Hopefully the new Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Asian Americans suing Harvard for discrimination.
1
I feel like I need to get the Handmaidens tale garb before they sell out.
1
If Trump truly cared about the law, his administration would have complied with today's deadline to reunite immigrant families with their children - as ordered by a judge.
2
Mr. Trump gets to appoint Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and he gets to name his replacement on the federal appeals court. So, it's a "twofer" when it comes to obstruction of justice rulings. Any judge appointed by Trump should be forced to recuse himself. Plain and simple.
3
I understand that all media people need to make a living, but Rome is burning while too many act like this is “normal business as usual”.
The current administration is destroying all that the founding fathers laid out.
They are not the least interested in the plight of the country or “We the People”.
It’s government of the people, by the pathologically greedy, and for the pathologically greedy.
Apparently, there are no real safeguards.
McConnell and Ryan have been well aware of that.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/opinion/a-republic-if-you-can-keep...
2
Which statement is racist ???
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
I would hope that a wise Caucasian man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn't lived that life.
There has to be a better way to select Supreme Court Justices. The party in power will select according to ideology and there is nothing the minority can do to prevent this from happening. They all are great defenders of the constitution, however, the constitution does not need to be defended. It is there for the protection of all citizens regardless or color, race, or political affiliation. The problem is the judges will interpret the constitution according to their own personal biases, prejudices, religious beliefs and political inclinations. There has to be another way!
2
May ICE flow freely through his vessels.
1
Regarding Kavanaugh’s involvement in the Starr report (albeit not in a senior, decision-making position): Of course impeachment is inherently political, which is to say, impeachment is controlled ultimately by the will of the people.
Clinton's impeachment is illustrative, but not only as to Starr, i.e., Clinton Lewinsky lies, but as to NBC, i.e., Clinton Broaddrick lies, where there actually was an underlying crime. .
NBC spiked the airing of the Dateline NBC investigative report of the Broaddrick rape until Clinton was safely acquitted by the Senate–a wise move by an FOB (Friend Of Bill): After viewing the investigation, most Americans believed Juanita.
"The problem wasn't that Juanita Broaddrick was credible," NBC explained. "The problem was that she was too credible.”
As to calculated lying to officials to make them conduits to the people, the media, grand juries, etc, that tactic was the Clinton m.o., the Clinton lifestyle.
Clinton lawyer David Kendall's non-denial denial, for example: "Any such [rape] charges are absolutely false."
Note that Kendall doesn't even say CLINTON denies the allegation. Clinton then completes the familiar 2-step: "I have nothing further to say." Perfect.
1
I am hopeful this summer I will be strong enough to be arrested in protest to the confirmation of BK, the President’s choice to filll the vacancy left by the resignation of Justice Kennedy. Currently, I am ill.
I am a 70 year old paraplegic grandfather. My second grandchild will be born on or about August 15th. Currently, I am coughing and vomiting as a consequence of a side effect of cancer treatment.
I am in training so next month I will be strong enough to be arrested.
1. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper2/thoreau/civil.html
2. http://www.joelsolkoff.com/supreme-court-justice-sonia-sotomayor-critici...
3. http://www.joelsolkoff.com/america-first-1941-and-today/
7
What a surprise. Another well-to-do white Christian male nominated to SCOTUS.
As for Trump, the best thing you can say is, better to be lucky than smart, or good.
2
Really, admit it -- there is NOBODY Trump could have picked that would have made lefties happy. And all that kerfluffle over Amy Barrett for nothing!
(Seriously though: had Hillary won....she would have appointed two hard-left liberals to the Court, just as Obama did. Is that fair? the Court should be MODERATE IMHO, but the left won't hear of that.)
2
You can't seriously believe that Barrett is a "moderate"?
5
The moderates have all left the arena. We are now in a polarized country where the each side thinks that the other side's victory was a coup-d'etat.
Kavanaugh told us last night who he is. And it is not John Roberts, which is a good thing.
Roberts values politics and reputation over the Constitution. Kavanaugh’s fidelity is to the Constitution.
Roberts is a textualist only when it is convenient. When it isn’t, he drifts leftward in defiance of the Constitution & rationalizes his convoluted leftward move as being necessary to “protect” the court’s reputation. Kavanaugh, OTOH, seems—pardon the pun—constitutionally incapable of such self-deception.
Kavanaugh is exactly the justice we all should want. The problem today is hyper-partisanship, generally, and on the left, the massive electoral losses in recent decades, e.g., the Obama years.
The Left sees the appointment of activist judges & justices as the only way to implement its unpopular policy & seize power. Contrast this with textualist/originalist justices/judges on the right, who, by definition, are faithful to the constitutional principle of separation of powers & do not write law.
2
If you had read the Federalist Papers, you would understand that "textualism" or "Originalism" is what the Founding Fathers envisioned for the Supreme Court, at all.
1
The critics of Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be happy that they have his own voluminous writings to go by to evaluate him.
During his Senate confirmation hearing, the senators will be able to pick from his own writings and ask whether he would apply the same standard that he did, while advocating impeachment of the then-President Bill Clinton, if and when a similar case comes before the Supreme Court on which he would be sitting as a judge. The charge against Mr. Clinton was that he lied under oath. And it was Mr. Kavanaugh who, working for the independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr who investigated Clinton’s wrongdoings, “laid out broad grounds to impeach" him.
The question was not based on hypothetical, the senators should tell him, if he evades the question on that ground. There is a near-certainty of his future boss, President Donald Trump, being brought before the Supreme Court when special counsel Robert Mueller III completes his investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia. Speculations have been swirling around that Mr. Mueller has accumulated ample evidence to prove the collusion charge.
A majority of political and legal analysts believe that the main reason why Trump picked Kavanaugh from the list provided to him by his conservative base is the hope of his deciding in favor of Trump when the Mueller probe ends up in the Supreme Court. The question is no longer “if” but “when.” The Trump camp has begun to fear that it will be soon.
3
When President Obama nominated Merrick Garland on March 16, 2016 to replace Justice Scalia, who had passed away in February (the month before), the leaders of the Republican Party refused to commit to a vote until after the Presidential Election in November. They said "they needed more time". It was blatantly obvious they simply wanted a Republican Justice, since they controlled the Senate. Merrick Garland's nomination by Obama expired January 3rd, 2017. He had stood before the Senate for 293 days; the longest time in the history of the United States. It is a sickening moment of American history. When Trump was elected President in November, he successfully nominated Neil Gorsuch, a Republican later in the year. Then he goes on TV Sunday night and says he hasn't decided on his current nomination ("we have it down to a short list of 4 people". It is due in 24 hours. Then yesterday (Monday), he claims "I will announce the nomination at 9:00 PM. It reminded me (almost exactly) of when he was on the reality show, "The Apprentice". Total showboating, like a small child. We are doomed.
5
The women surrounding these two men including the judge's daughter and wife belie the reality of this nomination. A young woman is there as though what the nominee represents is support of families or young women. The views of these men are that the Constitution places the female belly strictly under legislative control. For this reason, the women standing in the photo represent a return to women as regulated property controlled by a family patriarch. As a victim of paternal sexual abuse, I know well what unchecked male power in a family may lead to. Seeing the political forces rally to check women's freedoms, helps me understand the disenfranchisement people of color face throughout US history. Seeing the rise of the ugliest dimension of male power, is teaching me a lesson I will remember all my life. Complacency is a direct route to the bottom. I know my spirit is ten times as tall as these men, and I'm committed to checking their power. Somehow, someway.
6
Seems like a slight bit of a vast right wing conspiracy.
3
I wish all my fellow liberals would calm down. I trust Akil Amar's judgement that this is about the best we can get from a R prez. Save your money and energy for November and make sure we get a flipped house and senate and put a brake on this disaster.
5
I am so glad we continue to have the brilliant minds of Yale, Harvard and Penn alums who have managed to screw-up almost everything in this country from wars to the economy since the year 2000. Podunk U. never looked so good.
6
Perhaps the democrats should take the high road and support Trump's nominee for the supreme court. However, they will not which works even better for the republicans in November. The democrats are too daft to realize their current hyper partisan nonsense is back firing on them big time.
1
You are joking, right? Dry wit devoid of "Emoticons" is hard to detect in print.
If you are serious, the relentless bad behavior of the Republicans ever since Obama was elected in 2008 does deserve some pay-back, don't you think?
On top of that, Donald Trump is a self-serving, manipulative psychopath who is a danger not only to the United States but to the entire world. The fact that he himself is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation is, in itself, ample reason why he should not be permitted to name anyone to the Supreme Court. He clearly wants to give himself a "get-out-of-jail-free" card.
While Trump rants that there is no "collusion," it is obvious that most of the Republican caucus is guilty of collusion -- and they need to be held accountable.
In attempting to pack the Supreme Court in his favor, Trump is doing exactly what he did throughout his business career, every time he had to deal with any regulatory board. Read Wayne Barrett's book.
5
I’m ok with Kavanaugh if he formally recuses himself from any future SC vote that may involve the Mueller investigation or any other criminal proceeding or indictment involving President Trump.
2
Do you actually trust him to recuse himself? Other than that, I am not OK with Kavanaugh on any issue whatsoever. As for Trump, his "election" was a coup d'état which he is now attempting to make permanent.
2
Do you actually trust him to recuse himself? Other than that, I am not OK with Kavanaugh on any issue whatsoever. As for Trump, his "election" was a coup d'état which he is now attempting to make permanent.
If there is one thing we should have learned by now, it is that we should never, ever, give Trump, his picks, or his supporters, "the benefit of the doubt."
3
Kavanaugh might get hit by a truck before he's seated. If that doesn't happen, though, his confirmation is a foregone conclusion. And if he DOES get hit by a truck, Trump will simply nominate someone else that his opponents don't like (and will advise that nominee to watch out for trucks).
2
Judge Kavanaugh will embark on a busy schedule, eventually being confirmed as a United States Supreme Court Judge.
Seems like a smart and thoughtful judge.
3
Another inside-the-beltway swamp creature who has spent his life inside a political bubble. Not what the country needs.
4
I don't know much about him and was going to give him the benefit of the doubt, until I listened to his statement that Trump has gone wider and done more work and more diverse conversations than "any other President!" He cannot know that. He lost all legitimacy by making a statement that only serves to show that he is willing to be dog-lap loyal to the President, in order to get nominated. Combined with his strange opinion that executive power cannot be checked in criminal court while in office (3rd Reich anyone?) makes him a political figure, not a judge.
3
This judges past rulings provide evidence that his beliefs and thinking simply echoes far right wing talking points and the bias of Fox News. His written dissent in the Texas immigrant abortion case actually included the far right's mantra, "immediate on demand abortion." Same with his opinion on guns "they are constitutionally protected because they are in..." and here it is the NRA's talking point, "...common use by law-abiding citizens."
BTW, note the reality is the guns in question are in much more common use by criminals.
It's not a stretch to suspect he'll be more influenced by the likes of conservative think tanks and lobbyists, PACs, Bannon, Hannity and Limbaugh than he will be by stare decisis and common sense.
4
Can Casey possibly sound any more reflexive in his opposition?
Trump did not “pick” Kavanaugh;
he was handed to him by right wing conservatives. Kavanaugh was mined from the con courts and put on a list for Trump. It is doubtful Trump read any of his opinions. Trump is not that smart. He picked from a list given him, and chose someone who will look good to his ever loving base.
5
The Supreme Court will not constitute a majority of Conservatives, such as Roberts. It will be controlled by retrograde ideologues like Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch, and soon to join Kavanaugh. They are political hacks who will delegitimize the SCOTUS in the eyes of a majority of Americans. They will rule in favor of corporations, the billionaire class, and the illegitimate usurper of the White House. They will rule against labor, immigrants and minorities and women. Of this I am certain.
5
Limerick for the Sleepy Democrats
-------------------------------------------
There once was a man named McConnell
Who did dirty work with the Donald
He stacked the court right
Without much a fight
And made the nice Democrats holler..
2
None of those questions are appropriate, the constitution is to be adhered to no matter your ideas, and your church is irrelevant to your decisions as well.
1
Exactly. This is a battle the Democrats can't win, and battles that can't be won should be avoided:
"Kavanaugh seems to hold a lot of opinions I disagree with. But my team lost. ... Confirm him, and save the energy of tilting at the windmill of a losing battle. The choice could have been much worse. If Dems want a different future, they had best get to work."
In case Democrats haven't noticed, Donald Trump is living in the White House and Hillary Clinton is not. That's real life, and the only way Democrats can change it is to win in November and then to win again in 2020. Frankly, that's looking less and less likely.
4
I'm amazed that the vote could be 50-49, and he could be on the SCOTUS until 2052 (assuming an average life span). That's 2052 - a full 20 years after we're supposed to have people travelling to Mars.
So, if you have a two year old now, that two year old will be about 35 by the time he retires. And this can be decided on one vote???
4
Come on folks. This is potentially the most partisan nominee ever put forth for Senate confirmation. He worked with Ken Starr in the epic chase to run Bill Clinton from office. He worked in the George W. Bush Whitehouse with the likes of Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney. He stated in an article in 2009 he believed that congress should pass a law that exempts a sitting President from being indicted and in his speech waxed poetic about the rule of law. If he is confirmed women will lose the right to chose, more people of color will be stopped from voting, gerrymandering will flourish, corporations will win over the environment and big money will be the controlling interest in our political system. He will join Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch to systematically undo 4 decades of progress on issues involving American freedoms and equality. My hair isn't on fire....my eyes are just open.
8
The United States is in a dark age contained by a congress controlled by old men who answer only to billionaires and state legislatures wanting to roll back the last fifty years or so. None of this will succeed long term because there's little support among the young or even middle age. Mr. Kavanaugh is a manager for a fading generation and he will be eclipsed by a new set of justices in due time. The Republicans will not erase Roe V Wade or Gay Marriage because they know much of corporate America and the better educated who finance them don't want it.
The truth is that if Mr. Kavanaugh goes hard right there is real chance Justice Roberts and Alito will move toward the center if needed. Clarence Thomas is not going to participate in the ruin of his race and does not want to be see his career end in disgrace. In the past firebrands or hard core ideologues alienated the other justices. Remember Justice Roberts went with the liberals to save the ACA because he knew the courts reputation was at stake. Extremism always defeats its self. Should the court go off the deep end, the electorate will punish the Republicans for many years there after.
2
Not sure what Democrats expected. Did they really imagine Trump was going to nominate someone they like? If it hadn't been Kavanaugh, it would have been someone else they don't like (and the same will be true if Kavanaugh dies sometime soon).
There may actually be someone out there who imagines that Trump might nominate, say, Merrick Garland, but here's some free advice for you on that: If you spot someone on the sidewalk, walking toward you, and you know that person believes that Donald Trump is likely to nominate Merrick Garland to any office above dog catcher, cross immediately to the other side of the street.
More like will turn the court to traditional roles, and constitutional ones, not a living constitution changed by judges, but changed by amendments.
1
It is all but inevitable that Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed by all Republicans and perhaps the votes of the red state Democrats. In this election year, Democrats have a political imperative to raise a great hue and cry to match the fervor of those taking to the streets. But Kavanaugh probably is closer to the center than any of the other conservative justices and the least disagreeable choice among the candidates floated by the administration, even though that list may have been assembled just for this purpose. Democrats should hold his feet to the coals and use the confirmation process to rail against the appointment to reinforce their bona fides. But more urgent is the need to deny the Republicans a renewed majority in the Senate next year — an enormous challenge with a slim chance of success — while hoping that another vacancy does not occur in the interim.
3
As long as the President rules by threat, where there is much evidence he does frequently, (NAFTA, NATO, North Korea, FBI etc), what is there to bet he wont extract his will in the Supreme Court too?
We should reflect on the position taken by McConnell, arguing that there should be no appointment for the opening in the year preceding the last election. Now he becomes an advocate for this position, with unreasonable haste.....dictated by the President?
The critical concern here is that the appointment is for a lifetime, the stripe is solid, but tinged with GOP colours, and some of the Presidents' priorities have already been laid out, with his expectations clear.
If this is to be an impartial, legally driven court, issues like this need to be tabled publicly and the outcomes based on the laws of the land.
4
I discussed this nomination today with my 87 year old French friend who now lives in NYC and is a survivor of the Nazis. She still remembers vividly as a young girl when she and the rest of her family had to wear yellow stars as Jews and she still has nightmares sometimes filled with flashbacks of that horrific time in Paris.
Both her parents and her only sister were taken away and murdered in concentration camps. My friend survived because her father had the foresight to send her to the Parisian countryside to stay with a good Christian family.
My friend’s comment on hearing of Kavanaugh’s nomination was, “We are now turning into a Fascist country.”
I think the only way we can prevent this is to continue to resist and also to figure out ways to reach Republican supporters and have them see what a liar and a misogynist Trump is and how he really doesn’t have their interests at heart - ALL he cares about is his own power and narcissism.
6
A "president" who is the subject of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation into obstruction of justice and collusion with a hostile foreign power is the man picking a SCOTUS Justice. Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell sits in the corner absently cleaning his fingernails and asking what the hold-up is on getting this Justice confirmed. Another appalling miscarriage brought to us by the lawless GOP. They will all be named when the history is written on this tragic period of our nation's history. Ignominy awaits.
8
Chief Justice Edward G. Ryan of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1873: “The question,” Ryan said, “will arise, and arise in your day, though perhaps not fully in mine: Which shall rule — wealth or man; which shall lead — money or intellect; who shall fill public stations — educated and patriotic freemen, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?”
8
encroachment of religion and big money are assured - ignorance and greed - the new american dream.
10
Trump said that Kavanaugh is "one of the sharpest jorists of our time, and Writes with grate Clarity."
3
Bruce, you surely meant to write "Trump wrote that....". Surely.
Do I have to explain everything? If I said that he wrote that, it wouldn't be funny because he actually writes like that! The whole point of the joke is claiming that Trumps talks like he tweets.
https://www.thenation.com/article/will-brett-kavanaugh-pass-religious-ri...
The Christian right’s mixed reaction to Kavanaugh doesn’t mean he’d ultimately rule against their conception of religious liberty—just that he will face pressure from the right to be more forthcoming about his views. Conservatives are sure that any of Trump’s nominees would overturn Roe. But if the past few years are any indication, they also have their eyes on another prize—the Court’s explicit endorsement of the idea that religious belief places one beyond the law.
And then they came for the nation...
Said it before, saying it again. We on the right and the left don't want to live in each others' countries.
3
Republicans have figured out how to attain electoral power, despite their actual minority status. The blueprint focuses on the lower-population Mountain West and Midwest states.
One of the consequences of that is that they get to choose their people. Kavanaugh seems to hold a lot of opinions I disagree with. But my team lost. And he appears well qualified, and reasonable. Confirm him, and save the energy of tilting at the windmill of a losing battle. The choice could have been much worse.
If Dems want a different future, they had best get to work. So far, waiting for Trump and Republicans to face-plant isn't working, because his voters are generally willing to forgive him, not abandon him.
If you want a different answer, ask a different question.
4
Yet another Catholic on the highest court in the land? The theocracies we criticize in other countries are coming to pass in the USA- certainly not a court that reflects the make up of our country and our secular model of church and state separation. It’s frightening.
5
Doesn't the First Amendment ban Catholics from holding Office?
If Garland had been confirmed there would have been four Jews on the highest court in the land. That also would have been a court utterly unrepresentative of the US. Most of the people who noticed that for good or ill were chauvinists of one stripe or another. E.g, Pat Buchanan..
Surely as there are only nine seats it's at least as important to have smart justices who know the law as it is to worry about whether they have the proper religion, ethnicity, sex, or melanin levels.
Church and state separation? That is a joke. Are you aware that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2016 received over $500 million of your and my taxpayer money which they are using to resettle and provide legal assistance to immigrants who have crossed our borders Illegally? I am sure many taxpayers are unaware of how their hard earned money is being used to aid and abet people who are breaking the laws of our land. As an American citizen I protest this and believe it should be stopped. Faith based organizations are meant to assist those in need not those who choose to willingly break the law.
For years faith -based groups have been involved in the political process and have encouraged their members how and for whom to vote. In many cases, e.g. civil rights, this was a noble cause . However, today, church/state separation doesn't seem to matter if the church -based position is aligned with the political positions of those in or seeking power.
"Yet another Catholic...." Has religion now become a litmus test for SCOTUS nominees? It would appear that it is only Christianity and/or Catholicism which are subject to such criticism.
2
At 50, I will never see my dreams for America come to fruition in my lifetime. I feel disgusted for giving 8 years of public service in the military to ultimately protect the rights of corporations and a tiny subset of rich/white/straight/male/Christian Americans. Good luck to all of you, I'm staying in Europe where it is already Great (Again).
3
Actually, Kavanaugh will disappoint the right. He is not an ideologue. He will follow the law and respect precedent. He will not vote to reverse Roe, or lessen Gay rights or turn back civil rights. His record shows he is cautious and not at all in lock step with the right. He was not the right's pick. He will be confirmed. Hopefully, Democrats will not make themselves look even worse during the confirmation process.
3
Just say no to Kavanaugh. Not because he is a Catholic, or because he claims to uphold Roe vs. Wade and probably (?) will, but because he has shown himself to be too partisan. Frankly, I felt that way about sotomayor as well. She was far too liberal. We must seek moderates that will not be a turnkey vote for one party's extremes!
Not all that long ago, Presidents were given carte blanche to pick whomever they wanted for the SCOTUS. (Kennedy, for example was unanimously approved by the Senate.)
It's not that way now, of course, and I don't think it should be. The pendulum could swing too far the other way, though. What if all 9 Justices suddenly died, or retired, and the Senate rejected everyone the President proposed? We'd be left with no SCOTUS at all -- the third branch of government would simply cease to exist. So SOME deference is ultimately called for.
I doubt this will matter here. Unless Kavanaugh gets hit by a truck, he'll be confirmed. But what will happen to the SCOTUS if different parties control the Senate and the Presidency? We'd soon end up with no SCOTUS at all.
1
Hard to understand why so few Democrats seem to get this:
"Because [Democrats] need to save our powder for the battles we really do have a shot at winning—the midterm elections."
Kavanaugh might get hit by a truck before he's seated. If that doesn't happen, though, his confirmation is a foregone conclusion. As others have pointed out, Senators Collins and Murkowski are not going to block a SCOTUS nominee that other Republicans want to see approved.
And Democrats should keep this firmly in mind: Despite all of the claptrap about "popular vote," Trump did win the 2016 Presidential election. Like it or not, Trump is living in the White House and will be there at least until January 20 in 2021 (or 2025). Hillary Clinton, by contrast, is living in some suburb of New York City.
If the Democrats take back one or both houses of Congress in November, they can keep Trump from accomplishing anything -- the "stalemate" situation we usually have in our federal government. Hard to imagine the Democrats will gain enough seats in either house to override a Trump veto, but they can at least stop him from passing legislation they don't like -- which is more than they can do right now. And if they take back the Senate, they can even block Trump's judicial nominees -- which, again, is more than they can do right now.
4
That's what we hired Mueller to look for:
"Trump with the help of Russia took the executive branch over."
So far, nada.
Maybe that will change, but Mueller was appointed well over a year ago, and so far nada. He's indicted some Russians, who will need to cancel their family trips to Disney World, and he's "flipped" all sorts of former Trump associates who, so far, haven't provided him with any evidence of this Trump/Russia connection.
Maybe such a "connection" exists, but one would think that at least one of the "flippees" -- Flynn, Papadopoulos, Bannon, Cohen, etc., etc. -- would know something about the "connection" that he'd be willing to trade for leniency. And one would think Trump would know better than to say bad things about each and every one of these "flippees," since they might retaliate by telling Mueller bad things about Trump.
If one didn't know better, one might think there is no "connection." We know that's not so, of course, because a simple allegation is all that's required.
This "evidence" thing is vastly overrated. You only need "evidence" when you don't have allegations!
2
We pick and choose what's consistent with our beliefs and reject what's not. It's called confirmation bias. Or just plain human nature. To that extent, judges are supposed to behave unnaturally. But if they do, they can expect a lot of flack and will never advance. Right or left, Fox News or CNN, that's how the system works. It was that way under President Obama, and remains so under President Trump. Unless America de-polarizes, nothing will change.
2
How is it that a president who lost the popular vote by 2.9 million and is under criminal investigation gets to nominate yet another Supreme Court justice? Since when do the subjects of investigations get to nominate the judges who may be ajudicating their cases?
Vote in November, folks, and make sure you give rides to like-minded people who might otherwise have trouble getting to the polls. Get out there and register voters, and campaign for the Democrat of your choice. It is beyond time that we restore some "checks and balances" to this lopsided, one-party system we're currently stuck with.
4
Wait...wasn't there already a conservative hold on the court?
4
The Supreme Court has become completely partisan. Now, it is just another tool of the Republican Party to do its bidding on its favorite issues, such as preventing regulation of pollution because it cuts into fossil fuel industrialists' profit. Of course, this court will base their pro-corporate decisions on the purportedly benign basis of "separation of powers," saying that only Congress gets to decide what the rules are, but that principle is just a lofty gown covering naked corporate greed. Only those who have big bucks, slick suits, and massive lobbying operations determine what happens in Congress. The children with asthma have no representation in Congress. The future grandchildren who will be forced to endure suffocatingly hot summers have no meetings with Senators. Most people can't afford to donate to their campaigns, let alone pay for college or healthcare. Forget about protecting individual consumers from financial predators by the CFPB -- "separation of powers" they will declare. Forget about regulation of carbon dioxide pollution under the EPA because it is over-heating the planet -- "separation of powers" they will rule. When Judge Kavanaugh says he will defend "liberty" he means the liberty to prevent workers from organizing and suing their employers. He means the liberty to profit, pollute, and loot the poor. That's what it means to have a politically conservative Supreme Court. It's a suicide pact. Get used to it.
4
The poor don't have anything to loot.
Bravo President Trump!
You have selected a highly qualified nominee who seems to have heart and to not just be one of those perverse hard right justices who are always on the wrong side of history and on the side of corporations and special interests and against the American people.
He is conservative no doubt. However the people who elected you and the senators voted for a conservative Justice.
Well done!
2
"No president has consulted more widely"?? Not only is that absolutely untrue, but that comment alone indicates his bias.
3
Conservatives have spent decades putting in a lot of hard work to get here, most of it wildly unethical, and at least some of it illegal, so congratulations to all the corrupt, anti-democratic Republicans out there who paid good money to make this happen.
5
This is the end of Medicare, Social Security, Freedom of the Press, A Woman's Right to Choose, Jury trials, and an assult gun in everyones home, even if you don't want one. God save America, because the Supreme Court will not do it. Corporate America and "Wall sucker Street" rule everything now.
7
It kills me that the press and media (not to mention scores of Senators, members of the Trump Administration, legal experts, etc.) continue to treat this as just another "normal" political battle between the two parties and among the executive and congressional branches. We have a Supreme Court whose last open seat was stolen by the republicans. Stolen. This is all an exercise in sheer political power and cunning, devoid of any democratic or moral principles. This is the height of Machiavellianism live before our eyes. The Court has become a political prize, arm, and weapon of one party through disgracefully immoral and unfair methods. This is not normal, and it is not "ok". *This* is the story. Not Trump's version of the NCAA Tourney selection show. Not the confirmation battle or the routine assertions that the nominee is "eminently qualified" or has a conservative record. Not the inside baseball stuff. Let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees. The Court has been stolen and is now being consolidated by the Republican Party.
5
I'm surprised that no one has ever thought to set age limits for judges. In Canada, the retirement age for judges and senators (both nominated for life) is 75. While it's a relatively early retirement age for many, it sets a maximum time limit for those appointed to serve. It also doesn't hurt that nominees for the Supreme Court are nominated by their peers, rather than by an outside lobby group.
Given Mr. Kavanaugh is in his early 50's, he could be on the Supreme Court for 20-30-40 years, a tenure that I don't see as terribly palatable for anyone.
1
Personally, I don't think that the court leans one way or the other. Even IF it currently leans "left," in the interest of parity it should lean "right" for a little while. It's all about balance.
2
If Congress were to vote for an independent special prosecutor, the judiciary (I don't think) could stop the investigation because they have the power to impeach.
I do think that our constitution does not allow a part of the executive branch to bring charges against the President, since their only power to act comes through him. Congress does not have the power to control the executive and co-equal branch that is the Executive except through impeachment. That seems to me to be how our government is set up.
It's very likely that Kavanaugh was going to be the pick right from the start, and that all the interviews, etc. were just PR to make different sorts of his base feel that they had been consulted.
4
the court has become just a political tool for the politicians. the only criteria for confirmation should be his legal experience. his political leanings really should not. come into consideration. but politicians have made the court a seat of power because they want the court to steer the country judicially according to their political leanings.
perhaps the supreme out should have term limits and be turned over periodically. or perhaps after every election, the new president gets to replace a justice or 2. but the idea that any president might have the ability to set the political tone of the court for years to come doesn't seem right.
5
While the idea of term limits on SCOTUS judges may sound as enticing as Congressional term limits, there is a potential problem; depending on which party is in power, the risk of conservatives or liberals in the majority, could set up the prospect of a seesaw effect on laws and rulings.
"Kavanaugh['s] ... attacks on immigration will also find an obliging SCOTUS."
The most "illuminating" aspect of the "immigration" debate is my recognition that most people who don't oppose illegal immigration in fact DO favor "open borders." While a few suggest some way to oppose illegal immigration without advocating open borders, those people are few and far between. For most, it just boils down to "open borders," and most Americans don't agree with that.
Some Americans feel we should let in more legal immigrants (I'm one of those Americans). But whether or not they're in the "more legal immigration" camp, very few Americans support illegal immigration -- whether it's labeled "open borders" or anything else. We do feel some deal should be (and will be) worked out on DACA, but we have little or no sympathy for the "new" people trying to come here, whether or not they bring small children with them. We strongly disagree that families should be separated, but we don't feel this requires that asylum applicants be allowed to roam free here in the US while their applications are pending.
6
The clearest path forward is the simplest and most radical path.
Near term, we need mass protest and a million-women ring of protesters who can circle the Congressional and Senate buildings and STOP the Senate from confirming him.
Longer term, we need to take back the House and the Senate this November. This would allow us to Impeach Trump, and a have a clear majority before...
2020, when we will elect a progressive President who can add Progressive judges to the court to counterbalance what Trump and the Republicans have done.
None of these steps are that hard. America really does prefer open borders, social justice, and free education, healthcare and jobs for all. Every time these are polled, they go over well. And with amnesty and open borders, we have a chance to actually bring in people who are open to social democratic progressive solutions.
The oligarchic moves that Trump has made, and his complete break with Global, Progressive values can no longer be denied. Hopefully now that it’s all out in the open, the left will be galvanized to do what’s simple, clear, and radical!
2
Let Trump the Supreme Egotist (not Supreme Leader) boast about Kavanaugh just as he does about Gorsuch: the more the head of the Exec. Branch brags about his nominees' conservativism, the more likely they are to surprise him (and us) with occasional liberal decisions. That way, Justices remind the president, especially an autocratic one, that SCOTUS is a co-equal and independent branch. That precedent was set in modern times by Warren Burger when very conservative presidents just assumed he would always stay as conservative as they were.
Kavanaugh's most consistent judicial decisions favor freeing corporations and industry from government regulation. For Trump and his conservative base, the issue of reversing regulations and downsizing, if not entirely eradicating social programs, is second to the main issue of Roe v. Wade. Perhaps it's even number one due to the money that reversing regulations will generate, ostensibly as a gift to our President by way of campaign contributions. Choosing Kavanaugh is not best for America, but he's a great pick for Mr. Trump and his corporate buddies.
2
Nothing out-of-the-box here. A lifetime mostly between Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. and within 50 miles of I-95. Yet another Catholic- Just what is it with this religious homogeneity and the Supreme Court? A career box-checker. Has read and understands "Originalism for Dummies" so tough cases that involve social norms and technological advances evolved over the last 250 years are one small step away from an originalist solution obtained by seance with the Founders. Maybe now the answer to the impenetrable grammar in the 2nd Amendment.
2
No disrespect to Judge Kavanaugh, but for the vast majority of Americans his role in the US Supreme Court will be insignificant or close to none. Unless he is willing to give advise about the type of welding rod, concrete mix ratios, helping lower a transmission, hope on a tractor, specify exterior finish materials and select color/hue for an art piece, then his role will be just fine.
I suspect that Judge Kavanaugh likes that fact just fine. For Americans there are more pressing issues. Yes, social issues are important, the sexual orientation of a son or a daughter are important and we have the right to expect the judiciary to do their job when it comes to it. But it's almost a mechanical arrangement which the Judiciary is expected to fill.
To the press - political activists this is the time to be alive. They are flattering themselves though.
Americans have the right to expect this nomination to take a civil tone. We don't expect much, but we expect a modicum of civility.
2
There is nothing in the constitution that mandates only a nine member SCOTUS. It could be less or it could be more. If the Democrats really want to show some spine, they must win a majority in the Senate, control the House and along with the Oval Office, they can increase the court to 11 members, thereby neutering a conservative majority for the next 30 or so years. It can be done and it has been done in the past.
8
I firmly believe that Trump made a deal with Anthony Kennedy, who got to name his successor in turn for retiring. No doubt the deal was facilitated by Kennedy's son, who brokered a Deutsche Band loan of $1 billion for Trump, Inc.
5
Now that is certainly an interesting tidbit I’ve not heard previously. There is really no low Trump will not stoop to in order to get what he wants. It’s how he and good old dad Fred did business in NYC and the surrounding area.
2
If Collins and Murkowski actually had backbone, as they claim in their support of Roe v. Wade, they could caucus with the Democrats on a temporary basis. That would be all it would take to put their names in an aftermath to Kennedy's Profiles in Courage. Neither will do it, of course, because neither has that kind of backbone. Kavanaugh's a lightweight clone of Thomas, more intelligent and clever but just as cutthroat when it comes to protecting oligarchy, who will practice his sophistry on Roe v. Wade by pretending to take a woman's right to privacy into account while stabbing her in the uterus. He's a disaster, not for liberals but for the United States. He'll destroy the legacy of the Roberts court, such as it is, which might push Roberts himself to more moderate decisions to try to save his niche in history from a Katrina-like judgment, but Roberts, of course, seldom has much backbone, either. I consider McConnell the real culprit here, for blocking Merrick Garland, Obama's middle-of-the-road selection. McConnel, by so doing (and for many other reasons) is almost for sure an enemy of the United States who belongs in the same pantheon as Putin.
6
This nomination should not be allowed because as McConnell said: (paraphrase) we will not consider an appointment during an election year (Justice Garland should be on this court), complete autocratic government from the republicans.
No advise and consent during an 8 month period while President Obama was in office.
Let the voters decide this November!
5
The difference is that this is not a presidential election. Under your new proposed standard, Presidents could only nominate justices during the 1st and 3rd years.
Trump and the GOP machine no doubt hope the Democrats will spend time and political capital to resist this nomination and thereby provide the GOP with a tool to fire up their base before the mid-term elections. And the Democrats will fall for that.
Kavanaugh will eventually be confirmed because the Democrats lack the numbers and procedural tools to block that outcome. The political cost may be to jeopardise one or more of the Democrat "red state" senators up for re-election should these senators be pressured to vote against this nomination.
The Democrats need to focus completely on wining majorities in the house and senate and almost nothing else should matter. It is hard to see how a futile resistance to this nomination can help the Democrats procure higher voter turnout or any other electoral advantage after Kavanaugh is confirmed and its too late. In pre-confirmation hearings Kavanaugh will easily dance around any attempts to corner him on his views of Roe v Wade. Therefore the overall outcome of the Democrat performance in resisting the nomination will likely be to signal to the electorate that the Democrats were once again strategically outmanoeuvred by the GOP. Some voters may ditch such losers.
1
I'm reading the comments of a lot of straight white men here, who say things like "pick your battles" and "Trump won get over it."
These are my civil rights we're discussing. When it's your civil rights on the line, should I tell you to shut up and get over it. Really?
Would you feel this way if I got to vote on your civil rights? If literally, I said, well gee, we women don't think you should have the right to do this- would that be okay? Would you say, okay well if that's the way you voted, then fine.
Can you even imagine the idea that your civil rights are being voted on by others?
These are not my privileges. They are my rights. If you don't see that, it's because you're viewing your rights as rights, and mine as not really rights.
7
America has been sold to the highest bidders.
Benjamin Franklin, when asked about the future of the country:
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Apparently we couldn’t.
America is going without even a whimper, a victim of slow, plodding treason.
At the same time, far too many Americans can be heard saying “I’m very busy. And I’m just not into politics”.
2
If Dems were smart, they'd push through Kavanaugh's confirmation as quickly as possible.
The 2016 election was all about the Scalia's vacant seat. It motivated conservatives and Christians to vote in key swing states.
Confirming Kavanaugh quickly would NOT make the 2018 mid-term elections about the SCOTUS. Instead, it would be a referendum on Trump and his scorched-earth policies.
Political moderates and evangelical Christians, unhappy with Trump's policies on the environment, immigration, free trade, or heathcare could vote for a Democrat without worrying about the Supreme Court.
In general, I think most voters prefer to have the White House and Congress controlled by opposite parties. It creates additional checks-and-balances against the most radical ideas from each party. With the SCOTUS issue resolved, I have no doubt the 2018 mid-term elections would swing heavily blue should the Democrats avoid the mistake of forcing conservative voters to consider the vacant SCOTUS seat.
4
Helping to confirm him would alienate progressive Democrats.
If they know what's good for them, they'll fight.
1
Seems those desiring an "originalist" Constitutional justice have forgotten what the real Founding Fathers intended, to wit Thomas Jefferson:
“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
Thankfully we now have another justice that reads the law and interprets the law while refraining from legislating from the bench.
Whatever ideologies that the regressive liberals wish to foist on America. They can always do so through Congress - and that is how the system is designed to work.
3
I remember John Roberts saying that his approach to rulings was like "calling balls and strikes." I, for one hardly consider Citizens' United or the Hobby Lobby rulings "calling balls and strikes."
2
Worse than a nightmare.
Trump just secured his second term as president.
Even if he fails at everything else, which is unlikely, his 2 appointments at the supreme court are seen and are major victories for those who voted him into office.
It makes me ashamed for my country that a two-bit, phony, philandering, misogynistic, tax avoiding, draft dodging, press bashing, institution attacking, foul mouthed liar gets to name not one but two justices to the Supreme Court!
Wherever they are, our founding fathers are crying and wondering how their country ended up in such a horrible state.
6
We're all part of the partisan divide.
The country was built with three legs, meant to counterbalance each other to prevent dominance by any single "party".
Democrats and Republicans now openly root and scheme to destroy the checks and balances inherent in our governing structure.
It's anti-American and anti-democracy. Like religion, many think only theirs is correct and just, and are willing to corrupt everything to prove the point.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
6
I think if he's confirmed, Kavanaugh might just surprise some people!
1
His record does not indicate that he might surprise anyone.
He was vetted by the Federalist Society.
They are not likely to let someone through who is not a hard-right conservative.
2
President Obama mishandled the SC vacancy created by Scalia's death in 2016. When McConnell made it clear (within hours) that this was now a political fight, Obama should have nominated a candidate--preferably an African-American woman of stellar credentials--who would have excited the Democratic base. The visual of a woman of color sitting ignored in a senator's outer office (as we saw with M. Garland) while a Republican senator refused to come out and speak with her...priceless.
1
Exactly. Roe v. Wade has survived many challenges in the last 45 years. Libertarians defend the decision against government overreach.
A Supreme Court decision overturning Roe would require some extreme mental gymnastics to justify all of the Court's precedent from more than four decades.
1
President Obama tried to do the honorable thing and allow his nomination to proceed normally. Unfortunately, he failed to realize just how far dishonorable people were willing to go to seize power.
The problem with being a cheat and a liar is that it eventually catches up with you. There are some dirty rats in Congress who have banked enough negative karma for a lifetime.
5
Why should abortion depend on the Supreme Court anyway? What a wacky country we have where an issue like that has to get passed up through the court system to be finally decided by 9 unaccountable judges. In most civilized countries an issue like abortion is settled by the legislative branch - Congress or Parliament. It's voted on in a fair, democratic process. Issues like discrimination vs. religious freedom, or gun control should also be solved by Congress. The Supreme Court was never intended to create the law from scratch on such important matters.
8
A quick note to point out that the chart you include with this story demonstrates how leftists “think” about the judiciary: it offers no assessment as to whether a particular judge got the law right. Instead, it grades judges on the politics of the results. at which they arrive/
We political conservatives don’t rock that way. If the law requires results NYT commenters would like, that’s how a judge should rule.
Alas, the left refuses to acknowledge the reciprocal, that the law does not always require results leftists like. And they demand that judges arrive at said leftist results anyway, the law to the contrary be damned. Isn’t that why we have judges? To arrive at Politically Correct results?
Take Roe: does ANYONE actually believe that Justice Blackmun’s opinion is even comprehensible, let alone sets forth actual constitutional law? NO!! Leftists just like the result. Same with same-sex marriage.
You don’t like (other people) spending money on politics, so you want to judicially amend the 1A to restrict it. You don’t like guns, so you want the judiciary to read the 2A out of the Constitution. You advocate for "civil rights", while supporting the right of Harvard to openly discriminate on the basis of race.
Results. Always results. That’s why leftists are so profoundly dangerous to the rule of law and the judiciary. They vehemently reject the judicial job description.
This is a battle about whether we’re going to have courts or commissars.
5
At least commissars stood for the rights of working people.
1
It's a different process this time:
"Didn't the Senate already approve him once for his current position? How are they now going to justify not approving him?"
All courts below the SCOTUS are required to follow precedent established by the SCOTUS. If some Senator asked Kavanaugh how he feels about Roe v. Wade, all he needs to say -- indeed, all he CAN properly say -- is that he'd follow SCOTUS precedent, which includes the SCOTUS holding in Roe v. Wade.
The SCOTUS itself is different, however: It can reverse Roe v. Wade if it's so inclined. That's what "Supreme" means. SCOTUS nominees have developed other ways to dodge the question, but one arrow is removed from their quiver: They can't say simply that they'll be bound to follow precedent.
3
The decades of judicial activism will soon be over. The majority of American people do not approve of the courts legislating from the bench. We fought it the only way we could: by periodically electing Republican presidents to nominate judges who will interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it, and a Republican Senate majority to confirm the nominees.
This is democracy at work.
22
Citizens United, which permits corporate money to determine elections, is not only not in the Constitution, but corporate power was specifically denounced by its writers.
Hobby Lobby, which places the declaration of religion before the civil rights of employees, is a violation of the First Amendment. The decision in the Colorado baker case does a similar thing.
"Judicial activism" lately has been practiced not by liberals, but by conservatives, in ways that are harmful rather than beneficial to the majority of Americans.
15
Was Citizens United not judicial activism? Is it written in the original Constitution or in an amendment that money is equal to free speech?
3
Most Republicans and conservatives I know like to point out that the USA is “not a democracy” and that’s why it’s ok for the Electoral College to enable a minority of voters to select the President. In fact, we are supposed to be a democracy (representative not direct but still), as you point out. However, because of the EC, democracy ain’t working.
2
The way people are going on about the Supreme Court, you'd think there was only one branch of government.
Congress can overrule the Court. Congress writes the laws, not the judges. Always remember that.
This judge will not change the makeup of the court. Kennedy was very, very conservative. After Scalia, it's questionable whether the Court has ever had as diligent of a defender of corporate and moneyed interests as Anthony Kennedy.
Liberals need to focus on winning elections first. Only then will they have any kind of a say over who gets to be a judge. They've been deliberately ignoring elections because it will mean sacrificing some ideological purity in order to win. That has to stop.
7
Unfortunately, Congress cannot overrule the SCOTUS.
Once the latter rules that something is unconstitutional, Congress cannot make laws to the contrary.
Of they do, that would only lead to them being shot down in subsequent challenges before the court.
As a liberal, I have to take a deep breath over developments like the Kavanaugh nomination. True, a deeply conservative court will steer the country wrong -- in my opinion -- for decades to come but such a court is not an existential threat to the Republic. And the conservatives on the court will go down in history with the same regard as those white men who decided Plessy v. Ferguson. Kavanaugh upon brief inspection seems deeply qualified in a legal sense so I personally don't think he should be opposed because of his political views. The President is well within his rights to nominate such a man and have him confirmed.
11
And while he makes his distinctive mark on history, how many thousands/millions will pay the price? Will our president be determined a God who is above the law and pays no price for crimes committed. Where will IG45's grand powers take us?
3
His political views will lead to the possible overturn of Roe vs. Wade, the illegality of gay marriage and the legality of discrimination against gays, the further eviseration of the right of workers to organize, the reduction of appeal time for death penalty sentences, and a slew of other right-wing policies that favor the rich over the rest of the people.
You may not consider the political views of a Justice to be important, but the right does, and so do the Justices and the rest of us who will be impacted negativey by them.
2
I know nothing of this nominee and it will be a very boring process to confirm him as he will reveal nothing. He is young and as his daughters grow up and experience all the trials that young women confront in these modern times he may develop empathy for women and others who are not white and male. He may realize that the economy is built on the backs of the working poor. But I will not hold my breath. It is suprising that Trump did not nominate someone who plays a judge on tv.
7
Not to worry. Members of his class don't face the same restrictions as the rest of us. His daughters will be fine.
4
he's more liberal than gorsuch
I guess Judge Ken Starr was doing something else. I do wonder how he'll explain his work "on the legal team that fought the Florida recount in 2000. This led to a job in the George W. Bush White House and, ultimately, to his nomination to the bench, which the Democrats in the Senate managed to hold in abeyance for almost six years, citing Kavanaugh’s political activities and his lack of judicial experience." The Forest Gump of Republican politics indeed. Strange time for payback for all his hard work.
7
Didn't the Senate already approve him once for his current position? How are they now going to justify not approving him?
13
They don't have to "justify" it.
They can vote against him, and no one has the right to challenge them for the reasons.
2
Now you are thinking logically. Many Democrats don't go in for that kind of thinking.
The process of selection of our highest court elections have become like a dirty political campaign. Special interests can pour unlimited $$ into campaigns and nominations (thanks to Republicans in SCOTUS unleashing Citizens United).
Once that happened, Democrats lost seats in Congress and McConnell became the majority leader. Then after he illegally refused to recognize Garland's nomination, huge money was shifted to support a GOP leaning SCOTUS and any more nominees for GOPs, who will support their special interests.
Special interests groups with unlimited money now can select their own group of nominees (such as the Federalist Society) to favor their monetary causes. Once these judges are placed on the court, when a case comes to court that involves their cause, they send down teams to file "amicus briefs" which are used as a guide for their selected judges to consider when making decisions. The additional information found in such a document can be useful for the judge evaluating the case, and it becomes part of the official case record.
So now if an average American files a lawsuit in high court, they most likely could lose, NOT because of what the lawsuit pertains, but because of WHO you are. The courts are becoming partisan and selection of judges is done using dark money thanks to Citizens United.
10
Golf clap for Hillary and the Dems for allowing this to happen by focusing on identity politics and demonizing the white working class. I agree with you that their thought process is deplorable and we need to phase out coal. But think about how you packaged that message--for your base. And it helped galvanize the deplorables. It looks like the dems learned nothing from having their heads handed to them. You'll have my votes, but not my heart, just like 2016. You cannot ascend to meaningful power with this kind of tepid support from the unaffiliated.
5
While Clinton's remark about delorables and her failure to campaign efectively in swing states were stupid mistakes, they did not demonize the white working class.
Trump appealed to the worst in people — positions those people already held: racism, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny. It's doubtful that the campaign could have changed many of their minds.
But the campaign could have brought out more people who did not vote in the swing states.
Catering to Trump voters means accepting their bigotry. it means abandoning a platform that includes rights for minorities. That's unacceptable.
2
Approve him and install him. Elections have consequences. This is what you voted for America. Sad but true.
2
No, America voted for Obama, who nominated Merrick Garland, and Clinton, who won by three million votes.
Mitch McConnell and the Electoral College rejected Garland and Clinton.
4
All Presidents, behaving like drunken drivers who constantly over correcting their steering, nominate SCOTUS judges who they hope will over correct for twhat the POTUS & his party believes is the horros of their political opposition's appointments.
A well thought out POTUS would appoint centrist judges, and to date, only President Obama has attempted this in his attempt with Judge Garland. . .a reliable centrist.
USA now begins the cycle of extremist judicial rulings that serve only to provide sound examples of our failure.
4
garland, a centrist? nominated by obama to the supreme court. nominated by clinton to the circuit court. are you kidding? he was a liberal pick to fill conservative scalia's seat. I agree, they should all be centrists but the politicians have hijacked and politicized the court and made it their own tool.
We should we favor centrist Justices?
It's liberal Justices who stand up for working people rather than the plutocracy.
There is no halfway point between the rights of the working class and the predations of the rich.
1
This is why all the Bernie supporters who didn't vote for Hilary in the general election in 2016 should hang their heads in shame.
I know Hilary wasn't perfect. But I knew this wound happen - that Trump would pick right-wing ideologies to serve on the Supreme Court for decades.
That's why evangelical Republicans held their noses and voted for Trump. They knew he had the power to change the court for decades.
My only hope is Trump loses in 2020 and Ginsberg stays in great health !!
7
Another Harvard/Yale grad. Another judge from the aristocracy.
Aristocrats giving deference to other aristocrats. That's the Supreme Court and the legal system in a nutshell. If you aren't high-born you will never get a fair-shake in an American courtroom.
14
Any Justice pick Trump made was going to meet his sole criterion, that is, does the nominee believe the POTUS is above The Rule of Law? Kavanaugh has indicated as much in his past comments on the topic. Unless, of course, the POTUS is Bill Clinton.
2
I had to laugh out loud when I heard that Trump wanted any pick of his to be "ivy league." This from a cheap hood from Queens who appears to have slept through whatever classes he attended while a student. Farce and fraud follows the man like a foul odor.
2
I don't know Kavanaugh, but I find it very disturbing that he begin his acceptance of the nomination by stroking Trump's ego like the typical Trump lackey. Really, what is the point of this absurd exaggeration of Trump as the most thorough POTUS ever, other than as pro-Trump propaganda?
"KAVANAUGH:
Mr. President, thank you. Throughout this process, I have witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination."
This comment is bad judgment:
He's either sucking up to the Executive Branch unnecessarily, or he was forced to open with this as a favor as part of the qualification to be nominated.
This cannot bode well.
13
John from San Francisco in the highest picked comment here says, "Placing Kavanagh on the Supreme Court means that the Court will be extremely conservative for at least 10 years, more likely 20. "
No, John, WE THE PEOPLE must DEMAND that the new Socially Conscious lawmakers we elect this November and in 2020 add two or three new justices to OUR U.S. Supreme Court and pack it with progressive/liberal judges - WOMEN.
WE must also DEMAND term limits for justices - retroactive.
WE must DEMAND that OUR elected officials and governmental agency heads preserve/restore true democracy in OUR United States - social and economic equity for all.
NOW is the time. It may be the only time for centuries if the Robber Baron/radical religionists have their way.
10
Absolutely!
1
You're living in a dream world.
Democrats need to vote for Democrats, not stay home and pout like some of them did in 2016 when they stayed home in protest didn't vote for Clinton because they preferred Sanders.
The rules of the game are clear and Trump and his supporters knew the stakes. That's why they and other conservatives voted for him even though many of them probably hate Trump.
Presidential elections are all about Supreme Court nominees and conservations get it.
Democrats need to wake up !!!!
Long after Trump is dead and white supremacists are making pilgrimages to lay laurel wreaths on his grave, Justice Kavanaugh will be tirelessly working to destroy the lives and liberties of the poor and middle classes and to cement the primacy of corporatist oligarchic power.
16
I think Nixon said it best when he said, 'the people have a right to know if their president or representative is a crook', or the such.
There is no legal basis for a criminal to command our armed forces. Congress and the Judiciary would be fools to let the Executive Branch have that much power.....as would we.
10
A political hack,a Republican fixer, chosen by Trump solely to protect himself and the Trump Crime Family from Mueller and impeachment.
11
Conservatives already had a strangulation hold on this court. I don't expect much to change.
3
Exactly. Two conservatives have been replaced by two conservatives. The idea that Kennedy was a moderate swing-voter has been overplayed. He may have been more of a libertarian on social issues, but he was far from moderate. The court really hasn't shifted any direction at all.
2
Be fair. Democrats have also tinkered with the political leanings of the highest court. Just as Democrats are also guilty of gerrymandering voting districts to protect their control of liberal states.
It's wrong with either side does it.
Three days ago Trump didn’t know who Kavanaugh even was . He probably still don’t know his stand in issues and really doesn’t care either
6
So the authors are now fanning concern about a right-leaning SCOTUS with the addition of a moderate conservative justice. This and the Gorsuch nomination balance the two socialist regressive justices Obama appointed.
This is to all the Socialist/Regressives who thought that Liberals were going to be in power forever: ROFL
7
Trump is terrified by the Mueller probe. Trump tweets against it again just now. Kavanaugh has a stated position that a sitting president is un touchable; no prosecution; no testifying; nothing .That is why Trump picked Kavenaugh; to protect himself. Trump praised Putin again now; attacking allies and Americans. Wake up America; Trump sold out America to Russia. Vote out GOP to save America. Ray Sipe
11
What "math"..."numbers" underlie the graph on the front page? Women's rights, environmental safety, climate change and workplace fairness gets a -0.75? Stripping those rights is a +1.2. X = huh? Y = You're kidding! This pseudo "thinking" is what? NYT forced "even-handedness" so y'all aint seen to be too liberal? We should all be afraid....VERY AFRAID!! To infinity and beyond, NYT!
It's interesting to note that the "original intent" of the Constitution's framers for making Supreme Court justices lifetime appointments was to insulate that Court and its members from political influence. The Republicans have unceremoniously turned that "original intent" (get the irony?) on its head to insulate the Supreme Court from anything but (conservative) political influence. Similarly, the framers' intent for the Electoral College also has been subverted by elevating the candidate of the political minority over the majority twice in the last sixteen years. Rather than a set of respected principles, the Constitution in increasing measure seems to be becoming a tool -- a cudgel, some might say -- for imposing a retrograde political ideology on the country and its citizens.
7
John, you totally nailed it.
Let's hope a conservative Court doesn't attempt an end-run on the Constitution as the liberal Court did, beginning in the 60's. The Court's job is not to legislate from the bench. As the Court leans to the right...I hope they interpret the Constitution...not try and rewrite it.
7
The NYT article, “If the Supreme Court is nakedly political, can it be just?” sheds alarming light on just how political SCOTUS has become. If the public believes that the Supreme Court has become merely a rubber stamp of its majority‘s party agenda, with impartial justice gone, that will dangerously entrench political tribalism with no potential relief to the minority side. SC justices serve for life. As the article points out, the blindfold is off lady justice and she has her political finger on the scale. If RBG steps down, with Trump still enjoying Republican control, his next Federalist justice will cement decades of hard right control of our lives. Roe v. Wade will either be overturned, or so shredded that it’s meaningless. That may happen with the current 5-4, but 6-3 would invite a withering corporate and religious power grab. Trump is already hard at work packing the lower courts. Environmental protections, civil rights, labor rights, voting rights, consumer rights, affordable healthcare, etc etc etc. will be in great jepordy. The damage the Trump presidency is doing, nationally and internationally, has me truly scared for my country and democracy in general. 2018 and 2020 may be decisive.
1
I believe the SCOTUS has lost its legitimacy as an impartial arbitrator and "defender of the Constitution. Like everything else, it has become deeply divided and way too politicized. I will never get over being angry about the seat stolen from Merrick Garland, or the fact that the president doing the appointing, at least to some extent, seems illegitimate and is still under investigation.
4
Absolutely.
1
I am pleased with this choice.
Trump’s approved list included ONLY “reliable” right-wing, politically conservative, anti-union/anti-worker/pro-corporation.
I’m sure Kavanaugh fits right in there and I’m sure I won’t like his decisions.
Only bright light - he wasn’t on McConnell’s short list and it might make McConnell’s job harder. Anything that does that makes me happy. Very small victory but that’s all we get in the age of Trump.
This pick for the Supreme Court should be dealt with same diligence as in any more normal times. But please let's debate whether the president should meet alone with Putin. This seems to be far more critical in scope and consequence than this standard conservative justice appointment. We seem to be letting authoritarianism slip into being.
4
You are so right. I was reading the Constitution this morning, an enjoyable read by the way, and it gives the president very broad powers. At also talks at length about impeachment of the president. The founding father were not naive to think a man given so much power would use it for good. Contrary to what is often heard, the Emollient clause appears quite prominently and is mentioned more than once. No mention of statue limitation.
3
As Kavanaugh defended himself by pointing out how so many people in his life are women, I wonder if he will offer to resign if he votes to restrict abortion rights and one of those women goes to a place where abortion is still legal and has one.
We've had a long history of restricting abortion rights for poor and middle class women while having no problem about still making it available for the affluent.
2
Dems should be relatively OK with this pick. Some Oprah Winfrey social justice warrior was never going to be nominated, and probably never should be. But Kavanaugh is a case law, by the book judge. Meaning he will only overturn Roe v. Wade if the SCOTUS Justices at the time grossly misinterpreted written law and historical case law. That is highly unlikely.
8
He's as conservative as Thomas, and changed his opinion on presidential indictments when Bush replaced Clinton. Sure, by the book
3
Yes he said this in 2009 in retrospect to Clinton's impeachment, saying that it was a mistake and detracted Clinton's focus away from his job. He could have focused on catching Osama bin Laden. This was in 2009 before Trump Presidency was on anyone's mind. But one SCOTUS Justice can't change the law on impeachment, only Congress can. So stop fear mongering. Impeachment law exists until Congress changes it.
There is too much being made out of new SC judge's appointment. Initially ,yes, the person may stick to his obligations to the one's who appoint him. But as the time passes the person will meltdown and will experience the bigger spirit above us all to make his decisions and follow as well as the rules and laws written in the constitutions of the country. There is soul within us all which eventually will like to achieve its purity behind our flesh.
2
There was already a "conservative hold" on the Court. Kavanaugh will change little. On occasion, he and Roberts in particular may surprise, but Kennedy routinely sided with the conservative majority. He is not replacing Ginsberg, who should have retired eight years ago.
4
By virtue of Trump being so unpopular as president ... and for very good reason ... it was fairly clear that no matter whom he recommended for the Court that that person would be objected to out-of-hand by many, especially “liberals.” It’s the way of the simplistic, this-or-that country we’ve seemingly mostly become. While almost anyone can see the undesirability of a politized Court, yet this is what’s promoted presently more than ever, especially through the media. One may not prefer Kavanaugh’s religion, politics, etc., but how particularly these cause him to be an incompetent judge is not made clear. In fact, he appears to be an extremely competent judge. Those who claim the Court is already so politically polarized to affect inappropriately even more its decisions might want to reconcile this with the fact that most of the time (about 80%) decisions have been unanimous or close-to-unanimous. Judge Kavanaugh deserves to be treated fairly, especially considering the country we strive to be. Importantly in this regard, the outrageously unfair treatment previously of Judge Garland for appointment to the Court should not influence this at all. That disgrace rests with the Senate Majority leadership at that time.
3
All of you celebrating that a majority Catholic SCOTUS will overturn Roe wait until a death penalty case comes before the Supreme Court, you will then realize the right to execute prisoners is likely in jeopardy.
More Catholics are against the death penalty than they are anti-abortion.
3
I'm still struggling to reconcile how someone who worked with Ken Starr on the five year special investigation into Bill Clinton came to write an opinion that a sitting president should not be bothered with civil or criminal investigations.
3
Democrats need to pick their battles and this is one not worth fighting, because it's not a fight we can win. In fact, dragging this out may well do more harm than good for the Dems.
I think overturning Roe v Wade is a long shot and not something that is on the SCOTUS agenda - even a conservative leaning one. A majority of the American people support Roe v Wade's decision, and any move to overturn this will have major repercussions all over the nation, potentially leading to the biggest riots and protests this nation has ever seen. SCOTUS does not want blood on their hands and may simply refuse to hear cases or hand down decisions that may bring Roe V Wade down.
Unions are dead. Gay marriage is here to stay, but there probably will be some limits or reversals when it comes to some LGBT rights. This is the main area I see potentially threatened and where the defenses need to be ready for a tussle.
3
If Democrats want to hold onto their base they had better oppose this nomination, and vociferously.
The voters have shown time and again that they disapprove of Democrats who refuse to fight.
Some lessons are never learned.
Imagine what the Court will look like if Ginsberg and Thomas go during the Trump years.
2
As ever, this nomination needs to be seen through the prism that Trump sees it. Trump's question to himself is always: 'what would be best for me?' Kavanaugh is the only potential nominee who has publicly stated that he does not believe a sitting President can be indicted. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.
1
"Confirmation Would Create Conservative Hold on the Court" Really? In case the Times failed to notice, radical conservatives have held the Court for approximately the last 20 years. "Bush v. Gore" was the most overtly political and right wing decision rendered by the Supreme Court and it decided the election of 2000 and gave us George Bush and the Iraq War.
Ever since that time, the Court's conception of justice and the rights of working people have resembled a drunk wandering the path of someone so intoxicated he/she was unable to find the way home. The radicals on the Court have obliterated voting rights, labor rights and civil rights. We can only sadly wait to see what is next.
4
Clintonian hubris is the gift that keeps on giving if you are a conservative. It would be really nice if the Democratic Party could work on some long-term planning like the Koch Brothers and the Federalist Society. Instead we fall into their traps time and time again. We need to have an action plan ready in the off chance we control the levers of power in the next 50 years. Some leadership in this direction would be nice, some real “organizing for action”.
2
So trump is trying to put someone in who thinks the President should be exempt from the laws of our land???? I do not think Americans are going to stand for any derailment of Mueller's investigation, nor do I think they agree with this point of view.
3
The horse is long out of the barn for the Supreme Court. In case anyone hasn't noticed, the court is primarily an ideological body, where liberals say the law is one thing and conservatives another. If these are the brightest legal minds, you'd think they wouldn't be in disagreement SO often about that the law says, right? And amazing that they always disagree in the same way. Hmm, why is that?...
It's not about strict constructionism. If conservative justices actually practiced this we would be in great shape, since money obviously is not speech - or I'd be rich!
4
Has anyone noticed?
None of these people are doing this:
“to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. . . “
10
Elections have consequences. Democrats had their turn over the last 8 years and will have another turn in 20 years. Until then, please respect the office of the President.
5
Like McConnell? No, it's hard ball now and forever.
10
Did you notice Brett Kavanaugh’s nonverbals with regard to his wife, during the presentation last night?
The family steps onto the platform. Brett Kavanaugh puts his arms on the shoulders of the two daughters as his wife (Ashley) is the last to step up. (Why was she placed last?) She looks down, sees his arm around the elder girl, and moves closer so her husband can put that arm around her (Ashley). Brett tightens his arm around his daughter, and Ashley looks uncomfortable for just an instant, then realizes cameras are on all of them, and assumes a plastic smile.
Then, as they’re leaving, Ashley tries to hold Brett’s hand -- but he moves his hand away and again reaches for the elder daughter's shoulder.
Those calculated moves spoke volumes about Brett Kavanaugh’s character.
Whatever their problem (perhaps it's chronic, perhaps recent; maybe Ashley wanted Brett to decline the nomination), Ashley Kavanaugh didn't deserve that nonverbal slap in the face.
The best gift a father can give his children is to truly love their mother, and to demonstrate that.
Also, when someone shows you their true self, believe them the first time.
For all of the Bernie bros, Jill Stein voters, and others who sat out the 2016 presidential election, these words from the prophet Hosea seem most apt today:
"They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."
Elections have consequences.
4
If Kavanaugh fails to respect “stare decisis ” on Roe, that will give liberals the right to overturn a plethora of “landmark” conservative decisions such as “citizens united”, voter suppression, labor union attacks, corporatism, etc., right to own guns (Heller) when liberals gain control of the court again. Justice Thomas might not be that far from retiring.
1
The conservative movement has both a social agenda and an economic agenda. But I believe that the social agenda doesn't matter to the conservative leadership. Instead, they use the social agenda to rally the evangelicals on the one hand, and to throw a bone to the liberals on the other. Over the past decades, they've given ground on the social agenda while tightening their grip on the economic agenda. This could be the main driver of wealth disparity.
While social issues matter greatly to the rest of us, what really matters to the conservative leadership is control of the economy. They want and are getting more corporate-friendly laws and court decisions, allowing them to tighten their grip on the economy, while they distract us with social issues. They gain this advantage because we care about those issues and they don't.
Here we go again. Everyone is talking about Roe v. Wade and LGBT rights. They'll grill Kavanaugh on those issues, he'll say some things to make it sound like he's flexible but leans rightward, and when he gets in, he'll give the store to big business.
Keep your eyes on the ball. They need to grill him on his financial and corporate decisions and views too, or he'll sneak in under the radar and give away what's left of our economic rights.
6
In this incredible country of increasing diversity, the seedbed for creativity and growth, the Republican Party has calcified into a family tree with few branches. Looks like a party of “clones “. Prolly not a good sign for their future.
2
Trying really hard to make the USSC a rubber stamp for his unethical, criminal, and immoral acts. When a judge can say for all intents and purposes that the President is above the law, then it's official that we now have a dictatorship.
2
It's just crazy, this guy should be in prison, not appointing justices to the Supreme Court.
7
Trump, who is under criminal investigation for possible treasonous activities.
He won the election with the help of Russia and without winning the popular vote. He is seemingly carrying out Putin’s agenda by destroying relationships with our allies and weakening NATO. And now gets to shape the Supreme Court for the next 25 years or more while Obama was denied a pick because we were in an “election year”?
Is this the world we now live in?
5
Amazing how it is pointed out that 3 out of 4 are Catholics. If this were done with any other religion there would be outrage and people would be forced to resign.
3
It's not like Catholics make up 3/4 of this country. And I say this as an ex-Catholic
Their religion is a point of discussion because of the way it influences their votes in favor of religion.
Ginsberg's Judaism has never influenced hers.
This is a done deal. I hope the Democrats don’t waste a lot of time and energy putting up more than a nominal fight. Vote against him ....and let those Senators from red states do what they must. Control of the Senate is the real fight. That way the next nominee will be acceptable. Hang in there RBG!
4
Trump brought fascism to the U.S.
Kavanaugh's confirmation would nurture it, not help negate it.
3
The NYT didn't print this thought when I brought it up recently, but I'm going to keep trying. Trump will be determined to be not legally president. Trump was helped by a foreign government and will ultimately be removed and charged with crimes. Any and all of his actions are illegal and must be reversed upon his removal from office. Who cares who he nominated, Gorsuch and this recent choice are all Manchurian Candidates and will ultimately be removed. If this criminal coup stands over time, the US ceases to exist and will become a world pariah. I will side with the truth and justice for all, not these hoodlums.
Republicans need to let Leftists bludgeon this moderate. The "hate" on the Left and the identity politics and destruction that liberalism has come to stand for needs to be sussed and this guy needs to get flushed prior to the mid-term elections so that a true conservative can be nominated.
Moderate? He's got the Federalist Society stamp of approval. He wouldn't be on their list of they weren't sure he wasn't going to vote lockstep with the GOP's desires.
2
The world is over. R v W is done. The 19th amendment will be repealed. The 14th is going away too. Segregation will be enforced. Robber Barons will pay no taxes. Box cars will be filled. Store windows smashed. The Coliseum will be restarted. One side is great, intelligent, glorious. The other evil, stupid, vapid. We know everything. They know nothing. If only there was a coalition of Barack, Bill, Hillary, JFK, Teddy, RBG the world would be perfect. Only happiness, joy, freedom, and Starbucks.
3
These so called originalists and constitution upholding law experts looking so happy because they got the ultimate job despite the fact their party leader is destroying the norms and decencies of the country and ultimately going against the Constitution quite frequently.
If Gorsuch and Kavanaugh truly cared about law and constitution, they should've refused the job until at least Garland got his fair hearing.
But no. They'll gladly accept it. What law and order? What constitution are they really upholding. Shame on them really.
7
It doesn't sound like he's the pro-life abortion hawk liberals were fearing. He's conservative but not overly so. Democratic senators will of course make a show of fear-mongering in front of the cameras to further their own political careers, but there should probably be a collective sigh of relief
5
Outrageous. Another Yale Law grad. Discrimination against Harvard just doesn't end.
4
To all those who didn't vote in 2016; who swallowed the nonsense that Hillary was "just as bad"; to those who refused to hold their noses and vote for her; for the my-way-or-the-highway "Bernie bros"; for the pie-in-the-sky Jill Stein voters: I hope you're happy with your vote, because this is what you essentially voted for when you were in the ballot booth. Oh no, don't whine and protest and say that you didn't, that you were voting third-party or voting for a revolution or striking a blow for justice or your conscience or whatever it was you thought you were doing, clothed in smugness and high moral principles. You voted for Trump, his policies, his incompetent, corrupt, and dangerous people and the things they want to implement that will set this country back many years and, as of today, you voted to give a lying reality show host and sleazy real estate mogul with the attention span of a gnat and the convictions of a criminal the right to nominate someone to the Supreme Court, an action that could very well reverberate for decades to come. So thanks a lot, all of you. You stood up to be counted with the rabid "MAGA" crew and the pusillanimous Republican party who flocked to the tent erected by this barking huckster. Tell me, was it worth it? Was your hatred of Hillary Clinton, your post-Bernie temper tantrums, or your need to carry a torch for Jill Stein worth this? Take time to think about your answer. I'll wager you'll be explaining yourselves for years to come.
6
Lindsay,
I agree with your conclusions and agree Hillary was the only logical choice. However you fail to also blame the Democrats who keep recycling legacy politicians as if they are royalty that automatically become candidates based on being related to past politicians. Hillary had just enough scandals between Bill and herself to create doubt, ran a horrible campaign by going into the mud with Trump, and lost by playing on his turf. Even with Russia helping Trump, she should have won by a landslide if she took the higher ground. People who voted for others as a protest have regrets but their should be no one with more regrets than Hillary.
2
Even if I detest Trump, and I am not happy with this choice, I must confess ... I was expecting some nutcase, much worse than this guy.
He is conservative and right wing, but he is not a super awful choice.
3
I'm just grateful he didn't pick the avid hunter. That's all we need, another Supreme Court justice who loves nothing more than shooting a gun in his spare time, without a thought for the innocent lives being destroyed. Scalia was one of those heartless monsters.
3
Mark and Maggie, I'm sorry to be bringing up this reality while the "Times" is having such fun trying to analyze, diagnose, and handicap this last change to the unSupreme Court.
However, IMHO neither the Court, the Congress, nor Emperor Trump will matter a twit to what is coming and going to happen in America --- that vote, now that all three branches of our former government (and country) are in control of the Disguised Global Capitalist Empire (which inarguably we are in under our first true Emperor, Emperor Trump) 'we the American people' will grasp the reins in of our intended people's democratic government (under consent of the governed) in the completion of the First American "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin du Rivage] by simply, peacefully, by firing a shout-out loudly, publicly, 'in the streets', but totally non-violently a "Shout (not shot) heard round the world" to complete the unfinished American "Revolution Against Empire" begun so propitiously 242 years ago with another peaceful Declaration of Independence from Empire in order to ignite this essential Second American people's peaceful and patriotic Political/economic and social(ist) "Revolution Against Empire" to complete the real American Dream of liberty, democracy, equality, justice, over Empire which Pat would have shouted-out if Tom had taken the Paine to edit his rallying cry: "Give Us Liberty (over Empire) or Give Us Death".
Liberty, democracy, equality & justice
Over
Violent (dual Vichy-party)
Empire
1
First Trump made the White House a worldwide joke. Then he made the U.S.A.'s credibility a worldwide joke, as well as did congress for aiding and abetting his narcissism. And now he's setting up the Supreme Court to have all the reliability of the Scarecrow's kangaroo court from the Batman "Dark Night Rises" film. Will someone in a position of authority please do something before it is unsalvageable (Mr Mueller)?
3
Very appropriate that Edwin Meese was there. He succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to uphold long prison sentences for private, consensual, adult love-making -- if the participants were the same sex -- in the Bowers case. Fortunately it was later overturned by Justices upholding freedom and liberty. The enemies of freedom and liberty are ascendant once again.
2
It is now for sure a given that in the near future what remains of the United States will:
1. Have a self proclaimed King - King Trump for life.
2. Lose freedom of the press.
3. Criminalize abortion by a doctorl.
4. Criminalize any woman obtaining an abortion and subject her to arrest and imprisonment.
5. Criminalize gay unions will be illegal.
6. Criminalize sexual conduct between gay people.
7. Legalize unlimited stealing and swindling by the king.
This is the end of the noble American experiment with democratic government.
3
It wasn't that noble of an experiment to begin with.
Senators should ask Judge Kavanaugh the following questions:
• “When you look at the Constitution, do you see words on parchment or penumbras?
• “Do you think Article V of the Constitution is no longer needed?”
In nature, a “penumbra” is the partially shaded outer region of the shadow cast by an opaque object. The shadows cast by sun or moon during eclipses have penumbras. But In U.S. constitutional law, the term “penumbra” has come to refer to a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965,) Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas famously argued that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” (I’m not making this up.) For example, a woman’s right to an abortion is a penumbra derived, by implication, from the “right to privacy,” which is itself a penumbra derived from the 14th Amendment’s “Due Process Claus.”
Why do we need Article V, which describes the amendment process, if the Supreme Court can derive implicit rights from penumbras? A nominee who thinks we still need Article V obvious has no faculty for perceiving penumbras.
1
This is a very low standard of reporting for the NYT. The article is 90% about the politics of his nomination and 10% on his biography--neither of which effect my opinion of him. I expect the NYT to give me an honest, well rounded picture of the nominee's voting record in order to help me assess how he will vote on issues that are important to me.
3
Agreed. And the death of serious journalism is happening hand in hand with the death of our democracy. It's not a coincidence.
In the wisdom of the "DEMOS" we now will have a SCOTUS consisting of six catholics. Maybe the Pope will declare what the law is, despite our Constitution and many trumpites will live to regret the election of DJT.
All things considered, I'd take the current pope over anyone in the GOP (and quite a few of the Democrats) He seems to actually care about the common people and the state of the environment.
So it is BK - eh? Brett Kavanaugh, that is. Or is it the acronym for another BK - Bush and Ken Starr, whom he worked for. He made sure Gore had bitten the dust in the Bush V. Gore FL recount case of 2000. Grapevine also has it he castigated John Roberts for casting his final vote in favor of individual mandate as a form of tax.
And abortion issues? It may still be on tenterhooks, to say the least. And his (ultra)conservative values? Probably may not be a Brobdingnagian bother, hopefully, or he may just not be ultra-conservative after all. And this we got to see, if he will be confirmed, which may not be that hard, anyways. One does feel the jitters about his pseudo-dogmatic opinion about the relative unimpeachability of the POTUS. We shall see won't? Alan Dershowitz will become a pouncing panther, as he believes the POTUS can be first subpoenaed before a grand jury for a deposing, and then can be impeached, if the evidences are cast iron.
The legal experts will, sure as heck, have a field day, analyzing his actions of penning his verdicts and opinions as an esteemed member of SCOTUS. So be it.
No diversity. Another Catholic, another Yale/Harvard Law grad.
4
Democrats should be wise to not let themselves lose electoral votes over Senate opposition to Kavanaugh.
5
The U.S. has always been a fundamentally socially conservative country. Democrats have only themselves to blame for drum-beating every possible far-left-wing group and issue while ignoring the true power of the Presidency, its ability to interpret the Constitution and craft law as a result. The Court as it is being shaped would support Nero, except for the fact it's the Democrats who fiddle while the Republic burns.
1
This issue, as in so many nowadays, depends on an informed electorate. Unfortunately, they are not enough in key areas of the country that matter. Whether the environment, immigration, unions, etc. It boils down to One man, one vote, but where you vote is the key.
2
It will be nice to see the Republicans doing their jobs for once. A shame for our democracy they didn't want to do it when Obama was our President and bring his nominee up for a vote. History will remember you, Mitch McConnell, for what you did to our country. May the voters remember it on Election Day.
3
Clearly, should the Mueller investigation culminate in a case that reaches the Supreme Court, this guy must recuse himself as have been specifically picked by a President known to be a target of the investigation: otherwise, the implication that he was specifically chosen for his vote exonerating the President will set precedents too dangerous to allow.
2
How did a man elected to represent the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky end up with the power to put us in this place?? Bringing to the floor of the Senate only what he determines is worthy in his own opinion has impacted this nation as a whole. this just seems so very wrong!
4
Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing will be high drama in every sense of the phrase. It will test Democratic mettle and reveal whether these proponents of civil rights have the backbone, finally!, to dig in, without compromise, for a long battle of conscience against Trump, McConnell, and their good ol' boys of the White Male Club.
It will also reveal the conscience of self-described women's-rights proponents, Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, as well as a few other decent Republicans who hold the keys to defeating Kavanaugh.
And it will reveal volumes about Kavanaugh, including whether he'll be able to repel the thousands of darts Democrats throw his way.
1
I have misgivings about this judge in which it appears his political bent is shaped by the conservative extremists, the Kochs, and Fox "news".
Trump, in nominating this judge, may now have two judges in his pocket and those judges may feel beholden to Trump and act at his behest.
Well America, this is the beginning of a despotic regime.
1
The Democrats will hurt only themselves with their caterwauling and rage. It is fairly certain that Kavanaugh will be confirmed. The Republicans have the will and the votes and the strategy to get him on the Supreme Court, and the Dems would be wise to consider it a fait accompli. They can whip up to froth their base with hyperbole and absurd claims, but that is wearing pretty thin with most Americans these days. They'd be better served worrying about Trump being re-elected in 2020--especially against a Sanders/Warren nomination. Trump's base is solid, confident, and immensely pleased with him. They will turn out again in 2020.
5
surely Kavanaugh, a "conservative" and "regulation skeptic", wouldn't be in favor of government regulation of womens' pregnant bodies, who marries which gender and other social issues that may arise ?
1
I do not understand the use of the label “conservative” for people like Kavanaugh whose public record is extremely, even radical, right-wing, promoting government control over individual choices, unfettered private-sector depredation of the environment and natural resources, and expansion of executive power in the federal government.
2
I don't care if Trump nominates the reincarnation of William O. Douglas or Thurgood Marshall. The Senate must not confirm anyone nominated by this President, as this President has no respect for law or the judiciary.
3
Genius. Yes!
If only democrats had protested gerrymandering with the same vigor they have protested for illegal immigrants. Voters disenfranchised and elections basically rigged but the democrats were silent while republicans led stealth attacks.
I never saw Schumer shed a tear over that or a threatened shutdown of the government on something so essential. In stead too many democrats were silent because they were trying to keep seats for some of their corrupt members. A perfect example is Menendez who should have been booted if the democrats wanted any credibility. President Obama tried to get rid of him and told the DNC they needed change but it fell on deaf ears.
The democrats are just as responsible for Kavanaugh most likely sitting on the Supreme Court as the republicans.
The nomination of Judge Kavanaugh is news, and is important, but no matter who Trump chose the outcomes are pretty defined. Any of the judges in the final running would be likely to overturn Roe, no matter how they weasel around any direct answer regarding that question in the hearings... and they *will* weasel around that question. And most other questions regarding how they will approach decisions that affect millions of Americans and that many Americans have considered settled law for generations. Conservatives are constantly upset about "activist judges" -- except when those activist decisions are favoring them. Of course, conservative hypocrisy is nothing new.
It is very important not to take our focus off the real criminal element at work today - Trump. Trump continues to forment Trump Tariff Trade War, Trump continues to self-deal, and ignores ethical lapses in his Cabinet and his family. Trump continues to undermine our allies and kiss up to autocrats and dictators. Trump continues to erode the prestige and international standing of the United States. Trump continues to attack our justice system and Trump continues to evade and obstruct investigation into his campaign activities, his violations of the Emoluments clause, and his family's ongoing monetization of their government positions. With all the orchestrated distraction of Kavanaugh's nomination, we must not lose focus on Trump's venality, Trump's mendacity, and Trump's criminal deprivations.
3
Coughlin, McCarthy, Buchanan, Carr, O'Reilly, Hannity, Kavanaugh, Dolan - a long line of quislings for colonial power going back hundreds of years. Some fight the oppressor. Others join and become their handmaidens to survive and prosper by their betrayal.
With Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court, it is a very good time to take a close look at the role beliefs play in our lives. Most of the unnecessary suffering and deaths of humans can be traced back to beliefs of one form or another, and yet beliefs are still considered necessary and good. They are neither. With Kavanaugh on the court, we will have the opportunity to witness first hand the devastating effects of beliefs in our political system. When we finally program the human mind in a computer, we will have proof of the negative influence of beliefs on a brain programmed to survive and then tricked about what is supposed to survive.
See: RevolutionOfReason.com
1
The prevalent thought that one's religion shouldn't matter when choosing a nominee, or voting for a politician is wishful thinking. It does matter. We have way too many Catholics in SCOTUS.
One liberal Catholic, true, but they are rare!
1
Ignoring Mitch McConnell's gross conduct regarding filling vacant SC seats for a moment, as repulsed and worried as I am as the SC becomes even more entrenched in authoritarian right-wing conservative thinking, I would have some tolerance for the choice if I felt the US President actually agreed with his choices philosophically. But there is no doubt at all that Donald Trump doesn't make decisions based on any political philosophy. Trump holds no beliefs other than that he world must bow down to him and his declared greatness. If anything, Trump likely does not agree with Kavanaugh in any objective sense (I really wish, for example, that the press would uncover what are no doubt multiple abortions procured by Trump or by women impregnated by Trump); even his "agreeing" with him on Obamacare is mere personal petulance stemming from a personal and egoistic grievance against one man, Barack Obama. Trump's whole life seems about getting back at people he believes spurned him, offended him, insulted him, said "no" to him...And now we have his obsession with crushing the Mueller investigation at any cost, and THAT is why he nominated Kavanaugh, because Kavanaugh wrote that presidents should be immune from even investigations into both civil and criminal infractions. That is the only reason Trump nominated him. Trump really is turning this country into a despotic country, where everything becomes about him and everyone protecting him or feeding his ego. I'm disgusted.
3
He was chosen by trump, that's all I need to know that he is not a good nominee.
2
The Supreme Court is, or was, a highly esteemed institution. I would think it would be demeaning to be chosen for a spot on that court solely because you will vote the way the president wants you to.
Fantastic pick, he was the best of the bunch, solid conservative it will uphold the Constitution!
3
The Republicans have let the Country down, a Jesuit! How can he claim "an open mind" when he was brought up on dogma. Where is the separation of Church and State?.
Where is the Southern and Western outrage? K's opinion is that the President has the civil immunity befitting the Pope.
1
I am an independent that votes for people more so than party. Having said that, I tend to be liberal in my opinions. My disgust is that the Democratic party has failed to put together any cohesive agenda/plan that gives me confidence that the Trump tide can be reversed any time soon. Where was the battle when Obama was denied his candidate for Supreme Court? Now the Democrats want to fight when they have almost no chance of winning? I get texts everyday from the Democrats asking for donations based on our mutual disgust for Trumps policies but each battle seems to be devoid of a master plan and simply a knee jerk response to the latest calamity. It's not like no one could see that Kennedy would be retiring soon. Why does it seem they were caught by surprise? I hope I am wrong and look to the Democrats to convince me otherwise.
6
Another celebrant of the status quo elevated to the rank of cheerleader for America's moneyed conservative minority. The operational question is not if he will direct brute political force to reduce and limit human and civil rights of the rest of us, but when.
Some citizens in groups with the most to fear may be wondering who will be first. The first will probably be the ones whose denial of legal protection by courts will transfer more wealth from those with less to those with more.
These last two years have created a life-time of effort and goals for the recently-matured generation and progressive leaders who will have to step up to restore American Democracy.
3
"The country loses when the President’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution." - Brett Kavanaugh He wants the president free from any investigations and litigation while in office.
Doesn't this put the president above the law?
3
Has the time arrived to elect Supreme Court judges via general public voting? Probably, Yes.
2
No. The general public put Trump in office.
1
No, that would be a disaster! While theoretically anyone could be a decent President, it takes a special type to be a Supreme Court justice, and it simply can't be a popularity contest. You'd have an entire Court filled with celebrity Trumps and Oprahs and god knows what other unqualified fools. Most ordinary voters don't understand the complexities of the Supreme Court and the law in general, and would have no idea how to choose a good candidate.
2
We routinely do that in other lower courts. BTW, selecting Supreme Court judges is already a popular contest where only a section of vested interest have the power- the ruling party who might be have been elected by majority vote and/or those who have vested interest to vote for a substandard judge.
Selection of Supreme Court judge has become a mockery and on the mercy of President and the majority of senators who might not be working at the best interest of the people and the nation. It became something like election of Senators before they were been elected by general vote.
Good pick for Trump, terrible pick for America. If you have an employer, have business with a financial institution, want access to healthcare, don't want your freedoms restricted by the religious beliefs of others, you may discover in the coming months and years that you have suffered a loss of important rights. Meanwhile Trump's chances of successfully flouting the law have significantly improved.
3
What "freedoms" specifically do you believe the court would restrict?
3
The freedom of a fair vote (gerrymandering), the freedom of bodily autonomy (Roe), the freedom of love (Obergefell)
1
Everything considered, Kavanaugh is a competent jurist. The issue of whether or not he would be preferential to a criminal President when any one of many issues may come before him is critical to the survival of our Democracy.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, period. Sure, it may be a problem for a sitting President to be involved in a criminal obstruction, treason or collusion case, but that should be of prime importance here.
If indeed Trump is guilty of having committed high crimes (in addition to MANY lesser ones like money laundering, Emoluments violations, malfeasance of duty, human rights violations, etc.), HE MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. To allow a criminal to continue to sit as Executive and further his nefarious activities is the clearest and most present danger to our country.
If there is ANY chance that Kavanaugh would proclaim Trump above the law while he is sitting, his appointment must be stopped. I disagree vehemently with this possible view as we watch serial crimes and destruction by Trump every day of every week. His constant criminal news cycle is the worst affront to this country in its history; worse than Joe McCarthy!
In the future there will be serious issues about limiting the power of the Executive because of what Trump is doing, and Kavanaugh will undoubtedly play a part in this.
TREAD CAREFULLY and do not permit a Trump sycophant to occupy seat on the High Court - if such is deemed the case here. VETT HIM THOROUGHLY!
4
If this isn't a transparent bid to protect Trump's behind, what is? I'm sure Trump's team of advisers told him of Kavanaugh's assertion that the president should be shielded from prosecution and that was music to Trump's ears. Trump cares not a wit about Kavanaugh's credentials or rulings. He cares solely about protecting himself from the law. And let's face it, ever since Robert Bork hanged himself by answering questions candidly, the interview process with the senate judiciary committee has been reduced to the senators of the president's party lauding the candidate and throwing him softball questions while the opposition party senators grill him. The candidate smiles at the plaudits and stonewalls against the probing questions. The candidate's main objective is to avoid getting "Borked." Confirmation of Kavanaugh is inevitable and it gives Trump a carte blanche to cashier Rosenstein and Mueller. This is how our nation has devolved into a kleptocracy.
3
Worship my god.
Speak my language.
Toil at my labor.
Bear my child.
Obey me.
These are the imperatives of conquest, and the nightmare we will now live.
6
It's not Conservatism, rather suppression of human rights.
3
Progressive Democrats are as inured to dirty politics as their Republican counterparts, but they are not as good at it lately. Had they been a little less convinced of their own superiority and a little less dismissive of their opponents we might have been spared this conservative deluge. President Obama knew whereof he spoke; he just didn’t think it applied to his Party.
3
People over 70 have already seen the future America. Where are the Yippies when we need them?
3
Just think. If Hillary Clinton had been elected we would now have six liberal Supreme Court justices on the bench and that is positively frightening.
This is wonderful news for a change having two conservative justices back on the bench. I say two because in all likelihood Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed and be our next Supreme Court justice.
It is now the conservatives time to pull back on the progressive policies that the liberal justices passed in rapid succession. It was time to get back to normalcy and now it will be achieved with the assistance of President Trump's Supreme Court justices picks. Life is beautiful and this is what President Trump meant when he said he wanted to make America great again.
10
Donald Trump definitely meant what he said when he called neo-Nazis “very fine people” and mocked a war hero, a Gold Star family, a Civil Rights icon and a disabled man. I guess to unemployed Trump supporters, that’s “making America great again,” right?
1
I believe it is time to reconsider our judicial system. In downplaying the S.C. importance, Alexander Hamilton asserts that the court has "neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." He continues, stating that the "general liberty of the people" will be protected by the S.C. "so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislative and the Executive."
When a conservative judge is nominated by a conservative president, by an organization like the Federalist Society, depending on the "executive arm" for "efficacy of its judgments" is a fruitless argument--especially now that the S.C. will swing right. When someone so partisan as Trump appoints two judges (so far) to the S.C., the judiciary is no longer "truly distinct" from the president, but rather serves him, under the mask of interpreting the constitution "as written," or better yet, how Trump and conservatives see it "as written."
Perhaps Brutus had some validity when he protested Hamilton's reasoning of the judiciary. Brutus stated that "The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or control their adjudications." With a now right-leaning bench, the force of law is now the force of the conservative law, which could threaten "the general liberty of the people," not protect it.
1
“The White House will roll out an intensive campaign to sell the nominee to the Senate and the American public”
Sell to the American public? What control does the public have in the selection and nomination of a Supreme Court Judge? If it was put to a vote by the American public we would have a say but that is not the case.
What we need is an end to lifetime tenure for these Supreme Court Judges and more diversity. It is time for a change to undo the partisanship in the legal system in this country which in my view is tearing the country apart; we have enough partisanship problems in our political system. How is this country supposed to progress and move forward with the same old mindset of these judges who have demonstrated partisanship.
5
The Times and other seem to gasp at the possible seating of Kavanaugh as it would 'tilt' the court to being more conservative. As though there was something dire about the move. Yet no one ever explains why such a move would be bad. What would be wrong with a more conservative country? Lord knows we survived the big liberal push of Johnson et al.
4
This pick shouldn't be a surprise, nor unexpected. The Democrats of course realize they can put up some resistance, but most likely will not be able to stop the confirmation. One can only hope for a miracle from the other side. But the Democrats do need to keep moving forward in getting voters out for the mid terms, as there is another possibility of another Justice retiring. Justice Ginsburg is 85, and at some point it will happen, that's the appointment the democrats want to be sure stays with them. So winning back the Senate is still of vital importance. You can't control anything when you don't have the numbers. Let's have a blue tsunami in November, and not only take the Senate control back, but make trump an early lame duck. We can do this.
3
The Congress makes the laws, the President enforces the laws and the court interprets the laws. The Constitution allows the President to choose jurists to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, That should be honored by both political parties as the occupant of the White House changes over time as the pendulum swings.
The weak link in our political system right now is the Congress. They are obsessed with their own political interests and have put the important work of the country on hold while they bicker and feud with each other. This bickering has spilled over into the electorate so much so that civil discourse is almost impossible.
If the Democrats want any chance of winning elections in the future they need to have a better platform with more planks then just resist and impeachment.
8
Trump nomination of a very conservative judge should surprise no one. The court has been "conservative" for decades.
So how did we get to this point? The answer is simple. The right wing of American politics is far more than the label "conservative" implies.
While the mass media is caught up with single issues like abortion, the right has been forging a broad, long-range ideological strategy to ensure that the power of the state will be firmly in the hands of finance capital.
There will be exceptions permitted. Otherwise, the reality of a neo-fascist government might spure revolt. But exceptions don't make the rule.
The role of the court in this effort is the same as it played in the latter half of the 19th century when the country was run by banks, railroads and the captains of industry.
Labor was violently repressed, women had no role in civic life, immigrant workers were plentiful and often used as strike-breakers and non-white people were under the oppressive regime of manifest destiny, at home and abroad.
If you track this "conservative" court's record you will see that they dutifully serve the same interests, albeit with the necessary 20th century variations.
Kavanaugh's nomination will go through. But the nominating process is an opportunity to take a hard, honest look at what the steady drift to the right has brought us in American politics.
Will the Democrats seize this opportunity for truth telling? I doubt it because they are part of the problem.
5
What is the reason for fighting this nomination? It's a classic conservative choice -- nothing Trump-like about him -- and every Republican president would have approved. He isn't a radical choice...he's an expected choice....why politicize this to no end?
17
The politicization began when McConnell refused to open hearings on a nominee, a conservative nominee, that Obama nominated.
3
After the way Merrick Garland was treated, why should Democrats cooperate in any way, shape or form? Garland was a fine choice, but he wasn't good enough for the Republicans. So Kavanaugh shouldn't be good enough for the Democrats, and they should fight tooth and nail and drag this out just like the Republicans did. You reap what you sow.
1
Robert Bork went down in flames 42-58 in 1987, ushering in Kennedy in 1988, and likely planting a seed of deep seated anger that has been germinating for over a quarter of a century. In a pseudo-religious context - seed; time; faith; harvest - the under the radar effort has finally paid off. The crop has come in, and it looks to be bountiful.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was approved by, I believe, a 96 to 3 vote in 1993. That was the last time a SCOTUS nomination was non-political.
As it turns out, yes, elections do have consequences. So we find ourselves in the new normal - contentious nominations and a palpable shift to the right. So much for a government of three equal but separate parts.
6
Trump picked him for one reason only: Get out of jail free card/shut down Mueller.
Kavanaugh believes this, and said this:
"The country loses when the President’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution.”
So Kavanaugh will let him get away with it all.
7
What I have noticed about the Supreme Court is that the conservatives vote more with the way the law reads. The liberals vote for the way they want the law to read. The travel ban vote is a perfect example. They all voted no because they didn’t like the ban and Trump.
12
If Dems are so outraged why not win some elections and pack the Court? We're already well into the race to the bottom. It was called "the nuclear option" for a reason: mutually-assured destruction. There is really no reason not to pack the Court. Merrick Garland is a walking refutation that there will be any political price to pay.
Ha ha, who am I kidding? Unless there's a royal wedding that week, the media would eviscerate the Dems. Such is the catch-22 of our politics. Dems are held to standards of responsible government while GOP shifts the goalposts for every issue, and the media helpfully carries the net.
It's be nice if the Democrats pandered to their base for once rather than scolding them to woo nonexistent "swing voters", because the Democratic base at least holds political views that are majority consensus.
4
To all those who didn't think it was necessary to make the effort to vote for Hillary Clinton and to all who were taken in by Trump's con, welcome to the 40's/50's! We made a lot of progress since those days and we were just thrown back in time. On top of that, this Supreme Court pick is especially disastrous because Kavanaugh has made his intentions clear in is past writings that he will protect Trump.
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 and forced to rely on family connections/influence, one's own tribe (religion/churches included) and local mafias (political or corporate or otherwise), as we see in each and every 3rd world countries and/or under autocratic regimes, including Russia, China, India, Egypt, South Africa and many more.
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, poverty, political instability and decline in its global influence.
4
I long for the day when a Ruth Bader Ginsberg and an Antonin Scalia were confirmed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Presidents have the ability to select whomever they wish in terms of judicial philosophy. Elana Kagan and Sonia Sotomoyor are far left justices. President Obama put them on the bench and good for him. That is how it works. Trump is getting to put far right judges on the bench. Good for him. The idiotic hyperbole and hypocrisy from both sides is nauseating.
6
Thank you Bernie supporters! Your purity is keeping me snugly warm tonight! I'm a liberal Democrat and in thrall to you! As I type I'm looking at the newest White family on the Court, visions of more Jim Crow dancing in my head, and I have YOU to thank! Remember, vote in 2018- the Republicans are counting on your purity too!
4
Huh? Last I checked it was HILLARY who lost to Trump, not Bernie. He likely would have beaten Trump, had the Wasserman-Schultz elite not cheated him out of the nomination. So you can actually thank Hillary "the rust belt is in my pocket" Clinton and the rest of the corrupt Democratic Party for this outcome.
Another white male. Sigh. Not a surprise from (yes, racist) Donald Trump, but still a disappointment. He surrounds himself with white faces. Look at the photo ops, look at the rallys, look at his twitter photos, look at the vast majority of his staff. Now, two picks for the supreme court, and not just another white face, but another white male. Sad, really.
1
The very first thing Kavanaugh says, on national TV, after Trump has announced him. "I have witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary."
This about Donald "So-called judge" Trump. This about Donald "the judge is a Mexican so he can't rule fairly in my case" Trump. This about Donald "I can do whatever I want with the Justice Department" Trump. Donald doesn't-know-the-difference-between-a-judicial-decison-and-a-bill Trump.
Toady. Boot licker. Apparatchik. Henchman. Pick your descriptor. We know all we need to know about Brett Kavanaugh.
6
Look at the blather: “One of the finest and sharpest legal minds in our time”.
This can’t be the description of a reliably establishment conservative lapdog judge afflicted with “framer-itis”.
Justice Ginsberg is no spring chicken. How nuts will the left go when she goes and Trump gets another Supreme Court pick?
6
Clarence Thomas is no spring chicken either. Vote for a Democrat in 2020 and get a moderate back on the court who is no slave master to big business
2
Excellent choice. Now, Amy Coney Barrett should replace Ginsburg.
3
I wonder what the judge would do if a toxic pregnancy were to threaten the life of one of his daughters? I wonder how he would feel if one of his daughters found herself working in a factory and unable to earn a fair wage? What if one of his daughters fell in love with a Mexican man brought to the country illegally as a child? Just wondering and still hoping for the passage of the ERA NOW!!!
Kavanaugh seems to flip-flop on prosecuting a commander in chief...now! Not so much when Clinton was POTUS.
Why does the Media avoid ALL calls for Trump to release his tax returns and thus dismiss all speculation about his Russian connections?
Please! Media! Do NOT re-elect Trump again like you elected him in 2016. Just report his childish Tweets...nothing else! No coverage of his circus tent shows and white rallies!
8
Amen. How can this liar be allowed to decide our fate while under investigation by Mueller? New York Times: start the loud drumbeat to demand the tax return be released. Make the liar painfully aware that there is no “failing” in The New York Times. It’s now or never.
2
A coup of one third of our government was pulled off without a shot,general strike or so much as a word by our cowards in Democratic leadership. It's almost like they are being paid to shut up and act dumb.
2
“...Senator John McCain’s absence because of his brain cancer reduces it to 50 seats...”
John McCain, in political office since 1983, can’t perform his job. He refuses to resign. He continues to receive a paycheck.
The peopled Arizona deserve better. They deserve to be represented.
The 25th amendment needs to apply to all three branches.
2
Oh, just kill me now. I will not be alive to see a humanist Supreme Court that puts the rights of individual Americans ahead of corporations, institutions and fundamental Christianity.
4
Pardon my sincerity but it appears the USA is forever divided on very essential issues. I mean there is no middle ground right now. Politics is a zero-sum game. If you continue on this path maybe the best solution for both sides is to split up. Yes, split into two countries so that issues like
- Abortion
- Inmigration
- Racism
- Environment protection
- Free trade
- Russia
- Health care
- Wall Street unlimited greed
- Electoral College
no longer divide you so much and make you so upset.
3
If you find time to make a comment in the NY Times, then you should be flooding the phone lines and Twitter accounts of:
Senator Joe Manchin
Senator Heidi Heitkamp
Senator Joe Donnelly
Senator Doug Jones
Senator Claire McCaskill
Senator Susan Collins
Senator Lisa Murkowski
The least you can do is tell each of them this nominee believes this president is "above the law."
6
Wow! Another boring white dude completely out of touch and out of step with the mainstream of America! At least he’ll get a tremendous pension and healthcare for him and his family for life. Us plebes should be so lucky.
1
The "more liberal" / "more conservative" graph that the NYT has been running with these articles about the SCOTUS nominee to replace Justice Kennedy is below the usual standards of the NYT.
Context that qualifies the basis for "more liberal" / "more conservative" should be provided, perhaps via a hypertext link.
1
How can this even be allowed to happen? Donald Trump is under a major criminal investigation how could he be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice??? This is outrageous! The Republicans are beyond shameless and corrupt, and the Democrats need to find courage. This is a disgrace.
6
He should have just picked Alan Dershowitz for the job. That pretend Democrat is in love with Trump and would have sailed through the Senate hearings and vote. Come November if the Republicans retain the majorities in Congress then it'll truly be hight time to move to Canada or Russia, for that matter. The American voters are turning out to be a bunch of imbeciles if you ask me.
1
This article from the Daily Beast sums up who Kavanaugh really is, a christian fundamentalist.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secrets-of-leonard-leo-the-man-behind-...
Have the Dems under Barack Obama learned nothing over the decades? You can't talk with these rabid Republicans. The only course of action is to put them out of their misery. Barack was just too kind, too willing to talk to idiots who think Ayn Rand is a brilliant philosopher for pete's sake. Don't Dems and Independents see that since Ronnie Raygun days the GOP has been unhinged in its thinking. The Dems should have fought hammer and tong the way McConnell and his band of Marauders did to obstruct from Day One every single thing President Obama proposed. When are Dems, my two senators included, Schumer and Gillibrand, going to get it into their thick skulls there is no middle ground to be had with Republicans. This is a take-no-prisoners war we are now in. There can be no compromise until every Republican is defeated and removed from office or if they remain confronted in every public space they deem safe to trek. There must be no "safe space" for Republicans. No fancy restaurants, no fun events they love to attend, no safe haven where they can not have to worry about looking over their shoulder to see who may be following them. This is all-out war, make no mistake, and there will be but one victor. It's Dems or them. Either way something has got to give.
DD
Manhattan
7
Hey, at least it isn’t Judge Judy or Jeanine Pirro or... Ted Cruz.
(Trying to stay positive)
Vote in Nov 2018!
4
Ted Cruz will replace RBG.
2
I have seen enough to know that Kavanagh was chosen because he is a GOP hack. He writes one set of limitations on Presidential power concerning Bill Clinton and then takes the opposite view when working in the White House for George Bush. This is not a sign of judicial temprement
2
Time to get to work making calls and writing letters to ALL Dem senators and any conceivable "no" vote GOP senators.
Get to work. Don't relent.
DEMAND your voice be heard.
Go full-court-press, down and dirty, uncompromisingly McConnnellian with this.
Apologies for the full-court-press pun. But don't get distracted!!! Go! Fight! Resist!!!
4
Another conservative activist who ignores precedent and caselaw, whilst pretending he can use the Founding Fathers as ventriloquist dummies. Great. Enjoy your nightmare, America.
4
Hey Kavanaugh..remember what you said about "lying to the public is an impeachable offense'...something like that during the Bill Clinton probe? Time to refresh your memory
7
Don't worry if he overturns Roe v Wade. If you have kids, between the Supreme Court striking down gun control, voiding clean air and water laws, supporting the current broken health care system in this country, and tearing big holes in what remains of the social net, they're probably not going to make it to adulthood anyway.
1
At the risk of sounding conspiratorial, seemed the deal that Trump and Justice Kennedy made, arising from Kennedy's son's prior (current?) billion$ dealings with Trump empire via Deutsche Bank, was for Kennedy to retire at this juncture, and a Kennedy acolyte be appointed?
While this comment is probably not worth including among the others, it might be something the NYT should look into. Read one article along these lines, maybe HuffPo or DB?
8
Wow. A conservative POTUS nominates a conservative Justice. Gee, just like the previous liberal POTUS nominating liberal Justices. Perhaps if Democrats had proffered someone other than the repugnant despicable Clinton for POTUS, this wouldn't have happened. Oh well. You brought it on yourselves. You weren't going to have a liberal POTUS forever.
5
Kavanaugh ... Kavanaugh?
Really? Leave it up to DJT to make the worst choice of a large slate.
Why didn't he pardon Michael Flynn, and put him in as the nominee. He had Cohn, and a huge bunch of other miscreants. Why not one of them?
I just have to laugh, otherwise I'll cry.
This guy is a king maker. He believes the President is above the law. Get ready, we're going to have a dictator.
5
No surprises. McConnel is a thief, with zero integrity and morals. You can only hope he gets everything he has coming to him, and hope that it is very painful.
6
Dear Editor,
Comments like “Replacing him with a committed conservative, who could potentially serve for decades, will fundamentally alter the balance of the court and put dozens of precedents at risk.” betray a certain element of bias (I believe), don’t belong in “reporting” and are best saved for the Opinion section. Specifically “precedents at RISK” should not past muster if the Times really wants to be serious about rebalancing the news and intends to put itself forward as being primarily concerned with Truth.
2
Very bad choice. Kavanaugh is a swamp creature who covered up the Vince Foster murder for Hillary and the hanging chads for George Bush. One shudders to think what he will be willing to cover up for Trump.
1
Thanks again, Comey. Moral Vanity is an ugly and damaging thing, but years will have long lasting and disastrous consequences. Fool.
4
Thanks again, media, for focusing on Trump circus campaign instead of issues. Thanks Bernie purists for Helping dismantle democracy. Thanks chauvinism for Trump. Thanks for all the nonvoters.
1
Another media circus from trump. Nyt and all fell for it. His pick was a forgone conclusion, could have been any from the list.
Vote. Please vote in 2018.
Shut him down.
4
You never know, There are honorable people out there. Pray, cause you aint got another solution
I’m sure Mitch is cartwheeling down the Senate hallway whistling Dixie!
1
Robert Mueller, please announce that your investigation has unearthed something so powerful and damning about Trump that the scotus nomination process must come to a halt. Trump has been an agent of Russia since '87 would do nicely. Is that too much to ask?
2
The left cannot compromise anymore because Americans have isolated themselves from each other and have instead embraced narcissism. All I can think about is all the liberal commenters I saw on this website that endlessly harped on and on about how much they hated Hillary as if Trump could never win. Hillary was the antivenom and these idiots thought themselves sophisticated by getting likes for rejecting our last hope at any kind of modern society. This guy is 52! The revolution has not been twitterized because social media is a platform for advertising and not radical thought.
2
The 2nd Amendment is no longer the ugly red headed step child of the constitution. God bless America! Trump 2020.
6
To all the liberals, progressives, Bernie supporters and anyone else who chose NOT to vote for Hillary in the presidential election- either by leaving the presidential box blank or by voting for Trump (suburban women)-you have no right to whine or complain. You ceded your power to a nimrod idiot and must standby silently now and watch.
What a mess.
Obama should have seated Merrick Garland over the Senate recess in 2016.
8
That's right, continue to beat up on the very people you need to vote with you in the midterms. You wonder why people are leaving the DNC.
3
So here are our great conservative legal minds... we have an ex/current cocaine user and groper in Clarence Thomas, a brilliant idiot savant who claims that money does not corrupt individuals in John Roberts, and an advocate for torture in Neil Gorsuch. And now they bring us the man who legalized cheeting with the nomination of Kavanaugh. All this to safeguard Christian moral values... None of these individuals are fit to be judges much less supreme court justices. How much will we, this country have to sacrifice to satisfy these religious fanatics and their quest to turn America in to a facist theocratic state? How long will we the majority stand silently by while they destroy everything this country stands for?
7
wow simply wow
2
Apologies if I show a limited understanding of US government but my understanding is that America has 3 branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial) and each branch meant to provide checks and balances on the others.
Trump with the help of Russia took the executive branch over.
The spineless GOP then let him walk all over the legislative branch, who’ll never impeach him no matter how damning Mueller’s findings (assuming Trump doesn’t fire him first).
Now with this appointment of another conservative SCOTUS who believes in unchecked presidential power, has Trump effectively broken the US system of government?
Everyone mocked him when he said that he’d be winning so much his supporters would get tired of winning. I hate to say this but I think he was right.
I would say something patronising like “The US needs to sort this out” however with Brexit the U.K. is in just as a disastrous spot. Maybe we do have a special relationship and if the US implodes the UK in solidarity will implode with you!
3
On behalf of all Americans, I accept your apology for your limited understanding of US government.
1
The whole spectacle was better than expected. At least Trump stuck to script.
While super-bummed what this nomination will mean and how so many rights won will soon be in jeopardy, this is what happens when you loose an election.
Democrats better get of their butts, craft a winning message and take back Congress in 2018 and pass clear laws which better protect our rights, and write the laws so SCOTUS doesn’t have to decide.
2
I fear that your idea of protecting our rights would do little more than infringe on the rights of others. Is that fair?
1
It happens when you lose an election too!!!!
1
Sorry, America, but many people in my country hardly see anyone political or judicial in your country as truly liberal except perhaps for Bernie and Elizabeth...the rest swing from lib-lite to downright fascist.
3
Please hang in there, RBG! Whatever will we do without you?
Anyone who equivocates here, that this is not another activist appointment is either blind, naive, stupid, a Trump fan, or all of the above.
1
Liberals: enough with all the drama. I’m a bleeding-heart liberal, too, and this so-called president is about as bad as we could have imagined, but it is a little tiring seeing all these comments day after day lamenting the end of democracy in the US. Do you really believe that? Really? Then get off your butt and do something. Commenting online over every stupidity uttered and every moronic political or diplomatic blunder made by Trump is useless. Go to a march. Call your senator. Volunteer for a local race, or help register people to vote. But please actually do something. Yelling into the echo-chamber from your couch is why our democracy is dying, not because of a small-minded and incompetent president. The actions of one person cannot kill our democracy; it is the inaction of the many that are causing it to whither.
20
Why do you assume we aren’t doing all that?
Love how the republicans decry "activist" Judges....unless the "activism" is to shove a conservative view down the collective throats of Americans.
Given trump's impending legal woes, Senators should demand he state his position on Recusing himself if / when he's faced with the payback to trump for appointing him.
5
We do not have a progressive constitution and thus unbiased judges may be more conservative. Our Bill of Rights, for example specifies what our governmen must not due to us ro infringe our individual liberties. It specifies nothing the government must give to us materially except due process or just compensation when are rights or property are in jeopardy.
An unbiased judge is one who follows as much as possible the meaning those who ratified the Constitution or Amendmends understood it/them to have.
The very first line after the Preamble makes it clear that judges have no legislative power "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, ". Changes to the Constitution can constitutionally only come from the Amendment process. It it were a general blueprint to be followed as a guide it would have said so. If the meaning of the words was to be applied to the needs of tg he presented presented times, it would have said so.
The meaning of the General Welfare Clause did not change in 1936 during the depression because of different needs.
1
@John
Thanks for the some what long winded reply; you did not, however, address the central point I made: republicans decry "activism" by Judges, except when it is to shove Conservatism down the throats of others.
I've worked around many, many fine Judges over the course of the last 3 decades, most can set aside their personal views. Some, clearly do NOT do so; choosing instead to wrap their views around tortured readings of the Constitution (which you've shown in your view) to justify that Judge coming to a particular conclusion.
Judges are human, and as such, they "may" bring their human biases with them; it is the fact that republicans decry this when it's not in their favor and turn a blind eye when it is that is galling, sir.
I expect you are correct about both sides not decrying activism when activism favors their policy preferences.
I also believe both parties at the federal level support Federal overreach beyond the original intent. Madison writes in Federalist 45 "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. "
Most remarkable to me is that hard-right conservatives see no incongruity between their views and the general will of the people. Abortion rights have strong majority support with the public at large, and yet anti-Roe forces see nothing wrong with allowing extremist state legislatures to force their will on individuals.
The only rights these folks seem to recognize is the right to own and brandish a gun.
2
About half of Americans are anti-Roe. The other half are anti-Wade.
Can we please stop with the "Merrick Garland" comments?
Those who just can't resist should keep these points in mind:
1. The Republicans controlled the Senate in 2016. If they'd held hearings, and then a vote, Garland would not have been confirmed. This was obvious at the time. True, several Senators said nice things about Garland (as did Senator Schumer about John Roberts, shortly before Schumer voted against him). There was zero chance that the Republican-controlled Senate would have approved Garland, thereby creating a 5-Justice liberal majority on the Court.
2. McConnell didn't say he was holding up Garland's nomination because he wanted a Republican President to pick Scalia's replacement. He said he wanted the next President to pick. We'll never know whether McConnell was lying, but I doubt it. Many Americans (I, for one) would have been quite upset if HRC had won and McConnell then refused to let her pick Scalia's replacement. I seriously doubt that would have happened.
3. There's a big difference between a Presidential election (especially when the incumbent isn't on the ballot because he's at the end of an 8-year term) and a mid-term Senate election. It's not at all uncommon for a Supreme Court Justice to be nominated and confirmed just before a mid-term election -- Justice Kagan being a recent example (2010).
7
Trump went judge shopping and found his get out of jail card. His personal needs always come first. After that, all he has done is secured votes for himself with his far right base. He could care less and knows even less about the issues at hand. His stance on the right to choose is nothing but a line he learned to get votes.
2
Our nation, under control of the Republican party, is becoming a fascist state. Fascism thrives on hatred. Conservatism has been debased to the point that it is no longer a viable view of reality. In the past conservative views were just as valid as liberal views. Now, conservative views are so extremely out of touch with reality that they are a threat to the survival of our nation.
How did we get to this point?
Failed education system.
Voter suppression.
The Electoral College
The Supreme Court (Citizens United)
Corporate control of media. (Fox News).
Citizens that that don't vote.
10
As we prepare for another round of kabuki theater to confirm this judge, Americans should be wary of the tired old refrain that judges don't make law but only interpret the law as written. Every time a judge interprets the law they are making law. Law is politics by other means.
3
"The country loses when the President’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution.”
On how the Senate democrats hammer home this statement rests the fate of the nation.
1
Divisive and illegitimate. Expected nothing less from a president about to face impeachment proceedings.
3
NYT commenters are starting to become more and more radical and asserting not fact based observations. As a moderate dem, this is disturbing.
Our country is not hijacked, as a top comment suggests. Trump won the election and now is able to nominate the justice of his choice. Yes, I am still upset about Garland, but this nomination no longer involves that appointment. We need to focus on what is actually at play.
Kavanaugh is conservative. But he is a proponent of stare desiscis and has vowed not to overturn Roe. He was hired by Kagan, and is sympathetic to Obama. Yes he is conservative, and may not be as malleable is Kennedy, but the sky is not falling. He is not a radical as other suggest.
Please dems. at the sake of losing young democratic voters such as myself, stop with the hyperbolic. I will not align myself with a party that can no longer debate, but only screams - much of which is not accurate or misleading.
Before you say "Republicans did it first". I would say 'I agree, which is why I'm not Republican'
14
How would you propose to debate with jackals?
To East Coat Daphne,
Pot meet kettle.
Chuck Schumer wasn’t nearly as “vindictive, acrimonious, [and] partisan” as Mitch McConnell when ole Mitch denied Merritt Garland a hearing. Garland was on the Republican list for favored SCOTUS picks, that is until President Obama nominated him in the spirit of bipartisanship.
If you want to see what vindictiveness and partisanship truly looks like go watch Mitch McConnell’s gleeful speech on the Senate floor denying Merritt Garland a hearing.
McConnell’s hatred of President Obama drove him to deny Garland a hearing thus stealing the SCOTUS seat. I must wonder if Mitch knew the fix was in for Trump.
Now we will possibly have a very conservative activist Supreme Court putting civil rights, human rights, and women’s rights in danger.
8
Is anyone else concerned that the candidate did not touch his wife ever during his introduction? He held his daughters as a shield and left her on the end, outside of the embrace. That speaks to me of someone without much feeling for women (as his daughters are just extensions of himself). I also wonder what they bribed Kennedy with...?
I ask:
Why is an entire arm of American jurisprudence so obsessed with “original intent“ and “framers”?
“Original intent”?—that’s way back in the 1700s in a completely different country and world.
“Framers”?—they are long gone and out of touch with our times; why do they get to “frame” the discussion now?
3
Author of the Starr report, zealous prosecutor of Clinton and now a believer in protecting the president from legal actions while in office. They don’t even put in any effort any more. Hypocrisy is a virtue in the Republican Party.
5
I was appalled and disappointed when Senator Schumer and his fellow Democrats attacked the choice before a choice was made. How disingenuous of these Members of Congress to condemn the same man that they approved as an Appellate Judge. The Democratic Party is slowing killing itself!
11
Democrats allowed Hillary R. Clinton to hijack their party, with her manipulation of the DNC, and a pathetic campaign. Wrong. Democrats and Obama allowed the delay of choosing a Supreme Court Justice until after the election because they thought they'd easily win the the 2016 presidency, and Hillary's choice would stand. Wrong again. Now they'll try and tarnish a solid jurist, Mr. Kavanaugh. Wrong again. So now the court shifts more to the right, for decades to come. And hold your horses, there may be yet one more another SCOTUS Justice to pick before it's all said and done! Well played, DNC, well played.
9
The Crook in Cheif has just nominated another puppet who will dance to trump's tune.
Kavanaugh will bale him out on the Russian Investigation.
And you can take that to the bank.
The Russian Investigation is DEAD!
VOTE OR WILL HAVE A DICTATORSHIP
Read Albright's book, she has Trump's number
The mass media had all their anti-Supreme Court pick stories and editorials prepared ahead of time. All they had to do was fill in the name.
12
Trump is stacking the court so when Mueller finally brings his investigation to a close and charges are brought against Trump he will be found innocent when it finally reaches the Supreme Court.
He's not stupid just the biggest sleaze ball that ever lived.
7
Democrats and Progressives need to do three things:
1. Stop whining
2. Don't ever, ever, ever vote for anything Trump wants. Ever
3. Keep repeating the same lines again, and again, and again and again. All the time
4. Get a catchy simple, short phrase (see item #3)
America's attention span is as short as a toothpick. So whatever you say has to be short and very easy to understand
This country is going down the tubes very fast. And this Supreme Court pick just gave it a huge shove.
Like all Empires, the US will eventually fall and become a second rate country.
5
I have a better suggestion for Democrats and Progressives.
Win elections.
1
Brett Kavanaugh will be an excellent Supreme Court justice with impeccable credentials and intellect. I was hoping for Amy Coney Barrett but maybe she is a bit too young and inexperienced to serve just yet. Some say she may be the next nominee when Ruth Ginsburg Bader retires. She is after all 85 and cannot serve forever.
Mr. Kavanaugh was chosen because he is brilliant and has a lot of experience. He is of high moral character and values and will decide cases with honesty and follow the constitution. He will serve our country proudly on one of the most important courts in the land. It is very likely he will be elected but there will probably be quite a battle from the Democrats. I am sure Mr. Kavanaugh is up the task and will do just fine.
Chuck Schumer said he would put up a fight with whomever candidate President Trump chose and he do doubt will. In the end, it is almost certain Mr. Kavanaugh will be chosen as our next Supreme Court justice. He will do an outstanding job on the bench and is an excellent choice. This is great news and wonderful for our country.
5
We are not the world's greatest democracy. The best proof is fact is of all things the United States Supreme Court. If the United States truly was a democracy and Presidents were elected by the popular vote the following judges would not be on the Supreme Court: John Roberts (GWB), Samuel Alito(GWB) and Neil Gorsuch (Trump) and now Brett Kavanaugh (Trump). So the entire conservative wing of the supreme court owes its existence to the fact the United States of America is not a democracy. What people forget is the size and composition of the Supreme Court is not in the Constitution, but it is in the judiciary act. Democrats can easily fix the Supreme Court by increasing the number of justices.
6
We are not a Democracy!
We are a Constitutional Republic
it's important to maintain the majority Catholic makeup of the court that decides whether abortion is a right of American women. Best to do so by adding another conservative white man to the roster. They've been doing such a bangup job!
1
To all the non voters in 2016, here is your result. I am old enough all I expect to see in my remaining lifetime is a conservative court taking away my personal freedoms and making corporations the supreme law of the land.
10
"Judge Kavanaugh’s long history of legal opinions, as well as his role in some of the fiercest partisan battles of the last two decades, will give Democrats plenty of ammunition for tough questions."
Questions, shmestions. He won't answer meaningfully, and it won't matter anyway.
1
Why does the NYTimes use the subjunctive mood in its headline? Confirmation WILL move the court significantly to the right for a generation or more. Now that the Republican majority has changed Senate rules to allow a bare majority to confirm Supreme Court nominations, Democrats are totally powerless to stop them from their rubber stamp confirmation process. The result is that Justice Kavanaugh will not be America's newest Supreme Court member, but rather the Republican's. Even so, he will be more legitimately a member of the court than Justice Gorsuch who only sits on the court by virtue of Republican malfeasance with Merrick Garland's nomination. Democrats need to keep their powder dry for battles they can actually win.
2
Knowing how Kennedy was able to move left and right at times, makes me wonder why he would support Kavanaugh who appears far more right. Does he know something we do not?
Under no circumstances should the Senate consider a SC nominee in an election year per the Republican majority leader. Now that the Democrats have lost the house, senate, presidency, and SC, it is time to purge all Dem party leadership; you have literally failed at every level.
1
Hmmmm, I can't help but wonder if Harry Reid shouldn't have done away with the 60 vote requirement for lower court vacancies. Hmmmmmmmm.
4
It is pretty clear that this was not a nomination that was intended to be what is best for the nation, but to protect Trump. His confirmation will bring out all of the ugliness of the political rift in this nation.
This explains the urgency of the Trump trade re-negotiations with NAFTA, etc.
900,000 American women will shortly either travel to Canada and Mexico, or purchase mifepriston from those countries, Europe or China.
Overturning Roe will be a major boon to foreigners profiting from providing abortions to American women. The president was a visionary, apparently.
First class, confidential, abortion trips to Canada for the relatives and girlfriends of Republican politicians might be a good little side business. Let's all vote and keep the need for those trips down.
2
Wait......
He hasn't been approved by McConnell?
No swearing in yet?
Grassley and the Judiciary Committee have already met and approved the nomination.
Why is McConnell obstructing and dragging his feet?
Kavanaugh has already stated presidents should be shielded from litigation - there’s the reason trump nominated him. It’s the “ Nixon syndrome” per Nixon - “ when a president does it, it’s not illegal.” Our country just sinks lower and lower into the right wing swamp.
2
Kennedy betrayed America when he wrote the majority decision in favor of Citizens United opening the sluice gates for dark corporate money to take over our government. He compounded that undoing of democracy by resigning so that Trump could cement the ultra-right into place on the Supreme Court.
There is nothing accidental about the right wing coup that captured our nation in 2016 converting it into a one-party state. It was all calculated, bought and paid for by corporate fascists with the help of the Russians.
If Americans don't wake up, abandon the pretense that its business as usual in politics, and go to the polls in every election going forward in massive numbers to vote against these right wing extremist Republicans and their mad dog mascot Donald Trump, then all is lost. We face the last chance for the survival of democracy in 2018.
2
Checks and Balances 2.0 and "judicial incrementalism" (SCOTUS composition): https://www.fundamentalreform.org/
How we appoint Justices to the Supreme Court and maintain them on it needs fundamental reform.
Life tenure for SCOTUS Justices injects unnecessary uncertainty, risk, and, ultimately, polarization into our political process; and each of these negative aspects will intensify as life expectancy increases in the coming years.
The ideal for our representative democracy is that no majority (conservative, liberal, or other) can disproportionately impact the political direction of its country. Life tenure for US Supreme Court Justices all but guarantees this will happen.
Please go to Checks and Balances 2.0 at https://www.fundamentalreform.org/ and read about the checks and balance that “judicial incrementalism” would provide. While the concept is not perfect, I believe it is on the right track and could provide a better way forward to manage the appointment and maintenance of our Supreme Court Justices.
You need to contact Republican Senators of your argument that NO is the answer to a vote. If your Senator is a Democrat notify those states with Republican Senators. Remember Merrick Garland should be your cry.
White, Catholic, Ivy League, middle-aged, "politically connected", what else would Trump, who opposed the Swamp made up of those people, choose to remake the laws of the land. Wasn't it a few years ago the Republicans were crying about the Court doing just that. It's OK to rule from the bench on political terms, if they are my terms, I guess.
Trump who is presumably no longer in need of the services made legal by Roe will throw everyone, especially women, under the bus to score political points with his fundamentalist evangelical base. Trump’s base has hitched their wagon to a false prophet in order to profit. I’d like to know how many abortions Trump paid for and forced women to have while fighting his “personal Vietnam against VD” during his playboy days. If he was that afraid of contracting a sexually transmitted disease then he wasn’t using protection.
Abortion rights and women’s reproductive freedom is in jeopardy along with affirmative action and same-sex marriage. What will be protected? Guns, guns, and more guns, of course, along with the death penalty and corporations over people. The separation of church and state will become murkier.
The devolution of the US of A is underway.
1
First matter of businss after swearing in, which is a given since republicans destroyed any right to fight, is to declare trump above God, Constitution, & the Law. He will free this tyrant of any holds that will protect this country. Of course, putting on that robe of supremacy may spark a true sense of jurisprudence & the man may actually find a sense of truth. Nah, never mind, he is a trump chump who will have pledged unfailing loyalty last night before the announcement. No investigation now. What would the republicans have done if the democrats had shut down Ken Starr? Poor Clinton was just too soft to demand Ken Starr be closed down. If Clinton had had the same rights as trump, oh wait he did, he would have just shut down the investigation. Oh well, goodbye America, it was nice knowing you.
We are on the verge of being a militant monopoly single party control government that represents only half the citizens. If any Conservative Republican jurist accepts the nomination, they will be part of an unconstitutional federal government run by a known militant Trump who has shown little reservation about resorting to martial law. We are about to become a Fascist Empire, and that is no exaggeration.
1
It's laughable to believe that these Trump appointees to the supreme court aren't pure political animals. If either one of them had a shred of character or decency they would have recused themselves from appointment until after the last true supreme court nominee, Merrick Garland, was confirmed.
Remember, a switch in time saved nine!
1
They say when things look their rosiest, take a look around because a disaster is lurking. Republicans are holding on for their lives, literally. The Supreme Court, the electoral college and gerrymandering, together, can't stop the Grim Reaper and he's taking more old white Republicans everyday. Sense will return to the country.
2
"Furious confirmation battle"? Why should there be fury, unless the flames are being stoked by the NY Times? No one can argue that Judge Kavanaugh is not a paradigm of judicial and personal virtue. And the President's privilege of appointing Supreme Court judges is not restricted to Republicans. Indeed, when in power, both parties pray for a supreme court vacancy in order to leverage the President's authority into the future. In fact this is the reason we have one or two rather marginally qualified liberal justices on the bench right now, chosen for gender and/or ethnicity rather than because they were the best choices i the liberal corral. Perhaps the Times should take a break from its endless vituperation and celebrate the fact that, if nothing else, the new Judge is of stellar quality and beyond reproach.
7
Don't sit home this November.
Replacing Ruth Bader Ginsberg is next on Trump's to do list.
3
Of course this president would nominate someone who thinks the presidency comes with a Get Out of Jail Free card.
Hopefully there's proof that Brett Kavanaugh knew about his former mentor/boss — disgraced ex-judge Alex Kozinski's misdeeds so his nomination is derailed.
I will never forgive Mitch McConnell for sitting on President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. Never.
7
The Democrats, especially Schumer & Pelosi, better use the bullypulpitt they have to block this nomination. Pro-Choice and Gay rights are at stake here. Lastly, the right to protect a president, no matter how corrupt he is, from the law is simply wrong! And Kavanaugh has written this in 2009.
3
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 now 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 life span of those 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.
1
We are now a Banana Republic with a pending Kangaroo Court. How much worse can it get? I can only imagine.
The McConnell Rule. NO hearings, NO vote on the nominee until AFTER the election!
NO on Kavanaugh!
3
A New World Order, where the Rule of Law, not the law of the jungle prevails has a conflict of interest re: life & death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination#Abo...
9/11 remains an unsolved act of aggression.
1
As Obama pointed out several years ago, "Elections have consequences". Deal with it.
4
That's rich, considering the last two Republican "wins" were gained by cheating and selling the US out to Russia, respectively.
That's the way it goes, does it? Then what happened to Merrick Garland? Unlike Trump, Barack Obama actually won the plurality of votes, as well as the EC.
Apparently that's not the way it goes. Not anymore.
As most Americans, I waited with much anticipation for President Trump to announce his selection to replace Justice Kennedy. I watched the drama unfold on FOX. When President Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh as his choice, I was very satisfied, but a bit disappointed that Amy Coney Barrett did not get the nod, but as one commentated noted, she will be next up. Judge Kavanaugh is a man of impeccable character; a man devoted to his family, his nation, and his God. For the Left, he represents the end of the world as they have known it for the past 40 plus years, a world of unbridled permissiveness. For the Right, he represents a rebirth and the restoration of a world of restraint.
Others have commented that the Left will claim victory in the mid-term elections, that their win will provide a counterbalance to a conservative court. That remains to be seen. From my perspective in rural Maury County, yard signs point to a conservative victory. Yard signs in more affluent Williamson County send the same message; support for Marsha Blackburn is significant. Only in Davidson County is support for Phil Bredesen seen. Yard signs demonstrated the support for Donald Trump in 2016, support that grew greater closer to election day. It was apparent that he was going to win.
Trump won, of course, and to the victor go the spoils, one of which is to nominate jurists to the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh is a fine selection and will make an outstanding justice. Thank you.
7
One word. Gerrymandering.
3
Very happy to see a non-social conservative selected. Don’t know if I could have stomached another one after Bush II’s attempts.
As I read the article, the GOP has 50 votes (even excluding
McCain) plus the vote of the VP, who votes in case of a tie. Since the Senate votes on party lines rather than by individual thought, why would Kananaugh not be confirmed? He then can join the Supreme (so-called) Court which also votes on party lines, as does The House of Representative. Programmed robots could be not be more consistent.
2
I expect a few of the red state dem Senators to vote for vote for confirmation.
If the Democrats regain control of Congress and the Presidency, they should enact legislation expanding the Supreme Court from 9 to 11 members in order to restore the balance there would have been if the Republicans, acting without principle and contrary to precedent, had not refused to vote on President Obama's nominee to replace Justice Scalia.
5
They followed then Senator Obama's stated position (and most of the current democrats in the senate) regarding a President not nominating a Supreme Court Justice during a Presidential Election Year. To now claim a foul is simply hypocrisy.
Fine man. He will serve all Americans. Fairly.
12
This was much easier than the Supreme Court change in Poland. Actually quite remarkable how we can achieve fascist rule with so very little violence. Kidnapping Hispanic toddlers was a bit excessive.
I think we should submit and see how it goes. The more we oppose him the stronger he gets . He somehow harnesses our energy and turns it against us. Let's confirm the little guy quickly and without a fight. Let's give Trump what he desires pausing to say, "You want fries with that?"
8
He replaces another conservative, so little changes.
Another phony. He says a president shouldn't be "distracted" by lawsuits, unless that president is a Democrat. He worked for Ken Starr.
He's an "Originalist," like Scalia ,except when he finds in HIS constitution the words or phrase which supports his point of view, then he's an activist.
He'll always grant us a fatuous and glib explanation why he's imposing his religion on the rest of America.
In other words, another Trump mental case.
8
Then President Clinton was not subjected to a lawsuit. He was impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice. Facts matter, as do elections.
In a democracy, the judicative powers should be independent of political parties. In the USA the supreme court has become an arena for political extermists. This scenario is typical of authoritarian regimes like Poland, Hungary or Turkey. The supreme court should be reformed and systematic errors remedied. Judges must be above political infights.
5
But he declared that judges “must interpret the law, not make the law.”
As if this were a bad thing.
Meanwhile, vindictive, acrimonious, partisan statement of the day.
"Chuck Schumer of New York, declared, “I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have.”
What a surprise!
17
What a surprise you've forgotten Merrick Garland never even got a hearing. Can't get much more vindictive than that.
6
Nice bit of fake suspense ... The minute Trump found out about Kavanaugh's article saying a sitting president should not be indicted or prosecuted while in office he knew this was his man ... Could have been a week or a day ago, but there is no mystery; it's all about Trump - The rest was cheap theatre and more attention for the bully / coward, a tinny drum roll leading up to the 'announcement' ... I still have some faith and try to see the good; Trump's doddering 'administration' is so blatant and dysfunctional some of his followers will figure it out, and he might be less successful than the impeachment result : Pence ...
2
Am I the only person who thinks that Donald Trump—Donald Trump, the man who cares nothing about justice,who had taken advantage of the law at every turn—now has the power to rebalance the Supreme Court for my children’s generation? I am sickened.
7
Trump naturally picked the toady who argued a zillion reasons why Clinton wasn't above the law then totally reversed himself to argue why George W. Bush WAS above the law.
And what was the ONLY reason behind his hundreds of pages of legalese blather? Clinton was a Democrat and Bush was a fellow Republican.
You can be guaranteed that Kavanaugh will uphold every effort by Trump to show the Law doesn't apply to him, that every Republican voter suppression is justified, that every Democratic call for the Bill of Rights needs to be over-ruled, and that our country "needs" a strong (harumph!) UNQUESTIONED leader. You know "Duh Furor".
Every day our nation abandons one more thing that made us the beacon of the world, abandons one more piece of American exceptionalism, one more ideal we all grew up with.
I predicted that if Trump were elected, our experiment as a Democratic Republic would be over. I do not see how Trump EVER relinquishes the Presidency. Ever. Regardless of the Constitution, of votes, of "elections". Ever.
Because the men and women with the power to stop him are too hungry for power and limitless control they accept anything he does no matter how extraordinarily obnoxious and antithetical to the American ideal, consciousness, and soul.
4
The Republican Party is on the verge of achieving a longstanding stated goal, overturning Roe v. Wade. If women lose their right to chose as a result of this nomination, it will be because they voted it away. Every Republican platform since 1980 has included a plank calling for the reversal of Roe v. Wade, yet many pro-choice women have consistently voted Republican. Maybe losing Roe v. Wade will wake them up.
2
Well, DJT has done it......destroyed the 3rd branch of our country by nominating an outright political partisan. Almost as bad, he’s done before year 2 is up.
Sigh.....the late, once great, United States of America. Thanks, it was awesome.
4
Well with this nomination Trump's religious base -- the Evangelicals and Catholics-- are on cloud nine.
Trump's locked up that vote for 4 more years.
2
This is irony, right? “Though Mr. Trump was bothered by Judge Kavanaugh’s connection to Mr. Bush, according to people who spoke with him, he was able to get over it, in part because he believed that Judge Kavanaugh would embody the tradition of Justice Kennedy.”
While Justice Kennedy's son, Justin, worked for Deutsche Bank, he was directly involved in loaning trump money. This was at a time when no other bank was loaning trump money for good reason: he kept defaulting on loans. Why would Deutsche Bank (with heavy influence from Justin) loan trump $360 million given his track record?
Deutsche Bank was fined for laundering Russian money in the U.S. The time period at issue post-dated Kennedy's employment at the bank, but if Mueller is subpoenaing their records, there's a possibility that Deutsche Bank & trump conspired to launder money. No one else was loaning to trump which makes Deutsche Bank's confidence in trump suspicious. If there was shady business going on, the fact that Kennedy worked directly with trump, & trump reached out to Kennedy referencing his son, tells you that Justin may be involved in the laundering scheme if one existed.
trump hands out pardons with a wink & a nod, signaling he'll protect those loyal to him. trump & Kennedy know that if Republicans control SCOTUS, it'll rule in favor of trump he's subpoenaed, indicted, or impeached. Accordingly, the 2 may have reached an agreement.
trump communicates to Kennedy that if he's charged w/Russian money laundering, Justin is going down with him. But, if Kennedy retires before November, trump assures him he will pardon his son's transgressions. That requires him to remain in office with the aid of a SCOTUS pick that will reliably tilt the court to favour trump.
7
Hence Kennedy's resignation from the bench.
1
Time to take away blindfold and scales from the Statue of Liberty.
Perhaps the new SCOTUS could order that, as those attributes now clearly misrepresent American Justice.
Of course the statue is European, too...
2
"Time to take away blindfold and scales from the Statue of Liberty."
It has never had either.
2
Imagine a Supreme Court Justice who does not make law out of a fictitious right of privacy that never existed in our Constitution. How tragic.
1
An excellent choice. Kudos to Mr. Trump.
10
For those who ask if Trump asked about loyalty this nominee had already said what Trump wanted to hear: the President is above the law. That is all Trump really needed from him.
However that fact that Kavanaugh actually said with a straight face that "No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination." tells you where his loyalties lie. After laughable and similar pronouncements of the most, the greatest, the biggest from Trump himself, his press secretaries, and doctor I am surprised that he used the oft used line himself.
1
I know how I would vote but these poor Senators with constituency obligations are in quite a pickle. Such a pickle in fact, that they are being forced to decide on issues that goes far beyond just them. "Is my seat more important than the welfare of the country as a whole? Should I overlook the fact that the majority of women want the say in what goes on with their bodies? Should I care more about the voting rights of all Americans?"
The bigger question is what is best for America in the long-term and will our best interests be addressed by a too conservative mix of justices. If partisanship was taken out of the equation, the Court might work in the favor of the whole citizenry but that is not the case.
To the Senate I say, "Get past party and vote to benefit the whole country."
5
How convenient, a Supreme Court nominee who is expected to further protect Trump from reprisal for his questionable past actions, and immunize him from consequences from the hardline posture he is assuming against people and nations, and incidental to all that, redefining the kind of justice we can expect from the Supreme Court.
2
The 44th famously lectured us, the Republicans - "elections have consequences."
Well, here is one consequence.
I find it appalling that the Minority Leader within seconds of the announcement - said that he will oppose it with everything he has got.
I thought there is a phase called advice and consent.
Obviously, in Mr. Schumer's case - there is no time short or long enough for advice and consent.
Why have hearings, testimonies, millions of dollars spent - if you reject a nominee before he has even be heard from.
It was said at the last election - "opponents of POTUS take him literally and his supporters take him seriously."
Of course, we take him seriously because he is delivering on promises he made during the election - like choosing a nominee from his list of judges he published.
Now, on to the inevitable conclusion of confirmation of this newest justice.
13
You thought there was a phrase called advise and consent when McConnell would not even schedule a hearing on President Obama’s choice for a seat on the Court? The consequences of this election have been very bad for America. When Moscow’s candidate is done we will have to work very hard to restore decency and dignity to American government
5
While it's unknown - and largely untenable - to most leftists to compehend that that conservatives are not all of one cloth, among those of us whose concerns centered on Roe v Wade as law, Kavanaugh should satisfy all abortion rights advocates.
"If confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully… It’s been decided by the Supreme Court." This was Judge Kavanaugh's reply to the question from Sen. Chuck Schumer in 2006 in K's confirmation hearing for the DC Court.
Beyond that, the Judge has a solid record of refusing to create law from the bench - a basic aspect of civic lessons most leftists must have skipped.
10
Such a conservative court will be increasingly at odds with the shifting demographics that will make the citizenry more liberal. Dems need a 10-year plan to take control of Congress and the presidency and then expand the Supreme Court to 11 or 13 judges. And when Repubs howl about how unfair it is, we offer them two words: Merrick Garland.
6
The Democrats are a mortally wounded party. They will never achieve parity in Congress.
Interesting how Democrats want to change the make-up of the Supreme Court when they feel that they will lose cases in decisions which are not even pending before the Court.
1
Renegade, interesting how Repubs stole a seat from a duly elected Democratic president.
Susan - if a sitting president does not know how to make a deal, he does not deserve the position.
Great pick. Eloquent speaker, with deep roots to his family.
A judge’s judge.
5
No surprise, really. Just as Ivanka's products made in China are not subject to the U.S. tariffs - hey, only poor people shopping at Walmart should pay an import tax - Trump decides to pick someone who thinks the president could be exempted from civil lawsuits while at office.
6
Maybe Walmart needs to support American manufacturers.
@RenegadePriest
Do you shop at Walmart? Are you willing to pay more? CAN you pay more?
There is a saying: the wool comes from the sheep, you can expect something coming from nothing. Sure, the Walton family can make a few hundred millions less a year or they can cede the market share to Amazon, and guess what, Amazon will squeeze the margin from their 3rd parties, it doesn't matter to it. Just as Ivanka got her daddy's sweetheart protection
Thank you
The essential issue is whether the ultimate arbiter on how law is interpreted and applied can be subservient to the Executive, and not completely independent, by taking away the choice of Supreme Court judges away from the President or the Senate . It seems bizarre, or intentionally perverse, to have created a system in which the Supreme Court will inevitably have a political tilt, and that tilt is left to chance or political maneuvers, as has been the case with McConnell.
It the choice were to be made by a bi-partisan body of eminent jurists, to be confirmed by the Senate, there would be far less chance of brutal political manipulation, as with the present system.
4
No confirmation until after the November elections: the people have the right to vote.
9
Perhaps having chosen a serious, well-regarded judge as his candidate, Trump might have paved the way to losing the nomination or electio in 2020. Anecdotally, I know many people who voted for Trump despite misgivings about some of his “policies” and deeper misgivings about his personal qualities simply because they wanted to ensure a conservative SC — “short term pain for long term gain”, as one person told me. Perhaps now that the SC is sorted, som eof those voters will shift allegiance toward other candidates — or simply refrain from voting in the general election if Trump is the nominee again.
Perhaps I’m grasping for a silver lining in the clouds.... but this thought gives me some hope...
4
Good news and bad news. The US post one or two terms of Donald Trump won't be the same.
In foreign relations, the post- WWII constructed image of a benign great superpower leading the so-called free world is no more. From now on, what you see is what you get.
4
Question: How does a person who is under investigation for obstruction of justice get to pick his own judges?
Question: How does a POTUS who is under investigation for collusion with the Russian Government get to meet privately with the Russian President.
Question: When did we give the President the right to be above the law of the land ?
12
The Supreme Court of the United States has long become a too highly politicized branch of the govt. Replace the label Conservative with Republican and Liberal with Democrat. And, what you now have are 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats sitting on the Court doing their bidding for their respective parties.
Kavanaugh has a long history working for Republican causes - this is placing a dyed-in-the-wool Republican on the Court
3
Epic confirmation battle? Every Republican and at least three red state Democrats voting to confirm, by whose definition is that a battle.
9
A little too establishment for me, and I'd prefer a law school other than Yale or Harvard, but he'll romp to confirmation despite Democratic threats to ensure he never eats lunch in this town again.
1
Question number one for Judge Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings: In your meetings with President Trump, did he ask for your personal loyalty to him?
Given what we know about comments the president has made to other members of the government, that should be first question for anybody taking part in the confirmation hearings.
10
If you don't have the votes, you don't have the votes. Democrats should waste none of their time and energy interviewing this man or preparing questions for the hearing. In fact, don't even attend the hearing. On the same day, hold a town hall meeting in your home states on healthcare reform or one of the other issues people are concerned about, Just show up for the confirmation vote and vote "Present" as a protest against the Republican theft of the Merrick Garland seat. You've got elections to win in November. Get on the job.
18
Faced with impending Republican domination, the ineffective and weak Senate Democrats must resort to the abstract appeal to Kavanaugh to truly adhere to the spirit in which our nation was founded. It's a given that Kavanaugh is a Conservative believer in the Constitution and I would ask him; As a strict Constitution adherent in principal, would you participate in the impending Republican super monopoly government your appointment solidifies? Would you respect the founders intent to empower all citizens to be governed by a truly representative government by a government that respects all citizens and not just one political party? Do you understand you have been chosen to cement an undemocratic government controlled by few? If you truly believe in the founders aversion to absolute power and true representation, you will resign your nomination. I would.
We The PEOPLE.
2
If you don't resign this nomination, you will likely become an integral part of a truly unconstitutional government the Founders sought to ascend from.
A thoughtful and fair man, high intelligence and integrity. He seems to believe Strongly in separation of powers and interpretation of law as written, not extending laws from the bench. A very respectable selection.
5
Fair? He was deputy counsel to Ken Starr who used the Whitewater investigation which lasted over 5 years to go after Bill Clinton for Monica Lewinsky and then, after George Bush became president-something he aided by working on the Bush-gore recount- he changed his views and said presidents cannot be sued, indicted or possibly forced to testify. He is nothing but a partisan operative put in to shield Trump from criminal liability.
10
And so now the heat has been turned up yet another notch in the proverbial frying pan and all of the frogs are in denial or unaware of the danger they are in. They have barely noticed because it has been done in such small increments and they have adjusted to the slightly warmer water at every stage.
Facing the possibility of an even more conservative SCOTUS after the disastrous Citizen’s United ruling, combined with the Russian attack on our elections (which Trump and the GOP led congress seem to have little interest in addressing), the slow gradual takeover of our democracy will soon be complete.
The only remaining question is will we do something to stop it or will we slowly wilt in this pan and boil to death?
I guess we will know by November.
7
Maybe it's time to contemplate dividing our country into two.
Let the red states have their own Supremes, and they can have all the Kavanaughs they want on their court. They can reverse Roe v Wade, end their womens' rights.
They can adopt Mercer's philosophy of shrinking government to the size of the head of a pin.
Let the red states that have the 1% which received 83% of Trump's tax cut benefits permanently, be liable for and pay 83% their $1.7 trillion deficit increase.
Let the red states stop paying their Social Security annual max at $128k annually. They don't need Social Security anyway.
Let the blue states have our own Supremes continue Roe v Wade. Blue women will keep their rights.
Let the blue states reinstate the CFPB, the EPA and run government that protects and doesn't destroy people's lives.
Let the blue states pay the pay the remaining 17% of the deficit for the temprorary benefits that the 99% received, until our temporary benefits end, then the red states can pay the rest.
Let the blues states initiate a reasonable policy that will continue Social Security, so that it can continue to be there for our children, too.
Let's see how the red states continue to run when they have to pay with their own wealth.
16
And,dear readers, when a woman's right to control her body is lost, and when a preexisting condition prevents one from obtaining health insurance, and when the air is no longer clean and the water is filthy, do not complain.
16
I don't believe a president under investigation should be allowed to choose the judge who will vote on whether he can be indicted or not. This guy is there to protect Trump.
16
Judge Kavanaugh would not have been my first choice but I think he has a good sense of how a supreme court justice should conduct himself. Most importantly the separation of presidential powers which should be protected so that the president can act in the best interested of the nation and the judiciary to act in ensuring equal justice for all Americans. I doubt whether he will support reversal of Roe v Wade as he respects precedence.
5
In my opinion Judge Brett Kavanaugh is unfit for the Supreme Court because he poses a clear and imminent danger to the environment of the United States. Opponents to confirming his nomination should emphasize his judicial opinions on environmental issues that are tantamount to denial of the necessity to prevent air pollution. In addition to that, he is an extreme right wing pro-Republican politician disguised as a judge. The dangerous consequences to the personal well-being and health of individuals must not be ignored despite his ability to publish well-written articles and opinions supporting his personal biases.
6
This is why it was important to vote for HRC. I can't begin to count the folks in my left-wing bubble who claimed they'd never vote for her. This is what we end up with. A country that will be lurching to the far right for decades now.
10
It has been noted that Judge Kavanaugh is a Constitution adherent in a conservative belief of the founders intent.
The founders, having recognized the centuries of tyrannical kings and queens, proclaimed a new form of representative government answering to the people of our nation, and free of external religious influence.
With the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to ascend to the Supreme court would come a super monopoly single party Federal government that answers only to half the citizens of our nation while victimizing all others by a lack of representation, as adequately demonstrated by efforts to derail the Affordable Care Act, and promises to disassemble the social support the government provides to 40 million Americans.
Judge Kavanaugh, now visibly elated may not recognize these grander themes of unconstitutional reality.
Ignoring my bias towards Democrats, I look to a higher meaning of American politics; True representation of all citizens by the federal government charged with that solemn responsibility by our Constitution.
With Judge Kavanaugh's ascension to the court would come that monopoly government and the destruction of debate and legislating by representatives of all citizens. It would become a government of absolute power without checks on that power, contrary to what the founders had intended.
Judge Kavanaugh must recognize the place in American history he holds. That is too much power for one man or woman. Judge Kavanaugh should decline the position.
2
Kavanaugh's "Coach K" remark puzzled me too:
"Nor do I care about the members of the Little league team that you coach calling you Coach K (and I cannot for the life of me figure out why some people in the live audience [thought this was] funny)."
It surprised me too that much of the audience seemed to find this "Coach K" remark funny -- and, even more so, that the look on Kavanaugh's face when he made the remark suggested that he fully expected the audience's "that's funny" reaction. He was right, obviously, but I still have no clue what was funny about that remark. It's not that I thought it was "unfunny" -- simply that it was neither funny nor unfunny and, frankly, not worth bothering to make.
Possibly I and this other commenter were simply missing something that the live audience saw. I hope so, since I was quite surprised that anyone would find Kavanaugh's "Coach K" remark to be funny.
Were others also puzzled by this?
2
The more famous coach K is the long time basketball coach of Duke so referring to your self as coach K would be humorous. Just my guess as to why people might find his comment funny
The Scotus has moved far right and reflects the slow movement of perception of what middle of the road now means across the wider political spectrum. Less conservative is as liberal as we are likely to see for decades to come. This all happened while we were staring at ourselves on our phones. Plato's allegory of the cave is now fully realized. Well played Brothers Koch.
4
No brainer for Mr. Trump. Judge Kavanaugh essentially said Presidents are above the law while in office. Mr. Trump believes he and his family are above the law, hence the choice of Judge Kavanaugh was a no brainer. Good choice Mr. Trump. Works for you and your base. Well done.
7
Conservatives alway say they want someone who "interprets the law, not make the law", but when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, they conveniently leave out some vital words. How about that one in the Constitution that says a president gets to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court? That was thoroughly ignored a few years back.
6
Mr. Obama dutifully nominated a candidate. And the Senate, as it had done previously to the presidents Tyler, Fillmore and Lyndon Johnson, allowed the clock to run out. Maybe Mr. Obama should have considered another candidate, like former senator Daschle?
This seems like another fantastic pick by President Trump. It’s important that we have justices that hold to the letter of our dear constitution and not become activist that reinterpret. Regarding Roe, it seems as if this would very difficult to overturn as this is settled law but in the remote, all that would happen is it would revert back to the states. NY, NJ, California, Illinois etc. would always allow abortion. I love the pick. Let’s get him in by October 1st!
1
I'm less concerned about Roe than about Kavanaugh's evident belief that (Republican) presidents shouldn't be bothered by pesky things such as investigations, indictments, criminal prosecutions, etc. He reached this epiphany only AFTER having served on the Ken Starr investigation of Bill Clinton.
The first question of Kavanaugh's hearing should be: Did President Trump ever ask for your "loyalty," either explicitly or implicitly?"
During his acceptance speech last night, Judge Kavanaugh said: "No president has ever consulted more wisely, with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination."
Really?
Just what we need in a new justice -- someone with a tenuous grasp on reality and another Trump toady. This one sentence should be disqualifying all by itself.
9
God help us all. A reality TV host, now president, will effectively change the course of our highest court for generations.
7
The fix was in on this appointment even before Kennedy resigned. Is there any doubt that Kennedy was told that his former fellow Catholic clerk would be the choice, so he could retire with some assurance that his "legacy" would continue?
Democrats will lose in opposing Kavanaugh. If somehow he fails to be confirmed, The Senate will still be Republican after November, and Trump will pick an even worse candidate, who will be confirmed.
We are in for tough times for the next 30 years.
5
“In choosing Judge Kavanaugh, the president opted for... someone with close ties to the Bush family — a history that aides to Mr. Trump said he viewed as a strike against him and had to overcome.”
But quick to overcome if the move now allows easier appeals to the D.C. Circuit for those legally caught up in the Moscow-centred conspiracy cases. Some many soon wonder if evidence supporting a fresh allegation of obstruction of justice exists from this process.
3
Conservative judge or not, the damage to the meaningful discourse within this country is long over and done, clearly.
Rational debate regarding a person's achievements and credentials isn't possible in such a hostile and tainted environment. This was true during the presidential election too.
And that's the idea. By stoking the anger and divisiveness, Republicans won't need to dominate our government with elections or judges, because they've already driven a sharp wedge into our society. All they have to do is turn us on one another and find a way to make money while it's going down. Governance 101.
I wish the Democrats would pay attention - don't fight this battle. Save your strength for the midterms and rally your base now.
2
I am a Democrat and I urge Democratic senators to accept reality, resist counterproductive expressions of partisanship for the good of the country and vote for the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as the next U.S. Supreme Court justice. He is reputed to be an extremely well-qualified conservative jurist whose intellect and commitment to the U.S. Constitution is beyond reproach. We simply do not have the votes to stop his confirmation and making a futile attempt to do so would be an undiplomatic and potentially unpopular waste of time. Finally, with two aging liberals on the high court and with two federal elections quickly approaching, we do not have the time to waste trying to stop Mr. Kavanaugh’s inevitable confirmation. Instead, we Democrats should focus our energy on winning the 2018 midterm elections at every level and the U.S. presidential election in 2020 to ensure that we can protect working Americans, the indigent, seniors, people of color, LGBT people, women and children from the strengthening conservative Supreme Court majority’s jurisprudence and thereby prevent the further erosion of our democracy.
7
Purely politically appointed judges taints the principle of the separation of powers. In e.g. Germany and Denmark supreme court judges are appointed by an electoral committee, which in Denmark is completely independent of the political system and in Germany is balanced evenly between 16 members of the Bundestag and 16 secretaries of justice, one for each of the federal states. There is also a forced retirement age. The U.S. is lagging behind in the implementation of basic democratic principles. It is a very unjust system.
4
Judge Brett Kavanaugh as Trump's choice for Justice Anthony Kennedy's replacement shouldn't be much surprising given Trump's high stakes involved in keeping the full Supreme Court bench under his thumb, and ensure self-survival. Now with all the three branches of government firmly under his control and law and its interpretation fully on his dictates he can heave a sigh of relief after much grilling by the mainstream media and the Robert Mueller investigation nightmare. What is the Democrats can do now is to make the Senate confirmation as difficult as possible, and of course, raise the issue of the Supreme Court independence and how it has been turned into an instrument of conservative power play as the main issue at the midterm elections to expose the Trump and Rebulican enablers' conspiracy.
5
The "epic battle" which Democratic politicians are heralding here, and which will doubtless be sliced and diced ad nauseum in the news media for months, will mostly amount to posture and show, with much sound and fury and little significance.
The confirmation decision is going to come down to the votes of a small handful of "swing vote" senators, and they will make their decisions based partly on the merits of the nominee and mainly on the political climate in their home states, and only tangentially on rhetorical performances and feel-good rallies elsewhere.
7
I don't understand if the Affordable Care Act was voted in by the Congress, why would the Supreme Court get to weigh in on the treatment of pre-existing conditions?
4
It would allow states to opt out of that requirement. It is a priority that the insurance companies not be burdened with these very costly patients. They drain the premium pool and the rest of us have to suffer in networks working feverishly to get referrals.
If one can make it to 65 Medicare will bring down costs for the individual. My heart and prayers go out the those unfortunate sick people who should have know better than to fall ill. Why can't people be more responsible?
2
Justice Kennedy was not forced to resign by any known issues of health or other troubles. He was pleased to do it at this time.
The nominee was one of Kennedy's own law clerks. Kennedy picked him and mentored him from the start.
Siding with big business and against unions? That is what Kennedy did this term.
Kennedy's own support of Roe v Wade has been consistent, but consistently uncomfortable with abortion itself. That seems to be this nominee's position too.
What was "lost" with Kennedy was far from liberal, and what this nominee brings is much the same, not some swing wildly to the right. He's left of Gorsuch, though almost anybody would be.
Kennedy is not the huge loss he's made out to be, and this nominee is not that much different.
11
In part, let us not forget that Trump picked Kavanaugh to enable his path of personal wealth to continue to increase by creating another distraction that divides the country.
8
Not that I noticed:
"Is Kavanaugh all that different from Kennedy?"
Though Kennedy seems to be characterized as downright "liberal" lately, his voting record certainly doesn't support that -- especially if one looks at the spate of SCOTUS opinions released at the end of this term. Kavanaugh may be more "reliably" conservative, but I doubt his vote will be different from Kennedy's on many cases -- and it's even possible, of course, that Kavanaugh will turn out to be more "liberal" than expected (one thinks, for example, of "surprise" Justices such as Earl Warren, William Brennan, David Souter and (arguably) Harry Blackmun).
If Trump gets to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Stephen Breyer, THEN there will be a remarkable difference -- no question. But Kavanaugh versus Kennedy? Not really.
4
Despite the myths, Warren was not a surprise liberal. He was a three-term governor of California, liberal even then, who had romped to re-election in 1950 over Jimmy Roosevelt, and who had won both the Republican and Democratic nominations in 1946.
This thug presidency is grand theft nation. (In my state, if you steal a car, truck or other vehicle, the charge is grand theft auto.) The loser by more than 2.8 million Americans' votes acts as if he won by a landslide.
22
You expect him not to govern because he won by the same system that all previous presidents have won by -- the one spelled out in the Constitution?
Yes, now a bunch of Catholic men will prevent women of all faiths from having abortions even if they have no moral qualms about this incredibly safe surgery.
As a woman, I do not believe men have the right to do this for many reasons and I don't care what the law says. Were a majority of women representatives, senators, governors and judges when it was decided that women had to have babies whether they want to or not? Of course, not.
Men have been running the show for their own benefit for millennia. Now it is time for women to have a say in what they can do with their bodies and not to have to be governed by a small body dominated by Catholic men. This may be legally correct, but it is morally wrong.
Women need their rights. Men should have nothing to say about whether women want to have babies or not.
46
Agree we men should stick to what we do best....war, genocide, rape, gun deaths, Wall Street banksterism, racism , prison incarcerations and kidnapping Mexican children. That's enough to do. In US leave women alone.
If the violence enumerated above isn't enough for you guys, go the Middle East and participate in female genital mutilation. Another savage male behavior.
I oppose abortion when the fetus is a girl.
1
Another conservative Supreme Court nominee who says that he “must interpret the law, not make the law.” But that's entirely contrary to conservative judicial philosophy. Conservatives think that the judicial branch of government should act like another legislative branch effectively making new law like, for example, the decisions in Bush v Gore and Citizens United.
11
“Throughout this process, I’ve witnessed first-hand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary..."
Said he, with his fingers crossed behind his back.
5
We are on the verge of being dominated by a super monopoly Republican federal government that will no longer represent the interests of hundreds of millions of we citizens. Do you understand that staggering reality?
Since the Republicans won the Congress starting in 2010, and last year the Executive, they have made efforts to actually harm the Democrat base by attempting to destroy health care for all and threaten to destroy vital social programs first pioneered by Democrats.
With the carefully vetted Kavanaugh, I suspect his inclination to support imperial absolute power of the Executive cements our fate. This nominee must be vigorously fought, not just in the Senate dominated barely by addicted to power Republicans, but everywhere else with appeals to the public to save the American government from itself.
By far, I prefer the gridlock of Congress to an absolute power government that would not hesitate to destroy it from within as evidenced by the Republican embrace of the Tea Party and all the havoc it wrought.
This is a clarien call to all disaffected people to stop being paralyzed in fear of the future and act to restrain the out of control undemocratic Republicans. The Senate Democrats cannot defeat this political appointment without widespread drum beating resistance from the public.
14
The problem we're looking at here is one that has been getting worse for the last, what, 100 years? Google tells us that in 1800, people's lifespan was about 40 years. Let's say a prestigious old greybeard of 35 years of age was elected to the supreme court. He lived to 50 - people who view their lives as a success live longer. So, his term is 15 years. Now, look at justice Bader-Ginsberg. She was appointed by Clinton in 1993. It is now 2018 - she's served 25 years. Being a Dem, who admittedly hasn't studied the supreme court, I'm happy she's there, but isn't 25 years a little long? What if justices were allowed to serve 12 years, kind of like back when things were started? They'd be somewhat insulated from the wild swings of politics, but what if the remaining liberal justices died? in 25 years, the US would still be shackled with justices who reflect the ideology of USA 2018.
This outdated system needs to go, and has, for a long time. Else, assuming Trump is able to place one or more justices, half the nation (the liberal half) will be underrepresented in the high court for 25 or so years. Seems like a recipe for trouble.
6
Justice Joseph Story was appointed in 1811 at age 32. He lived to be 66. The elite lived longer than, say, a farmer or mechanic on the frontier, for the obvious reasons. John Marshall served 34 years, all but a few weeks under presidents not of the Federalist Party that appointed him.
1
Hopefully, the Kavanaugh nomination can be defeated. Stretching hope to its absolute limit, possibly all of Trump's future nominees can be defeated. If nothing else works, maybe it is time to consider term limits?
6
If, when asked the question: "Do you support the Mueller investigation?" Judge Kavanaugh responds, "Mueller's appointment is unconstitutional via Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2 and the power Mueller has over the office of the presidency, I would rest easy Pres. Trump has made the right choice. But, who am I kidding?
1
The Republicans stole one seat outright. Gorsuch is not a legitimate Justice and I cannot see how he can feel proud of the way he received his nomination. McConnell has done more harm to our Democracy than any one person, with the exception of our current President. He helped created the partisanship and divisiveness which paved the way for a Trump presidency. And now he gloats that he got what he has always wanted. The Supreme Court is now a sham, just like our President and our Congress. It's up to the Press, and hopefully the people, to preserve our Union.
9
"A rose is a rose is a rose".
A judge is a judge is a judge, and he will uphold the United States constitution no matter what. Pls don't try to paint it.
"A judge is a judge is a judge and a judge will be a judge." that's it.
How is it possible that Catholic Ireland was able to vote on a referendum for the legalization of abortion and the US cannot pull that vote off in Congress to avoid all the anxiety of depending on Supreme Court upholding of Roe vs Wade every time a seat opens up? In Catholic Spain and Italy abortion is legal (at least in the first 3 months). Why would it be a problem in the US? I do not understand.
Btw, for Trump to uphold an anti abortion agenda is so hypocritical. I wonder how many abortions the women he has been with have had, Some of them are not exactly paragons of the religious right.
9
Did the man masquerading as president ask the nominee whether he would recuse himself from any cases involving said “president”? The man in question does nothing whatever except for his own personal benefit. I personally have no doubt Kavanagh is being planted to help ensure the “president” cannot be successfully indicted and convicted. This nominee must be prevented from being seated. No nominee but Garland should be considered.
19
So the McConnell doctrine would have an election intervene before the Senate can deign to hold hearings, or a confirmation vote. Of course that won't happen... need there be any further evidence of Republican's hypocrisy or McConnell's perdition? Mitch's legacy is cemented by the stolen Court seat, and the vicious partisan "party first, country and Constitution second" abasement of his Constitutional oath and duty. Trump should be making his first Court appointment. I hope that the Senate flips, along with the House, and this clearly will be his last chance in a foreshortened term.
10
Given the choices, Judge Kavanaugh may represent a candidate with more intellectual honesty than the others. Like other conservatives appointed in the past, there may be a glimmer of hope for a fair constitutional hearing from this candidate.
In the present situation, the Judicial Committee should hold rigorous hearings, establishing that Kavanaugh can articulate a consistent and fair judicial, not political, view, and opening enough doors to find any skeletons or #meToo moments.
Then the Democrats - and any willing Republicans - should vote against the nominee, stating clearly that the vote is not because Kavanaugh is unqualified, but in protest for the McConnell - Garland swindle. The Democrats will maintain their cohesion, and red state Senators can explain their vote as principled, but not against their constituents' preferences. The Democrats can act as the people's representatives, and not the amoral goon squad into which the opposition has devolved.
8
Should the Democrats achieve power in 2020, the only way out of this mess will be to pack the court. as Roosevelt threatened to do when he was confronted with a similar situation.
It should be remembered that it was the series of Supreme Court decisions, especially the ones upholding the fugitive slave act, that turned civil war from a possibility to an inevitability.
Roe vs Wade and the laws regarding voting rights are today's equivalent of the fugitive slave act and the Dred Scott case. America is at the abyss, one or two more wrong moves is all it will take to push it over, towards either a Blue secession, or the use of force to give a Democratic President the opportunity to remake the court. Remember Trump's election talk about how gun owners may need to resort to their constitutional rights to protect themselves, well, that logic can work both ways.
2
Trump's bff's Roger Stone and Alex Jones are convinced Brett Kavanaugh is a member of the "Deep State" and personally responsible for all sorts of outrage and scandal. I think it's all lunatic nonsense myself but given our Dear Leader's conviction the "Deep State" exists it is only right that the Senate investigate the Deep State connections that these ardent Trump supporters, Stone and Jones, claim exist for, oh say the next 2 or 3 years at least, before moving forward on Kavanaugh's confirmation vote.
8
It's not a supreme court. Pretty much a mob. Congrats Putin, you win and we lose. I still believe in love and kindness.
3
So, the writers of this piece, and, leftists in general believe that Trump should have nominated a liberal to the Court. Really? Did they miss the election altogether? Videos of the election night broadcasts are still available on the Web. Check it out!
10
What an astute choice by President Trump, and what a nightmare for the Democrats, who are left frothing with impotent rage.
Kavanaugh will be confirmed and the U.S. will have a solidly conservative court for at least a generation.
When Ginsberg finally leaves the building, sometime during Trump's next six years in office, then Trump can nominate Amy Coney Barrett.
7
Ill gotten gains profit nothing...
Remember, this is a stolen pick by a guy that is under investigation for arguably treasonous acts.
We all lose. It should be common sense by now that if Trump likes the guy, he's probably horrible in every way imaginable... just look at his cabinet. But if that doesn't do it for you, google the guy (Brett Kavanaugh)... he's a transparent political hack. He wears it on his sleeve... Like all of them...
I wonder how everyone is going to view all these choices after something legal comes down on Trump... what is our recourse? If Trump really is deliberately destroying America for a foreign power, what do we do with all that we've let him get away with? All the picks, and changes... what is our recourse?
This is all so desperate... and my best friend is like "eh... both sides are corrupt..."
Apathy. False equivalence... whatever it is, one side is clearly more corrupt than the other. We're going to be paying for our own inability to critically analyze things, for a long time. This period of time, might just end us...
I know, hyperbole, right? It's not sarcasm... I'm not blowing things out of proportion... we're in big, big trouble.
10
He worked for Ken Starr - that’s enough for me.
7
Ken Starr is a great man. That's enough for me.
1
Democrats desires for peace and bipartisanship are naive losing strategies in the face of a militant Republican party. Senate minority leader Schumer will lose this fight. He's weak and accommodating.
3
A Supreme Court appointment isn't a “victory" in the sense of reflecting any capability on the part of the president who instigates it. It's a goal zone kick on an untended net. Many of Mr. Trump's "supporters" will be personally hurt by the inevitable fallout from this but they either won't notice or won't care because the irrational euphoria of blasting those scary shadows on the wall, the "liberals," outweighs any real-world considerations. Or their cries will be drowned out by the shouting of the mob, their former friends.
Nevertheless…
Here are the campaign websites of the Democrat fence-sitters mentioned in this article:
https://heidifornorthdakota.com/
https://joeforindiana.com/
https://joemanchinwv.com/
I’m going to give each one what I can afford now AND submit a comment letting them know that I’ll give more - and do whatever else I can - if they will commit to vote AGAINST the ossification of a far-right Court and FOR a living Constitution and a humane government with checks and balances.
3
The Supreme Court should be filled with people who are all about the Constitution, not about politics. Kavanaugh is a great choice. Let the Executive and Congress mud wrestle the politics. Keep the Supreme Court about the Constitution.
7
I hope and pray that Trump will son have the chance to replace Ginsburg and Breyer as well.
14
Best Comment
It is nauseating to see Senator Schumer automatically opposing the nomination in apocalyptic terms; another example of the disgusting politics that he and all of Washington wallows in. The commentators on the article generally are of the same ilk. Knee jerk accusations when this judge had made no indication he will be the evil person the readers and Senator say he will be. This country and its political and legal system are truly deficient.
10
No in SF - Didn't I see an almost identical version of your comment in 2016, but with a different senator mentioned? THAT all-out assault on the Constitution - refusing even to have an informal meet-and-greet with the nominee, let alone to deliberate on advice and consent - was apocalyptic for sure. This time it's just a guy doing his job. Sticks and stones, remember? In 2016 they bludgeoned the process to a pulp.
2
I looked at the beaming wife of Brett Kavanaugh, and I tried to imagine what she was thinking. I tried to imagine what her beaming daughters were thinking. Her husband, their father, after all, was chosen by a man who at age 60 boasted about grabbing a woman by her genitals; who insulted an American war hero and senator; who mocked the physical condition of a handicapped man; who insulted a Gold Star mother and father; who goaded his supporters to violence at campaign rallies; who supported a credibly accused child molester for senator; who lies continually; who cheats on his wife; who swindles business associates; who sexualizes his daughter; who finds "very fine people" among neo-Nazis. Were they thinking, Yes, this man, this man, THIS man has chosen my husband, my dad . . . ? If I live to be a hundred, I'll never fathom it. Never.
Frederick O. Greene, In the Glowing Heart.
26
Way too much time is spent on getting mad at Trump and the republicans over their agenda. Instead of developing a clear counter agenda with real candidates who can deliver, not placating democrats who are republicans lite or extremist from the left.
If you are alarmed at what is going on then you are a part of the problem. If you are surprised at what the republicans have accomplished then you were one of the naysayers who ignored those warning of their intentions.
Republicans listened to their base and tailored their message to appeal to those in the middle also while wrapping themselves in the American flag. The problem is the democrats didn't listen to their base, ignored those in the middle,ignored the growing anger in America even in their own democratic strongholds and proved this by rigging the primaries to suit the agenda of democratic leaders.
No matter what they say publicly, republicans still end up supporting Trump. The very opposite of what democrats did for President Obama. Never in my life had I seen a party do so little to support its own president. All because they were still upset he beat Hillary.
Unfortunately the DNC is still corrupt, weak and lost and those on the left still refuse to form a viable third party. So don't be surprised if Kavanaugh is confirmed. Just don't expect any real help from the democrats, some are already caving.
17
It would be very difficult for the Democrats to wrap themselves in the flag while at the same time burning it. They are welcome to try.
"Helen" the GOP didn't "tailor their message to those in the middle"....actually, they have been pandering to the extreme right, the religious, the corporate overlords and their billionaire masters!
Donald wouldn't be president had it not been for Russia!
You are exactly right when you say that the Repubs mean what they say and say what they mean, or was that just “be mean”? I’m not sure anymore. They should be ashamed of themselves for supporting such a hack President, one that is torpedoing the whole party, but, hey: they advance their agenda. I’m sure Slippery Mitch (McConnell) already has it figured out when he will be bailing on this president and crying foul. He is the puppet master, after all.
And yes, the Dems have their lot and their shame. Trying to play a game of keeps where no one blinks takes chutzpah that they just don’t have. I received a questionnaire in the mail from The Dem party from Tom Perez asking what my voting priorities are.... Hey guys: November is 4 months away, and you’re trying to figure it out now!?!?
As much as I want a Dem win come November, I will get out and vote, but I won’t be surprised when it’s hijacked. Its all rigged.
Surprised the nom. Isn't more extreme.
Though, as McConnell says, I wonder why he didn't 'let the voters decide' by waiting until after the election.
My guess is that evil Pence was the most influential here and made sure he got his way with the religious garbage.
5
The Supreme Court ceased to be legitimate when the Senate refused to consider Merrick Garland. The Supreme Court only has words, and only has authority from the words of the Constitution. When the Senate refused to follow the words in the Constitution it sapped the Supreme Court of its authority. We have to obey the Supreme Court, but it is only a matter of time before the population regards it, accurately, as a political body, which it has become. Its high sounding words are no longer law but political statements. It has lost authority.
11
I think Brett Kavanaugh will make a fine justice. I hope he remains strong through the confirmation hearings and stays true to the Constitution and always rules in favor of the truth. I think he is an excellent addition to the court. Well Done President Trump!!!
15
More importantly, this man will be great contrast to the four liberal Justices by voting with the rule of law and the Constitution, He will prove to be a judge and not a part-time legislator that far too many federal judges turn out to be.
With any luck, Kavanaugh will help return the Supreme Court to the role it was always intended to play.
14
Would you care to list a few?
4
Apparently, those in Verona continue to prefer knife fights such as the Capulets and Montagues, rather than real jurisprudence.
Thou doth protest too much about "liberal judges legislating", when you support those judges that made corporations into people in Citizens United. Can you point out where that is in the Constitution?
2
The President’s choice is again illegitimate. He should have selected Merrick Garland as the nominee. It would have been wonderful to see what the hypocrite McConnell would have said. We deserve better as Americans than this liar in chief and his merry band of thieves - the gop. Drain the swamp? It is filling daily with Trump water.
16
Yep, this is what tyranny of the minority feels like.
13
No, this is what it feels like when Liberals and moreso Progressives realize that it was no time to sit it out and or vote for un-winable candidates.
Even if the strongest chance the liberal abenda had "was not perfect" she would have never let this happen, Ditto on the environment/EPA. Ditto on neutering Unions. Ditto on the Tax Overhaul for the Rich.
How is that progressive agenda working out for you guys now Bernie bros and Occupiers? The ball was rolling slowly in the right direction till you decided that wasn't good enough.
They have all the power now. 2016 election was huge and they duped ypu all.
The politicalization of the Supreme Court is undemocratic.
12
So, we elected a man who brags about grabbing women's genitals, then he picks the nice guy who will make the laws for us. Could we be so forward as to ask this man if he will preserve a woman's right to choose? Oh, right, the rules of the game don't allow it.
A fundamental liberty at stake for women of childbearing age, and the Constitution that gave us slavery is held up as some beacon of democracy. Tonight the Constitution seems to be only words on a paper, used like the Bible by some, to justify whatever position one has in the first place.
9
The chickens now roost on the presses of the NY Times, where reams of paper once argued strenuously in support of an immoderate liberal agenda. The backlash America now faces as a result of that extremism is, in itself, extreme. Congrats. Good Job. Well Done. Keep up the good work.
10
NYT, please don't call it before it's begun.
As Paul Newman said, "If you're going to try my
case, don't lose it."
2
A thought: Kavanaugh has not been confirmed yet. There is a space in time between the nomination and confirmation. Mueller has not spoken yet. If, by some happenstance, he brings blockbuster charges against Trump and members of his campaign, what happens to this nomination? I’m sure, Constitutionally, it moves forward... but realistically, politically, would a President accused of improprieties which allowed his election have the gravitas to move this nomination forward?
4
Spiro Agnew fans salute your obscure allusion, all three of them. However, I feel you are too optimistic - McConnell blocked Garland all by himself, and he can repeat his success since there is no functioning President at this time.
1
Ah, Spiro... back in the good old days when “nolo contendere” really meant something... wouldn’t you agree? Why do I think this phrase might be commonplace in the Trump Administration as we look to the future?
I would like to state that I hope with all my heart that the right to same-sex marriage, established by an opinion of Anthony Kennedy, would not be imperiled by someone who had clerked for him and seems to share many core values that Kennedy espoused. That is my hope because that decision changed my life more than any other in my life and the thought of putting it at risk is more than I could bear. Am I naive in my hope that Obergefell will remain safe with the addition of this jurist?
7
Don't give me an attorney that knows the law,
Give me an attorney that appoints the judge.
Is Kavanaugh all that different from Kennedy? Just asking.
4
You can thank Obama for this. Eight years of pitting women against men, employees against employers, black against white and blue, and with a focus on things like climate change and transgender bathrooms while he neglected the average American. In the process he lost power at the state and congressional level in the most significant of ways, and was too lazy to get out and do anything about it. I guess you could say that Obama is the gift that keeps on giving.
16
Where is this place and time of which you speak?
2
The whole idea that judges should be involved with the abortion issue is ridiculous. And do single mothers raising five kids on a fast food salary have a constitutional right to a guaranteed annual income? Do the five children have a constitutional right to get some attention from their mother? Or do we raise them on the streets so they can create the next generation of failure?
9
It seems meaningful constitutional rights for non-wealthy individuals are becoming scarce lately. Even scarcer if you’re not white, male, and heterosexual. I guess it has pretty handwriting.
1
If this nomination does not illustrate the very definition of a conflict of interest I do not know what could.
Trump's focus first and foremost has always been himself. His willingness to foment white supremacist violence, tear apart immigrant families, gut the Affordable Care Act, use the NFL as an organizational backdrop for the deployment of racist attacks, embarrass the United States in the international community and so on all convincingly reveal a person who will destroy anything and everything if it means serving himself and the party of lackeys (the GOP) willing to do his bidding while he wears their label and rewards their spineless pandering and unctuous praise.
Kavanaugh's writings on the power of the executive branch are very concerning. Whether it was spoken or unspoken I can't help but wonder if a quid pro quo may be underway here. As with Trump asking an improper loyalty of James Comey I find it easy to believe Trump is expecting placing Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court may later help insulate himself from accountability for his autocratic, dangerous conduct.
Trump has no interest in true representative democracy. He wishes to be treated like the kings of centuries past, namely fawned over and living with his authority forever unquestioned.
Trump is a vile man who ought to be peacefully removed from office.
13
When everyone knows exactly how every Supreme Court judge will vote on any issue on any given day, regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican administration appointed them, then the entire political and judicial system is profoundly flawed.
In a properly functioning democracy, no political party is permitted to – nor do they want to – stack the courts to guarantee preferred political and ideological outcomes.
12
Yes. I’d say the most important job is upholding the constitution. Only in the USA does the supreme court function this way.
3
I never dreamed that I would owe debts of gratitude to Harry Reid (simple majority), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (rigged Democratic presidential primary), and Hillary Clinton (did n't campaign in Mich, Penn, and Wisc.)
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
11
This judge is an impeccable choice. Qualified and fair minded. Yet the partisan attacks, and outrage hype will soon begin nonetheless.
14
Robert Muller should disclose whether evidence collected to date has made Trump a subject of criminal inquiry. If so, then that should shift the ground under this Supreme Court nomination considerably. Justices appointed by Trump should not be the ones ultimately deciding his fate.
10
Gee thanks Anthony. What a wonderful legacy!
3
Too stupid to take his sister's advice.
Fox News trumps an experienced jurist.
So it goes in la-la land.
1
No I think he is jealous of her credibility and would never take her advice. I think he ignores his brother as well, who I believe was previously quoted as calling Donald "a two year old".
2
"Yet, like most areas of public life after the Nazi rise to power in 1933, the German system of justice underwent "coordination" (alignment with Nazi goals). All professional associations involved with the administration of justice were merged into the National Socialist League of German Jurists."*
*https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005467
8
Having some knowledge of what Kavanaugh did on the Guantanamo habeas cases, I was convinced that this nomination was such an utter disaster that I was going to write Roy Blunt an almost certainly fruitless letter. Then I read the Scotusblog profile and calmed down a little bit. He came across as a reliably conservative vote. Democrats should emphasize that this is a political pick and that only the right-wing legal infrastructure put Kavanaugh where he is now.
1
If Mitch McConnell had an ounce of respect for the rule of law and the concept of equal justice under the law, he would have postponed confirmation hearings until after the Mueller investigation is completed.
Any president of either party, under federal investigation for obstruction of justice, collusion with a foreign country to win his or her election and pursuit of business ventures and self enrichment through access to the office of the presidency in defiance of the Emoluments Clause, should not be allowed to choose a Supreme Court Justice until the investigation concludes.
The questions should not be how conservative Kavanaugh is but how criminal Trump is. Settle his criminality, one way or the other before allowing the nomination go forward. That is the right thing to do.
Crooks don't get to choose their own judges.
8
Kavanagh is a political hack who has shown his true colors in flip flopping on the issue of presidential impeachment and indictment. While working for Ken Starr, he wrote that a president (Clinton) could be impeached for lying to the country. He also wrote that absent a statute passed by Congress, a president could be indicted.His views when he worked for George W. Bush when he wrote a president is too busy to be indicted or impeached except in the most serious cases.
Amazing what politics can do to change a Judge's views.
7
How we could have anyone who's incapable of being an honest businessman and has caused so much hardship for the small businessmen he dealt with while lining his own pockets choosing a member of the Supreme Court is beyond me.
By making his income tax returns public his barely legal tactics could be exposed.
As far as President Trumps nominee for the supreme court is concerned, that would be taken care of if we had term limits for the members of congress. Then we would not have the conservative antiques presently serving.
1
The U.S. has become a victim of Constitutional history and intrique that centers about the selection of the judges who have the task of deciding the law as Federal literalists (conservatives) or interpretationalists (liberals).
When the Constitution was ratified by the 13 colonies the population of these states were 2.5 million. About 450k slaves were either counted as 3/5ths of a person or, more likely, not counted at all. White woman were not allowed to vote. Most of the white men were not allowed to vote unless they owned property, business or have military standing - commisions.
The 13 colonies lay adjacent to the Atlantic economy that supported and profited from international trade with the former empires of Europe.
It was easier to accomplish nation building - constitutional consensus and compromise, 229 years ago among 13 states and a small elite of land-owners, businessmen and military than resolving the interests of 330 million people in 50 states with thouands of politically divided office holders, in this Information Age.
Consensus starts with ideas that form solutions. When minutiae over-takes street-level socio-economics writ-large - race, gender and income/wealth disparities and rights violations continue. Economic growth falling mainly into the pockets of nations wealthy elites does nothing for the common man.
The American Challenge is to reassess whether 50 states and 330 M people are well governed under the Constitutional framework.
4
"White woman were not allowed to vote."
Not entirely true. Some were property owners in places like New Jersey and originally could vote.
Of course Trump picked the candidate who basically has said the President should not be investigated or indicted. Since Trump is a subject in multiple investigations it’s totally self serving to pick Kavanaugh.
6
The saddest part in all of this, is that the Supreme Court is supposed to be the last bastion of the disenfranchised. The savior and defender of the essential promise of these United States - the promise of equality under the law.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the one body that can stand up to any and all forms of political corruption and usury, and speak truth to power by saying, "No. That's isn't inherently fair." - In a way that most children understand what is, or isn't, inherently fair. Not the kind of fairness that needs to be "explained", as is so often the case now.
Instead, through an extremely well orchestrated and concerted effort by the GOP, the highest court in the land, the final arbiter of the law, is now the lap dog of the power elite. The professional user class. Those that do not see human beings, rather, organic ATM's waiting to be looted.
There have been only a few other political events that have been so disheartening to me. Trump's election was one of them.
I consider myself a deeply thoughtful and caring person. And what I see happening to this country right now... well, I wonder where it's all going to end. I consider these very dark and dangerous days for this country, and by extension, the world.
Hatred is on the rise. The clouds are forming. And the lessons of the past seem forgotten.
9
Read the Constitution... the role of the Supreme Court is NOT to be the last bastion of the disenfranchised.
That's right. It's function is to enrich the rich.
Let them do whatever they want with the Supreme Court.
They'll lay down the laws and cheer about it. Then they'll recoil in horror at our behavior. Drugs have been illegal for a century. Sure stopped us, didn't it?
Conservatives in the judicial branch will pave the way to a supermajority that has no money, zero resources, and absolutely nothing to lose.
The day is approaching when money will not buy safety.
8
Well said.
Kavanaugh would be the ninth lawyer on the SCOTUS, continuing the SCOTUS tradition of legalistic decisions. Yet its opinions differ significantly from the ordinary language interpretation of the laws and Constitution. For example, the Constitution states, "establish justice" without qualification, yet the legalistic view accepts gerrymandering as if it were acceptable. The criminal legal system is stacked against the poor, minorities, etc., putting many innocents in jail or prison, yet the legalistic view accepts the legal system as if it were legitimate. Many realize the tax system is grossly unjust, but the SCOTUS, contrarily, considers it legitimate The Constitution is controversial; many would like it changed and wouldn't sign it in its present form. However, the extent of its support is based on an ordinary language interpretation. Legalistic views of the SCOTUS should lead us to reject its claims to legitimacy.
2
The Olin Foundation, CATO Institute, Heritage Foundation, along with all of the conservative "foundations" run and backed by right-wing conservative corporate interests have succeeded in completing one of their major goals; a wholesale takeover of our judiciary system in order to reduce, weaken and lay waste to any government oversight. The result will be the return of vast income inequality, a plutocracy ruling class, and businesses once again free to exploit employees and our environment. This is not the America I grew up to believe in, and worst of all, our children and grandchildren will be mopping up after these people for generations to come. Thanks Trump voters for sinking us to a new low.
10
Anyone seen my country?
It used to be called the USA, and it was for everyone...
Not sure what it has turned into, nor I am hopeful for the future.
16
"“I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx
I would be interested to hear his perspective on "equal right to the poor and to the rich". Is it too much to ask that a justice follow their oath? If they can't, do they even belong on the court?
2
And when Trump is convicted of multiple high crimes then what?
2
Good choice. MAGA!
2
Frankly, I'm very disappointed. I never consider Kavanaugh as a distinguished scholar. You should have declined the nomination.
Your mind has been constitutional blind. I'm thinking about the US v Nixon, et al ruling: No one is above the law. You too.
2
Wonder if Trump will continue to spit in the eye of the rule of law? Will he pull us out of NATO? Will he legitimize Putin's annexation of Crimea? Will he cancel the 2020 Presidential election ? Will his ignorance and pride do what none of America's enemies could do from within? How ironic that a minion of Tailgunner Joe would become mentor to such a small hearted venal narcissist lacking in empathy and true patriotism? The fault lies not in the stars but in our apathy, envy and bigotry.
9
I think the really important question for Trump now is how much longer his comb-over will read well on camera. That front flap is obviously on its last legs, and the kitchen sponge he employs on the top of his head is starting to show.
The film "American Hustle" anyone?
4
I gotta say, while I’m upset, I expected much worse. I really thought he’d do something crazy like nominate Michael Cohen or Ivanka. Trump is getting more bold as he gets comfortable in office.
"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice." Mitch McConnell, Feb. 13, 2016
14
McConnell is a liar by virtue of the fact you cite and his recent nominee recommendations to Trump. McConnell is a liar.
1
They did and voted in Trump.
1
They also voted for Obama.
Are you prepared to take our country back? I am.
7
The much ballyhooed Blue Wave in November won't affect the Supreme Court.
Unless you are talking about something other than voting. Can't really have a call to arms in Manhattan.
1
yup.
1
Trump just picked his own judge and jury.
11
Trump's only criteria was if how this puppet Kavanaugh will vote should Trump be indicted. Trump's only concern was Kavanaugh's loyalty to him. Did he ask Brett for an oath of loyalty ala Comey? I wouldn't put it past him. Trump is attempting to stack the deck of the High Court for one purpose only: to escape serving time in the Federal Pen. They all deserve special spots in Hades for their despicable acts.
DD
Manhattan
11
The Fake President in Chief’s nomination is the “kiss of death” for Brett Kavanaugh to be the new Justice for the Supreme Court.
There will be no new Justice for the Supreme Court until after the November elections. The “do nothing” Republicans set the president on this.
1
cool so we no longer control any branch of government, or the state governments...
Well, you've got Schumer and Pelosi. So rest easy tonight.
1
Why does the writer feel the need to call Barack Obama president, but not Bush and Trump. Whether he likes them or not president is the title they both should be addressed by.
6
And then there's Clarence Thomas, credibly accused at the time of his nomination of sexually harrassing a subordinate, a scenario that would automatically disqualify him today. Assuming Kavanaugh's eventual confirmation, that makes three fraudulently obtained seats on the Supreme Court; the majority of the future majority of five.
9
Now's the time, folks. If you want to fight for your country, do it now. This illegitimate President must be stopped, and so must this nominee, who is the choice of a corrupt despot. Get your protest hats on. It's not going to be an easy ride. But nothing worth fighting for ever is. No court picks until the investigation is concluded!
5
One can only wonder what may have happened if Hillary won the battleground states that President Obama carried twice. What might have happened if The Times and its opinion writers did not constantly minimize Bernie while constantly sing Hillary's praises. What if Harry Reid did not end the filibuster for judicial nominees? What if Bubba did not push to meet Loretta Lynch on the tarmac, thereby enabling James Comey to give his views on Hillary's emails?
7
"A furious confirmation battle"? Led by the Democrats? Please.
4
The Choice of Kavanaugh is yet another politically incestuous decision meant to instill "Shock and Awe" in the Democrats, to enrage them to stupidity, to blindside them so they do not mount an effective well thought out strategy to defeat this nomination. Democrats, don't get mad, get smart. We are smarter than them and they know it, and that's why they seek to isolate us through anger inducements.
4
The constitution framers felt that it was OK to own slaves? How does he feel about slavery?
8
Trump is running the country like a reality show. Even the selection of a Supreme court judge felt like an episode of "Jersey shore".
If the democrats do not hire a reality show master producer, Trump will beat them like a drum, and outwit them.
Ask the press. Trump tricks them all the time, and gets them to feature his tweets, nonsense and lies.
This nominee has a good judicial mind BUT he is bad for women, healthcare, privacy, and everything else that really matters.
I hope he is not confirmed. Ugh!
4
Elections have consequences and the Liberals better stop pretending Denial is the 51st State in the Union.
Professor Akhil Amar of Yale Law School makes a compelling case for why Judge Kavanaugh ought to be confirmed by 90+ senate votes rather than by the 50+ votes he will end up getting in this hyper-partisan political climate. (Professor Amar is self-avowed Liberal).
Start winning and stop whining, Liberals.
6
Wow, this feels like that start of the Indy500. Talk about unleashing the pack, this is awesome!
3
We can all be assured that this choice, like all of Trump's other horrid choices will be someone who is working against all the progress made in this country. I can't believe what this country has become. For women, Blacks and immigrants, we are entering the dark ages once again. Get rid of this loser. Make sure to vote .
6
Watch the Democrats roll over and show their soft white underbelly again as the GOP herd tramples them into the ground. Schumer and Pelosi, we have you to blame as well as the weak-willed DNC. This country moved hard toward the progressive left until the Kochs, McConnell and (unbelievably) Trump outmaneuvered you. Retire in shame and let the rest of us get on with the job of swinging this country back away from the minority christian white supremacists and back to a country of inclusiveness, tolerance and opportunity. Shame.
5
Did Trump ask for Kavanaugh's loyalty before nominating him ?
7
The end of the world as we know it.
5
The revolution will not be televised
1
The sun will come up tomorrow, for white conservatives, evangelicals, the rich and corporate America.
4
My prayer for this evening: I pray that Brett Kavanaugh is a closet progressive who has cleverly positioned himself as a conservative simply to rise to Supreme Court status. And then, once he is confirmed and takes his seat, he sticks it to Trump, the evangelical wing-nuts, and all of Trump's G.O.P. loyalists and sycophants.
5
It could be argued that being appointed a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is similar to being elected Pope - if you wish, you can stay there until you drop.
Interestingly, on the last two occasions, the College of Cardinals has deliberately opted for an older man - conscious, it is argued, that Pope John Paul remained in office far too long.
In contrast, a U.S. President usually yields to the temptation to appoint a younger man, usually to stem the tide of change.
Ironic, isn’t it, that a bastion of conservatism such as the Roman Catholic Church, seems more attuned to changing times?
2
Presidents under investigation for possible collusion with a foreign power, should not be able to name Supreme Court Justices who might get them off the hook.
Just a thought...
22
And another thought..... Should he be impeached and convicted of high crimes, including treason, will all of his decisions, recommendations, and orders while in office be voided?
1
I suppose it could have been worse.
1
There are several Republican Senators who oppose Trump's tariffs. Senator Jeff Flake suggested "not moving judicial nominees" in an effort to get Trump to back down on Tariffs.
That was before Kennedy resigned. Flake has fellow Republicans (Toomey, Corker and Sasse) who vehemently oppose the Tariffs.
Will they band together to use leverage over Trump and delay Kavanaugh's vetting?
2
Trump picked the nominee involved in the Florida "vote recount" that won Mr Bush the 2000 election, and who wrote, in 2009, that moving to indict a sitting president would “ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national-security crisis”.
Clearly, keeping POTUS out of jail is Job 1 for this SCOTUS.
11
All the more reason for term limits for Supreme Court justices as well as other politicians.
8
President Donald Trump picks two Supreme Court Justices. I never thought I’d type that sentence. It’s like we are all living in “Back To The Future Part 2” with President Biff leading the country. Unbelievable.
Perhaps three good things will come of this era;
1) The GOP can never again claim to be the party of family values.
2) They can never again claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility.
3) After Trump, the next Democratic President can and should follow his lead and act more boldly. We’ve now seen what happens when vandals take over. One day we can see what happens when a leader of “radical goodness” is able to throw his/her weight around. Let’s look forward to that.
8
A total of 9 justices, 5 of whom have more power than hundreds of elected congressmen, given lifetime appointments. What could go wrong?
7
I wondered why kennedy with no looming medical issues chose to resign at this particular time. Now with this trump pick, it's clear as day. It's a deliberate GOP ploy to thwart the Mueller in investigation, no question.
9
With the not coincidental relationship of the trump crime family with Kennedy's son. Truth stranger than fiction.
5
His wife has medical issues. Sheesh.
The day will come when Trump's enormities will become too much even for this "conservative" court - but by then he won't care what they have to say because he won't need them any more.
3
We are now in a dictatorship where one party is the bully and thinks they are above the law. This GOP has twisted right from wrong messed up all the norms and seems to get away with chaos. and lies. You can't have a government of all GOP for years and expect fairness and a healthy outcome. Trumps major recession is near Wallstreet recently said and I am sure it is going to be a major one so his group will reap what they sow.
7
I wish you were right, but the thing is, this is the plan as it always happens. The Republicans cause a major recession, then a Democrat gets elected, soaks up most of the blame, get's the economy rolling for the middle-class again, albeit a little late (these things take time), then another Republican gets elected, takes the credit on day 1 for a booming economy, and starts another war, feeding any extra funds straight to fat cat interests.
That cycle keeps repeating over and over in my short lifetime. Since Clinton was president at least.
There will be little reaping and sowing. It's all about control over media, branding, and advertising. That and an expert use of linguists to create confusion over what is actually being done. Conservatives are way ahead of Progressives on this and many other fronts.
3
Can we please find out the addresses of the conservative justices so those who must follow through with difficult pregnancies may drop the children safely at their door? Like the firehouse. I’m sure they would be happy to pay and take them in. Mitch’s too.
9
Can I stop by an visit the Obama's, and then get an appointment to see their personal physicians, as I lost my ability to "keep my doctor" after the ACA was passed.
6
Oh, do you have insurance, Steve? Great! Can I come to your house and share it, when I lose mine at the end of this year, thanks to the elimination of protections for pre-existing conditions?
It is a sad sad day when consideration of who to nominate to the Supreme Court hinges not only who is qualified, but also on how well the nominee will be able to withstand the blatant attacks, lies, and misrepresentations of the opposition party. This pathetic politicization started with Bork, and has only gotten worse. Opening the door to attacking a SC nominee on political grounds is just as awful as changing senate rules for political expediency. Karma
11
A no brainer , Trump picked Kavanaugh because the hounds are breathing down his neck : Kavanaugh stated a president should not be prosecuted and Trump likes that . Wonder if he'll ask Kavanaugh for a loyalty pledge ???
15
The Republicans crossed the Rubicon when they ignored the US Constitution and installed Neil Gorsuch.
10
Please reference the constitutional provision that the Republicans crossed.
4
Republicans are good at playing dumb when it suits them.
Maybe a little too good.
After the '16 election - 56% of the GOP base (you know - the stupid ones) listed the Supreme Court as the most important thing influencing their vote. 41% of Democrats did. Great messaging, DNC.
I guess "the most consequential election of our lifetimes" just wasn't enough to motivate a unified Democratic Party or get half the electorate off their keesters to register one way or another. This was all so avoidable. It wasn't. Good luck, 'murica.
12
It is regrettable that the ethics requirements for Supreme Court Justices do not mandate that Justices must recuse themselves from any and all matters before the Court which involve the President who appointed them to the Court when such matters would involve personal actions by the President, or by persons acting in concert with the President or for the President, and not matters of political policy.
4
"Replacing Justice Anthony M. Kennedy with a committed conservative will fundamentally alter the balance of the court."
The Times is peddling a false narrative here. I strongly suspect replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh will basically continue the status quo on the court. It is the next vacancy -- whenever that occurs -- that will matter.
13
Kavanaugh believes a sitting president is above the law which is a radical departure from Kennedy.
Kavanaugh seems to indicate that he believes that sitting presidents are above the law. Sounds like hitlerian rhetoric and then he investigated sitting president Clinton. Hopefully the Democrats particularly those running for reelection will stick with their moral/ethical values as we watch Democracy being degraded. You have to blame the Democratic Party for this horrendous dictatorial president. Shame on the Democrats for letting this happen. Perhaps a third party will emerge that is interested in this country rather than trying to promote a self entitled candidate like Hilary Clinton was.
4
While we whip ourselves over this next SCOTUS, let’s add a few extra licks to remind ourselves that this is yet another self-inflicted wound. If you don’t vote, or throw away your franchise on a protest vote (!!!), you don’t get to complain. We gave ourselves this court and this president. Don’t do it again! In November, everyone votes. We need to fix this mess.
11
I heard Judge Kavanaugh speak after Trump announced him as his pick to replace Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh, I do not care about whether your daughters like sports or studying or reading or talking. I also do not care whether the latest basketball game that you took your daughters to was a boring one or a very exciting one. Nor do I care about the members of the Little league team that you coach calling you Coach K (and I cannot for the life of me figure out why some people in the live audience funny).
What meaningless drivel to talk about at this occasion.
6
Say goodbye to that legacy, Justice Kennedy. Your years of balanced, nuanced, decision-making have just been tossed in favor of the die-hard, dyed-in-the-wool, GOP hard-line. Only white, male, heterosexuals needn't worry: the rest of us better start thinking of where we'd like to live if we need to emigrate.
4
The legal "precedent" that should matter most is the Constitution, which is about to gain another defender on the Supreme Court despite decades of liberal attempts to unsermine it for the sake of their ongoing project of progressivism. Now back to the regularly scheduled hyperventilating posts.
15
I've seen you post this before. And I agree, it should be about the Constitution and the Rule of Law, which Trump and the elite walk all over constantly.
However, I disagree with you in that the Conservatives are "Constitutional Defenders". Just like they say they are the "moral majority". Or that they somehow have the corner market on religion and those ideals that make us Christian.
Trump and the party care for none of these things. If the liberals wanted to undermine it, they've failed spectacularly. Conservative activists, however, have had a brilliant strategy, and will undo decades of reasonable conservative, centrist, and progressive legal precedent to install their agenda.
To hear your words only shows how deep the cuts of our nation are.
8
Anytime someone makes a stereotypical and false statement about "liberal", their credibility is shot. No one is falling for the Russian propaganda that pro-trumpers are trying to push on social media platforms as the November elections draw closer. If anything, it insults people's intelligence and may drive more people to vote blue in November.
1
I just hope he's got a liberal bone in his body for our aging population: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I bet he wouldn't last long being disabled and living in a tent under an overpass. Let's work on that capacity for empathy, now that you're set for life, eh? Assuming you get the job.
5
Trump appoints his own, personal “get out of jail free” nominee.
17
It is time that the Supreme Court only interprets the law. The most recent decisions have resulted in the production of new laws. Homosexual marriage is one example of an overreaching Supreme Court. Under Article One of the Constitution, Congress alone can introduce new laws. Article One reads “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”
6
Not entirely true. It is a matter of due process and equal protection.
We would not have products liability cases or malpractice case or limits on liability. There is a reason why there are three equal branches of government. Under your rationale, we would not have one branch of government.
7
In reply to BellaM South Carolina
Let’s see what the newly formulated Robert’s court has to say about “due process” and “equal protection”. These are liberal buzzwords. This is no longer a liberal’s Supreme Court.
Perfect. A young white guy who will protect corporate interests over the individual every time there is a clash.
Behold the unblinded face of justice in
America, with scales deeply tipped.
2
the continuing apotheosis of trump,with a little help from his friends
2
democrats must show to the nation they are still have power over rule the thinks is not good for America, if they can not or would not than we deserve what is coming
1