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

Who do you believe?


  • Total voters
    453
You keep repeating that, with nothing else. We have borders, there are laws determining who can cross them, these laws aren't new, this has been the case for generations
You just defended violation of constitutional rights.
 
How is a non us citizen allowed us constitutional rights?
Read the 14th Amendment. Starting at "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
 
I'll be stoked if Thapar gets it, but I don't think that he's going to.

Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Amul Thapar, and Raymond Kethledge are the current front-runners.

No matter who's nominated, I fully expect him/her to be dragged through the mud, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with his/her credentials.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a generic template for the hit pieces typed up and good to go already, the only thing missing is the name.
 
Last edited:
Read the 14th Amendment. Starting at "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."
They are given the option to apply, crossing illegally is, well, illegal
 
Very interesting, Australian betting sites actually have odds for each of the potential candidate:

Oddsmakers favor Kavanaugh for Supreme Court
by Paul Bedard | June 28, 2018​

90

Gamblers are already placing their bets on who President Trump will pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and they are favoring front-runners.

The international online gambling site Sportsbet.com.au has Maryland’s Brett Kavanaugh, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, out front followed by Kentucky’s Amul Thapar, U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the 6th Circuit and favored by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Ninth on the list is Utah Sen. Mike Lee, a constitutional expert and favorite of Hall of Fame talk show host Mark Levin.

“This is one of the biggest decisions of the Trump Presidency and will shape the future of America for some years to come. That’s reflected in the betting market where the race is considered extremely close between quite a few potential candidates,’’ said sportsbet.com.au’s Will Byrne in a statement releasing the current results.

Here is their list, the lower the dollar indicating the better the odds of Trump picking that name:

$2.50 Brett Kavanaugh
$3.60 Amul Thapar
$4.00 Amy Coney Barrett
$5.00 Raymond Kethledge
$6.00 Kevin Newsom
$8.00 Patrick Wyrick
$8.00 Britt Grant
$9.50 Thomas Hardiman
$9.50 Mike Lee
$10 William Pryor
$10 Allison Eid
$12 Don Willett
$12 Keith Blackwell
$13 David Stras
$15 Charles Canady
$15 Federico Moreno
$18 Timothy Tymkovich
$18 Steven Colloton
$21 Raymond Gruender
$21 Joan Larsen
$23 Edward Mansfield
$23 Diane Sykes
$26 Robert Young
$26 Margaret Ryan
$31 Thomas Lee

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...blers-placing-bets-next-supreme-court-justice
 
Last edited:
I am myself uneasily pro-choice. Moreover, just a few days ago, I argued that the increasingly bitter judicial wars tearing apart today’s politics can only be ended with more judicial deference to legislatures and to precedent. It stands to reason that I would be dismayed by the politically electrifying prospect that Roe might be overruled entirely. But I wouldn’t be dismayed. I’d be glad to see Roe go, as quickly as possible.

...

And that, in turn, is the biggest problem with Roe: It has given the most religious developed country in the world one of the world’s most permissive abortion laws. This is not some peculiar quirk of the American political psyche. The abortion law is out of step with what the majority of the population wants, and given the seriousness of what’s involved, it is Roe, more than any other opinion, that is driving both the radicalization and the judicialization of American politics, as pro-lifers fight like caged tigers to amend the law through the only avenue left open to them.

...

If you’re pro-choice, it’s probably hard to swallow the idea of “permissive in New York and illegal in Alabama”; you’d much prefer to keep the status quo. But that’s politics: both sides settling for less than what they want. The alternative is for one side to seek total victory in a total war. That’s not an alternative you should endorse unless you’re surer than any American can be that your side will be the one that ultimately wins the war. After all, Roe once seemed like total, permanent victory. Not anymore.


From Megan McArdle's excellent opinion piece found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-roe-go/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b88bf0e27714

 
Very interesting, Australian betting sites actually have odds for each of the potential candidate:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...blers-placing-bets-next-supreme-court-justice
Hm.

Kethledge and Kavanaugh are my top picks in terms of likelihood, followed closely by Barrett. I'd say the odds areare underestimating Hardiman and overestimating Thapar. I'm not rooting against Thapar, mind. I just think that it's unlikely.

Kethledge and Kavanaugh are both talented, reasonably experienced, and have been publishing opinions that look like pitches for nominations. Barrett would be a clear play for the pro-life crowd that Trump has been trying to reach out to with the Roe comments, but she has a comparatively underwhelming resume, and I sincerely hope it's one of the others.
 
Last edited:
I am myself uneasily pro-choice. Moreover, just a few days ago, I argued that the increasingly bitter judicial wars tearing apart today’s politics can only be ended with more judicial deference to legislatures and to precedent. It stands to reason that I would be dismayed by the politically electrifying prospect that Roe might be overruled entirely. But I wouldn’t be dismayed. I’d be glad to see Roe go, as quickly as possible.

...

And that, in turn, is the biggest problem with Roe: It has given the most religious developed country in the world one of the world’s most permissive abortion laws. This is not some peculiar quirk of the American political psyche. The abortion law is out of step with what the majority of the population wants, and given the seriousness of what’s involved, it is Roe, more than any other opinion, that is driving both the radicalization and the judicialization of American politics, as pro-lifers fight like caged tigers to amend the law through the only avenue left open to them.

...

If you’re pro-choice, it’s probably hard to swallow the idea of “permissive in New York and illegal in Alabama”; you’d much prefer to keep the status quo. But that’s politics: both sides settling for less than what they want. The alternative is for one side to seek total victory in a total war. That’s not an alternative you should endorse unless you’re surer than any American can be that your side will be the one that ultimately wins the war. After all, Roe once seemed like total, permanent victory. Not anymore.


From Megan McArdle's excellent opinion piece found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-roe-go/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b88bf0e27714

Funny, because I accept the fact that I need a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens United.

I guess it is just a matter of if you think you actually have the public support to follow the law, and not legislate from the bench because you believe 2 wrongs somehow makes a right.
 
Trump narrows list for Supreme Court pick with focus on Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Kethledge
Robert Costa and Seung Min Kim | July 5, 2018

750x422

Federal appeals court judges, from left, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Raymond Kethledge are President Donald Trump's finalists to fill Justice Anthony Kennedy's spot on the Supreme Court

President Donald Trump's deliberations over a Supreme Court nominee now center on three candidates culled from his shortlist: federal judges Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge and Amy Coney Barrett, according to White House officials and Trump advisers involved in the discussions.

But Trump's final decision on a replacement for retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy remained fluid as he traveled Thursday to a political rally in Montana before heading to his golf course in New Jersey for the weekend, with the president pinballing between associates as he seeks feedback and suggestions.

While Trump has placed Kavanaugh, a polished former Kennedy clerk and Yale Law School graduate, near the top of his list, he has also been asking several friends and aides about whether Kavanaugh's past work in George W. Bush's White House would be an issue for his core supporters, thousands of whom filled the Four Seasons Arena in Great Falls, Montana, Thursday evening.

And Trump is hearing out arguments for Kethledge, another former Kennedy clerk, and for Coney Barrett, a Notre Dame law professor who is being championed by some social conservatives, according to the advisers, who requested anonymity since they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Kavanaugh and Kethledge have the "inside track," according to a person close to the president, because many White House officials believe Coney Barrett, 46, could instead be a pick for the high court in the coming years, after she gains more experience on the federal bench.

A second person close to the president said Thursday that Kavanaugh and Kethledge are the shortlist.

Vice President Mike Pence met privately with Kavanaugh on Wednesday at the vice president's residence and that session went well, underscoring the judge's strong prospects, according to two Republicans briefed on the meeting.

"I think I have it down to four people and I think of the four people, I have it down to three or two. I think they're all outstanding," Trump told reporters Thursday en route to Montana, declining to name the finalists. "I don't want say the four. But I have it down to four. I'll have a decision made in my mind by Sunday. We'll announce it on Monday."

Others who emerged on Trump's shortlists just days ago - federal judges Thomas Hardiman, Amul Thapar and Joan Larsen as well as Sen. Mike, R-Utah, - remain in contention, but the president's queries have mostly been about the leading contenders, whether it's been during phone calls, in Oval Office meetings or on Air Force One.

Kavanaugh, 53, helped investigate President Bill Clinton as part of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's team and then served as an aide to Bush before joining the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2006.

"He looks, walks, and quacks like John G. Roberts Jr.," the chief justice of the United States who has angered conservatives for his rulings on President Barack Obama's signature health-care law, former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli said. "The Bush lives loudly in Kavanaugh."

Cuccinelli's remark is a wry reference to another contender who social conservatives unsure about Kavanaugh have rallied behind this week: Coney Barrett. "The dogma lives loudly within you," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told her last year during her confirmation hearing in an exchange about the judge's Catholic faith - a comment that was roundly criticized by religious leaders.

"If Democrats tried to go anti-Catholic with her, that'd backfire and we know it," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said.

But Trump is not rushing toward Coney Barrett with the same fervor, according to the two people close to the president. They described his view of her as "positive" since he appointed her, but noted that he sees Kavanaugh and Kethledge as similar to Gorsuch, another former Kennedy clerk, whose tenure has been celebrated by his supporters and whose judicial records are largely acceptable to most wings of the Republican Party.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a Trump ally, signed a statement Thursday with other conservative leaders pushing for Lee, following days of phone calls with Trump and others over his concerns about Kavanaugh, complicating the outlook in the Senate, where Republicans have a narrow, 51-seat majority.

Kethledge's sudden ascent in the process is widely seen in the West Wing as a consequence of what conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh has called the "whisper campaign" against Kavanaugh, with the president newly intrigued by the University of Michigan Law School graduate.

Democrats, meanwhile, prepared for the political war over the high court that could dominate the summer, with Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., making his own suggestion for Trump.

Schumer privately urged the president in a phone call earlier this week to nominate federal Judge Merrick Garland, Obama's third nominee to the Supreme Court who was summarily shunned by Senate Republicans in 2016.

Trump called Schumer on Tuesday afternoon for a Supreme Court-centered conversation that lasted less than five minutes, according to a person familiar with the call. Schumer, the person said, pressed the president to name Garland to succeed Kennedy, arguing doing so would help unite the country.

Schumer also warned the president that nominating a jurist who would be hostile to Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that established a woman's right to an abortion, and to Obama's health-care law, would be "cataclysmic" and damage Trump's legacy, the person added, requesting anonymity since they were not authorized to speak publicly.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to nominate judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Schumer also tweeted barbs about Kethledge Thursday. "Judge Kethledge has a history of opposing women's reproductive freedom," he wrote.

The rush of scrutiny gave Kethledge's backers hope that his chances were perhaps rising - and a preview of the political firestorm he would face on Capitol Hill, should he be nominated.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-supreme-court-20180705-story.html
 
I'm pulling for Amy. I like the cut of her jib and the fact that the left's heads explode over her religious freedom. Sad, but I'm down with her based on that and her proven, strong conservative opinions.
 
Trump narrows list for Supreme Court pick with focus on Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Kethledge
Robert Costa and Seung Min Kim | July 5, 2018

750x422

Federal appeals court judges, from left, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Raymond Kethledge are President Donald Trump's finalists to fill Justice Anthony Kennedy's spot on the Supreme Court













http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-supreme-court-20180705-story.html

I was really rooting for Hadiman. Of the three I would vote for Kavanaugh Barret is a little to openly religious to me although I would be fine with her. Also she has not been on the bench for very long. Kethledge is low energy on immigration for my taste. I like his backstory a lot more than Kavanaugh and respect that he is a hunter which likely means he would be good for the 2a. That said speaking as a citizen not a lawyer defending our borders is my top concern.
 
Last edited:
You do a great job researching your threads. I aspire to your attention to detail

Thanks! I'd rather have all the info in one place rather than several threads discussing the same subject, which seems to be an epidemic in this place :)

I was really rooting for Hadiman. Of the three I would vote for Kavanaugh Barret is a little to openly religious to me although I would be fine with her. Also she has not been on the bench for very long. Kethledge is low energy on immigration for my taste. I like his backstory a lot more than Kavanaugh and respect that he is a hunter which likely means he would be good for the 2a. That said speaking as a citizen not a lawyer defending our borders is my top concern.

Of course, these "insider info" are still from unnamed sources. For all we know it may end up be someone else not listed here :D

No matter whoever it is, I fully expect the Dems in Congress (and the loons in Hollywood) to drag him/her though the mud out of spite for Garland's "stolen seat", like they did immediately after Gorsuch's name was announced.
 
Last edited:
Senator Chuck Schumer appealed to President Trump to pick Judge Merrick Garland for Supreme Court
By Veronica Stracqualursi and Ashley Killough | July 5, 2018​

vp8inubjvdesmre0ufik.jpg

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer appealed to President Donald Trump to repeat his predecessor's choice and nominate federal judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court for a second time "as a way to unify the country," according to a source.

The President phoned the New York Democrat on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy, according to a person familiar with the call. The Washington Post was the first to report the contents of the call.

According to the source, Schumer warned Trump of "cataclysmic" consequences if he picked a nominee that is "hostile" to the Affordable Care Act and Roe v. Wade -- the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

"Schumer also warned the President that if he picked someone hostile to Roe, and hostile to the ACA, that it would be 'cataclysmic,' tear the country apart in a way it hasn't been for some time, and be bad for the President's legacy," the source told CNN.

The White House did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment.

The source also said that Trump's call to Schumer "seemed more like a check-the-box call than meaningful consultation, given that it came after Trump had narrowed his short list and begun interviewing candidates."

Garland, who is the chief judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, was nominated by President Barack Obama in 2016 to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. However, Republicans refused to hold a hearing on his nomination, citing the 2016 election.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was eventually nominated by Trump and confirmed to the bench last April, and Garland returned to his job in the judiciary.

Last year, after Trump fired James Comey, several prominent Republicans including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recommended that Garland fill the role of FBI director.

Over the past few days, the President met with at least seven contenders and is believed to have whittled his list of potential candidates down to two or three, sources familiar with the search told CNN.

Judges Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, Amy Coney Barrett, and Amul Thapar, Joan Larsen and Thomas Hardiman are under consideration for the job, sources told CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/politics/chuck-schumer-trump-supreme-court-nominee/index.html
 
Last edited:
Back
Top