voted for Hillary Clinton and despite that a guy that still has a criminal investigation into his role during that very election, someone else will pick a Supreme Court justice. And now stories are coming out that actually Kennedy himself is the one pushing for a particular person he wants to succeed him. The country is gerrymandered to fucking hell and back to the point where only a 7 or 8 point democratic win can even bring them within a slight margin to win the house. They barely have a hope of the senate. In the past few elections we've had some of them where democrats win far more votes but get less seats. Voting rights are stripped and voters are being purged from the rolls. The voting rights act was stripped.

So, yeah, we should vote, but we have been voting and it's rigged as fuck. Saying "how about vote!" to me at this point is like telling a poor person to go gamble at the local casino. Sure, I guess it might work. But I'm not about to get mad at the person who is pissed that the casino's odds are blatantly fucked.

Sounds like a good idea. When's the next vote that guarantees a more liberal court?
Never. The republicans will never give up the court. They'll pull every trick they have if it even remotely looks like it'll turn. They'll torch the entire fucking thing if they get a chance. They'll pack the court the second it's liberal. Mark my words. Unless something profound changes in the way the two parties are set up, liberals will never touch the court. McConnell proved that.
 

sapien85

Banned
Nov 8, 2017
5,427
GOP has the majority, people will just have to accept that the SCOTUS will be hard line conservative for a few decades
Liberals are so weak willed and this is why we keep losing even though the majority votes Democrat for president and Senate and House.

You think conservatives would accept Clinton judges if she had been found working with Russia to get elected?

Republicans just made up a rule out of thin air that presidents don't get to appoint justices in their last year and we complain yet we aren't willing to pull some insane bullshit to prevent a complete conservative takeover of the courts for decades.

This is why they keep winning and we keep losing.

Clinton gets impeached for a lie but the current president won't even talk to investigators. We complain and then cave when they break all the rules to stay in power.

Gerrymandering guaranteed a Republican Congress for most of the decade, we complained and moved on.

And on and on. This appointment has longer lasting consequences than a presidency.