President Trump Nominates Brett Kavanaugh To Replace Justice Kennedy

KavanaughFinal-640x367
Whitehouse.gov

President Donald Trump has nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to replace retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.  Kavanaugh was opposed by some conservatives and is not viewed as strongly anti-abortion as Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. However, he is highly intelligent and accomplished.  I have a column out this morning in The Hill newspaper.

Kavanaugh was not the easiest nominee for Trump and could present logistical and substantive challenges.  Logistically, his over 300 opinions and record of prior service will make it difficult to wrap up the confirmation by the midterm election. On substance, his highly deferential view on presidential power could threaten votes from members like Rand Paul and his assumed views on Roe v. Wade could endanger a couple of Republican female senators like Susan Collins.

However, he presents equal challenges for the Democrats who could undermine the election prospects for members in purple states for the midterm elections.  He is the perfect wedge nominee for purple states.

What do you think of Trump’s choice?

198 thoughts on “President Trump Nominates Brett Kavanaugh To Replace Justice Kennedy”

  1. Overall, I am satisfied with the nomination of a justice who has been a strong advocate for both the rule of law and the rights of the individual. This is related to the issue I had with President Obama’s last nominee, Merrick Garland.

    From the record of Garland’s decisions, I have noted that he sided with the government against the rights of the individual more than 98% of the time. This is more extreme that Kavanaugh, although Kavanaugh has been with the Washington, DC District Court, where almost every administrative law case is funneled.

    To be able to serve on this court and have a record of opposing the government more than 20% of the time would be miraculous. But that’s what is needed within the swamp, until it can be drained.

  2. I suspect that the additions of Neil Gorsuch and Merrick Garland would have been considered fine additions to the Supreme Court — a court in which Americans would have “some” confidence.

    Unfortunately, Mitch McConnell, and others, decided to violate the advice and consent clause, ironically and act for which Scalia would have disapproved.

    So now we have to put up with a banana republic.

    Thanks Mitch — for nothing.

      1. That’s hilarious, on it’s face. And that’s what Scalia would say. That’s not a reasonable interpretation of the advice and consent clause.

          1. No the Constitution doesn’t say that. It’s not okay to keep a seat open for a year. It undermines confidence in our institutions — and rightly so.

            1. It’s not okay to keep a seat open for a year. It undermines confidence in our institutions — and rightly so.

              It’s also not okay to effectively keep our borders open and then provide sanctuary to any that cross them illegally. It undermines confidence in our institutions – and rightly so.

            2. It’s not okay to keep a seat open for a year.

              It’s perfectly OK. It’s just inconvenient to some people. And isn’t one person in 100 whose ‘confidence’ would be ‘undermined’. If the inJustices complain about their workload, tell them to take fewer cases. They have that discretion.

  3. How divided are we as a nation? The summer of 2018 will reflect the divide by one thing: EXTREME VETTING. If something doesn’t feel right, just check out the contenders.

    In one corner will be the confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh as the next Supreme Court Justice. In the other corner will be the thousands, if not millions of illegal immigrants demanding entry, or demanding to remain in our country.

    Yes, both contenders will have an impact on a generation of Americans. But how can anyone that has taken an oath of office oppose ANYONE committed to the rule of law and at the same time support ANYONE committed to violating the rule of law?

    That is insane!

    1. Specifically, the bill would enact into law the sanctions imposed pursuant to Executive Orders
      International Trade Controls 13660 and 13661 (blocking the property of persons contributing to the situation in Ukraine),
      Executive Order 13662 (imposing sectoral sanctions targeting the Russian financial services,
      energy, and defense sectors), Executive Order 13685 (imposing comprehensive sanctions
      against Crimea), and Executive Orders 13694 and 13757 (blocking the property of persons
      engaging in certain significant malicious cyber-enabled activities), except that the President
      would be permitted to:

       Terminate the application of the foregoing sanctions with respect to a person if the
      President submits to Congress a notice that: (1) the person is not engaging in the activity
      that was the basis for the sanctions or has taken significant verifiable steps toward
      stopping the activity; and (2) the President has received reliable assurances that the
      person will not knowingly engage in activity subject to such sanctions in the future.

       Waive the initial application of cyber-related sanctions under Executive Orders 13694 or
      13757 with respect to a person if the President submits to Congress: (1) a written
      determination that the waiver is in the vital national security interests of the United States
      or will further the enforcement of U.S. sanctions; and (2) a certification that the Russian
      government has made significant efforts to reduce the number and intensity of cyber
      intrusions that it conducts.

       Waive the initial application of Ukraine-related sanctions, sectoral sanctions, or Crimea
      sanctions under Executive Orders 13660, 13661, 13662, or 13685 if the President submits
      to Congress: (1) a written determination that the waiver is in the vital national security
      interests of the United States or will further the enforcement of U.S. sanctions; and (2) a
      certification that the Russian government is taking steps to implement the Minsk
      Agreement to address the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine.

  4. There’s one object here: he advances the cause of Democratic discretion and local autonomy by limited the capacity of the judiciary to interfere in public decision-making or he doesn’t. The circumstances in which there is an actual warrant for the exercise of judicial review are few. It’s just an excuse for lawyers to boss other people around. The one set of people most likely to do things which actually are unconstitutional would be the faculty and administration of public higher education (who are given extraordinary latitude by the larger society).

      1. David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seven weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – for those of us who have suffered at the hands of higher ed. any attack on them is not irrational, it is fully justified and long overdue.

  5. Professor Snape of American University considers Kavanaugh to be a Lord Voldemort. Guts EPA regulations.

    1. David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seven weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – did you read the books or just watch the movies or hear it from your kids?

  6. A British newspaper states that Brett Kavanaugh is a Forrest Gump. I don’t know what that is supposed to signify but I don’t suppose I will learn here…

    1. The UK Telegraph said, like Forrest Gump, Kavanaugh has been prominent at recent important events in American history (court cases). Too bad you failed to mention their next line: “Unlike Forrest Gump, Judge Kavanaugh is regarded on all sides as one of the most brilliant jurists of his generation.”

        1. Blaine McAvoy — Off topic. Do learn to simply address the issue at hand without excursions. Did you never study rhetoric?

          1. The comparison of Kavanaugh to Gump first came from Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois in a speech on the Senate floor opposing Kavanaugh’s appointment to the DC Court of Appeals in 2006, IIRC.

          2. David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seven weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – read Weart.

        2. Blaine, Benson considers that off-topic because he has no interest in avoiding blatant dishonesty.

      1. Might be brilliant but is certainly a judicial activist with novel opinions, which are wrong headed in the situations I understand. He obviously never learned any science, for example.

        1. David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seven weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – people in glass house should never throw stones. You, for instance, have never learned to cite your sources.

    2. I think it means that for around 30 years Kavanaugh has been in and around the government or the bench in a variety of sticky situations. Indeed, there is one such situation concerning (I think) prisoner interrogations in which he allegedly lied to the Senate in his prior hearing for confirmation to the DC Circuit. I believe he was being questioned by Durbin and denied any involvement which later turned out to be false. Then, you get into his work for Starr, etc. Basically, whenever the GOP needed some legal rationalization for something dicey, he was there to lend a hand. (He does not seem to have sunk to the depths of John Yoo or Alberto Gonzalez, but he has come close.)

      1. Ah yes, you’ve been reading that paragon of leftist virtue, the Huffington Post.

        From the actual transcript of that May 9, 2006 Senate confirmation hearing:

        Senator Durbin. Well, let me ask you. You were in charge of judicial nominations, or at least involved in judicial nominations with the White House. And that is why we are going into this. Let’s go to another nominee and see if you might respond to this. In September 2003, the President nominated William Haynes to be a judge on the Fourth Circuit. As General Counsel to the
        Department of Defense, Mr. Haynes had been the architect of the administration’s discredited detention and interrogation
        policies. For example, Mr. Haynes recommended that Secretary Rumsfeld approve the use of abusive interrogation techniques,
        like threatening detainees with dogs, forced nudity, and for forcing detainees into painful stress positions. During the 108th Congress, Mr. Haynes’s nomination stalled after his involvement in this scandal came to light. Just this February, the President decided to renominate him. **What was YOUR ROLE in the original Haynes nomination and decision to renominate him? And at the time of the nomination, what did you know about MR. HAYNE’S role in crafting the administration’s detention and interrogation policies?

        Mr. Kavanaugh. Senator, I did not–I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the RULES GOVERNING
        DETENTION of combatants or–and so I do not have the involvement with that. And with respect to Mr. Haynes’s nomination, I’ve–I know Jim Haynes, but it was not one of the nominations that I handled. I handled a number of nominations in the Counsel’s Office. That was not one of the ones that I handled.

        From the Huffington Post article: The Washington Post and NPR reported that Kavanaugh and other top White House lawyers met in 2002 and debated whether the Supreme Court would uphold the administration’s DECISION (as in already made) to deny lawyers to Americans designated as enemy combatants. Kavanaugh predicted that Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote at the time, would reject the policy. (Kavanaugh had clerked for Kennedy in the early 1990s.).

        I don’t know, perhaps it’s just me, but meeting with other lawyers to debate whether the SCOTUS would uphold the administration’s decision to deny lawyers to American combatants does not constitute involvement in the RULES GOVERNING DETENTION of combatants. American combatants WERE already being detained so the policy was already established, Since Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy it’s likely he was asked to participate and give his opinion on how Kennedy would respond to denial of attorneys for American combatants. His response was Kennedy would likely reject that decision.

        If looney Dick Durbin wants to try make hay with that “nugget”, by all means, go for it.

        1. Perhaps it is just you. From a fairly conservative journal Forbes: “As for what kinds of procedural battles occur, the Committee will consider issuing document demands both to the Administration and to Kavanaugh. One period of focus will be in 2001-2003, when he served in the high positions of Senior Associate Counsel and Associate Counsel to the President, and then Assistant to the President and White House Staff Secretary. All of President George W. Bush’s paper crossed his desk. Questioned about this in 2003-2006, he ducked, stating he was uninvolved in formulating the Bush administration’s detention and interrogation policies (in a word, policies authorizing torture) in the aftermath of 9/11. His ducking was so unpersuasive that Senators Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin, in 2007, accused him of “misleading” the Committee. Durbin said “it appears you misled me, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the nation.”
          “Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley will face a tough choice when he deals with a fresh document demand about Kavanaugh’s role in the Bush torture policies. His Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, will tell him to keep such things to a minimum. The Senate Republican schedule will be to move Kavanaugh through as fast as possible so he gets cleared well before the midterm election. A longer time increases the danger something will come up to upset the applecart, and any vulnerable Republican Senators facing a fight in the midterm election will want the Democratic fervor over Kavanaugh to cool before Election Day.”

        2. Blaine McAvoy – sounds like a weak Hail Mary to me. And I get the feeling Durbin is not a religious man. 😉

  7. No, he does not support the Constitution as is. For example, in many states, voters are required to show photo ID before voting. However, the Constitution does not say ID is required to vote.

    Voting rights are one of the most important issues that the Heritage Foundation and other right-wing groups have added unconstitutional burdens onto.

    Proof of citizenship and registration could be handled without putting any extraconstitutional requirements on voting.

    In most of Europe, when a citizen becomes an adult, he is automatically registered. A few weeks before the election, his electoral district mails him a postcard that is proof of his registration and citizenship. He brings the postcard to the voting location and turns it into the staff when he casts his vote.

    No ID required and the problem is solved very simply.

    1. The Federalist Society is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say WHAT THE LAW IS, NOT WHAT IT SHOULD BE. Their membership consists of individuals from the judiciary, attorneys, legal scholars, and law students. Professor Jonathan Turley is a frequent speaker at Federalist events. I trust their judiciary recommendation over that from the left whose sole objective is the implementation of radical social change via the courts that they are unable to accomplish through the legislative branch, i.e., the democratically elected representatives of the people. The tantrum is over the potential end to legislating from the bench.

      1. Could you please show me in the Constitution where it says photo IDs are required to cast a vote?

        The Federalist Society is trying to place requirements on voting rights that aren’t even stated in the Constitution.

        1. As a practical matter…please explain to me how a volunteer poll worker is able to verify the identity of someone who claims the identity of a registered voter when law enforcemenrt can’t even verify an individual’s identity absent valid I.D. 18 U.S. Code § 611 prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections. By law, voters in all elections must be at least 18 years-old. You plainly distrust distinguished representatives from the judiciary, practicing attorneys and legal scholars who are members of the Federalist Society but apparently have no problem trusting that no one in this environment of partisan vitriol will seek a political advantage by improper use of the voting ballot. My state has had voter I.D. for years and, you know what, no one to my knowledge has ever claimed they were denied their right to legally vote because of it.

          1. It should not be the responsibility of poll workers to verify anyone’s identity.

            All citizens of the United States should be automatically registered to vote when he turns 18.

            A few weeks before the election, every registered voter is sent a postcard with bits of embedded metal to make it unforgeable. On it is printed the address of the nearest polling place to the voter’s home, although voting at any precinct within the voter’s municipality is allowed. The voter is instructed to bring the card, which serves as proof that the voter is eligible to vote. Such a system wouldn’t be hard to introduce in the U.S.

            An additional security feature could be a digital photo of the voter taken when the voter registered. In fact, some states already send each voter a pamphlet with candidates’ names and statements before the election. Putting a voter ID card in the same envelope would be easy.

            1. Marry – it has always been the responsibility of poll workers to verify the identity of voters, why should it change now just to please you? Making sure that ONLY registered voters vote and that they are who they say they are is important to the validity of the system. We had a woman who voted 13 times in the last Presidential election, got a slap on the wrist. Personally, I would have given her the maximum on each and run consecutive sentences, We have states that refuse to clean their voter rolls of the dead and felons, so these people still vote. Of course, in Chicago, the dead vote in alphabetical order and have been doing this for centuries.

            2. All citizens of the United States should be automatically registered to vote when he turns 18.

              Marry,
              Why? Have you truly thought about what being part of the franchise means? In your own words, you believe entering the franchise should be automatic, but then you qualify that by an age restriction. Why? Surely you’ve applied some critical-thinking to the concept of voting beyond simply reading the constitution. Other than the fact an amendment to our constitution lowered the qualifying age to 18, why stop there? Why not 17, or 14, or 5?

              The following from Frederic Bastiat provides a very short but logical explanation of this point:

              Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend.

              if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder — is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?

              Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege? If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone’s interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?

              This last paragraph points to your motivation; you want more power, but why?

              But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few — whether farmers, manufacturers, ship owners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.
              http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

        2. MarryAMinority – can you tell me where in the Constitution it requires a photo ID to enter a federal building anywhere, buy a plane ticket, board a plane, etc.

          1. It is such a red herring. When I visit any of my doctors, I am required sign in at a kiosk which includes scanning my photo id. You can’t tell me the Medicare/Medicaid recipients don’t have photo I.D.s. Additionally, even though I am 64, I sometimes get carded by the Walmart cashier.

          2. I can’t, Paul, but I CAN tell you that Mr. Kavanaugh may well be asked about the LIE (which was a crime) he told the Senate during his nomination hearing for the sweet lifetime Judgeship he still has.

              1. Because of the way he misled Durbin, he was not nailed down on the question. But yes, he lied and knew he was lying.

              2. No, Patrick Leahy and Dick Dirtbag accused him of lying, therefore it is so in McWilliams ‘mind’.

          3. Entering a federal building and buying a plane ticket are not constitutional rights, so the constitution doesn’t say anything about those activities.

            Voting IS a constitutional right, and it doesn’t say anything about ID cards required to exercise it.

            1. Voting IS a constitutional right, and it doesn’t say anything about ID cards required to exercise it.

              Again, the constitutional provisions which regulate the dimensions of suffrage are the 15th amendment, which debars using racial criteria to delineate the eligibility pool; the 19th, which debars limiting voter rolls to men; the 23d, which debars limiting eligibility to those who’ve paid a tax; and the 26th, which debars a state from setting the age of eligibility any higher than 18. Otherwise, the dimensions of the franchise are incorporated into state constitutions or delineated in the statutory law of the states. As recently as 1959 in New York, you had to register every year in person at the county Board of Elections or your town clerk’s office if you lived outside the Five Boroughs. When I was involved in local politics 30 years ago, postal registration for indefinite terms was the order of the day, but voter rolls were purged every year of people who hadn’t cast a ballot in four years, getting an absentee ballot required a specific application well in advance of an election and with reasons stated, and mail from the Board of Elections could not be forwarded. Such mail was returned by the Postal Service to the Board and the registration of the voter in question was suspended. All perfectly proper, in my view. The notion that it is ‘unconstitutional’ to require someone to show a photo ID at a polling station (or, better, include a photocopy of such an ID with his postal ballot) is risible to anyone familiar with the actual mundane conduct of elections. The ACORN types and public interest shysters making these arguments know this, because they know how elections are administered. This whole discussion is fraudulent.

        3. Can you show me in the constitution where it says the speed limit is 55? Or that lead can’t be used in paint? Or that electrical cutrent shall be 110,220 or 440 volts? Your ” argument” is invalid.

        4. States may legislate restrictions on the right to vote.

          In 1789, states generally required voters to be Male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres.

          Citizens self-restrict the vote by turning out at just over 50%.

          The Founders established a restricted-vote republic not an ochlocractic one man, one vote democrazy.

            1. Maybe the Supreme Court should be impeached for usurping the power of the legislative branch.

              Maybe the Supreme Court should stop issuing erroneous, political, convoluted, incoherent and bizarre “decisions.”

              Maybe the Supreme Court should stop “writing” and “interpreting” and start reading and imposing the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.
              __________

              “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

              – Alexander Hamilton

    2. S.4.1 of the Constitution mandates to the States the “manner”of Congressional elections.This permits the imposition of such “burdens” and are,consequently,not “extraconstitutional”.

  8. Is the nominee’s last name Irish? Or Scot? English? German?
    Who was the person, or was it in a movie, where the guys says let them across the border : “But Not The Irish! ” ?

    1. Oh. I remember now. It was in the movie Blazing Saddles. The mayor said that they could let the black guysi in but then said that phrase. Emphatically.

  9. The abortion issue needs to be overdone by the pharmacy industry. Have some company overseas invent a pill which causes an abortion or baby discharge early in pregnancy. Or at any time during pregnancy. The next case would be Roe vs. Wadin.

  10. What do I think? Not Trump’s choice, but rather one from the list provided by The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation, as all the others were. The key difference between Kavanaugh and the others is that Kavanaugh has opined that Congress should pass laws providing that a sitting President should not be subject to criminal prosecution. What does that tell you, folks? As with virtually everything else, it is Trump first, last and always. Now he’s on his way to Europe to piss off more of our allies and generally make an ass of himself.

    The views and values of The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation are not mainstream. They do no reflect the views of the majority of Americans on major topics that could come before the Court, such as the freedom of choice, the Affordable Care Act, affirmative action, marriage equality, and so forth. Kavanaugh has already been vetted by The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation on the topics listed above, so he’ll demure when asked specific questions by members of Congress. That is a form of deceit. In fact, anyone who stands next to the racist, xenophobic genital grabber is damaged goods merely by that fact, IMHO.

    Think about this, those of you who are older and read this blog: if the Affordable Care Act goes away, people with pre-existing conditions won’t be able to get coverage at a price they can afford. People will literally die as a result of not being able to afford health care. This is serious business. People are already taking to the streets to protest.

    1. The views and values of The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation are not mainstream.

      If the views and values of The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation are constitutional, then it’s the mainstream that is out of whack.

      It’s time to hold Congress accountable for writing laws that meet constitutional standards, hold the President accountable to enforce them, and the Courts to uphold them. The era of expecting the Court to be an extension of the progressive agenda is over. It’s called the Rule of Law and Separation of Powers.

      Deal with it.

      1. Olly: depends on how one views the Constitution. As the poster boy for The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation, the latter being connected to the Kochs, they see the Constitution as support for their agenda, which happens to be contrary to what most Americans think, believe and want and how we see the Constitution.

        1. depends on how one views the Constitution.

          First and foremost, it should be worth defending regardless of agenda. Additionally, it should come as no surprise that there exists competing agendas. Elections are a reflection of those agendas. The majority will always think what they want is constitutional. The minority will always think what they want is constitutional. The loser will always believe their rights are being infringed.

          I don’t want a court that makes decisions based on what the majority or minority of Americans think. I want them to base their decisions on the constitution. And if an agenda I oppose is turned into law that is constitutional, then my job is to change Congress and get in the majority; veto-proof if necessary.

      2. The Heritage Foundation does support plenty of policy that is not within the Constitution. For instance, nowhere in the Constitution does it say a photo ID is required to vote.

        Here are other constitutional policies they oppose:

        Abolish the filibuster so any bill can pass the Senate with 50 votes and the veep
        Make D.C. a state, which would add two black Democratic senators to the Senate
        Make Puerto Rico a state, which would add two Latino Democrats to the Senate
        Break California into multiple states to add yet more Democrats to the Senate
        Expand the Supreme Court to 11 (or more) justices, and have the president appoint 40-year-olds

        All of the above requires nothing more than Congress passing laws. None of them require a constitutional amendment. That done, Democrats could then tackle voting rights.

        The Constitution unambiguously gives Congress the power to set the rules for federal elections. A new voting rights law could require a 2-week period of early voting from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. every day, make pre-registration of 17-year-olds legal nationwide, forbid states from passing voter-ID laws or imposing any voting requirements not stated in the Constitution, and make it a federal crime to intimidate a voter.

        The law could also make Election Day a national holiday for federal employees.

        1. Yeeaah, you may want to rethink your plan. I realize you are passionate about an all-powerful central government, but the state legislatures may have a thing or two to say about what you propose. Anyway, bring it.

          1. Please tell me where in the Constitution it says photo ID is required to cast a vote.

            It is an unconstitutional requirement. If you have proof of adult citizenship when you register, that is all that is required.

            1. There’s also nothing in the constitution prohibiting the requirement for a photo ID. If it places an undue hardship for qualified citizens registered to vote, then the problem is easily solved by providing a government-issued ID card at no cost to those that need one. That of course assumes your objection is truly about disenfranchised voters.

            2. MarryA.M…,
              The Constitution doesn’t say that you need a photo ID at an airport.
              Do you think TSA is violating the Constitution by imposing this requirement?
              I think when you say that it’s unconstitutional because it’s not mentioned in the constitution,there’s no end to the number of requirements that you could claim are inconstitutional.

              1. I think when you say that it’s unconstitutional because it’s not mentioned in the constitution,there’s no end to the number of requirements that you could claim are unconstitutional.

                I don’t believe it prohibits one from using a home-brew server in your bathroom at home to work around federal records retention. So there’s that. 😉 Damn those founding fathers anyway!

                1. Olly,..
                  You may have touched on what was really said during the tarmac meeting at the Phoenix airport.
                  Slick Willy may have made that very same argument to Loretta Lynch in Phoenix.😑

        2. Married to a Minority – I am already married to a minority and I am a very happy Trump voter. On the DC thingie, part of the deal was that it never become a state. If we were to make it a state both Maryland and Virginia would get the first crack at getting their half back. Abortion is not in the Constitution, but somehow the justices found a right where there wasn’t one. Arizona is allowed to use Voter ID for state elections but not federal elections. Since we hold them at the same time, it would only be a special election where voter ID was not used.

          1. Since there were no automatic weapons or assault weapons at the time the Second Amendment was approved, I guess those are not permitted. Give them up now.

              1. Sorry, we have to go with original intent. Automatic weapons and assault weapons were not intended. You are legislating from the bench.

                1. hollywood – you are an idiot and I do not say that casually. If you want to debate at least start one you could possibly win.

            1. Whenever you’re willing to turn in your computer, TV, and smart phone, and start using quill and ink again.

            2. The weapons kept and borne by the Founders were weapons sufficient to oppose a tyrannical and oppressive government. A contemporary equivalent, adjusted for inflation, if you will, would be weapons of light infantry, crew served and artillery, including mechanized and airborne forces. WMD would be the equivalent of the Black Plague, which the Minutemen did not keep and bear.

              Next question?

        3. To TrumpDoesn’tCareWhoYouMarry: If D.C. wants statehood, then return the land to Maryland, from which it was taken. BTW, did you know that if D.C. law does not address a situation, then the matter is decided under MD law? Yes, there is still legal recognition that D.C. was originally Maryland.

            1. Paul – No, you got the states right. D.C. was carved out of land taken from Virginia and Maryland. VA got most of its land back, but MD never did, which is why it’s such a small and odd shaped state.

              1. No, that’s not why. The District’s area is < 70 sq miles. Maryland's is 12,000 sq miles.

              2. TIN – you are correct, I looked up the history and Virginia was retroceded its land because it wasn’t being used. So, it would become part of Maryland. That would screw things up. 🙂

                1. The District is properly retroceded. The original anxieties which promoted it’s creation are rather remote from latter-day conditions.

                  1. DSS – however, if DC wants to become a state, I think Maryland should get the first crack at getting it’s land back.

        4. They could pass a law that would make two problems disappear – Every unborn baby is automatically registered as a Democrat, and every illegal alien is automatically registered as a Republican.
          Presto!! No more abortion, and no more illegal immigration.
          That’s a pretty swell idea, huh Marry?

  11. I love that he was born in the swamp, educated at Yale X2 with all the other east coast elites, and spent his career working in the swamp. In his speech last night he firmly affixed his lips to Trump’s ass by knowing exactly the language necessary to flatter the narcissist-in-chief. Another toad in the Potomac.

  12. I thought it was hilarious that the Women’s March put out a press release condemning the pick, but forgot to replace ‘XX’ with Kavanaugh’s name!!! Like L4D, their mind is made up, and that’s that!

    1. Hysteria and incoherence – The “Women’s March”.

      Is it any wonder what skewed the American thesis?

      How might free men compete with “Affirmative Action Privilege?”

      How might the Freedom of the Constitution compete with the Compulsion of the Communist Manifesto?

      The American Founders established a restricted-vote republic, not an ochlocracy in the guise of one man, one vote democrazy.

      The irrational, unintelligible and “poor” were never intended to vote – for obvious reasons.

        1. War is Hell.

          Combat is a Mother——!

          And WINNING is great.

          It’s good to be King.
          ________________

          What’s that losing like, huh?

      1. Crazy George, if you think we’re going back to voting by white males with substantial property you’re even crazier than you’re name implies.

    2. Yes, FFS, because Kavanaugh has already been vetted by The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation, and we know where they stand.

    3. FF Sierra,…
      “Like L4D, their mind is made up, and that’s that”
      i’m not sure I’d put L4D in the same category of others whose minds are made up.
      The others don’t have the gift of prophesy that L4D seems to have.
      Or the psychic ability to read people’s minds, to know what they are really thinking or planning.
      Therefore, it is these special abilities that compel her to make up her mind about issues, events, etc.
      So as difficult and unpleasant as this is, I must come to L4D’s “defense” on this point.😀😂

            1. PC Schulte,….
              You don’t use Tarot cards, or read the signs in the stars?
              “Everybody knows” the uncanny ability to confidently predict the future requires special skills.
              BTW, the prediction that you would be hit with “curses, the likes of which the world has never seen” 😯😧was made by L4D some months ago.
              So while we’re on the subject of paranormal predictions, how’d that one turn out?

              1. Tom Nash – so far I am only out the buck, my wife has not left me and I have not lost any friends or relatives. Money is the same and rising. Unless she is talking about the ASU football team, I don’t know where she is going. We have a new coach, never coached in college. This is going to be fun.

                1. PC Schulte,.,,
                  Glad to hear that you have encountered no major hexes.
                  I know that L4D was talking about “vendettas”😯😧 around the same time she mentioned the curses, so watch your back anyway.

          1. If everybody knew, why did the Women’s March press release have ‘XX’ as the placeholder for the name? And why did the protesters have pre-made signs with various names on them?

            1. Late4Yoga is blowing smoke, nothing new.

              A generation ago, Lloyd Cutler (who had been Jimmy Carter’s White House counsel and long a prominent Washington lawyer) told Robert Bork, “These people have an agenda – constitutional rights to welfare payments, that type of thing. They know you won’t give it to them”. For people like Natacha (or Peter Shill), the Constitution isn’t a text with specific content. It’s an incantation like ‘abracadabra’. “The Constitution” always requires that they get what they want and that elected officials be debarred from following some other policy. For a variety of reasons, the appellate judiciary fancies that People Like Us ought to make all the salient decisions. The results have been absurd and without an ounce of integrity incorporated within them. Olly might tell them that if you want legal abortion, you’ll have to persuade the Idaho legislature to give it to you. Natacha is indignant at the very idea she should have to ask the contemptible provincials in Idaho to grant her something she wants. The modal type among liberals is Veruca Salt

            2. Jitterbug Jitterbug Madre asked, “If everybody knew, why did the Women’s March press release have ‘XX’ as the placeholder for the name? And why did the protesters have pre-made signs with various names on them?”

              A) To throw you off the scent and B) to deprive Schulteacher of his hard-earned dollar.

      1. The others don’t have the gift of prophesy that L4D seems to have. Or the psychic ability to read people’s minds, to know what they are really thinking or planning.

        Either than or Late4Yoga works in Mueller’s office.

        1. TS to Dance,….
          I’m thinking that it might be both.
          As the Special Counsel’s psychic, she could assist the Mueller team in forecasting and revealing the Trump legal team’s next move, and overall legal strategy.
          Rather than acting only as a conduit for information about the Special Counsel’s next move, she may , as well, be shaping Mueller’s next steps with her knowledge of the Trump lawyers’ plans, how judges will rule, who will cut a deal, etc.

            1. L4D,…
              It’s likely that Mueller will subpeona Trump, but is not “known” as a certainty to non-seers.
              And I think you guided us through the next step(s) that will come after the”everybody knows” subpoena that’s “certain” is issued.
              Also, Trump and Giuliani have both told us how much Trump wants to sit down with Mueller ( or a SC team member) to answer any and all questions😐😁.
              So if Trump overrules his legal team’s advice to not submit to questioning, because of his strong desire to do so😆😄, everybody will be satisfied and there’ll be no need for a subpeona.☺😃

              1. According to the crystal ouji board, Kavanaugh might be the only SC vote to quash Mueller subpoena. And Kavanaugh has not yet been confirmed. If Trump has to answer Mueller’s subpoena and testify before the grand jury, Trump will have to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination an as yet undetermined number of times. Therefore, when SCOTUS tells Trump that he has to answer Mueller’s subpoena, then Trump will voluntarily agree to testify to the grand jury in more or less the same manner that Bill Clinton did. In that way, Trump will have the advise of counsel to assert executive privilege or even state secret privilege before Trump Takes The Fifth an unknown number of times.

              2. Mueller cannot even serve a subpoena, much less enforce it. He’s the president’s employee, btw.

                1. TS to Dance,…
                  – Are you saying that Mueller himself would not be the one to issue a subpeona, that the president can’t be forced to comply with a subpeona, or did you mean something else.
                  Just trying to clarify your meaning in the comment you made. I’m guessing that you mean that a subpeona would have to come from the judiciary or perhaps Congress, but that’s only a guess on my part.

  13. If correct, this does not seem to be a Constitutional respecting judge:

    * Kavanaugh has argued that a president may refuse to enforce a law if he or she personally deems that law unconstitutional, even if the Supreme Court has previously upheld it. should have the authority to decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the president deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.

    Find this at wikileaks.

    1. Jill,
      Perhaps this is the wording in one of his opinions that addresses your comment. I cannot be sure. I don’t know the case or the context.

      The President may decline to prosecute certain violators of federal law just as the President may pardon certain violators of federal law. . . . In light of the President’s Article II prosecutorial discretion, Congress may not mandate that the President prosecute a certain kind of offense or offender. The logic behind the pardon power further supports that conclusion. As has been settled since the Founding, the President has absolute authority to issue a pardon at any time after an unlawful act has occurred, even before a charge or trial. So it would make little sense to think that Congress constitutionally could compel the President to prosecute certain offenses or offenders, given that the President has undisputed authority to pardon all such offenders at any time after commission of the offense.

      http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/07/10/and-the-nominee-is-judge-kavanaugh/

      1. It’s an interesting wording by Kavanaugh. There are certain procedures that should be followed. If the President wishes to pardon somebody, then the President should do that rather than ignore the law. What Kavanough considers “little sense” is a little debatable.

        1. Hasn’t every President utilized their prosecutorial discretion authority in their enforcement of existing laws? This seems to be the ebb and flow of our justice system. What one Congress and President passes into law can be undone by future Congresses and future Presidents. The stability in our system should be our Judiciary. Even then, what one court rules as constitutional may be ruled by a different court to be unconstitutional. Of course Stare Decisis will be the cry from everyone that has a ruling in their favor; regardless of it’s constitutional foundation.

          Congress does have the authority to constitutionally compel the President to prosecute the existing law, it’s called the Impeachment Power. Otherwise, if a law is so poorly crafted that it risks being found unconstitutional by a different Court composition, then Congress should amend the law. Congress and by extension the People should not look to the Courts to amend poorly crafted laws, nor should they leave an opening for any President to refuse to enforce them.

          1. The President can’t be impeached for exercising his Article II powers which confers him control over the entire Executive Branch. His motive is irrelevant. Otherwise, every exercise becomes an inquiry into “why.” Sec. 3 of the Article requires him to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” but within that prescription is the notion of prosecutorial discretion to protect the nation.

            1. His motive is irrelevant. Otherwise, every exercise becomes an inquiry into “why.”

              That is precisely what the Left has been doing since his inauguration. Additionally, what limits the impeachment power of Congress if they have the votes? The People?

              1. Olly.
                …- One minor correction….they actually started right after the election.
                The planning stage, anyway, and the open impeachment talk.

                1. Thanks Mark. I expected greater participation in this thread today by our Lefty gaggle. They must be studying the 300 or so cases Judge K has rendered an opinion on and then studiously comparing those with their agen… um, I mean the constitution.

            2. Is it not thus that the Congress may impeach a ham sandwich?

              Is it not thus that the Congress may impeach an officer of the United States for what it perceives to be dereliction, negligence, usurpation, etc.?

              Is it not thus that it is merely the vote that matters?

              1. George, what’s this thus stuff? 🙂 Do you speak to the gal doing the checkout at the market the same way? Is it not thus that I am compelled to pay 10 cents for a bag, rather that I injure myself or my product in the pursuit of economy and value?

          2. “Congress does have the authority to constitutionally compel the President to prosecute the existing law, it’s called the Impeachment Power.” Well the President is supposed to do that well before Impeachment. It’s his duty.

            1. Absolutely true and it reminds me of the following from Madison in Federalist #48:

              After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others.

              What this security ought to be, is the great problem to be solved. Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power? This is the security which appears to have been principally relied on by the compilers of most of the American constitutions. But experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government.

              He concludes:

              The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.

      2. The major, yet rare, exception to prosecutorial discretion is misprision of justice. Declining to prosecute a criminal offender or a criminal offense for the sake of concealing embarrassment or, worse, some other criminal offense committed by some other criminal offender is hyper-technically against the law. However, confidential informants are often criminals whose criminal offenses were cognizant to investigators and, occasionally, to prosecutors who enter into plea agreements, as well. I’m not sure that the pardon power was originally intended to be used to conceal criminal offenses committed by criminal offenders. But if Kavanaugh says otherwise, then I suppose he might know better than I do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.