President Donald J. Trump's Supreme Court Associate Justice Kavanaugh

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

Quote

Stephen Miller‏Verified account @redsteeze 3h3 hours ago

“Congrats daddy.” 

“Thanks girls.

Where should we go to celebrate?”

“The Red Hen! The Red Hen!”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Kurt Schlichter‏Verified account @KurtSchlichter 3h3 hours ago

How drunk is Hillary Clinton right now??

 

 

 

 

.

.

.

Edited July 10, 2018 by B-Man

[row_33]

My pick comes through.

 

[IDBillzFan]

Kamala Harris chimes in to warn America...

 

Quote

Trump’s Supreme Court Justice nominee, Judge Kavanaugh, represents a direct and fundamental threat to the rights and health care of hundreds of millions of Americans. I will oppose his nomination to the Supreme Court.

 

He's a threat, dammit! A threat!

 

Nutbags.

[Doc Brown]

 

[IDBillzFan]

18 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

 

 

Just tell the Dems that 17 of the men identified as women.

 

If it's good enough for a first grader, it's good enough for the Dems.

[#34fan]

4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

Let's see if I have the left's position straight:  Kavanaugh is going to kill children by misinterpreting the unconstitutional Second Amendment as constitutional and ignoring the constitutional principle of public safety.  He's going to kill women by unconstitutionally ruling that they should be imprisoned and punished for having sex.  He's going to put gays in concentration camps.  And he's going kill everyone by undoing "what makes our country great [...] the Affordable Care Act."  

 

Where does he like to eat in D.C.?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

8 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

 

In this case, it eases Dem fears about Roe v. Wade being overturned.

 

I think it's bad precedent.  But Kavanaugh's statements about Roe have been couched enough that they might not mean anything at all.  We will see.

 

Who cares about Democrat fears? They deserve nothing but being squashed.

6 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

Actor Ron Perlman chimes in to warn America...

 

 

Governor Terry McAuliffe chimes in to warn America...

 

 

Justin Miller, Daily Beast editor, warms America....

 

 

 

I will say it again...you can’t reason with the left because they’re completely devoid of reason.

[Tiberius]

6 hours ago, B-Man said:

Kavanaugh shrewdly noted that Elena Kagan, now a Democratic Supreme Court justice, hired him to teach at Harvard Law School.

 

Kavanaugh teaches, apparently, at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and Georgetown.

 

Again, it will be hard for the Democrats to question his qualifications in any traditional way.

 

 

 

 

Reporters covering the announcement were walked past a painting of Hillary Clinton. Troll level: EPIC.

 

 

 

 

 

Harvard man! The rubes won't like that. No one from the fly over states? 

[/dev/null]

3 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

Where does he like to eat in D.C.?

And where do his kids go to school

 

[BringBackOrton]

6 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

Actor Ron Perlman chimes in to warn America...

 

 

Governor Terry McAuliffe chimes in to warn America...

 

 

Justin Miller, Daily Beast editor, warms America....

 

 

I think Perlman had CTE from doing his own stunts on SOA.

[Doc Brown]

This is what they'll be attacking him with, but it's actually an interesting read as he wrote this during the height of the recession in 2009 with Obama in office.  Particularly this part.

It's a good explanation of why I hate the lack of restraints a Special Counsel has.

 

http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf

 

First, my chief takeaway from working in the White House for five-and-a-half years—and particularly from my nearly three years of work as Staff Secretary, when I was fortunate to travel the country and the world with President Bush—is that the job of President is far more difficult than any other civilian position in government. It frankly makes being a member of Congress or the judiciary look rather easy by comparison. The decisions a President must make are hard and often life-ordeath, the pressure is relentless, the problems arise from all directions, the criticism is unremitting and personal, and at the end of the day only one person is responsible. There are not eight other colleagues (as there are on the Supreme Court), or ninety-nine other colleagues (as there are in the Senate), or 434 other colleagues (as there are in the House). There is no review panel for presidential decisions and few opportunities for doovers. The President alone makes the most important decisions. It is true that presidents carve out occasional free time to exercise or read or attend social events. But don’t be fooled. The job and the pressure never stop. We exalt and revere the presidency in this country—yet even so, I think we grossly underestimate how difficult the job is. At the end of the Clinton presidency, John Harris wrote an excellent book about President Clinton entitled The Survivor.23 I have come to think that the book’s title is an accurate description for all presidents in the modern era. Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job is, I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The country wants the President to be “one of us” who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office. This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or 1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the President should be required to shoulder the same obligations that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake. Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden24 without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots.25 To be sure, one can correctly say that President Clinton brought that ordeal on himself, by his answers during his deposition in the Jones case if nothing else. And my point here is not to say that the relevant actors—the Supreme Court in Jones, Judge Susan Webber Wright, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr—did anything other than their proper duty under the law as it then existed.26 But the law as it existed was itself the problem, particularly the extent to which it allowed civil suits against presidents to proceed while the President is in office. With that in mind, it would be appropriate for Congress to enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against presidents, like certain members of the military, be deferred while the President is in office. The result the Supreme Court reached in Clinton v. Jones27—that presidents are not constitutionally entitled to deferral of civil suits—may well have been entirely correct; that is beyond the scope of this inquiry. But the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office.28 Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain members of the military.29 Deferral would allow the President to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform. Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President.30 In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving around a President are inevitably politicized by both their supporters and critics. As I have written before, “no Attorney General or special counsel will have the necessary credibility to avoid the inevitable charges that he is politically motivated—whether in favor of the President or against him, depending on the individual leading the investigation and its results.”31 The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis. Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation— including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators— are time-consuming and distracting. Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the President’s focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President.

 

One might raise at least two important critiques of these ideas. The first is that no one is above the law in our system of government. I strongly agree with that principle. But it is not ultimately a persuasive criticism of these suggestions. The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.  A second possible concern is that the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the Constitution already provides that check. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available.33 No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress.34 Moreover, an impeached and removed President is still subject to criminal prosecution afterwards. In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.35 The President’s job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the President’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution.36

[BeginnersMind]

Seems like a good jurist. President gets to choose. Barring any serious problem, he should go through. 

 

And if the left is smart, they should approve him quickly because they could have gotten a less attractive (to them) justice. This guy is as close to Kennedy as they are going to get. He is not a pure textualist.

 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, BeginnersMind said:

Seems like a good jurist. President gets to choose. Barring any serious problem, he should go through. 

 

And if the left is smart, they should approve him quickly because they could have gotten a less attractive (to them) justice. This guy is as close to Kennedy as they are going to get. He is not a pure textualist.

 

I would hope not. Kind of silly to try and apply 1790's thinking to 2018. And there is no text reference to self-pardons, for instance. 

[BringBackOrton]

5 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

This is what they'll be attacking him with, but it's actually an interesting read as he wrote this during the height of the recession in 2009 with Obama in office.  Particularly this part.

It's a good explanation of why I hate the lack of restraints a Special Counsel has.

 

http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf

 

First, my chief takeaway from working in the White House for five-and-a-half years—and particularly from my nearly three years of work as Staff Secretary, when I was fortunate to travel the country and the world with President Bush—is that the job of President is far more difficult than any other civilian position in government. It frankly makes being a member of Congress or the judiciary look rather easy by comparison. The decisions a President must make are hard and often life-ordeath, the pressure is relentless, the problems arise from all directions, the criticism is unremitting and personal, and at the end of the day only one person is responsible. There are not eight other colleagues (as there are on the Supreme Court), or ninety-nine other colleagues (as there are in the Senate), or 434 other colleagues (as there are in the House). There is no review panel for presidential decisions and few opportunities for doovers. The President alone makes the most important decisions. It is true that presidents carve out occasional free time to exercise or read or attend social events. But don’t be fooled. The job and the pressure never stop. We exalt and revere the presidency in this country—yet even so, I think we grossly underestimate how difficult the job is. At the end of the Clinton presidency, John Harris wrote an excellent book about President Clinton entitled The Survivor.23 I have come to think that the book’s title is an accurate description for all presidents in the modern era. Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job is, I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The country wants the President to be “one of us” who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office. This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or 1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the President should be required to shoulder the same obligations that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake. Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden24 without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots.25 To be sure, one can correctly say that President Clinton brought that ordeal on himself, by his answers during his deposition in the Jones case if nothing else. And my point here is not to say that the relevant actors—the Supreme Court in Jones, Judge Susan Webber Wright, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr—did anything other than their proper duty under the law as it then existed.26 But the law as it existed was itself the problem, particularly the extent to which it allowed civil suits against presidents to proceed while the President is in office. With that in mind, it would be appropriate for Congress to enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against presidents, like certain members of the military, be deferred while the President is in office. The result the Supreme Court reached in Clinton v. Jones27—that presidents are not constitutionally entitled to deferral of civil suits—may well have been entirely correct; that is beyond the scope of this inquiry. But the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office.28 Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain members of the military.29 Deferral would allow the President to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform. Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President.30 In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving around a President are inevitably politicized by both their supporters and critics. As I have written before, “no Attorney General or special counsel will have the necessary credibility to avoid the inevitable charges that he is politically motivated—whether in favor of the President or against him, depending on the individual leading the investigation and its results.”31 The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis. Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation— including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators— are time-consuming and distracting. Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the President’s focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President.

 

One might raise at least two important critiques of these ideas. The first is that no one is above the law in our system of government. I strongly agree with that principle. But it is not ultimately a persuasive criticism of these suggestions. The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.  A second possible concern is that the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the Constitution already provides that check. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available.33 No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress.34 Moreover, an impeached and removed President is still subject to criminal prosecution afterwards. In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.35 The President’s job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the President’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution.36

Interesting. Not sure I agree.

 

I get the rationale. But the argument "its a hard job we don't want to make any harder!" seems just a little superficial to me. 

 

 

[Tiberius]

53 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

This is what they'll be attacking him with, but it's actually an interesting read as he wrote this during the height of the recession in 2009 with Obama in office.  Particularly this part.

It's a good explanation of why I hate the lack of restraints a Special Counsel has.

 

http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf

 

First, my chief takeaway from working in the White House for five-and-a-half years—and particularly from my nearly three years of work as Staff Secretary, when I was fortunate to travel the country and the world with President Bush—is that the job of President is far more difficult than any other civilian position in government. It frankly makes being a member of Congress or the judiciary look rather easy by comparison. The decisions a President must make are hard and often life-ordeath, the pressure is relentless, the problems arise from all directions, the criticism is unremitting and personal, and at the end of the day only one person is responsible. There are not eight other colleagues (as there are on the Supreme Court), or ninety-nine other colleagues (as there are in the Senate), or 434 other colleagues (as there are in the House). There is no review panel for presidential decisions and few opportunities for doovers. The President alone makes the most important decisions. It is true that presidents carve out occasional free time to exercise or read or attend social events. But don’t be fooled. The job and the pressure never stop. We exalt and revere the presidency in this country—yet even so, I think we grossly underestimate how difficult the job is. At the end of the Clinton presidency, John Harris wrote an excellent book about President Clinton entitled The Survivor.23 I have come to think that the book’s title is an accurate description for all presidents in the modern era. Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job is, I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The country wants the President to be “one of us” who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office. This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or 1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the President should be required to shoulder the same obligations that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake. Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden24 without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots.25 To be sure, one can correctly say that President Clinton brought that ordeal on himself, by his answers during his deposition in the Jones case if nothing else. And my point here is not to say that the relevant actors—the Supreme Court in Jones, Judge Susan Webber Wright, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr—did anything other than their proper duty under the law as it then existed.26 But the law as it existed was itself the problem, particularly the extent to which it allowed civil suits against presidents to proceed while the President is in office. With that in mind, it would be appropriate for Congress to enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against presidents, like certain members of the military, be deferred while the President is in office. The result the Supreme Court reached in Clinton v. Jones27—that presidents are not constitutionally entitled to deferral of civil suits—may well have been entirely correct; that is beyond the scope of this inquiry. But the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office.28 Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain members of the military.29 Deferral would allow the President to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform. Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President.30 In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving around a President are inevitably politicized by both their supporters and critics. As I have written before, “no Attorney General or special counsel will have the necessary credibility to avoid the inevitable charges that he is politically motivated—whether in favor of the President or against him, depending on the individual leading the investigation and its results.”31 The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis. Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation— including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators— are time-consuming and distracting. Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the President’s focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President.

 

One might raise at least two important critiques of these ideas. The first is that no one is above the law in our system of government. I strongly agree with that principle. But it is not ultimately a persuasive criticism of these suggestions. The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.  A second possible concern is that the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the Constitution already provides that check. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available.33 No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress.34 Moreover, an impeached and removed President is still subject to criminal prosecution afterwards. In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.35 The President’s job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the President’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution.36

Reading that, he isn't arguing that as things are, a president is immune from the law, but that Congress should pass a law saying all investigations into the truth should be put off till later. But I would not be surprised at all if this is why Trump picked him. Be interesting if Mueller released his report, showing conclusively Trump is a guilty, and the Supreme Court just invalidates the special councils office. 

[LeviF]

3 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

Who cares about Democrat fears? They deserve nothing but being squashed.

 

 

It may well be necessary to woo some red state Dem senators over to the "yes" side for this nomination.  While I do think the Republicans who claim that they will oppose Kavanaugh are mostly bluster, they have less ground to stand on if Kavanaugh gets a couple of blue dogs on his side.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

It may well be necessary to woo some red state Dem senators over to the "yes" side for this nomination.  While I do think the Republicans who claim that they will oppose Kavanaugh are mostly bluster, they have less ground to stand on if Kavanaugh gets a couple of blue dogs on his side.

 

Harry Reid gave the republicans the tool necessary to avoid that type of problem. If I was republican leadership, i'd bludgeon them with it.

 

[LeviF]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Harry Reid gave the republicans the tool necessary to avoid that type of problem. If I was republican leadership, i'd bludgeon them with it.

 

 

As it stands the Senate is currently at 51-49.  In the unlikely event that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz follow through on their threats to vote no on Kavanaugh, the vote to defeat the filibuster will likely never happen.

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Harry Reid gave the republicans the tool necessary to avoid that type of problem. If I was republican leadership, i'd bludgeon them with it.

 

If McCain isn't available, all it takes is 1 R to vote no & the D's can then block the nomination.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

As it stands the Senate is currently at 51-49.  In the unlikely event that Rand Paul and Ted Cruz follow through on their threats to vote no on Kavanaugh, the vote to defeat the filibuster will likely never happen.

 

Paul and Cruz would be completely ostracized from the party if they pulled a stunt like this, and well they should be. This is a chance to pack the court, a generational opportunity.

 

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

If McCain isn't available, all it takes is 1 R to vote no & the D's can then block the nomination.

 

Well, we'll find out who's who then...won't we?

 

I bet that milquetoast Collins proves to be a real pain in the ass.