Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Who do you believe?


  • Total voters
    453
Is that true? Are there really millions of single issue voters? It sounds like they're just dyed in the wool repubs.

Absolutely. Some of us are sharp enough to realize that without the 2nd, you don't have any rights at all. Speech, religion, out the window. It can all be decided for you by those who lord over you at that point. And you can just take it. Because then you're a subject, no longer a free man.
 
Senate Democrats Come Out Swinging in Long-Shot Fight to Block Judge Kavanaugh
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Thomas Kaplan | July 10, 2018

merlin_141048051_9229a265-9838-4003-a7e3-45712e941b33-articleLarge.jpg

Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
He said Democrats would use confirmation hearings to drill down on Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s views on executive power.


WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats, facing an uphill struggle to reject the nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, opened a broad attack on Tuesday, painting him as an arch-conservative who would roll back abortion rights, undo health care protections, ease gun restrictions and protect President Trump against the threat of impeachment.

But the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, excoriated Democrats for engaging in what he called “cheap political fear-mongering,” and for declaring their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh even before his nomination was announced.

“They wrote statements of opposition only to fill in the name later,” the ordinarily staid Mr. McConnell said, growing exercised as he delivered his customary morning remarks on the Senate floor. “Senate Democrats were on record opposing him before he’d even been named! Just fill in the name! Whoever it is, we’re against.”

And a key Republican swing vote, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, quickly signaled just how hard it will be for Democrats to pull any Republicans into the opposition. “When you look at the credentials that Judge Kavanaugh brings to the job, it will be very difficult for anyone to argue that he’s not qualified,” she told reporters.

11dc-court4-jumbo.jpg

Judge Brett Kavanaugh met with Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, on Tuesday on Capitol Hill

As Judge Kavanaugh arrived at the Capitol to meet with the Republican leader and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the committee’s Democrats and the Democratic leader took to the Supreme Court steps to deliver a direct appeal to Americans to rise up in opposition to his nomination.

“If you are a young woman in America or care about a young woman in America, pay attention to this,” said Senator Kamala Harris, Democrat of California. “It will affect your life.”

Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut issued a specific plea to the survivors of the school shooting in Parkland, Fla.: “If you care about common-sense gun violence protections, Judge Kavanaugh is your worst nightmare.”

Before Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination on Monday night, Democrats had centered their strategy on abortion rights and health care. But the judge has given them a new line of attack: a 1998 law review article that he wrote casting doubt on whether a president could be indicted — a theory that goes to the heart of the special counsel’s investigation of Mr. Trump.

“Whether the Constitution allows indictment of a sitting president is debatable,” the judge wrote then.

Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, said Democrats would use confirmation hearings to drill down on those views.

“We knew with any of the 25 nominees that health care and women’s health, right to choose would be important,” Mr. Schumer said, referring to the list of potential candidates drawn up for Mr. Trump by conservative groups during the 2016 campaign. “But Kavanaugh brings a new prominence to the issue of executive power, because he is almost certainly the most hard right of all of the 25. He is almost certainly the one who would most yield to presidential power.”

Democrats are well aware that they will have a difficult time persuading the Senate to reject Judge Kavanaugh. The judge is widely respected in Washington and in legal circles, and has an Ivy League pedigree, much like Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Mr. Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee. Justice Gorsuch received the backing of three red-state Democrats — Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana.

All three are facing tough re-election battles this year in states Mr. Trump won handily. None have given a hint of how they will vote on Judge Kavanaugh, but they face an exceedingly difficult choice and will undoubtedly be under intense pressure at home.

Vice President Mike Pence appeared on a West Virginia radio program and expressed hope that Mr. Manchin would be among those voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.

merlin_141047322_8acb3d38-634a-4e22-be68-f9ca7e9d691e-jumbo.jpg

Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia discussing the Supreme Court nominee at the Capitol on Tuesday.
He is among a handful of Democratic senators from states that President Trump won handily who will face difficult decisions about whether to support the nominee.

“At the end of the day, I truly do believe this will be a choice for Senator Manchin — whether he’s going to stand with Chuck Schumer and liberals in Washington, D.C., who are prepared to oppose the most qualified, the most deserving nominee to the Supreme Court in the United States today,” Mr. Pence said.

Fresh off Mr. Trump’s announcement Monday night, Judge Kavanaugh came to the Capitol on Tuesday to begin visiting with senators. Joined by Mr. Pence, he met with Mr. McConnell, who praised his selection.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Mr. McConnell accused Democrats of wanting to treat Judge Kavanaugh as if he were a politician running for office, rather than a judge.

Mr. McConnell argued that it would be improper if Democrats tried to force the judge to say how he would decide issues in hypothetical cases.

“Forget that the cases don’t even exist yet,” Mr. McConnell said. “Forget the total absence of any facts, legal arguments or research. Forget how inappropriate and undesirable it would be for a judge to predetermine a ruling before either side’s lawyers uttered a single word.”

Unlike when Justice Gorsuch was announced, top anti-abortion evangelical and Catholic leaders were not invited to the White House on Monday evening.

One conservative Christian group, the American Family Association, which had supported Judge Barrett, already has called on voters to oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, citing concerns about his positions on religious liberty and abortion. The group issued a statement calling him “simply the wrong nominee — even a bad nominee.”

The Family Leader, an Iowa social conservative organization, pointed out on its website that Judge Kavanaugh’s record on abortion is “less certain” and that the question of “whether or not he would assert an unborn child’s right to life under the 14th Amendment is unknown.”

But for now, any unease among the base is not likely to have any real operational effect. Conservative efforts to support the nominee generally remain the same no matter the pick, and attacks by Democrats on abortion are likely to only make it easier to energize the conservative grass roots.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/us/politics/democrats-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court.html
 
Last edited:
Here is my biggest problem with Kavanaugh, in two short paragraphs:

"Perhaps most noteworthy, in 2009 Mr Kavanaugh penned an article for the Minnesota Law Review in which he argued that Congress should pass a law shielding presidents from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution while in office.

"The president's job is difficult enough as it is," he wrote. "And the country loses when the president's focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution."

He's ready to shield Trump from the likely upcoming findings of Muellers team. He's another sleazy piece of shit who shouldn't be allowed near a courtroom.
 
Here is my biggest problem with Kavanaugh, in two short paragraphs:

"Perhaps most noteworthy, in 2009 Mr Kavanaugh penned an article for the Minnesota Law Review in which he argued that Congress should pass a law shielding presidents from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution while in office.

"The president's job is difficult enough as it is," he wrote. "And the country loses when the president's focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution."

He's ready to shield Trump from the likely upcoming findings of Muellers team. He's another sleazy piece of shit who shouldn't be allowed near a courtroom.

In fairness, don't you think it probably goes back to the Clinton matter? That he decided that was unproductive? He wasn't ready to shield Trump in 2009. It would have been Obama and he was more generically saying "the president".
 
But didn't you know? There's a a WAR going on!

20hse8o.gif

This was funny as fuck. On a more legitimate note, if you don't think @Fawlty is serious or that this conflict won't or can't escalate past bitching on internet forums, and fist fights in the streets you have another thing coming. A dirty war is not only plausible. It's could also be probable at this point.
 
In fairness, don't you think it probably goes back to the Clinton matter? That he decided that was unproductive? He wasn't ready to shield Trump in 2009. It would have been Obama and he was more generically saying "the president".

I understand that he didn't write the article about Trump. My point is that his opinion on the matter could be of great potential value to Trump, should be find himself in deep shit soon.
 
Here is my biggest problem with Kavanaugh, in two short paragraphs:

"Perhaps most noteworthy, in 2009 Mr Kavanaugh penned an article for the Minnesota Law Review in which he argued that Congress should pass a law shielding presidents from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution while in office.

"The president's job is difficult enough as it is," he wrote. "And the country loses when the president's focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution."

He's ready to shield Trump from the likely upcoming findings of Muellers team. He's another sleazy piece of shit who shouldn't be allowed near a courtroom.

How does his argument that Congress should pass a law impact his how he will rule on anything as a judge?
Here is the article. He isn't suggesting the Court's have the authority to create a new immunity.
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf
 
Sure he is, Be honest you would blow Trump if he asked. Whining, complaining, never taking responsibility for your words and actions is soooo "Alpha"? Only in Trumtard land, Champ.
Not at all idiot, he’s a moron at times and says dumb things on Twitter I was just matching your extreme views with the opposite there is no gray area right ? Previously banned sherbro
 
I understand that he didn't write the article about Trump. My point is that his opinion on the matter could be of great potential value to Trump, should be find himself in deep shit soon.

I guess. Doubt it comes up, tbh.
 
When do you think the confirmation vote will take place?
 
When do you think the confirmation vote will take place?

They won't let it go on too long. The sooner, the better. September 1st? A month after Kennedy retires and 7 weeks after Kavanaugh's nomination is plenty of time. But that is wild speculation. The short version is I have no idea.
 
They won't let it go on too long. The sooner, the better. September 1st? A month after Kennedy retires and 7 weeks after Kavanaugh's nomination is plenty of time. But that is wild speculation. The short version is I have no idea.

I seriously appreciate the information.
 
This was funny as fuck. On a more legitimate note, if you don't think @Fawlty is serious or that this conflict won't or can't escalate past bitching on internet forums, and fist fights in the streets you have another thing coming. A dirty war is not only plausible. It's could also be probable at this point.
lol @ Salty doing anything besides sitting on his fat ass and crying on a message board.
 
Not sure why you keep randomly tagging me. Make it worth my time, libertarian.

Just want to make it clear that I'm telling someone that you lack any kind of ballsack to really "play dirty", and that I'm not saying it behind your back.
 
Back
Top