Even this publication must admit this pick is a Republican Home Run. He will get every Republican save the Trump hating McCain, plus three to five democrats. Ginsberg on deck. She is old and frail. Stay tuned. This winning is getting exhausting.
9
Although the right wing talks about right to life and 2nd amendment issues, that is only to cover up their real intent. The McConnell court is about one thing, corporate power and how to maintain it.
12
And while that clown Strzok parades his bias openly for all the planet to see and affirm, leftists everywhere praise his objectivity and ability to separate his callous and at times obscene disregard for his President. Yet honorable jurist Brett Kavanaugh is somehow unable to perform his duties after a lifetime of proving he can. Such is the hypocrisy of the sore losers.
10
He’s terrible. Actually beyond that.
Trump damages America and it will take a long time to recover from his wreckage. There’s a direct correlation between illegal immigration and Trumps GOP enablers as well as former non supporters who have issues with democrats. Have no illusion that we never saw it coming because his base includes people who are angry at decades of neglect with unbridled illegal immigration, an unsecured border and lax enforcement. Democrats seeking the Latino vote by stating “we support immigrants” and the women’s vote with “we are for women” are a disaster course and will lose. Those are unclear statements and the democrats need to address the fact that everyone who tries to come including those in Trumps hellish detention are saying the catch phrase “I fear for my life, we are in danger” and they all know that. There needs to be verification of the legitimacy of seeking asylum.
Every impoverished nation d every overpopulated nation wants to come and further feels entitlement and resentment for us when they are in.
No Pollyanna view will change the fact not the fact that CA alone is inundated with 2.5 million illegals.
4
Elite Washington...The Judge can't even afford baseball tickets.
1
Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed and will then defend America's constitution to his fullest. He takes an historical approach to that document and well understands what the founding fathers had in mind. He understands that it was always first and foremost the protection of private property rights. Democracy was only on the drafters of the constitution's radar to the extent that it was to be avoided as a form of governance. Democracy was seen as a precursor to chaos driven by the masses. Many Americans it seems really have no fulsome understanding of what the true basis of American governance was and always has been.Many Americans, often those without property, feel falsely that through the constitution they are some how entitled to untold entitlements and protections. Judge Kavanaugh is just a footnote in a conservative history based on the rights of property owners that goes back to the beginning of the American nation. Universal suffrage and support played little or no role in the constitutional process and nothing about that is going to change in a hurry.
5
Apply to The Onion with this will you.
The US Constitution is not an extension of Walmart, then or now. Talk about low inspiration. Wow.
7
"hostility to government regulation,"
Perhaps I can help people understand this extraordinarily complex position.
More Government = Less Freedom.
Less Government = More Freedom.
9
@george orwell: do you really think it's that simple?
6
His father is a well connected wealthy insider.
He had kack for endearing himself to conservative professors who could advance his career
He likes sports.
He opposes net neutrality which is right out of James McGill Buchanan’s play book: the tyranny of the majority of our citizens over the small minority of their betters must be opposed.
His more liberal friends and colleagues like him personally, but let’s not forget, when he is appointed and rules the way Trump, and the Republicans expect him to, the people who will suffer won’t be among those friends.
10
A lot of time and effort is being wasted on confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices, much of which could be saved if the nominees were made to reveal who they voted for in the last Presidential election.
6
Thank you for this excellent article. Although I have to confess that I was kind of floored after reading it. What is being described here we call "Machenschaften", a very strong word for things that happen behind the scene and have an almost criminal touch. I think it translates in machinations (thanks again to the Romans).
Machinations in upper levels of society or in a closed web of mutual financial or business interests are to be viewed cautiously because danger is "just behind the door". Some people tend to call it dirty playing.
7
Outstanding work documenting Judge Kavanaugh's being a consummate insider.
Now, how to ensure the information is received by those with eyes squeezed shut and ears finger-plugged?
Talk radio spots could potentially work, if the networks would sell them. ESPN, too...
Is there some law or gentlemen's agreement against running political ads about the confirmations of nominees?
2
If jurists are recommended on their impartiality, then how has Kavanaugh so frequently been found among the partisan group? His qualifications are impressive but not his dissenting opinions on net neutrality, Obamacare, and environmental regulations.
9
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Confirmation needs to be held up until the November elections. There must be enough votes to be found to accomplish this step. McConnell and his Trump-adoring cohorts need to feel the wrath of decency allowed.
9
Thank you for this informative writing, especially for noting the Conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court's movement toward pro-business protectionism, and Judge Kavanaugh's support of this protectionism. Many in our nation think protecting the unborn is being on the right side of Jesus. However they make a deal with the devil when they sell their vote to the candidate who promises to overturn Roe v. Wade, but will also put corporation rights above individual rights. I pray we Americans will not sell our souls "to the company store."
3
This does NOT mean we shouldn't change the SCOTUS Justice-picking process:
"Hearings or no hearings, vote or no vote, there was zero chance that Merrick Garland would have been confirmed."
In the "old days," a President just got to pick his SCOTUS Justices, pretty much as he got to pick his Cabinet members. Obviously that's changed to a partisan vote, and it shows no sign of changing back.
It is inherently unfair that a President gets to impose a SCOTUS Justice on the American people for several decades, long after the President has left the scene -- as Reagan did with Kennedy, for example (most present-day Americans hadn't even been born when Reagan nominated Kennedy), and as Obama would have done with Garland.
I don't know what the solution to that serious problem is, but term limits on SCOTUS Justices would be a good start. I wouldn't allow the renomination of any Justice, since that would create a risk that the Justice would vote to please a President who might re-nominate him or her. Just a single term of, say, 18 years sounds like a good start.
As McConnell argued, Obama shouldn't have been allowed to impose Garland on future generations. But Reagan shouldn't have been allowed impose Kennedy on future generations either.
Time for term limits on SCOTUS Justices.
4
An extremely well written account of the judge's life, although it oozes of bias.
It is very scary that his entire life is so open.
He will be a good judge.
4
I think it’s highly irresponsible and wrong to talk about judges as if they are supposed to rule based on their policy preferences, e. g. “hostility to regulation.” Or, that their rulings necessarily derive from a desire to get those outcomes.
Kavanaugh’s rulings regarding regulations are explicable if one knows that the way Constitution is designed, Congress makes the laws and the executive branch implements them. If the executive branch goes overboard, an honest judge must rule against it regardless of what he thinks about the particular regulation at hand.
I really hope NYT and other media cover law in a much more rigorous way.
3
Considering all possible candidates that Republicans can get confirmed with the support of Democrat Senators seeking re-election in states President Trump won, there is no reason he will not be confirmed. It could be much worse.
1
Brett Kavanaugh may be an excellent jurist along with a fine and dandy family man - but we don't need him on the Supreme Court.
He is a right wing chosen candidate- and this country can't afford to go any more backwards .
He needs to be rejected.
5
It appears that Kavanaugh will just be a rubber stamp to whatever Trump wants to push through the courts. From what I've read about him, he apparently gives the POTUS divine rights, explicitly attributing qualities to those who occupy the Oval Office with uncontestable perfection in the manner in which they execute their duties. So, he will not be a check on the president's inclination to assume unlimited power to do as he pleases without fear of retribution.
These are very strange times in U.S. history...very strange. Our founding fathers must be turning in their graves. God help us.
6
File this soft-touch, "I love Mom and career women, my daughters and their (diminishing) prospects", alongside Donald Trump's "Nobody respects women more than I do".
At some point the GOP decided words were meaningless place-holders for their empty rhetoric. The end results are the same pack of lies.
5
Well, if all we have against him is "washington insider" then he's not different than most of our politicians.
2
In his writings Kavanaugh has shown that he believes that while serving as president a person is above the law.
This is the USA where all people are created equal, meaning we are all subject to the law.
That being said Kavanaugh is unfit not only for the supreme court but any court.
6
I do not understand why more attention isn't being paid to Kavanaugh's money issues, because they reflect incredibly bad judgment in practical matters. His net worth is extremely low and he went into serious debt buying baseball tickets? Really? Can we have more digging there and statements from this individual on why he has no money and went into credit card debt for baseball tickets?
8
Weakening the ability to vote erodes everything- everything.
Trump is engaged in a slow moving coup d'état right in front of our very eyes- under the direction of Putin and with the tacit approval of the GOP and their billionaire donors.
Kavanaugh is just another brick in the wall.
7
If you are picked for your Party politics, then we no longer have an impartial unbiased legal system, which makes us no better than those autocracies we used to be against.
8
Let's say it like it is, he was picked to protect Trump from indictment.
6
So, Judge Kavanaugh thinks we need a Special Prosecutor to investigate Democratic presidents, but Special Prosecutors are illegal for an investigation of a Republican president.
Am I the only one who sees a contradiction? I'm asking you, Republicans.
7
He is exactly what he seems to be. If these were normal times and the last Obama-era SCOTUS opening wasn’t literally stolen, Kavanaugh would probably sail through with over sixty votes. It is only the vast scope of ethical corruption coursing throughout today’s GOP and its leaders which makes allowing this nomination to sail through completely untenable.
7
Brett Kavanuagh comes gift wrapped in that wonderful package of prep school, Ivy League law school, Supreme Court clerk and judge labelled "special delivery" to the Supreme Court. Of course, inside the pretty box is another extremist--this one an arch-conservative, who may at this point be the most dangerous man in America. The very person who will cast the deciding "No" vote on whether Donald Trump can be subpoenaed by the Special Counsel; the deciding "Yes" vote on whether he can fire Robert Mueller for cause; and the deciding "No" votes on whether the cases in progress accusing Mr. Trump of sexual harassment by Summer Zervos or for illegal campaign contributions in the hush money paid to silence his affair with Stormy Daniels; and, of course, the deciding "Yes" vote in overruling Roe v. Wade. And so would end democracy in America, and begin the Trump autocracy.
7
This is totally what's wrong with the Supreme Court nomination and tenure process. The fact that a standing president gets to nominate and confirm a Supreme Court Judge for life guarantees that whichever president has the most open seats gets to run the court. And, let's not lose sight of the fact that the worst president, with the least backing of us citizens, is about to score a coup. A coup that will last decades. Awful. Limit Supreme Court tenure to 8 to 12 years at the most.
3
If Kavanaugh gets confirmed after Neil Gorsuch joined the court, taking the seat that should by all rights have been Merrick Garland's--an act that will live in infamy--it will enshrine the Koch Brothers' wildest dreams of undermining democracy and boosting plutocracy.
8
However guilty of stating the obvious, how is it that neither Trump nor his supporters see that Brett Kavanaugh is the very definition of DC "swamp"? An elite political climber since his Ivy League College days in the 80's, Brett has been on board every conservative Presidency & circled every DC pond to attain his current dream position: to be nominated to the US Supreme court. 40% of the population may approve the backward stance of the rightwing positions on life & death issues; however, 60% do not. Having a 100% rightwing Supreme Court for life is manifestly unfair, regressive & undemocratic. Besides which, a President under investigation for treasonous actions against the interests of US security has no business naming Kavanaugh who has stated he would protect the President from such investigation. It appears Trump has not only kept the swamp but also added the gutter.
8
https://abovethelaw.com/2017/07/supreme-court-clerk-hiring-watch-to-know...
This is an interesting connection in terms of Kavanaugh clerks. :)
1
I wonder if he listened to any of the lyrics in those Bruce Springsteen songs?
5
The American legal system is a failure. Congress is dysfunctional. Courts make law rather than apply it. The Executive is unbounded.
Yet Judge Kavanaugh is admired because he is a nice guy who excelled within that failed system. He is typical of our law leaders generally who know next to nothing of modern alternatives.
The world has legal systems that are not failures. It has systems where legislatures are functional, where courts apply law and only exceptionally make it, and where executives do not govern by decree. These systems that do work typically challenge their best students to learn about foreign legal systems and prompt those students to study law abroad.
America's law leaders are stuck in a century old mindset that values only what is done in this country. They know virtually nothing of modern, successful foreign legal systems. Imagine if our medical doctors were ignorant of treatments discovered abroad? In almost all fields of endeavor, our leaders know of what works well abroad. Not so in law. Judge Kavanaugh's hero, Justice Scalia, famously dismissed foreign law: "who cares? We have our law, they have theirs."
It is no wonder then, that in the ABA sponsored Rule of Law Index the American legal system ranks poorly compared to modern systems, and in some areas, scandalously so, e.g. access to justice, 94th out of 113.
In one of the world's most diverse countries, our legal leaders are incredibly ingrown.
3
" Presidents should not face prosecution in criminal cases'" This quote of Kavanaugh from another news story on a different news paper is enough to disqualify him. note; separating children from their parents and keeping them in cages is a crime against humanity that Trump has committed as well with Sessions. Given Kavanaugh statement we couldn't prosecute anyone who kills.
3
At least one needs to read no further than Kavanaugh holding up Scalia as a hero to get the point - the freedoms most of us saw as hard fought progress over the past 40-50 years for justice will take a tumble into the dust bin of history, while the rich get richer, minorities continue to suffer indignities at the hands of the police and other government agencies, the air and water get dirtier, and the greed of corporations rules the land.
For those Americans who think that all of this is just great, maybe there could be some thought given to how their lives were bought so cheaply by an orange vagabond. What good are portfolios if you can't breathe the air or drink the water?
3
This is one of the pieces published here that help us see Kavanaugh as he really is. There's quite a lot that has already been published.
My personal favorite perspective on Kavanaugh is that he has no devotion to justice. On several issues his opinion is dependent on which party is in office. A Democrat is President? The President can be sued in civil court and hauled before the judge in criminal court (Kavanaugh tried to get President Clinton charged with murdering Vince Foster, which was ridiculous). A Democratic President can be impeached for lying to the public (which every President has done for over a century) or even for deceiving members of his staff. However if the President is Republican, Kavanaugh has an epiphany. The President cannot be sued, and a criminal court can't even begin to investigate whether he has been involved in a crime. Impeachment? Suddenly the President can commit a variety of crimes with complete immunity from impeachment, or even Congressional investigation.
This biased behavior especially appeals to crooks who are also members of Kavanaugh's party. The President is one such, and there are dozens of them in the US Senate.
4
How ironic is it that the man who helped persecute Bill Clinton while in office, over nothing, will probably now get to help decide if the current president, who did everything Bill Clinton did and worse, should be impeached? Kavanaugh's reaction against Starr will now define his reformed attitude, that presidents should be allowed some privacy. Time to change the rules. How convenient for the Republican side.
5
This appears to be a good guy doing bad man's job. Reading up Judge Kavanaugh's upbringing shows him as a decent man who plays the role of company. I believe he will adhere to whatever Trump tells him to do. Basically, he's a crony. His family is another story. His father was a lobbyist for cosmetics company and always lobbied for deregulation.
Time will tell how Judge Kavanaugh pans out. Unlike many Supreme Court justices, it doesn't Judge Kavanaugh is absurdly smart. He's a practical man that follows Republican principles. I do hope the Senate rejects but it looks like America will have a conservative court. Good guy that has questionable principles.
1
NO SCOTUS (and I want option to call back Gorsuch) until Muller done and allowed to do his job freely.
If he is stopped for any reason, all laws signed by Trump are void in my mind and so I will fight to not have my taxes go to support Trump's (& GOP) laws.
2
So the implication of this article is that Judge Kavanaugh is not the independent thinker and jurist we are made to believe, but rather the scion of a "swamp creature" who will perpetuate the pro-business mentality espoused by his father. His decisions can also not help being molded and influenced (dare I say biased?) by his privileged upbringing, Yale education, and stellar professional career.
On the other hand, we are supposed to believe that Peter Strzok was not biased, and his actions were not influenced by his unfettered pathologic animus toward the President. Furthermore, Strzok was treated so poorly during his 9 hour questioning that some believe he merits a Purple Heart.
Hmm...does anyone see a double standard?
5
Love this guy! What a fantastic pick!
2
Having beliefs is a bad characteristic for a nominee to the Supreme Court. We need to confirm a SCJ who has as little belief as possible, to opine independently on the basis of the Constitution. Everything about this nominee is infused with religious belief, political belief, etc., so he is the least capable to have the job. We’ve seen such folks in the past; it’s as though there is any value in being pure, monogamous, and into organized religion. People are saying he is such a good person, wherein at the mention that he is ‘good,’ I turn around and run from him like the next plague! The man never should be a nominee, much less appointed, for he fails the test of independence.
2
A very interesting and thorough article. However two things troubled me.
First, the article's adoption, hence "normalizing", of anti-conservative anti-government phraseology in the body of the article: "regulatory state", "administrative state," "swamp". Please leave them to partisans.
Second, the table, showing "Common Milestones on the Justices' Résumés": A row on the table listed "Washington Experience," with a potential inference that all such experiences are identical. However, Ruth Bader Ginsberg's "experience" was significantly different from those of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Btett Kavanaugh (White House, often political experience). In its attempt to compress information, the table was misleading.
1
White male from affluent family, which made its money from businesses seeking to destroy any and all legislation which would seek to hold them accountable, seeks to continue to destroy such legislation and oppose anything that might affect the status of people like him.
What a news story. the next thing we'll learn is that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
4
Thre's a bottom line here. He's a conservative. To conservatives, it means he should be confirmed (I think those few who find him insufficiently so will relent). To liberals, it means he cannot be confirmed. There really are no other pertinent issues.
However, the opponents in the minority will take every opportunity to pretend that there are - good grief, they've already tried debt he's paid off - and will, do anything they can to prove him an evil, arrogant, vicious, thoughtless and irredeemable man. If they could put him in jail by some discovery, no matter how small, they would. That's the way partisans are.
The Rs are little better. Reasonable people can admit that the worst fights were in opposing R nominess - Thomas and Bork, and that statistically, when on the bench, D S. Ct. justices stick together a little more than the Rs. I'd add that statistically Rs are a little more likely to vote for D nominees than vice versa, but, you could argue that the Garland non-vote makes a mockery of that. It was legal, but I thought another nail in the coffin of civility.
Absent some hidden smoking gun, he will probably make it through. I personally do not think he will vote to overturn Roe (Casey), but, in time, if Trump gets another, he might be one of a number who does. Just my opinion.
3
Worse than that. #45 will have replaced American values with Trump values, ruined all alliances and trade agreements, and put us on the path to totalitarianism while being praised by his base as a success. Fixing the courts is only the first step in the process.
2
This man is a sincere, articulate, polished white Christian who is likely out of touch with the vast majority of the population. His decisions will reflect this.
His father on the other hand, is straight out of the swamp.
6
A very interesting and thorough article. However two things troubled me.
First, the article's adoption, hence "normalizing", of anti-conservative anti-government phraseology in the body of the article: "regulatory state"
Americans definitely forget history and certainly don't read which is what Republicans are hoping for..the push to defund public schools should have given them a hint.
Kavanaugh is a bought and paid for troll of Trump and a card toting Republican Koch Brothers brotherhood. He and now Justice Roberts was part of of the push to put George w bush in office and undermining the Constitution process of the Election where House of Representatives choses instead of supreme court when a tie or election is in question; he has made his thoughts known time and time over in questioning rulings of his fellow justices on the side of social injustice always siding with injustice. And as the House and Senate Republicans continue to show their "30 pieces of silver" is being spent in his favor and to hide their Russian paychecks, the Koch Brothers and the so called "BASE"-Bitter Abusive Sellers of Egos" will continue to rob us all of "we the people". Propaganda and Brainwashing is at full speed..too bad we don't have John Marshall to point that out to us anymore.
5
If you like Citizens United and dislike the Voting Rights Act, you'll like Kavanaugh.
5
And his crippling credit card debt.....what does that say about his judgement? According to Vanity Fair, "financial disclosures provided by the White House, the would-be Supreme Court judge reported having between $60,000 and $200,000 in debt accrued on three credit cards and a loan....In a statement, White House spokesman Raj Shah told the Post that Kavanaugh acquired the debt by purchasing Washington Nationals season tickets and playoff game tickets for himself and a “handful” of his friends, in addition to home improvements. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/brett-kavanaugh-explanation-for-...
3
“Influential Judge, Loyal Friend, Conservative Warrior — and D.C. Insider”
You left out swamp dweller
2
"---charter member of the..." Corporate Bund.
2
"The liberals need to thank their DNC for allowing Hillary to receive a rigged nomination."
Mueller's indictment of the 12 Russians the other day shows the astonishing naivete of Hillary Clinton's campaign people, especially John Podesta. The Russian hackers are to be faulted, certainly, but they were probably amazed at just how easy it was.
Two pieces of advice for John Podesta:
1. Next time you receive an email from a total stranger, informing you that your password has been corrupted and offering to help you change it if you will just click on the link provided, DON'T CLICK ON THE LINK. Instead, call one of your IT people. (You can usually spot them easily: Almost always male, usually wearing a T-shirt that looks like it hasn't been washed in several weeks, often smelling as if they haven't showered or bathed in several weeks, sometimes wearing shorts or even a beanie-copter, usually appearing to understand all that complicated computer stuff that the rest of us find baffling).
2. When you pick a password, choose something other than the word PASSWORD. The bad guys have that one figured out.
Would HRC have beat Trump if hadn't Podesta screwed up? Probably. After all, she almost beat him anyway. Podesta did screw up, though, and she lost.
3
Are Garland supporters living in a parallel universe?
"And I believe Garland would have been confirmed with 60 votes. He was enough of a centrist that some normal Republicans would have voted for him."
First of all, Garland indeed would have needed 60 votes, since the GOP then (and now) controlled the Senate and certainly would not have eliminated the filibuster (as they later did for the Gorsuch vote). If necessary, they'd have filibustered.
In light of that, would Garland have got a dozen or so Republican votes, thereby creating a 5-Justice liberal majority on the SCOTUS?
Which Republican Senator (and remember: Garland would have needed about a dozen of them), exactly, would have voted for Garland, over the predictably strenuous objections of the Republican Senate leadership?
Possibly one or two Republicans would have voted for Garland (though I doubt even that), but he would have needed a dozen or so to overcome the predictable GOP filibuster. That wasn't in the cards, and everyone knew that. McConnell would have been just going through the motions.
Hearings or no hearings, vote or no vote, there was zero chance that Merrick Garland would have been confirmed.
7
The question is why were the Republicans opposed to Garland?
If the only answer is because Obama nominated him, then that is a lousy, partisan answer.
6
I know exactly the milieu that Judge Kavanaugh grew up in, having experienced some of it directly and knowing the rest well. I wouldn't trust him with individual civil liberties and rights, or with the American Experiment, one bit. He's an obeisant company man through and through - business, political, religious. The ABA interviewer's assessment as "sanctimonious" fits to a T. And his overweening personal deference to President Trump smacks of craven bootlicking. Ugh. Things don't look good for America.
17
The author's lead-in states: "The carefully crafted narrative around Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, plays down his legacy as a charter member of elite Washington." That is quite accurate. But he is much more than that. He is a very carefully maneuvered asset for the Bush administration, and even in some regards for the Obama regime as well, as regards the former's war profiteering, and the later's assumption of that program (the GWOT). The nominee broadcast his reassuring allegiance to his masters, during his orchestrated White House speech, concerning his complete reliability in protecting the foreign and domestic terror construct, and the executive office privilege and radical power escalation that it provided pretext for. In some ways it is almost a Constitutional tort, in part over the 14th amendment, as it extends ex post facto influence, control and immunity stemming from 2001 acts, as well as those in 2008 during the Treasury raid (so-called "TARP").
2
D.C. insider?
So not draining the swamp?
3
They are funny, these American conservatives. All about deregulation, until it comes to women’s bodies.
11
Men's too. Nobody owns other people's bodies more thoroughly than an army owns those of enlistees. This is considered good training for being a cog in a kiss up kick down pecking order.
1
He manages his personal finances as if he has all his wealth offshore or promised for future delivery.
2
Brett M. Kavanaugh, a second rate mind with first rate ambition willing to do anything to be a dc player
7
Is our Republic going into deep dark waters?
Is #45 setting the scene to have a (3) third term?
2
Clearly something needs to be done about the fact that a disastrous presidential choice can infest the Supreme Court with his ilk for 30 or more years. That is far too much influence after the Trump disaster is just a bad memory.
6
''...his supporters are carefully shaping his narrative for the diverse Senate and the broader American public.'' - which translates to the radical republican agenda overall.
Present yourself to the public with an '' aw shucks folksy charm'' that you are just like them - down to earth and not a radical in any way. Then once in power, rule (or judge ) with a singular extremism that may be wildly detrimental to whom you sought votes from.
This is no different from this candidate.
It will be MORE of considering corporations over people. (or that they are people too)
It will be MORE of tax theft for the rich while downloading all costs to the middle class and poor.
It will be MORE of privatizing all of government functions, such as education, health care, the military, the justice system (jails), and even the administration of government itself
It will be MORE of religious views usurping human rights
It will be MORE of treating ''other'', minorities and especially women (no rights over their own bodies) as 2nd class citizens.
It will be MORE of an eroding of the law and the Constitution leading to possibly more power for the President (which might even lead further to executive power being unassailable - like NO MORE ELECTIONS
Every Senator needs to take these considerations very seriously and decide what they stand for along with the United States overall.
Most likely it is slimmest margin in history for a SCOTUS judge
- not a good sign for Democracy or the rule of law
4
''...his supporters are carefully shaping his narrative for the diverse Senate and the broader American public.'' - which translates to the radical republican agenda overall.
Present yourself to the public with an '' aw shucks folksy charm'' that you are just like them - down to earth and not a radical in any way. Then once in power, rule (or judge ) with a singular extremism that may be wildly detrimental to whom you sought votes from. This is no different from this candidate.
It will be MORE of considering corporations over people. (or that they are people too)
It will be MORE of tax theft for the rich while downloading all costs to the middle class and poor.
It will be MORE of privatizing all of government functions, such as education, health care, the military, the justice system (jails), and even the administration of government itself
It will be MORE of religious views usurping human rights It will be MORE of treating ''other'', minorities and especially women (no rights over their own bodies) as 2nd class citizens.
It will be MORE of an eroding of the law and the Constitution leading to possibly more power for the President (which might even lead further to executive power being unassailable - like NO MORE ELECTIONS
Every Senator needs to take these considerations very seriously and decide what they stand for along with the United States overall. Most likely it is slimmest margin in history for a SCOTUS judge - not a good sign for Democracy or the rule of law
1
Could someone please explain how senators with nothing to lose, Corker, McCain, and Flake could be turned?
They would be needed to offset defections.
4
An illegitimate nomination by an illegitimate President who who was put there by Putin. This is the Supreme Court that has been manipulated and crafted by Putin.
I would be embarrassed to be nominated by this President but I see Kavanaugh has no shame. I distrust his ability to uphold the Constitution given who nominated him.
6
He'll be another sneering Alito/Thomas/ Gorsuch, making it up as it he goes along.
He's in the pocket of every American oligarch. They will be ecstatic as they get richer at the expense of others.
Kennedy and son will be pleased too.
Look out Medicare and Social Security. The bandits are coming!
6
Well, isn't this a surprise...another rich, white male who is anti the average guy when it comes to the courts. But this one comes with a special twinkle in his eye that certainly must have attracted Trump...this Supreme Court prospect places presidents above the law.
6
Kavanaugh is a Bruce Springsteen fan. A multimillionaire rock star who has sold himself to his fans as a guy who works in a factory. No wonder Kavanaugh did not explain what dad did for a living. As Joseph P. Kennedy said so wisely "It's not what you are, it's what they think you are".
5
Ahhhh, the liberal media doing everything in its power to destroy a very capable, competent, qualified justice for the Supreme Court, because he doesn't fit their ideology. I remember somebody recently, all smug and confident, saying "Elections have consequences.". Yes, yes they do.
12
With the courts becoming fully conservative the bottom 80 percent better come up with a strategy and employ it ASAP
3
I think it will take pitchforks and bodies in the streets.
1
Nice guys don’t support Trump and he wouldn’t have been nominated if he hadn’t sworn fealty to Trump and made promises about Roe. He’s one of those judicial activists with whom the GOP agrees because he’s on their side. He’s an originalist who ignores the clear and often times unequivocal intent of the framers! He’s an originalist who ignores context and the reality of the 18th century. He’s like a man who claims he believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible until a passage is pointed out to him that doesn’t fit his greedy and cruel agenda. He’s a fraud but the GOP doesn’t care because he’s their fraud like Trump. No amount of crafting will change who and what he is....a man poised and ready to dismantle what’s left of the social contract and turn the Constitution on its head. Democrats should treat him with the respect he deserves….none. Give him the Republican treatment!
6
This nominee is the most political in all of my 60 years. He served the GOP on Clinton impeachment and was paid by the Hush campaign in the Florida recount.
He is therefore disqualified.
7
Never tried a case. Sorry, that makes him or any other nominee, regardless of "ideology," a hack.
8
Great reporting. However, what value lies in NYT readers receiving this information? Where is the effort to share this information also with typical swing voters and potentially swingable Republican voters especially in critical swing states or states where Democratic Senators may be punished for voting against Kavanaugh? Everbody not just NYT readers needs to understand that Kavenaugh will not be a judge for the (average) people, selected and elected by the (average) people.
The catastrophe of the 2016 election continues
The country powered by white men and women not only elected Trump but elected a Republican congress, guaranteeing that Trump would be unchecked.
The only conclusion is Trump’s voters want to overturn Roe v Wade, inflict unnecessary harm on the environment in the name of industry, support gerrymandering and voter suppression, the president protected from investigation for any crime including treason and be protected by his own party, suppress the free press, and eventually want an apartheid state by eliminating protections for all minorities.
Globally to oppose any friend, support any foe, disavow support for the survival of freedom and rather undermine it.
They voted for a president for which no lie is to big, and they believe them all.
Like the USSR with Lenin, the US has become a cult of the personality.
And with the Supreme Court we are locking this in for a generation regardless of which party wins in 2018 and beyond
The shinning city on a hill is going dark
We wait for the catastrophe inflicted on our country to pass, and our nation to be fair, and great, and kind and beautiful again
2
Kind again? When was that? America is responsible for the deaths of at least 20 million people since end of WW2. Don’t believe me?
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-...
Happyexpat,
I’ll check out the website.
Here’s what you may want to read about Swedish collaboration with the Nazis in WW2 (putting aside how any country could have remained neutral in that war)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mur...
There are no perfect countries.
3
Wow. I had no idea he was such an insider. He must be terrible. This is why I vote DEM. No insiders. All independents, with America's best interests at heart.
5
Seems to me Judge Kavanaugh is s wonderful candidate. As usual the hypocritical liberals are beside themselves especially when it comes to him being a - gasp! - Roman Catholic. May President Trump have the opportunity to nominate at least 2 more fine candidates and end his Presidency with 3 new outstanding Justices on the Supreme Court.
9
"carefully crafted", such persuasive writing does not belay the facts of his clear mind and his work record, and his service to the country
4
NYT provides an in-depth analysis of Kavanaugh, his family background, his extra-curricular activities, his associations and experience, and so on. Compare that to the former law clerk who wrote a supporting article on Fox News of the same person as a great guy who loved his family and placed pic-a-boo with his young daughters when Kavanaugh's young daughters visited the office. Americans deserve an in-depth account of any person nominated to the Supreme Court otherwise it is not worth publishing.
I believe that we must do exactly what McConnell and company did in an unprecedented act against President Obama when he nominated Merrick Garland for SCJ and stall until after the midterm elections in November. Senate Democrats and Independents cannot be complicit in their actions. Senate Republicans need to defend this Republic from the atrocities of DJT. And my thanks to Judge Kennedy for politically gifting his retirement to DJT.
Another picture of 3 white men. Asian-American? Native American? Mexican American? There’s an old saying about the South changing one funeral at a time. Sad that people cannot change their views and be more tolerant.
Why does an apparent traitor continue to have the authority in the eyes of people to appoint a judges for life? How can these things be separated?
There is no reason that a traitorous president and allies in Congress would endeavor to find approve the best judge, not the judge most aligned with an enemy of the people and of the Republic.
1
Seems he favors corporation rights over citizen rights. Typical.
4
How is it that for a very long time we have had a majority of the Justices who are Catholics?
2
I couldn’t be happier!
3
You shouldn't be. I write as a Catholic who came of age in a South where evangelical pastors, then and now, make sport of saying Catholics "have no regard for the things of God." My father, a WWI Army medic had the experience of seeing "No Irish Wanted" signs in or near New York City.
The 1st Amendment's separation of Church and State is the earthly reason why Catholicism prospered in America. When non-Catholic Americans watch an aging white men's cabal of five Catholic judges vote against the interests of ordinary Americans time and again, the public will think Church doctrine led them to become the best Justices moneyed interests could have. This won't end well for the church of St. Francis of Assisi.
Brett Kavanaugh is the epitome of the prevailing American rule that white male lives and lies matter most beside their prideful love of money.
At the birth of the nation the enslaved black African property in America were the physically colored aka race embodiment of American callous corrupt cruel cynical hypocritical inhumane reality.
On the eve of the Civil War the 4 million enslaved Africans were worth more than all the other capital assets combined except for the land in a nation of 30 million. After the war their heirs would be legally separate and unequal for another century.
Law is not fair nor just nor moral nor objective. Law is gender, color aka race, ethnicity, national origin, theology, socioeconomics, politics , education and history plus arithmetic. African enslavement and separate and unequal African Jim Crow were both legal.
See. "The Half Has Never Been Told : Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism " Edward Baptist
2
Nobody would know the name Brett Kavanaugh if Hillary had campaigned in Wisconsin.
9
How would you like your fish? The fork is in (if you know what that means). By accounts, the Pres was briefed about the indictments announced on Friday by Mr. Rosenstein before Mr. Kavanaugh was introduced. The senator's Coach K interviews will be interesting.
What's next?
This is all a sham.
The Oligarchs are calling all the shots.
It may sound overboard, but I would call this treason.
The job of our government is specifically:
“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. . . “
The Oligarchs are basically saying “we have control of the government, and we are going to serve ourselves”.
This is a betrayal.
That’s not how it works.
It’s not “winner take all”.
We are in need of patriots to stop this coup.
3
I assume you felt the same way when Obama’s nominees for the lower federal courts were blocked and Mitch gleefully blocked him from successfully nominating a SCJ during his final year in officr
1
The worst thing to set back America 70 years behind Ridiculous choice Get some one who is progressive not regressive.
1
" A good example is how conservatives twisted affirmative action to promote divisions between whites and people of color. "
You have it backwards, race based preferences, ie quotas, is the very definition of racism. It's promoted by liberals.
6
Sounds like a card-carrying member of The Swamp.
2
Sort of like Al Gore, the son of a US senator, who grew up in a Washington Hotel.
1
I’ll take pro-business as long as he’s not with Kagan and Sotomayor about the police scanning the interior of your home as they drive by because people can buy good binoculars at Bass Pro.
He’s a terrible nominee. He should not be acceptable except to the corrupt GOP.
2
That pro-business thingy is working pretty well now, don't you think Frankie?
1
A product of the American Nomenklatura.
1
Obama should have nominated Anita Hill.
1
Behind close doors...GOP corruption one SC justice retires and the other SC justice is hand-picked...follow the money!
1
Obama said the Russians could not affect our elections. Are you calling Obama a liar?
5
So, I gather that most of you here don't like our next Supreme Court Justice. ...Perhaps he will grow on you over time.... Like Gorsuch.
4
Judge him not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character...... Modified from MLK
1
Drain the swamp? when these poor suckers actually wake up, it will beyond too late.
You are being had step by step....
this is a perfect example
4
Republicans want to kill everything except the stream of money into the pockets of the rich.
2
Your forgot one other adjective: eminently qualified
6
I do not care one fig for "Judge Kavanaugh's" background. It does not matter one whit.
He, along with The Con Don and his Robber Baron/radical religion brethren want to destroy democracy in OUR United States of America.
WE THE PEOPLE must DEMAND that he be rejected.
NOW is the time. Traitor Mitch McConnell says he's going to get Kavanaugh confirmed by October 1. WE must stop them. NOW.
Call, write, e-mail, tweet and take every other action to tell YOUR U.S. Senate/Congress representatives NO - do NOT confirm any Con Don nominee.
They all belong in traitor's prison for using their inherited/stolen wealth and position to try to destroy OUR United States of America.
Time's UP boys. WE THE PEOPLE will not allow you to destroy OUR lives and OUR country with your lazy, demented, insatiable greed for power over the rest of us.
23
Try to extract from this fake what he thinks an "establishment of religion" is.
4
Well said.
They are not serving the country or the people.
This is a coup.
They DO all belong in prison for their betrayal of The country and the principles that it was founded on.
4
Thank you for this informative article. An individual, particularly one as transparently ambitious as Brett Kavanaugh, can be amiable with his Ivory Tower friends and colleagues, while disparaging those whom he considers beneath him, and who will be harmed by his rulings. I wonder how many of the people shown in viral videos maliciously calling the police on African-Americans peacefully going about their business are considered warm and generous by their chosen circle of friends and family. Brett Kavanaugh is not running for the title of Mr. Congeniality.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation, including that he appears to act as a zealous advocate rather than a neutral judge. And given that he was Staff Secretary during the Bush torture program, I find it difficult to believe that he was unaware of it. Torture is cruelty to human beings. Should we have a Supreme Court justice who condones cruelty?
Democrats and other groups need to explain the reasons for opposing Brett Kavanaugh in a coherent and cogent manner.
17
Watch the whole miserable Senate steer entirely clear of demanding to know what Kavanaugh thinks an "establishment of religion" is.
2
Is not his condoning torture enough to oppose him?Why do Dems need to explain in a coherent and cogent manner? Amerika is no longer a coherent and cogent country. The Republicans and those in fly-over-country are imposing the tyranny of the minority.
This reads like you think he would be great in his role
1
The claim that God's little pet goldfish "reason" is specious. They make things up and force them on other people.
1
According to the article Kavanaugh seems like a nice guy and at a personal level, probably is. However, we also learn here that like so many powerful Republicans, he is a child of privilege who was brought up with the anti-regulation, pro-business mantra of wealthy, elite, detatched Republicanism and has never looked back. It has created a life of power and wealth for him, including a federal judgeship, although he has never tried an actual case to conclusion.
It is suggested in the article that he has some expertise on the original text of the Constitution. I'm hopeful Dems on the Judiciary Committee will spend their time relentlessly examining him on the actual text as it relates to guns, campaign finance, voter suppression, voting rights, the ACA and net neutrality. There is nothing in the original text of the Constitution that would support conservative interpretations on any of these, in fact, quite the contrary. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose Republican interpretations on all of these issues. Kavanaugh will likely not be stopped as all 50 Republicans are almost certain to approve him, but it will a great way to educate Americans on what Republicans are trying to do on these basic issues through the judiciary.
25
You just literally made a bunch of stuff up there. Kavanaugh’s is at this point a very experienced COA judge who’s opinions have made him arguably the most influential judge not on the SCOTUS in the country.
In point of fact, his method of interpretation is the most consistent with the principals of our Republic in that he would most frequently defer to the legislative process to make policy rather then an expansive reading of the constitution that makes the court a super legislature. And yes there is text and precedent that frequently addresses regulation of guns, election/voting law, etc... just because left leaning policy preferences can’t be achieved at the ballot box or by constitutional amendment easily doesn’t make the court an appropriate vehicle to enact them
2
This Supreme Court pick was lost long ago, when the DNC created superdelegates, and then allowed them to announce who they were supporting before a single primary ever took place. This had the result of giving one candidate a 400 delegate head start, thereby discouraging other viable Democrats from entering the race. The principal opponent of Hillary wasn't even a Democrat and came close, notwithstanding the 400 delegate head start she was given.
For the want of a fair and open primary process, the nomination was lost. For the want of a candidate with appeal to independents, the general election was lost. And with the loss of the general election, the seat was lost.
I hope those superdelegates, including my increasingly doddering Senator Leahy, are happy with what they accomplished.
26
Agreed.
3
Luciano
London
Bigot?
"Where’s the evidence?"
per NYTimes July 13, 2018- "In late 2011, the Obama administration blocked a South Carolina law that required voters to show a photo ID before casting their ballots, finding that it could disenfranchise tens of thousands of minority voters, who were more likely than whites to lack such IDs.
But when South Carolina asked a federal court in Washington to approve the law, Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion upholding it. He ruled that the measure was not discriminatory, even though the Obama administration claimed that it violated the Voting Rights Act."
Evidence enough?
2
RM--It wouldn't surprise me to learn that corporatist Democrats are actually paid to make poor judgements, and to lose elections. Republican-lite.
3
With his running up of credit card debt to six figures to buy Washington Nationals baseball tickets, he should be a great advocate of the Consumer Financial Protection Board.
I guess the fact that he isn't proves he can separate personal opinion from legal doctrine.
14
I have to admit buying such expensive sports tickets is a bit eccentric...but is it illegal? criminal?....or just an unusually intense hobby?
1
As a lawyer, I can say that an essential quality in a judge is good judgment which is the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
Bob Mueller is someone who comes to mind as possessing this quality - quietly going about his work with fairness and focus.
Judge Kavanaugh, living on a modest salary and with a wife and two daughters to support, had between $60,000 and $200,000 in debt according to an article in The Atlantic, spread across three credit cards and a loan, mostly to purchase expensive Washington Nationals' baseball tickets.
It is easy to dismiss all of this as irrelevant or minor, but to me, it raises questions about his judgment.
Recently, in West Virginia, a state Supreme Court Justice was indicted for financial improprieties, including among other things the purchase of a $32,000 sofa for his office and then lying about the circumstances.
His history was very similar to Judge Kavanaugh's, and the source of many of his issues was poor judgment.
Judge Kavanaugh appears to be someone who will be very beholden to the Republican Establishment structure that is elevating him to one of the most critical positions in the federal judiciary.
That should be of grave concern to all Americans.
48
Brett Kavanaugh may be a good neighbor and fine family man but he's stayed close to the levers of power during his entire career. And he's as right wing as it gets - a dream come true for the right wing extremist Federalist Society.
Apparently, virtually every opinion that Kavanaugh wrote while on the D.C. circuit was written from a far right perspective - pro big business, anti consumer, anti voter, anti civil rights and on and on.
Kavanaugh, must have learned how to succeed in Washington from his father who was a successful lobbyist. Putting a guy like Brett Kavanaugh on the supreme court would be taking the country a step back from the great country that it once was.
43
No amount of the last moment attempts at the image makeover about the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh can succeed once the radical Conservative image of Kavanaugh is well engraved in public consciousness and the media memory.
25
Fine biography of Kavanaugh by all. Evidently, his qualifications for Republicans are that he continue the Catholization of the court.
I think that originalism is taken like Papal infallibility: the Constitution is written by the experts, so we need to determine narrowly what they meant. The corollary is that any interpretation that's based on additional data would be liberal; originalist interpretations will be conservative, allowing the demise of Roe v. Wade. Thus, there is an inherently conservative, and religious, bias to originalism.
Regardless of his personality, family and dog, Kavanaugh is being chosen because he is a conservative and will further bias the Court that way. Conservatives are happy. Kavanaugh's nomination further splits the politics in this nation.
It is no honor to be chosen by Trump, except among his trumpkins, which adds no honor to be supported by uneducated people. Like every capable Trump appointee, if there are ones who are capable, they walk the line between Trump's egomaniacal, mythomaniac fascist lunacy, and the mob mentality of his supporters. Yes, a Supreme Court judge has to transcend that nonsense. Kavanaugh is in there beyond the damage that Trump has, and will have, caused.
Kavanaugh is going to vote his religion and his conservatism under the guise of originalism. We can only hope that it is not biased toward Trump. We are seeing conservatism become Trumpism. A good SC judge could help stem that debilitating slide.
31
You had me agreeing until the generalizations...
Still waiting for a Democratic platform other than hate Trump.I also like the generalization about Trump supporters as uneducated.Worked out real well in the election.
4
Beautifully written, Charles, and perfectly on point. Thank you.
1
Thank you, Harry Reid, for killing the filibuster.
33
Both Gorsuch and Kavenaugh can only be Supreme Court justices because McConnell changed the 60 vote threshold rule.
We will get more Citizens United rulings for the billionaire class at the expense of the rest.
History will judge McConnell and Republicans harshly.
But it will be too late by then.
64
I disagree.
Merrick Garland was a very centrist choice.
There would have been enough Republicans to get him confirmed.
33
He would have never been confirmed if it had come to a vote.
1
Even if Brett Kavanaugh is the smartest, nicest, most generous person ever nominated to the Supreme Court, his nomination is by a person whose campaign is under investigation for having received support from, and potentially for treasonous collusion with, a foreign adversary. For the tens of millions of Americans who voted against Donald Trump, a Senate vote to confirm Kavanaugh would reinforce our feeling of disenfranchisement -- of feeling like we don't live in a legitimate democracy. Sure we've been feeling that for nearly two years since Trump won. But especially with yesterday's indictments of 12 Russian military officers, the idea that someone nominated by an president who very likely won the presidency only through illegal foreign assistance could sit on the Supreme Court for the next 30-40 years makes me (and likely tens of millions of others) lose faith in the basic promise of our democracy.
105
The world changes human nature does not
1
We already don't live in a democracy.
• 58% of Americans support a single payer health insurance system. The number climbs when people are told more about the way it would work.
• 90% of gun owners support some sort of background checks for purchasing a gun.
• 83% of people would have a “favorable” reaction to their representative in Congress taking “a strong stand in support of policies to protect and strengthen national parks."
• 70% strongly support protecting public lands like monuments and wildlife refuge areas.
• 72% of people support stronger controls on pollution.
• 66% support the expansion of wind, solar, and renewable energy development.
• 65% of voters back increased taxes for Americans making more than $250,000 a year.
• 67% of the top one percent of American earners support higher income taxes.
• 65% of people support giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
None of these positions are being enacted by our elected "representatives," who now represent the interests of big money exclusively.
Gilens and Page present data (http://tinyurl.com/hlov4ou) that show that average Americans, even when represented by majoritarian interest groups, have negligible influence in shaping public policy. Economic elites and their business-oriented interest groups call the shots.
The Citizens United decision put the final nail in the coffin of the great American experiment, and we are now watching the results.
3
I wonder whether Judge Kavanaugh's huge credit card debt used to buy baseball game tickets may have been a conduit for others to reimburse him in excess, as a type of bribe or influence peddling?
"The records also showed that Kavanaugh ... had between $45,000 and $150,000 in credit card debt in 2016, which was paid off by the following year.
In 2016, he also reported a loan balance between $15,000 and $50,000."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/07/12/us/politics/ap-us-supreme-co...
22
And don't forget his $865000 mortgage.
2
I hope Democrats understand this is business (the nation's business) not personal. Despite a privileged upbringing he seems a good guy, family man and within his community one of George H.W. Bush's "thousand points of light" (you know, the saying Trump ridicules). Never attack him as a person (except to challenge him for licking Trump's boots in his acceptance remarks -- it was the Federalist society, rather the White House, which widely consulted among the narrow faithful).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, expose his views. Unlike TR or FDR, this child of privilege may rule for an all powerful executive, who must not be challenged while in office. Ask if repealing Roe v.Wade will end abortion or make it far more dangerous. Ask if he believes the state has so much authority over the bedroom that it can prohibit birth control. Ask, above all, if his studies led him to believe in a Divine Right of Presidents. What would happen if Trump shot someone? Trump's base wouldn't care, as the President said, but should the courts? Plumb the depths of what the government may regulate, consumer protections? the internet? dirty air? dirty water? bank chicanery? gerrymandering? kidnapping immigrant children? Was Brown vs. Board of Education decided properly? Do his views about equal rights and the extent of the Founder's curbs on executive tyranny undermine our democracy?
56
Hope Democrats understand this is business (the nation's business) not personal. Despite a privileged upbringing he seems a good guy, family man and within his community one of George H.W. Bush's "thousand points of light" (you know, the saying Trump ridicules). Never attack him as a person (except to challenge him for licking Trump's boots in his acceptance remarks -- it was the Federalist society, rather the White House, which widely consulted among the narrow faithful).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, expose his views. Unlike TR or FDR, this child of privilege may rule for an all powerful executive, who must not be challenged while in office. Ask if repealing Roe v.Wade will end abortion or make it far more dangerous. Ask if he believes the state has so much authority over the bedroom that it can prohibit birth control. Ask, above all, if his studies led him to believe in a Divine Right of Presidents. What would happen if Trump shot someone? Trump's base wouldn't care, as the President said, but should the courts? Plumb the depths of what the government may regulate, consumer protections? the internet? dirty air? dirty water? bank chicanery? gerrymandering? kidnapping immigrant children? Was Brown vs. Board of Education decided properly? Do his views about equal rights and the extent of the Founder's curbs on executive tyranny undermine our democracy?
2
The fact that he was nominated by an illegitimate president for a stolen seat should disqualify him.
53
Drain the Swamp. Not so much.
23
Despite how abhorrent Republicans are, I have to give them credit for their persistence and diehard tactics. They will even cheat and create laws to serve their own interests. Clearly they do not fight for justice for all people. Right wing Republican Justices are the death knells of minorities since they promote racist policies of the Republican Party. Their self serving fanaticism will further the division between the rich and poor. A good example is how conservatives twisted affirmative action to promote divisions between whites and people of color.
24
And it all starts with McConnell.
Then why ‘give them credit’? Your first part of the statement says it all - they are abhorrent.
1
Thank God for the poets, song writers, playwrights, authors and public intellectuals, and the distingished media that keeps America in check. Reading this fine piece, I was accompanied by Bob Dylan's 1964 "The Times they are a Changin" while John Mellecamp's "Pink Houses" reflects a sense of hopelessness that the American Dream maybe just that: (shortened lyrics)
'Cause they told me when I was younger
"Boy you're gonna be president."
But just like everything else those old crazy dreams
Just kinda came and went
Oh but ain't that America for you and me
Ain't that America somethin' to see baby
Ain't that America home of the free
Little pink houses for you and me
8
"Another hidebound white conservative with no interest in, or understanding of, the plight of the common man ... "
I agree that Kavanaugh has little or no understanding of the "plight of the common man." But I'll wager that neither he nor (especially) his wife would agree. I strongly suspect they both think they ARE "the common man," though they understand that almost no one thinks that way about them.
Kavanaugh is running with the big dogs, and that requires much more than $225K a year. That may seem like a lot -- and it is, compared to what most American families bring home -- but it's not enough to run with the big dogs. It appears to me that Kavanaugh is stretched a bit thin, and that his wife believes (probably correctly) that the family is stretched even more thinly than Brett acknowledges. How he paid off his considerable credit card debt so quickly is puzzling indeed, and I'd ask about that if I were a Senator.
If it's any consolation, Brett ...
Your social life is probably going to shrink. I remember an old partner of mine, who'd been a friend of William Rehnquist in law school years earlier, telling me about his visit to Rehquist in Washington. He thanked Rehnquist for making the time to see him given that Rehnquist must, my partner said, have a full social schedule. Rehnquist replied that his social schedule had actually shrunk, as former friends no longer called him for fear of being suspected of currying favor in cases their law firms were handling.
29
Tell me Judge Kavanaugh, can a sitting president be subject of a subpoena? Why, no, Mr. President, why do you ask?
32
It would seem Democrats could do worse. He should be checked for consistency and asked if “the president could be impeached for lying to his staff and misleading the public” and, if not, be made to explain why not. He should also be queried about what part of the male body the government might be allowed to control in the way that some want to control what goes on in a woman’s uterus.
31
It would be a fantasy that Mr.Trump would add some diversity to the Court by nominating another woman or someone with an ethnic background.Since these justices rule on laws that affect us all there should be a broad section of our society represented- there is not!
18
If Merritt Garland had been put on the Court in 2016, he would have been the fourth Jew out of nine justices on the Court. Hardly an example of diversity since Jews account for only about 3% of the U.S. population.
3
The president of the USA, Mr.Trump's strident versus the civility
of the judge,Mr.Kavanaugh might be a series of interesting episodes in the days to come.
It’s too bad that the advise and consent role of the Senate no longer functions. Mitch McConnell converted that to obstruct and oppose if the nomination was made by a Democrat, initially stopping as many Obama nominees as possible at lower levels and ultimately ignoring his oath to the Constitution by refusing to allow Barack Obama to be president by blocking Judge Garland altogether. Harry Reid was previously criticized for using the “low yield nuclear option” to get lower federal court judges approved over GOP intransigence. So now we are where we are, with only the most outrageously unqualified nominees from one party being effectively opposed by the other. It’s hard to see that happening to Kavanaugh.
Diane Feinstein was criticized for considering the religious views of an Appeals Court nominee. I thought it was interesting that we have gone completely around the circle from JFK having to swear fealty to the Constitution over the Pope to the present day, where right wing Christianists, including Mike Pence, openly placing their religious beliefs ahead of their loyalty to America (or to be more fair, stating that their religious beliefs are congruent with their loyalty to America, and those who don’t share them simply aren’t Americans). I would love to see Brett Kavanaugh asked if he will reject any religion-based First Amendment free speech challenge to a woman’s right to obtain contraceptives, since his wife’s and mother’s family planning certainly ignored Catholicism.
35
If it's any consolation ...
Though Kavanaugh was quite effusive in his public thanks to Trump for nominating him, Kavanaugh's objective, if he gets confirmed (as I expect) will be to impress other members of the legal profession, not to continue thanking Trump. The length of time it will take Kavanaugh to get over his gratitude to Trump probably can be measured in nanoseconds. If Trump ever gets charged with anything and his case reaches the SCOTUS, Kavanaugh will be a conservative and that might (or might not) help Trump, but Kavanaugh won't do anything out of a sense of gratitude to Trump.
All federal court judgeship appointments are for life. Trump gets to nominate Kavanaugh, and I have no doubt Kavanaugh is grateful to Trump for that. But Kavanaugh's appointment will be for the rest of his life, and Trump won't be able to change that.
If it's any consolation ...
11
The first sentence is true. The second is not.
"The vast majority of cases are decided in the state courts. The decisions of the USSCt often have considerable impact on state actions."
A state supreme court indeed is bound to let the US Constitution "trump" any conflicting state statute or state constitutional provision. But this rarely comes up in state court proceedings. Frankly, judicial experience on a federal court is far more important.
8
One issue I rarely see discussed is the lack of state court experience on the US Supreme Court. The latest nominee is firmly in the mold of recent Republican appointments: a background in service to Republican office holders in the Executive and legislative branches, close connection to the Federalist Society, and a history of conservative opinions.
The vast majority of cases are decided in the state courts. The decisions of the USSCt often have considerable impact on state actions. Sometimes the effect is preclusive, preventing states from adopting legislation to provide relief barred by the high courts. Sometimes they require states to adopt practices that they otherwise would approach differently.
For me, a major complaint, is that the court, as it has been constituted for some time, has not a single member who has practiced before or served on the state courts. There is a huge blank spot.
More and more, the justices' backgrounds in the law have become fungible. There are outliers, like Sotomayor, whose insights vividly display what different experiences and exposures can bring to the courts.
But the court, now constituted of 6 Catholics and 3 Jews, no one with state court experience, limited exposure to minorities and the poor in most of their backgrounds, and a preponderance of similar ideological fealty, is almost a closed biosphere that clearly needs substantial airing.
21
Someone who appears to have problems telling the truth. Even when testifying under oath
PERFECT FIT for the Trump monarchy.
26
“Yet by many accounts [he] is also a generous friend, including to many Democrats... and a warmhearted family man.”
Appearance could be deceptive but more often it reflects one’s mentality. And judge Kavanaugh has a sincere warm smile. Although he was a staunch proponent of Bill Clinton’s impeachment, he objected to publishing the salacious Starr Report.
Later, when he observed the seriousness of a president’s job up close he changed his mind to opine that the Paula Jones case ought to have been set aside until the president left office so that he could focus on his job at hand without distractions.
Elections have consequences. Selection of the US Supreme Court Justices is among the most important. Though a liberal Democrat I would say the Senators who are up for this Nov ought to consider voting FOR judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation unless Sens. Collins & Markowsky are going to vote against his confirmation.
13
How rewarding it can be to serve the rich, defending their understanding of the U.S. Constitution from those who would interpret it in terms of the document's ideals.
15
Commenter david writes:
"Let the man be questioned and then make up your mind."
Great suggestion, but it's been a long time since that happened. When John Roberts was nominated, for example, Chuck Schumer said, at the end of Roberts' "hearing," that he (Roberts) was the most qualified nominee to come along during his (Schumer's) time in the Senate. Schemer voted against Roberts, though, and so it appeared that he (Schumer) had made up his mind long before Roberts had been asked any questions.
9
"After the November 2016 election, the republicans controlled the House of Representative, the U. S. Senate, and the Presidency."
True, but McConnell "promised" in early 2016 that the next elected President would be allowed to pick Scalia's replacement. If HRC had won, as we all expected, I would have expected McConnell to honor that commitment, and would have protested loudly and publicly if he did not. We'll never know, of course, since Trump won.
But Trump did win, and so now he gets to nominate SCOTUS justices. One can argue till the cows come home that McConnell should have held hearings, and then a vote, on the Garland nomination, but we all know what the outcome of that would have been (and many of us -- my hand goes up -- would then have questioned whether there'd been any point in the for-show exercise). The GOP controlled the Senate then (and now) and never would have allowed Garland onto the SCOTUS, thereby creating a 5-Justice liberal majority (FYI: the so-called "liberal bloc" (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor) historically has voted in lock-step more frequently than the so-called "conservative bloc" (Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia/Gorsuch).) Maybe confirmation votes for SCOTUS Justices shouldn't be political, but they are. Senator Schumer, for example, told John Roberts in an unguarded moment during Roberts' confirmation hearing that he (Roberts) was the most "qualified" nominee since he (Schumer) had entered the Senate, but Schumer voted against Roberts.
8
Maybe he should ask George W. Bush about money management. GW invested $500,000 in the Texas Rangers in about 1989; in 1998 he sold out for $15 million. I have heard of other politicians who bought modest homes only to sell them a few years later for millions. American truly is the land of opportunity.
9
The Federalist Society seems to turn out what I would call Stepford judges who seem superficially normal but tend to be rigid partisans and Constitutional fundamentalists to a degree that comes very close to paralyzing rational thought and common sense. For example, removing pre clearance from the Voting Rights Act and not anticipating a resulting flood of bogus discriminatory voting restrictions or interpreting and enshrining the Second Amendment in a 200 year old context.
11
Those who complain about Kavanaugh should consider the alternatives. Check out David Pryor, for example. I suspect you'll much prefer Kavanaugh.
Let's face it: Trump is the President, and he's going to nominate someone his opponents don't like. It might be Kavanaugh, or it might be someone else, but it's inevitably going to be someone his opponents don't like. And, sooner or later, that "someone" is going to be confirmed, put on a black robe, and take his or her seat on the SCOTUS.
There! With this sobering thought in mind, doesn't Kavanaugh suddenly look a whole lot better?
8
"David Pryor" should read "William Pryor," the extreme right-wing judge that Trump has often threatened (promised?) to nominate to the Supreme Court.
3
Absurd:
"No nominee of Trump should be confirmed until after the details of Mueller's investigation is completed and revealed."
Not sure this commenter has thought it through.
Trump hasn't been charged with anything, even a misdemeanor, nor has Mueller (or anyone else) even suggested that charges will be filed, imminently or ever. If this commenter's wishes are granted, a mere investigation would "trump" the Constitution. Frankly, the Constitution doesn't change a President's right to appoint a SCOTUS Justice even if he is charged with something (indeed, even if he's been convicted of something), much less if he hasn't even been charged. This argument would enable an opposition political party to block any SCOTUS nomination simply by authorizing a "special prosecutor," however absurd the subject might be.
It's often been argued that Merrick Garland was cheated out of a SCOTUS seat because McConnell refused to hold hearings or put Garland's nomination to a vote. But even if one concedes that Garland should have received both, he would have been voted down. The GOP controlled the Senate then (and now), and never would have allowed Garland onto the Court (thereby creating a 5-Justice liberal majority). One can argue that the Senate ought to have gone through the motions, but that's all it would have been. The Senate -- especially the Judiciary Committee -- would have wasted a very large amount of time to arrive at a conclusion that was entirely predictable from the get-go.
16
I disagree.
Merrick Garland was a very centrist choice.
There would have been enough Republicans to get him confirmed.
5
Wow, you are so all knowing about what would have happened if Garland got a vote.
5
Seems Mitch was not as sure as you that he would have been voted down.
Not to bother you with reality, but ...
"Kavanaugh is a staunch conservative who would make SCOTUS dangerously lopsided..."
The Merrick Garland nomination (which certainly would have been rejected if McConnell had gone through the motions many critics insist he should have gone through) was a naked attempt to create a 5-Justice liberal majority on the SCOTUS. Obviously that didn't happen.
Kavanaugh's nomination is just the opposite: a naked attempt to create a 5-Justice conservative majority on the SCOTUS. One big difference from the Garland nomination, though: It looks like that's going to happen.
Both "naked attempts" are illustrations of a simple Constitutional fact: the President gets to appoint Justices who may well be there long after the appointing President has left the scene. (Anthony Kennedy, for example, was appointed by Ronald Reagan, before most Americans were even born.) Whether Presidents should be allowed to impose SCOTUS Justices on future generations is a question well worth debating, but that's what the Constitution says.
8
Big difference.
Merrick Garland would have needed 60 votes.
McConnell got rid of the 60 vote threshold when it was convenient for Republicans.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh only need 51 votes.
And I believe Garland would have been confirmed with 60 votes. He was enough of a centrist that some normal Republicans would have voted for him.
5
Another hidebound white conservative with no interest in, or understanding of, the plight of the common man, chomping at the bit to inflict his version of corporate, evangelical, plutocratic America on the country at large. Like Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch, and the ever-aspiring-to-be-white Clarence Thomas, Heritage Foundation-clone Kavanagh will reverse Roe, safeguard Trump, allow the unfettered and irreversible assault of the carbon based fuel industry on our environment, and turn a blind eye to right wing gerrymandering and disenfranchisement. For the conservative block of the court, their opinions on politically or socially fraught cases will continue to be based on their biases, unhindered by any frank consideration of facts and with the ongoing use of post hoc artifices like Originalism to rationalize their decisions.
14
His skin color is irrelevant. Judge him by the content of his character.
10
Colors do inform upbringing, experience, outlook, and reality in almost all cases. That's what was being said by the commenter, and something tells me you already knew that. But, alas, if it doesn't fit one's narrative to acknowledge that then, by all means, turn it into something else.
I can see why the GOP's corporate overlords would like this guy, but for Trump voters who thought Trump was going to (somehow) undo the effects of global competition or fix healthcare? I'm not seeing it. Busting what's left of unions isn't likely to be much help to the average working person. Nor is gutting the Affordable Care Act. And who, whether working stiff or globalist elitist, really wants to go back to the bad old days of choking air pollution?
I understand some people are totally focussed on abortion and I can see why they might like this guy. But for the rest of Trump's supporters? It looks pretty bleak, yet another "the suckers will never notice" decision from the big money folks.
I know, I know, he is an "originalist" and promises to strictly follow what is written in the constitution. But when he goes down the "corporations are people" line we will all discover, once again, that "originalism" is just a cover for enforcing the status of those who have over those who do not.
I have nothing against elites. I grew up in the neighborhood where Kavanaugh now lives. It would be wonderful if all Americans could live in similarly nice neighborhoods, have good public schools and not have to worry about healthcare. I've done fine and I'm not worried about him undoing my life. But I have deep concerns about what will happen to all the people who did not start life with the advantages that he and I had or whose lives have been less lucky along the way.
45
>Dismayed Taxpayer
Thanks for such a thoughtful and well argued comment.
To be a 'bonafide conservative' graduate of Yale's Law School is an oxymoron of sorts. A graduate of its College is politically a 'toss-up', but its Law School ? Unh- uh. A 3 - or 7 - dollar bill involved here. Public Service is its hallmark (vs. Harvard Law), but not public harm.
1
Sounds like a great guy to me, despite his universally human shortcomings. As the good book clearly says in paraphrase, "He who is without them [i.e., shortcomings], let him be the first to cast a stone in judgment." It's a crying shame that either side of the political spectrum always finds something to use in an attempt to discredit the other, in order to push their own respective agendas, while pretending they don't have one.
5
If you like Citizens United and dislike the Voting Rights act, you'll like Kavanaugh.
1
So much for draining the swamp.
9
This is an interesting human interest piece, but says little about the only issues that mattaer; Mr. Kavanaugh's views of current constitution issues. He will, of course, decline to express his views on these issues in Senate hearings for the reason that they "relate to cases that may come before the Court." But we can find his views on these issues from his prior decisions and remarks. And for that reason, he should not be confirmed. Let the Federalist Society find another candidate that meets their criteria to present.
5
Times readers expect more than this love letter praising Kavanaugh's work ethic and longstanding friendships, while minimizing his environment-poisoning/cancer-causing, privacy-robbing, corporation-biased, civil rights-abusing, abortion-denying actions.
We expect far more.
24
Nowhere do I read that this devout Catholic spent a year doing volunteer work on a reservation or a third-world country (like Tim Kaine) or even a weekly soup kitchen. Nowhere do I read of him doing pro bono work for indigent defendants. Maybe he did all these things but I read of them nowhere. This elitist reeks of ambition and I suspect his shallow life will result in shallow decisions favoring corporations and ignoring the little man. After all, nowhere do I read he even knows anyone who needs health care, for example. Nowhere.
20
as a fellow Jesuit alum. I am embarrased!
8
"...30-year conservative movement to shift the judiciary to the right."
Please, why can't you folks tell the truth instead of hedging? It is not to 'shift it to the right', it is to shift it further right. Republicans have had a 5 to 4 majority or better for the past 50 years.
10
Kavanaugh is another in the long line of trump sycophants willing to kiss trump's ring. As a Catholic, myself, I find it absolutely appalling that our prayers to the people include only the undocumented children who arrived in our country without parents. Not a prayer is given to the ~2500 children who were separated from their asylum-seeking parents without an effective plan to reunite them. We will certainly experience more of this horror and inhumanity in Kavanaugh.
11
Confronted by the steady erosive drip from the Right that appears to be undermining many or most of our democratic ideals and institutions, I find it impossible to get certain images out of my mind. They are photographs taken back in the 60s of young African-American men in suits and ties or women in dresses attempting to enroll in colleges or have lunch at a Woolworth's counter. In each and every picture they are surrounded by white folks with anger on their faces that resulted in distortions of their very humanity. It was and is profoundly disturbing.
Today the arena of rights has shifted, and the anger has gone subtle and subterranean. But make no mistake...the underlying dynamic is intact. The actors may wear bow ties instead of bib overalls. They may speak lofty phrases instead of hurling insults. Yet the intent - to deprive entire classes of Americans the rights that were enshrined in the Declaration and the Amendments - is alive and well.
It's not just that these classes deserve better. The country and its ideals deserve better. These conservative jurists are tools of ignorance just as their executive and legislative counterparts are, and all the prep school and Ivy League mentions on their CVs can't change that.
21
Swamp creature, angel fish, shark or lamprey, Kavanaugh is a staunch conservative who would make SCOTUS dangerously lopsided in ways that could impede bringing law breakers and co-conspirators to justice, not by necessarily by conscious design but by blissful self-deception. Gross ideological imbalance in the Supreme Court is an unintended to a Russia look alike. A more ideologically balanced court is one of the last counterweights to legal interpretations that corrupt our democratic system of majority rule and longstanding norms or behavior.
8
I can give you 31 words as to why his confirmation should be unanimously rejected: Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution.
There was never any controversy about including this section to the constitution, so to abolish it now would be a huge spat in the face of the framers of the constitution. They knew it would be difficult to run a country, yet they knew that every person who ran the country should be held to a higher standard to the law to prevent corruption. If he is confirmed, he appointment would bring too much corruption to the country.
3
It is too late to whine. For all of those who did not vote in the last federal election–too bad! We need to have 91% turn out at the polls to overturn the present situation in DC and remove the Republicans. After 30 years, the conservatives have the power and the money to back their destruction of our democracy. Too bad we are still using computer voting machines. Countries that wish to have an accurate vote count use paper ballots. This is what happens when you don't pay attention. Trump told all of us what he would do if elected and he is keeping his word. The religious-right can forgive Trump but they have burned the Clintons' at the stake.
14
"Countries that wish to have an accurate vote count use paper ballots." Are you kidding? How'd that work for us in 2000?
5
The question of the Court's attitude toward the administrative state is more complicated than the article suggests. We have created a gargantuan bureaucracy that issues reams of dense regulations that no lay person and only a few legal experts can hope to understand. The rule of law cannot survive -- does not deserve to survive -- if we create a social order where an ordinary citizen, exercising reasonable diligence, cannot discern what the rules mean or require.
A reevaluation of the administrative state is thus long overdue. It is indeed unfortunate that it has become for many just another political football. It is defended reflexively by Democrats who seem incapable of acknowledging that some regulatory schemes are poorly conceived and in need of fixing. When they defend the indefensible, Democrats compromise their ability to successfully support the elements of the regulatory system that are truly essential. That opens the door to charlatans like Pruitt and the Koch brothers to launch indiscriminately destructive broadsides against the administrative system as a whole.
With respect to Kavanaugh it would be useful to know whether his analysis of the administrative state is targeted on demonstrable abuses and inefficiencies or is simply a wholesale ideological assault. If the former, his views and expertise could provide a beneficial contribution to the Court's deliberations. If the latter, he will qualify as just another right-wing political hack and should be opposed.
8
Can anyone explain to me why it is perfectly legitimate
to extend the Second Amendment to allow free use (with no regulatory oversight) of sorts of lethal
weaponry inconceivable to the authors of that amendment,
while it is completely illegitimate for the EPA to decide
that CO2 emission should come under its regulatory purview as a
pollutant, even though at the time of the Clear Air Act's passage
this gas was not understood to have dangerous consequences.
As summarized in NYT articles, such an apparently contradictory interpretative logic was used by Kavanaugh in several of his Appeals Court opinions.
He therefore appears to have no trouble
with such a fundamental conceptual inconsistency in understanding how a text interpreted at one time should be applied at a different time. So he must know something we all don't. What could that be?
Can anyone help me out in making sense of this evident (to me, at least) contradiction?
8
I can only assume in the times we live in , and growing up with a lobiest as a father , that the scent of Money takes precedence over any other logical function.
8
I read that during the last election that democrats were not concerned with judicial appointments. During the campaign leading up to the last election (November 2016) many democrats said that they could see no difference between Hillary and trump. After the election I read somewhere that 45% of the women who support Planned Parenthood voted for the republicans.
A message to democrats: the time to worry about political issues is before a major election. After the November 2016 election, the republicans controlled the House of Representative, the U. S. Senate, and the Presidency. To me that pretty much decides the issue. The republican president will nominate someone of his choosing and the republican senate will probably confirm that person -- baring unexpected revelations.
I love the democrats but they don't seem to understand politics or math. The republicans have a majority in the Senate, so - baring unusual or unexpected revelations - the nominee will be confirmed. The democrats can drag out and delay the process. They should ask questions but when does this process of delay and obstruction become counterproductive.
Winning elections takes lots of planning and work and you need to start working a year or two ahead of time. But if the democrats are going to have any effect on government policy, judicial appointments, etc. they need to win elections.
7
Trump's Campaign may have conspired with the Russians and the thought of confirming a Supreme Court nominee makes zero sense. Then again the GOP puts party above country every single time.
14
I am probably naive but I still think justice is supposed to be blind. Selecting a SCOTUS judge appears to have become a totally partisan action. In this it demeans the highest court in the land. I am sick to death of these people and their plans. I just received this week’s The Economist magazine. The cover and focus of the issue, with only a quick glance, appears to investigate and comment on why, despite higher votes by the people for liberals and progressives, we somehow have Republican majorities and that they are acting perverse to the will of the people. While that 30 year stealth plan has come to fruition, it may be time be for the pendulum to start swinging back. Watch your state Elections officials and vote in November.
15
I wondered a few days so how fast his debts would be paid and who would pay them. He can't manage his finances so he'll help manage ours. Of course the Clintons, too, went from bankruptcy to wealthy overnight with a few donations and shakedowns for favors, so it cuts across both parties. I think we're all sick of the corruption aren't we?
17
When the conman has pulled the biggest con of them all (a billionaire pretending to be one of the unwashed masses),what do you expect?
In this particular case ,even if Kavanaugh has many skeletons in his cupboard ,it won’t matter one bit for he is going to deliver on the promise of overturning Roe v Wade
More jobs lost ,factories shut down,wages are stagnant ,but hey,Roe v wade will be overturned
13
a charter member of elite Washington.
Which politician nowadays isn't OWNED by them?
6
Unless the economy dramatically collapses President Trump will be reelected in 2020. President Trump will probably have two more justices to nominate to SCOTUS before he completes his second term in 2024. As Obama observed—elections have consequences. The GOP could not have been given a better set of circumstances with the Democrats moving to the far left with proposals to abolish ICE and other leftist proposals.
19
Abolishing ICE does not mean doing away with its operations. Some Democrats are promoting reorganization to make the agency function better. Mentioning "doing away with ICE" out of context is just a scare tactic (and deliberate misrepresentation) used by the Right to manipulate fearful (and often bigoted) people. Further, if you can name one person holding elected office at the national level who promotes open borders, I will be shocked. Democrats do NOT promote eliminating ICE and replacing it with nothing (you know, what drumpf is slowly doing with the ACA despite his false promises [read: lies] to replace it with something "cheaper and better"), and they do NOT promote open borders, no matter how much Right-wing pundits try to convince people otherwise.
7
I hope you are wrong. But it sounds sadly true. I am glad I won’t live forever.
2
amazing how the left defers to every overreaching federal bureaucracy and agency but not ICE.
6
Read about Kavanaugh's credit card debt and ask your self what he might do for money.
23
Would he perhaps "play ball" with his rulings?
1
so which one is it? do you want him having the finances of the common man or one of wealth? you do realize he has a lifetime appointment and likey a lifetime pension largely equal to his final salary
6
Brett Kavanaugh epitomizes the swamp Trump promised to end. HA
10
No nominee of Trump should be confirmed until after the details of Mueller's investigation is completed and revealed.
74
I disagree. Obama can not get elected again and Holderman will not be appointed by anyone.
Glenn, Have you ever considered that you are not qualified by either experience or education to opine on the ethics of anyone much less a Supreme Court Justice?
4
"Communitarian democracy"? You mean mob rule? lol.
And Brett Kavanaugh is young! He will be on the bench for the next 40 years! S-C-A-R-Y!!
8
I can't see anything wrong with Kavanaugh using is credit card to pay for season tickets to major league baseball games. I've done that myself, several times. Often it's more convenient, and other participants simply pay back the credit card user.
On the other hand, Kavanaugh did pay off that credit card balance rather quickly. If I were a Senator, I'd ask about that. There may well be (and probably is) an innocent explanation for that, but I'd certainly ask.
13
If you care, you will vote. Red State people, go with your friends/families and get an ID now. Register to vote by mail ASAP in case your polling places are closed, moved, or over crowded--which is highly likely in GOP owned states.
32
How can we get Americans to vote in mid-term elections, especially younger voters and the poor? The consequence of having a population whose main consumption of news is limited to the exploits of the Kadashians or Kanye West (thank you, NY Times, for that recent coverage) has brought us a reality-show presidency. Trump's bluster and bullying, his ignorance and American exceptionalism is, indeed, representative of a large swath of voters (and non-voters) in the United States. I fear with the current crop of Democratic hopefuls testing the waters - Deval Patrick, really? - Trump will be reelected.
So, Judge Kavanaugh is comfortable with Special Prosecutors who will go after a Democratic president but thinks that they should be illegal when they are going after a Republican president.
Nice touch! I think that that alone should disqualify him.
77
just like Obama and Clinton did on gay marriage, maybe he's 'Evolved'?
7
Sounds like you've tried to raise a justification. I think you're confusing apples and oranges. The presidents were not would-be Supreme Court justices who are held to a higher standard since they do not campaign publicly for office
Absolutely!
1
Regarding Net Neutrality, this tool of Corporate America said :
“The net neutrality rule is unlawful,” he wrote, “because the rule impermissibly infringes on the Internet service providers’ editorial discretion.”
Nowhere in any agreement for internet services has any ISP I have contracted with expressed a right or listed as a feature if service any form of editorial discretion. I pay for access to the full range of content on the internet- an ISP is just a dumb pipe as with a water main, a gas pipe or an electrical supply wire. This is absolutely the kind of legislating from the bench that Conservatives have been ranting against all of my life.
When I buy access to the New York Times, I am buying the editorial discretion of the company as I am paying for access to content- the same is true for any content provider. When I buy internet service I am paying for a connection to a network that can be used at my discretion- not the ISP.
I am amazed this was not laughed out of court.
69
Our govt lags way behind as far as understanding what a server provider for The Internet actually is and sadly has still not been classified as a utility, which it obviously is. Should we decide who gets electricity or gas or water based on what they plan on doing w/ those Public utilities? The miracle known as The Internet is an altruistic creation for the benefit of everyone, and like always these GOP money grubbers seek to squeeze $ out of everything to balance out the loss of tax revenue due to their refusal to pay their fair share of taxes. Apparently Mr Kavanaugh does not grasp what editorial or curated content is....perhaps he has some large holes in his education that makes it impossible for him to comprehend these things outside of his limited sphere....he does not seem capable of objective thinking, his job is not about his subjective opinions....he deeply disturbs me, especially now with his phony-baloney good guy facade spotlighted.....he is dishonest in that respect which should be enough to disqualify this guy from such an important lifetime position....he is just another GOP partisan hack in my opinion and he should be blocked and rejected...all of this wastes our precious time and our tax funds. NO no no to this bogus poseur!
1
Mr. Gregory,
Indeed.
In other words, he has demonstrated he is incompetent as a judge but expert as distorting the law to serve the interests of his right-wing patrons.
1
The right wing courts have for decades been using the First Amendment to give corporations rights that should be reserved for actually person citizens. Kavanaugh will keep up this charade and McConnell knows it.
It is going to be a kangaroo court for another generation at least.
10
Like when a stone is thrown in a stream, the water will find a way around it. It may involve violence at times, maybe it’s time the people started to take their stands against oppression and tyranny again. The GOP has made sure everyone has guns.
4
The US is changing, becoming more like itself, the capitslist free fire zone Ayn Rand would love. This nominee is just another brick in the tomb of communitarian democracy.
10
The deluge of hand-wringing coverage of Trump's court nominee is no surprise. Indeed, many of these articles and opinion pieces were ready to go in draft form well before the announcement, only needing a name and some details filled in. It's like having canned obituaries for celebrities; the boiler-plate text and images are already done, all that is needed is a bit of updating before the final product is ready to print, post or broadcast.
Here's what I predicted (I swear) hours before the President's announcement: The choice doesn't matter.
Whoever Trump picked, the mainstream media would launch a salvo of articles and opinion (scare) pieces explaining why the pick is terrible for women, LGBTQs, migrants, poor people, abortion supporters, in fact pretty much everyone else except the notorious 1% and big business. The media would also say the Supreme Court will now be biased or even irrelevant.
The purposes of the barrage, of course, are to draw all but negative attention away from the nominee and to agitate the Democrat-liberal-socialist-radical base.
In fact, there is little the roused rabble can do about this; Trump pretty much has the votes to confirm his nominee. However, stay tuned for endless breast-beating, wailing, virtue-signaling, "spontaneous" protests, and accosting Republicans in restaurants.
What are Democrats to do? Get out the vote in November!
12
If Pence and McConnel like someone they must be awful and corrupt.
7
More should be mentioned regarding his lack of judgement with his regards to his past due credit card bills for sporting event tickets.
2
Tell us.
1
Seems an excellent choice.
9
Really? No, he isn’t. He’s a partisan choice. Merrick Garland was not. There is the difference. When Democrats want a judge, they want him/her for their equanimity and jurisprudence. The GOP wants hacks. I am sorry for Mr Kavanaugh. If he’s sold away his ability to dole true justice, he is a lost man.
3
To all Senators and Americans who uphold the American value of equality, diversity and freedom for all:
Let us stop the Supreme Court from tipping our country back to the old days of inequality, non-diversity, and freedom only for the select group.
Let's do so through the Midterm election. Let's stand up for our values and vote!
12
He’s a plutocrat’s dream. Where did he get the money for Nats’s season tickets?
2
Kavanaugh is Trump's Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card. Nothing more need be said.
66
That happens and I project blood in the streets. Remember 1968? Time for another generation to hold on to our democracy.
3
Bought and paid for - the “just” justice system. A man who sexually harassed a colleague still sits on the Supreme Court. This man appears to be in the pocket of big business - don’t believe the claptrap about the Constitution.
9
So Kavanaugh is an elitist..just like Justice Ginsburg, Sen Schumer, Rep Polosi..
As the people in Venezuela have learned being ruled by leftist elites has poor outcomes though they have achieved the holy grail of 'equality'...in misery.
Those pining for more socialism have good reason to fear as Kavanaugh rejects the rules of administrative bureaucracy as a short cut to socialist goals that can't be achieved by elections.
8
He is exactly what he has demonstrated himself to be throughout his entire life. He is exactly what he looks like. He has been chosen for exactly what he is going to do. He is supported by those exactly like him. Like the rest of his kind... just follow the money. Demoneycracy... that is what we have become. Our forefathers warned of this. As the nation lived life in an emotionless daze, this has been coming. McConnell is the figure head that is at the core of our nation's democracy collapse. The "People for the People" must stand-up for this one nation.
26
We already know he’s a liar because he claims that no president in history had ever questioned so many people before nominating him to the court. How in the world would he know that?
23
Trump fed him the lines.
3
Democrats, Independents and Moderates, PLEASE join in the battle to prevent Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court.
9
You are wasting your time. It’s done. Move on to something with which you can actually make a difference.
8
So cheery! We can make sure all his cards are out in the public so we can make the cases in the public square when he lives up to the predictions. Shaming SCOTUS may be the new reality program.
3
If Donald Trump is an illegitimate president, which gathering evidence seems to indicate —Russian interference in our electoral process put him in the White House, which voids the election—he does not have the right to nominate Supreme Court Justices any more than I do. Gorsuch should step down, and no new justices appointed until we have legitimate election for president. Nor should Trump participate in any governing activities, domestic and foreign. His position is fraudulent.
50
Don’t hold your breath.
Well, all I can say is that when a judge is standing between a smirking Mitch McConnell and an adoring Mike Pence, I worry about the guy in the middle; the one with the sneer on his face.
Judge Kavanaugh is signing on to a Supreme Court that has, as perhaps its chief victim in its cross-hairs, the further purging of voting rights and the ongoing gerrymandering of Congressional districts, a practice that overwhelmingly favors Republicans. This John Roberts Court is listing dangerously into Roger Taney territory. I doubt seriously if that's an accident.
21
If this was a family photo, it would be called a nice smile. It is certainly not a sneer. You are making up your descriptions to suit your ideology.
11
His ties to the disgraced Kenneth Starr are enough to reject his nomination.
13
It is my impression that Bill Clinton was the one disgraced; after all, it was Clinton who was the one who was impeached and who took part in sexual activities with an intern in the White House.
10
Mon Tay, do you not know what happened with Ken Starr at Baylor? He IS disgraced.
7
Good portrait of inside the D.C. swamp. Everyone who's lived here long enough has rubbed elbows with some of the worst people in this country.
Someone I know recently had a conversation with Kavanaugh at a community event. This person is horrified by Kavanaugh's political beliefs but describes him as "very nice."
A judge who lives in the Village of Chevy Chase, who as a child summered with his rich lobbyist parents in the Florida Keys, has never had to worry that his own beloved children might have to breathe disgusting polluted air.
In Washington, the very worst people are often friendly, sociable, charming. I once talked to Dick Cheney and found him very nice. At a small social event I found myself standing at the bar beside James Baker.
It's revolting to consider a candidate for the Supreme Court who once held a position in a bizarre legal case 'investigating' a lurid conspiracy. Imagine being the guy who "collected notes about the condition of Vince Foster's body."
It's the weirdness of Washington that you find yourself in pleasant social situations with judges who support fouling the air you breathe, war criminals, lawyers who successfully broke the Constitution by stealing a presidential election.
Nothing new here.
"Can I freshen your drink?"
28
Could you please provide your readership with a fulsome account surrounding Senator Leahy's "criminal referral" to the Justice Department of possibly false testimony that Kavanaugh had provided at his judicial confirmation hearing in 2006, regarding whether as a member of Bush's White Hose staff he had participated in the formulation of the notorious torture detention policies. Of course, then as now, Senator Leahy remains on the Judiciary Committee.
What exactly was done regarding this "criminal referral" by the then Chairman of that Committee to the Bush Justice Department? It appears that this matter definitely warrants some revisiting at any Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh.
9
Law for American people?
Law for American business?
Why is it they don't seem to have the same end goal?
3
This question has occurred to me too:
"How did all those 'baseball debts' get paid off so fast, after a decade?"
No Supreme Court Justice should be biased toward any person, or practice, that benefitted that Justice personally. Here, who knows? Another article mentions that Kavanaugh's father received $13 million in compensation for his last year of work as a lobbyist (2005); possibly he paid off his son's credit card debts. If so, that would be fairly standard: parents paying off debts incurred by one of their children.
If I were in the Senate, quizzing Kavanaugh, I'd certainly ask about this. He may say it's none of the asker's business, but I think it is.
7
Parents paying off their 53 year old child’s debt is standard????? Good lord. Where do you live? Not standard in my parts.
3
Another NYT article focuses on this, but it's relevant here too.
Should the Democrats have filibustered the Gorsuch nomination? They did, of course, and McConnell response by calling for a Senate vote that prohibited filibusters of SCOTUS nominations.
Gorsuch got approved, of course -- exactly what would have happened if the Democrats hadn't filibustered.
Several commenters argue that the Democrats should have "saved" their filibuster for the current (Kavanaugh) nomination. Why? If they had, Gorsuch would simply have sailed through without a filibuster and, this time, McConnell would have done exactly the same thing he did last time: call for a vote and eliminate filibusters of SCOTUS nominations.
Some readers seem to think the filibuster has some Constitutional significance. It doesn't, and never has. There's no mention of the "filibuster" or anything like it in the Constitution; it's a Senate procedural rule, and so it can be changed (and has been) by the Senate.
7
It seems to me that there is little point in putting up an all out fight to stop Judge Kavanaugh' s confirmation. Trump has a long list of equally conservative judges to nominate in the unlikely event that Kavanaugh gets voted down. The time for a fight was back in 2016 when Senator McConnell refused to comply with the Senate's Constitutional duty to provide 'advice and consent' on President Obama's nomination of Judge Garland. Why didn't someone take McConnell to court back then to force him to comply? Now the reality is that the Supreme Court is going to be conservative for the foreseeable future. The only way forward is for a progressive Congress and President to pass legislation to counter a repressive SC and Republican Party. All our energy should focus on the elections in 2018 and 2020. Vote as if your life depends on it!
15
Judges claiming to be originalists should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism. This is a fraudulent judicial philosophy used to restrict rights that are clearly in the spirit of the Constitution and in keeping with the needs of a changing world. It should be noted that "originalists" frequently sign on to opinions that deviate from their philosophy when they find it politically expedient. Corporations as "people" and money as "speech" being two recent egregious examples. This judicial "philosophy" if entrenched in the Court will make it all the more difficult to deal with the major problems our society faces.
12
Brett Kavanaugh sounds like a well rounded and bright judge who would make an excellent Supreme Court justice and deserves to be confirmed. His resume is very impressive and he would decide cases according to the constitution. He leans rightward which is a refreshing change from the four liberals we now have serving on the bench.
The Democrats will no doubt find fault with his credentials and style of judgeship and few will support him. They will probably grill him unmercifully to no avail. The Republicans will most likely all give him a vote of confidence and he will be confirmed. He will bring a much needed change to the court and will vote on cases using his intelligence and past experience. He would be a wonderful addition to the Supreme Court and will serve our country in an outstanding manner. Mr. Kavanaugh will soon be our next Supreme Court justice and will be wonderful. This is what our country needs now.
16
If the Republicans nominate King Solomon, he would be approved on a 51-49 vote. Should the next Democratic president nominate King Solomon, again, he would get a bare majority party line vote. As the Republicans did to Obamas last nominee, and as the Democrats will do to anyone Trump nominates, principle and decency will be irrelevant. Decisions will be made purely on the basis of party loyalty, and, much more significantly, solely for revenge.
Like third world factions seeking to avenge a perceived wrong from generations ago, the cycle will go on, and on, and on, regardless of the tragic toll enacted.
8
Wasn't all this known when he was nominated to the DC Circuit court of appeals 12 years ago? A court on the front lines of government agency regulatory efforts? Yes I know it's now the highest court but these facts and concerns, brought up now and not then, seem disingenuous.
7
Perfect Republican-Koch choice.
Having read the N.Y.T. articles on this man, and watched his carefully scripted and staged acceptance speech, he appears to be adept at misdirection.
Kavanaugh also seems highly susceptible to influence by political operatives and goals rather than law.
The impression he creates is of a man who lusts for power over other people he considers his inferiors, and values wealth accumulation above human rights.
Nothing written about him, or quoted from his writings, indicates he takes Christian faith seriously enough to demonstrate it through moral judicial decisions. Coaching C.Y.O. basketball does nothing to advance voter rights.
Senate confirmation would be disastrous for people who work, people of opposing political views, the air we breathe, and the protection of the fragile land we claim as our country.
There is always a critical problem when a man of exceptional intelligence lacks the innate integrity visible in those whose actions are based in thoughtful ethical principles.
The Jesuits who educated me would reject this Court pick as unfit.
18
There is something wrong in a judge who wants so badly to be anointed by Trump that he let his name being put on that Federalist list, most likely advocated for his name to be added to the list.
Would he have done it knowing what we know now beyond any reasonable doubt about Trump? If asked, he will talk about the gender of angels.
3
The three things in Judge Kavanaugh's life that portend his pivotal influence on the Supreme Court:
His upbringing, his professional life and role models, and his judicial body of work.
Upbringing: Big ups for loving his family, friends, and for his sense of service. However, his influential father made his living as a conservative crusader, a regulation-fighting cosmetic industry lobbyist.
Professional life and mentors: A Republican political insider at the highest levels for more than half of his career - highly irregular for a Supreme Court nominee; and his Northern Star is justice Scalia: “I loved the guy,” he said of the conservative icon. “To me he was and remains a hero and a role model.”
Judicial body of work, writings and speeches: Batten down the hatches, because the following will be crippled or eliminated:
A woman's right to make decisions about her own body.
Obamacare.
Worker's rights, including having their health care provide the full range of expected care, if their employer has religious beliefs.
Protections against the abuses of banks and monopolistic companies.
Protections for clean air and clean water.
- and the list goes on...
It seems clear that I would like judge Kavanaugh if he were my neighbor; however, his elite, narrow upbringing, beliefs and influences have proven to tragically nullify his ability to translate his admirable personal humanity into a judicial philosophy that truly serves the people.
11
It's unfortunate that the person who chose him has no integrity, since it immediately puts a stain on whomever is chosen. I could never look at Kavanaugh without seeing it through those eyes. And it's even more unfortunate that this privileged guy will no doubt be the next supreme court justice for years.
8
Unless his finances sink him it's a done deal. The real question is, whether this administration should currently have the standing to even make this appointment; before the Mueller investigation is complete. With the Friday indictment there is now a clear dotted line leading from the GRU, i.e., Putin, to the Trump campaign. I, for one, want to first see whether Mueller can connect the dots and prove conspiracy and (therefore) treason. That would make this administration illegitimate. We would need new presidential elections and everything that happened since November 2016 should be rolled back.
The Friday indictment is not trivial. It points to an act of war. A cyber attack is still an attack. In any other reality it would have stopped everything in DC in its tracks. Picture this same indictment leveled against Obama or (Bill) Clinton and tell me the Republicans would not at this very moment hold emergency sessions in Congress and demonstrate in the streets.
14
Judge Kavanaugh represents an ongoing continuation of the good-ol'-boy network.
With a well-connected father as a D.C. lobbyist, Kavanaugh got his Ivy League education & was destined to be a D.C. attorney of some clout. Being a federal judge was not unforeseeable, & the Supreme Court will help to cement Trump's let-'em-eat-cake approach to the law into the mid-2000s. Disappointing/scary, but hardly surprising.
At best, all the Democrats could muster nowadays ( if all things were equal) would likely be yet another Ivy League grad, with an equally guilded upbringing & job history.
4
Legacy? Please define as clearly as possible the legal meaning of ‘religion’ and ‘speech’. As a US citizen I find my life more and more limited by those two words as used by the Supreme Court. Is a rite or ritual a religion? Is religion equal to law? Is money a speech?
Don’t use these words at your convenience.
4
"Conservative Warrior" and now sent to the Court for his greatest mission yet. That's because Republicans on the court are explicitly political actors, with a political mission sent by their overlords at the heritage foundation. Kavanaugh will be their greatest win, while the rest of us lose.
9
Most Supreme Court justices always WERE insiders of one kind or another. Among the current Court all are “insiders” despite their different ideological convictions by virtue of their similar educations and for having lived in government housing (so to say) for much of their careers. Condemning Kavanaugh for this reason is transparently seeking to press emotional buttons that shouldn’t be connected to anything material.
But it’s clear that the (5,324) authors of this news analysis piece believe that he’s less qualified a jurist than one whose father was not a lobbyist. What might that say of a future judicial candidate whose father was, say, a reporter and news analyst? One flogs the interests of cosmetics makers and admits it, the other flogs ideological worldviews yet claims that s(he) doesn’t.
As to his pro-business tendencies, this is precisely the reason WHY Republicans believe that Kavanaugh, like Gorsuch, is an outstanding pick by President Trump. Another good reason is his conviction that a judge is an “umpire” and not some super-legislator.
And why are second homes in the Florida Keys and Maryland’s Eastern Shore bad things when they’re the rewards of a couple who started low, worked hard for lifetimes, distinguished themselves and EARNED those rewards? When did success by parents become a disqualifier for a seat on the Supreme Court? In America? ...
14
… The rest of the analysis appears to be even-handed, although far less comprehensive than what would be useful to senators for lacking serious summarization of over 300 judicial rulings on the D.C. Appeals bench. But it was quite complete in its dissection of Judge Kavanaugh’s … father.
3
Richard; my father in law, one of the most honorable men I've ever known, owned a second home in Florida. He worked for 40 years as a night watchman in a steel factory.
Until pretty recent times, owning a vacation home in Florida was hardly the mark of a "millionaire" -- my FIL bought his condo on the Atlantic coast for about $40,000 in 1990..
If the left has some real point about Kavanaugh -- that he takes bribes -- has sex with 13 year old hookers -- has stolen money -- or is a drug addict -- THEN BRING IT ON and get rid of the guy.
If all you have is "you don't like him because he's too conservative"....then this is all a huge waste of our time! I did not like Sotomayor or Kagan, but they got nominated. Kagan had virtually no judicial experience, but was just a friend of Obama's who got a BIG reward for her loyalty. I did not hear liberals protesting then!
1
Apparently, like all the lies Trump told to get elected, and since he has been in office, "draining the swamp" and "making America great again", are the biggest lies of all. His cabinet, and advisors, is full of Washington insiders, and now his most recent pick for the Supreme Court. Throw in a weakened DNC, Democrat insiders and politicians, who are in complete disarray. Even as much, are planning to run Clinton again for 2020, according to a political cartoon I saw today. maybe the third time is the charm?
The oligarchs, businesses, banks, coal industry, oil industry, etc. are certainly happy. They get a government continuing to move right, and could be getting giveaways, until 20 January, 2025. By then, Trump may have replaced some of the four remaining Supreme Court justices with more Washington insiders. He may even have made himself president for life, by then.
And, the Democrats only hope? That the Mueller investigation, if it is allowed to continue, may get to Trump himself. By the way, Clinton will be in her 80s, when they try to run her again in 2024.
Finally, even the idea that the Democrats are entertaining a Clinton run, for 2020, should raise flags of how out of touch Washington really is, and who is really in control. Washington isn't a swamp, but a cesspool.
11
Nick: no POTUS -- NONE! -- has the power to make themselves "President For Life". There is no legal mechanism to do this. It would require a new Constitutional Amendment.
The Dems lost the White House and Congress, ergo all power to change the laws or fight the corruption (hahahaha! as if THEY are not corrupt themselves!) with their unholy support of things like illegal immigration and DACA and amnesty and transgender bathrooms.
Give that stuff, go to the middle -- get rid of Hillary, Biden, Sanders and Warren (too old!) -- and maybe you can win again.
1
Why we cared so much about Supreme Court justices? To me, they are the rubber stamps for presidents of the United States. They are out of touches with American people but they all cared about the policies of our presidents, When I worked in a Congressional Office from 1960s to 1990s, I ate my lunches in the Supreme Court cafeteria where I met many associate justices and some of them became my friends including William Douglas, Goldberg, Marshall O'Connor and several others. No question, they are all leading legal experts and men and women with distinguished careers. Because of them, we still have a strong and sound legal system in our divided country. Lets hope Trump not going to change this situation.
2
A SCOTUS judges role should be to determine if the original meaning of a law or portion of the Constitution is being followed with out regard to who appointed them or their personal ideology.
The Constitution and Amendments are made law when they are ratified , and the original meaning is the meaning those making them law understood them to have when they made it law.
What else could they have made law, as best we can determine, other what it was understood to mean.
The Constitution, in the first line after the Preamble, vests all Legislative power in congress. Ideally SOCTUS thus has no power to legislate, or define policy, only the power to offer an opinion as to what is Constitutional. I would argue that is the power to determine is consistent with what the Ratifiers understood they were making law as best that can be determined base on records up to the ratification date as original sources.
5
Just what we need. More privileged, off the charts, elite. There is already a logjam of them running everything in this country, including government, while holding no elective office.
However, how could he run into a logjam, financially? His big daddy, or another unrelated big daddy (with an IOU for a later case before the Supremes), surely cleared his financial way.
After all, Scalia died in his sleep, at his sponsor's private hunting preserve. And if I recall correctly, Scalia, did not recuse himself from voting on a case in which said sponsor had an interest.
16
Scalia was rotten to his core. Of course he didn’t refuse himself.
1
This is another example of 'democracy' at its worst: A minority elected regime spends its entire time and effort gaming the system to shape laws that guarantee the regime's survival at the cost of the vast majority of that nation's citizens.
Not much better than the other Anglo-Saxon nation across the pond, run by clueless bureaucrats (Boris et al.) destroying their nation for personal gain and prestige, using a Brexit soundbite to embark on an experiment nobody wanted, and now trapped in their own version of Make Britain Great Again.
Dictatorships are far easier to recognize in other countries, but stealth dictatorships are equally as damaging to the health and welfare of their helpless citizenry.
137
With the smirking Mitch McConnell and VP Mike Pence at his side, does anyone really think that Judge Kavanaugh will be a Supreme Court justice and adjudicate the law in a fair and impartial manner? This nominee's right wing agenda is fairly bursting at his seams.
Influential judge, maybe but what about "loyal" friend, and to whom, the man who nominated him?
95
It was apparent that Senator Mitch McConnell is a big fan of Judge Kavanaugh.
Sadly, the Senator was among the gang of eight who were warned by America's top Intelligence chiefs back in 2016 about the Russian act of war against the United states-and Senator McConnell and Congressman Paul Ryan silenced any further discussion of the Russian hackings to the American people.
Now we have an educated gifted judge of the same cloth, who will vote against a criminal president who frequently violates the Constitution for personal gain, and a president guilty of obstruction of justice. Sadly, Kavanaugh's own legal papers disqualify him from the supreme Court.
48
Not sure how this commenter reached this conclusion:
"[Apart from his opposition to 'ex post facto' laws,] Mr. Kavanaugh seems to have little respect for the Constitution or for the Congress."
I suspect Kavanaugh will be a fair and highly respected Justice -- and probably a bit less conservative than his opponents expect. His opponents would be wise to remember two things:
1. Kavanaugh is almost certainly going to be confirmed, unless he gets hit by a truck very soon.
2. If Kavanaugh is not confirmed, Trump will simply pick someone else that Kavanaugh's opponents don't like either (and that "alternate" will be advised to watch out for trucks).
12
Thank you for a comprehensive report.
One omission.
The Washington Post reported thathis judge ha accumulated credit card debts in thousand of dollars - ostensibly to purchase Washington Nationals baseball tickets. I found it astonishing that a judge would indulge in such behavior.
I thought for a nominee to SCOTUS cannot have such a lack of judgement and temperament. I opined that he should withdraw.
USA Today reported a similar story but said all debts had been settled and requires no investigation.
What is the real story here ??
111
"The Washington Post reported that this judge has accumulated credit card debts in thousand of dollars - ostensibly to purchase Washington Nationals baseball tickets. I found it astonishing that a judge would indulge in such behavior."
Why is this important? Who snooped and got this private information and why does the WAPO think it important to report it? Don't persons have a right to spend their earnings as they wish?
Is this what we can call "Fake News"?
3
It’s important because someone with debts can be bought. Fairly obvious to me that this is highly relevant. You can’t see that?
7
It is a reflection on the quality of his judgment.
5
He's an insider who's deeply conservative, with a daddy who's very rich. What a surprise to absolutely no one.
59
This "warm-hearted" guy is a religious nut who thinks we can jail women to keep them from having abortions. It's our job to highlight what his chums want to hide.
64
None of Trump's appointments should be honored until we learn whether he obstructed justice or committed other crimes in order to be elected. He is an illegitimate appointment.
The fact that the Koch Brothers are donating millions to the campaign to get him elected -- through advertising speaks volumes about who will benefit from his appointment. It will not be the majority of us.
Everything about the recent Supreme Court nominations has occurred through trickery by the Republicans. Gorsuch was appointed through trickery -- the letter, not the spirit of the law. Trump was elected by collaboration with the Russian Military Intelligence.
Even George W. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court and did not win the election when the votes were finally counted.
I, for one, will do anything in my power to keep Kavanaugh from being appointed to the Supreme Court. He is a willing tool to the 1% who own the Republican Party and who are a within a micron of owning the US government.
68
Pajaritomt,
You said "Trump was elected by collaboration with the Russian Military Intelligence" - where is the evidence?
If there was any, he would be undergoing impeachment right now, instead of getting free air time for his golf course in Scotland.
3
"plays down his legacy as a charter member of elite Washington"
Just like pretty much everyone at the NYT. If you're a reporter or op-ed writer at the NYT, you're part of the elite.
23
What is your criteria of elite? What political power does being a NYT reporter have? How rich do you get? I think you either believe "elite" to mean something quite different from it actually means, or you are trying to redefine it as a Orwellian word to mark out undesirables...like "enemies of the people," which Trump has used against journalists.
16
Judging by current usage Trump will simply blame it on the Obama and go on his merry way.
7
The two achievements of the Republican establishment during the Trump administration are the tax cut and control of the supreme court are both areas that Trump essentially ceded to them. He got his Judicial list from the Federalist society and he let Congressional Republicans do the heavy lifting for the tax cut. All of the Trump led initiatives, foreign policy and immigration have been overwhelmed by chaos which there is not even a remote hint of an organized strategy. It is all based on emotional rants and erratic edicts which have completely undermined our Nation's standing and influence around the world. I am still waiting for establishment for Republicans to understand the consequences of their bargain with the Devil. Perhaps after Trump's bungling we can learn live with a nuclear North Korea if they stop threatening use with missile and bomb test and the Republicans can pretend nothing is wrong. They will not get off so easily if U.S. assembly lines grind to halt because international supply chains have been disrupted and if farm commodity prices collapse because of tariffs.
28
Influential judge, loyal friend, conservative warrior - how about a more precise and economic way of referring to a retrograde bigot? Adulation isn't going to save this country from the grip of ignorance and tyranny. This fresh-faced smirking bigot will cause immeasurable harm - quit the politeness, please, it is too late for that.
194
Bigot?
Where’s the evidence?
7
Don't approve of the appointment. However, I find myself equally distressed that 102 people "recommend" the comment above which twice calls the man a "bigot." Our country is hatred fueled, both left and right.
Great choice, Like the fact that Kagan hired him, along with Kennedy..Since you never really know what you get, this is a great choice based on facts known.
15
An "average " guy, for the 1 Percent. Fits in well for Trump and his Populism for Dummies. Seriously.
148
A charter member of the elite. Just what we need. Another justice isolated in the privilege bubble.
158
JJ,
More precisely he’s shown himself over 25 years to be an enemy of the constitution in the service of the horrifically wealthy, disgustingly racist, anti-poor, anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-woman privileged right-wing and GOP presidents’ (including the current, obviously demented and traitorous one) acting without constraint.
1
Yes, he was isolated in privilege, just like Al Gore, The son of a US senator who grew up ordering room service in a Washington Hotel
Mr. Kavanaugh seems to recognize the illegality of punishing people for violating criminal laws enacted after their acts have been committed. Other than that and contrary to his nomination speech statements, Mr. Kavanaugh seems to have little respect for the Constitution or for the Congress. His appointment should not be confirmed by the Senate and will not be by Senators who care about preserving American's liberty and health.
Let's campaign against any Senator who votes to confirm Mr. Kavanaugh’s appointment. Also, if we can identify them, let's stop doing business with all firms that are funding such Senators' campaigns for reelection.
76
How did all those “baseball debts” get paid off so fast, after a decade?
86
AND, who has the time to, (go to), and watch a baseball game?
I suspect Kavanaugh's strongest "judicial" feelings involve his fervent opposition to the practice of having federal administrative agencies "legislate" vast bodies of "rules" to fill in the gaps left by Congress in many statutes. The prevailing "Chevron deference" rule instructs judges not to allow any challenge to such rules if the agency had a reasonable basis for them. Kavanaugh has long insistedd that a much stricter standard should be applied, arguing essentially that the prevailing rule allows unelected bureaucrats to "legislate" important rules.
Frankly, most Justices' eyes glaze over when this issue arises in a case. I doubt Kavanaugh's eyes will glaze over, and I expect he will be especially influential in this very important but often overlooked area.
24
Don't get too distracted by stories about Kavanaugh. It could be Mickey Mouse or or Harry Potter who Trump wants to appoint as supreme court judge.
But the point is that a president who is the subject of an investigation should not be appointing anyone to such a position until that cloud of suspicion has been lifted, and the case is closed.
This is particularly important as one of the allegations of a case against Trump are obstruction of justice, and Kavanaugh has made a statement in the past that the president is above the law (so that he devote all his time serving us, the people). Is it coincidence that this is exactly the swing vote Trump desires should the question of whether the president is above the law be brought to the supreme court? Funny that there's still debate over that. If anything, should have been enshrined in the constitution long time ago.
132
So Billy Clinton should never have appointed a judge?
7
"But the point is that a president who is the subject of an investigation should not be appointing anyone to such a position until that cloud of suspicion has been lifted, and the case is closed."
How much credibility does an investigation have that itself is under investigation, and has had key people associated with the investigation fired, demoted or redeployed? I wonder if the investigation is s politically motivated weaponisation of the Justice department to impede the Trump Adim or support the impeachment of Trump. Was the law followed in initiating and execuring the investigation. Hopefully Congress will be given the information they need and have asked for to complete their oversight. What valid reason can the DOJ have for not complying with document and request considering past misuse of redaction?
Don't get distracted by notions of "that a president who is the subject of an investigation should not be appointing anyone to such a position until that cloud of suspicion has been lifted" because that is simply not a thing that is going to happen. Republicans would never let that happen. You do understand that, right?
I am uneasy about Justice Kavanaugh. I view him as a kind of radical. Maybe even a fanatic.
I didn’t care at all for his fulsome praise of President Trump the other day. I can understand a man desperately wanting to become a Supreme Court Justice, but laying the praise on with a trowel for a man as obviously unstable and demagogic as Trump is seems to me a bridge far too far.
Kavanaugh is a firm believer in the idea that government has an interest in “favoring fetal life,” a job I thought was already being relatively well handled by women without much assistance from government. That is his right. But to him I say, where have all the conservatives gone who want to keep government out-of-our lives, where they belong.
Then there are his guns. His previous writings reveal him to be a man who has never met up with a machine gun he didn’t like.
Moreover, I am not consoled by recent newspaper reports that Judge Kavanaugh will be going on the Court as one of the poorer Justices. Not “poor poor” mind you, but pretty darn poor.
I put more trust in decision-makers who have managed to put some mazuma away for a rainy day then I do in ones who haven’t. Someone like Judge Judy, for example. It seems to me an indication of getting your priorities-in-life right.
There is a judge now serving on the Federal Bench by the name of Garland who seems to suffer from none of Kavanaugh's disabilities. I suggest we slow the process down now for a couple of years and wait for him.
290
Here, here! Kavanaugh is nothing if not a contentious selection. I am all for slowing this train wreck down. I agree the fawning for Trump was, er, especially deplorable. Kavanaugh appears to be a toady.
3
Judge Kavanaugh will be a Supreme Court Justice by October 1. Its fun to read the comments.
5
You comment that you "put more trust in decision-makers who have managed to put some mazuma away for a rainy day" makes you feel like a closet fan of Donald Trump.
The 2016 presidential election the first in 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. The result was a lower black turnout in key swing states like North Carolina and Wisconsin.
In 2012, Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion upholding a South Carolina law that required voters to show a photo ID before casting their ballots.
The Obama Administration found that that the law could disenfranchise tens of thousands of South Carolina's minority voters, who were more likely than whites to lack such IDs.
Rep. Todd Rutherford believes the judges who made the decision do not understand the makeup of rural South Carolina.
"They said there's a DMV office in every county in SC. Some even have more than one. The problem is those with only one DMV office -- it may be 40 or 50 miles to go to the DMV office on back roads for someone who doesn't have a car. To suggest that person can go out and get an ID is ludicrous," said Rep. Todd Rutherford
This year, in a devastating term for voting rights, the Supreme Voter Suppression Right-Wing Court upheld voter purging in Ohio and racial gerrymandering in Texas, while refusing to curtail partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin and Maryland.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/opinion/sunday/voting-rights-voter-id...
Aside from being a corporate shill and Greed Over People cheerleader, Brett Kavanaugh doesn't even believe in democracy.
His Supreme Court nomination is a disaster for democracy
November 6 2018.
258
"...it may be 40 or 50 miles to go to the DMV office on back roads for someone who doesn't have a car. To suggest that person can go out and get an ID is ludicrous"
Maybe so, but Democratic volunteers &/or paid staff ought to drive them and get photo ID. There's enough money collected by the party to spend on such things. When someone takes the initiative for it, those voters would be more likely to vote.
Actually Democrats should make a concerted effort, for which Republicans also might join, to change the election day to Sunday or Saturday so that voter turnout would be greater.
I feel the money spent on elections is spent unwisely. For instance, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez "knocked the doors" by which she won, though she was outspent by 19-1!
10
"does anyone really think that Judge Kavanaugh will be a Supreme Court justice and adjudicate the law in a fair and impartial manner?"
The Constitution and its amendment are made law by those who ratify it based on their understanding of what they are ratifying.
Does anyone believe he will not rule closer to the ratifiers understanding than Justice Ginsberg? Do those who oppose Kavanaugh want justices that will rule contrary to what was ratified by legislating through willful reinterpretation?
1
Reading these comments makes me sad to be an American. Let the man be questioned and then make up your mind. The rush to judgement before hearing the facts, whether Democrats or Republicans, is leading to deeper and deeper division.I am afraid we are past the tipping point...I see little hope ever for a United States
43
Um, John McCain and Elizabeth Warren, to name just two.
David, are you advocating for ignoring his past judicial behavior to focus only on how he "answers" questions? That doesn't seem very rational to me, given his extensive body of work. He has already told us how he will judge, so there's actually little need for questioning.
5
Interesting comment on an article full of facts.
3
A result of winning a presidential election is the right to nominate someone to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. A result of winning a majority of senate seats is gaining the ability to potentially control the approval of that nominee. Senate Dems do not have to concede these points as they are facts. In the current instance some Dems have indicated there is little that can be done to prevent Kavanaugh from joining the SCOTUS. The many articles I have read on Kavanaugh, including this excellent piece, lead me to conclude he is technically qualified. Elections allow for the winners to make the decision on ideological qualifications.
30
Two words. Merrick Garland.
3
If what you say is true and correct, why was president Obama not allowed to bring his nominee to be confirmed? Or do you think only “privileged republicans” are afforded this result?
3
I detest it when partisans bring out the "elections have consequences" argument when it is convenient but what about Merrick Garland. The way he was treated by Cotton McConnell and every single member of the GOP senate cabal is a festering wound in the body politic. Merrick Garland, a supremely qualified judge and examplary citizen was treated in such a way as to make justice weep.
7
OK, call me stupid, but what I do not understand is why we have judges who are conservative and liberal.
These justices are supposed to uphold the rule of law, and uphold that rule beyond what they personally believe, and uphold the Constitution of the US and uphold that too.
Am I too naive to think that our justices would put aside their personal beliefs to believe in the rule of law and our Constitution?
I guess I am, because that has happened too many times.
18
Conservatives judges like Roberts claimed they are impartial arbiters like the baseball Umpire who just calls balls and strikes based on their best judgement as determined by the rules of the game. This doesn't mean a lot when their strikes zone is two feet to the right of the outside corner of the plate.
2
From reading the article and what else I have read, Mr. Kavanaugh appears to be qualified for the supreme court. The real story however, is if he agrees with your politics he's great but if he doesn't he is awful.
As the saying goes, elections have consequences, and with the victory of Donald Trump, this is one of them.
18