It sounds as if everyone is trying very hard to pretend it's just another day at the Supreme Court. "Fake it 'til you make it" may be fine when you get up on the wrong side of the bed. This doesn't seem to be a situation where that is appropriate. What's even more annoying is that two of the women justices seem to be making such an effort to create this gaiety. It reeks of "hostess duties." Pinching? Really?
Secondly, when did the Supreme Court limit the target of a burglary to a building or structure? People have lived in mobile homes, at least since the 1940's. They also live in recreational vehicles, sometimes, all year round. If they're staying in a motel for one night and someone enters their room to steal things while they're out, it's a burglary. But, if they're asleep in their mobile home that still has it's wheels on, when the thief enters, it's not a burglary? It's an ambiguous definition at best and it should be corrected.
It occurs to me that Kavanaugh disagreed with Alito about going back to "correct our (the court's) own mess" is an attempt to pretend that he's not eager to "go back and correct" the court's messes, ie. Roe v. Wade. He's a manipulative man. It's something he would do.
1
I suppose Kavanaugh has a dilema to deal with. Like a criminal that seems to get away with a crime the waiting game begins. Will I get a knock on the door one day, next week or many years from now. If Kav is in any way guilty of ANY falsehood under oath this is likely to catch up to him. The key is a full and complete investigation and with a Blue Wave in November that is exactly what will take place.
Oh, so now it's "Justice" Kavanaugh? I'm still referring to him as beer-boy.
1
He will forever be to me: Justice Bart O'Kavanaugh (R). I can only imagine it getting better than this if he wore a MAGA hat on the bench. Our first official super-partisan member of SCOTUS - what an accomplishment it is to take a body we have all (in both our tribes) long suspected of partisan bias and make it official.
1
And now we have Justice Kavanaugh (nice ring to it...) after the Republicans put Merrick Garland on ice courtesy of the "Biden rule," confirmed Neil Gorsuch and solidified the right wing, conservative majority for the next 40 years. Ruth Ginsberg looked old and frail last night, a shell of her former self, wearing gloves in a room temperature environment. She is next on deck to retire Trump will get at least one, maybe two more SCOTUS appointments. The harsh reality is that the democrat holy grail, Roe v Wade, is history. Stay tuned. Winning feels real good. Thank you POTUS for ramming Kavanaugh through. Elections have consequences.
2
Such accurate symbolism as Kavanaugh shows up for work on his first day, occupying a seat on the "far right side" of the high court's bench. Comity, judicial restraint, and even some levity apparently abound on this initial day, before the sharpened ideological knives are unsheathed and wielded by the "far right" majority, with precedents starting to tumble down.
'Such accurate symbolism as Kavanaugh shows up for work on his first day, occupying a seat on the "far right side" of the high court's bench.'
Seats are assigned by seniority, so there is no "symbolism" of the kind you are imagining:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Seniori...
4
We now have two justices who were accused of sexual misconduct, this it doesn't sound good or right, does it?
This scenario may not be new, what is new is to see it happening at the same time as women are gaining their rightful place in society to which they have given more than their fair share.
The image and the trust we had for our Supreme Court was that of respect, admiration and total trust mixed with affection. This sentiment has been shattered for me. We should demand that it is restored and recuse both judges Clarence Thomas and Brett Cavanaugh because they are not indispensable us .
I am afraid that my trust for the Supreme Court has for ever been altered.
1
Associate Justice Kavanaugh will make the Supreme Court and every American proud.
God Speed
4
Packed court null and void.
1
These cases present an opportunity for the Roberts-Kavanaugh court to invalidate all legal restraints for individuals that are exercising the God given Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Are you ready for national “ Constitutional Carry” and “ Kill at Will”?
I wish him a nasty, brutish, and short career on that bench.
4
Best wishes to Judge Kavanaugh. I was completely against you being appointed and sworn in. I did not see evidence of an impartial demeanor. I think it likely that you lied about what happened. However, you are there, now.
May you rise to the occasion and be impartial.
4
@MJB Try reading his 300 opinions, they are the objective evidence of how he operates as a judge. A lawyer is different, he is paid to get a result, not to get justice.
3
That’s pretty amusing. Like vulcanalex has read even one sentence of any of of Judge Beach Week’s opinions or knows what’s in them. Today on the Nikki Haley thread, ol’ vulcanalex made it clear he/she/it thinks Native Americans (“Indians”) and people from India are the same thing.
3
I don't know how any of the justices on the Supreme Court can even function properly knowing that one of their seats belong to Merrick Garland, an honorable man appointed by a sitting president, as called for in the Constitution.
9
@Bun Mam And not confirmed as called for in the Constitution. He would have been voted down after a long and painful waste of time.
4
America in many ways got Merrick Garland. He and Justice Kavanaugh agreed 93% of the time on majority opinions. I also believe (without evidence) that the Senate would never have confirmed Judge Garland. That might have been procedurally better but the same outcome.
3
Let's see. Many predict that he's going to figure out what side of this Democrats support. Then he is going to disregard all precedent and the U.S. constitution. He will cast his vote on the court for no purpose other than to exact revenge on Democrats. Am I right ? come on, there are some of you out there who agree with what I just said.
Do you know that the Supreme Court regularly issues unanimous decisions. In the 2017 term, about half - half- the decisions were unanimous. Look it up.
If the same practice holds true, and it will, that means that Kavanaugh will vote the same as the Democratic appointed judges at least half the time.
Demagogues have scared half the population into hysteria that the court, with Kavanaugh, will take basic rights away. I counter-predict. The court will not take, nor seriously erode, basic rights.
By the way, I have a perfect record on counter-predictions.
When Trump ( who I did not vote for) was elected, my friends hysterically predicted that in his first year there would be a war with North Korea, millions would be deported, and the stock market would crash. I counter-predicted that none of that would happen. I'm batting 1000.
5
Did the Court go out for beers at the end of this session? Or was it just Kavanaugh and his friends.
7
@Gwen Vilen: The justices probably all went out for beers. Hopefully, RBG didn't have too many this time. It's interesting that Democrats don't have nearly as much interest in the drinking habits of their own. If Kavanaugh ever does this, watch out.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/13/supreme-court-gi...
1
It’s interesting that the material discussed by the justices had to do with violence to another person. One justice perhaps pinched another. There was sharing of a laugh. Three strikes and you are out. More that three people have accused Kavanaugh of aggressive intrusions on their person. He has had, in my view, more that three strikes, and he should be out of the Supreme Court.
9
So now we citizens are supposed to put hands on our hearts, our faith in America, and our trust in a Supreme Court that will rightfully sort out all our legal entanglements, objectively, without bias, and above all, without loyalty to Donald Trump.
That simply is not going to happen, because Republican elected officials have clearly demonstrated that raw cheating, lies, and criminality are perfectly permissible tools for gaining power and control. Citizens can now justifiably cheat, deceive, and commit crimes against the government, evading court appearances by any means necessary.
But a better approach is to refuse to join the corrupt Republican party, and to vote for ANY candidate that is NOT REPUBLICAN.
7
What arrogance to say “adjusts its image in be public eye.” Arrogance and narcissism to the highest level. Disgusting.
2
Supreme Court is now in the gutter; every thing Trump touches dies. Ray Sipe
3
Teach your daughters to respect Facts/and truth and not by emotional disfunction, like their mother.
1
Hardly. They’ve got a bunch of boring gun cases to decide. You would be amazed to see the precision with which they’ll cut through the technicalities of the law. If you’ll recall, Kavanaugh gave us a sample of his mastery of the law during his hearing before it all became a circus. Let’s hope the Supreme Court will continue to be boring and the politicians will keep hands off so that the Court can resume business as usual.
5
"They’ve got a bunch of boring gun cases to decide."
The appellants are unlikely to find them "boring", since the outcome will determine their prison sentences.
After the Dems take the House,which they will, he is history.
They want to impeach him and even though the Senate will not support this, the Congress can still leave its mark.
The best is yet to come.
5
@simon sez That would make history, not make him history. And I doubt they would be so foolish to do that, nor that the house will be changed either.
1
'A court officer then gave unusually stern and detailed instructions to the audience. “It is critical that you remain seated and silent,” he said.'
It's unfortunate that the Senate Judiciary hearing couldn't have been as equally dignified. Instead, we got mob behavior, shouting and screaming. After the agitation, uncorroborated accusations, and untethered emotion swirling around his nomination and confirmation Justice Kavanaugh will prove to be as able and as fine a Supreme Court Justice as is Clarence Thomas.
7
Kavanaugh changes the Supreme Court to the Kangaroo Court.
@George Kamburoff That is very funny!
This routine morning at the Supreme Court is a good example of its ability to plow ahead, but yet another sad and stark example of the ways in which privileged, powerful men get away with atrocious behavior. Everyone knows Blasey Ford was assaulted and those without ideological blinders on know that Kavanaugh is the one who did it. It's all too consistent with his drunken, misogynistic behavior at that time in his life. So many qualified people who could take that seat without such allegations being raised. Especially if the nominee were . . . a woman. Imagine that.
5
@Joe McHugh: Actually, everyone doesn't know that, including you. Absent of evidence and credible witnesses no such conclusion can be made. You mentioned partisan blinders and it's time for you to take your own off. Only one who has them on could be so arrogant and certain of their position in this case. Finally, you must be living in a cave and unaware of how powerful men have fallen like dominoes the past several years over sexual assault and harassment accusations. The same would've happened to Kavanaugh if he was the serial predator that liberals claim.
2
It appears that the Justices were really yukking it up today. It is, however, another sad day for America.
7
Correct me if I'm wrong. Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas form the U.S. Supreme Court's first sexual perversion caucus.
12
Just wait until the Supreme Court starts hearing various issues which involve money, jobs, unions, standing, the economy. I think the rich and business will bat 1.000 with Kavanaugh.
10
From the story it sounds as if the new Justice kept his temper, a welcome contrast from his childish rant before the Senate. And, unlike Clarence, it also sounds as if he was both awake and understood the proceedings.
5
@Bruce
The LAST joke the devout progressive will be making about the Court is about sleeping in public. Ruth Ginsburg OWNS that franchise and it may be her primary image in the history books.
You must sleep sometime between lunch and dinner, and no halfway measures. Take off your clothes and get into bed. That's what I always do. - -Winston Churchill
1
@Bruce: Democrats are in zero position to call others childish. First, hundreds were removed from the hearings and arrested for outbursts. Second, they stalked, harassed and made threats towards senators not just in the capitol, but, throughout the country in locations that are completely inappropriate and with no regard for the disturbance they created. Third, from the very first day that Kavanaugh was nominated their leadership made it perfectly clear that they would do everything in their power to prevent him from being confirmed and the rank and file followed suit. Fourth, they attempted to use unproven sexual assault allegations stemming from almost four decades ago when Kavanaugh was a teenager as their main weapon for doing it. Talk about a standard created for the sole political convenience of the present that they would never tolerate being used for themselves. Finally, if put in the exact same position as Kavanaugh where the entire world is watching and listening to the horrible accusations that threaten to destroy them personally and professionally the rest of their lives, their response would be far worse. Democrats who think they have the moral high ground to call Kavanaugh childish after what the entire country witnessed from them recently has a future career in comedy. What a joke.
3
The same people who brought you Charlottesville are whining about sexual assault survivors speaking up to their elected representatives.
1
Goodbye respect for this court.
10
"The law under consideration in Tuesday’s arguments, the Armed Career Criminal Act, is a kind of three-strikes statute."
The article should have clearly stated that the ACCA is a FEDERAL law, yet it implicitly references state laws.
"It requires stiffer sentences for people convicted of possessing firearms in federal court if they have earlier been found guilty of three violent felonies or serious drug charges."
The article should have explained whether the three crimes were in violation of Federal or of state law.
IIUC, the fundamental problem with the ACCA is that it is a Federal law that, in effect, modifies all state laws. Unless Congress writes 50 custom laws, one for each state, and keeps them updated as state laws change, there is no reasonable way for the ACCA to be implementable.
5
"... yet it implicitly references state laws."
Correcting myself. This section makes the ACCA look even worse than I thought. Congress explicitly concedes that Federal and state law could be in "direct and positive conflict".
18 U.S. Code § 927 - Effect on State law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/927
"No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together."
@BCG
I thought that was pretty clear from the article.
@BCG As with many things a poorly worded law is very difficult to interpreter. Write it as any "felony" under a state or federal law and all this goes away. Write laws with objective standards and then courts don't need to do this sort of thing. Or don't write them at all where you can't.
It's obvious that 3 strikes laws apply to poor people and so the Court will find its OK to give them long sentences, as long as bankers and for-profit schools can continue to rob with impunity.
9
Mazel Tov! I think a lot of folks will be surprised about his upcoming decisions! He won't be a right wing ideologue! He will be accomadating and pragmatic.
11
@Counter Measures No he will be as he has been a advocate for what the constitution and the law requires. No compromise in doing that.
Justice Kavanaugh asked the most pertinent questions it appears and his conclusions are very well thought out too, in this, his first day on the bench. After all he is a judicial scholar of the highest order and Yale Law School is his alma-mater! It is evident his SCOTUS peers will seek his learned counsel a lot in the coming years !
13
@Moe Def
His father attended Yale and bought Brett's entrance to Yale same as Charles Kushner bought Jared's ride into Harvard.
3
@Jacquie This is either ignorant or a lie. His grandfather went to Yale. I don't know if that made any difference, but it could have. If Yale paid no attention to the connection it would be irrelevant.
What would the founders think of a simple majority vote. In their wisdom to make the court moderate they required a filibuster vote. Another branch of our government has fallen to political rancor.
8
"What would the founders think of a simple majority vote. In their wisdom to make the court moderate they required a filibuster vote."
Madison and Hamilton opposed super-majority requirements:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate
3
What part of the Constitution has that instruction? You might want to perform Google Search before posting.
4
@RAW Perhaps you forget some things, senators were at one time appointed, not elected. And it is senate rules that were changed, not the constitution. Back in the day such would not be needed since those nominated were confirmed unless they were not suitable for the job, not do to allegations or politics.
Oh my, the sky is falling. Oh wait, it isn't. Kavanaugh is just another guy making jurisprudence work for America.
20
No white male supreme court justice cares about guns or abortion or other social issue. Nor do the leaders of GOP. They just manipulate these issues to stay in power. Spread fear about losing guns or killing babies, gerrymander the districts, and ask a rival nation to tamper with our elections. Throw in a fly-over at a few football games to make people feel good. It’s a winning combination for the G.O.P.
8
The Democrats do the same thing, don’t ya know? All the hot button issues they claim to care about are just a cover-up for all the money they receive from PACs, big global corporations, foreign governments, and other special interests. Citizens United? It’s the case they love to hate while raking in all that dough.
10
After slow reading this article it appears that a major qualification to sit on the Supreme Court should be the ability to parse fly specks from pepper.
3
"... the ability to parse fly specks from pepper."
Those "fly specks" you are mocking determine how long people are sentenced to prison.
1
I knew he was going to get instated or at least I resigned myself to that fact and despite the dissent of democrats (plus a traitorous one from SE), kinda figured that the US govt. is going to be run by narcissistic beer guzzling brats, and the think-their-gonna-somehow-get-rich — coal diggers — are boozily gonna go along with what decisions the fat faced Stanford frat-brat makes on the bench (I used to crash some of the Stanford frat parties and was readily accepted to their keggers)
Obviously, the SCOTUS Justices are just fine. The "bruises" are to the egos of partisans who lost the battle to keep Kavanaugh off the bench. The "damage" is in their minds.
19
A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court can be liberating, as it has been in times past. When Justice Earl Warren joined the court, he evolved from a stern right-winger into a openminded judge, considering cases on their merit, not on their political currency, and the country was the richer for it.
Justice Kavanaugh has an opportunity to do that too, to shed the political baggage that got him confirmed to the court and becomes a compassionate, honest judge, one who bases his votes on the Constitution, not on what is expedient for the Republican party.
It's a lifetime appointment. Let us hope that he gets his bearings and has the inner integrity to do justice to his country—that he will achieve an honorable place in history.
11
@dutchiris You are also describing Justice Souter.
You can all analysis Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford until the cows come home. Doesn't matter. He made it on the court and game's over. Move on to your next feigned outrage. Waiting for the next one.
23
This is a very difficult first case for a new supreme court justice. Which GOP donor does he choose to appease? The NRA, who demand a government that's soft on gun crime? Or private prisons, who demand harsher sentencing to expand their labor pool?
4
"Justice Kavanaugh and his colleagues will have to decide, then, whether a mobile home is more like a car or a house."
Really?
We have nine high-powered judges deciding whether a mobile home is more like a house of a car?
And in a bigger sense, they need to decide if stealing something from a car is burglary?
Wow, we're in more trouble than I thought.
10
"Wow, we're in more trouble than I thought."
The ACCA is the "trouble", not the Supreme Court.
According to the article, the ACCA is "a complicated and ambiguous federal law". You can read it for yourself by starting here:
18 U.S. Code Chapter 44 - FIREARMS
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44
1
@John A mobile home is a dwelling on weels as long as it keeps moving. If it is parked for very long stretches of time or permanently it is a dwelling .
At this point, until 67 Senators are elected who would remove him following impeachment by the House of Representatives, one can only hope that Kavanaugh would somewhat resemble another Justice who did terrible things before he joined the Court: Hugo Black. Justice Black was a member of the Klu Klux Klan in his youth and, as a Senator from Alabama, vigorously thwarted passage of anti-lynching bills. He became one of the greatest champions of due process and press freedom in the nation's history in his thirty-four years on the Court, although, sadly, he authored the deplorable Korematsu opinion upholding internment of Japanese citizens and dissented from the Court's landmark Griswold opinion striking down state laws prohibiting access to contraceptives.
4
A mobile home, trailer, is someone's house, where they lay their head at night. For some, so is their car. Will this decision include RV' s?
What about houseboat? What about empty second homes?
Is this really a Supreme Court case?
4
@kie
Unfortunately, many Americans do live in their cars, and I'm not referring to long commutes to work.
3
@kie Thanks for your outrageously funny comment.
"Victor Stitt of Tennessee and Jason Sims of Arkansas — were convicted under state laws that allow prosecutions of burglaries of mobile homes and other vehicles in which people sleep."
"Justice Kavanaugh and his colleagues will have to decide, then, whether a mobile home is more like a car or a house."
If the above is what is going before the Supreme Court, I think I'm going to be sick just thinking about Roe vs Wade!
5
@Majortrout If you paid attention to the rulings of the Court, you would learn that most are boring and not sensational. And most are decided unanimously.
2
Another "winning" day. Several hundred million Americans who have to go to work merely to be able to eat, have a roof over their heads and who are struggling against heavy odds, to educate their children and pay for basic health care coverage, are going to be dispensed justice over current and future income inequality by a guaranteed majority of at least 5 people, sponsored entirely by those with great wealth, who have never had that experience and don't care in the least about those who do.
10
Three-strike policies? How could those possibly have lasting effects?
Life is not baseball. Judges are arbiters, not umpires. Welcome to the new age of mercantilism.
1
The case involving Denard Stokeling is not a case "about guns." It is a case where a felon has a weapon that he can no longer possess with the possibility of the felon using the weapon. Also while committing another felony.
The gun will not be facing charges. The guy carrying it will.
9
Adam’s article raises my interest in how congress crafts laws to address problems. There is some idealism when they do it. In this case, it “feels like” we could curtail violence by addressing repeat occurrences of “violent” crimes. I have no idea if congress thought that stronger punishment of multiple violent offenses woud really deter them. I wouldn’t bet that. And now we have the burden to determine what a violent crime is. Right, in many cases it’s obvious, just not perfectly determinate.
As for Kavanaugh, he cements the Catholicization of the Court. There is Scalia’s originalism that is like looking to a Papal directive for directions on what to do. There are flaws.
Finally, I am wondering if Kavanaugh will overturn Roe v. Wade. He’s just had a very bad hearing. Would he risk chaos to overturn the law? It sounds to me like it’s here to stay, an observation that he’s made, I think. Right Wingers won a battle with Kavanaugh, but lost the war.
5
"... Scalia’s originalism that is like looking to a Papal directive ..."
That's ridiculous. Originalists look at the meaning of laws at the time they were enacted. There are no "Papal directive[s]" in the law.
See "Scalia speaks : reflections on law, faith, and life well lived" by Scalia et al.
"... I am wondering if Kavanaugh will overturn Roe v. Wade."
One justice cannot "overturn" anything.
5
..I think it's time to move on. Millions of Americans didn't want Brett Kavanaugh to be a Supreme Court justice....and millions of Americans wanted him to be. It is what it is.
The direct impact of Judge Kavanaugh on the Court will be de minimis to the average American.
At some point, we have to try and stop the infighting, the divisiveness, and the hatred.
While we have a President, and a Republican Party, that's clearly antagonistic, biased and immature - I can look across the aisle and see some of the same characteristics with the Democrats...a party I've supported my whole life.
While the Republican agenda appeals to a minority of Americans, they have the majority - we can't put up walls - it's not in America's best interests.
I was disappointed to see Obama escalate the war in Afghanistan - I was disappointed to see Harry Reid and a Democratic Senate change to rule for the number of seats it takes to nominate a Supreme Court justice - if the rule hadn't changed, Brett Kavanaugh would not be a on the Court.
I was disappointed to see Donald Trump elected.
It's time for partisanship - time to look past the differences and find a way to govern. It's depressing to see news articles that continue to write about which Party will be in the majority after the November election.
Regardless of who's in power, and who has the majority, Congress should legislate in America's best interests - which means compromise.
It's time to be respectful and listen.
90
Reid removed the filibuster for the appeals courts (because McConnell refused to seat any of Obama's judges); McConnell removed the filibuster for the Supreme Court. Republicans want power for the sake of wielding power; they've reached a point where they will never compromise unless truly forced.
52
Well said. I really hope that people listen and take it on board, but I am not too optimistic. There are many on both sides that just want a fight.
2
Ditto. I wish I could push the.like button a thousand times.
2
Mr. Roberts has some business to take care of in handing over those multiple complaints filed against Kavanaugh citing his multiple instances of perjury before the U.S. Senate.
If he chooses to do nothing with them, legal action must be taken against him and the court for failure to act.
Those complaints involve crimes committed by Kavanaugh and they must be handed over to federal law enforcement for an investigation and timely adjudication.
127
@Alabama I hope I'm wrong, but I thought I read that once Kavanaugh was put on the Supreme Court those complaints simply became inapplicable and moot.
1
@Alabama
"Crimes" witnessed on TV by those who complained and witnessed by 21 US Senators.
Roberts' "failure to act" was in fact action that recognized that the US Senate had the authority to act Kavanaugh's behavior if it so chose to do so,
@Alabama
Lets wait until Hilary hands over all those deleted emails and functioning hard drives; oh, I forgot she smashed the hard drives.
Nothing like another punch in the belly after you have been punched in the belly. "On behalf of the nation...." Trump apologizes to Kavanaugh, again lying, that Kavanaugh has been proven innocent. Trump should apologize personally to the nation for a lot more. First up, dividing us deeply, for his lies name calling and labeling, now calling those who supported Ford "evil". Ms Ford's story was not proven false at all.
228
@Potter And her story was not proven true either. At all. In fact the only part that is true and confirmed, is that she made an accusation.
7
And for the millionth time (at least) Republicans *still* somehow don’t understand that a confirmation hearing isn’t a criminal trial where anyone is “proven guilty.” No wonder we have Donald Trump as president with so many dim bulbs in the electorate.
6
@Raul Campos
For the millionth time, "innocent until proven guilty" is a standard we apply in a criminal proceeding.
It does not apply in a job interview. Or are you telling me that you are entitled to a trial and a defense attorney before you're fired or rejected for a promotion?
1
I completely understand the liberal view of wanting to destroy their "enemy." I had a clinical psychologist try to destroy me and now it will be my turn if I don not die first.
4
''A court officer then gave unusually stern and detailed instructions to the audience. “It is critical that you remain seated and silent,”'' - that sort of sets the tone, doesn't it ?
All of you women out there (or just anyone that disagrees with this republican regime or President) - remain silent.
We will not remain silent. We are going to vote you out.
15
"... that sort of sets the tone, doesn't it ?"
The Court can't listen to oral arguments in the midst of pandemonium.
"We will not remain silent."
OK, just don't scream and rant during oral arguments. If you want to complain about a case before the Court, file an amicus brief:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae
"We are going to vote you out."
Supreme Court justices are not elected, so you can't "vote [them] out".
1
He should be in prison, not the Supreme Court.
12
Why ? Over an accusation that cannot be proven over 36 years ago ?, that’s America ? Really? And you are ok with that ?
3
Is anyone surprised (unless they are utterly naive)? Even Mr. Marx believed that no leftest revolution would ever occur in America--or, as Lenin put it the American worker had been bribed. Indeed, America was solidly middle class--how true! A moribund capitalism is the best that can be anticipated--with the working class, composed almost exclusively of foreigners!!!!--their only desire was to join the ranks of the middle class--yet one extra 'truism'!
1
"...taking a seat on the far right side of the bench".
Was there any doubt? He was "installed" by the right wing Heritage Foundation, and nominated by Trump to proactively prevent possible jail time.
5
I guess in your extensive research for your post, you did not uncover that the seniority runs the SC in almost every detail, excluding for the Chief Justice. That seat is for the most junior member.
4
@Michael Blazin Yes as usual assuming does, well you know the rest. It even said that directly in the article as I did not know that much before.
And he has to make the coffee.
There's practically nothing I can agree on with the newly appointed Justice. I'm pro-choice, I think it's good sensible gun regulations, I think corporations should not have so much influence on politics, etc.
But I am very happy that he got appointed. The alternative would spell the end of the basic principle of Western civilization, namely innocence-before-proven-guilt. It would also mean that ALL sides could use the tactic that the historical revolutionary far-left used against this candidate, in all future cases. You can't just accuse someone of a crime that's perceived as much worse than murder and then, when you can't prove it, say that the accused acted emotionally, so out of the office they go. That would be the end of democracy and the beginning of new Dark Ages.
27
“I wanted to see how Justice Kavanaugh would conduct himself on the bench on his first day,” she said. “I’m very interested in how the Supreme Court adjusts its image in the public eye.”
You didn't have to wait in-line for hours to see how Justice Kavanaugh would conduct himself on the bench. His twelve years on the DC Court of Appeals, considered by many to be the second highest court in the land, speaks for itself. His conduct and performance there earned the American Bar Association's highest rating and they aren't considered a conservative group.
In other news Justice Kavanaugh continued his longstanding tradition of promoting women by arriving for his first day with an unprecedented all-female class of law clerks. The result being the first time in history that more than half on the court are women. Not bad for a guy that liberals labeled a rapist and drunk. I fully expect him to continue his long and impressive career without issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/us/politics/kavanaugh-women-law-clerk...
24
@74Patriot1776
Democrats worked hard to eradicate his impressive professional record and make his high school behavior the focus of his nomination. They failed.
Dr. Ford wasn't just taking on a high school boy whom she believed attacked her, she was also taking on a man with a professional and personal track record that is without blemish. He had tremendous credibility before she ever appeared on the scene. Not everyone was willing to ditch his lifetime record based on a vague recollection of an event.
15
@74Patriot1776 And yet the ABA and 2400 individual law professors condemned his nomination after his testimony, due to lack of ability to be impartial.
11
@Tami
Untrue. The ABA didn't "condemn" him. They reopened their review.
As for law professors, I'm sure there are thousands more who abhor the idea of a conservative on the SCOTUS.
After Mass this past Sunday, some in my congregation were talking about how BK was raped by priests as a boy and that's why he turned to alcohol and sexual aggression as a teen. They were saying he deserves our forgiveness and understanding. That's all fine and good but he still should't be elevated to a Justice.
3
The Supreme Court is no longer legitimate.
I do not believe any of their rulings can be considered legally binding.
Too many justices have been confirmed by Senators that represent a minority of citizens.
I have no faith in American government.
8
POTUS wins again. Yawn. It is not even a fair fight. Behold. Trump has his Court.
4
@Steve One thing I've noticed about Trump is he attracts a lot of angry failures and losers who think that when the president "wins," they somehow win too. Then they get on comment boards and strut pathetically as if they had anything to do with it. It's sad because it's so terrible for the country, but it's kind of fun to imagine the financially unsuccessful, lonely, basement dwelling cretin behind the vicarious taunting. Such sad little people, Trump supporters.
2
@Kip When the rule of law and the constitution win then I win.
Kavanaugh could probably be replaced by an Alt-right Web Bot. No need to show up in robes.
His votes will be based on his ideology and will ignore precedent and the law.
10
@Glennmr
as compared to who? Sotomayor, Kagan & Souter?
5
@GMooG
No, compared to the law and precedent
This is crazy! Can't believe a guy like him has gotten into our supreme court.
10
@Leslie Mendoza
Have you ever considered that just maybe he's innocent of the charges? Have you considered that he has a long and distinguished career as a judge and clearly has the legal qualifications? Have you considered how many women -- including women law clerks -- he's been around, and NONE of them have made any complaints?
35
@Phil
People like her don't consider. They shoot and ask questions later.
1
@Phil
Have you considered that the women Kavanaugh worked with are afraid of retaliation by the GOP and their handlers?
1
So boring, in a way. Everyone knows what the outcome will be. I'm guessing the Supreme Court will now make it mandatory for every man, woman and child to carry a gun. And they'll distribute coupons from the pockets of their oh so sullied robes, for discounts on guns made by the Supreme Court's favorite gun manufacturers, in which they, the president and the entire cabinet hold stock.
8
Did you even read the article? Possession of a firearm is not at issue in this case.
1
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary" is possibly the quote for which Alexander Hamilton is best known. However, his next statement is rarely quoted: "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
There are no angels among us: never have been. Regrettably, this recent confirmation has affirmed, centuries later, that the nature of people and government has not changed since Hamilton opined on both.
Justice Kavanaugh has a considerable task in front of him if he cares at all about his legacy and that of the Supreme Court. Every vote he casts, every opinion he writes will be viewed through the lens of his temperament and bias unlike any Justice now sitting on the bench.
He is an appointee who truly reflects our times when aspirational standards of political discourse mean nothing, and we get to see familiar faces, like Senator Collins's, contort too comfortably to join in as her party is led by a man who would confound even George Orwell's skills to pen "doublethink."
Whether or not Justice Kavanaugh can release the cynical moorings that got him his seat in order to serve its higher purpose will be the ultimate test of whether any good can come of his horrific confirmation. Regrettably, despite yesterday's verbal affirmation to commit himself to that standard, his behavior has given us no reason, no hope to believe that he is remotely capable of doing so.
69
@GuiGexcellent........so well expressed
@GuiG - That quote is usually attributed to James Madison, not Alexander Hamilton.
Corporations make lots of money from selling guns, so it’s an easy call for our Supreme Court Incorporated.
6
Colin Kaepernick made a statement by kneeling.
Christine Blasey Ford made a statement by testifying.
The Florida Parkland students made a statement by protesting,
even as they were still burying their classmates
YOU can make YOUR statement by VOTING
What kind of country do you want to live in?
Save The Date: VOTE on 11/6/2018
33
@Dem in CA
Have had it on my calendar for months. I will be voting R.
19
I'm going to work hard against any Republican trying to run for DA or AG. The GOP is on the defense table now. Their sympathies are now with the defendant. They can't be trusted on the prosecution side anymore. The prosecution has to focus on proving guilt, they can't run around the courtroom shouting "Innocent until proven guilty."
We need to retire and replace every Republican criminal prosecutor in the country. Beginning this November. Crime victims deserve better than this.
4
@Dem in CA
I'm voting a straight Republican ticket from top to bottom. The way Kavanaugh was treated inspired me to make additional contributions to Republican candidates.
12
Given the sudden embrace by Trump and his Republican Henchmen and one Henchwoman that, under our system of jurisprudence, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty (at least if they're white, elite and powerful), I eagerly await Kavanaugh's position on a criminal due process case where the defendant is, say , poor, black and powerless.
10
You don't have to wait! You have 300 opinions to read to see how he thinks.
An illegitimate and illiterate shoving an entitled and unfit Justice to dispense justice over us. They both will end up in the ditch of history.
16
There are almost 2.3 million people incarcerated in American prisons. Evidently the justice system is not working to reduce criminality and recidivism. Adding more people to the penal system is not the answer to the problem. Can we try something else?
4
@Alan from Humboldt County - That is up to the legislatures, not the courts. The SC only interprets the law.
5
@Alan from Humboldt County,
People have to stop being criminals.
I hate the idea that we have to incarcerate people less just because so many are incarcerated.
2.3 million people are incarcerated because 2.3 million people broke the law.
I support the law being applied equally to all- not letting criminals walk because too many of their criminal friends are already in prison.
Want to cut the number of people incarcerated? Support the death penalty for all cases of violent rape and first degree murder.
4
@Alan from Humboldt County
Thankfully, Trump is fully supportive of changes both on the ingoing and outgoing prison process.
2
Dear NYT,
Why not do journalistic pieces on the difference between "circumstantial" and "physical" evidence. The former is used on decades old cases all of the time. While I tend to agree that there is no physical evidence to show Kavanaugh's guilt, our president and republicans just eroded our justice process by claiming that only “physical” evidence of guilt matter. They are also mocking us now.
The assumption of innocence is another matter. People wanted a real investigation and not this shame perpetrated by politics. Kaepernick and other athletes have been trying to have this conversation for a while about the presumption of innocence for every citizen. Trump and republicans have regularly shut this dialog down. It has become apparent that Trump only means to give it to the wealthy and affluent.
And the same republican rallying cry that was used to apologize to Kavanaugh and his disdain for being questioned under oath is used to exonerate police and vigilantes and then convict VICTIMS of their ignorance that leads to violence. Kavanaugh's life was not ruined! There is a very long list of people and families whose lives were ruined, who did NOT get due process or the presumption of innocence! Many were NOT high profile and DID NOT make national News, going back to the 90’s. Most every African American has been touched by this now. Please investigate this and publish a human rights apology from the citizens of the US and let us sign electronically.
1
Presumably the nakedly partisan Kavanaugh has already had his one-on-one dinner with Trump and signed his loyalty pledge.
9
The Democrats once again went down the wrong path in trying to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination. Rather spending time on he said/she said they should have pushed the fact that 2400 law professors and the ABA came our against Kavanaugh after his testimony. They were concerned about his legal temperament and/or his ability to be impartial. Opportunity lost.
Would you go to a neurosurgeon if 2400 other neurosurgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons recommended against him? Probably not.
11
@Philip
ABA gave him the highest recommendation. Then later one rogue guy at the ABA sent a letter. Fake news submitted by a senator.
7
How appropriate a gun case on day 1.
I was sort of thinking the NRA should have used the hearings on his confirmation to advertise gun ownership to women to protect them from beer drinking boys who go to private schools. He said, she said, I think not...
1
Perfect. So Brett "BEACH WEEK" Kavanaugh gets to decide if people forced to sleep in their cars should or should not be prosecuted similarly to those living in mobile homes (households where statistically, income is below the national poverty line). Perfect.
3
The present case is about those who would commit crimes within autos and mobile homes where people reside, NOT about the economic or social status of the perpetrator.
6
@From Where I Sit: Issue in both Stitt and Sims: "Whether burglary of a non-permanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as “burglary” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)." Kavanaugh's 61 dissents as Judge for the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, indicate a political ideology of elitism. I find, in these present cases, more than a bit of irony...
1
Time will reveal Kavanaughs character. My bet is he will surprise the left and at times disappoint the right.
23
Got lots of money to lose? Kavanau will run amok trying to please the people who put him there.
He will blend over backwards to do that.
6
@Lane,
You are probably right. But we can count of every one of his rulings hurting average Americans.
The problem with our politics is that both parties have their own corrupt interests groups to cater to- Kavanaugh will protect power and wealth whether that power and wealth is held by Democrats or Republicans.
1
@Lane
As is usually the case, the histrionics will prove to have been unwarranted. No one has ever been able to predict how Justices will rule, but that hasn't seemed to stop people.
5
Well, of course, the five Robber Baron boys on OUR U.S. Supreme Court will vote for this. More people in jail for life. More money for the private prison owners. Guaranteed income for them.
That is until WE THE PEOPLE come for them. Everything they are doing can be undone. This is OUR United States of America and WE - hard working taxpayers - pay them and for them. They work for US.
Seems that have forgotten that. WE will remind them.
12
So WE think it is ok to treat breaking into a mobile home and robbing someone a less serious crime than breaking into a home not on wheels? When did WE come to that decision?
3
Very nice, respectful swearing in service for this brave family man and learned judicial scholar. What was all of the back-stabbing and anger about anyway? The Ford meltdown was not covered by the liberal media, but her real “pedigree “ is being outed on YOUTUBE now , and it ain’t pretty!( FYI.)
25
@Moe Def
While being respectful to one, he was completely disrespectful to Dr Ford. How does that make the entire process respectful? Calling a woman that carried the scars of abuse her entire life evil. How does that respect all Americans? I admire and respect Dr Ford. And I believe her.
7
FYI. Kavanau wiggled and squirmed to evade forthright, incisive questions. Honesty was called for and he did not have the courage to meet that challenge.
We the people are worse for it.
The man is shameless and, by extension, so are his supporters.
7
@Moe Def Oops! I think you meant the Kavanaugh meltdown. He was a mess... crying, blubbering, pouting, rude, acting entitled with arms crossed in defiance... I could go on and on. My gosh, such a child, such a spoiled brat. Oh yeah, that's who I want on the Supreme Court making decisions that will have an impact on MY life.
7
Cheer up my liberal friends - now that Kavanaugh is on the court, the NYT and other media outlets will go back to endless stories about Trump, Russia and the inevitability of impeachment for something. That will hopefully soothe the mob's frayed nerves.
31
No. We will be waiting for the inevitable: his exposure as a prevaricator once again.
4
@Chris
of course, but there is a case involving russia collusion no doubting that
1
@Chris
Yes, the NYT simply cannot abide a Trump presidency. All that precious ink wasted, while Trump just keeps barreling ahead, which is why they despise him so much. He is successful.
4
Judge Kavanaugh....congrats and I am most happy that the Left’s attempt to destroy your reputation with these insane attacks backfired. This action by the Left’s leadership is making Conservative and liberal alike very angry.
20
You may count on Kavanau to destroy your reputation for decades to come.
Congratulations on your Pyrrhic Victory.
5
@Chuck
"The Left’s attempt to destroy your reputation with these insane attacks backfired."
They didn't backfire. McConnell made sure the FBI investigation failed so that he could accuse the democrats. The FBI came no where near doing a thorough investigation. But what does the truth mean to Republicans any more?
5
It convinced this feminist to register as a Republican.
1
The Supreme Court is now a sham and disgrace to all Americans:
*Of the last 18 Justices appointed to the Supreme Court, 14 were appointed by republicans thru mostly corrupt means like McConnell denying Obama the right to appoint a Justice with nine months left in his term.
*Now 1/3 of the male Justices have been accused of sexual misconduct.
*Justice Thomas' wife Ginni is a right wing activists:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/ginni-thomas-crystal-clanton...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/ginni-thomas-shares-a-soros-...
12
Ms. Diane Young may be shocked to find that the SCOTUS does not "play to the groundings" Their image is the Rule of Law as codified in the Constitution. They are not subject to "adjusting their image in the public eye". Rule of Law keeps us all from the Guillotine!
9
It's too early out here to do the precise math but here is an attempt to parse the 114 count. The SCOTUS started functioning about 1800+/- when neither blacks nor women could vote and thereby serve. The former continued until 1865 or 65 years, the latter until 1921 or 121 years . Whether the former could practice law until later than 1865 is quantifiable or not is an issue.
So instead no African Americans or women being on the court until mid to late 20th century, let's say realistically 100 years for the former and 60 for the latter.
It has taken from 1865 to 2008 (143) for President for the former and 1921 to ? for the latter.
Just some clarity. Reality is the nexus to honesty.
6
The Republican Establishment has sent a clear message to women: they don't care if you are assaulted.
Even women in the Republican Establishment (except for the Honorable Senator Murkowski) don't care if you are assaulted.
Please keep that in mind the next time you vote.
8
Liberals dominated the Court for decades. I never saw any letters from Liberals complaining about that. We are in a new era. The alleged conservative edge is 5 to 4 and if Justice Ginsburg bugs out, it will be 6 to 3. I hope this brings a smile to millions of citizens as it sure has brought one to me. Enjoy the view, America!
15
Conservatives dominated the court for the last five decades straight, that's not the issue. Kavanaugh has no self-control, is vindictively partisan, and is unfit to sit on the court, that's the issue.
6
@Dan Stackhouse They did? You got the ACA approved, gay marriage, and many other things that conservatives don't want.
Today, Rubber Stamp Kavanaugh begins his tenure as a Supreme Court justice. The SC returns to having eight functional justices and plus Clarence Thomas. It is a dark day in American history and a death nail for the rule of law and the American Constitution.
8
@Jacob K - Clarence Thomas is probably the most influential judge on the SC. When he first started out, few of the other justices went along with his line of reasoning; now he is writing some of the most influential opinions and getting majorities for them. And the opinions by the other justices are starting to reason along similar lines.
7
The United States, the land of the free, has the highest incarceration rate of all the nations for which data is available, by a large margin. Stiffening sentencing guidelines will only make that statistic even worse than it already is if there is no corresponding lessening of sentences for non-violent offenders. At the same time white collar crime which is often far more financially violent and devastating to broad swaths of the nation is almost never prosecuted. This is just another measure of how sick American society has become. Capitalism uber ales!
6
Unlike someone committing a robbery with a gun who shoots and kills his target, Bernie Madoff, despite the lives he upended, never left anyone bleeding out in an ER. Hyperbole doesn’t advance your position.
You need to read the NYT study on the real story behind the purported plethora of non-violent offenders. The real story is the almost all the people in state prisons are very violent offenders. You would not make a dent in the incarceration rate without releasing many, many very violent people.
I've never been as disgusted with the Republican party as I am right now, and given their recent history, that's really saying something.
10
Justice Kavanaugh will decide his first case in a fair and impartial way. This is what he promised and he will deliver. He will be an excellent Supreme Court justice and serve our country admirably.
13
@WPLMMT Given his ranting a week ago Th how can you even begin to believe what you posted about fair and impartial?
1
@WPLMMT When do you think he will decide any case, it takes 5 to decide. He might write the opinion, but he won't decide by himself ever.
Placing Kavanaugh on the bench is a debacle waiting to happen. The anger will not go away and if the Dems regain the House Kavanaugh will be placed into an impeachment stranglehold, keeping the court at 4-4. Once the Senate rejects impeachment, this court will eventually reverse Roe and hand mega corporations a blank check. Perhaps I'm clutching at straws but I'm hoping Roberts replaces Kennedy as a swing vote. Realistically, the tidings are dire for moderates and liberals.
6
It is tempting to think that Kavanaugh could surprise us under the glare of a billion wondering eyes. But we already know how he will vote on most things news worthy and in the criminal justice arena.
2
To the extent the SCOTUS had any legitimacy, after Bush V Gore or citizen's united or putting Thomas on the bench, that's gone for at least the next generation, unless there are drastic and unexpected changes. The US is changing fast, becoming a minority majority nation but in 20 years there will be this awful group of conspicuously hard white privileged men still on the bench. This may help bring about a soft civil war where rich, populous blue states develop their own somewhat civilized social safety net.
8
It doesn't matter what Trump, Kavanaugh and the Republicans do its automatically wrong. Same with Obama, Bush. Clinton or Reagan. The media learned how to manipulate us in extreme ways. Did you see Ted Kopel vs Zucker? CNN would not exist without Trump. How would nytimes be doing without Trump?
There's a majority in this country that follows their instinct reciting the party line. With climate change its evil energy corporations denying. Their livelihood depends on it. Then there's climate science corporations whose existence depends more dire analysis. It might help if they spent more time what corporations do.
Why can't we think any more?
2
Most of us are still capable of original thought; those of us who can think, do think. The rest of you call us "liberals" and "progressives".
The Senate has confirmed to the Supreme Court a man who publically declared his hatred for people like me (Liberals and Democrats).
The Chief Justice needs to go on the record in an attempt to reassure Americans that bald-faced partisanship and ideology will not be tolerated in the decisions made by the High Court.
If he remains silent on this we will have no choice but to believe that all their decisions will be made on the basis of politics, personal prejudices and ideology.
8
Elected officials garner their legitimacy from the numbers collected at the ballot box.
Minority presidents, like Trump and W, who lost the popular vote, have less legitimacy than a popular *and* electoral winner.
The House and the Senate at least have those ballots, too, but the Senate represents geography more than it represents voters.
The Supreme Court legitimacy is rooted first in the We the People who can see for ourselves the rationales that the Court uses to shore up its decisions. The second root going deep is the presidents that nominate them and the Senate that confirms. If these are seen as not legitimate, then the first root's legitimacy is also compromised.
Citizens United, money is speech, and corporations are people are widely viewed as illegitimate decisions by the Court. And there were plenty more before that having to do with slavery, civil rights, human rights, LGBTQ rights, women's rights, and now voting rights, too.
Will nothing change, will nothing get better before it continues to get worse? Don't look to the Roberts Court for solutions. That court crafted the problems.
4
These cases are perfect for Kavanaugh - they play to his base.
4
@Cousy since when, a judge has a base? Oh I'm sorry, ever since the corrupted elevated him to his new job.
2
This is a sad day for justice and a sad day for democracy.
21
"On behalf of our nation, I want to apologize to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure," Mr. Trump said.
PT has not been authorized to speak on behalf of this native-born citizen of the United States who, as it happens, has been admitted to practice before SCOTUS.
Please know, therefore, I dissociate myself from PT's apologizing in this instance. I also wish to make known, to the unlikely extent that it may be pertinent for any other purpose(s), that I believe the apology to have not only been inappropriate, but to have exacerbated the travesty which PT has made integral to this nomination.
11
A stain on our nation, on the rule of law, and on basic human decency.
40
@Dominic
Huh? Oh I see, you are referring to democrats who don't believe in due process, and attempted to use a sexual assault accusation as a political weapon. I agree that was a stain.
7
@Dominic
But enough about Trump supporters.
3
We know just how InJustice Kavanaugh will view these cases--
Whatever decision will hurt the greatest number of people to the greatest extent, that's what he'll go for. Unless, of course, the people hurt would be straight, white, (fake) Christian men, in which case he'll hurt everybody else to protect and support them.
14
I see comments about moving on and bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle. And then I remember the disingenuous comments of Susan Collins. And Trump calling supporters of Dr. Ford "evil." And now he is calling out Taylor Swift for her support of two Dems running in TN. And his base is loving it. And his goal is to get them energized to vote in November. And for now it is working for him. And I am one of the ones to whom he refers when he calls me evil for supporting Dr. Ford. Get out there evil ones. And turn the tables on Trump. And vote in November like your freedom depended on it.
33
Regarding which cases Kavanaugh will first hear, who cares. It's done, he's on the court. Whoop de do.
The hurried, incomplete FBI investigation is the worst part of this sordid issue. That the Senate voted to agree on such a rushed report, and that the FBI stands tall and deliver such a report without including a huge disclaimer that includes a complete list of caveats, uncertainties, unavailable witnesses, and potential leads that could not be investigated, is startling.
American voters don't like being taken for a ride.
Hopefully, Democrats will win back the House in a month. If so, hopefully when the new session begins, the House will immediately hold hearings that result in new revelations and facts regarding Kavanaugh's statements and behavior.
At a minimum, voters will remember last Friday and Saturday in a month and in November 2020.
11
@Ed Yes they will remember how the Democrats behaved and it will be a landslide for the Republicans.
3
When I pinch myself, hoping this is just an extremely bad dream, I don't know which hurts worse; the pinch itself, or that this is no extremely bad dream?
8
Absolutely sickening what has become of the body politic in this country. Praying not so but I feel a revolution cometh and, contrary to what Gil-Scott Heron stated, it will be televised. Stay tuned...
7
Why can't those women file formal complain and law suit against Brett Kavanaugh? Will that not force the court to initiate a proper, more through investigation and the (clearly) liar and alleged rapist judge Kavanaugh face justice from the other side of his powerful chair?
17
He had a flawless record. It will not stick.
1
@Bonku Because they have no proof, no evidence. No prosecutor would give them the time of day and no judge would sign off on a search warrant for a fantasy. Delusion is not evidence and evidence doesn't care about your feelings.
8
@Bonku I don't know about others but Ford's issue under the law at that time and place had a one year statue of limitations, some of the others are not crimes at all in a private home. They are not believable in some cases, you see 10 gang rapes and do nothing for years.
This is a note I sent to the Supreme Court through its website this morning on the occasion of InJustice Kavanaugh's first day hearing cases--
SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! Today the majestic bench will be sullied by the presence of a lying conspiracy theorist and partisan hack who neither understands nor respects the Constitution (see Art. 2, sec. 2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, 2nd clause) and who may well be a sex offender. Isn't one sex predator enough for the Court? Isn't one so-called justice sitting in a seat stolen from the American people enough?
No litigant can count on being fairly heard or judged anymore. No American can trust the once supreme Court to protect our democracy, rule of law or values.
And YOU played a part in this disintegration of the Court by your many naked partisan decisions over the past few terms. You told the democracy haters that they have your ear, and they heard you loudly and clearly and established a government that promotes their destructive agenda and that sent you InJustice Gorsuch and InJustice Kavanaugh. Until Merrick Garland gets full consideration NO nominee to a seat previously held by a conservative will be legitimate. Your acceptance of these two Constitution- and democracy-destroyers to the Court without a peep has secured the demise of the Court's honor, credibility and integrity.
SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!
26
Speaking of being fairly judged, you take the word of someone that is brought out by an extremely biased, partisan Senator, qjp sat on the information for weeks, months even, to just try to derail the appointment. You make the announcement of what he is going to do, not based on his past judgments in court, but what you think he is going to do. I suppose hoping amd praying that he does,to prove yourself correct.
3
@james No, it's in reference to the person I described: "a lying conspiracy theorist and partisan hack who neither understands nor respects the Constitution (see Art. 2, sec. 2, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, 2nd clause) and who may well be a sex offender." There is only one of them.
Whether Kagan is qualified or not is irrelevant to the Kavanaugh outrage. She was nominated, fully considered by the Senate and confirmed. That cannot be said about Kavanaugh. He was nominated and confirmed, but he was not fully considered, since there was no meaningful investigation of a number of credible claims against him. I have no idea if he committed any sexual assault at all. I am not of the view that he is definitely a sex offender, which is why I said "may well be a sex offender." I find Dr. Ford far more credible than he, but that doesn't lead to the conclusion that he did anything. But what can be said irrefutably is that his performance at the hearing was disqualifying. He demonstrated that he is willing to go to conspiracy theories to explain the allegations against him and that he is willing to excoriate the entire Democratic Senate, which is nearly half the Senate. I don't care how angry one is about the kind of allegations Dr. Ford and others made against him, that behavior displays his character and his judicial temperament, and there is no way anyone can count on a fair hearing before him. He could have denied the allegations without the hysterical screed.
@BorisRoberts Well, I guess you didn't actually read what I wrote. I do not take the word of Dr. Ford or the other women who accused him, though I find them all more credible than he. There needed to be a real investigation, not a sham one, and only then could I or anyone come to a reasonable conclusion. And if Dianne Feinstein's demonstrated bias and partisanship and that's inappropriate, then what about McConnell's, Grassley's, Graham's, Hatch's, and on and on? Why is it okay for you but not for me? And I don't actually see Feinstein as having been excessively partisan. If she had revealed that letter months earlier, you would be screaming that she violated a confidence out of partisanship. You want it all ways and then to demonize Kavanaugh's opponents to boot.
And I do not "make the announcement of what he is going to do" based on my own thoughts instead of his past judgments. I make it based both on his past judgments on the appeals court and in the White House, which are horrific, and on his behavior through this nomination process, which is far, far worse.
Nothing would be more comforting and healing than to see him recognize his non-judicial, partisan bent and start to make decisions that are reasonable under the Constitution and settled law. He has not shown himself likely to be willing to do that. The mere fact that he could accept the nomination in the face of the Merrick Garland outrage shows that he doesn't respect the Constitution or democracy at all.
Florida's recidivism rate is about 33%, which means that one out of every three inmates released from a Florida prison return to prison in Florida within three years. This 33% recidivism rate within three years of release increases to 65% after five years.
In addition, almost 430 inmates died in Florida prisons in 2017, a 20 percent increase from the year before and they were, on average, younger. We have a higher record of inmate on inmate violence, use-of-force by staff and problems with delivery of healthcare.
Whatever you decide on the Armed Career Criminal Act, DON'T FOLLOW FLORIDA.
5
"Whatever you decide on the Armed Career Criminal Act, DON'T FOLLOW FLORIDA."
You listed a lot of alleged facts, but you didn't explain how they are related to the ACCA. Indeed, you didn't say anything about the LAW in Florida.
2
The case is about application of penalties to persons convicted of violating a Federal law. Other than convicting someone breaking into a motor home or stealing a purse, Florida had nothing to do with these cases.
1
@BCG
Which facts in my statement are alleged. They are facts. The data proves it.
I mention Florida because the article mentions a case in Florida. One of the reasons we have such a high recidivism rate is FL Stat Section 775.084 defining violent career criminals; habitual felony offenders and habitual violent felony offenders; three-time violent felony offenders; along with minimum sentencing requirements.
Another reason is because assistant state attorneys are graded on how many cases they take to trial and win. The more severe the charges, the better. The eight years I spent working for the SAO in S. FL gave me insight into this. I was the paralegal that showed up to the jail in the early morning to prepare all the paperwork for initial appearances. We had to know this law.
Harsher charges are also incentivized in order to force defendants to plea; defendants that can't afford a private attorney and who don't understand what it is they are pleading to and how it might affect them down the line. We know that innocent people have plead guilty because they were terrified they would be found guilty and sentenced to the max. We know this because they've been later exonerated.
And lastly, these laws, which included mandatory minimums, take away any discretion by the judge.
I’m sorry, did the ny times just write that gun issues are not a major social issue, after writing for years that they are? And ignoring all statistics and facts? Hello?
6
@dbb I had the same thought...and involving FLORIDA of all places....a state with the most notorious lack of regulation and the site of some of the most horrific and searing gun massacres!
1
These cases are about the criteria for triggering the extra penalties of using a weapon, not the fundamental concept of penalizing criminals that use weapons. They involve career criminals that claim one of their many prior crimes was not as bad as the government said it was. The latest crime and use of weapon is not an issue in any of the cases.
2
I just read a summary of the Pyrrhic War.
Just wanted to refresh my memory about such victories.
This person is not fit ti sit on the bench. Ronan Farrow and Mayer have more accusers on the way; he lied under oath, as released papers will show; he has never tried a case and is among the least experienced justice ever seated; and I can think of no more partisan activities in my lifetime than the Starr report and the exploitation of a poor family whose father killed himself in his depression.
—Unless it is Reagan/ Bush colluding against Jimmy Carter—the most moral president of my lifetime—on the release of the hostages—and that Iran Contra thing, and Dubyuh and Cheney lying us into war and profiting—or Dubyuh's grandfather colluding with the National Socialists.
I'm out of time. The list is too long for me. Have to go to work. But geeze. Compared to those grand scams, breaking into an office seems like nothing.
Rome eventually took Tarentum. May we be as lucky.
21
@Naples Now I know that I am not alone about President Carter being so honest that his moral standard is unsurpassed by no other president of the USA. Glad to hear that about President Carter.
GOP to Women: DROP DEAD.
VOTE in November.
26
Just #RememberThisNovember the immense injustice Republicans have perpetrated on women dealing with the life-long trauma of sexual assault. They never forget nor should we.
28
Unfortunately, we all have a pretty good idea of how the “junior Justice”— fittingly to occupy the “far right” seat on the bench —will ultimately vote: hang ‘em high, especially if the defendants are not white.
The “junior Justice” knows very well that his patron, the president of the United States, will be looking over his shoulder for the rest of this term—and the rest of his life. No serious citizen can possibly think that the shadow donors—those rich autocrats who paid off his credit card debt—will be indifferent to how their investment will comport himself on their—not “We, the People’s “—bench.
Chief Justice John Roberts will now and forever know that he presides over a Court that has no checks and balances. Certainly there are none from the legislative branch and it will always be in thrall to the whims and caprices of this most mercurial of executives.
The totals will always come out 5-4. Citizens United has already assured that. Have a nice term, SCOTUS. Sing for your supper.
25
More sour grapes and petulance from the left over the Supreme Court and behaving like a party not fit to lead is just whats required to get the republicans over the line at the midterms.
7
@Jacobite
We already know that the Republicans are unfit to govern; they demonstrate it every day in every way.
With all of their flaws, the Democrats are sane. That alone makes them a step up from the Republicans in the governing department.
Anyone who votes Republican votes for the unravelling of our nation and our democratic republic, because that is their agenda and that is their way.
They demonstrate it in everything they do, but it has never been more obvious than in how they hijacked Justice Kennedy's seat on the Supreme Court.
2
And hey, sorry if I seem cataclysmically enraged on this issue. After a year and nine months of Trump's idiocy, bigotry, lack of compassion, and all sorts of other things, Kavanaugh was the last straw for me. He's the single worst justice ever appointed to the court, the most partisan and undignified of all. And Trump and his supporters just rammed him through, defying all common sense and more than half the nation. So I'm done, really, the supreme court has no meaning for me anymore, and the Trump people are not people to be reasoned with, they are the enemies of America, to be defeated.
98
@Dan Stackhouse Just let's hope Mr. Mueller keeps finding reasons to impeach or indict President Trump and his son Don junior and son in law Jared. I for one am patient and continue to wait.
@samuel a alvarez Why do you care, you live outside the US. And if they could find such they probably would have already.
Why didn't Trump apologize for the way Mitch McConnell kept the nomination of Merrick Garland from being heard by the Senate? McConnell a a hypocrite and a disgrace to our country.
67
It ain't over till it's over. If the progressives get in, they should impeach him.
23
As the Economist pointed out in its latest editorial, "Even if an FBI investigation fails to turn up new evidence about what happened in a bedroom 36 years ago, there is no disputing what Mr. Kavanaugh said in his confirmation hearing. And it was damning." The magazine goes on to say that Kavanaugh was "evasive and disingenuous;" he told "small fibs under oath" and "changed the meaning of slang" in his yearbook. Worst of all, Kavanaugh's "visible loathing of Democrats" contradicted his own words in a 2015 speech to the Catholic University of America: "A good judge, like a good umpire, cannot act as a partisan." For those reasons, said the Economist, Kavanaugh should never have been confirmed.
48
@Barooby Obviously. you have never read the Economist. It is clearly not on the left.
@Barooby
The Economist happens to be a conservative British magazine with a large American readership. Leftist it's not, but then you don't sound like one of its more erudite readers.
1
Conservative by UK standards, where the Tories are probably to the left of President Obama. Founded as a classical liberal newspaper, I’ve seen a definite tilt to the center-left in the last decade. (Before you ask: I’m a 25-year Economist subscriber.)
Some shocking decisions have been made in the past, including the decisions on the second amendment - anyone who looks at it knows that is was never intended to put guns in the hands of every citizen they way the US does now. Time for real reform and clear thinking. 'Black letter' law should prevail here - and send the NRA to obscurity.
5
@MaccaUS Apparently you and I read simple English differently.
As some other reader said, the Constitution is neither a right wing nor left wing document.
Kavanaugh understands his job is not to write laws, but merely defend the Constitution.
The guy will certainly be less of a problem than people imagine.
I am confident that if he thinks there is any chance that he did attack a woman 36 years ago, when he was drunk (and I would guess that he almost certainly did), I am sure that he is deeply ashamed of that possibility.
I am used to disagreeing with all the Trump folks, but this time, I disagree with the left wing folks. Whatever.
The guy has paid enough for something that happened 36 years ago.
4
@David Martin
The average prison sentence for a man convicted of rape is just under 10 years. After serving their time, they have to register as a violent sexual offender, can never own a gun, can never vote, and will struggle to find a job for the rest of their lives.
While I feel bad for Kavanaugh's wife and children, how is getting a life appointment to the Supreme Court even remotely considered "paid enough?"
2
May Kavanaugh respect the tradition of the Supreme Court and fade from public view for the rest of his well entitled life. Unless he writes a momentous paper, may he fade into the anonymity appropriate of the SC. Women will know the burden of any future SC decision and understand how we got there.
Trump has already taken front and center stage again so let Kavanaugh fade away.
4
Uh, what?
Putting non-violent offenders in jail for disproportionately long prison sentences which blot out their lives simply because they were carrying a gun "does not involve major social issues"??
6
How can you carry a gun in the commission of a crime and be a non-violent offender? These criminals were not seated at a computer in their basements doing Medicare fraud. What was it, a fashion accessory?
“Justice Kavanaugh and his colleagues will have to decide, then, whether a mobile home is more like a car or a house.”
On November 6th, registered American voters and their families will have to decide whether a Democracy is more like a Republic or a Real Estate Corporation.
8
He'll take his seat and stay there for decades, siding over and again with the interests of the .01% that put him there. In ways large and small, noticed and unnoticed.
This is the payoff for the right wing's 50-year steady, unyielding campaign to capture the government. Look around, frogs -- the water is already boiling.
38
That’s as speculative and unwise as him continuing to drink with blackout issues.
Wow, imagine flubbing as badly as he did during the interview and still getting the job...I know of 2400 law professors who would not hire him (so something makes sense). For the Supreme Court "A scar is born."
60
No way a woman could do that and expect to land the job. We have to be not just better than men, but perfect.
2
Guilt and innocence aside, it's by now a fact that Brett Kavanaugh brings an indelible stain to the Bench of the nation's highest court. Considering the very serious challenges that respectively face the Executive and Legislative branches, Americans know that now is not the time for the Judiciary to don tattered, blemished robes.
So, as soon as Mark Judge is inevitably subpoenaed, the Democrats will have no choice but to apply the cleansing powers of impeachment and allow the President a new nominee. (To keep the process civil, when the GoP screams bloody murder, someone will need to place a firm hand over Mitch McConnell's mendacious mouth.)
17
He will simply state he does not remember.Then what do you do?
Well, far right is certainly appropriate for the choir boy, or perhaps a spot next to the other sexual predator Justice Clarence.
After they take care of the ambiguous stuff they can get down to rubber stamping corporate crime, and then absolving more bottom feeding politicians (too numerous to name) from a myriad of "pay-to-play" schemes.
10
"A Bitter Fight" indeed, that's a phenomenal understatement. There has NEVER been a more protested, visibly unfit for office supreme court nominee. No nominee has ever had more of a ridiculous, angry, crying, meltdown on national TV or even, I'd warrant, before TV. There have never been more serious allegations against a nominee, and no nominee has ever been as blazingly, blatantly partisan as Brett.
So for me, I don't care about the three cases in front of the supreme court today, because I know how they'll decide. The Republican judges will decide Republican, and go against extending sentences for gun crimes. That's the party platform, that's how they'll choose, regardless of arguments, legal precedents, and so on.
I have no faith in the judgment of the supreme court anymore, and I will not until the Kavanaugh problem is fixed in some way. If he makes history again by becoming the first successfully impeached scotus justice, that'd be great. If he resigns in humiliation, that works too. If his liver gives out, fine.
I'll make this stance clear by not capitalizing "the supreme court" anymore, and by not caring how they decide on any subject.
11
During your rant, did you bother to read the article? The use of a gun and higher penalties because of that use in these career criminals’ cases is not in question. The cases are about whether one of the crimes in each of pasts should be part of the penalty calculation, not whether equation used to put them in a cage for more years is wrong.
3
Uh, What?
The enhanced sentences for gun-possessors which put many non-violent offenders in jail for disproporationately ong prison sentences "doe not involve major social issues"?
4
Respect for this court is at a low ebb.
Kavanaugh displayed in public a temperament and bias not suitable for a judge on a high court.
Gorsuch is sitting in a stolen seat.
Both were appointed not for their qualifications or ability to serve all Americans, but rather for their particular and extreme ideologies, many of which are out of step with most Americans and with the modern world.
Many are scared of what this court will do. And they should be.
12
When they did it to a black man in 1991, it was an outrage. When they did it to a white man in 2018, it was a mistake.
A mobile home is neither a car nor a house. It is a big, boxy thing with wheels beneath it and is not subject to real estate or personal property taxes.
2
Trump has declared Brett Kavanaugh 'proven innocent' of trying to rape Ms. Ford in 1982.
This was a job interview. Far from being
proven innocent' there was enough evidence available to deny him a job. Who knows what would come out eventually, or should I say will come out.
I find it extremely amusing that Mitch, Lindsey, et.al. are using the same precisely worded meme ('mob rule') during their collective victory dance, but they are just whistling past the graveyard. Even if the Republicans can hold the Senate by the skin of their teeth the dozens of House investigations will still be going on in 2020. Good Luck!
15
@Scott J. Actually, there wasn't a shred of evidence. Plenty of accusations, zero corroboration.
3
@Richard - Either one or the other is a knowing perjurer. You've decided Brett is more trustworthy. All I can think is that you didn't completely watch both of the sessions. Just don't buy any bridges to Brooklyn.
1
I'll borrow from a quote John Wayne made in 1960 after JFK was elected President and apply it to our newest Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh:
"I didn't support for him, but he's our Associate Justice, and I hope he does a good job."
5
It is a sad, sad day in America when the people's will is ignored by the small, elite ruling class in Washington. Convenient to say it is a case of mistaken identity but you still look just as bad for not believing credible women that courageously came forward. The day will come to end the old school boys club. Will will not continue to be governed by those that do not hear our voice.
18
This is all abject nonsense. Until banksters and war criminals are given life sentences all other criminals should be set free.
Where is the proportionality in these sentences?
Of course, Kavanaugh is a gun lover who adores white collar criminals, so don't expect any positive change in the U.S. criminal justice system as long as he has the swing vote.
5
Brett Kavanaugh has gone to the Supreme Court distinctly compromised, and not only by the allegations of sexual aggression that have been made against him. From the early phases of the confirmation process, he responded to questions dishonestly or disingenuously.
He has also been judged temperamentally unfit for the job by a retired conservative, Republican-appointed justice.
His presence on the Supreme Court sets the seal on the politicization of that institution and thereby diminishes its stature.
This harm to the court and those who serve on it has been done by Republicans, including Brett Kavanaugh himself. Nevertheless, he can rest assured that no Democratic president will ever refer to him as a "so-called justice".
14
A judge that rails against Democrats is not a "judge" but a partisan. Never mind 36 year old allegations of sexual assault. Even if that never happened (and I think it did), Cavanaugh has no, and will never have, legitimacy. I only hope he recluses himself when partisan matters come up. Fat chance.
22
@tony barone
Chief Justice Roberts should talk to him behind the scenes and counsel him to recuse himself. This won't obligate him to do so but it may affect their relationship down the road. Who knows. We will have to wait and see.
2
So The Con Don is taking victory laps?
He's better hurry up. WE THE PEOPLE are coming for him and his Robber Baron brethren inside and outside OUR government.
Time's UP!
31
Can't we "believe" the defendant and just dismiss the case? Are we not undermining the defendant's agency, when he says he did not think he was doing something to trigger three strikes?
Brett Kavanaugh's presence is an affirmation of the Court's legitimacy, the prevalence of rule of law, and of our Constitutional checks and balances. I have no doubt that some hysterics will try to mob the Court this morning and continue their campaign: a good dose of "contempt of court" may be helpful.
20
Blah, Blah, Blah JOHN. Another federalist heard from. WE do not want your kind of world and WE THE PEOPLE are going to stop you and your Robber Baron money masters.
Average people around the world are stepping up to stop the International Mafia and their hostile financial takeover.
19
@njglea Wow -- and they say the Right is inhabited by the paranoid. Robber Barons and Mafia in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Hotbed of Federalist activity.
Highly reassuring that the plain folks of the US are getting such great value from their Supreme Court .
From what I have seen in other recent SC rulings the outcome is not dependent on pragmatism or merit but simply "Conservatives " v Rest . Its been described as the "Kavanaugh Clause "
12
Last sentence: "Justice Kavanaugh and his colleagues will have to decide, then, whether a mobile home is more like a car or a house."
The article is about cases, not about Kavanaugh, so why doesn't the Times say that "_The court_ will have to decide ..."?
Indeed that is how the second paragraph begins: "The court will hear two hours of arguments ...".
15
It's just literally true. Cases are now decided by the five Republican judges who will vote in lock step. There is no swing vote, so every case will be decided by the five Republicans.
9
@BCG
Because Kavanaugh is but one vote, despite the rhetoric of weeks past that somehow his evil power will immediately dominate the court and stomp all over Justice Ginsburg, Kagen, et al.
2
Have to look past this appointment of Kavanaugh and to 2020 elections. That's where there is opportunity to turn the ship around with the Supreme Court. Elect a Democratic House and Senate and President and increase the Court to 11 members.
It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two.
58
Cherrylog, let’s say you add your 2 seats. What will you do if Trump is President for another 4 more years and he gets to pick at least 2 more justices.
It’s exactly how Harry Reid reduced the Senate vote from 60 to 51.
3
Right, cherrylog754! And to add district and appeals judges and pack them with progressives.
As soon as they do that Socially Conscious democrats/independents - with a veto proof majority - must pass a LAW or unbreakable rule that says it takes 60% of senators to approve ANY federal judge position.
That will get the politics out of the equation and force lawmakers to work together.
Traitor Mitch McConnell changed the rules to get Gorsuch and Kavanaugh - and many ultra conservative judges - onto OUR federal judicial benches.
WE THE PEOPLE must not allow OUR U.S. courts to be taken over by these democracy-destroyers. Not now. Not ever.
5
@cherrylog754 Actually, under current Senate rules, it would require 60 Senators to end debate on a bill increasing the size of the Supreme Court.
1
After subscribing to the Wall Street Journal for about 20 years, I canceled my subscription on Friday. I could no longer justify giving even one penny to Murdoch and his board who support a treasonous president and a blatant money grab. I wish the Journal's excellent reporters would leave and create a worthy alternative.
118
I know what you mean. I’m 72. When I was in high school it was the first newspaper I read as soon as I got to study hall. I continued that tradition all through college and my working life.
About 4 or 5 years ago I gave up on it. Nothing but Karl Rove, etc writing so called opinion pieces.
Shame it was such a fine well rounded newspaper.
1
Like that is going to happen. Those reporters, like their counterparts at the Washington Post, get down on their knobby knees each night and thank their God of choice that they have a capitalist to underwrite their careers. Many of their peers that worked at other papers are working for Uber or Wal-Mart.
Words cannot explain how happy I am that this great man is on the court. It’s great to see our politicians do the right thing for once.
24
@JP "Great"? After Dr. Blasey Ford's very credible testimony about what he did to her, albeit years ago, and the numerous acquaintances citing his drinking problems? We're all human but we don't all belong on the Supreme Court.
10
Words cannot explain why you think Brett is great, other than that he's so ravingly partisan, spittle literally flies off his enraged, scrunched-up lips when he's challenged on things.
13
I’m sorry but in writing like this I find it hard to detect whether you are being ironic or whether you genuinely believe this?
You must surely be ironic, no?
8
The Robe wears him. At this point, already knowIng the track record of the Roberts Court, I can only take the female Justices seriously.
24
@Dazed Definition of sexism.
3
Interesting considering guns have become a must-have accessory in many people's lives - open carry and all. Wonder how the NRA, who believe everyone has a right to bear arms regardless of criminal history or mental problems via a legal loophole they strenuously advocate against closing, will react. Could be viewed as a run-around.
2
Burglary; stealing a Supreme Court Seat and stealing elections in 2000 and 2016. Seems like Kavanaugh’s conservative patrons can offer up plenty of definitions of burglary (with historical illustrations, no less). He should ask them the next time he’s getting his marching orders over lunch at the country club.
57
The Justice who would not be one if he were treated like a woman would have been if she shouted such an hysterical, emotion-wrought opening statement. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens had it right - Kavanaugh is not qualified to sit on the Court - Kavanaugh "has displayed a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the Court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities." "For the good of the Court, it's not healthy to get a new Justice that can only do a part-time job."
87
@BAR But he is far too arrogant to willfully recuse himself.
1
Unfortunately, nowadays in America, with it's high rents and stagnant wages, a car is now a home. Does everyone remember the news story of the college professor in California who was sleeping in her car?
19
“Taking a seat on the far right side of the bench”...couldn’t make it out of the first paragraph without getting that one in. Pandering to your audience is exactly what Kavanaugh did in his confirmation hearing. I like to think The Times is better than that.
7
Looking forward to hundreds of millions of more unregulated guns in the town square, hundreds of millions of more heavily regulated uteruses, unlimited corporate supremacy, more 'states rights' championing local voter suppression, state-sanctioned Crristian bigotry, unlimited billionaire dark money poisoning the election and campaign finance well in order to perpetuate the Republican Shangri La of Greed Over People, Grand Old Poverty and the sanctity of the Grand One Percent.....democracy, living wages, affordable healthcare, environment, infrastructure and representative government be damned.
Welcome aboard, Federalist Society stooge and billionaire servant associate 'justice' creepy Kavanaugh !
162
@Socrates
Dear Socrates,
Did you read the article? It has nothing to do with gun rights or any of the other issues you reiterate. It is about sentencing guidelines for repeat offenders if they are in possession of a weapon.
I know you are unhappy, a lot of us are, but it isn't that much trouble to stay on topic is it?
2
When a perpetrator of a crime carries a firearm during the commission of that crime it must be assumed that the perpetrator is prepared to use lethal force against the victim.
Therefore, from a victim’s rights perspective the perpetrator- if found guilty of the crime - should be subject to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Society owes the victim, whose life is at stake, nothing less than this reasonable consequence for the perpetrator of the crime, who has chosen freely to carry the firearm.
11
After bitter battle? The battle never stopped. The majority of Americans are not going to accept the rulings of this court. Normal as usual is over. I will never accept this court.
148
@Mike Mike. Us conservatives wish you would. But...if you don't...you or your family may suffer needlessly.
3
You may not personally accept them but the laws that they validate or overturn will most certainly affect all of our lives.
5
@Mike
That's nice, but no one cares. Seriously, go ahead and try "not accepting the rulings of the court". The country will move on, but you are free to hold your breath and stop your feet trying to get your way.
It's funny to listen to discussion about which cases the Supreme Court will hear as if the Supreme Court has any legitimacy at all.
It has none, which gives it something in common with Mr. Trump and both houses of congress.
The Senate's actions make real civil war much more likely in the near future. We have not yet seen what Susan Collins called "rock bottom." It is a far bloodier place than she can apparently imagine.
74
@Reality Chex Also, Chex. Remember who has the reins going into this war. It will be quick. Mad Dog Mattis won't be taking chances with a prolonged conflict.
1
@Reality Chex
A actual revolution would be disastrous.
We move daily supplies around the country and world just how many folk know where their food medications medical equipment household supplies etc come from?
In most cases it's not local nor is electric power gasoline car parts mass transit equipment building supplies.
To tear down the existing systems would have diseases death rioting killing and massive destruction.
That's not a pretty picture.
2
@Alecfinn IF Trump voters could understand your perfectly reasonable argument, there wouldn't be such murderous rage turning the blood in our veins from red to white-hot. IT is those people who believe that race is a fact, rather than an illusion perpetrated to divide us, and men and women who believe they should make decisions for other women on whether they should have children, and those who will believe the perpetrator over the victim in assault cases, that creates a rage beyond words.
When words no longer pertain, people look to war. And after all the killing we did in the first Civil War, tring to vanquish the evil plantation owners whose raw power enslaved people they refused to recognize as human, we have had generations of men using raw power to keep wages effectively stagnant in a type of wage slavery and decimate unions, to deny basic freedom of movement and dignity with Jim Crow laws that were only overturned 50 years ago, to disenfranchise people with false accusations of voter fraud leading to onerous ID laws, and to chip away women's access to abortion, never mind the multitude of mutilations to the environment and the sins of war in the mid-East: the civil war did not stop them, only emboldened them.
After the blood stops running in the streets, and we have to re-build, we are still left with our words and ideals in order to form justice, which appears ever-biased, hypocritical, and unjust.
Why bother the court with these matters? Given its conservative composition, it will rule that possessing a firearm cannot be an offence. Second Amendment, anyone? Seems we just found a way to cut costs: fire the judges and court's personnel, keeping only a clerk to ask Mr. Trump what he would like the outcome of a case to be.
39
Did you read the article? The cases in question deal with the characterization of prior felonies and their use in meeting the threshold for more severe penalties when someone uses a weapon in a crime. Not at issue are the facts in the latest crime by each of these career criminals or the added severity if the criminal meets the criteria. It is really the kind of case the Supreme Court should handle: refining terms in black letter law vs. making up new laws to fit their views of how we should live. The cases also deal with the bedrock purpose of a court of final appeal: did this person facing incarceration receive justice?
1
honestly not even 2 weeks off before his start date?
2
@Saxton Pretzi
the other justices need their coffee. Thats Bretts first job - serving coffee to Clarence Thomas and Ruth Ginsburg.
Hope he remember who take cream and sugar
3
If and when the Democrats control Congress and win the Presidency, they should amend the federal statute setting the number of Supreme Court members to increase membership at least by two, from 9 to 11. An increase of two would restore the one vote majority for Democratic-nominated members that there would be today if Senate Republicans had not refused, solely for partisan reasons and contrary to historical precedent, to vote on Merrick Garland, the widely respected moderate jurist nominated by President Obama in March 2016 to replace the recently deceased Justice Antonin Scalia. Subsequent to this refusal to vote on Merrick Garland, after President Trump was elected in 2016, Senate Republicans, acting again solely for partisan purposes, reduced from 60 to 50 the number of votes needed by a Supreme Court nominee so as to assure that extremist nominees such as Brett Kavanaugh could be confirmed with little if any Democratic support.
There are additional reasons for Supeme Court reform. Four of the five Republican-nominated members were appointed by Presidents who were initially elected with less than a majority of the popular vote. Two have been credibly accused of sexually abusing women. Two were selected by a President (Donald Trump) who might have won the electoral college only because of Russian criminal interference in the election process.
125
Timothy Casey (Legal Momentum): "Two have been credibly accused of sexually abusing women."
If you are a lawyer, give a "credible" *legal* definition of "sexual abuse". And cite a reliable legal source.
2
Definition: forcibly pinning a woman against a wall, putting your hand over their mouth, and trying to remove their clothes.
2
T OC: "Definition: ..."
Evidently you are not a lawyer, because you are stating alleged facts. You need to cite a *law*.
If none of these cases raise constitutional questions, why is this court hearing them?
31
@matty
I think you've misunderstood. The cases discussed by Mr. Liptak are not involving issues that are highly divisive on partisan lines for the general public: abortion, voting rights, etc. This situation, i.e. hearing less volatile cases (in terms of public agitation) is more the norm. And most cases are not decided by 5-4 votes on partisan lines: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/28/those-5... . From that essay:
"In the 2016-17 term, 57 percent of decisions were unanimous, and judgments with slim majorities (5 to 3 or 5 to 4) accounted for 14 percent. "
Even with the death penalty (not involving the general constitutionality of execution) there has been a recent 9-0 decision: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ayestas-v-davis/ .
4
The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is not limited to Constitutional questions (contrary to popular belief). It hears plenty of cases where no Constitutional issues are involved.
4
It is a constitutional question, how to interpret a criterion in a Federal Law. Did the Executive Branch interpret the text of the law the way the Legislative branch intended? You do not get more Constitutional than that review.
After all of the justifiable drama and outrage over Kavanaugh's nomination, character, and confirmation, it is just a little bit satisfying to realize that it will be he who, as the junior-most member of the Court, will be required to perform the menial work that is customarily the purview of his august position.
He will serve on the Court's cafeteria committee and handle cuisine complaints by the other justices. He will serve as secretary, taking notes for the other justices. And perhaps most importantly, Kavanaugh will be the one required to answer the door for the other justices when their coffee, or beer in his case, is delivered.
20
Let's hope Kavanaugh remains the most junior judge until the next Democratic president. Then let's hope for a slew of conservative judge retirements to get the SCOTUS more in line with the majority of Americans who are not hard-core conservatives.
46
@RickyDick: Unfortunately, the oldest members of the court are those who were nominated by Bill Clinton. The current group, from youngest to oldest:
Neil Gorsuch, 51, Republican (Trump)
Brett Kavanaugh, 53, Republican (Trump)
Elena Kagan, 58, Democrat (Obama)
John Roberts, 63, Republican (George W. Bush)
Sonia Sotomayor, 64, Democrat (Obama)
Samuel Alito Jr, 68, Republican (George W. Bush)
Clarence Thomas, 70, Republican (George H.W. Bush)
Stephen Breyer, 80, Democrat (Bill Clinton)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 85, Democrat (Bill Clinton)
Nonetheless a chance to join a criminal law power grab and start making law. These sound like questions for clearer legislation not judicial interpretation.
6
"These sound like questions for clearer legislation not judicial interpretation."
How do you propose finding out what needs to be "clearer" without a court case?
In fact, the Court has said that vagueness in a law is unconstitutional. See Johnson v. United States (2015), in which Scalia writes for the majority:
"Our cases establish that the Government violates this [5th Amendment] guarantee by taking away someone’s life, liberty, or property under a criminal law so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes, or so standardless that it invites arbitrary enforcement."
Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._United_States_(2015)
1
By simply not granting certiorari and thereby impliedly telling Congress to do its job by passing clearer legislation, including drug crime reform that over half of the country pretty much demands.
1
Rosie Cass: "By simply not granting certiorari and thereby impliedly telling Congress to do its job by passing clearer legislation, ..."
That is useless for defendants whose constitutional rights are being violated. As I said, see Johnson v. United States (2015).
No problem. The case about weapons is essentially moot and getting "mootier" every day, since everyone now is entitled to have a gun and any distinction between armed and unarmed will be irrelevant.
Why would this court, especially with the addition of Kavanaugh, waste their time?
9