Brent kavanaugh

[pucho812]

Hmm the new pick....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh

 

[Matador]

Yup, he's the guy that wrote:

The essential principle is crystal clear: When the Government forces someone to take an action contrary to his or her sincere religious belief (here, submitting the form) or else suffer a financial penalty (which here is huge), the Government has substantially burdened the individual’s exercise of religion. So it is in this case.

You read it correctly!  Having to fill out a form is (in Kavanaugh's opinion) an egregious burden on someone's religious beliefs!

 

[pucho812]

Well in his defense have you seen some of these government forms😂

 

[JohnRoberts]

It begins...

JR

 

[Matador]

Some more quotes from Kavanagh:

a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand, thereby barring any Government efforts to expeditiously transfer the minors to their immigration sponsors before they make that momentous life decision. The majority’s decision represents a radical extension of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence. It is in line with dissents over the years by Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, not with the many majority opinions of the Supreme Court that have repeatedly upheld reasonable regulations that do not impose an undue burden on the abortion right recognized by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

Wait Brent: if filling out a form is an 'undue burden on religious expression', how is having to go through an extensive immigration process before a medical procedure not also an undue burden?  O right....Roe v. Wade.

Here's another:

So it comes as a surprise in this case that EPA excluded any consideration of costs when deciding whether it is “appropriate”—the key statutory term—to impose significant new air quality regulations on the Nation’s electric utilities. In my view, it is unreasonable for EPA to exclude consideration of costs in determining whether it is “appropriate” to impose significant new regulations on electric utilities.

This is what is defined as 'judicial activism'.  Nowhere in the EPA statues say that there is a requirement for cost/benefit analysis for  reducing pollution harm.  Kavanagh is just inventing this whole cloth on the spot.

It's like saying we need a cost/benefit analysis to adding crosswalks in front of a school, because even though a few kids might get run over, we are getting our Amazon deliveries a bit faster since traffic doesn't have to stop in front of the school, so there's possibly a net benefit?  Why is controlling the amount of mercury in the air any different?

What about voting rights?  Here is an opinion where he defending South Carolina's requirement for a voter ID, a law while disproportionally impacted African American voters:

We conclude that South Carolina’s goals of preventing voter fraud and increasing electoral confidence are legitimate; those interests cannot be deemed pretextual merely because of an absence of recorded incidents of in-person voter fraud in South Carolina.

Wait Brett? Didn't you just argue that the government has a duty to perform a cost/benefits analysis prior to enacting laws?  When can we assume a benefit and act and when can't we?  I wonder whats different between these two cases?

The best for last:

I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The country wants the President to be ‘one of us’ who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,...the indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.

Ahh, well, at least the real reason for the nomination comes out.

 

[boji]

When the Government forces someone to [sign a form].

Wat. Ok cool, so which religion do I need to adopt to get out of being penalized for not buying healthcare?
The whole thing is nutty, the forced healthcare the penalties, and the religious immunity.

the indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government

Ok wartime or marshall law I could get with this, but ffs, check and balance is like the foundation of right behavior.  Scary!

it is unreasonable for EPA to exclude consideration of costs

What planet am I on.

Wait Brent: if filling out a form is an 'undue burden on religious expression', how is having to go through an extensive immigration process before a medical procedure not also an undue burden?  O right....Roe v. Wade.

Burn!

 

[JohnRoberts]

It continues... He has a track record with enough decisions to get a sense of how he thinks (not necessarily how he will decide future cases).

I thought Barrett would have been an interesting pick but not this time.  No one on even the longer list would ever be acceptable to the "opposition". Candidate Trump published his list of potential SCOTUS jurists, and then stuck to the list. Another example of delivering on promises. It did give the opposition years to dig up dirty laundry to "Bork" these SCOTUS candidates with. 

I didn't love that one of Kavanaugh's wishy washy decisions about ACA was cited by Chief Justice Roberts in declaring it a constitutional tax. IMO Roberts was just punting the ACA back to congress to sort out, and so far that seems stalled due to contentious politics.

Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy so knows how the court works. Jurists have a bad habit of evolving left or right after they are seated on SCOTUS. Kennedy was a catholic conservative who defended abortion, so Kavanaugh will probably be just fine wherever he ends up. 

Now the political calculus is about how this plays out in the midterms...  Too much opposition could cost democratic senate seats (a pyrrhic victory(?) which they still won't win).  Probably wiser to focus on winnable battles, and hopefully keep/gain seats in congress, not lose them this mid term (but what would I know?).

Of course the political discourse these days appears more emotional than rational and thoughtful.

JR 

 

[Matador]

It continues... He has a track record with enough decisions to get a sense of how he thinks (not necessarily how he will decide future cases).

The myth that SC jurists tack to the center is just that...a myth.  I think we know exactly how he will decide future cases.  That's the entire point of selecting based on record.  And deep down, I think you probably agree with me, since you said here before that the SC picks were the reason you voted for Trump, which wouldn't have needed to have been said if you though any potential future pick would moderate in any case.

Too much opposition could cost democratic senate seats (a pyrrhic victory(?) which they still won't win).  Probably wiser to focus on winnable battles, and hopefully keep/gain seats in congress, not lose them this mid term (but what would I know?).

Doubtful.  The number of Trump voters who might have switched to a Democratic candidate but decided not to due to the SC confirmation process is exactly zero.  The number of Democratic voters who will switch to the GOP because the Dem didn't vote to confirm Kavanagh is also exactly zero.

So the only voltes in play are the same votes that rarely turn out no matter what the circumstances, like the ones who couldn't be bothered to vote in 2016.  Do you really think there is some untapped mass of people, who don't vote, who are going to think, "You know, I was going to sit at home in 2018, but Kamala Harris was asking mean questions to Brett Kavanagh, so I'd better go and vote straight up GOP this ticket?" Again, seems doubtful.

The only thing that will decide 2018 is turnout, plain and simple: whomever's outrage will get more of their side to the polls.  And having Dem's stand their ground should help with turnout, just like it did with the Tea Party in 2010 and 2014.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The myth that SC jurists tack to the center is just that...a myth.  I think we know exactly how he will decide future cases.  That's the entire point of selecting based on record.  And deep down, I think you probably agree with me, since you said here before that the SC picks were the reason you voted for Trump, which wouldn't have needed to have been said if you though any potential future pick would moderate in any case.

for the record I was OK with Garland (but mainly because I thought Hillary would win).

Indeed I voted for Trump to avoid the type of justices Hillary would pick. I am glad my prediction about her winning was wrong.

Doubtful.  The number of Trump voters who might have switched to a Democratic candidate but decided not to due to the SC confirmation process is exactly zero.  The number of Democratic voters who will switch to the GOP because the Dem didn't vote to confirm Kavanagh is also exactly zero.

you are smarter than me about what all voters think... I have proved I can't guess accurately.

So the only voltes in play are the same votes that rarely turn out no matter what the circumstances, like the ones who couldn't be bothered to vote in 2016.  Do you really think there is some untapped mass of people, who don't vote, who are going to think, "You know, I was going to sit at home in 2018, but Kamala Harris was asking mean questions to Brett Kavanagh, so I'd better go and vote straight up GOP this ticket?" Again, seems doubtful.

The fear mongering about overturning Roe v.  Wade, and other landmark decisions already started.

Calling him (them?) radical would be funny if they weren't serious.

He was on a list of conservative jurists so the only surprise would be if he wasn't conservative.

The only thing that will decide 2018 is turnout, plain and simple: whomever's outrage will get more of their side to the polls.  And having Dem's stand their ground should help with turnout, just like it did with the Tea Party in 2010 and 2014.

Yup, vote counts is usually the point of elections. Energizing the base is important especially for midterms where most people try to ignore them (I miss those good old days). Be careful about which base you energize.  :

Good stick with your plan.  it works for me.  ;D

JR

 

[boji]

Good stick with your plan.  it works for me. 

Ok stop gloating.  ;D
I will be seriously surprised if voter turnout doesn't set records this time around.

Straight and narrow question: Does anyone here know/remember what the turnout was like after Nixon's impeachment?

 

[Matador]

Good stick with your plan.  it works for me.  ;D

Ok, let's play the game of affirming the consequent, and say you are correct: Dem's are playing with fire by opposing the nomination and jeopardizing their seats by doing so.  So by natural extension, if this theory is correct, Republican Senators who voted against Obama's nominees (our outright blocked them), must have paid a political price in doing so (your pyrrhic victory).

I know you hate homework assignments, so here's a hint:  you can count the number of GOP Senators who paid a price on exactly zero fingers.  Sotomayor was confirmed 68–31 in 2009, and Kagan was confirmed 63-37.

Here are the 31 No's from the Sotomayor vote:

John Barrasso - reelected in 2012
Bob Bennett - retired in 2011
Sam Brownback - retired in 2011
Jim Bunning - retired in 2011
Richard Burr - still there
Saxby Chambliss - retired in 2013
Tom Coburn - reelected in 2010, retired in 2015
Thad Cochran - resigned in 2018 due to health concerns
Bob Corker - still there
John Cornyn - still there
Mike Crapo - still there
Jim DeMint - retired in 2015
John Ensign - resigned in 2011 in an ethics committee investigation
Mike Enzi - still there
Chuck Grassley - still there
Orrin Hatch - still there
Kay Bailey Hutchison - retired in 2013
Jim Inhofe - still there
Johnny Isakson - still there
Mike Johanns - retired in 2013
Jon Kyl - retired in 2013
John McCain - still there (for now)
Mitch McConnell - still there
Lisa Murkowski - still there
Jim Risch - still there
Pat Roberts - still there
Jeff Sessions - the attorney general
Richard Shelby - still there
John Thune - still there
David Vitter - retired in 2017
Roger Wicker - still there

So again, no political prices to be paid.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Ok stop gloating.  ;D

Sorry, I am not accustomed to being on the winning side. It has been a while.  My apologies if it seems like I am gloating.

I will be seriously surprised if voter turnout doesn't set records this time around.

I will, but won't argue about the future.

Straight and narrow question: Does anyone here know/remember what the turnout was like after Nixon's impeachment?

No but generally only 40% of registered voters turn out for mid terms, so it has a low bar to set a record.  :

JR

PS: Nixon drafted me  so I don't miss him. 

 

[boji]

Nixon drafted me  so I don't miss him.

Hope you didn't see much action.  Thanks for serving.

 

[tands]

PREDICTION: Democrats will act mad about brett kavanaugh for about a week and then 5 or six will vote to confirm him, at which point the hashtag resistance will blame susan sarandon.

https://twitter.com/JediofGallifrey/

 

[Matador]

Bob Kasey (D-PA) has already come out against Kavanagh, and he agrees with my assessment about precedence.

If, however, Judge Kavanagh were to become a Supreme Court Justice, there would be no backstop. His rulings would be final. He'd be unencumbered by the obligation of lower court judges to follow precedent. He could act more freely on the kinds of views that animated his troubling and legally incorrect ruling in the HHS case. That’s not a chance I’m willing to take.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Hope you didn't see much action.  Thanks for serving.

I wasn't really given a choice.  While my going away present from my job was either a bus ticket to Canada or a bottle of Canadian Club. Not being a law breaker I took the bottle (and quickly dispatched it).

I told the army I did not want to kill anybody and they told me not to kill anybody at Ft Riley, KS.  : Good advice as we would hear about the occasional soldier killed by another soldier on paydays.

Most of my basic training company went AIT (advanced infantry training and then across the pond to Viet Nam). A small handful of us were awarded advanced MOS (military occupational specialty). I received an electronics MOS for my civilian experience prior to being drafted. I spent most of my time in country (US) but did go to Germany for a couple months on a NATO maneuver with 1st infantry division (the big dead one) in 1970 (Reforger II).

I (really) hated being drafted (one older brother was drafted too), but in hindsight I appreciate how the shared sacrifice should make us less willing to engage in military adventures, when everybody serves.
=====

Nothing but respect for those serving now. One US serviceman was just killed in Afghanistan this week. Not exactly headline news.
-------
People tend to get distracted by the latest "sky is falling" news cycle memes.  Wall to wall coverages of the rescue of some kids from a cave (spelunking during monsoon season  ), while barely a mention of the 48 killed in a tour boat that capsized in Phuket.  :'(  I appreciate that media reported good news for a change, but suspect they were attracted by the potential to end very badly. The rescue was not trivial and one diver died in the effort. That was a lot of resources to spend for a poor country, but other nations have supported the effort too.

Sorry for the veer, but this thread and outcome is pretty predictable.

JR

 

[living sounds]

Wall to wall coverages of the rescue of some kids from a cave (spelunking during monsoon season  ), while barely a mention of the 48 killed in a tour boat that capsized in Phuket.  :'(  I appreciate that media reported good news for a change, but suspect they were attracted by the potential to end very badly.

I agree. It's really unfortunate how we have collectively lost the ability to focus on the important issues.

 

[dmp]

I agree. It's really unfortunate how we have collectively lost the ability to focus on the important issues.

The change in the media over the past few decades with the advent of the internet has been profit driven / click driven.  The important issues are drowned out by the sensationalism.  The highly competitive media free market is to blame - but there isn't a better alternative as far as I know.  The corporate takeover of media is pretty well documented (Sinclair providing partisan scripts to local news, etc) and should be stopped.
There's a similarity to pollution - a capitalist free market will not provide the 'best' product, only the most popular to consumers / most profitable for companies.

Back on topic:  Kavanagh.  Is it reasonable that a President under such significant investigation would get to pick his judge?   
The fact that his former campaign manager is in jail, ~20 people have been indicted, and 5 have made guilty pleas. The revelations from Cohen are still to come.

It really is incredible to be living through this.

 

[Matador]

Back on topic:  Kavanagh.  Is it reasonable that a President under such significant investigation would get to pick his judge?   
The fact that his former campaign manager is in jail, ~20 people have been indicted, and 5 have made guilty pleas. The revelations from Cohen are still to come.

Unfortunately there's nothing to be done, as it's spelled out quite clearly in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution:

The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States; the provisions on this Article shall hold unless The President is Black and in the last Year of his Last Term, or is under Investigation and not a member of the Republican Party.  Should any question arise from such nomination, the final Decision shall be arbitrated by a Fox And Friends panel before 10am on Sabbath of each week, and the results of which shall be Tweeted to the People forthwith.