Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Trump nominated appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court Monday night to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, ending a days-long guessing game that began the moment Kennedy announced his retirement on June 27.
In televised remarks from the East Room of the White House, the president praised what he called Kavanaugh's "impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law."
"There is no one in America more qualified for this position, and no one more deserving," Trump said.
The four finalists – Kavanaugh and fellow appeals court judges Amy Coney Barrett, Thomas Hardiman and Raymond Kethledge – were drawn from a list of 25 names vetted by conservative groups.
A clue to Kavanaugh’s nomination emerged hours before the announcement when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a written opinion in which the judge sided with the majority. The D.C. court does not typically issue opinions on Mondays except in response to emergency petitions, suggesting that the case had to be disposed of before Kavanaugh was nominated for the high court.
Kavanaugh, a former law clerk to Kennedy in 1993, was elevated to the powerful federal appeals court in the District of Columbia by President George W. Bush, under whom he had served as a White House lawyer and staff secretary. Kavanaugh, 53, also won the confidence of key players in the Bush circle such as strategist Karl Rove.
This, however, had risked being something of a double-edged sword for Kavanaugh in the Trump era, raising concerns among some Trump supporters that he was too much of a D.C. insider and too closely associated with the Bush circle.
The Bush connections also harmed him with Democrats at the time of his initial nomination, who delayed his confirmation. But despite the criticism, he wore his support for Bush on his sleeve. It remains to be seen if those ties will complicate his confirmation process now -- both with Democrats and Trump’s base.
Trump, though, may have been swayed in part because of Kavanaugh’s record of being a reliable conservative on the court – and reining in dozens of administrative decisions of the Obama White House. There are some question marks for conservatives, particularly an ObamaCare ruling that signaled his implicit support of the law.
In a 2011 case, Kavanaugh acknowledged in his dissent that the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate provision” could fit “comfortably within Congress’ Taxing Clause power.” His detractors say that language helped provide the road map for the Supreme Court to uphold the mandate a year later.
However, supporters of Kavanaugh have pushed back against that argument. Justin Walker, a former Kavanaugh clerk, argued that the judge’s “hypothetical discussion” about the Taxing Clause has been misinterpreted and is actually “a road map to the conclusion reached by the dissenters—that the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Taxing Clause.”
Further, it’s also unclear how Kavanaugh would rule on abortion, as he has never directly confronted the issue as a judge. Last year, Kavanaugh dissented from a decision allowing an illegal immigrant to receive an abortion, but pro-life conservatives have criticized him for not going far enough. Specifically, they have expressed concern about language where Kavanaugh wrote “the unlawful immigrant minor is assumed to have a right under precedent to an abortion.”
Despite potential conservative grumbling, the White House is gearing up for a combative confirmation process. The administration announced earlier Monday that former Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona would guide the nominee through the Senate confirmation process. Before retiring in 2013, Kyl was a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will be the first to consider the nomination. He now works for the Washington-based lobbying firm Covington & Burling. The White House hopes Kyl's close ties to Senate Republicans will help smooth the path for Kavanaugh.
In addition, the conservative group Judicial Crisis Network will launch a $1.4 million ad buy in support of Kavanaugh, running advertisements in Alabama, Indiana, North Dakota, and West Virginia – states with Democratic senators on the fence about supporting Trump’s nominee.
A senior White House source told Fox News that five Democratic senators – Judiciary Committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Doug Jones of Alabama, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia – were invited to attend the nomination announcement. All five declined.
Of the five, Donnelly, Heitkamp, and Manchin are up for re-election in November. All three voted to confirm Gorsuch last year. Jones, who was elected to the Senate in a December 2017 special election after Gorsuch was confirmed, is not up for re-election until 2020. He told CNN on Sunday that he was “not an automatic, knee-jerk no” on any of the potential nominees.
Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, both of whom have been seen as most likely to vote against a Trump nomination, also declined invitations to attend.
Fox News’ Adam Shaw, Bill Mears, Chad Pergram, John Roberts, Serafin Gomez and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Tags
Who is online
93 visitors
Safe pick. I bet a few red state Democrats are glad they won't be as pressured to be the deciding vote.
• To religionist-hypocrite-white-nationalists hiding behind the guise of “evangelical-Christians,” you managed to elect an Antichrist, your true colors showing vividly when you forgave Mark Sanford for marital infidelity, but punished him for being a Judas to Donald Trump.
HYPOCRISY, thy name is “PRO-LIFE-FAMILY-VALUES-’CHRISTIAN’-WHO-APPLAUDS-THE-IMPRISONING-OF-BABIES-TO-ENABLE-A-PRESIDENT-TO-OVERTURN-ROE-V-WADE!”
UMMM. Okay.
Usually I give a dollar to the people yelling that at passerby.
Mind explaining how that's "on-topic"???
Counselor, there can be no question that anti-abortion entities constitute the fundamental, underlying basis for Kavanaugh's nomination by Trump.
You Trumpians don't deal well with an inconvenient truth … these seeded articles are rife with all sorts of attempts to thwart dissent … it's abundantly obvious that …
Soon after President Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election, he made a vow to fill the Supreme Court with “pro-life” judges — a promise that he kept when he announced Monday night that his SCOTUS pick was George W. Bush–appointed judge Brett Kavanaugh of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
When justice Anthony Kennedy announced his resignation on June 27, it was immediately clear that Roe v. Wade , the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion in the U.S., would soon be under threat . While none of Trump’s 25 potential U.S. Supreme Court justice picks were advocates for reproductive rights, the extremity of their stances on LGBTQ issues and abortion slightly varied .
Not sure what you're so upset about. You would have said the same thing things about any of the other choices. But the choice was made and the left can't do anything to stop it.
I do notice that! Happens frequently.
Let me make it clear, even to those who don't want it made clear.
• Whereas BRETT KAVANAUGH IS THE TOPIC OF THE SEEDED ARTICLE (anyone care to equivocate on that irrefutable point?), and,
• Whereas, Roe v Wade, Kavanaugh, the anti-abortion agenda of the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, dictated to Trump, his choice of Kavanaugh as his nominee, and,
• Whereas, Evangelicals, anti-abortion proponents, xenophobes, et al among the Trump base are the pandered-to targets of the Kavanaugh nomination …
Be it resolved that …
It is utter hypocrisy for Donald Trump to have nominated a pro-life individual for a Supreme Court vacancy while simultaneously imprisoning children, and, doing so as part of a “one-two punch” … a pair of political tactics that pander to, among others, pro-life constituents and xenophobes in his base!
And it’s clear to the well-informed, that nominee Kavanaugh serves a purpose beyond that of overturning Roe v Wade, namely, as a “get out of jail free” card for Trump and his band of indictable men! But, it seems plausible to me, that the resultant outrage about to fill the streets with protesters, and, to fill as well, voting booths in November ... could result in a new Congress and consequently, an impeached, indicted Trump … an appropriate “counter-punch” in my opinion.
__________________________________________________________________
Those who post partisan seeds, who then bitch and squeal like stuck pigs regarding any comment that does not fit neatly in concurrence with their myopic screed … calling anything remotely resembling rebuttal/counter-content as "off-topic," etc., might consider doing something else with their time and energy.
I spent a career handing big shots and not-so-big-shots, their asses (colloquially speaking), when they thought they'd attempt to make their cases in "narrow lanes" of their strategic creation. And while there is no "neutral third party arbitrator" to officially call "bullshit" on The NewsTalkers, also in colloquial terms, anyone who cares to start a pissing contest … if/when I decide to join in, the "anyone" better bring a whole lot of piss … not little emojis, not ad hominem, non-substantive cheap shots for the gangbangers … but a real f'n defense-of-position!
_________________________________________________________
Wes,
On the record, I respect your education and background … so, let's just say that when it comes to politics, we just seriously disagree … but … I don't ever mean it personally.
Not sure what you're so upset about. You would have said the same thing things about any of the other choices. But the choice was made and the left can't do anything to stop it.
I didn't merely denigrate the "choices" … I'll assume you just missed the EXPLANATIONS AND ANALYTICS AND POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE VARIOUS CHOICES as they apply to those who made their choices.
I never just drop one-line, bumper-sticker length position statements … if you criticize my positions without actually offering any attempt at specific, salient rebuttal, you're merely taking shots from the sidelines. If you're not sure what I'm "so upset about," I CHALLENGE YOU TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS ANY OF THE CATEGORIES OF VOTER I WROTE ABOUT and explain why I should not have taken issue.
Mac, you would have said the same thing about any of the nominees. Stop with being so hysterical Roe isn't going to be overturned.
Pence has said he wants it overturned. He said trump and the administration feel the same way.
Yeah, I know - too many bridges and experiences on both sides - thanks.
If Donald fucking Trump can become President, ANYTHING is possible.
Apparently, you don't know me very well; I don't do "cookie cutter" commentary … no pat responses, nor emojis, nor bumper sticker, nor ad hominem-stand alone statements. I do my homework and make my cases in clear, specific terms … and invite rebuttals … presented on the same level.
That was your 8th comment in a row with no one in between, go HA!!
Oh quit shouting and carrying on and trying to derail the thread. Please go away.
Kavanaugh. At least 'the trump' did not nominate a Roland Freisler clone. Or did he?
Solid choice. Perfect resume for a Supreme Court justice.
The worst part of this process is the political hysteria that develops, particularly related to abortion, which is a minor issue in the scheme of things. No justice is going to give anyone everything they want.
One thing that's not going to happen: This justice and the Court going forward is not going to outlaw abortion. The Court is not in the habit of withdrawing rights already approved of by the Court.
I am totally pro choice, at least to an extent. DO NOT TELL ME WHAT I CAN and CANNOT do with my body.... that being said, I'm not freaking out about Roe v Wade..... People need to chill the hell out....
There are places waiting for it to happen. My state already has a law written and on the books that if Roe is ever overturned federally that it will automatically be illegal statewide.
I hope that's rhetorical. I don't care what you do with your body.
Good. You have no reason to. I'm not a walking Westlaw database or anything, but off the top of my head, I can't think of a time where the SCOTUS denied a right it had already acknowledged. People forget also that being a conservative justice often means making decisions that go against what the justice might personally wish or what you might expect from what you know of his/her politics. The classic example for me is Earl Warren, who personally was socially conservative and appointed by a Republican president but pissed off conservatives no end. We have seen it on occasion more recently with the likes of Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts.
Also, being conservative can be expressed in different ways. I believe a truly conservative justice would be strong on 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendment cases because they are about individual liberty and limiting the power of government to take it away. Unfortunately, such justices are often tough-on-crime ideologues.
I doubt anybody is getting everything they want in a particular justice.
More liberal than Merrick Garland ?
Kavanaugh is a HYPOCRITE … he relentlessly wrote painfully detailed reports in conjunction with the Ken Starr investigation of Bill Clinton … DEMOCRAT Bill Clinton …
BUT NOW, he's OPPOSED TO CONDUCTING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF A SITTING PRESIDENT (if that POTUS is a Republican).
I do hope that some Senator, while interviewing Kavanaugh, asks the following question, and, insists on a DIRECT, YES OR NO ANSWER.
"Nominee Kavanaugh, if a sitting POTUS i.e., commits a murder, orders genocide, commits rape, etc., assuming that there is conclusive (i.e. video or live, on-camera evidence), would you cast a vote as a SCOTUS Justice, to PROHIBIT A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND INDICTMENT (because a "sitting POTUS' SCHEDULE IS TOO BUSY?"
FYI: The SCOTUS has twice ruled that a sitting POTUS can be indicted … remember Watergate?
_________________________________________________________
Please, if you must equivocate, don't comment.
Sickening that some would think anyone is above the law. The senators need to get their stuff together and ask the right questions. Not that I see it making much of a difference yet they can get it all on record.
FYI: The SCOTUS has twice ruled that a sitting POTUS can be indicted … remember Watergate
thats 100% false.
in fact, it’s been the position of the DOJ for decades that the President can’t be indicted while in office, he needs to be impeached and removed first. It’s the mainstream, bipartisan position on the topic.
It’s why Clinton wasn’t indicted for perjury while in office, but reached an agreement to avoid prosecution on his last day in office to avoid indictment once he left the presidency.
Here is the Clinton DOJ Reaffiming that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
You're right Mac, but first there has to be a crime. Where's the crime? What will happen when the Mueller witchhunt comes up empty?
I'm sure he is a good man and hopefully he will stick to his interpreting the Constitution instead of what has become all to common, the act of writing law from the bench. I'm not against early abortions. I'm not for letting the fetus die when it could possibly survive like the vote made in Illinois some years ago. I don't think Roe v Wade will be overturned either.
Christian Radio Host: Brett Kavanaugh Isn’t A Real Man, His Children Are Girls And Real Men Make Boys First