The suggestion is that the Dems make the confirmation hearing a teaching moment to clarify for voters that they’ve been had.
Rubbing the voters nose in this isn’t going to make the Dems look good. Just feeble. It would be more useful if the hearings could be made to point out that the Republicans present are venal lackeys of billionaire backers, and should be given the boot. Resisting the confirmation is a secondary objective and the end result is foreordained. Making the Republicans squirm and stutter is the main goal.
8
What does it say about one's regard for the US Constitution when one is concerned (terrified?) that its literal interpretation leads to the direct opposite of one's values? Is this not an admission that one's political philosophy is incompatible with said Constitution? And why does the NYT label jurists who proclaim reverence for that document "radical", while a justice who prefers South Africa's Constitution to our own is celebrated as "a superstar of liberal jurisprudence"? All federal office holders, including RBG, swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that [they] will bear true faith and allegiance to the same". Why does the NYT consider this a "radical" thing?
8
I bristle when I see the Ed Board claim Gorsuch was right to argue that he had no allegiance to "individual litigants" which flies in the face of The Bill of Rights. Those rights are largely crafted to prevent the majority in congress from taking the rights and lives of "individuals".
Individuals matter, not just congress and big business.
8
The somewhat unlimited power of Supreme Court is contrary to democratic principles. It became apparent in the FDR era https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-roosevelt-clashed-w... FDR tried to pack the court, which failed. But the court stopped ruling against New Deal legislations.
More recently Roe v. Wade became a thorn in the conservative psyche. And with similar rulings liberals enjoyed unprecedented advantage.
Now the table has turned against them. The Citizens United case was a most horrible ruling providing billionaires enormous power to sway governmental decisions & making laws to their liking!
In such cases when the entire nation had to obey the Supreme Court, the decisions have far too often been 5-4.
Such 5-4 decisions have little rational basis. What about the opinions of the justices who ruled against the majority. (A jury verdict on criminal cases is mostly or almost always reliable though the jurors are just ordinary citizens with very little expertise on laws, because it has to be UNANIMOUS)
It maybe difficult to expect unanimous decisions from the S. court, but by a constitutional amendment those decisions can be made much more LOGICAL for a democracy. Something like as follows: 5-4 decisions should be ratified by both chambers of Congress; 6-3 by either one chamber. 7-2 & up should be effective as it is now. However, even a unanimous decision could be made null & void by 2/3rds of both chambers.
4
Basically, this editorial states that the Supreme Court exists to promote Democratic policies and that anything else means the Court is illegitimate. You do not want a non-partisan Court. You want a Court that is uniformly liberal and enshrines liberal policy into law, no matter what the Constitution states. You have no issue with all activist judges, just those that do not advocate your point of view. This is absolutely disgusting. The true colors of the Times is shown here. Isn’t it ironic that the Democrats hate democracy? The people voted. They overwhelmingly chose the Republicans (and Trump overwhelmingly won the Electoral College, which Hillary Clinton knew was the name of the game). Elections have consequences, right?
8
Well, someone should at least give Trump credit for maintaining the religious and educational diversity of the court.
1
Who's it too late for, the NY Times, liberals, the left? In case you forgot there's a WHOLE other part of the country that believes in the moderate to conservative platform and given the Senate is in GOP control all the resistance in the world (including your editorials and columnists) will do little to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation.
6
This is happening in many countries. Poland, Hungry, Turkey. Why not the US? What makes us immune to the corrosive forces of corruption and greed?
4
How obedient will the SCOTUS be towards the (any) President? Will the President be immune from unlawful behavior while in office only be held accountable by the House and Senate via impeachment proceedings?We are quickly discovering just how fragile our 240 year old democracy is and can be. A live, living lesson in civics and democracy right before our very eyes. Think about this. One non elected individual could be the deciding factor if our democracy, as we have come to know it, will survive. Sound too dramatic? What’s that adage about this not paying attention ..”repeating history!”
4
I don't consider myself a conservative by any stretch. Nor do I think this screed is anything more than a far-left temper tantrum.
9
I would just like to thank The Times for a simple declaration, at long last, of how shatteringly corrupt this ostentatious branch of government has become. Of course we knew it, of course it took Trump to revel in it, roll in it, thrust it in our face. But it goes down better, with this advice to the regretful. We have a government which is conscientiously destroying the United States, and the sorriest fact of all is its incapacity for the regret it will deserve, when brought to justice.
5
I would just like to thank The Times for a simple declaration, at long last, of how shatteringly corrupt this ostentatious branch of government has become. Of course we knew it, of course it took Trump to revel in it, roll in it, thrust it in our face. But it goes down better, with this advice to the regretful.
As others have commented--what hypocrisy. I wonder if "term limits" would be suggested if there were a majority of liberals on the court. Not likely. So if Scalia had been replaced by a more liberal justice, this would have been a move towards a more "independent and non-partisan judiciary"?? "The Constitution is about to be hijacked"--what about suddenly finding a "Constitutional right" to abortion and same-sex marriage after 200 years plus? "Unlimited power"--would they be worried if that power belonged to the liberal side? I think not.
9
Because of high infant mortality, "life expectancy for a free white male was roughly 35 years — less than half what it is today.''
Jim Jordan, Republican, Ohio is finished. His knowledge (at the very least) of the long-standing wrestler abuse at Ohio State University is another OPEN SECRET soon to become more complex and ugly. Resign before the deluge.
Term limits would be good. But if they are just going to be political anyway then why don't we the people vote on them rather than the senate? The president has to put forth a candidate that can get 51% of the vote. Talk about voter turnout!
1
Was Judge Kavanaugh's talk Monday evening a reflection of the man, or a well-polished facade?
The part that gives me the most pause is that bit about the President not being subject to criminal investigation while he is in office.
If Mitch McConnell were an honest man, he would delay the vote until after the November election.
And in other news, perhaps the sun will rise in the west tomorrow.
5
Dear NYT:
While I am also apprehensive that abortion rights will be throttled back somewhat at the margins (though Roe will not be repealed), the "progressive" call to institute an outcome-based litmus test to any Supreme Court nominee will only further politicize this process and damage the reputation of the Court, to the detriment of us all.
Picking a judge to provide a particular outcome is not only short-sighted, but dangerous.
7
"Americans who care about the court’s future and its role in the American system of government need to turn to the political process to restore the protections the new majority will take away, and to create an environment where radical judges can’t be nominated or confirmed."
Obvious the editorial board believes that only Conservatives are radical. (Rolling eyes in disbelief!)
3
Now we learn that Kavanaugh has written papers concerning the ability to indite a sitting president. Indeed, he doesn't state that they can or can't but he posits that they shouldn't be. Is there any question as to why Trump chose this person? Trump's eye is ever on a way to weasel out of his crooked ways. This is his crowning glory - he found a Supreme Court Nominee who he believes will NOT commit to inditing him no matter what he's done...or even might do. How ironic that someone who sees the difficulty of being President being willing to stand with a President who cares so little for doing his job, shirks his duties at the drop of a hat, cares nought about the rule of law, is ignorant of the Constitution and who is so very accustomed to skirting around the law at every whim.
I only hope we can keep this very shaky republic we have.
3
There is an inherent Conflict of Interest when appointment of SCOTUS justice is in hands of the POTUS. The so-called independence of judiciary has been compromised.
This was evident when SCOTUS ruled in favor of George Bush Jr despite evidence to the contrary.
It will be blatantly evident when Trump's scandals and impeachment matters reach SCOTUS and if both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh stay on the bench to return the favor to the boss who appointed them.
3
He doesn’t have to answer any question truthfully, or at all. Trump own the GOP Senate, so he will get what he wants. He will own the SCOTUS soon, too. Watch him threaten to cancel the Social Security COLA unless he keeps the House, too.
3
The Dems and their Soros-paid protestors were not going to give any Supreme Court nominee a fair hearing. How can one be so opposed to a nominee before they are even announced? Mr. Trump could have nominated Thomas Aquinas or Socrates and the lefties would still be on the streets screaming in opposition.
6
I hope you and the many other liberal pundits writing in the Times feel very foolish when Kavanagh is confirmed and when he does not overturn Roe.
Yes, he is conservative, and his rulings will force you liberals at working on getting Congress to create laws, rather than having the Supreme Court do it for you.
But Roe, and same-sex marriage, and lots of other liberal rulings are already part of established law, and no one is overturning them, even arch-conservative judges.
You are getting hysterical because you never got over Hilary's losing.
It's time to move on.
6
July 10, 2018
Judge Kavanaugh is indeed transparent in his personal and professional legal experience and then we have the factor of the supreme group think and influences to the fabric of American justice applied by the judgement of the court and its decisions for the historical record. Let's say the question is how the Supreme Court Justices engage in the power of their vote and there is the rub.
So let's know that what Justice conforms to the voting alignment is - and will say how this court in present collective sentiments will favor the count of the decision to reflect as much group vs individualized best decision for the times representative of the weighted court actionable voice for this estate of guidance for the state of the nation and not the eternal doctrine of jurisprudence to national eminence.
jja Manhattan, N.Y.
1
I'm sure Mitch McConnell will follow the precedent he set with Merick Garland and decide that the Kavanaugh nomination should not be considered until the new Senate is seated next year, after the November election.
3
Sen McConnell was enforcing the Biden Rule, in which Sen Biden decreed in 1992 that’s a president cannot fill Supreme Court vacancies during a presidential election year
4
the die was cast in 1992 when Sen Joe Biden decreed that a president cannot fill Supreme Court vacancies during a presidential election year
4
Trump has only one standard for making any decision: what's in it for me? He will not have read Kavanagh's legal articles but most certainly has been told about his view that a president should not have to deal with being investigated or with litigation as it would take away from his burden of office.
There you go. Trump thinks he got his get out of jail free card.
6
It's already too late. When Obama tolerated the theft of his seat, the die was cast. We will have to endure a solidly conservative court for the rest of our lives.
2
Kavanaugh served in the Bush White House while they planned an unprecedented political purge of federal prosecutors. It was a huge legal controversy. Remember?
‘Loyalty’ to Bush and Gonzales Was Factor in Prosecutors’ Firings, E-Mail Shows
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/washington/14justice.html
2
Really? Your article is exactly where the problem lies. You're so busy pointing out the splinter of partisanship you see in the political alignment you detest that you do not see the log of bitter and ad hominem partisanship in yours. All the specific reasons you cite as being against Judge Kavanaugh are pure policy and agenda, not the Constitution and its interpretation. And ironically it does boil down to getting elected. President Obama said it first to Representative Ryan-elections matter. You can't get around it as much in denial as you may be-President Trump was duly elected, and it matters, big time. Judge Kavanaugh may well take the position of now Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was in the process of being confirmed. No hints, no forecasts, no previews as a Justice should rule impartially on each set of facts and circumstances being constitutional or not. You know-the Ginsburg rule.
5
Tropical storm Chris is now a hurricane! Less than 24 hours after Kavanaugh’s selection Gaia is telling us Ze is not happy!! This evil nomination must be withdrawn immediately while we still have a planet! All life in the universe is threatened!!!!
2
Liberals, stop wishing for unicorns at the end of the rainbow. Move to a more palatable nation like Venezuela where your are more simpatico with their type of government.
2
Dear Judge Kavanaugh,
I enjoyed watching your fine performance the other night in which you assured the American people that you are a common, ordinary, decent American citizen, and not a part of the governing elite, with a loving wife, two loving daughters and that you look to hire as many women law clerks and blacks as you can and otherwise are a good guy.
The problem I have is that you are being appointed to the Court by a President who lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes and is now busily engaged in tearing the country apart.
I hope you will appreciate my quandary concerning your suitability for the Court and would appreciate receiving your answers to the following five questions to give me a better idea of the type of man you are.
I already have a pretty good idea of who you are, so simple yes or no answers will do.
1. Do you believe women possess the right to receive ordinary, well recognized medical treatments from their doctors without interference by the State?
2. Do you believe that Corporations and rich people have the right to purchase as much political advertising as their money can buy?
3. Do you believe that illegal migrants are human beings and possess the right to be treated as such?
4. Are Presidents entitled to shoot a person down on Fifth Avenue while still remaining President?
5. Do you believe that Judge Garland received a fair shake from the Republican Party?
With great thanks in advance for your quick response.
Stanton
11
As always - you really can't believe much of what the Times Editorial Board says.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/kavanaugh-for-the-court-1531190695
4
Please forward this to everyone you know:
https://www.alternet.org/history-hypocrisy-evangelicals-used-be-pro-choi...
Excerpts: Randall Balmer's book, "Thy Kingdom Come" - The Christian right was not originally animated by abortion, but by the defense of private, tax-exempt, racially segregated colleges and schools.”
From Jonathan Dudley: In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:
“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed….… Clearly, … in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”
From the magazine - “Christian Life” - “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” … The Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.
Paul Weyrich: "I was trying to get [evangelicals] interested in those issues and I utterly failed," What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter's intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation."
That’s when they suddenly got religion about politics — and got political about their religion
2
A very good article. However I'm going to pick some nits. The author states that: "the average life expectancy of a male was roughly 35 years in 1787". This implies that adults who lived past 35 were rare. In fact this wasn't the case. In 1787, life expectancy at BIRTH was 35 1/2 years. Now it's like 78. This is because of the huge amount of children that died before reaching adulthood. For example, assume a population where half of live births die before reaching 1 year and half live to 100. "Average" life expectancy would be 50. Of course people died younger, but many lived to over 60.
1
A country must consent to be governed, if governance is to be effective.
If governance is no longer reflective of the wishes and will of the majority, governance will cease to be effective. It does not matter how vocal, or strident or organized the minority are. They are still the minority.
The Supreme Court has, from today, effectively signed its own death warrant. For years, the majority in the country accepted their judgements as objective, based on something other than partisan politics, in the face of some very questionable rulings.
Now, the mask is off.
What will happen when instead of North Dakota dissenting and refusing point blank to obey a ruling, you have California doing the same thing? New York? Washington?
Is it really likely that these rich, liberal, populous states will meekly submit to reversing laws and statutes without a fight because a minority of bible-thumpers feel that they should?
In some ways, this has been too long coming. Now we see the Supreme Court for what it is, a party political extension of the right wing where any 'gain' may be rescinded more or less at will.
Time we took the business of governing out of the hands of nine unelected officials. A fight is 'won' the constitution is amended to guarantee that right and not before.
Roll on November. Vote!
4
We have become used to live vying in a country for in which the more important decisions are made by the judiciary. We have inflated the judiciary until we and it believes it has a majestic and extra-statutory power which the constitution does not give it and which it usually would not have claimed before, say, 1950. In the meantime we have neglected our own political rights as citizens by failing to vote, by failing to invest in the concept of a representative legislature, and thereby failing to call legislature and executive to account. I think it is ironic that there is now so much complaining because those who have not neglected these rights and who have formulated a consistent view of government are now in control of a most major judicial appointment. If we have not organized, if we have not voted, if we have not debated and compromised, we should complain about ourselves. We have been beat by people who have not made themselves dependents of the courts.
2
The final paragraphs of the editorial would seem to argue for Kavanaugh’s confirmation: He, like many “originalists” seems to say that the power to create new policy lies with legislators, not with judges. I agree with that idea. So do a great many moderate Americans.
7
I suppose I place my myself politically speaking on the far left (e.g. pro 'medicare for all', anti-citizens united, pro immigration of all forms, anti guns, etc.). I say this so you won't misunderstand me when I say: "Yay! SCOTUS is becoming useless or dangerous for a generation or more".
What kind of Court do you think greeted Roosevelt in 1933? Same kind of hide-bound conservative dinosaurs as this Court is about to become.
What happened next in history? The Left awoke! What happens next for us? We be woke.
When I was in law school in the late 1980s, there was a course on how to use the courts to effect progressive political change. "Those were the days my friend, I thought they'd never end ..."
I tell everybody that the best thing that has happened to the Left in the past 40 years is dear Herr Trump himself. You think #metoo breaks out in 2017 if Hilary had won? Maybe, but I doubt it.
Trump, and now the SCOTUS, is that putrid food we eat that makes us wretch, and then makes us commit to purifying our body-politic *by ourselves*.
3
Gosh, I would have thought theNYT would be less balanced. Not.
5
Kavanaugh will be the vote that sees further erosion of the Civil and Voting Rights acts at the hands of the SCOTUS. Elections have consequences. Horrible, horrible consequences.
Atheists have always been a small minority of people, because most people will accept magic as an explanation. Atheists will not. As a historically persecuted minority, atheists have thrived here under the constitutional prohibition of faith-based legislation this coup d'état has been contrived to deny.
2
To get a straight answer, you got to ask a straight question.
3
Until us liberals vote more often in every election - national and local - the conservatives are going to keep filling political jobs (including judges) with right wing zealots who will favor white wealthy Christian conservatives over everyone else. The US is in a cold Civil War and the Confederates are winning this one by a large margin. Our federal government is now a racist mess and this will become much worse before it gets better the 2nd half of this century when whites are no longer the majority race.
1
You can review his 12 yr record on the US Court of Appeals and understand that he will be an Originalist-interpreting. the Constitution strictly, not like a liberal loose constructionist.
4
Kavanagh has written numerous opinions. They provide the best evidence of the votes he would cast and the opinions he would write if confirmed to the Supreme Court. This record is more than sufficient to judge the judge.
3
Excellent editorial comment. "In short, Senate Democrats need to use the confirmation process to explain to Americans how their Constitution is about to be hijacked by a small group of conservative radicals well funded by ideological and corporate interests, and what that means in terms of the rights they will lose and the laws that will be invalidated over the next several decades." Yes, yes, yes. The Democrats need to stop screaming and shouting and need to act like the statesmen most Americans really want in government. In short, the Democrats need to stop looking as immoderate as the Republicans.
3
The usurpers did it by taking the name of God in vain to stir up public hysteria over a deeply private matter.
2
Like Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, when asked about precedent & stare decisis & "settled law," will either slide around the question or simply lie.
In his acceptance of the nomination, he was eager to talk about his personal life, especially his wonderful relationships with women. So ask him this:
"Mr. Kavanaugh, you have two daughters--if one, or both, unintentionally became pregnant, would you insist that either, or both, bear the child?"
3
The editors comment about the average life span is particularly ignorant and stupid. Sure, most men died at 35, but Supreme Court Justices were never 'most men'. A simple look at Wikipedia shows me that the first 9 justices died at a minimum age of 65.
4
The term limit issue is important and not to be brushed aside because of fears of lengthy constitutional amendment debates, etc. The point the authors make about shorter eighteenth century lifespans is germane. Modern medicine has certainly made us all live a lot longer but with greater chances of cognitive decline and miscellaneous 'old age' diseases prone to disable us.
Let's talk about term limits for judicial appointments.
1
The crucial question is whether President Trump (in any way, shape or form) requested personal allegiance from Judge Kavanaugh prior to selecting him. It is hard to imagine that Trump in private would not have demanded such allegiance to Trump (as he did to Comey), which specifically supercedes primary allegiance to the constitution or the separation of powers.
3
Term limits are a must: no lifetime appointments when longevity has more than doubled since the framing of the constitution.
Has anyone inquired about Judge Kavanaugh's views on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the infamous Citizens United ruling? That ruling has done immeasurable harm to the U.S. body politic, bringing huge corporate money into our elections, drowning out the voices of those who lack such resources, tilting our elections toward the voices and concerns of the wealthy.
1
Judges are purportedly vetted by the Senate, where we all have profoundly different degrees of influence.
How can there be equal protection of law when input into what the law is, and how it is interpreted, is radically distorted?
Who do you think generously funds the "Federalist Society"?
3
It all depends on what "freedom" is. Apparently it is no liberty left to lose.
"to create an environment where radical judges can’t be nominated or confirmed. As those tireless conservative activists would be the first to tell you, winning the future depends on deliberate, long-term organizing in the present, even when — especially when — things appear most bleak." This is, of course, a totally subjective point of view that loses even minimal credibility because Kavanaugh hasn't even been questioned by his political enemies.
2
The Democrats should ask Kavanaugh the same questions the Republicans asked Garland: none. They should simply block this nomination in every way possible. We know why Trump nominated him: he wrote a law review article in 2009 that advocated for presidential immunity from crimes and civil lawsuits. Trump needs that. Badly.
4
It's irresponsible to use the life expectancy as an argument about the foundations of the supreme court. Life expectancy is highly sensitive to outliers such as infant mortality and at that time was not a good indicator of how long judges would live for. A quick google search shows that a majority of even the very first supreme court justices lived to be over 60 years old, much greater than the measly 35 years this article suggests adults began to die of old age. Yes, real life expectancy of adults in America today is greater than it was in the late 18th century, but rather a change of about 50-60 to 70-80 years of age. Please avoid using misleading information like this that allows those who wish to discredit good and necessary reporting to label articles as "fake news".
4
I know all I would need to know to vote, and I doubt he will have any profound impact on my life. Nobody I know would have an abortion, the LBTQ folks have plenty of rights that are common to everyone. I want a judge that does exactly what he said last night, and follows precedent when he should. Not to mention he will be one of nine and the most recent one too boot. Confirm him by Sept. 1.
4
The editorial refers to "unelected" judges. People seem to use the term "unelected" to suggest that the unelected person and their actions or decisions somehow lack legitimacy. In fact, being unelected was intended to establish legitimacy, not undermine it. The Constitution's Article III provides for the president's appointment of federal judges. Once on the bench, the judge is insulated from politics by life tenure (also provided for by the Constitution, so long as the judge does not commit an impeachable offense). Insulation from politics is supposed to eliminate conflicts of interest (such as what decision will get me re-elected) or other biasing influences. So let's stop using "unelected" as a pejorative. I would say it is worse to have elected judges, as in many state courts-justice is supposed to be blind, not looking over its shoulder.
5
The Federalist Society's motto is 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." Put another way, government should only extend as far as required to protect liberties, Congress should make the laws, and Judges should not. In what world is that "radical" or remotely close to the movements to destroy "liberal democracy" in places like Poland or Hungary?
Advocating for limits on the state will promote liberal democracy, it will place control with the people and it will restrain an executive with despotic tendencies. This is the exact opposite of what the NYT incorrectly suggests the Society is promoting.
No one knows if Kavanaugh will be a decent Justice, but if he embraces the Society's stated motto on the bench, he might actually do alright.
5
It all depends on what "freedom" is. It could be no liberty left to lose.
Trump prefers judges who never decide anything in his own affairs, because he litigates to crush his opposition with legal fees.
1
Even if Hillary had gotten another 2 million votes in California, it wouldn't have mattered. She still would have lost because...
1
The bad part is that The Times is still bellyaching. The good part is that President Trump will get at least one, if not two more SCOTUS picks.
7
What we lose is the extension of the democratic process to the private group. Unions are one example. But many anti-democratic groups exist in our society. Once one exits the family group, democracy is the means by which we acknowlegde the interest of the majority within a group rather than some minority.
Cry us a river. If Hillary were electing a second liberal to the court and shift the blanace of power to the left, you wouldn't be posting the same message would you? Be honest.
7
Thank you, NY Times editorial board, for your tight reasoning each time I read your editorials.
1
What are his views of Citizens United? If Roe v. Wade will become a lightning bolt, I think Citizens United should also become one.....taking money out of politics and the buying of our politicians, and the denial of a woman's right to control her body. Where are the intelligent leaders for our country??? Is it too much to ask that SCOTUS really be a non-partisan faction of our government?
3
" . . . promote the general Welfare . . ." Is Kavanaugh an "originalist" who would believe that the founders never intended a welfare state? does he believe the constitution was written by and for white male property owners over 21 years old? or should the words mean what's good for business is the general welfare as expressed in the constitution?
1
"Promote" does not mean "Provide."
2
"Senators may not be able to ask a nominee how they'll vote in a specific case, but they certainly can ask how they feel a woman's, or man's, right to privacy should be handled under the law."
HAHA! Dems can't even be bothered to follow the rules they created.
1
What the NYT doesn't explain, of course, is how it was the Democrats who left us the legacy of the stealth nominee. Perhaps the NYT doesn't have anyone left from the olden days (anything before President Obama) to enlighten them. It was, of course, the Democrats who created the rule that you couldn't ask a nominee to discuss his or her opinion about cases that might come before the Court. The nominee at the time? Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The politics was apparent. They did not want the public to informed about her position on abortion. Then, we have simple majority confirmation vote. We can thank Harry Reid for that, as the first politician of either party to dispense with the rule for federal court appointments. He got rid of it for the second highest federal courts (the circuit courts of appeal), and the Republicans, with the door opened, returned the favor.
7
I know he is an Irish Catholic Conservative, who is a drawing room type who never worked up a sweat in any job he ever had. And I venture he avoided the draft. We need civil diversity on the court, on all courts.
2
What the NYT doesn't explain, of course, is how it was the Democrats who left us the legacy of the stealth nominee. Perhaps the NYT doesn't have anyone left from the olden days (anything before President Obama) to enlighten them. It was, of course, the Democrats who created the rule that you couldn't ask a nominee to discuss his or her opinion about cases that might come before the Court. The nominee at the time? Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The politics was apparent. They did not want the public to informed about her position on abortion. Then, we have simple majority confirmation vote. We can thank Harry Reid for that, as the first politician of either party to dispense with the rule for federal court appointments. He got rid of it for second highest federal courts, and the Republicans, with the door opened, returned the favor.
2
Hillary raised twice as much money as Trump AND LOST.
3
For perspective, read the Times' slam of Justice Souter when he was nominated to the Court. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/03opdead.html The current editorial is the same old tiresome hackneyed rant trotted out by the Times every time a Republican nominates someone to the Supreme Court. New tune, but the same old song. For the record, I have my own reservations about nominating a Bushie to the Court. They have never stood for much. But Kavanaugh does not deserve the hysterical hand wringing represented by this editorial.
9
The Supreme can be and should be above politics. Its the appointees who are humans and suffer human weaknesses, ego, selfishness, greed, etc.
The courts members make it either at or below politics, not above....and remember who nominates these members?
My cynical view of this Court makes me think more and more that centrist and progressive political leaders need to take over as many statehouses as possible. If, as is reported, most Americans believe that abortion in some form must be allowed then they must elect state legislators and governors who will make that happen. If they believe that conservatives are trying to restrict their right to vote they need to organize so as to get rid of corrupt politicians who gerrymander to maintain their own power. If they believe conservatives are helping to destroy our environment with deregulation they need to make sure their statehouses are protecting them. In other words, even though some important Supreme Court rulings are beyond the reach of state courts many issues can be insulated from an ultra-conservative federal bench.
So it looks like we will now have two out of nine members of SCOTUS who were appointed by a President who lost the popular vote, and who will join as key members, a majority of five, all men, all conservative Christians, whose narrow legal, political, and religious ideologies are the opposite of those of the majority of the American people.
4
Actually, if there were such a thing as a popular vote for President, which there isn't - we are going to have 4 of 9, and before Trump is done, a clean majority. How do you like that?
4
For once I agree with you Bolger, you've espied something I missed. Bravo! And yes he is, deliciously so for my view.
Actually, neither Hill nor The Donald lost or won the popular vote, as neither (and no one else either) achieved more than 50% of that bogus calculation; Hill achieved a higher plurality than did The Donald. Of course, apart from the electronic tallying boards of pretentious blowhard news readers on election night, as if it were an athletic contest, there is no "popular vote". Actually, there is, and Trump won it and Hill lost it; that is, Trump won a majority of the 50 individual state-wide popular votes which gave him a majority of the electoral college votes which elected him as President. So get it straight, for once and all time, Hill lost the only actual "popular" vote which exists and counts, and Donald John Trump won it.
1
The question raised by a series of Supreme Court nominees' confirmation hearings is whether there is any penalty for lying to the Senators? For instance, didn't Alito, Roberts and Gorsuch all swear fealty to Stare Decisis before riding roughshod over decades of precedence in a series of controversial cases? Or do sitting justices get to say, Oh, not those precedents and ignore their own conflicts of interest with impunity?
If so, who cares what Kavanaugh testifies to?
3
Trump, the disruptor was at his game again last night by announcing that Bret Kavanaugh will be our next Supreme Court justice along with 4 more sexist,racist,misogynist, homophobic, islamaphobic right wing Republican political activists and spokespersons.
So this game, that we're witnessing since January 20th of 2017, is going to exacerbate rather than dissipate in this country which was rightly named by the founder as United states of America.
In the same context if the founders had any clue that one day a total disruptor called Trump will take over the reins of this country, they would've named this country something else like "Never to be United 50 States of America".
But with Trump's announcement of Mr. Kavanaugh for the open position in our S.C.O.T.U.S., Trump has definitely sealed the deal of any unity in this country, especially between the Democrats and Republican congress members.
So the only thing that we can say to our most disruptive president of all time is similar to what something Trump tweeted for Maxine Waters, a very vocal Dem congress woman from California when he warned her with a physical threat with a subliminal message that said,"Wish what you asked for,Maxine."
Now if these right wing political activists in the new session of S.C.O.T.U.S. do not check their illegitimate president, then maybe the women of all the party on the left'll take to the streets like they did last year all over the world on Jan. 17th, one day after Trump took over power.
1
With all the prudent concerns raised in this editorial I’m most disturbed by the idea that Kennedy was possibly encouraged to retire when he did with what could very well be a quid pro quo for his previous clerk Kavanaugh being named his replacement.
This has a Blagoivich (-2pts for spelling) aroma to it with surprisingly a finesse touch I couldn’t imagine trump capable of.
Additionally, a justice being named to this court which could very well rule on the President who appointed him being subjected to an investigation, when said justice believes the President shouldn’t be burdened with legal issues is preposterous.
3
pro-gun, pro-life, expresses, in essence, a belief that a president is above the law while in office. looks like a miserable prig right wing extremist.
" . . . promote the general Welfare, . . . " which as an "originalist" he can dismiss by saying the founders never meant a welfare state and that the constitution was by and for white male property over 21 years of age.
what I've been hearing is that he interprets and makes legal decisions based on his personal beliefs such as trying to block an immigrant teenager from getting a legal abortion. even when overruled by all his colleagues he still dissented.
3
Judge Kavanaugh is competent and qualified. Even George W. Bush praised the President's choice and for him to praise the President on anything is saying a lot. Also, let's not forget the Supreme Court is not as partisan as Congress. So stop with the alarmist nonsense.
3
Thanks for pointing out that George W. Bush endorsed this pick. Now I feel better.
2
Because Trump was fairly elected President. Pretty simple.
1
Senator Schumer and the Democrats had best be careful in how they approach their preordained opposition to Judge Garland. There's a cynical game to be played here if President Trump chooses to do so. If a highly qualified candidate (which Judge Garland clearly is) fails confirmation by a vote or two after a vicious Senate confirmation fight that would leave the seat still open before the mid-term elections.
In 2016 over 25% of Trump voters voted for him specifically because of the chance to nominate SCOTUS justices during his term. The election Senate map is already quite unfavorable for Democrats and I can't imagine anything that would more outrage and motivate conservatives to turn out en masse to vote in the mid-terms than the prospect of defeating Democrats and electing a few more Republican Senators so they could confirm another conservative SCOTUS justice.
2
My bad. I meant Democrat opposition to Judge Kavanaugh. Not enough coffee this morning.
In the end, all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth is pointless, this is a nominee that is qualified and well credentialed. He is as credentialed as Mr. Garland or Mr. Gorsuch and although I can't support the originalist positions on the court, they are wrong in my opinion, this is a qualified nominee. Looking at the Constitution as only the frames "intended" it seems to be a mistake and ignores what we have learned with events that have happened after it was written. Does this need to be taken into account? Of course but this cannot be the deciding factor which is what bothers me in decisions about this nominee. The politics of this show exactly why both parties in the country do not deserve public support, they are at best corrupt entities run by ideologues that seem to only be interested in winning. The hubris of the right and the lost left should not be supported at this point, there are better options. The food fight must end, there is nothing that the Democrats can practically do about this at this time and for as much as I don't like this Judge's past decisions, he is qualified and should be on the bench.
1
Garland is currently Kavanaugh's boss and is a centrist, not a lib.
There's a lot of talk about Roe vs. Wade being overturned, but I think that could be a diversion from the real issue which is Kavanaugh's belief that a sitting President should not be investigated for crimes. If Trump refuses to talk to Mueller, and the fight against the investigation goes to the Supreme Court, it's pretty clear the conservatives, especially Kavanaugh, would rule in favor of the President -- another good reason why any nominee to the Supreme Court should not be approved while Trump is under investigation.
4
I think Trump selected Kavanaugh to rub defeat into Hillary Clinton. He prosecuted the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Trump is diabolical.
3
Democrats must consider not Judge Kavanaugh, his philosophy, his personal life, his past decisions. Instead, they must consider person who nominated him; his philosophy, his personal life, and his decisions. President Trump knows nothing about any of these judges. He just knows, passingly, the people who do. So he went to the Federalist Society, and similar Conservative brain trusts, and accepted their picks. Of those, he chose the person who has already said he doesn't support indicting a sitting president, as well as being a staunch Conservative. He may be well educated, well spoken, with keen judicial insight, but as in the case of Neil Gorsuch, he decides without compassion. Democrat senators in red states need to fall on their swords if necessary to block his confirmation. The two Republican senators, both women and pro-choice also need to defy their party. Women's right to choice will be blocked, in pieces or entirely. Access to affordable healthcare without prior illness denials will be lost. That is the goal of President Trump. That is the goal of Republicans. That is the goal of Ryan and McConnell. As Senator Manchin found out, 99% support of President Trump doesn't count. One vote against the tax bill and VP Pence castigated him. Sen Manchin correctly responded, "... that's why Washington sucks." It stills sucks and that's why a 4-4 SCOTUS until the 2018 elections are decided is so important.
2
I agree with what you say about Republicans being in thrall to right wing ideologues & corporate interests. Unfortunately, most Democrats in office are also afraid to express themselves (assuming that they have selves) & are in thrall the the rulers of political correctness, easy for wealthy folks to combine with slightly different, but equally powerful corporate interests. That is why the economic divide keeps widening & will continue to do so. I hope that there will be a party of the people in the future. It does not exist at present.
1
"winning the future depends on deliberate, long-term organizing in the present, . . ."
Perhaps
But you leave out the elephant in the room
namely, the electoral college
Democrats have won the popular vote in six out of the last seven elections. Every single election since 1992 except for 2004 which bush barely won and if Gore had been running for a second term he might have won that.
The EC is the central issue.
without the EC Democratic presidents would have appointed 7 of the current SC members and be about to get an 8th
everything is because of the electoral college
if this were the other way around it would be all the GOP would be talking about
they would be hammering this issue night and day
it denies the will of the majority - goes against one man one vote etc etc
yet, the dems are almost silent on this - not a peep
imagine if after this last election if HRC and Bill, BO and Gore - all winners of the popular vote - four presidents -
what if they begun to work non-stop, barnstorm around the country made the EC the issue - big rallies - call out this obvious problem -
but nope - not a peep -
why not?
sure it would be hard - but this is important - make it an issue -
the EC is the issue and until we address it this country is doomed
3
At this point I am very sorry that Al Franken won't be able to question this guy. I hope someone else will step up to the plate.
6
I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers never intended that organizations with perpetual lives and limited liability (i.e. corporations) would be considered 'persons' under the Constitution. In fact, I rather doubt that they intended that such organizations would exist at all (being, as they are, committed to a feudal, undemocratic, form of governance).
If Kavanaugh is a textualist, committed to the original intent, how does he feel about unlimited corporate speech, i.e. Citizens United?
2
Trump will get a big bonus out of this--a chance to appoint another conservative to the DC Appeals Court--perhaps the most important court in the nation other than the SCOTUS. Of course, Kavanaugh was also a conservative on the court, but Trump can appoint someone even more radically conservative.
The horror with this president never stops.
But unless voters stop this juggernaut of destruction in November, it will cement itself for generations to come.
2
What we need to understand is that Supreme Court opinions are the law of the land long after the tenure of those justices has ended. There were some sixty years between Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education. The justices on the Plessy court had been dead decades before the Brown case was heard. The same is true for Korematsu, which stood as precedent for over seventy years.
Why this matters is that every American alive now will live most, if not all of their lives in a far right, Christian-controlled nation. The notion that term limits may be imposed on sitting Supreme Court justices is a pipe dream. It will not happen, certainly in our lifetimes.
So what will we be left with? Roe v Wade will be gone. Government and citizens must give deference to Christianity only (per Bakeshop), but may disrespect other religions (Trump's Muslim ban). Free speech will continue to be weaponized, and we will see this nation marching toward an Evangelical Third Reich. Women will become nothing but forced birthing vessels. We will literally be entering the Republic of Gilead.
And this will not last some twenty-five or thirty years, the remaining life span of many sitting on the High Court now. This Court's opinions may last sixty, seventy or eighty years, or more. We will not see a return to separation of church and state, and a respect for civil rights in our lifetime. The time for "fighting back" has long past. It will be for future generations to wage these battles.
3
With this latest SCOTUS nominee, the Koch bros are realizing their 40-year goal of funding the move to right-wing government in the US.
3
A question: Why is there not A SINGLE Protestant SC Justice on the court? (I don’t believe in magical thinking myself, btw, but I find this interesting) “Protestants are the largest group of Christians in the United States with its combined denominations collectively accounting for about half the country's population or 150 million people.”
2
And my nemesis cousin (from the midwest) used to complain about the "activist" judges of the 9th Circuit Court. Hypocrites, all GOPers....
5
The Koch Brothers like Kavanaugh. Putting up big money for his confirmation. While doing their activities like undermining a bond issue to improve Nashville's transportation system. And making sure that US electricity plants continue to use coal over cleaner forms of energy. Trump calculated the nomination to make it was likely that Republicans Collins and Murkowski vote for Kavanaugh. Trump's upset victory, minus a majority of the electorate in 2016, has allowed him to garner a great deal of power to himself. Which he is not loathe to throw around. The Supreme Court has proven that they will back him as he tries to increase his ability to shape the country in a right wing plutocratic direction.
Kavanaugh's syncophantic comment in the opening of his speech told us all we need to know. This unresearched exaggeration does not inspire out trust: "No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a supreme court nomination. Mr. President, I am grateful to you."
7
Why don't we know more about Judge Kavanaugh? He's been in Washington D.C all these years participating in many important rulings that are reported on regularly. If his rulings are so outrageous why haven't papers like the Washington Post and NYT been screaming about him. Does being a clerk under Kennedy disqualify him? Dose knowing some Republicans disqualify him? The concept that the courts interpret law, not make law doesn't sound so bad. It worked in 1923 Moore v. Dempsey, when the court used the due process clause of the 14yh amendment to provide protection to those wrongly convicted without due process. The didn't write the law, they interpreted an amendment passed in 1868. Those rulings stick but laws essentially made by the court that aren't defined by the constitution or other laws often are the most precarious. The right to privacy comes from the 5th amendment but also the due process clause of the 14th. If Kavanaugh has made up law along the way or his rulings were outrageous interpretations, we should have been informed by respected news agencies. But if they were either of those, the press never waved a flag of warning.
7
The most successful overthrow of a major NationState in history and not a single bullet needed to be fired
5
That’s how we like our regime changes in the U.S. - peaceful transitions.
2
The Kavanaugh nomination is the end result of a broken election process.
The famous management theorist Peter Drucker was writing thirty years ago that corporations were without conscience and if they did display one it was a momentary blip because it had, temporarily, a CEO who was willing to trade profits in order to do the right thing. Gerrymandering crushed us. We elected Hillary Clinton and then put Donald Trump in office. That is twice in twenty years—Al Gore, not George Bush was elected to the Presidency. Are reformers and liberals losing because they actually stay within the letter and spirit of the rules? Probably.
The short game is to defeat the Kavanaugh nomination, develop a consensus list
and take a run at a new nominee that is more acceptable to both sides—after a new Senate is sworn in. The long game is larger, we are a country with a deep primary commitment to individual rights or we are not. Our cyclic, historic expansion of personal liberty is who we are. At the same time, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the expansion of those rights have been immensely beneficial to the power of corporate money and lobbying. Citizens United chokes the life out of ope dialogue.
This nomination joins the battle with the Bill of Rights and a sense of individual
Liberty on one side standing against an increasingly muscular, highly effective, emergent cleptocracy that could care less about the quality of life for the average American or the
the environment we all share.
8
"house of cards" effect is what I meant to say inmylast comment. Sorry.
Would I be correct to assume that:
1) The NYT Editorial Board never saw fit, during any time that liberals were in control of the Court, to argue for shortening Supreme Court lifetime appointments down to just 18 years? And,
2) If your proposed term limitation change happened to be approved and implemented, you would want it applied retroactively against the Court members then in place, coincidentally shortening the duration of the then existing conservative majority (including Kavanaugh) that we are told otherwise might last for several decades?
I am sure that these both are simple coincidence and not indicative of liberal bias on the part of the NYT!
And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you!
5
Save this editorial and, when there is a Democrat president who nominates a liberal who wants to rewrite the Constitution, submit this again with name changes.
3
A hundred thousand votes going for Hillary
and you would have a 5/4 "Liberal Court"
until well into the next century, especially if
Justice Ginsburg agreed to step down.
The Pendulum of Politics swings back and forth
and it is hardly ingenuous of the Editorial Board to write
as if Washington, D.C. has been, is now, or ever
will be anything but a poltical town.
Roe vs. Wade was not decided via the Constitution
but via a made up "Right to Privacy" that Justice William
O. Douglas created.
If you think women have an absolute right to terminate
the lives of the babies in the wombs then why don't you get a Constitutional Amendment passed to that effect ?
Because it would never pass in 3/4th's of the States or
2/3rds of the Congress.
Meanwhile, what about excessive bail, inhumane prisons, equal school funding in each individual State, the Death
Penalty, Prosectutors holding back excupaltory evidence, the low pay of Public Defenders, Affirmative Discrimination...Endless wars fought by poor Americans that require them to do 3, 4 or even 5 tours of duty while their peers hang out in college...
When will the Supreme Court rule on these for the sake
of the American people ?
2
Do I hear the gnashing of liberal teeth? I know a good dentist who can fit you with a retainer to prevent tooth damage. Oh, and please see your physician regarding your blood pressure. That could be more personally damaging than a conservative Supreme Court.
2
The Times would be all in with interpretations that favored Democratic Party positions, so I’m finding this a bit overwrought.
2
We look back at some of the dismal decisions of the SC, like approving eugenics and child labor. It seems we are heading in that direction once again.
2
Well, it appears that judge K. as the kids like to call him is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He never came across a conservative cause he did not embrace. If I could ask him just one question, it would be his views on the 14th amendment since he is so faithful to the constitution. Then again, most right wingers hide behind their love of the constitution, interpreting it in a way that screws the people in favor of the plutocrats they are beholden to. His soft spoken way and boyish looks remind me of the S&L skit about Paul Ryan. The one about his looks and demeanor. I an paraphrasing: "He is so nice it is like watching a Life-Time movie. You are attracted to him but at the end of the night you know he is gonna kill you."
3
Unfortunately for your post, Tim, the Preamble is not law.
2
"But any change to the justices’ tenure would require a constitutional amendment, and so is a longer debate for another day."
Editor- please fact check this- I don't recall length of term for the Supremes in the Constitution.
1
This was a good, thoughtful article until it devoled into the standard "Democrats must save us from the evil Republicans" drivel. Oh, well...
3
It troubles me that this article was written by the editorial board of the NYT. The blind rage bolstered by lousy arguments is embarassing. I am a first generation muslim immigrant. I despise Trump and all that he stands for. Even still, I find the left’s ignorance appalling. The key tenet of originalism is that SCOTUS justices should not “substitute their will for that of the people.” Go read anything by Scalia or even watch a youtube video. Kavanaugh (if he ever touches Roe, which I don’t think he will) will never write that abortion is unconstitutional. At most, he will argue that it is a question best left to the states. If the left is SO convinced that 70% of the population is pro choice, why not just take it to the ballot? Why leave these sorts of questions to 9 people with a current median age of 75? The only answer is: the country is divided on this issue, despite what the left will have you believe. If abortion went to a vote, it would likely fail (Trump did win afterall). The solution is not to tell pro-life women that they’re idiots. Make a solid argument, try to change people’s minds, actually say something substantive. The Supreme Court going right is not the end of the world. Just enact legislation providing you with the liberties you want. If you can’t pass that legislation because you’ve alienated 50% of the population, then you only have yourself and your high horse to blame. This is coming from an outsider, someone who can’t vote and who simply observes.
3
When liberals fail in our system, they want to change the rules. Lose the election? Change the Electoral college. Lose the vote on an issue? Use the Judiciary to legislate. Lose the Judiciary? Put term limits on justices. Can't get cloture? Eliminate cloture. When Democrats lose, our founders become short-sighted and we need to improve on their design, right now, in the heated moment, for partisan reasons. How twisted and self-serving is all this? This editorial provides an unfortunate example. We need to term limit Justices, since white males were only expected to live until 35 in the 18th century. No one thought they would sit until their 80's. John Marshall was 79 and had served 35 years. John Jay died aged 74. The Constitution expected the president to have the wisdom of living a certain number of year-age 35. Why set an age where most would die? They didn't. They set an age where most well-educated professionals would be in their prime. People in good health didn't die at 35. That would have been unusual, even then. The Editors seems to be reaching here. The greater point-keep the constitutional system we have, and stop wanting to change simply because the Left is frustrated. Frankly, Kavanaugh will rightly extend the life of our Constitution, while protecting it from those who want a system in which they always get to win, now, today, any other considerations be damned.
4
"...so much you don't know"? Please, this judge has a long paper trail - most of which will be unpacked in coming days. In fact, it already is. Don't mislead readers. Avoid hysterics.
1
There is so much you don’t know about Brett Kavanaugh reads the title of your editorial. After reading it, I still don’t know anything about him, except that he is conservative, which I already knew. May I respectfully suggest that the Editorial Board of the NYT do some homework before writing anything. Inform me. Don’t just fill out space in your opinion section.
5
I would like to read a summary of Judge Kavanaugh's decisions to see who he is so far. All that has been publicized about him is his authorship of a paper sliding toward favoring the exemption of sitting Presidents from lawsuits and investigations. If that truly is his position, then the long road to hell will begin with his confirmation.
5
>> "When the Constitution’s framers decided to give Supreme Court justices lifetime appointments, the life expectancy for a free white male was roughly 35 years — less than half what it is today..."
This "35 years" figure may be accurate for life expectancy at birth, but not for how long an adult might expect to live in the late 1700s. High infant mortality drove down average life expectancy at birth. Most (41) of the delegates to the Convention of 1787, which drafted the Constitution, were older than 35. Eight were in their 50s; five in their 60s. Delegate Ben Franklin was 81 that year.
Adults do live longer now, but your point gets undercut by your deceptive (or ignorant) use of demographic statistics.
2
This is not a fait accompli.
If the Dems can first drag this process out for as long as possible on the grounds that they first need to read and absorb the thousands of pages of Kavanagh's writings (September/October), and then vote as a bloc against his nomination (49 against), McCain will not likely be available to vote. So the Dems then would need one Republican to join with them, and there are a few realistic possibilities.
If the Dems can succeed in voting Kavanagh off the island, then the likelihood of the runner-up nominee's hearings beginning before the November elections will be nil.
Keep the pressure on your elected officials, vote early and often in November!
2
Judge Kavanaugh..."a fixture in conservative politics and is widely respected by the Republican elite". The Republican elite. I can't think of a more greedy and hypocritical group.
1
Look, if don-the-con picked him, and he didn’t, this nomination should go right into the garbage pail. The law group that selected him, have one thought in mind. That is, let corporations do just about anything that they want. Pollution, pillaging, control elections, arbitrations instead of class actions. The McConnell Rule is law. If that doesn’t fix it, stack the bench or bring term limits. Vote
2
Apparently instead of "Former Bush Aide is Trump Pick" the Times headline should have been "Former Kennedy Clerk is Trump Pick," since there seems to have been a backroom deal.
This merits investigation, since it clearly undermines the separation of powers.
2
My question for Kavanagh: "Will you agree in advance to recuse yourself from hearing any cases that relate directly to crimes committed by President Trump?"
4
Sour grapes. If Hillary were president and selecting a Justice, the following paritisan quote from this piece would be praise instead of alarm if the worl right were replaced with left. The editorial board would be popping corks and toasting.
Judge Kavanaugh would shift the balance of constitutional jurisprudence to the right, creating a solid right-wing majority on the court possibly until the second half of the 21st century."
1
Let's face it, the SCOTUS has become a particularly politicized faction. Presidents -- on both sides -- can make and have made selections based on what serves that person's political and personal agenda. How on earth can we hope for anything but what we completely expect from someone like Kavanaugh? The momentum has to be there to force a constitutional amendment, but we all know that something of this nature is only possible if there is a major clash or shift or disintegration of one party or the other. Who knows? The GOP under Trump may very soon hit bottom and lose all credibility (and seats). Then again, the Dems might blow it -- as usual -- and the SCOTUS will become utterly a tool of the executive branch.
1
This editorial piece explains: a long-term project of two conservative entities along with activists, plus corporations, is now about to reach its aim. My question would encompass many others’. Constitutional scholars know the answer. Or, even legal laymen would logicalize the case to reach an adequate point. Most of all, the newly appointed Justice Kavanaugh certainly would. ***** If (big “if”) Mr. Trump is impeached, by findings of illegitimacy in the last presidential election (hypothetically), how will it reflect on all policies having been made by Mr. Trump? The Supreme Court nominations should be also re-considered in the same perspective by questioning the authencity of the President’s authority? ***** a) The electoral legitimacy; b) authorizes the President’s power. The definite line is from (a) to (b), for the reason that (a) cannot be legitimized retrospectively from (b) when (a) is proven to be invalid, because (a) is the subject of the sentence. ***** The Vice President may seem to be on a sideline. I argue. The fact of his holding the office independently from the President is inseparable from (a). Which means, if (a) is legally nullified, there should (would) be the whole cabinet’s constitional dismissal. This is logical to me. It depends on how to define the electoral legitimacy.
Not surprising that life expectancy is another thing the NYT doesn't understand at all. Most of that changes in life expectancy are related to reduced infant mortality.
And though I disagree with the assessment, the editorial board basically says that the right's agenda is backed by the constitution (which could also mean that the left's agenda is unconstitutional). I think the truth is far more balanced than that but never want to accuse the NYT of actually thinking through an argument.
2
This is what happens when The Times opinion writers almost universally sang the praises of such a flawed candidate as Hillary Clinton while minimizing the candidacy of an exciting candidate like Bernie Sanders. This is what happens when the DNC rigs the primary in favor of the flawed candidate. This is what happens when the flawed candidate manages to win lots of votes in the coastal blue states, but fails to win the battleground states that Obama carried twice. Keep bowing to the Clintons, keep defending the Clintons, then watch the vulgar barbarian Trump appoint nominees to the Court.
2
Supreme Court nominees used to sail through the Senate on voice votes.
Then, the U.S. Senate's biggest embarrassment of the 20th century, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy decided to do his Democrat best to practically lynch a decent American and good judge, Clarence Thomas.
If you ever want to feel bad about being a Democrat - or even just blush at being an American - go look up sound bites of his grotesque statements against now-Justice Thomas.
1
Yes, Senate Democrats should use the confirmation hearings to educate US citizens about the importance of the Supreme Court and its rulings on the day-to-day structure of their lives. And so should the media, including the New York Times.
1
There was no outcry for 18 year term limits by the Times when liberal judges were being placed on the bench. "Gutting Laws," "Opening Floodgates", "Undermining Freedom," "Destroying Labor."
Yes it will rain frogs and locusts. Dogs and Cats will cohabitate in secret to hide from the secret police. America is doomed!
Luckily there is a Constitution, and a Senate, and a House, an a President just like always. The world will continue to turn and corn will continue to grow in heartland. Although you won't know it from what's about to happen on CNN.
It'll be OK.
4
Do I have this right? Behavioral Beelzebub Bamboozles. Seemingly evangelically. Does this sound at all familiar to anyone? Today it's the Supremes.
Better smell that still-free air now. 1984 has been here for years. Re-read that recent NYT article about face-recognition in China. But no, it can't happen here.
This is so ridiculous. The center will not hold. The center will not hold. Something's gotta give, big time. There is no way the ever-increasing % of the non-wealthy national population living in politically blue areas are going to long-term tolerate authoritarianism or its spectre in conservative court rulings. What's the murder rate in Chicago? I want my three kids to go to good colleges. $ dictate destiny. Etc.
Illegal Trump doesn't care. It's just another transaction from someone who is already sold and thinks he bought a billion. Same as his Russia meeting. He will not relent to anyone in his insistance on meeting with his master. Privately. No aides. No nothin'.
2
Some of us don`t care to know, just want this nonsense of trump to be blocked until Nov election.
1
"There’s So Much You Don’t Know About Brett Kavanaugh"
This headline is so obviously false as to be laughable.
Instead of asking Judge Kavanaugh questions, why don't you just consult his massive record of written material on virtually every constitutional subject known to man (only a slight exaggeration).
Your painting of Judge Kavanaugh as an unknown, and worse, unknowable, entity is fake news of major proportions, and sad.
Why don’t you just do what you accuse Trump of not doing and what you are not doing yourselves: read.
3
I agree with readers who encourage us to keep our eye on the long game. If the Dems can win the White House and Senate in 2020, Democratic nominees could dominate the Court within three or four years. For one thing, assuming Ginsburg and Breyer are still on the Court in 2021, they could retire knowing that someone in their mold will replace them. For another, Alito and Thomas are now both about 70, and Thomas in particular does not look to be in great health.
Again, however, this prospect assumes that the Dems can do what it takes to get the White House and Senate, and two decisions in particular seem unavoidable. One is whether to go with the older guard (Bernie, Biden, Warren) or younger blood (e.g., Booker). The other is whether to focus primarily on class-based or race and gender-based interests. While these interests may often overlap, they are not identical.
On the last point, we must take seriously the question posed in a NYT op/ed about a year ago when Steve Bannon left the White House. It asked "What if Steve Bannon is Right?" (i.e., when he says that when the Dems strongly embrace race and gender identity politics, the Republicans win).
Big decisions. I hope the Dems get it right.
1
Senators may not be able to ask a nominee how they'll vote in a specific case, but they certainly can ask how they feel a woman's, or man's, right to privacy should be handled under the law. That is, behind all the evasions nominees now routinely practice there are still questions of legal philosophy that (supposedly) inform their partisan decisions, and these should be inquired into.
2
I would imagine you could get even more specific without asking how they would vote on a particular case. Ex.: "Do you believe that the right to privacy extends to one's own body?" (Would be revealing about abortion, though inconsequential for drug laws because drug use affects other people, not just the user.) "Do you support the right of people assigned the same sex at birth to marry each other?" (Would be revealing about whether they support "same-sex marriage" without having to ask directly whether they would vote for or against it under a specific set of circumstances.) I can't imagine why such questions would not be allowed, as they are about personal positions, not specific cases.
1
Where are our representatives in government blocking this nomination in an election year?
McConnell and the Republicans used a 1992 speech by Joe Biden to justify not confirming Pres. Obama's Supreme Court justice nominee, Merrick Garland, during an election year. McConnell called it the Biden Rule. McConnell used it as law and said we must follow the Biden Rule to allow that the American people have a voice in this selection process.
Now the Biden Rule doesn't count during this election year?
Now the American people have no voice in this selection process?
As McConnell so righteously stated, "this is about a principle, not a person." So where did "principle" go, and where is the voice of the American people?
This nomination is 100% unfair and must be stopped now.
1
The author says that the Federalist Society and the GOP favor " gutting laws that protect voting rights, or opening the floodgates to unlimited political spending, or undermining women’s reproductive freedom, or destroying public-sector labor unions’ ability to stand up for the interests of workers."
The problem is that these are not laws. These are preferred outcomes of groups of individuals. The US and it's Constitution are based on laws. Should the populace actually desire these outcomes, then they will pass the requisite supporting laws. Short of that, rulings supporting these preferential outcomes may not be Constitutional.
It's not terribly complicated to understand.
Our politics is quite complicated in fact. "The populace" is not fairly represented because of gerrymandering, voting heavily weighted toward rural and conservative low population states, and the resulting unrepresentative electoral college system. Hillary won the election. Unfortunately our system of representative government prevented her from taking office.
You refer to the electoral process of another country perhaps (?) Our electoral process is rightly not based on a simple majority rule - otherwise, the decisions of the majority populace of only 3-4 states would rule over all others. Perhaps you need to read up on the Constitution and how and why it is structured as it is.
You can't have a democracy without justice or the right for every citizen to vote. This is not a preferred outcome but a right of every citizen, even the citizen you dislike or disagree with.
While I can't speak for local legislatures, the federal legislature has been abdicating its responsibilities on many issues for some years, leading to the supreme court and other insitutions (Federal Reserve), and presidential orders, substituting for their cowardly failings. While I understand your point about judges setting out to be activist and legislate from the bench, I suspect many feel forced into legislating from the bench because of the inaction of legislators on issues of concern.
1
Trump has already been griping about the judiciary since the first ruling against his agenda - his appointments, perhaps unintentionally but to his advantage, my sow distrust in liberals of the supreme court and whole judicial system, a further undoing of the country along a different plane.
really, u want a time of service requirement for the supreme court? as I looked through the history of justices it seems that at least in the 20th century a great many liberal leaning and fine jurists stayed on past 20 yrs, some well past 20 years. And as for the odd argument abt life span of a male at the time of the writing of the constitution. A fair number of them were selected beyond the 34 year average life span. In short, the proposal for forced retirements is not convincing. It speaks of desperation and can lead to the same mess we are now in , now that we blew apart the old rules for judicial confirmation by the senate
"Senate Democrats didn’t cover themselves in glory trying to pin down Justice Gorsuch, spending an inordinate amount of time hammering him on old opinions that demonstrated his supposed disdain for the “little guy.” "
Excellent point. As a citizen, I would much rather hear whether Judge Kavanaugh agrees that Brown v. Bd of Ed was correctly decided. It would be even more helpful to hear the judge's opinion on what exactly was wrong with the Dred Scott Decision. Probably the most enlightening question would be which portions of the Constitution can no longer be interpreted according to their original or textual meaning as a result of the Civil War Amendments.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Roberts set new standards for constitutional scholarship in their confirmation hearings. I'd like to see Senate Democrats eschew ambush questions, and challenge Judge Kavanaugh to attempt to emulate those two.
2
Thanks for letting us know what we don't know. Too bad it's about 40 years too late. The Koch brothers must be having great dreams about the success of their hostile financial takeover of OUR governments at every level and OUR U.S. Supreme Court.
WE THE PEOPLE must elect Socially Responsible Women and men in November and 2020 then DEMAND that OUR representative increase the size of OUR U.S. Supreme Court by two or three justices.
We must also DEMAND that your suggested 18-year term limits for justices be put into law - retroactive.
WE must DEMAND that OUR elected officials pack OUR U.S. Supreme Court and district/ appeals courts with progressive/liberal justices - women - to bring balance to OUR courts again.
3
So our "progressives" will not be able to use the SC to enact laws that they could never get passed in a democratic process. That is a very good thing.
4
The 14th amendment is not subject to the democratic process.
Is there a problem with all of the Supreme Court being ivy league lawyers? A diversity of backgrounds would seem to better represent the wisdom of the people.
1
The Democrats should refuse to approve any court appointments by Donald Trump. Morever, the Dems should refuse to approve of anything and everything that the Republicans and Trump propose, even if they agree with it.
The reason being that the Republicans refused to cooperate in any way with Obama. This is not tit for tat, it is a rebalancing.
1
So now Democrats want to impose term limits on Supreme Court justices, abolish the Electoral College, “pack” the court to shift the balance of power, etc.
Here’s a thought - instead of trying to change the rules of the game you lost, try winning an election.
5
Brett Kavanaugh seems to be a decent human being, much more so than the late Justice Scalia. I hope that he has not been tainted by the Trump slime. Although his views on executive power are troubling, he will certainly be confirmed so I can only count on his basic character.
2
We can thank the polorization of the parties for the house cards effect in how the Supreme Court now handles the confirmation process. And it looks like that won't change fora long, long time, if ever.
1
This much I do know:
The country no longer resembles any of the vision that the founding fathers set forth.
“We the People” is now “We the Corporations”.
And most Americans seem to busy to notice.
America’s existence depended on honest people in government.
That was it’s fatal mistake.
4
We can alll start by changing labels: particularly the label "conservative." Too many uninformed voters hear the word "conservative" as meaning fiscally astute, moral values, traditional values. They are fooled. The Republicans, the Heritage Foundation, etc. are not conservative - they are crony capitalists bent on creating a corporate utopia where workers have no freedoms or powers. They are willing to pander to religious conservatives, racists, and others during elections (and occasionally throw red meat at the base with immigration policies), to make the base feel good that things are getting down. But in secret, what is really getting done is policies to further a crony capitalists state, with corporations hijacked by elites who gets bailed out at the expense of main street, and redistribution of more pre-tax income to the top.
4
There is no doubt that Mr. Kavanaugh is eminently qualified to serve our country in the capacity that he was been selected by the President. The fact that he is Catholic should not be used to assail him by anyone as Senator Feinstein has disgracefully attempted. Senator Jones will diligently find Mr. Kavanaugh to be not only highly qualified but congruent with Alabamian values of decency and jurisprudence.
I predict that the Democrats will injure their aspirations to control the senate during the mid term election should they vilify Mr. Kavanaugh as untrustworthy for political purposes.
The electorate is not going to tolerate more socialist nonsense, uncivil intimidation, and violent protests by the fringes of either party.
3
Liberals and Progressives see the fruits of your labor come to full fruition in Judge Kavanaugh. You now pay the price for rigging an election with super delegates against the will of the electorate. If Democrats had real choice, like the Republicans in fact had, they most likely would have elected someone who would appointed a more acceptable nominee for the Supreme Court.
2
Actually, I am more interested in delving into why Justice Kennedy chose this moment to suddenly retire. There’s got to be more this story. Clearly the Far Right has now cemented their grip on our governing bodies. The consequences are yet to unfold, but I am not optimistic. I have lived with both Parties occupying the White House, with majorities in Congress. But this no longer feels like the country in which I grew up - mainly because the Party in power has devolved into a cult. There is no informed, well reasoned debate resulting in well informed, practical and solution based policy. The hallmarks of our democracy have been put in cold storage - I can only hope temporarily.
5
I will say that the life expectancy of ~35 is technically accurate, if you are considering newborns, but in 1776 a 30 year old white male's life expectancy was somewhere between 30 and 35 more years. So, on average, a 30 year old white male would have lived to be 60 or 65.
3
Mixing Politics and Justice, an evil stew.
Heavens to Betsy folks, the Sky is falling; but only on lefties. I see Justice Kavanaugh as a proper, learned and honorable man neither a monster nor an unrepentant advocate of either/any political Party.
Democracy is working in the US of A as it should for all those who recognize the legal result of our last federal election. The NYT and its very left leaning Editorial Board are once again contributing to the continual, nasty and unjustified/illogical split existing for political reasons only in this nation today.
4
I object to the cartoon accompanying this article. Hardley an unbiased viewpoint.
2
It's an editorial. It's supposed to be unbiased.
1
We have already heard a lot about Kavanagh because of his connections. He was recommended by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, hardly middle of the road organizations. He has had an Ivy League education for both undergraduate and law school at Yale. His mother was a judge. He worked for Ken Starr in his investigations and in the Bush administration. He clerked for Justice Kennedy. He is well rooted in the conservative establishment of the US, so this could be viewed as a swampy pick with the Federalist Society being the deep state in that they supplied Trump with a list of 25 possibilities from which he chose.
I am concerned that he will be unable to separate his Catholicism from his open-mindedness in approaching legal issues and interpretation of the law and Constitution on the SCOTUS. Justice Scalia with his keen intellect and acerbic wit had no trouble twisting both to fit his decisions. Given the importance of upending Roe to conservatives, it may not be overruled but suffer a death of a thousand cuts as it is tested and various limits are put on its availability making it impossible to actually get an abortion in states like Texas. I think that the availability of contraception may also be limited by the Court.
One of the basic principles in the Constitution is the separation of Church and State. No religion is to be the state religion imposed on the population, and by extension the tenets of no religion should be imposed on the population.
2
umm.. why is it ok for the ruling party to nominate liberal scotus, but not when the ruling party nominates conservative? its intellectual dishonesty/political hack job of the first order. obama nominated sotomajor and RBG...and the Right didnt like it but i didnt see the Right getting all unhinged like the sky is falling. can everyone just calm down and figure--just maybe--the Right is as legitimate as the Left, and each side gets its turn? no? asking too much, huh? the Left is more legitimate and it gets to burn the house down to get its way, huh? and the Right needs to shut up and be vilified and do what its told by the Left, right? the more the Left screams like this, the more i want trump, warts and all, in office. i am on the Right, but i dont engage in idiotic hubris as to suggest the Left has no value or legitimacy. i see their point and disagree. where are the adults in the room? i see the
NYT is of no help here, which is depressing.
3
Each side gets its’ turn sounds nice and should be the norm, but...did you forget about McConnell STEALING President Obama’s turn?
2
"umm.. why is it ok for the ruling party to nominate liberal scotus, but not when the ruling party nominates conservative?"
Because they said so.
1
Guess you forgot about Schumer and Bush's pick.
Great choice by President Trump!! MAGA
"Americans who care about the court’s future and its role in the American system of government need to turn to the political process to restore the protections the new majority will take away, and to create an environment where radical judges can’t be nominated or confirmed."
You need to take a step back and stop whining about someone who has a different political ideology as a nominee for the nation's highest court. Americans who care about the court's future should look for justices who can read and correctly interpret the Constitution. With such knowledge, these justices can better determine whether cases brought before them are worthy of their time. More importantly, state judges should be just as knowledgeable. Quit focusing on whether someone is conservative or liberal - we simply need judges and justices who know the Constitution.
Something else to note - members of Congress and the President should be equally knowledgeable of the Constitution and not pass laws that go against the Constitution in the first place. I'm not holding my breath on that one.
2
Why is there no mention of Roe v. Wade in this article?
3
Probably because the Times knows it won't overturned. It's just using Roe v Wade to drum up drama and voters.
The field of battle is not in the Supreme Court, it's in the state legislatures. The pretense that one man is the deciding voice to overturn this or that law, against the voices of the rest of America, is specious. He can't "overturn" something if the voters didn't elect the state legislators who create these extremist laws in the first place. The voters control their own futures, they shouldn't complain when it's not the one they envisioned.
This is an unfair editorial. Merely because the nominee does not appear to support your agenda, you disingenuously assert the "Constitution is about to be hijacked by a small group of conservative radicals." This is a baseless, irresponsible allegation that evinces the partisanship you decry.
5
Senate Democrats didn’t cover themselves in glory trying to pin down Justice Gorsuch, spending an inordinate amount of time hammering him on old opinions....
----------------------------
Senate Democrats should stop posturing for their base and ask probing questions in an objective way in order to be credible with independent voters. Many have presidential ambitions and use the committee setting to impress their potential base voters.
The guy has written over 300 decisions in the last decade or so and they reflective conservative "bias" and respect for originalist (original intent of framers) and textual (text of the constitution as written) interpretations. Duh! He is nominated by a Republican president who sought advice from the very conservative federalist society. What else did we expect?
He will punt on Roe V. Wade because "it may come up before his court once confirmed". All other questions, he will seek refuge under original and textual meanings of constitution and its amendments.
Democrats should remember that elections have consequences. Their candidate lost in 2016 (to think that a mere $100,000 in ad-buying on Facebook by Russian trolls who were equally anti-Trump and anti-Hillary affected the election outcome when billion dollars spent by DNC did not is to be foolish) and should accept the reality.
Start winning and stop whining, Liberals.
3
It’s already too late. He will be seated period,
2
Another Republican candidate for SCOTUS.
What's the surprise?
Now leave the whining to Democrats and another reason not to vote...
2
When Chief Justice Roberts was nominated for the Supreme Court, he noted that a judge should be considered analogous to an umpire calling "balls and strikes" at a baseball game. But is this analogy accurate or helpful? I think it is not.
In following various professional and college sports over the years, I have never come across umpires or referees that are considered conservative or liberal. However, they can certainly can be called out for having vision and judgment impairments, and many do seem to have those problems.
With respect to judges, I do not think they have vision problems when it comes to seeing the facts, but they certainly have problems in understanding and interpreting the meaning of what they are seeing--e.g., corporations are people and money is speech. The court, in various cases, has considered that money from some sources to be speech but, in other cases, it is annoying--e.g., Hare Krishnas seeking money at airports were "disruptive" and posing an "inconvenience" to others; corporations are "people" but they cannot vote like other people can in elections.
Seems that we should just agree that there is no such thing as an independent judiciary objectively assessing the facts and admit that judges are nothing more than politicians in judicial robes.
3
It is fascinating that this editorial does not even mention the approach taken by Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her confirmation hearings. She essentially refused to answer any question about any case that might come before her on the Supreme Court, and according to Senator Biden that was completely appropriate. The failure to mention the so-called "Ginsburg rule" bespeaks the obvious bias of the Times
3
She refused to answer questions about cases which were actually on the docket.
3
Here we have a president, himself being investigated for criminal acts, choosing a name off a pre vetted list the man best suited to protect him. Sounds to me like a monkey court if there ever was one.
3
Yea. You nailed it. This guy is gonna, for sure, do what it takes to protect the president from prosecution. Pure quid pro quo. Uh huh. That must be it. It’s a conspiracy. Good thinking
For those who care to understand, read the Powell Memo from 1971. He was best friends with Nixon who appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1973. Don't forget that it was conservative Republican policies that precipitated the 1929 Great Depression.
Republicans have never voted to support the little guy, only the rich. The middle class developed after WWII thanks to the GI Bill. The Republicans owned, operated and supported by the right wing oligarchy and their policies have always been anti-democratic.
2
The court is (will be) simply illegitimate, with Obama's pick not even given a hearing, and now a less than majority President filling two seats. Voters bear the ultimate responsibility, it was clear that the last election could have this eventual outcome. Only the voters can fix it (maybe). But, apparently, this is the country the voters want, or is it?
4
I applaud the core of this editorial’s message: THIS IS REALLY BAD, THIS IS A BIG DEAL, THIS WILL LAST A LONG TIME.
But can we please not concede defeat before the battle has even been fought?? Come on!
“he WILL very shortly hold one of the most powerful unelected jobs in government”
Um... unless he doesn’t!?
This is admittedly a VERY difficult fight to win. But there is WAY too much at stake not to fight it! And a path to victory DOES EXIST.
1) Pressure Schumer to WHIP THE VOTE. We need all 49 Dems to commit to NO. He needs to lean HARD on Manchin, Heitkamp and Donnelly. The gloves need to come off, Chuck. You need to find your inner McConnell (minus the evil) and put the screws on those guys. This is the most important moment of your career. Rise to the occasion.
2) Then we go full court press on Collins and Murkowski. They are moderate and pro-choice and Kavanaugh is not. We need to point that out mercilessly to both of them and their constituents.
That’s 51 votes.
Easy to do? Absolutely not. But the only way to assure our defeat is to assume we can’t win.
We can. So we MUST TRY.
4
Collins is NOT a moderate. She campaigns as a moderate and has convinced Democrats to cross over but that's over.
"In short, Senate Democrats need to use the confirmation process to explain to Americans how their Constitution is about to be hijacked by a small group of conservative radicals well funded by ideological and corporate interests, and what that means in terms of the rights they will lose and the laws that will be invalidated over the next several decades."
No. What Senate Democrats need to do is spend months poring over the millions of pages of documents of Kavanaugh's paper trail and delay the confirmation hearing. And they need to exert a full court (pardon pun please) press to keep red state Dems from approving him and to convert any GOPs with a conscience, once a Hearing commences. And if Trump is indicted in the meantime, they need to insist that he does not have the right to nominate a SCOTUS justice while he is under criminal cloud.
The time for public education is past. Don't educate us bout what we have lost. Take action before we lose it.
5
Is it possible that the liberal program that has been un rolled since WWII is in need of review as to results, tactics and strategy? There is a lot of talent, brains,and energy out there and it would be a great loss for democratic ideals to waste them in a futile outdated effort, ala Pickett's or the charge of the Light Brigade.
If Kavenaugh passes Congressional confirmation, we will have lost a balance of power democracy which was clearly defined as a checks and balances process by the authors of the Constitution. Recent violations of democratic process have left our electoral process in such disarray that a monster like Trump could inhabit the White House. Gerrymandering discounts the value of every vote counts. This administration has co-opted the policing agencies of our government. And with all three branches of government now being politically based, has opened the door for a dictatorial government rather than a democratic one. I urge Americans who want the glory of our nation restored to use their right and responsibility to vote wisely. Raise your voices, demonstrate, assail your elected representatives, volunteer and contribute to your maximum ability and on your way to the polls, urge others to also vote responsibly. Our Democracy is under attack and we are in a crises that is being manipulated by oligarchs and foreign despots. Save our nation.
Trump did a great job of selecting someone who will defend him and protect him, all to assure that the wealthy elite get to keep their man, who spoon feeds them the cash and power they crave. The minions of course are out there thinking Trump cares about them, because the lying con man told them so. How sad.. for them as well as the rest of us.
Will this help Trump in his performance review with Putin? I suspect so. Will this help protect Trump from the findings of Mueller's investigation? I suspect that was the biggest motivating factor of all in his selection, it's rather clear based on Kavanaugh's reputation. Trump is all about Trump.
3
What is originalist going to do about Marines, Air Force and proposed Space force? The Constitution mentions army and navy, not the other three.
1
Casting aside the invidious way that Judge Garland was mistreated, and the blatant politicization of this Supreme Court nominees, wait till the time that Justice Ginsburg may no longer be able to serve while #45 is still in office. Kennedy, an often swing vote, will be replaced by a strict conservative, giving the right a clear majority. Justice Ginsburg, a champion of the rights of women and the disenfranchised, would be replaced be another Heritage Society puppet, giving those in our society who need protection from the executive and legislative branches none.
The judicial branch was created by our founders in large part to protect that segment of our society who are vulnerable to the power structure in the other two branches of government. We’ve already seen that protection eroded even before 45’s one if not two additional seats on the Court will be occupied by Justices who will turn a blind eye to those at risk from the indifference of the Congress to the malicious and often immoral, rascist actions of the Executive.
May America great again? Really?
1
Things do look bleak, and given the natural enough human desire for someone to come riding in on a "white horse"( why it has to be white, I'll leave for others to sort out)the left is vulnerable for its own brand of charlatanism to take root as counterbalance to the "Fraud in Chief." What I liked most about the opinion piece was its sober assessment that what is needed is not impulsive quick fixes, but deliberate long term organizing. Unfortunately, I suspect quick, feel good fixes will be the order of the day for Democrats with little substantive change actually occurring, considering the gerontocracy ruling the national Democratic Party.
Republican or Democrat, any president who's the subject of a criminal investigation should not be allowed to select judges.
4
Subject of a criminal investigation?
And after over 1 year and how many millions of $$ what are the charges against Trump?
1
The salient question:
Should a sitting president under investigation for serious criminal charges (corruption, obstruction of justice, treason….) be permitted to select a Supreme Court judge (or more than one judge) i.e. have the ability to stack the Court with those who will hear and decide on issues relating to his criminal cases? If the answer is yes, the rule of law and American Democracy is lost.
3
Breaking news. Republicans nominate conservative justices. Democrats nominate liberal justices. The New York Times claims the end of the world when a Republican nominates, and Fox News claims the end of the world when a Democrat nominates.
It's all so predictable and transparent.
I did find it hypocritical that the editorial board promoted the idea of term limits for supreme court justices, and then said Poland was pushing the end of liberal democracy. For implementing term limits for supreme court justices.
5
The tragic irony is for those Trump supporters and others of the conservative Right who are not in the 1% somehow or other think that the decisions rendered by a Court populated by people in the mold of Judge Kavanaugh won't affect them. Gut healthcare? It will only affect those "welfare queens" who want socialized medicine. Gut Social Security? I don't want MY taxes to pay for those entitlements!
Surprise, surprise, at the end of some onerous rulings they may well find themselves very penny wise and pound foolish. And then what will they do? Shut the barn door after the horses are long gone? They may very well come to rue the day. "We told you so" will offer cold comfort, but at least the misery will be shared. Perhaps.
5
Can we cut to the chase? McConnell poisoned the well by refusing Garland. Now we're getting sick. Cause and effect.
2
He won't answer questions about court cases, we know this.
Ask him how he feels about Merrick Garland! Ask him when will be the next time a court nominee be approved by a president and senate of different parties! Ask him if the USSC can function for years or even entire administrations with fewer than 9 members and remain relevant!
RBG also didn’t answer questions about how she would vote. But she’s a liberal so it’s ok. Uh huh
We just need to take our medicine, the oligarchs and klepotocrats are on the rise, this is probably, along with the Trump, a symptom of the unrecoverable, wings falling off, dive US democracy is now in. I suppose a country founded on genocide and slavery should expect no less.
3
Are there any republican senators who have a conscience? Any who will act in the interest of the country? Any who recognize the evil of the trump administration and its supporters?
We need a jurist, not another politician.
Felix Frankfurter, of the New Deal brain trust, turned out to be conservative in interpreting the Constitution, whereas, Sen. Hugo Black, of segregationist Alabama, as Justice, became a (the) leading liberal.
Of course, today people are much more predictable. Too bad.
If in fact Roe is repealed, and it is left to each state, I have to wonder what states will permit abortion. They would become destinations for those seeking abortion, right?
1
Yes.
Like it was before Roe vs. Wade.
So, women with money can make the trip.
The rest risk their lives with self-induced abortions.
2
Half the country thinks abortion is murder. Most legal experts on both sides think Roe is very bad law. Yet you assume taxpayers should be forced to pay for abortions. I am mostly pro choice, but I think its very wrong and inappropriate to force all taxpayers to pay for it
Ari Weitzner--
We all pay for things we don't like and consider immoral. The Iraq war, for instance. And SEVENTY percent of Americans believe in abortion rights.
The court was over as an independent branch of government when they hijacked the electoral process in 2000. Just another bunch of right wing political hacks that now control all three branches of government. Get use to it because the Democratic party is a stagnant retirement home for septuagenarians, with a base that is too lazy to vote, and overall too fractured to have a coherent strategy. Republicans played the long game at the local level and judicial level, while Democrats drifted away from working people, and nominated the worst candidate possible for president. This disaster will outlive most of us...
1
The board makes sound points in this article, but distracts from the argument with a disingenuous claim that the life expectancy in 1787 was 35 years old. This misleading statistic has been widely discussed, and thus the editors certainly know that life expectancy, once someone had survived childhood, was closer to 70. High infant mortality skews the average. The Framers established the minimum age of 35 for president. Were they looking for dead candidates? Get the details right.
3
The Editorial Board sounds more conspiratorial every day... Here's an idea: if you don't like the courts decisions, and your Reliance on it. Secure the votes for the legislative, and legislate the positions you want. Afraid gay marriage rights will be overturned? Legislate it! Afraid female reproductive rights will be overturned. Legislate it! I love how Democrats have attached themselves to these issues, but have Never Ever legislated any of them into law when they have had the power to do so. A simple constitution amendment would be all you need. It is a joke. Hold your representative accountable to LEGISLATE the laws you would like to see enacted. Then you won't have a care in the world as to who is on the court, or for how long.
5
Well the liberals blew it in the 2016 election for their hatred of Hillary so all liberal views are at risk now.. now as for the republican women who loves Donald Trump I believe do not care for Roe vs Wade over turned and may actually love it .. only their daughters may hate it when they get there to that aweful point of life's decision.
Only I am sad I will not have much to say to my daughter when she grows up .. how we lost our women's right to "Choice" in the "Land of the Free" and how the people who hate government control now loves to control the Women's Body and her choices .. !
Kavanaugh said “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”
He's already lying.
10
If Hillary was in the White House today, the right to choose, public worker unions, the Affordable Care Act, would be safe for years to come.
Please remember that, liberal voters, the next time you decide to 'punish' the Democratic Party for not nominating your first choice for President...
6
Here's as good a place as any:
I shut the laptop down about 7:30 last night. I powered down the iPhone. I streamed Wonder Wheel on a Roku box onto a dedicated display. (Word to the wise, Wonder Wheel is dark; relentlessly dark; no relief anywhere. It’s a play. Did I mention it was dark?)
After yesterday’s embarrassing and unacceptable participation in the promotional tease (including a still photo of a reporter smoothing her hair in preparation for air) for the prime time Trump show, itsmildeyes has decided to take a little break from the New York Times.
Ever since Trump slumped onto the scene, the New York Times and (well, everybody, I guess) has allowed him to control the zeitgeist. Everything is framed through his jaded eyes.
I don’t know what this guy’s ultimately up to, but I’m making a pretty informed guess that it’s no good. I don’t think making the world a better place is anywhere on his agenda.
So, on the recommendation of a random commenter, I’ll be reading The Society of the Spectacle (Debord) and, since it jumped out at me on the shelf, Notes on the Death of Culture (Llosa). I’ll get back to you if I find anything out. While I’m busy, you guys may want to try Rhinoceros (Eugene Ionesco). Or stream Wonder Wheel. Be advised, though, it’s very dark.
In general, “It’s not dark yet, but it’s getting there.”
I’ll miss reading and commenting, but I’m guessing I’ll get over it. You can get used to doing without almost anything. You may have to.
3
What, exactly, do you expect to learn about Kavanaugh's views from the Senate confirmation hearing that you can't learn from from his 300 written opinions as a federal judge?
We know what Kavanaugh has done, how he thinks, how he’ll rule. This is what he should be asked:
Did you discuss with Trump or anyone speaking to you in his behalf in connection with your nomination:
whether a sitting president can be civilly sued or criminally charged? State as precisely as you can what he said to you and you said to him.
Did you discuss the subject of pardons? State as precisely as you can what he said to you and you said to him.
Did you discuss the Special Counsel investigation. State as precisely as you can what he said to you and you said to him.
1
Best court money can buy! Seriously, the op-ed is spot on. Democrats need to set goals for themselves and plan ahead to reach them. It's harder for them because they actually represent a large proportion of the populace and because of that have many different viewpoints subsumed in the party. They need to 1) expand the Supreme Court bench to dilute the influence of these radical Republicans 2) pass a law mandating a two thirds majority for judicial appointments with an eye to an eventual constitutional amendment for that 3) expand the appellate and district courts to dilute the ultra right's influence 4) work on a constitutional amendment to limit Supreme Court judges to a defined term (10 years, 15 years, whatever).
1
Kavanaugh is a Bush Minion in sheep's clothing. In short, not exactly the type of guy Trump should appoint. LAME. Strike ONe.....Kavanaugh is a native DC bureaucrat type,,,born and raised to snooty, condescending, inside the Beltway types. Strike two, it must be said, he's catholic.....yes, I know, tolerate religion, but the Supreme Court is already STACKED deep with catholics.....the last Catholic Chief Justice was Roger Taney....and he made Slavery Legal everywhere in the USA...think, people, think. Strike Three.....he's a Bush appointee........which means he's sub-standard from the get-go........
1
"There's so much you don't know about Brett Kavanaugh" is a typical NYT way of saying "The only thing you need to know about Kavanaugh is he is a Trump appointee".
Silly.
3
"winning the future depends on deliberate, long-term organizing in the present, . . ."
Perhaps
But you leave out the elephant in the room
namely, the electoral college
Democrats have won the popular vote in six out of the last seven elections. Every single election since 1992 except for 2004 which bush barely won and if Gore had been running for a second term he might have won that.
The EC is the central issue.
without the EC Democratic presidents would have appointed 7 of the current SC members and be about to get an 8th
everything is because of the electoral college
if this were the other way around it would be all the GOP would be talking about
they would be hammering this issue night and day
it denies the will of the majority - goes against one man one vote etc etc
yet, the dems are almost silent on this - not a peep
imagine if after this last election if HRC and Bill, BO and Gore - all winners of the popular vote - four presidents -
what if they begun to work non-stop, barnstorm around the country made the EC the issue - big rallies - call out this obvious problem -
but nope - not a peep -
why not?
sure it would be hard - but this is important - make it an issue -
the EC is the issue and until we address it this country is doomed
A partisan Supreme Court means that the US is much weaker than our Founding Fathers had hoped. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life so that they may be free to follow what they think is correct rather than what they think will play well with the politicians. The system has broken when politics enters every decision and the appointments themselves are highly political. Bad.
"The Federalist Society claims to value the so-called strict construction of the Constitution, but this supposedly neutral mode of constitutional interpretation lines up suspiciously well with Republican policy preferences —" This is a seriously revealing editorial statement. The constitution is a document that defines and most importantly limits the rights of the federal government. The Bill of Rights and Amendments, define (not grant) individual rights that the government and legislature has no authority to alter or encroach. It is hard to read much less grasp the logic of this editorial board criticizing a party for having policies grounded in an inflexible interpretation of inviolate individual rights?
1
Like it or not, it's going to happen. I honestly think the people should demand term limits. 18 years is perfect. Vote folks. Our lives depend on it.
2
The Supreme Court today is nothing more or less than the third political institution and the only one not elected. The fallacy that there is an independent judiciary that interprets the Constitution using agreed upon and value neutral rules is so far from true as to be delusional.
The legal center of gravity of the Court is now the 14th Amendment which does three important things. First it provides in its language an open ended guarantee to any subset of the population that they are entitled to equal protection under the law e.g. no separate but "equal" schools, gay marriage.
Second, under substantive due process it allows the incorporation of rights contained in the Bill of Rights, applicable only to the federal government, to apply to the states as well. The Supreme court determines which of the rights in the Bill of Rights are "fundamental" and which are not e.g. gun ownership is a "fundamental" right that the states cannot abridge.
Thirdly under substantive due process "implied" (not actually stated) rights are found that protect such things as the right to privacy- e.g. the right to contraception and abortion.
In each of these areas the disagreements in constitutional interpretation are nothing more that political philosophy. There is nothing substantive to override justices' personal bias and beliefs. A hack from the worst law school in the country could do as well as a Yale graduate.
How can it be any kind of a surprise that the Supreme Court has tended in the same general direction as the political scene, and now the population, when its membership is derived from and determined by partisan ideologies? Today's graphic describing the liberal vs conservative tendencies of the court is remarkable to me mainly for the absence of a proportionate center. Recent polls of eligible voters show that independents outnumber identification with either of the two major parties, coming in at around 41%. Where is the representation of that group? Are there no lawyers or judges who are politically independent? This system is ill.
Yes, times are bleak, but not unlike the 1870's when the Supreme Court ruled the 14th Amendment only protected a male's right to vote. Women and men who believed every person had the right to vote knew they were in for a long slog through the legislative arms of government, and Americans face the same prospect today. We must recognize Federalists and conservatives have always tended toward the monarchy as Patrick Henry said, that they loathe the Bill of Rights Thomas Jefferson and others insisted be part of our new government, and currently believe Americans should be modern serfs taking whatever business owners throw their way. I hope Americans are up to the challenge women faced 160 years ago.
1
What can Senate Democrats teach us?
Nothing beyond laying down and playing dead!
Or perhaps they should hold yet another focus group to test which kind of questions are appropriate and/or meaningful in order to deliver what they will see as a well tailored message.
Maybe?!?
Because, after all, it has become more than apparent that Democratic Leadership has learned nothing from the last election and they are squandering whatever support they have left.
After all, what is the purpose of leadership when they are beyond weak and do not have a clue?
Their leadership has become so weak that I will vote Democrat if only because the alternative is far worse than the non-existent leadership of my party.
Even worse, by not even questioning the legitimacy of the last election in light of the interference, this alone has created a horrific precedent!
They validated the interference by not legally challenging it and it left the door open for even more in the coming election!
As for Supreme Court appointments, they have always been political! To say otherwise is simply not living in the real world. Presidents and parties have always selected candidates that they think will represent their interests and legacy.
Beyond that, people need to ask themselves if they should tolerate the dysfunction of our political apparatus and whether it is possible to co-exist with it.
Maybe we have reached a point that it is better to live apart than to continue fighting these kinds of battles.
"In short, Senate Democrats need to use the confirmation process to explain to Americans how their Constitution is about to be hijacked by a small group of conservative radicals well funded by ideological and corporate interests, and what that means in terms of the rights they will lose and the laws that will be invalidated over the next several decades."
NYT Editorial Board, please publish a thoughtful, thorough and accessible piece that addresses this pivotal point: "...and what that means in terms of the rights they will lose and the laws that will be invalidated over the next several decades."
The staff at the NYT is far more intelligent and focused than our Senators and quite frankly, the people who need to hear how their lives will be impacted are listening to you, not them.
3
"Nothing is terrible except fear itself," Sir Francis Bacon.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," FDR.
Put these in your covered jar with "free white males" and "term limits." Shake well. Take off the lid.
Out steps the ghost of banquo. Applause.
2
The only way 'certain voters' in this country seem to learn anything, is to have their noses rubbed in it . . . consider this a nose-rub.
If Trump teaches us nothing else, it will be the value of your vote. Use it.
4
A brilliantly written editorial.
To all Americans who were eligible to vote in the last Presidential election but failed to do so claiming that “my vote doesn’t matter” — you reap what you sow.
6
I heard there were about one hundred million eligible voters who did not vote in the 2016 elections. You meant to tell me that there are either 100 million people who did not understand or care that the Supreme court stood in the balance? That's a lot of ignorant people we have in the USA. Throw in the 63 million that voted for the ignoramus, and that is almost half the US population. The GOP's plan for keeping the people stupid and distracted while garnishing the money from the rich and corporations. It is no wonder that trump is president. Keeping the people stupid, distracted and divided is what this country is all about. That's why evil is firmly in control.
3
Here is a prediction. If and when the Democrat party controls the WH and the senate, such president will utilize a liberal think tank to provide suggestions for justices and this new paper will applaud the forward thinking of POTUS.
7
Dear Liberals,
If you want to stymie Trump and blow up his supporters, try the obvious. Support Coach K. "He's a swell guy." "A judges judge." "He was number 4 on Obama's short list."
Or, whine and howl until he is seated. Have all of your make believe protesters bused to the next venue and damage public and private property. And, patiently wait for his next SCOTUS pick.
No wonder no one votes for you.
5
"...and to create an environment where radical judges can’t be nominated or confirmed...
Talk about dog-whistles...
So the New York Times want a Supreme Court justice to rule according to political and social justice ideology instead of the law or the Constitution.
8
Yes, and ask women nominees about their views on abortion, and African-Americans, on affirmative action, since you clearly don't understand why these questions are offensive and ignorant.
1
There is absolutely no doubt that this rigidly ideological Editorial Board is eminently as predictable as anyone Trump could care to name. The irony is that the “somewhat unpredictable” Justice Kennedy confounded the very same liberal ideologies who are gazing into their muddy crystal balls with dire predictions of imminent doom. Relax. Or not. I’ve tuned out.
7
give the editors credit for trying to reason around the kavanaugh nomination, especially given the NYT's trump-bashing habit, but those of us who are truly elite, truly knowing what we know, do not need reason, we have elizabeth warren, a leader of our oh-so-smart set, who without a shred of irony, snarled at us, her face a rictus of "nasty," that judge kavanaugh was "hostile to everybody."
you have to love a country where tv can give us for free, the kind of comic misanthropy that costs a harvard student thousands in tuition fees.
watch your back, michelle wolf.
6
Would I be correct to assume that:
1) The NYT Editorial Board never saw fit, during any time that liberals were in control of the Court, to argue for shortening Supreme Court lifetime appointments down to just 18 years? And,
2) If your proposed term limitation change happened to be approved and implemented, you would want it applied retroactively against the Court members then in place, coincidentally shortening the duration of the then existing conservative majority (including Kavanaugh) that we are told otherwise might last for several decades?
I am sure that these both are simple coincidence and not indicative of liberal bias on the part of the NYT! And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you!
7
Thanks for a well written, balanced opion. .........a helpful guide for the coming days of noisy debate.
interesting to contrast this with your Merrick Garland editorial when he was selected by the President. None of the change the political process rhetoric or "things appear bleak" phrases.
He is a highly qualified jurist and a man of high character. Too bad your ideaology can't let your state this unequivicollay.
6
I would bet the ranch that if the court was tilted in the "progressive" direction the nyt editorial board would not be arguing for term limits.
9
I have to laugh at this editorial, trying to play both sides.
What does the editorial board mean --- "Senate Democrats didn’t cover themselves in glory trying to pin down Justice Gorsuch, spending an inordinate amount of time hammering him on old opinions that demonstrated his supposed disdain for the “little guy.”
Pin down and hammering? And he pointed out " rightly, that his allegiance was to the Constitution and not to individual litigants, however sympathetic they might be."
What does that mean? Sympathetic?
Disdain for the little guy? Is that us, the little guy and gal citizen majority of America? Dems spent an 'inordinate amount of time"? And 'didn't cover themselves in glory?" Is this a late night comedy satire?
What's the purpose of the Constitution our court claims to owe allegiance to, if not to protect the rights of We the People from rampant plutocrats running our politics? How rich do we have to be to get some protection?
Or is that too 'left wing liberal' now for the NY Times editorial board? Pardon me.
The Democrats, to do their duty and cover themselves in a bit of glory, should spend more time protecting the 99 percent who elect them from the powerful who disdain them, But we the people can't compete to pay for elections.
Hammer away, Dems.
Please rewrite this editorial.
2
Right. And Clinton won the popular vote despite the Russians working for Trump. Gore did the same, sans Russians, we think. The majority of the people supported 2 different presidents in recent history to make judicial appointments, not Bush, Trump and, of course, the puppet behind the scenes in 2016 Garland debacle, McConnell The fundamental principle of the Constitutional democracy "one person, one vote" has been upended. This is a fight about democracy, pure and simple.
2
Senate apportionment is a grotesque travesty of equal justice given its crucial role in vetting appointments and treaties. It is every bit as laughable as the Supreme Court it has afflicted on us.
1
Those who are not conservatives are most likely--pick one--sad, disappointed, furious, frustrated--at the circumstances that have brought us to this point in the court's history. Naively, some of us, believed that the Supreme Court was above politics, that it was a sanctuary where the law was the law, period. I know I can't believe that anymore. Conservatives argue that they, unlike liberals, make their decisions based on the Constitution, while liberals make their decisions based on what they would like the law to be. Since Thomas Jefferson himself wrote that the documents of the founding fathers were living documents, I tend to believe that although the founders did their best to set up a government that could last, the best thing Jefferson acknowledges is that none of those 18th century men could possibly know what the future would be like so it was necessary to read those documents in the context of contemporary life. Conservatives are intent on conserving life as it was, if not as it was in the 18th century, but like it was when the supremacy of privileged white was never in play.
It is a shame that a corrupt, incurious man like Trump, who has been so cavalier, to say the least, about the law, is shaping the future of this country.
2
The mob of people brandishing their AR-15s at the petrified Congress is anything but a "well regulated militia". The free state is held up at gunpoint by these folks.
1
He doesn't elect a judge; he simply nominates a prospect that is confirmed by Senate.
1
This is a depressing read not but not for the reason I initially wanted it to be. The POTUS, regardless of what we think of him and his untenable "ideology" that is less beholden to GOP or conservative tenets and more to his whims of fancy, simply nominates the person. The power lies with the Senate to confirm, and honestly, they don't have to. This process could be drawn out indefinitely, or the Senate could decide that we only need 8 justices since the Constitution does not specify an exact number. Does the Editorial Board need a hug? I sure feel like I do after this doom-and-gloom read. The hyperbole from both sides on this issue is exhausting and only strengthens my position that we need a third party.
Kudos on the mention of John Paul Stevens, although I hazard that he wouldn't have made a cameo had he not pushed for a left ideal of repealing 2A.
1
The SCOTUS has become a highly political body as opposed to an impartial arbitrator. It has been the goal of The Federalist Society for years to essentially take over the judiciary, and of course their ideology comports with the Republican Party ideology. What's clear to me is that we really don't have a government by and for the people when you take into consideration the excessive gerrymandering, Citizen's United decision, stacked judiciary, Gore vs Bush decision, etc. I am still bitter, and won't forget, that the Gorsuch seat was stolen. We have a SCOTUS that will now always rule on the side of powerful interests, not individual liberties. We are truly regressing as a nation.
5
You may be old enough to remember, like I do, the same things being said by the right during the Warren court. It is a very human trait to think that decisions with which one agrees are the result of impartial reasoning, and those which one disagrees with are the result of political maneuvering.
One of the things Mr. Obama said that I completely agree with was "Elections have consequences".
3
The liberal media is once again reacting hysterically to a perceived threat from the conservatives. They have the Justices appointed by Republican presidents voting in a solid bloc to overturn Court decisions that have been accepted law for decades.
The Republicans and conservatives probably wish that they had that kind of skill in picking Justices. Justices Blackmun and Souter are examples of Justices appointed by Republicans who ended up in the liberal wing of the court. Other Justices appointed by Republican presidents have readily crossed to the other side to vote for what they believed. These include Sandra Day O'Connor, retiring Justice Kennedy and, recently, Chief Justice Roberts.
Chief Justice Roberts has given no indication that he is ready to lead the court on a conservative reign of terror.
Finally, to reverse this calamity, the Democrats have merely to win back the Presidency in 2020, which seems not only possible but likely if the Party can choose a popular candidate, and have that president appoint a liberal Justice to replace one of the five conservative Justices.
3
The WH Correspondent for NBC tweeted this earlier - Geoff Bennett:
Source familiar tells NBC that Justice Kennedy had been in negotiations with the Trump team for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh (his former law clerk) Kennedy felt comfortable retiring -
1
No one on the left seems to understand that Trump's pick was tactical and in-your-face. People had been saying for days that Kavanaugh's paper trail and political service would make for much longer hearings. Trump sees Democrats ready to overplay their hand and welcomes it. The public will become tired of the innuendo, defamation and slander that will characterize the hearings. Many will be disgusted by it. Trump is doing his Clint Eastwood impression: "Go ahead. Make my day." November is just around the corner.
I would also bet dollars to doughnuts that Kavanaugh was Kennedy's choice for the pick.
4
I share the opinion of many that Judge Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Elections have consequences, and given current politics (which, unfortunately, are the determining factor) he likely will be.
The Editorial Board of the Times, not surprisingly, is opposed to his confirmation. That is their privilege. Thanks to the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press and the confirmation of this principle in the SCOTUS Citizens United decision, the Times has every right to publish its opinion.
As readers consider this editorial, here a a few bits of history to remember:
It was the Democrats that invented "Borking."
Concerning Merrick Garland, and the Senate's refusal to consider his nomination: Sen. Joe Biden in 1992, when he was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, explicitly suggested that lame duck presidents should not nominate Justices. Sen. Charles Schumer explicitly endorsed this in 2007. Many may object, but it was clearly the Democrats, not the Republicans, who established this policy.
It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, that first implemented the "nuclear option" and changed Senate rules to eliminate the requirement of 60 votes to end a filibuster for judicial appointments.
Finally, some of the strongest comments in history demonstrating (and implicitly endorsing) the politicization of SCOTUS were made by liberal Justice Ginsburg in this newspaper 2 years ago.
7
“Elections have consequences” tells me all I need to know.
Garland never had the votes. But he was the *real* choice, just like Hillary is the *real* winner of the presidential election.
1
“Didn’t have the votes.” That’s a convenient assertion when the Republicans refused to even hold a hearing. If Garland didn’t have the votes what would be the risk in upholding Congressional norms and having a hearing? And all the obfuscation in the world will never change the fact that Hillary was the peoples’ choice, and your boy wasn’t.
2
We need to take responsibility for our own actions. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are a direct result of the Democratic party's inability to get Hillary Clinton elected President.
We can grouse about McConnell and his "Biden Rule" (which did not, notwithstanding McConnell's and fellow republicans continued lies, prevent the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice in a presidential election year but merely forced the President to nominate a candidate with broad bipartisan support (that justice being Justice Kennedy)) all we want, but it is our failure as a party that made the Biden Rule a loss instead of a nonevent.
Conservatives continue to play the long game and are willing to elect a narcissistic, misogynistic, adulterer who will further portions of a social conservative and business-centric agenda, while Liberals continue to fight over ideological party purity. Solutions that call for Constitutional Amendments or court packing are just acknowledgements of our failure as a party.
The Democratic Party beats this by getting out and voting, but taking back congress and not losing it. And that can only happen if we are willing to sacrifice some of the most extreme portions of the progressive agenda to achieve that end. We have to balance policy with the fact that we have a $21 trillion deficit.
1
"Life Expectancy" is measured in years from the time of birth. A high infant mortality, as was the case in the time of our Founding Fathers, would make the value low, here 35. White male persons (especially better off) could expect to live to about their biblically allotted three score and ten, 70.
1
"There’s So Much You Don’t Know About Brett Kavanaugh"
And so much I don't care to know -- and won't ever need to -- considering that this judge who is O so wrong for the Supreme Court will soon be but a footnote in American history.
1
Stay tuned for the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court Gong Show confirmation process.
2
The Democrats need to blast to the nation that if a supreme court nominee can't be vetter during an election year, than a nominee can't be vetted while the President is under investigation. Let the public know the great hypocrisy and theft that is occurring, whether it falls on deaf ears in Congress or not.
2
The Editorial Board should read Professor Amar's op-ed, and stop trying to demonize Kavanaugh. The opposition is futile and will only increase the Republican's chances in 2018. The time for legitimate whining will be when Trump replaces RBG.
1
What troubled me most was the fawning tribute made by the nominee to Don the Con as being the most thorough seeker of the right choice for the Court. He read a list, compiled by others, to secure the conservative agenda of their making, how can that be thorough? With the regularly scheduled Cabinet slobbering over the Grifter in Chief now being wed to the nominees for the Supreme Court doing likewise, I guess the Founders would surely be proud of the 'American Experiment'........maybe not!
1
If Trump comes before the court, Kavanaugh ( assuming he’s confirmed) and Gorsach must recuse themselves.
1
I was hoping this article would provide me with so much to know about Brett Kavanaugh.
In Trumpworld, it doesn't matter if the ostensible law is against you if you "know somebody" or hire the properly connected lawyer.
1
Kavanaugh has a long, long pro-business, anti-worker, anti-citizen history, and has been coached by the Federalist Society, and influenced by the Koch brothers, with the dark money that permeates the ,now politicized, high court system. Those of us who want to preserve our civil rights, our constitutional rights, should start volunteering, demonstrating, calling representatives, and donating small money to organizations, like the Our Revolution, Justice Democrats, 21st Century Democrats, and MoveOn.org. to fund the effort to at least delay this confirmation until after the election. Extra pressure should be put on "Democratic" Senators Manchin, Heitkamp, and Donnelly to stand with their party, and the people of this country. Tell this "administration," and the crooked Republicans that you will not stand for a widely different set of rules for Republicans versus Democrats. This is the people versus our currently corrupt government. The most corrupt government in American history. There is a lot of work to do, in order to save this country from autocracy.
1
Funny how the system is broken whenever things aren't going your way...but when you're in charge there's no issue with the same system.
When Obama was appointing Justice Sotomayor, the NYT didn't have an issue with lifetime appointments or feel the need to bemoan what "lifetime" means today versus 200 years ago. When Clinton and Obama were winning elections, nobody complained about the electoral college...but when a Republican wins, the system is obsolete.
Sorry that the elections aren't turning out the way you want...but it may be time to accept that there are millions of people in this country who don't share your views and are happy with this nomination. The constitution is clear...the president has the authority to make this appointment...and the nominee is sufficiently qualified. Not agreeing with the nominee's positions isn't really firm ground for not confirming.
You can't suggest that we change the rules every time you lose...otherwise, people will stop taking you seriously.
5
Is this the final chapter yet to be written? The final nail in the coffin of our Democracy? The Autocrat, a compliant legislature and now a neutered court. Even worse, this Court could put the autocrat above the law, sanctifying his power grab. And with that our Democracy dies, not with a bang, but a whimper.
I'm and old man now. I've watched America running from the Left to the Right all my life. Now capitalistic fascism is all the rage. It has seemed unstoppable. Probably because of which side the wealth and power exists. That's right, with the wealthy and powerful. In a country whose supreme judges have ruled money equivalent to speech.
5
The pendulum passes midpoint on its return swing and immediately the Times Board is calling for fundamental structural changes in the Supreme Court. Reminds one of FDR. Take some deep breaths, Board.
2
"...lines up suspiciously well with Republican policy preferences — say, gutting laws that protect voting rights...or destroying public-sector labor unions’ ability to stand up for the interests of workers."
The 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments all specifically stipulate that the right to vote is accord only to citizens. No CITIZEN'S right to vote is being infringed by being required to prove that they are citizens.
While the 1st Amendment guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" as a labour union, it says nothing at all of any obligation on the part of any employer, government or private, to pay any attention to what that union says.
2
Many replies bemoan the elimination of the filibuster rule for Supreme Court Justices. This change renders the minority virtually powerless to block an appointment they oppose. So how did we get here?
Historically, Senators respected that a President was broadly entitled to appoint justices of his choosing and so voted against nominees when competence was questioned, not because of ideological differences. Unfortunately, Democrats (along with a handful of liberal Republicans) decided to change the rules in 1987, blocking the SCOTUS appointment of the indisputably eminently qualified Robert Bork, for ideological reasons. Thus began the era of ideological warfare on judicial appointments.
Following in that Democratic tradition, Republican in 2013 were blocking many of Obama’s judicial appointees. Historically, the filibuster enabled the minority to exercise some reasonable restraint over an otherwise unstoppable majority. But now back in the majority, Democrats no longer saw the need to respect minority interests. Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster for judicial (but not SCOTUS) appointments. At that time, Mitch McConnel presciently warned “you’ll regret this and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think”. Only four years later the tables turned and McConnel made good on his cautionary threat, by eliminating the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments, allowing Gorsuch to be approved by a simple majority.
Morale: Respect the minority you may soon be a member again.
5
I suppose it's the apotheosis of our culture of celebrity that The Editorial Board can get so riled about a Supreme Court nominee whose orientation is toward judicial restraint, while apparently missing the point that this will give power back to us.
We can elect legislators in each of our states, we can elect our governors, we can elect people to run our political parties -- and these are the people who draw up Congressional districts, who determine how primary and Electoral College votes will be cast, among other things. We can elect our Senators and our Representatives, too.
News flash: the work gets done in the trenches. It gets done locally. And the people who do the work are going to get to set the rules. I could see the wave coming as state legislatures and governorships grew more conservative, and as progressives seemed to focus more on only the highest positions in our culture of celebrity. Republicans played the long, hard game growing out of the Tea Party movement. And now they're going to see many of their policies and wishes enacted -- no matter how ill-advised I think some of them are. Progressives need to do the work on a state and local level -- retail "politics" of persuading and explaining -- rather than trying to find a savior.
2
There was a time, before McConell, when the Senate was an esteemed legislative body. There was a time, before Thomas and Scalia when giants made the Court THE Court in all of law. There was a time, before tRump, when integrity and morals and decency mattered more than corruption and power. Where and how will the the American Empire end, and at what cost?
All either questions for Kavanaugh should take a back seat to this one: will you recuse yourself in the event that a case involving trump should come before the court?
2
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Americans will have to first see evidence of all these rights being "denied" before they'll be concerned enough to produce the "backlash" you predict.
Americans can tell a well-qualified SCOTUS pick when they see one, and Trump has picked two.
2
Americans will have to first see evidence of all these rights being "denied" before they'll be concerned enough to produce the "backlash" you predict.
As of now, many GOP presidents' SCOTUS selections have proven to be reasonable. It's primarily ideologues and partisans, both of which describe this Editorial Board, who are predicting the end of the world while ignoring their own ideologues on the Court.
Americans can tell a well-qualified SCOTUS pick when they see one, and Trump has picked two.
3
I agree totally with the Editorial Board. Republicans are hiding behind an artificial disdain for so-called "activist" judges, yet want to install their own activist judges.
Kavanaugh is part of the Catholization of the SCOTUS that supports a belief in a central, papal power that issues a body of infallible, immutable laws, so long at they are conservative. Originalism fits well there, with Gorsuch and Thomas, and the bias against reproductive choice is a conservative tenet.
We lack an honesty in the vetting progress which is driven by reason, a consequence of what the Editorial Board publishes here. That the Federalist Society has its list, means that it is a list that is biased toward political desire rather than judicial expertise.
I think that if we used the Editorial Board's suggestion:
"But Senate Democrats and others who believe in the importance of an independent and nonpartisan judiciary also need to treat these hearings as a public-education opportunity."
to make these hearings an educational encounter for the American public, we'll all do better instead of making them a show that obscures a Federalist Society litmus test.
And, yes, yes, yes to:
"One proposal would limit justices to 18-year terms, which would create an opening on the court every two years, and reduce some of the political gamesmanship that surrounds open seats today."
We have one, and only one, place to voice an opinion that matters. It is known as a "ballot box", "polling place" or any term that applies to your location. Not enough people have been selecting that option when it is available. I encourage all to do so at the next opportunity.
2
Conservatives know full well that the power to make the laws is only half the battle, one demographics may ultimately take from their hand. The power to interpret the laws is just as important. That's why conservatives have been packing the judiciary with hard-right judges, to put a permanent tilt in the playing field.
We had McConnell's theft of a supreme court seat from Obama. We had the big push to get Kennedy to retire before the November elections so Trump and a GOP controlled Senate could rush their pick through.
Talk about the Constitution and the will of the Founders is just that: talk. No one should believe anything but that conservatives will stop at nothing to hold onto power by any means they can get away with.
Kavanaugh has written, basically, that the president of the United States, should never be impeached, investigated, or indicted, i.e. by Mueller's investigation of tRump's corruption. The Republicans, and tRump, had prior knowledge of this tendency. The paper trail is writings that indicate an intention to take down settled law, and precedent, and to legislate from the bench. Kavanaugh has been trained, coached, and brought along, by the dark forces of our country (Kochs) in the likely event that a seat would become available. Furthermore, thanks to tRump's connection to Justice Kennedy's son, the Deutsche Bank banker, who made huge loans to tRump, Kennedy was forced into retirement, in an effort to shield his son from Mueller's investigation. Apparently, Kennedy's son may have committed some crimes, as well. I'm sure the Republicans are comfortable that most of the country is not aware of these facts, and this is why they do these things in broad daylight.
4
We thought Amy Barrett was the Catholic, but apparently Kavanaugh is as well. That's laudable, but in terms of the fight against choice v. the state, health care , voting rights, gerry-mandering and--wait! The writings of Kavanaugh of which there are literally thousands of such documents has his statements in a law journal about the president and his powers taken from his time in the Bush White House one could imagine. That ain't what I'd call originalist, but who says attorneys or judges or anyone else cannot change their minds when necessary? Conservatives including Scalia believe the document itself was holy, rather than seeing it as I believe the founders would, as a living document that would in fact change with the times, as it must to remain relevant. When cases wend their way to the Supreme Court, are those decisions made there a result of making and changing law, as one writer claims? Or, is it a result of the matter of the why we have such a court as the original Federalist papers whether writings from Marshall, Hamilton, Madison et al might see in rather a different light thanthis Federalist Society who present Trump with his shopping list.
1
Realistically, with a Republican in the White House, and a narrow majority in the Senate, we're going to get a conservative jurist. Kavanaugh at least is well credentialed, skilled and qualified.
The real crime is the Republican theft of the Merrick Garland nomination. Republicans talk about Obama ruling by executive order - the Garland nomination tactics used by the Republicans tell you everything you need to know about the kind of Congress he had to deal with.
Sadly, while I wish her a long and continuing tenure on the court, these events also makes you realize that Justice Ginzberg may not have done anyone any favors by not giving Obama a chance to pick her replacement.
1
"One proposal would limit justices to 18-year terms, which would create an opening on the court every two years".
By doing this, it would hopefully become a true system of "Let the voters decide". The court would come to reflect the changing mores, values and desires of the general populace as reflected by their elected officials (we'll put aside voter apathy, gerrymandering, etc., for the time being). As it stands, now the Court will be largely driven by American views 50 years gone - for the next 40 or 50 years.
3
For perspective, read the Times' slam of Justice Souter when he was nominated to the Court. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/03opdead.html
The current editorial is the same old tiresome hackneyed rant trotted out by the Times every time a Republican nominates someone to the Supreme Court. New tune, but the same old song.
For the record, I have my own reservations about nominating a Bushie to the Court. They have never stood for much. But Kavanaugh does not deserve the hysterical hand wringing represented by this editorial.
5
We're allowing a racist, elitist, morally and ethically corrupt, repugnant objectifier of women appoint a permanent position to the highest court in the land.
What could possibly go wrong?
8
And the attempted Borking of Kavanaugh begins.
4
QED
I know you guys love to use this as a scary bed-time story to frighten the kiddos, but could you please define "Borking" for me?
Because the way I remember it, the man was a walking puddle of haughty self-regard and archaic legal philosophizing having little to do with the Constitution or America.
He knew that about himself and lied so poorly in his attempt to hide it from the hearing committee that his own supporters hid in shame.
And yet the poor excuse for a judge was granted the full round of hearings, private conversations, and a vote.
A vote he lost as several members of his own party voted against him.
I suspect what you mean by "Borking" is "Garlanding", which you hesitate to say outright because of its festive holiday implication.
1
I'm 85 years old, and I really don't care. Do you?
5
Sad if it is as you say that you really don't care. But since you yourself link this feeling to your age, perhaps your apathy is related to something else. In any event, I'm no spring chicken; and the day I don't care is the day I throw in the towel. I wish you peace.
Ask him if he watches Fox News.
6
And if Kavanaugh answers "Yes" his nomination should immediately be thrown out, and the confirmation proceeding end.
1
And the vile travesty continues. If you have any doubts whatsoever that Trump is an installed Chaos President doing the bidding of a hostile foreign power, click your way to Jonathan Chait's masterful summary of the evidence staring any sentient observer in the face: "Will Trump Be Meeting With His Counterpart — Or His Handler?: A plausible theory of mind-boggling collusion." New York Magazine, July 8th, 2018.
Now, consider that this lowlife gangster has once again exercised arguably the most powerful lever of his office and picked yet another Supreme Court Justice-for-Life -- handpicked for his reliably wacko Right-Wing rulings by those oh-so-sober-and-serious Constitutional Scholars of the Federalist Society.
Expatriation beckons...
7
2020 is just around the corner, oh Democrats, time to redeem yourself and take-back the future, so you won't have to read nasty NYT lines like this: "Judge Kavanaugh . . . . successfully portrayed himself in his remarks at the White House as a nice guy who coaches girls in basketball, feeds the homeless and believes in the Constitution."
Uh-oh, Editorial Board, you forgot to add that he has several rescue cats-and-dogs, too!
3
A political ideologically charged, right or left, Supreme Court with every decision disadvantages roughly half this nation’s citizens. If that is what the founders intended, perhaps it is time to revalue their wisdom.
3
There is something close to hysteria brewing on the left over what is essentially a cyclical swing on the court. What's potentially at risk are a set of rights that have grown up around court decisions but are not legislatively established. The real fix for that is not a crusade against Kavanaugh (a losing battle given the makeup of the Senate), but electoral activism that gets progressive candidates in office to enshrine those rights through proper lawmaking. That's hard work.
6
Vote no.
Obstruct.
Stop.
Prevent.
Those are the only viable approaches to any Republican Supreme Court nomination.
6
Nominees find it easy to avoid questions about past cases and cases that may come up in the future.
I've always thought that one way for the Senate to get around this is to focus more closely on how the nominee will exercise the discretion to pick which cases will be heard by the Supreme Court, and which ones rejected. I think it would be harder to dodge that question: what cases should the court take? What issues are in dispute in society, that need to be resolved by the Court? The follow up questions to this line of questions may actually nail down the judge's philosophy, provided (a big if) that the Senator asking the question is skilled, and not just grandstanding.
2
the life expectancy was not 35 years when the Constitution's framers decided to give Supreme Court justices lifetime appointments...maybe if one included infant deaths, but I'm sure the life expectancy of someone picked for the Supreme Court back then would have been much more than 35 years old...I'm sure the vast majority of people who lived past early childhood lived far longer lives than 35...
7
Very good point. The life expectancy of a person, given that they are already, say, 30 years old when nominated, is far greater than the life expectancy at birth. Come on, Times, show some numeracy.
1
We can't let facts or logic get in the way of the NYT's agenda...
Supreme Court Justices in 1787 weren't just the average "joe off the street," they were the elites of the day and had access to the best living situations. They lived well past 35 and our founding fathers would know that because many of them lived well past 35.
George Washington - died at 67
James Madison - died at 85
Samuel Adams - died at 81
Thomas Jefferson - died at 83
Benjamin Franklin - died at 84
If anything, this shows how well free markets have democratized life. Now us average folks get access to the longevity that was once only reserved for the elites. Our founding fathers intended life tenure to mean just that, knowing very well that they and their peers could easily live into their 80s or 90s.
"Senate Democrats didn’t cover themselves in glory trying to pin down Justice Gorsuch, spending an inordinate amount of time hammering him on old opinions that demonstrated his supposed disdain for the 'little guy.'”
"But Senate Democrats and others who believe in the importance of an independent and nonpartisan judiciary also need to treat these hearings as a public-education opportunity. Where once these sorts of hearings served to inform Americans about the finer points of constitutional law, now they might be used to alert them to cynical tactics of power politics."
"As those tireless conservative activists would be the first to tell you, winning the future depends on deliberate, long-term organizing in the present, even when — especially when — things appear most bleak."
I hope the Democratic Party's so-called leadership carefully reads the above statements in this editorial
We are where we are in this right-wing tilted country, because the complacent Democratic Party has seriously gone missing as the party of opposition
When the GOP was the party of opposition, the Republicans opposed and certainly spent enormous air time educating the public in their direction, ginning up enthusiasm, and organizing at local, state, and national levels.
Voters look for a political party that not only represents their values, but one that communicates well and often, loves playing the politics game & winning, and will fight hard for its values & voters.
Someone wake up the Dems
5
Yes. Educating the public. Too often hosts, politicians and pundits on TV lose sight of how crucial this is and do not take the viewer into account. Even on some of the best shows. A little less ranting and opinion and a little more of, "who are we talking to at home and how can we help galvanize people into action?" -- this would do the trick, something that could be achieved by simply explaining their comments in a way a person not an expert in their field would understand as important to their lives. Do Democrats even have any educational initiatives planned? Foot soldiers, knocking on doors to make people aware?
3
The NYT editors should look in the mirror when they accuse the GOP of placing "radical" judges on the Supreme Court. The nomination process became political when the court become political. You might notice that the four liberal justices nominated by Democratic presidents vote together in a bloc just the same as the four conservative justices nominated by Republican presidents. You have no problem with those justices who vote liberal.
Ever since the court decided to wade into the murky waters of finding implied constitutional rights to support preferred social goals like abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action and federalizing criminal procedure and the police powers of the states, the court has set itself up as the preeminent political institution guaranteeing these rights. Social goals not expressly incorporated into the constitution except by extending "liberty," have caused the court to be treated as another political branch of government.
We should not be surprised that it will take a politicized nomination process to confirm any nominee who may vote for our against one of the social rights enacted by the Supreme Court. It is no longer enough to have extraordinary legal qualifications and a judicial personality to win confirmation. It now strictly depends on where the nominee stands on the social issues which comprise the political divide. Liberal presidents will nominate liberal judges and conservative presidents will nominate conservative judges.
9
Be careful what you ask for. Sometime in the future we may expect a more liberal court to overturn some of this court's decisions. Then the same arguments will apply against the liberals. While I'd love to see certainty in judicial decisions, I don't believe we will see much of it for a long time.
Also, we liberals who didn't get the vote out should stop whining.
4
With the latest confirmation — there is little doubt it will happen — the Supreme Court will have a clear conservative majority. Would the Times question the Court’s legitimacy if the majority were liberal? I doubt it. This editorial illustrates how truly polarized we have become.
6
If the editorial board wants to cry about conservative appointees, court opinions yet to be rendered, and suggest the entire process be scrapped, it would be more constructive to proffer a better candidate for the presidency than the last one, the one(Hillary Clinton) that this same board endorsed before the primaries began.
9
Agreed! Such arrogance of the Democrats to run a candidate whose primary trait was "unlikable" - and now they are shocked about the mess we are in
1
All well and good with the sentiments expressed in this editorial, but for this: there is no such thing as a second-rate Samuel Beckett play.
1
Ask Kavanaugh if he believes the Trump Administration violated the 14th Amendment when they separated asylum seeking families without due process?
2
Conservatives (Immovable by Reason would a better term for them) in the USA are just so infuriatingly stubborn...
Being a developed country I would have expected them to be more thoughtful, more reflecting and more in knowledge of the *actual* world, but each day they prove otherwise.
2
There is one thing I know about Judge Kavanaugh that I like very much is that he was part of Kenneth Starr's team that investigated Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. That tells me that he is a moral and ethical individual, who is not going to put up with permissive behavior and support legal opinions that promote and defend such nonsense. Thank you.
4
Southern Boy
Now we know you approve completely of the Mueller Investigation, and are perfectly comfortable waiting another year or two for the report.
Because that's what Starr did. And because it was not an investigation into Clinton's back-hall escapade with Monica, it was an inquiry into Vince Foster's sad death. But, it seems, you're good with investigation that grow off in random directions in pursuit of the President.
Nice to know. And thank you for your consistency.
1
Wow, a Republican president nominated a highly qualified conservative to serve as a SC justice. Quell Surprise, elections have consequences.
7
\\Neil Gorsuch perfected the role last year, with his aw-shucks demeanor and his disingenuous regrets that, gosh, it just wouldn’t be right to express his views about almost any legal case or issue that had come before the court in the past, or might one day in the future.//
The role was perfected by nominee Ruth Ginsburg, who would have refrained from giving her name if it she could have.
4
Conservative’s claims to respect a strict interpretation of the constitution need to have a look Article II Section 2 which describes the procedure for placing justices on the supreme court. Gorsuch is sitting on the court in clear violation of the constitution. The current pick, if confirmed, will be Trump’s first legitimate justice choice. Our government has been overthrown. How can a court that is illegitimate judge what is legitimate? This is cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on the majority of the American people who did not vote for Don the Con.
3
The ultimate solution to a 'hijacked' SCOTUS is - of course - to win an election or two.
And - just in passing - how did following the spirit and intent of the constitution become commandeering the constitution?
And seriously - a life expectancy of 35 in the 1700's?
This is how folks get labelled as fake-news purveyors unless you are suggesting the SCOTUS nominees were appointed at birth?
5
My biggest gripe is the RW judicial line about original text *and* out of the other side of the mouth, original meaning. These are not interchangeable, and conservatives decide which of the two they will rely on with each new decision. “Text” is easy...it is the words before you. Meaning...well, meaning is a horse of another color. The text of the 2nd amendments is confusing, but like the Bible, the devil can quote it to his own ends. On the other hand, the Founders, in other writings, made what they meant clear...and the likes of Scalia fly in the face of this meaning. This is the duplicity if the right, and what we will now see much more of.
Who is the more activist or radical judge: the judge who reads the constitution literally or the judge who imputes rights that aren’t explicitly mentioned?
Take Griswald v Connecticut. The Supreme Court found a right to privacy by combining other constitutional amendments, such as no search and seizure without due process. That imputed right of privacy was extended to an unfettered right of choice over your own body to kill the fetus growing inside your body, but only until viability (Roe v Wade); and this imputed right of choice over your body does not extend to the right to end your life or even smoke pot.
Take Brown v Board of Education. It held separate is inherently unequal. But only for races; not sexes. For example, separate bathrooms and sports teams are okay for the sexes (unless your transgender); but not for the races.
Don’t get me wrong, Griswald and Brown were morally just decisions. But imputing rights into the constitution, no matter how just, leads to contorted interpretations and inconsistencies.
So whose the radical activist? I guess it just depends on whether you agree with the result.
6
Yes, but since any changes to the constitution are, rightly, extremely difficult to enact, the only way to adjust for changing societal mores (upon which all law is based) is through the courts.
That is, unless you think the founders could infallibly predict the future down to the tiniest detail.
4
Interesting points, I think I got more out of reading your comment than I did the NYT op-ed.
Thanks.
1
Griswald and Brown were more than "morally just".
Conservatives say they want to honor the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution:
The words "equal protection" have a plain meaning that conservatives were willing to ignor with regard to segregation, until Brown v Board of Education.
Same with gay marraige.
Conversely, there is nothing in the Constitution remotely suggesting that private, for profit corporations have the constitutional right to practice a religion, or have the same free speech rights as individuals. Yet conservatives were happy to see the Hobby Lobby and Citizens United cases, with not a peep about conservative justices legislating from the bench.
If B.F. Skinner is right about psychology, behavior should be judged by examining the externalities of rewards and punishments without name calling and mental hate mongering. There is little doubt that Trump is motivated by money and power and Kavanaugh is rewarded by traditional family values and the esteem of intellectual giants on the bench. Neither man thinks the law should bend over backwards to accommodate diversity.
The day before announcing his retirement, Justice Kennedy authored a concurring opinion defending the speech, freedom of thought, and beliefs of groups deeply opposed to abortion. “Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief.” In a Skinnerian world; thought, belief, and feelings are by-products of first amendment speech and actions.
Does a man have a right to procreate that is greater than an abortionist’s right to destroy his unborn child? Why?
Donald Trump once proposed a national tax on net wealth. See "The America We Deserve". If science and internet databases have advanced to the point of fair evaluation of assets, should tax cases be overruled that prevented the IRS from taxing net wealth?
Is government affirmative action always wrong? Should racial and ethnic data collection (private and census) be eliminated? Why?
Is it unconstitutional to copyright ideas (software, architecture) rather than just individual human expression?
1
Too often the strange noises and bad smells of a degenerate power system are excused and ignored until the lights go out. Then the innocent victims are awarded the blame (because it's their fault for being poor). That's the absurdity and hazard of empire and its delusional power, recorded by reality in the dust and ashes its big shots leave behind.
1
Trump is attempting to take this country on a hard Right bent and to exonerate him when he is impeached. Trump's nomination must be stopped at all costs. All costs. Got that, Dems? Your very existence depends on what you do to obstruct Trump's nomination and every thing the Republicans put forth.
DD
Manhattan
2
What can, does a "grounding in an independent judiciary" mean in a culture which fosters, enables, and accepts that both elected and selected policymakers, including interpreters of laws, local to national, function free of being personally accountable for the expected as well as unexpected outcomes of their words and actions? What is "an independent judiciary" when the seeded initial legacy of this nation of immigrants and refugees, and its ongoing harvests, permit, and all too often foster, a toxic, daily WE-THEY culture which targets and selects a range of "the other?" Who is capable of a strict, accurate, "original" interpretation of voiced and written Constitutional words and their meanings, during THEN's contexts, for a tweeting NOW of known, unknown and unknowable diversities by ideologized judges? Local. State. Federal. Lifetime SCOTUS ones. Consider, what are the implications in our judicial system tht Chief Supreme Court Justice Edward Rehnquist, who served for 33 years, was addicted to pain medications during his last years, as he continued to serve, daily, and that Rockefeller drug laws, which enable a new Jim Crow to operate, can imprison for life! What is necessary to move away from
"independent judiciary" being little more than a political mantra? Or even worse, being part of daily semantic surrealism which mixes with empowered complacency while underpinning willful blindness to what exists which shouldn't!
Willful deafness! Willful ignorance. By many.
Despite this editorial, the NYT research shows that over the last 40 years many Republican appointed Justices have voted independent of what was expected while Democrat appointments have voted in lock-step, without any divergences. Contrast the range of positions and votes from Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor and Roberts with the lack of any similar diversity of opinions and votes from Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagen.
5
The Left is the party that seeks biased justices, not neutral arbiters of what is actually written in the Constitution and what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution. I understand that the Left believes the Founders are racists, but until you amend the Constitution leave it as it is written.
The Left cannot win their arguments at the State of Federal Legislatures so they have utilized the Courts since the 60's to advance an agenda. Nowhere is gay marriage listed as a right. For over 200 years it was not a right. Similarly, abortion was not a right for almost 200 years. The ever-evolving Constitution theory means that we do not know what rights we have because those rights are always subject to being changed by five justices. Hence, if Conservatives accepted the Left's ever-evolving theory then overturning Roe and Gay Marriage most definitely should occur as 5 Justices now (or soon will) disagree with that position.
As a Conservative attorney, all I want is an objective court that I can know with clarity and certainty the standard is. I should not have greater rights than prior generations of Americans, unless the Constitution is amended.
5
"..create an environment where radical judges can’t be nominated or confirmed.."
The Senate rule requiring 60 votes (at least) for any lifetime appointment should be the law of the land. Ask Kavanaugh his opinion on that.
Also, please ask Kavanaugh his thoughts on the Senates "advise and consent" role as it pertained to the stillborn nomination of his DCCoA colleague, Merrick Garland.
6
"..create an environment where radical judges can’t be nominated or confirmed.."
I am assuming this applies to Liberal Justices too? Right?
@ Margo
Sure, if the record of writings or decisions bears that out.
A lifelong appointment with an annual salary of $250,000 plus speaking fees, clerks to do the grunt work, and three months of vacation. A sweet gig, which most recently gave us Bush v Gore (and Iraq) and Citizen’s United (dark campaign money).
While term limits for justices has great appeal, who honestly believes this will happen?
As Trump remarked, court appointments are important. But the momentous presidential decisions of recent history have involved war - Vietnam, Iraq, and coming soon - North Korea. In every instance the decision for war was made by a president with unrestrained war-making power. That is a problem.
2
As usual, the Editorial Board spins the truth in support of their own specious arguments and liberal agenda...
1. The editorial states: "There are structural fixes, like term limits, that could counteract this trend."
Really? Take a look at the Supreme Court in NJ, where such regular vacancies set up political fights that generally end up leaving the court short members for years, while the Democrats seek to pack it with their ideological compatriots (something at which they have been very, very successful!).
2. "The Federalist Society claims to value the so-called strict construction of the Constitution, but this supposedly neutral mode of constitutional interpretation lines up suspiciously well with Republican policy preferences...."
Maybe this reasoning is exactly backwards? Perhaps the Republican party actually views the Constitution as the cornerstone of American democracy, therefore their policy preferences line up with the Constitution, rather than the other way around?
3. "Americans who care about the court’s future and its role in the American system of government need to turn to the political process to restore the protections the new majority will take away, and to create an environment where radical judges can’t be nominated or confirmed."
This is a joke, right? The list of "radical judges" is populated with Democrats since before the Civil War. From Taney to Blackmun to Ginsberg and Sotomayor, it's the Left that uses, rather than respects, the Constitution.
5
It's already too late. As the Supreme Court goes, so goes the Constitutionality of gerrymandering, voter suppression, and campaign finance. Forget abortion rights, gay rights, labor protections, and every other social, environmental, economic, or cultural issue you care about. A devoted conservative court will structurally tilt electoral calculus to the disenfranchisement of non-conservatives. The positive feedback this generates between conservative judicial and electoral control could simply never end, and it will all happen under the aegis of election integrity, free speech, and state's rights. Conservatives won't have to win in court, because they'll be winning at the "polls". Anyone who thinks the GOP's demographic headwind will counteract this should consider North Carolina, where the GOP carried approx. 50% of votes and won approx. 75% of state seats. By my math, they gerrymandered themselves a 3-1 demographic advantage.
I actually disagree with a number of policies in the progressive platform--and empathize with conservative instincts if not many of their policies--so I find the wider jurisprudence implications (slightly) less troubling than some. But American conservatives have become so absolutist in their politics that they'll condone the naked subversion of democratic principles with no more justification than, "Democrats do it too."
If you don't believe me, ask an American conservative why they aren't outraged about North Carolina.
2
Today after this last Supreme Court pick, I’m lucky to be a white male who has had an easy life handed to me. My sympathies to all the rest of you who feel anxious today. We’ll see if this Court will be an independent judiciary and will hold that all “men” are truly “created equal” or will just do the bidding of a conservative Republican Party.
3
Scalia left the stage unexpectedly. Maybe Thomas will as well in 2021. The balance can be restored. Am counting on divine intervention. As in the Bible first comes the punishment, then comes the redemption.
2
term limits for the court, asap
2
If we went back to a 60 vote threshold for the Justices, I don't think term limits are necessary.
However, if the Senate only requires a 51 vote majority for a supreme court justice, then yes, term limits may seem reasonable.
The 60 vote threshold was a form of checks and balances, with its removal another form of check or balance should be implemented, term limits.
2
Regardless of the person chosen to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat, anyone nominated by Trump must recuse themselves if the Supreme Court is deciding anything relating to any investigation into Trump in the future. There is an inherent loyalty between a president and their nominee.
2
Antonin Scalia wiped any worries about conflicted interests off the map of right-wing justices.
Too many people, including the Times Editorial Board, seem to look at the Supreme Court a a genie in a lamp - rub it and your wishes are granted. Can't make same sex marriage legal via legislation - rub the lamp. Can't get unlimited corporate contributions to campaigns - rub the lamp. The only problem with this is that as you rub the lamp for one thing someone else is rubbing the lamp for the opposite.
Laws don't define morality - what's right or wrong - but simply place limits on what a society and its people have chosen to allow or require. The justices of the Supreme Court have been tasked with interpreting and not making the law - that's the job of the various legislatures. They are not the moral arbiters of our country.
When we seek justices who will guarantee an outcome we are perverting the three-fold nature of our government. The only valid criterion for giving or withholding consent to a nominated justice is whether she or he will uphold the law as defined by the Constitution and subsequent legislation.
To do otherwise, and to suggest radical changes in the nature and structure of the Supreme Court to guarantee outcomes is to invite tyranny and the collapse of the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.
2
What do you mean-- "We’re witnessing a global movement against the idea of liberal democracy and, in places like Hungary and Poland, its grounding in an independent judiciary."
Hungary and Poland were former Communist countries in the Soviet block, and victims of Nazis in WW2---and they had no firm history of democracy. What about the other western EU countries--- UK, France, Germany, Swiss, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc? They don't have "movements against the idea of liberal democracy."
And their govts aren't dominated by rw extremist parties. Le Pen lost to Macron in France. Farage and Wilders and their far right parties lost elections in UK and Netherlands.
But in the US our rw extremist GOP does dominate our 3 branches of govt and most states.
We the people could not put up the guardrails we need against this rw party's dominance and their anti democratic authoritarian and unstable leader.
Please discuss "American Exceptionalism." Use other democracies as examples of more positive role models.
2
Oh, boo hoo! We've been hoist on our own petard.
Somehow I don't remember the Times decrying the hard-left gamesmanship that gave us RBG, Sotomayor or Breyer. Boo hoo hoo!
5
The SCOTUS should not be a short circuit to illegal policy by way of rulings that violate the law. That is the reason for nominating someone like Judge Kavanaugh. Anyone who advocates for the opposite is trying to eliminate the representation that our elected, congressional lawmakers provide for our legal citizens.
2
Nary a word about "The Ginsburg Rule"?? Go back and review the text of her maddening non-answers even to fellow Democrats like Leahy. Guess that ended up on the cutting room floor of that fawning movie about her.....
5
Kavanaugh accedes in having a corrupt fascist appoint him to the court; that is his choice, trading power for whatever dignity he might possess. This means he, and his whole life, are fair game. He must be made an example of; cast out of society, thrown out of every business he frequents, shouted at in public.
1
The New York Times has done itself disservice with this article. By using its editorial board, editor and publisher as a vehicle to publish in the Op-Ed section, the Times makes a dramatic move away simply from publishing and reporting news.
I understand that the Times does not agree with President Trump and his decisions. But the Times (as the paper of record) should be committed to publishing fair and balanced reporting that does not seek to push its own ideological agenda. While the language and type is clean and effective, at its core this is just yellow journalism and fear-mongering.
5
What do you mean, ask him about Brown v Board of ed? Go further back, and ask him about Dred Scott and Plessey! What don't we know?
Sorry, but the polarisation of Scotus was created by a near-half century refusal by Dem presidents to appoint any but liberals to the Court. For 50 years, dating back to Ike, GOP presidents repeatedly appointed wise jurists who happened to liberals to Scotus. In fact, until Roberts, it was about 50/50 - no joke. Dem presidents appointed all liberals excepting 1 moderate -- not a single conservative. The scorecard is below if you don't believe me. Only when it became clear that Dems would never appoint any but a liberal did GOP appointment patterns change.
So don't tell me the problem was intolerant Republicans appointing only "their kind" because the record demonstrates that in fact it was precisely the opposite. The GOP consistently appointed Justices from right, left and center until it became clear that the Dems would never do the same.
SCOTUS APPOINTMENTS SINCE 1950
GOP
Ike: 2 libs (Warren & Brennan), 2 conservs, 1 moderate
Nixon: 2 libs (incl. the author of Roe), 1 conserv, 1 moderate
Reagan: 2 moderates (O'Connor/Kennedy, gay rights/marriage, upheld affirm action & Roe), and 2 conservs
Bush Sr: 1 lib (Souter), 1 conserv (Thomas)
Bush Jr: 2 conservs
Trump: 1 conserv (one forthcoming)
Dems
JFK: 1 lib, 1 moderate (Byron White)
LBJ: 2 libs
Clinton: 2 libs
Obama: 2 libs
GOP Scorecard:
5 libs
9 conserv
4 moderates
Dem Scorecard:
7 libs
1 moderate
4
I take issue with your scorecard. At the time of their appointments, Republican Presidents nominated and saw confirmed 18 Republicans and Democratic Presidents nominated and saw confirmed 8 Democrats. That several Republican justices grew to adopt some, but not all of the positions favored by the Democratic justices on several issues merely demonstrates the merit of those positions.
Since 1950, Republicans have dominated the Court.
Apologies, but with all due respect, I wrote "liberal" "moderate" and "conservative" Justices (not "Dem and Rep" as you inaccurately cite). I phrased it that way because (a) most Justices were NOT members of either political party at nomination, the norm for judges, and (b) most crucially, whether they were liberal or conservative or moderate can easily be determined by their voting record.
So again, the fact clearly show that the GOP presidents nominated more liberals plus moderates to Scotus between 1950 and 2016 than conservatives while during the same period Dem presidents nominated all liberals except for 1 moderate. If you take it only through 2000 when the judicial wars really heated up, it's even more pronounced at 9 libs/moderates to 4 conservatives.
The math does not lie.
If the continuation of legal abortion comes before the Court, can we count on Catholic justices to recuse themselves?
6
Imho..... when it is your turn congress ......
Do not question him at all.
That will make a larger statement about the lack of transparency in the confirmation hearing.
Just say perhaps .....
“Sir .... how bout Judge Garland “?
1
The writer(s) of this editorial want to rewrite the Constitution to achieve their own agenda. It's not going to happen.
4
I, too, would like to rewrite the Constitution to achieve my own agenda. Come to think of it, that is what the Constitution is in the first place.
"The Federalist Society claims to value the so-called strict construction of the Constitution, but this supposedly neutral mode of constitutional interpretation lines up suspiciously well with Republican policy preferences — say, gutting laws that protect voting rights, or opening the floodgates to unlimited political spending, or undermining women’s reproductive freedom, or destroying public-sector labor unions’ ability to stand up for the interests of workers."
Exactly! Every once in a while the NYTimes editorial board (read: Pravda propaganda writers) gets it right. This sentence is a perfect one ... it validates the conservative position: the
neutral view of the Constitution is what is usually on the Conservative side of the argument. The leftist argument usually has its basis, not in our Constitution, the words of its writers, and their contemporaneous literature such as the words of Adam Smith, but rather much later writers, culminating in Karl Marx.
The NYTimes always has it wrong. If someone wants, say, abortion, to be a Constitutionally given right, add that to the Constitution.
But oh! you say .... that would never pass! Well, well ! IF that's really true, then as usual for the left, you deny Democracy.
2
So-called strict constructionists who read the constitution to support the interests of the powerful and majorities ignore a simple fact: the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the individual from governmental oppression and minorities from oppressive majorities. Unpopular ideas and racial minorities have always looked to the courts to protect them, especially after the 14th Amendment became part of the constitution. A right leaning court can be expected by to elevate the interests of artificial “persons” (corporations) over the interests of actual persons, the interests of straight white males over those of other races/genders/sexual orientations and the interests of monied interests over those of the less fortunate.
until climate change dooms us all later in this century, running the unliked Hillary Clinton for President will be the worst thing that happened in the 21st Century
2
Another white man nominated for the Supreme Court. There, I said it.
4
Not surprising, as white men consistently exceed.
2
Is that the best you can Do NYT? Keep the circus going but make it more often for entertainment value? How about a totally independent judiciary like many countries in the world? If anything the current occupant of the White House exposed the problems of the political system that is no longer suited for the age of social media, If we continue this way, in 25 -30 years those of us who are not white Protestants will be a majority living under an apartheid white rule. Go bold NYT advocate for Changing the constitution, abolish the electoral college, change the senate composition to give each state enough senators to match the population and yes, reduce the power of the presidency. For all your whining about the autocratic regime in Turkey and else where, they are mostly modeled after the current presidential system in the US, how come you complain about the system there but not here?.
4
...all that over one Supreme Court nomination - it sounds like it's the end of the world as we know it......I don't think so. The Times Editorial staff went out of it's way to sensationalize this story!
4
If you don't know him after 300 opinions I am not sure you are paying attention.
4
"Senate Democrats didn’t cover themselves in glory trying to pin down Justice Gorsuch, spending an inordinate amount of time hammering him on old opinions that demonstrated his supposed disdain for the 'little guy.'"
Nor did the Times by failing to point this out as it was occurring. Only now, with the shoe on the other foot, is it worth a mention.
2
The Paper of Record should ****NOT**** take it for granted that Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
why does Trump always hafta make the worst choice.....cause a lotta grief....and then pull one out of disaster with his second choice. Kavanaugh is a HORRIBLE first pick....lets hope he gets destroyed during the Senate Nomination Cluster Process. C'mon Trump, is this seriously the best you can do???
1
Imagine my shock at hearing that the POTUS selected a conservative white male who claims to love God and country, and who would defend a President's right to pardon himself. All this, after yet another weekend of golfing on the taxpayer's expense!
Who would have seen that coming?
10
Kavanaugh is the son of a judge. Trump is the son of a wealthy real estate developer. And the publisher of this newspaper is the son of a publisher of this newspaper. Are we becoming a heriditary aristocratcy?
2
This country came awful close to doing the same with Hillary Clinton.
The criminal Trump just shoved in his pardon ticket.
4
When the NYTimes runs a front page story attacking "weaponized" free speech, this voter is happy to see a free speech advocate on the Supreme Court.
3
What a great pick for a new justice of the Supreme Court. We need to continue to have justices that insure adherence to the constitution and do not try to move us away from adherence to the constitution. He has great credentials both in his chosen profession and as a servant to others. Let’s confirm him quickly!
2
Why do justices with life time terms not wish to be independent thinkers and truly judge cases on individual merits? What is the satisfaction to Justice Gorsuch to be known as Donald Trump's home run? Why take pride in fulfilling the aims of the Federalist Society? Of all the branches of government this body has the most opportunity to serve the people of the United States without having to bow to special interests or whoever is in power in the other branches. True intellectual giants should seize the opportunity to exercise their unique roles.
2
We need to return to the pre-Robert Bork days
When as long as a presidents supreme court nominee was eminently qualified, regardless of party affiliation, he or she would be confirmed on a bi-partisan vote
Brett Kavanaugh easily passes the 'eminently qualified' threshold.
4
Let the Federalist Society and Heritage be relentlessly framed by Democrats as the judicial equivalent to the deep and pernicious, outsized influence of the plutocratic Koch brothers on our electoral politics. This is nothing less than an attempted extremist coup d’etat on the independence of our judicial system.
5
Liberals/Democrats take note: the triumph of the extreme right in congress is well known to be grounded in decades of concerted, organized pressure, starting with the Tea Party. Now, the takeover of the SCOTUS by the hard right is the result of decades of effort by the likes of the Federalist Society (Leonard Leo) and Heritage. (Cherchez les Koch$) Ground troops of these movements had specific religious/societal goals that motivated them and kept them driving ahead. Most goals are rooted in the culture wars where what they really want is to turn the clock back and return to an hierarchical society where a playing field, deliberately made uneven for so many, is ignored. The left must now put in equal and opposite energy.
14
One can only hope that if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, he will do his best to be impartial and make decisions based on the law, not his political or religious leanings.
Otherwise being a "Trump guy" will be his legacy.
5
Heaven forbid a court should somehow decide that unlimited infanticide is not a protected right in the constitution. That has become a sacrament of the progressive left. If that is the law, then so be it. But if anyone believes that this is representative of a healthy, humanist culture, I must disagree. And Judge Kavanaugh, if he is such a danger to our freedom, must have pulled the wool over the eyes of Elena Kagan who hired him to pollute the minds of her students at Harvard Law School.
8
It appears an independent judiciary does not exist at this time, and this guy is going to make things worse. More often than not, they make no decisions, or they state faux arguments shot through with ambiguity, equivocation, and false equivalence, all with the experience and knowledge of the public milieu no more in depth than a law clerk or undergraduate in residence. Let’s get this over with so we can get on with what little rational life is left.
1
"Senate Democrats didn’t cover themselves in glory trying to pin down Justice Gorsuch"? Perhaps that's because the seat was stolen to begin with. I'm calling it: Republicans and conservatives are reshaping this nation into a totalitarian regime. Soon, the so-called Resistance really will be just that.
9
"But Senate Democrats and others who believe in the importance of an independent and nonpartisan judiciary ..."
Really? Senate Democrats (and House Democrats for that matter) absolutely do NOT believe in an "independent and nonpartisan judiciary". They specifically want judges that take a liberal (leftist) view on the bench, and they want them to legislate from the bench, which is not their job. All you have to do is look at the decisions made by the 9th Circuit to see partisan judges at work. Don't make us laugh, NYT. The Dems are getting exactly what they want, except its in the favor of the wrong side.
4
The so called politicization is an observation which may or may not have basis in fact, but if it does our nation's court system is no longer an arm of justice rather a political tool used to suppress and eventually disband freedom.
The men and women seated on our Supreme Court know this and either accept their responsibility to all the people or submit to the fact they are political lackeys to slavemasters.
1
A conservative think tank, the heritage foundation provided the list. That should disqualify any notion that he’s going to be impartial.
5
Perfect timing for Democrats to remind people of the importance of turning out and voting in the mid terms.
7
Without Roe vs Wade women who want an abortion for whatever reason would go to those back-alley abortionists and if they don't lose their lives could be maimed for life.
Women should have complete control of what they want to do with their bodies, not men and most certainly not the government. On this subject Kavanaugh has not taken a definite stand.
1
This Editorial is right when it states "so much you don't know...and probably won't until it's too late."
What we don't know can be fatal for many Americans - for generations. See
https://www.legalreader.com/trump-administration-reshapes-judiciary/
2
Here's an atheist, me, quoting from the Bible:
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon."
Alas, clearly the Republicans have chosen mammon. If you don't agree, all you have to do is examine Citizens United, And that's just for starters.
2
Oh yeah, Ruth Bader Gunsberg (confirmed 96-3), Elena Kagan (63-37), and Sonia Sotomayor (68-31) were mainstream judicial appointments? Each one was farther left of center than Kavanaugh is right. And each received more than handful of Republican Senators’ votes.
So who are the ideologues voting in lockstep with their leadership because their ranks have no independent thoughts of their own? Me thinks the public has figured it out.
8
There seem to be lots of conservative comments today. Could that be that the country has become less liberal? Does the NYTimes need to re-assess its editorial stance and provide its readers with some alternative views?
"He successfully portrayed himself in his remarks at the White House as a nice guy who coaches girls in basketball, feeds the homeless and believes in the Constitution." Aw shucks, its Jimmy Stewart! And has no abiding interest in minority civil rights, thinks prison is the place to address law and order, and likes barbecue. Give it a rest. He's a religious, white, hard-right born again who never bucked the party in his silver-spooned life. All rise: courts in session!
6
"He successfully portrayed himself in his remarks at the White House as a nice guy who coaches girls in basketball, feeds the homeless ..."
So what is the Editorial Board trying to say? That he is a dissembler who is really not nice and doesn't coach basketball? If so, there are more straightforward ways to make a point.
If not, the tone of snark tends to undercut the overall credibility of your comments.
4
Didn’t Obama say famously “elections have consequences “? Thus was anyone shocked when he appointed an extreme liberal judge like Sotomayor to the SCOTUS? Railing against the Federalist society for proposing a list of conservative jurists with impeccable academic credentials is akin to cursing the darkness after the sun sets. Had Hiliary won she no doubt would have nominated reliably liberal judges like Kagan, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor. She lost. So remember elections have consequences and get on with your life. You want liberals on the court? Win elections.
13
And then we have the stolen seat. We had a popularly elected president who nominated a centrist to the vacant seat, and Mitch McConnell and his henchmen hijacked the appointment. So what was that about winning elections?
1
You failed to mention that Judge Garland, a conservative nominated by Obama, a Democrat, was snubbed by McConnell.
Secondly, have you read Justice Sotomayor's opinions, dissenting or in the majority?
Perhaps Hillary may have nominated liberal judges. We will never know.
Yes, elections do have consequences, appointments to the Supreme Court also has consequences, and Trump is insuring he has a Trump-friendly court just in case....speaking of consequences.
1
Please tell me where in the Constitution it says nominated jurists have a right to a hearing. If you find it we need to give Miguel Estrada an immediate hearing as his was denied by Senate Dems.
Why don’t they mention the Koch’s by name? These legal feeder organizations were set up and managed by a small number of ultra-rich people to further their own interests.
3
What remaining legitimacy?
3
I am Canadian and the last American President to tell the truth was Jimmy Carter.
The America I see just to the south has strayed so far from its roots I no longer see a bastion of liberty and freedom but a Russofying Kleptocracy more aligned with Russia's oligarchy than those of us who still believe in liberal democracy.
10
I guess progressives are going to have to work a whole lot harder at writing legislation in their favor that can pass constitutional muster.. Oh, and educating their base on the importance of taking their own initiative to get registered to vote and then having to all but pick them up and drive them to the polls themselves ... rough night for the "radical left's" social engineering agenda.
2
This editorial is just one long whine. Get over it. The Democrats nominated the wrong person. She lost. It wasn't James Comey. It wasn't the Russians. It was an extremely flawed candidate with no message. So now we see the result.
5
Based on the NYT editorial and the opinions of so many readers of the Times, we already know what Judge Kavanaugh is going to say during his confirmation hearings, but also how he will vote once on the Supreme Court. Amazing.
3
Its already too late.
2
What a bunch of predictable squawking from a paper whose worldview is no longer relevant now that the GOP is firmly in control of the government. We don't like the result, so let's change the rules.
Like a mad kid on the playground.
7
"We don't like the result, so let's change the rules. Like a mad kid on the playground." Sounds more like a description of Donald Trump than the New York Times.
1
@JLP,
I'm no fan of Trump, but what rules has he changed? I can't think of a single one. The travel ban went through. The separation of kids from parents stopped, but the rationale--if I want to prosecute the parents without releasing them, I have to do something with the kids--has at least some basis in law.
Trump does a lot of stuff we don't like, and he is a horrible person, but it appears that he is, so far, following the rules. He didn't end the filibuster for judicial candidates in the Senate--the Democrats did that. He isn't calling for an end to the Electoral College--Democrats and NYT are doing that.
If you don't like the results, get better at playing the game.
“But Senate Democrats and others who believe in the importance of an independent and nonpartisan judiciary . . “
I was with you until this. I actually laughed out loud. Think you meant “non GOP partisan judiciary.”
Really. Give us a little credit.
6
In my view, the President cannot use his Office as a sanctuary to escape criminal investigation or prosecution. Judge Kavanaugh, the Constitution says so.
The President's authority is defined and limited by the Constitution, not by the President. The Constitution does not grant the the President the authority to exercise a constitutional power to nullify a constitutional duty. If it did, the President would be above the Constitution, not subject to it. The Constitution and the Laws of the United States are the Supreme Law of the Land (Const. Art. VI), not the President.
The Constitution bestows upon the President many powers. It also imposes upon the President a duty to "take Care to execute faithfully the Laws" (Art. II, Sec. 3). Obstructing justice is, by its nature, a perversion of our laws. If the President himself has engaged in or is engaged in the commission of a crime, and uses his Office to shield himself from investigation or prosecution, or seeks to shield others for helping him commit a crime, he breaches his duty to faithfully execute our laws and, in doing so, he acts ultra vires, that is, without lawful authority.
Maurice F. Baggiano, J.D., Member of the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court
8
Now, if we could get your comment into an Amendment...
As I read the Editorial and the Comments I shudder at the thought that a person of such credentials is being presented as such a danger to our Constitution.
The Progressives have continually pushed for the re-writing of the Constitution.
What this Movement doesn’t understand is that a majority of Americans are against the Progressive Permissiveness Agenda
they embrace.
Oh and really troubling is The NYT Editorial Board stating a concern regarding an individual's Religon!
Sad day for the NYT.
4
Failed nomination of Robert Bork...
All that and more to feed Ted Kennnedy's bloated ego. Today we have a divided country and Kennedy certainly did his part in getting us here.
5
Maybe the title should be, A disaster in the making.
Remember, a switch in time saved nine!!
4
John, my mother used to love to sew. It's stitch in time and if you think about it it makes a lot of sense then when things start unraveling, like today. Changing the time on clocks all the time only breaks them.
If I remember correctly, Chef Justice Roberts changed his vote from conservative to liberal decades ago and the liberal minority became the liberal majority. there are some advantages to being 95 years old.
Let's hear an impassioned speech opposing him from Chuck Schumer! Just kidding.
5
Touche!!
What a disappointing editorial. I expected to know a whole lot more about Brett Kavanaugh after reading it, but regrettably, I don't.
3
After last nights performance, here is what we know about Judge Kavanaugh. He claims to love God, Country and Apple Pie. He also loves to coach sports and loves his family. Oh, and he also attended Ivy League schools and loves the Construction. You know what this reminds me of? The original movie “The Manchurian Candidate. It’s all just too perfect! The problem is while we were sleeping, someone injected our political system with a Right Wing Cancer and now that cancer has metastasized into our Judicial System. Yikes!!!!
9
My comment is picky and narrow, but as a reader and viewer of Samuel Becket's glorious body of work, I hope you'll correct the phrase "second rate Samuel Becket play... " to read "second rate PRODUCTION of a Samuel Becket play..." The esteemed Mr. Becket never wrote anything second rate. Thank you.
5
Not so picky and narrow...
Imprecision in expression bespeaks imprecision in thought. The Constitution is a good example of the weakness.
Does he agree that the president can pardon himself?
4
As President Obama said, "Elections have consequences." Why is it that when liberals lose, they always want to change the rules, e.g., get rid of the Electoral College; pack the supreme court; impose term limits on justices, etc. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
6
Because conservatives cheat, as they did with the 2016 presidential election and the last Supreme Court seat.
You're criticizing "the liberals" of packing the Supreme Court? Where have you been lately, like, since the Reagan administration?
Does the arc of the moral universe cover SCOTUS?
7 in 1O Americans support a women's right to abortion.
7O% of Americans support same-sex marriage.
I can't wait for the backlash.
14
Mob rule? Why have a legal system?
The main non-religious argument against Roe v. Wade is that it was not based on legislation, but perhaps a extension of the Fourth Amendment's protection against "search and seizure," that is, privacy rights.
There is always the hope that a conservative can also be honest, as when the Chief Justice said he accepted "established law," he was referring to SCOTUS decisions and not legislation.
2
Illegitimate nomination. Trump has not cleared his role w Russia. Several women have viable claims of sexual harassment that are scheduled for court.
Until he is cleared, any nomination must be blocked. A criminal can not determine who the judge should be!!!!
Holy Moly! Democrats just lost the Supreme Court for the next thirty years and this guy looks like their worst nightmare. Brutal. Worst part, Trump just started, and he will win re-election unless Democrats can clean house and completely re-invent themselves. Do they have the resolve? Nope.
2
ah yes, the oligarchy continue to serve the oligarachy- the citizen nowehere in sight. How shocking!
"In short, Senate Democrats need to use the confirmation process to explain to Americans how their Constitution is about to be hijacked by a small group of conservative radicals well funded by ideological and corporate interests, and what that means in terms of the rights they will lose and the laws that will be invalidated over the next several decades."
To what end? Suppose the Democrats do pressure Kavanaugh into admitting that he will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, that he favors demolishing affirmative action and the further gutting of the Voting Rights Act? Do you then suppose he will not be confirmed? Those positions, whether he admits to them or not, are exactly the positions that got him the nomination. Admitting to them during the confirmation hearing would, if anything, strengthen his position with the hard right.
We talk about the urgency of informing the voting public about Kavanaugh's positions as though he could be voted out of office in the next election. Folks, this horse left the barn a long time ago and is miles down the road. Kavanaugh is in, whether he answers or obfuscates. Democratic resistance is pointless.
If we don't understand that our energy needs to be re-directed to local politics, where the overwhelming majority of governors, legislators and AG's are formulating the laws that eventually find their way to SCOTUS, then we don't understand where our true power to change things resides.
6
My greatest concern is the separation of Church & State, is gone, & we have become a theocracy,run by a State Religion. Which was the fear of our forefathers, and stated in our Constitution.This is Trump's Legacy, & the end of our Democracy.
5
I believe the 35 year life expectancy mentioned in the article is a bad misreading of statistics. That is the average life expectancy in the 1700s. The bulk of deaths were at infancy, distorting the life expectancy for people who survived past childhood. Those who reached adulthood had life expectancies much, much closer to modern day adults.
10
Too little, too late. Greed by the billionaire class and antipathy by everyone else has led to the collapse of the American experiment. Welcome back to the 1800s, America. That's the current floor on the down elevator.
4
"As those tireless conservative activists would be the first to tell you, winning the future depends on deliberate, long-term organizing in the present, even when — especially when — things appear most bleak."
This. If only Democratic leadership would understand.
With few exceptions, real, lasting political influence starts at the roots; local and statewide. Want to counter Republican gerrymandering? Win at the local level!
Worker's rights. Healthcare. Education. Equal voting rights. Effective regulations. The issues are there for the taking, and as vital to our future as ever. If only we had proactive party leadership that could sincerely and effectively deliver the goods.
What we have instead is a reactive Democratic party with a broken rudder. Ms. Pelosi has been an exceptionally fine fundraiser, but at what cost? It doesn't matter how much extra money you raise if your message is weak and unappealing.
4
I watched the Trump show last night, and the President seemed to stay on a surprisingly tight script. From his brief speech introducing himself, Brett Kavanaugh seems like a kind, cautious man, appreciative of his good fortune, sensitive to the lives of people different from him, and dedicated to public service and the care and nurture of his family.
And yet, his past writings, advocacy, affiliations, and actions, are a good predictor that his seating on the Supreme Court will result in a host of things outlined in the editorial and comments that diminish our democracy. Voter rights, and thus democracy, women's rights, reproductive rights, LGBT rights, worker's rights and privacy rights, are all on the table. On a very personal and immediate note, it may result in rulings that take away my access to health care.
How do we explain to the American people these two opposing images? We can't. The man who helped suppress democracy to assist George Bush in stealing the election from Al Gore, cannot really be a nice guy, or a guy who cares about the country, the constitution, or you, and there's nothing we can do about it until the next election.
1
"We’re witnessing right now a global movement against the idea of liberal democracy". Yes, look what "liberal" democracy has wrought from the USA just in the last 18 years -> the war in Afghanistan. the war in Iraq. the war in Syria. the war in Yemen. Global economic collapse (2008). Bailout money to those that caused the global collapse. Let's find some system that works for something besides corporate interests....which is all that "liberal democracy" works for.
5
Yes, "liberal democracy" is a misnomer. The Democrat Party is merely a branch of the American oligarchy, characterized by more hypocrisy than that of the Republican Party branch. Where are the liberal democratic people?
The GOP will never come together to confirm a candidate before midterms let alone after. Kavanaugh has a 25% chance of ever wearing a SCOTUS robe.
This is total nonsense. Win elections and write better laws and the supreme court is sidelined. As judges are supposed to interpret law not create it. This over the top rhetoric from the times doesn't help anyone. I think it contributes to getting Trump elected. Kananaugh becoming a justice isn't going to change the court one bit.
5
The questions I want to see asked of Mr. Kavanaugh:
- What are your beliefs regarding the limits of the pardon power? Do you believe a President can pardon himself?
- Did Donald Trump discuss pardons with you? Did he ask for your support in any way?
- Did you make any representation to Donald Trump regarding pardons?
If Kavanaugh gets confirmed, the radical right of the senate will be vindicated in their audacious violation of constitutional duty in refusing to even hold hearings for Obama's nominee Merrick Garland.
1
"But Senate Democrats and others who believe in the importance of an independent and nonpartisan judiciary". You're kidding, right? You really think that RBG, Kagan, and Sotomayor are "nonpartisan"? Get a grip. In the words of Obama. "elections have consequences", this is the consequence of the last election. You remember, the one where all the pundits told the voters that Hillary couldn't lose? So all the people who couldn't see that with three Justices over the age of 80, the Supreme Court was going to be the real prize? The ones that stayed home?
As delicious as this is, the real treat will be when Justice Barrett replaces RBG. That day will make Hillary's failed victory party look like a Fourth of July celebration.
2
@John Curley-----------------------You have forgotten that Hillary won by 3,000,000. I'm sorry to put rain on your fantasy, but there it is. I'm also sorry that you never had a chance to sit down and talk with RBG. If you had, you would have been happier and more reasonable, nursing fewer toxic fantasies. See the RBG movie. That might help.
Couldn't hurt.
No discussion of the composition Court from here to the end of time should ever proceed without first reminding people of the perversion of the Constitution that was the withholding of the Merrick Garland nomination. Any editorial which does not do that acts as an accomplice to that crime.
2
A retired judge once described the judicial process as an exercise in eliminating prejudice. This article suggests otherwise at the highest court. If your editors are correct than like Hamlet something is gone rotten in the state. To the American people, be advised from Polonius, "Look to it, I charge you."
1
Ask him if he realizes he’s in charge of the fate of women’s reproductive health and bodies for years to come. How will it feel to be in control of a stranger’s uterus? That when (poor, Southern) young woman die from illegal abortions, he’ll have to live with that. Ask him. Get graphic. That’s what I want to know.
@MLB----------------" when (poor, Southern) young woman die from illegal abortions, he’ll have to live with that." But MLB, men have lived cheerfully with that for millennia. After all, it's not their red wagon and it does keep the women down. And by no means are only poor, Southern young women only the ones who are going to die.
"When the Constitution’s framers decided to give Supreme Court justices lifetime appointments, the life expectancy for a free white male was roughly 35 years — less than half what it is today..."
What does that have to do with anything? I understand that you're groping for canards to employ against the political right, but please don't further the "life expectancy" myth. It's ignorant.
Say it with me: life expectancy is a mean. In previous eras, the mean was pulled way down by heavy mortality among infants and young children. But if you lived long enough to hit puberty, you had a fine chance of living into middle or old age.
I'm a historian, but this logic should be simple enough for any layperson to grasp. If it eludes you, or if you don't believe me, then consider that the average age of death for Supreme Court justices in pre-1850 America was 67 years old. A little lower than today? Yep. "Less than half what it is today," unforeseeably different, and legitimate grounds for destroying and re-engineering the entire seating process? Uh, no.
9
Isn't it already too late?
2
“winning the future depends on deliberate, long-term organizing in the present, even when — especially when — things appear most bleak.”
Well, that sure does sound bleak, but true.
Vote my friends. Vote like your future depended on it. Apparently it does.
3
Once again, the battle is already over. For those who missed it, it happened just over 600 days ago on November 8th, 2016. Voting matters. Your vote matters. Moaning and gnashing of teeth now will have no effect.
2
Thanks Harry for the nuclear option. Even Mitch said “you will regret this”. Thanks.
2
Liberals are quick to attack the Constitution when it leads to judicial outcomes they don't like. Imagine suggesting the Constitution is flawed because it's legal for absolutely anyone to amass unlimited assault weapons just because they feel like it. God forbid some activist judge wants to reinterpret that one.
3
I thought the Supreme Court was supposed to be an apolitical body.
It is, but the nomination process is 100% political.
3
"Cynical power politics" "Perversion of the Supreme Court confirmation process."
I trust after this editorial you will give equal time to Jokin' Joe Biden to tell us about how he perverted the Supreme Court confirmation process and perhaps Harry Reid to give us a graduate seminar on cynical power politics as pertains to judicial appointments. (Chuck Schumer can sub if Harry is too busy making money off his casino friends).
4
"There is another reason to withhold confirmation that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree on: People under the cloud of investigation do not get to pick the judges who may preside over their cases." NY The New York Times
12
As Justice Antonin Scalia often said following the 5-4 SCOTUS decision that put George W. Bush in the White House, “Get over it.”
Wise words, indeed. Kavanaugh’s in; get over it.
And get even in the next two elections. That’s the only way to reverse this clown-car ride off a cliff that the Confederalist Society has skillfully piloted behind the scenes for years.
5
Are we dinosaurs?
Then why are supposed to live with a Constitution that speaks of centuries past?
The Editorial Board Writes:
"In short, Senate Democrats need to use the confirmation process to explain to Americans how their Constitution is about to be hijacked by a small group of conservative radicals..."
In other words, a Supreme Court that faithfully interprets the Constitution as written, and doesn't make it up as they go along--has been hijacked? Wow! That is warped.
8
But they don't seem to actually follow the original intent. They seem to redefine what people/individuals are to align with their interests, which is wealth.
1
"Faithfully interprets the Constitution as written." Therein lies the rub!
1
@Knucklehead: the only people who decry the accumulation of wealth are those too lacking in talent to go out an accumulate any. Sitting around and taking what someone is willing to give you, is a suckers bet.
On Nov. 9th, 2016 the barbarians were at the gates. Knowing full well what was at stake, We the People let 'em in anyway. They now control every lever of power, are doing exactly what they said they were going to do and there's not a blessed thing anyone can do about it.
And they ain't giving it back.
And We the People let 'em in.
1
Lots of drama in these comments. We all forget that SC justices are people who learn and change. David Souter was appointed by GHW Bush as a conservative - who became a reliable liberal vote. Anyone who thinks that Anthony Kennedy is a liberal is out of their minds - and anyone who thinks that the “liberal” wing of the court isn’t hyper partisan is also dreaming. The sky is not falling, the world is not ending and democracy isn’t dead. If you want to get more hyperpartisan liberal judges in the SC go win some elections. It wouldn’t have hurt if RBG had retired when BHO was in office, either - odds are that Trump will have at least on what more pick. Yelling, protesting and harassing people in public does NOTHING. Get to work and find some decent candidates ( not Democratic Socialists) and you might get some power back. By whining about it and claiming the EC is outdated ( it wasn’t outdated when President Obama used it to his advantage by strategy that Hillary and Robbie Mook were too dumb to follow). All of this outrage does nothing, accomplished nothing and is going to lead to very extreme candidates for the Democrats. It’s enough already!
6
"They will almost certainly win this latest battle, but it’s a victory that will come at great cost to the nation, and to the court’s remaining legitimacy."
Surely the Times understands that at least half of America disagrees with the above statement, although one wouldn't know it from the highly censored media stifling of of opinions that are not approved by the echo chamber triad of media, Hollywood and academia.And, no doubt, were the shoe on the other foot with a liberal judge adding to a solid liberal majority, the Times would be singing a very different tune.
4
Demonizing Kavanaugh and seeing his prospective appointment as a danger to the republic just makes liberals look disingenous.
Making Roe a litmus test for a justice, as if the fate of the country really depends on a mother being authorized in all 50 states to electively kill her fetus, makes liberals look selfish and irrational.
To the extent the Democrats go on a scorched earth campaign against Kavanaugh, they will alienate the moderate center and set themselves up for defeat in November.
4
You have the scheming of the Obamas, the Clintions and the DNC to thank for the mess this country is in now and I'm a liberal Democrat who voted for Bernie Sanders and was arm twisted into voted for Hillary Clinton when I told everyone from the beginning that she would never win. We can thank them for leading our country into this political mess.
7
You might like to know that you were not alone in understanding that Hillary would not win. I repudiated the Democrat Party just about two years ago to the day. I said then that the best course for Hillary was to withdraw and leave the course open for Bernie.
1
Does anybody know why the court is packed with conservative Catholics? Bueller?
Catholic justices are more likely to find the language that will overturn Roe v. Wade.
[written at 6:15 PM PDT, just after Trump announced his Supreme Court pick]
Brett Kavanaugh
Catholic
good choice; vast paper trail; his judicial thinking is there for all to see
Red state Democratic senators up for re-election on November 6th can vote for Kavanaugh and avoid voter backlash in states like West Virginia (Joe Manchin), Indiana (Joe Donnelly), North Dakota (Heidi Heitcamp) and Montana (Jon Tester). This Supreme Court pick was not a winnable battle for Democrats. I admonish Democrats to show the utmost respect and intelligence during the confirmation hearings, and do not mention abortion. The winnable battle takes place on November 6th.
1
Conservatives have won control of America, and the world. Liberals and Democrats are like the grasshopper and Conservatives are like the ant. The grasshoppers chirp and sing all day, and the ants tirelessly work.
Young Liberals and Democrats walk about believing that they have won their freedoms, completely clueless about the folks working tirelessly daily, looking for ways to revoke those freedoms.
After decades of extremely poor voting numbers from minorities, women, the poor and Liberals, they all are about to get a sudden wake up call, when they realize that they have been sent back to the back of the bus, into the back alleys for abortions, complete loss of a safety net and the (Evangelical) Church making all of their life's decisions.
People that disagree with all I just said are the carefree grasshoppers that will be shut out into the cold, as the hardworking ant-like Republicans control the world.
1
Counting on the youth, who do not vote, and abandoning the Working Class get you wins at your local University and losses everywhere else.
But look at all those Gender Neutral bathrooms!
2
Dems somehow get control of two branches and SCOTUS applies brakes. American wisdom makes the best of the binary.
"In short", the Democrats,in the Senate and on the campaign trail, need to get their S&T act together. Stay away from the personal and the "hammering" and let the average and not-so-average American know how Kavanaugh on the Court could very well affect them in a very negative way. This morning's Dealbook piece, "The New Scotus Pick Could Be a Boon for Business", is a solid primer where corporate power is concerned. The rest should easily fall into place if the Dems can finally be smart about it.
Reading the constant stream of hysterical anti-Trump Administration Time's editorials lets me sleep soundly at night knowing the President must be doing the right things.
5
Elections have consequences, deal with it.
4
*That* is exactly what is going on. Deal with it.
Women have "reproductive freedom" Say yes or say no.
They do not have a right to end another life because of inconvenience
1
Poverty; rape; high-risk pregnancy that will likely cost the life of a mother; facing the agonizing realities of an inviable fetus--"inconvenience?"
Ever survived a high-risk pregnancy, Robert White?
Ever wake up in a hospital bed after being admitted to an ER the night before due to a life-threatening miscarriage, to see the ER nurses who attended to you the previous evening standing at your bedside in the morning and saying "we didn't think you were going to make it"?
What self-described "pro-lifers" do not understand is that nobody is "pro"-abortion. It is about safety and therefore is pro-life. "Reproductive freedom" is about keeping lives as healthy as possible and all health related life-decisions safe. . .and probably illustrates truly being pro-life more than your mentality ever will.
I suppose you also think that contraception is wrong and that sex should not be engaged in if it is not in the service of procreation.
Posturing folks like you are all sweetness and light about "all the beautiful babies" until the time for labor & delivery comes along. Then mother and child are branded scourges on society for the rest of their lives. Provided they survive, that is.
1
Democrats have no one to blame except themselves for the state of the union.
3
Every Catholic nominee to the Supreme court should be questioned about the Death Penalty. If they want to overturn the right to choose, they should overturn the Death Penalty too.
3
Do you say Samuel Beckett labored to sound thoughtful, while saying almost notiing? I beg your pardon, but them's fighting words!
1
Judge Garland needs to invite his colleague Judge Kavanaugh to coffee in a Washington diner tomorrow so that other patrons of the establishment can see who is capable of looking whom in the face and take pictures on their iPhones.
There is an absence of a discussion of the same kind of answers to questions during senate hearings by judges nominated to SCOTUS by liberals. Readers deserve a fair presentation - even in opinions by the editorial board.
4
Obviously, the NYT had four of these shrill editorials attacking all the likely nominees in the can ready to hit send. Kavanaugh is a perfectly respectable candidate well within the legal mainstream. As he pointed out in his remarks, he was hired by, of all people, Elena Kagan, to teach constitutional law. I’m pretty sure that even Merrick Garland is secretly pleased to see his colleague nominated. Kennedy apparently plugged for him as well. The hysteria over him, or any of the others suggested, won’t sell in America, once this well qualified likable judge is considered you anyone other than a hard left partisan.
4
Progressive's worst nightmare: Brett Kavanaugh also believes in the "living Constitution" and legislates from the bench
1
Democrats and the Press spend their time lamenting the demise of Roe ( I am pro-choice). However, it's clear that the Progressive view of abortion as a right, underwritten by government and available without restriction is simply not supported by the majority of Americans. Instead, a restricted version of access vs "rights" subject to opinions of the time is the real and somewhat changing version of people's beliefs. As such by making the Supreme Court pick all about Roe, Progressives will not only fail because of Republican control but at the ballot box.
2
Conservative courts often are criticized for interpreting the Constitution too literally, and not understanding the "spirit" of the matter before them.
Activist courts are often criticized for "making law" rather than interpreting it and, thus, imposing their will rather than assigning that task to the Legislative branch.
From my perspective, activist courts have done more to accomplish true progress for our citizenry, while conservative courts have done little to advance the common good.
My point would be cheerfully moot if the Legislative branch would do its job and address difficult matters with open and honest debate, a true spirit of accomplishing solutions to vexing problems, and having the court decide only the truly thorny issues brought about by the implementation of new laws.
1
You like the results so you applaud the means achieving your desired ends. In other words the ends justify the means. Understand that if that standard is used by the other side, then we can do pretty much whatever we want. Everything you claim is a right is subject to the prerogatives of the government. As an attorney, I do not want anyone to have their Constitutional rights violated, but it seems that many on the Left will only learn of the dangers of government power when that government power is used to destroy the very ideas and "rights" these lefties think they have.
July 9, 2018 — A black day in American history.
Jefferson Monument,
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
2
Amazing, isn't it, how the intent of the framers, as expressed in these kinds of statements, is ignored by those claiming to abide by the intent of the framers. Nothing is more obvious than that ideology, whether informed by personal opinion or religious conviction, has taken over as the guiding principle. Witnessing this, I truly believe the framers would recommend a 2nd revolt.
Which is why the framers of the Constitution (WHICH JEFFERSON WAS NOT ONE OF) provided for the process of change. IT IS CALLED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!
I wonder whether the comment about the life expectancy of white males in the past makes sense. I think perhaps the 35 year number takes into account infant and childhood mortality. If so it is misleading. The life expectancy of someone who had already reached age 30 would have been longer than 35. Washington for example lived to be 67. Jefferson lived to be 83. John Adams died at 90.
3
The Supreme Court is supposed to be above partisan politics; however, it no longer is the same court, and therefore, the end of the American way of life as we know it. The court has become politicized. Now when something is up before the Supreme Court, it will be a predetermined conclusion what the ruling will be. This means that if the republicans remain in power, the far-right will determine our laws and our rights and the Supreme Court will back them up.
8
With a conservative majority on the court, liberals will have to focus more on the democratic process of convincing their fellow citizens of the merit of their arguments rather than ruling through judicial fiat. But a conservative court doesn't mean the end of legal abortion, even if the court reverses Roe v. Wade. A reversal would merely mean that the Constitution is silent on the issue (which is correct) and it is up to the people - through their legislatures - to decide when abortion is legal and when it is infanticide. If liberals are worried that the majority opposes them on the issue of abortion, that's a bigger problem than who is on the Supreme Court.
1
Anyone that regards the law and accepts a nomination from a president that does not is highly suspect in my view.
3
It's interesting that you mention Hungary and Poland as places where liberal democracy is dying. Said countries being two of the member states in the European Union most stringently resisting the flood of immigrants from non-European regions. As usual, an opinion piece in the NY Times, perhaps a little more surreptitiously this time, seeks to equate democracy with open borders.
1
All the self-conscious restraint that limited the exploitations of the profoundly unfair apportionment of senatorial power in the prior history of the US lie in the ashes of nihilism now.
A predictable and obligatory editorial that does nothing to advance the cause of the political reformation that America so desperately needs — but can not seem to articulate or affect.
This SCOTUS nominee will be confirmed — done deal.
Failing a Democratic surge and breaking the GOP slim majority in the Senate in November 2018, could mean Trump and GOP rip-shod, our way or the highway governance all the way to 2025.
2
In his remarks at the White House last night Judge Kavanaugh cited his mother's common sense rule -- "does it ring true or false" -- which she shared in her dinner table discussion of closing arguments.
Judge Kavanaugh, does life begin at conception? If so, please explain how that comports with your mom's "common sense" litmus test.
1
It’s all on a downward trend for the US. More restrictions on abortion. More pollution. Less health care. We will devolve into political regions with the west coast going one way and the Bible Belt going another. We will no longer be united about much of anything.
2
If the country cared about who sits on the Supreme Court, other than bought and paid for GOP hacks, then Trump wouldn't have received one vote.
2
Trump and Republican leadership is destroying each and every institutions on which American democracy stands. The worst part is, people are losing faith on each and every institution and on Democracy as a whole, which is the most successful act by Trump and his lobbyist friends, many of whom are sitting in Moscow and many other places around the world.
After certain time, people would not seek help and cooperate with law enforcement and judiciary, but more inclined to take laws into their own hands, as we see in each and every 3rd world countries and/or under autocratic regimes, including Russia, China, India, Egypt, South Africa.
USA is already showing many symptoms of a typical 3rd world country with its growing influence of religion, nepotism, sycophancy and corruption, with consequential increase in socioeconomic inequality.
3
I'm sure if Hillary would have won and appointed two SCOTUS judges of similar viewpoints to RBG and Sotomayor, you'd have been just fine with a leftist tilted SC for the next 30 years. As your own hero stated, "elections have consequences".
Conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court, their legal arguments, and their decisions have always been proven to be on the wrong side of history. Always!
3
It is utterly preposterous to believe that one can interpret the constitution by the founders original intent. As far as I know no one can read minds, let alone from 200 plus years ago. I guess that one would expect as much from those who follow the bible verbatim.
I am sadly confident that the republicans will vote in lock-step. And that the red state democrats (or remocrats) will vote with them.
God help us!
2
We need constitutional amendment for Supreme Court term limits. How does this process get started ?
2
The Times is a newspaper and as such it arrives a bit late to the party, even the online edition. Trump chose to use his nomination as a media event and the event was in full swing all day yesterday. So sad to see how the media (including NPR as well as Fox) hyped Trump's media event at every opportunity.
The sad truth that it is already too late to learn about Brett Kavanaugh. He has been nominated and his confirmation is all but guaranteed.
2
MOVE OVER MACHIAVELLI.
YOU’VE BEEN TRUMPED.
In nominating Brett Kavanaugh, Trump commits “legal” obstruction by virtue of his powers of office, namely, to appoint justices to SCOTUS. Trump is very clear of Kavanaugh’s record on presidential powers. Trump is well aware that Kavanaugh has written about his opposition to sitting Presidents being subject to criminal prosecution. This nomination was a “brilliant” move. And the kicker is, there is absolutely nothing Mueller can do about this play. Trump is simply exercising his presidential responsibilities. Period.
Machiavelli could not have executed a more cynically brilliant move.
3
Hopefully Kavanaugh will distinguish between rather ordinary crimes and crimes and those that might amount to treason or others so harmful to the integrity of the presidency. Then, he may take a less constrained view about charging a sitting president with a crime.
Kavanaugh has taken a more expansive view of Congress’s power of impeachment.
If thinking this way does not encourage a blue wave in November then I don’t know what will.
I am talking to the young people who don’t vote and the Jill Stein supporters who have made this all possible.
3
I'm assuming he may take a less constrained view about charging a former president with a crime as well, which is going to prove much more important. Obama's day of reckoning is coming.
We know what we have to know. He was vetted by the Federalist Society which means he agrees with their ideology. He will be anti Roe, anti Social Security, anti medicare, very pro corporation and against anything that helps the people. He will view inequality as the natural order.
9
As Kavanaugh has said, the referee should not be more important than the game, and while liberal ideologues rail against our judicial referees of last resort, we seldom here any positive things for conservative Justices other than law and order demands from liberals when they are victims of crimes. But that is far as the liberals want conservative activism or restraint in protecting our rights. So tell us where else can conservative restraint or activism help all Americans. Tell us what is good about conservative judges other than protecting liberal Democrats and their affluent enclaves from class related crimes and violence.
1
As a Conservative attorney, the advantage is greater freedom. Limiting government power means each individual has more freedom. It is not the government's job to make you successful. In a Capitalist society is merely the government's responsibility to provide the security and opportunity for an individual to succeed based on the person's individual merit.
1
There is no mention in this article about the procedural due process rights of pro se litigants. It now costs over $100,000 to file a lawyer written lawsuit in federal court. The 98% do not have access to attorneys to pursue their rights in federal court. So they file "pro se." Many of these litigants are highly educated although lacking legal degrees. But they have problems getting procedure that is published and are frequently subject to unpublished procedures.
The Supreme Court does nothing to make sure that pro se litigation is conducted according to the published rules. Two-thirds of the appeals to the Supreme Court are from pro se litigants and mostly claim that they did not receive published procedure. However, the S.C. hasn't taken any pro se case since Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, establishing a right to an attorney when a criminal defendant. Ever since, the S.C. just throws out all pro se petitions without reading them.
The District of Columbia, where he spent his career, is not a pro se justice court. At the district level, the D.D.C. does not recognize a right to use electronic case filing -- which the taxpayer paid over $150 Million to develop. ECF uses drop down menus to label document uploads and is easy to use. At the appellate level, the Court lets appellees file "motions for summary affirmance" to get rid of appeals without briefing. That procedure is not published for use in federal courts. Also, they don't have oral hearings in pro se cases.
1
This piece is breathtaking in its ignorance. Clearly, none of the authors of this piece have ever read the Constitution. Where does it mention the right to abortion? Or a right to gay marriage? Or a right to force public workers to pay union fees? Or a right to contraceptives? Your issue with conservative judges is they actually read the Constitution and apply it, instead of making up whatever they want the law to be
1
Then there's this thing called the Ninth Amendment which says there are more rights than the ones listed—but doesn't tell us what they are. A cruel joke I guess.
"Original Intent" is absurd. The Founding Fathers never "intended" a Federal Aviation Administration, in no small part because they lacked the foresight to imagine an airplane. According to the fables of original intent and strict interpretation, there should be no FAA. Conservatives and liberals both interpret the Constitution all the time, and there are legitimate disagreements about whose interpretation is right. But Conservatives say that there is inerrancy in the Constitution that applies to all matters, and which only they can divine. Really?
2
Never mind the fact that the Founders themselves were not of one mind and therefore their "original intent" was really a bundle of different and sometimes conflicting intents. No different, in fact, from today.
I side with the position of Professor Amar's in his article in your paper today, "A Liberal Case for Trumps Choice". Professor Amar focuses on qualifications which should be at the center of the confirmation questioning. This editorial is so partisan it saddens me. Unless something startling arises about Judge Kavanaugh's life this Democrat supports this nomination and I hope Democratic Senators do also.
3
He should be asked if Merrick Garland should be sitting on the Supreme Court. “Yes” chastises the GOP; “No” means he should wait until after November.
3
Hmmmm, how about 6 year limits for Supreme Court judges and four for all other elected officials? And what if you could only serve once. That should get the lead out.
1
This guy has been on the leading circuit court long enough that any Senator knows--or should know--right now how he/she will vote. It is ridiculous to claim that more needs to be known...he has a highly visible record that illustrates virtually every point of his judicial philosophy. And the hand-wringing about the Federalists reminds me of nothing so much as the similar contortions the Times went through complaining about Brooks Brothers-clad protesters in FL during the Bush-Gore set-to. Apparently okay for D's to act one way but not R's?
2
As Saudi Arabia seeks to become more like the West, the United States strives to become more like Saudi Arabia. We are astonished at the influence that religion plays in the government of Middle Eastern countries, but fail to see that is exactly where we're headed. Most of mankind's unnecessary suffering and deaths can be traced to the world's various belief systems, yet we in the 21st century are leaning more and more toward beliefs and away from reason. Brett Kavanaugh's appointment is one more nail in our coffin. See; RevolutionOfReason.com
See: RevolutionOfReason.com
2
Just want to mention that the happiest and healthiest countries on the planet all happen to be very liberal. The most unhappy and unhealthiest are very right-wing conservative.
So why are we insisting on making America the latter?
3
The short answer: enact legislation to say, make the Civil Rights Act.....uh, "law." And for every other area that falls under the privacy decision in Connecticut, well, make a law for each.
1
Hard to take anything serious with "life expectancy for a free white male was roughly 35 years" - you are insinuating that the average male dropped dead at 35. If you made it past your teen yours you were likely to make it to your 50's, 60's, 70's, or more. Thomas Jefferson lived to 83, John Adams 90, George Washington 67, Benjamin Franklin 84, etc., etc.
There is one thing I know about this guy, and the only thing that matters, he is tainted, completely dishonorable and lacking basic integrity. He, as Gorsuch before him, accepted a nomination without insisting that Garland gets a hearing first.
The other disqualifier: he was nominated by a president under investigation for obstruction of justice, and who is daily actively in violation of emoluments.
There is simply no honor or integrity to be found anywhere in the Republican Party.
4
I have just one question for Susan Sarandon and all the folks who either didn’t vote because they believed that there was no difference between HRC and Donald Trump, or “voted their conscience” by voting for Johnson or Stein. When is the “revolution” you promised going to happen? After Roe v Wade is gutted? After gay marriage is once again no longer recognized? After SCOTUS decisions that further restrict voting rights and give even more power to dark money interests? After even more Supreme Court decisions that cripple labor unions? After Obamacare has been legally mutilated? I’m really curious as to when to expect this massive progressive wave that will sweep Trumpism into the dustbin of history.
1
A question for the judge: Who has the power to shrink National Monuments, congress or the president?
2
Is it not protocol for a potential justice, during senate hearings, to withhold views on specific constitutional cases?
Did Ruth Bader Ginsberg not do that exact thing 20 years ago, as she stood before the senate fielding questions?
It is this kind of deliberate ambiguity that helps dampen hyper partisanship in the Supreme Court. Sad on The Times Editorial Board for failing to recognize this.
2
Hilarious. Term limits for Supreme Court? As a Republican nominates a judge. You can’t make this stuff up.
So when does the Federalist Society that "claims to value the so-called strict construction of the Constitution" believe it can reinstitute slavery and take the vote away from women?
4
This is politics at its worse and we are in a dictatorship now if the evil GOP get to choose him. They can wait 130 days until the election. We will have no hero to save the planet from becoming a wilderness like Pope Francis told the oil men at a recent meeting will happen. Any Catholics who are in the Trump administration need to be excumunicated who support this barbaric bully ideology. To have a country work you need to have other points of view even on the Supreme Court and to compromise. We are a failure now with Trump and will be for years to come with all like minded GOP on the court.
1
Not a big deal. He'll be nominating another one in the next year when RBG is gone. A SCOTUS filled with true Constitutionalists, as the Founding Fathers originally intended. Who'd have thought we'd ever get to that point again?
The goal now is to elect Democrats and progressives into congress, who’ll then write bedrock laws which the courts will have to abide by. Make abortion legal via congress and there’s nothing for the judiciary to interpret.
2
Having appeared before Judge Kavanaugh, I can affirm that he is a corrupt political hack with no intellectual integrity--Trump's favorite kind of appointee.
Considering his past ties with Bush, wouldn't it be ironic if Kavanaugh turned out to be their revenge upon Trump.
What they need to ask him is his definition of interstate commerce.
Thank god we have the Democratic leadership protecting our children with their values.
1
It looks to me that absolutely nobody will even pry from this phony what an "establishment of religion" is.
The US court system really is little more than elaborate extortion racket and erratic casino.
I can’t help but think that while the Thai children are exiting the cave, we are entering a dark, long and flooded with backward ideas one.
1
I simply do not know how the "United" (?) States is going to survive long term as it continues in it`s. 40 year death spiral of Red State/Blue State bitter divide. If you had told me 40 years ago that I would be watching America literally coming apart at the seams; I would never have believed it. While I was always keenly aware of the extremist elements in the Deep South that never accepted the results of the Civil War; they always seemed a small fringe element that was doomed to die out over time. Today that fringe element is in firm control of your government. Unbelievable! Obama; who was respected around the world was wrong when he stated there is only one U.S.A. as badly as he wanted to believe that. The ALT-RIGHT fanatics have succeeded in hijacking the levers of power to the point of creating the monstrous Citizens United. Now they are on the verge of creating a stacked SCOTUS. The mainstream citizens who voted for Clinton by a majority of 3 million votes have no voice. This is tyranny by the minority; pure and simple.
6
Ah. The Supreme Court. The court all Americans scream and yell about. But whose members most can’t name completely.
1
While trump and this Republican Congress are in power, we must oppose all policies and appointments. This group cares nothing about America. They love power and they use it to destroy. They are willing to destroy the environment, they are willing to destroy women’s lives, they are willing to destroy the lives of born children by viciously separating them from their parents, they are willing to discriminate against the LGBT community.
VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE AND RESTORE SANITY TO OUR GOVERNMENT. DEMAND IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT WHO DISRESPECTS THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
2
The US Constitution does not grant rights, we have our rights and the States have powers, the US Constitution protects the peoples rights and States powers from infringement by the Federal government.
If President Hillary Clinton was appointing her second liberal justice, this editorial would not have been written by the NYT lamenting the Courts leftward lean.
1
This is so true. They'd be praising every choice.
This is such a disingenuous editorial. The corruption of the nomination process for the SCOTUS began, as you mention in this editorial, with Senators Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden, who assassinated the character of Judge Bork, nominated by President Reagan. You have only yourselves to blame for our current circumstance. Conservatives learned very well the bitter lessons of that nomination. We will never, ever forget.
Republicans have started a gunfight. Democrats bring knives to it. I am not at all confident about the Democratic Party carrying the banner of resistance to the theft of the American judiciary because it is the Party that allowed this current pretty pass to occur in the first place.
There is no way that Trump is a legitimate president. There is no way that the US Senate should remain in GOP hands. There was no way, even then, that the Merrick Garland seat should have been stolen from President Obama without a serious fight.
Yet here we are in a spiral water flush because there is no political vessel robust enough to turn back a gang of thugs with no principles beyond the naked ambition of winning.
Who is the head thug? It's not President Trump. It's the Senate Majority Leader, and the Democratic Party refuses to check him into the boards where he belongs.
2
When, and if, Dems take back Congress, they should increase number of SCOTUS judged from nine to 11, then appoint Merrick Garland and the most liberal judge they can find to make for an even playing field.
Prior to confirmation hearings, Judge Kavanaugh will meet with Senators and instead of tea and Crumpits, I recommend a Democrat tell him bluntly, he has been nominated to solidify an absolute radical right hold on the entire government that will ignore the democratic nature intended by the founders, should he claim to be a strict adherent to our Constitution. He must be told that his impending confirmation will mean the entire Federal government will be a Republican super monopoly free of democracy limitations, and then ask him if he is willing to participate in an unconstitutional absolutely empowered governing government that the founders sought to avoid.
1
An era of civil disobedience is in the making and should last until America is a broken nation. There is no hope in sight!
Now that the appointment has been announced, people seem to be moving past the ought-to-be-criminal behavior of the last Congress, refusing to act on President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. Any supposed remedy for the politicization of the Supreme Court has to start with the nomination process. As long as a nomination can go forward only if the President and Senate are form the same party, the court will be a rank political tool. And it is clear that, for all their condescending moral elitism, the Republicans don't care whether they achieve their policy goals by outrageously underhanded and immoral means.
1
What could well come out of the current effort by a few to impose their will upon the many, is dissolution of an organized state. Sewing distrust and encouraging enmity will swing the pendulum far enough toward limited freedoms that the weight of future Supreme Court decisions may be rendered moot. The Court may well come to be considered, by next generations, as derelict, and therefore irrelevant.
I have been trying to understand how the judiciary has become polarized. Obviously, each side would blame judicial activism and say that the other side does it while theirs is true to good legal form.
You could look at which "side" is more likely to overturn precedent to create an activism scorecard. That would be instructive.
Or is the judiciary hearing cases that are themselves more polarizing, and not looking at precedent at all because these are new topics (more social matters than matters of governance)? In which case, is the Supreme Court accepting stuff that doesn't need to be taken up at that level?
Judges used to be independent thinkers with strong minds, who could articulate solid raining for their decisions. More and more it seems like decisions are transparent and easily argued against? I probably just have rose colored glasses, but feel like judges need to assert their intellectual gifts a bit more strongly.
Term limits is an interesting argument but I genuinely believe our forefathers who wrote the Constitution did not take into consideration that life expectancy at the time was 35 years old. I do believe they meant a lifetime regardless of life expectancy. What our founders did not seem to consider is that the Supreme Court could become politicized which is what has happened to an extent. The Court was meant to be a neutral arbiter between the branches of government. But today I genuinely believe the justices have a hard time extracting themselves from the political polarization taking place in our country. That is problematic and difficult to fix.
Yes, it's difficult to fix. But term limits ought to do nicely as a remedy.
This battle all comes down to Senators Murkowski and Susan Collins: do they choose Party over country, which is also Party over individual rights and freedom for women to manage their own bodies? All the pressure needs to be applied to these two Senators.
What also nags me continually about the abortion debate: is there a better example of "Big Government" control than one political party deciding that they, not females, control what can be done to their bodies! But of course, the faux-Christians get to determine everything, I always forget.
As many have said before, if men could get pregnant, there would never be an abortion issue.
1
Following the Constitution does not jeopardize taking any rights away from women or others as Progressives love to pretend. It puts the decisions about those rights back into the hands of the States where they belong.
Progressive thinking is all about whittling the power of the People into the hands of a select few elites in D.C. No thanks! I'll take States Rights every day of the week.
Thank you President Trump for sticking with the Constitution. The only thing standing between freedom and progressive liberal tyranny.
1
Based on your view of states rights prevailing, we would have segregation in the former Confederate states, limited voting and rights for minorities and women. Now that is a country the white male ruling class could be proud of.
No "state" has a right to make the medical decisions of it's citizens- no matter what it is. It's government overreach plain and simple! Who would be making YOUR medical decisions? You or the governor of your state?
I agree that we need term limits for the justices, but I suggest 6 or 8 years, not 18.
4
But there was so much about Donald Trump we didn't know, and liberals elected him anyway.
Just think: if it weren't for Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader, the two most liberal presidential candidates since the 1960s, we would have 8 liberals on the Supreme Court right now.
3
Oh please. Don't confuse liberals with Berniebusters and purity mongerers. Hillary is a liberal.
2
I agree with you on Ralph, not on Bernie. Bernie supported Hillary and the party when he lost the nomination. Ralph kept saying there's no difference between the GOP and Dems.
1
Mike, spares us the blame. Nobody of sound mind voted for this six times bankrupt abuser of judicial process who claims to be a decabillionaire after he refused to divulge his taxpaying history.
2
By voting for Republican Senators, Americans chose their Justices. They and their children are about to find out what they really chose. Fewer choices for women's health. Fewer rights in the workplace. Greater difficulty voting. More intrusive government surveillance under the guise of 'national security.' It will result in a less free America. It is what Americans chose. Elections matter. And remember, those same senators are packing the lower courts with the same type of conservative judges.
21
Corporations are people and can therefore contribute unlimited amounts of money to politicians even though corporations cannot vote; unions, once voted in, must negotiate on behalf of all covered employees but those employees get to benefit from the negotiations without having to contribute to the cost; religion can be used as a basis to discriminate against anyone whose lifestyle you disagree with. How much worse can the Supreme Court get?
17
Strong point you've made there. And the answer is, sadly, a lot. Most notably, abortion rights.
1
Much worse. Stay tuned.
1
The projection of empathy onto corporations is as profoundly preposterous as the projection of empathy onto nature. Emotions distinguish the animate from the inanimate.
2
Average life expectancy during colonial times was 35 years largely due to infant and child mortality.
11
Precisely right. Look at the Founders. Most lived to be very old men.
And lack of medicine.
The process used by the senate judiciary committee in interviewing SCOTUS nominees is laughable. In this case, Republican senators will avoid tough questions and instead use their time to lionize the nominee while the Democratic senators will futilely grill Kavanaugh and he will provide non-committal replies to each probing question. Republicans hold the cards and we are faced with the grim reality that a jurist who asserts the president should be shielded from criminal prosecution will swing this court to the far right for many years to come. And ironically, part of the blame for this debacle rests with Hillary Clinton, a champion of Roe v Wade, whose complacency regarding several key states that went with Trump, cost the Democrats the election in 2016 and will cause a sea change in women's reproductive rights.
4
While your comment is almost correct, it was not only Hillary that set the stage for our present political condition, it was Obama who, like Jimmy Carter, thought that the way to make the poor rich was to make the rich poor.
He performed the same false narration with the country -- that the way to improve the wretched of the world was to take down American pride and ambition.
Democrats can wring their hands but this state of affairs rests solidly in their hands.
I looks to me that what passes for judicial "conservatism" in the US selectively abrogates judicial review of legislative compliance with constitutional limitations on the scope of legislation.
3
What if there is no blue wave? What if we find other counties tampered again? Do we listen to the Corporate Democrat Leadership and just keep leading with our values? What if another supreme court seat is open or two?
You better start making plans because I think the Corporate Coup will be complete when they perfect changing votes to completely rig the elections.
7
My God, things just look worse and worse each day. Call me a fatalist, but I worry for the future of this country.
The divides between us all are so great - and one side has a lot more guns. I'm sure no one wants a second civil war, or believes it could happen, but I'm not so sure.
11
@LJMerr-------------------------------"I'm sure no one wants a second civil war, or believes it could happen, but I'm not so sure." Either that, LJ, or the second coming of the French Revolution (in America, I mean.)
I absolutely think it can happen. Read the comments on the Fox news website some time.
Congratulations to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He has achieved something that arguably just a few years ago would have seemed impossible.
His team lost a critical Supreme Court seat with the untimely death of Antonin Scalia. Yet he figured out a way to stall any hearings on that vacant seat. Long enough to pray for a President like Donald Trump. Talk about a home run.
And then Justice Kennedy bunted and another player is on base. The score is now and will be for the next several decades be at least 5 to 4.
Of course we can blame Kennedy for placing the balance of the court in the hands of Trump and McConnell. But I don't think he cares deeply about the new rule of law.
Would things have worked out differently had Bernie Sanders won the nomination? Had Commie not made a gut wrenching bad decision extremely late in the campaign? Had Hillary been a slightly stronger candidate? Of course.
But this part of our national spiral down the drain is a slow-motion accident that we simply have to sit by and watch.
2
An atheist's field day: the president, born on 3rd base and proclaiming he hit a triple, and years of dedicated work and money on the far right giving him a putter to sink the 2" tap into the hole.
Our 2 party system can be a bit like being driven home by a drunk driver because you have no other options.
Thus we are to be shackled into a shotgun wedding till my pate is bald and future generations will have been born and matured into a world that has always been like that.
However, the pendulum doth swing both ways.
13
The Brooking Institute
he's already advised congress to pass a law protecting the president which he will absolutely back should challenges to it come his way. he's an egghead reactionary, perfect for Donald's reactionary agenda.
4
He's a veteran of the impeachment of Clinton for lying to spare children from a bit of sexual education that people of my age didn't pick up until much later in life.
He lied under oath to a federal grand jury that was the problem. Not the sex.
Lots of hand wringing and gnashing of teeth. Yes, term limits would be great (as, we were told, would be the scrapping of the electoral college based on the results of ‘16).
Conservatives are winning according to the rules, and centrists and liberals are losing according to the rules, plain and simple.
Who to blame for this? It’s tiresome to get into, as so much ink has been spilled in that regard. But, coastal liberals have done more than their part to weaponize culture.
15
Who to blame? Easy. The DNC, and the flawed candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
1
Um, according to the rules? Voter suppression, stealing Merrick Garland's seat, conspiracy theories about our America-hating, Kenyan-born Muslim president? If those are the rules, maybe we need to upend the chess board and start a new game.
I've read enough to know I don't want Kavanaugh sitting on the Supreme Court. He's a fanatical Catholic and political animal whose rulings have shown him to be against abortion, Roe v. Wade, women's rights, immigrant rights, universal health care, the Environmental Protection Agency and any legal constraints on the presidency. He's for corporate interests, unconstrained money in politics and the worst excesses of Republican and religious dogma. And Trump picked him for only one reason: he's the only nominee who has advanced the theory, in writing, that sitting presidents should not be indicted or impeached. 'Nuff said.
28
Griswold v Connecticut may be the decision in danger of be overturned.
3
I agree.Keep in mind that most radical conservatives goal is not just to make abortion illegal, but to also make contraceptives illegal.
The world's most powerful office fell into Trump's lap thanks in part to his buddy Putin's underhanded interference, and now he is weaponizing every lever of power and privilege that has accrued to the Presidency. It is gut-wrenching to see raw and cynical power drive this nomination to our highest court, which is already under a cloud for politically motivated decisions that have helped elect a despot like Trump. We are watching the court devolve from a revered institution to a discredited instrument of oligarchs.
9