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

Who do you believe?


  • Total voters
    453
"Senator Chuck Schumer appealed to President Trump to pick Judge Merrick Garland for Supreme Court"

Oh Monday, Chuckie is going to have something bitter and salty to swallow down too.
 
Interesting take from WaPo. Is there an "Extremist" label for any other Constitutional rights?

"Free Speech Extremist Judge" just don't have the same ring, doesn't it?

Thomas Hardiman, possible Supreme Court nominee, seen as ‘Second Amendment extremist’
By Emma Brown | July 6, 2018​

imrs.php

In the wake of mass shootings that have divided the country on the issue of gun control, President Trump is considering nominating to the Supreme Court an appellate judge who has argued that Americans have a constitutional right not only to keep guns at home — as the high court has ruled — but also to carry them in public.

U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas M. Hardiman has also written that convicted criminals, including some felons, should be able to recover their right to own and carry guns, as long as their crimes were not violent.

Constitutional law scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun debate say that Hardiman, who sits on the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Pittsburgh, holds a more expansive view of the Second Amendment than the Supreme Court has articulated to date. His nomination and confirmation would push the court to the right, they say, making it more likely that justices would agree to hear cases challenging gun laws — and perhaps to strike them down.

Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who has written extensively about gun laws, said that if Hardiman’s views were law, gun restrictions in states such as California, New York and New Jersey would be struck down, potentially leading to a vast expansion in legal gun ownership.

“He believes the government has very little leeway in regulating guns. He thinks the only types of gun-control laws that are constitutionally permissible are ones that existed at the founding,” said Winkler, author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” He described Hardiman as a “Second Amendment extremist.”

Hardiman has said he is fulfilling his duty as a federal judge to apply the Constitution, regardless of his own policy preferences or principles. “No matter how laudable the end, the Supreme Court has long made clear that the Constitution disables the government from employing certain means to prevent, deter or detect violent crime,” he wrote in a 2013 dissent.

In 2013, Hardiman was part of a three-judge appeals panel deciding the constitutionality of a New Jersey law that required citizens seeking a handgun permit to demonstrate a “justifiable need” for such a weapon. The state defined “justifiable need” as an urgent need for self-protection because of “specific threats or recent attacks.”

Two judges voted to uphold the New Jersey law, finding it a constitutional way for the state to advance its goal of protecting public safety. Hardiman dissented, arguing that the law should be struck down.

Central to their disagreement was the Heller ruling, in which the Supreme Court did not directly weigh in on whether Americans also have a right to carry a gun in public but said that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. In his dissent, Hardiman said that Americans do have a right to carry guns outside their homes and that forcing citizens to prove they have a “justifiable need” to exercise that right amounts to an unconstitutional “rationing system.”

Gun ownership poses risks, and “States have considerable latitude to regulate the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk,” Hardiman wrote in his dissent in the case, known as Drake v. Filko . “But states may not seek to reduce the danger by curtailing the right itself.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...726b70-8057-11e8-bb6b-c1cb691f1402_story.html
 
Last edited:
Interesting take from WaPo. Is there an "Extremist" label for any other Constitutional rights?
I don't know about the term "extremist," but saying that someone has an unusually expansive (or narrow) view of a constitutional provision (or right provided by one) that is out of step with current jurisprudence is a pretty normal line of criticism.
 
I don't know about the term "extremist," but saying that someone has an unusually expansive (or narrow) view of a constitutional provision (or right provided by one) that is out of step with current jurisprudence is a pretty normal line of criticism.

I'm sure if you told a Trumpublican that the "right to life" requires that the state provide food, shelter and medical care to every citizen they wouldn't call you a radical extremist.
 
Interesting take from WaPo. Is there an "Extremist" label for any other Constitutional rights?

Thomas Hardiman, possible Supreme Court nominee, seen as ‘Second Amendment extremist’

By Emma Brown | July 6, 2018

imrs.php


In the wake of mass shootings that have divided the country on the issue of gun control, President Trump is considering nominating to the Supreme Court an appellate judge who has argued that Americans have a constitutional right not only to keep guns at home — as the high court has ruled — but also to carry them in public.

U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas M. Hardiman has also written that convicted criminals, including some felons, should be able to recover their right to own and carry guns, as long as their crimes were not violent.

Constitutional law scholars and advocates on both sides of the gun debate say that Hardiman, who sits on the Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Pittsburgh, holds a more expansive view of the Second Amendment than the Supreme Court has articulated to date. His nomination and confirmation would push the court to the right, they say, making it more likely that justices would agree to hear cases challenging gun laws — and perhaps to strike them down.

Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles who has written extensively about gun laws, said that if Hardiman’s views were law, gun restrictions in states such as California, New York and New Jersey would be struck down, potentially leading to a vast expansion in legal gun ownership.

“He believes the government has very little leeway in regulating guns. He thinks the only types of gun-control laws that are constitutionally permissible are ones that existed at the founding,” said Winkler, author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” He described Hardiman as a “Second Amendment extremist.”

Hardiman has said he is fulfilling his duty as a federal judge to apply the Constitution, regardless of his own policy preferences or principles. “No matter how laudable the end, the Supreme Court has long made clear that the Constitution disables the government from employing certain means to prevent, deter or detect violent crime,” he wrote in a 2013 dissent.

In 2013, Hardiman was part of a three-judge appeals panel deciding the constitutionality of a New Jersey law that required citizens seeking a handgun permit to demonstrate a “justifiable need” for such a weapon. The state defined “justifiable need” as an urgent need for self-protection because of “specific threats or recent attacks.”

Two judges voted to uphold the New Jersey law, finding it a constitutional way for the state to advance its goal of protecting public safety. Hardiman dissented, arguing that the law should be struck down.

Central to their disagreement was the Heller ruling, in which the Supreme Court did not directly weigh in on whether Americans also have a right to carry a gun in public but said that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited. In his dissent, Hardiman said that Americans do have a right to carry guns outside their homes and that forcing citizens to prove they have a “justifiable need” to exercise that right amounts to an unconstitutional “rationing system.”

Gun ownership poses risks, and “States have considerable latitude to regulate the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk,” Hardiman wrote in his dissent in the case, known as Drake v. Filko . “But states may not seek to reduce the danger by curtailing the right itself.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...726b70-8057-11e8-bb6b-c1cb691f1402_story.html

By extremist they mean his views are in line with the 7th Circuit, D.C. Circuit, Supreme Courts of Florida and Illinois. All of which agree with this position.
 
I'm sure if you told a Trumpublican that the "right to life" requires that the state provide food, shelter and medical care to every citizen they wouldn't call you a radical extremist.
Yeah, it's usually couched in terms that ignores the underlying (asserted) constitutional provision

Think that Muslim or Jewish prisoners have a right to eat things besides pork?

That's not first-amendment extremism. That's giving special rights to prisoners!

Think that the government should obtain a warrant before obtaining your data held by a third party? You're not a fourth amendment extremist. You're soft on crime!

Due process encompasses more than whatever process might be provided by law?
You're not a right-to-due-process extremist. You're legislating from the bench!

Hold that an alien has a right to a jury trial before being deported for the alleged commission of a crime? You're not a fifth amendment extremist. You're an activist and should be replaced by someone who puts Americans first!

Think that prison guards shouldn't be allowed to withhold medication as a compliance tool? You're not an eighth amendment extremist. You're just soft by historical standards!
 
I don't know about the term "extremist," but saying that someone has an unusually expansive (or narrow) view of a constitutional provision (or right provided by one) that is out of step with current jurisprudence is a pretty normal line of criticism.

By extremist they mean his views are in line with the 7th Circuit, D.C. Circuit, Supreme Courts of Florida and Illinois. All of which agree with this position.

I'm familiar with the label of "Far outside of judicial norms/mainstream" that Congress Dems tried to frame Gorsuch out of spite, but looks like the hyperbole is being ratcheted up a notch here with the new class of Extremist Judge. By WaPo no less.

I'm sure if you told a Trumpublican that the "right to life" requires that the state provide food, shelter and medical care to every citizen they wouldn't call you a radical extremist.

Which SCOTUS nominee are you specifically referring to? Or are you simply blowing hot air about random shit said by some random lib/con on Sherdog?
 
Last edited:
I'm familiar with the label of "outside of judicial norms" that Congress Dems tried to frame Gorsuch out of spite, but looks like the hyperbole is being racheted up a notch here with the new class of "Extremist" judge. By WaPo no less.
Lol, they're quoting a critic of a possible nominee.

A year ago the Washpo ran a headline quoting Cruz calling Maryanne Trump Barry a radical extremist because of a less controversial abortion opinion. Substitute "seen as . . . " for "called a . . ." and you get a similar headline and story. It might be hyperbole, but its not a ratcheting up of hyperbole. At least not within the last year.

And saying that Gorsuch has views outside judicial norms was accurate, even if it was for political purposes. He's a talented jurist, but his first year he dissented more frequently than anyone on the bench except possibly Thomas, and frequently dissented separately because he also disagreed with Thomas.
 
Last edited:
Swamp monster Schumer wants his guy in the supreme court
And water is wet.

In any case, Garland is eminently qualified and competent. More so than just almost everyone on that list by any non-ideological metric, and I like and admire some of the people on that list personally.
 
Last edited:
3 quick facts about Trump's 3 potential Supreme Court picks to replace Kennedy
By Luis Gomez | July 5, 2018

900x506

From left to right, Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge and Amy Barrett. The three are said to be on the short list for Supreme Court Justice nomination. (Associated Press)


According to anonymously sourced media reports in outlets such as the Associated Press, Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, the three people President Donald Trump is currently considering to be his potential nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy are Amy Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge.

Here are three things to know about the three candidates on the short list to become a Supreme Court Justice.

Brett Kavanaugh
2000


1. Kavanaugh, 53, is a federal appellate judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and was appointed by then-President George W. Bush.

2. In the 1990s, he worked under independent counsel Kenneth Starr during the impeachment probe of then-President Bill Clinton, and was the lead author of the “Starr Report.”

3. Kavanaugh, who clerked for Kennedy, has been critical of the Affordable Care Act.


Raymond Kethledge
2000


1. Kethledge, 51, is a federal appellate judge on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was also appointed by Bush.

2. He once worked under then-Sen. Spencer Abraham, R-Michigan, as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, and later went to work as clerk under Justice Kennedy.

3. Kethledge was previously considered for the Supreme Court last year but Trump nominated Gorsuch instead, a detail conservative writer Hugh Hewitt makes in calling him “Gorsuch 2.0.”


Amy Coney Barrett
sd-1530838916-ys1q93rra5-snap-image


1. Barrett, 46, was recently appointed as federal appellate judge on the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals by Trump in 2017.

2. She also once worked as a clerk under Justice Scalia.

3. During her 2017 confirmation process, Barrett was grilled about whether her Catholic faith may influence her decisions as a judge — particularly on abortion cases. It’s a notion she has rejected and many on the right say should not be used as a religious test.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...place-justice-kennedy-20180705-htmlstory.html
 
And water is wet.

In any case, Garland is eminently qualified and competent. More so than just almost everyone on that list by any non-ideological metric, and I like and admire some of the people on that list personally.
Dems have no one to blame but themselves. They set the precedent that being a US Attorney General and DC District Court judge wasn't qualifying enough.
 
I still say Barret is my favorite to get the nod. Having every single one of her colleagues sign a letter of support for her nomination to the 7th says a whole hell of a lot about her. Her downfall is not much actual judge experience, but she could easily be shelved as his third pick as I am assuming RBG wont make it to 2020.
 
Back
Top