The Justice Department Was Behind The Decision To Keep 100,000 Pages Of Kavanaugh’s Record Secret
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Both career lawyers and political appointees reviewed records from some of the Supreme Court nominee's time working in the White House, a source said.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Allison Shelley / Reuters
"The Department of Justice, which has advised both Democratic and Republican administrations on the application of the Presidential Records Act and constitutional privileges, was responsible for determining which documents were produced to the Senate Judiciary Committee," Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores said.
The Washington Post and Fox News first reported the acknowledgement earlier Monday evening — the eve of the start of Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. The acknowledgement fits with what a source familiar with the process told BuzzFeed News.
The news that the documents were being kept from the public and the committee was reported on Friday night, when the lawyer overseeing the review sent a letter to congressional leaders about the final status of his review. The development was just the latest step in a series of fights over the millions of documents from Kavanaugh's time working in George W. Bush's White House from 2001 until when he was confirmed to his seat on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
The office of former president Bush has been producing some of those documents to the committee in advance of the hearing — a decision that went outside of the usual process for congressional requests under the Presidential Records Act, which is handled by the National Archives.
Instead, lawyers for Bush, led by William Burck of Quinn Emanuel, reviewed the documents requested and then provided the presidential records they found to the Justice Department for review.
"[T]he White House and the Department of Justice have identified certain documents of the type traditionally protected by constitutional privilege," Burck wrote. "The White House, after consultation with the Department of Justice, has directed that we not provide these documents for this reason."
None of those involved — the Justice Department, the White House, or Burck — provided on-the-record comment over the weekend about who made those decisions, beyond what was contained in Burck's letter.
According to the source familiar with the process, both career lawyers and political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and Office of Legal Policy reviewed those documents, electronically tagging the documents that they believed should not be turned over as "withhold for executive privilege."
Ultimately, that decision was reached with 27,110 documents, amounting to 101,921 pages.
Although Bush could, theoretically, force the Trump administration to go to court to assert privilege to keep the documents under wraps, Burck made clear in his letter that Bush would not force such a step, writing, "[W]e have deferred to the White House, in consultation with the Department of Justice, on any documents not provided on constitutional privilege grounds."
Maintaining the line advanced by the White House and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, DOJ's Flores noted, "The volume, depth, and breadth of the production of Judge Kavanaugh’s documents far surpasses the much smaller and narrower productions for previous nominees."
Tags
Who is online
84 visitors
What's a hundred thousand pages, more or less... ?
The REALITY IS THAT SOME 90% of the requested documents are being withheld from Senate!
ONLY 10% of the body of Kavanaugh's work has been released!
WHY?!!!
Trust them!
Just TRUST them!
Don't you dare to post even a cartoon accusing me of being a liar!
Conservative Trumpians will do anything to save their Great White Hope from justice whether or not he has sold out his country and lied thousands of times! Only religionists, white nationalists and the worst among Americans would want a Supreme Court appointee who would likely protect a criminal POTUS from subpoena, indictment and A DAY IN COURT FOR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY!
In your depraved bias and ignorance of the facts, instead of making a viable rebuttal, you resort to a cartoon … so much like your Jess Willard hero!
As a point of "personal privilege," I ask that no one flag nor remove the literally and figuratively intellectually-cartoonish insult to which I have referenced. Let it stand for all to see where we are today in America!
But it's not 90% of the documents available that would be relevant and informative about his worthiness to be on the Supreme Court. The documents from his time in the White House are the least important documents available. There are many thousands of pages of written legal opinion from the nominee. The people obsessed with White House documents clearly intend to ignore that most relevant evidence.
There's no fucking way you or anyone else knows that without knowing what's in the withheld documents!
No, I don't. But I do know what's not in there: Legal opinions in Kavanaugh's capacity as judge and an 800 page book on legal precedent written by him. That's the kind of evidence that matters to me when considering a nominee to a court. You can count as many documents as you like. None will be as relevant as official legal opinion or legal teaching like his book.
Actually it's a critical time since it would reveal his views about the limits of executive power, specifically things like whether torture is permissible even when it's prohibited by the constitution, by statute and by treaty, etc.
It's not a surprise that those are the documents which a torture advocate like Trump doesn't want the Senate to see, particularly the truly bad judicial appointments which occurred during the Bush regime (like Jay Bybee, one of the torture conspirators who now sits on the 9th CoA).
Yeah, probably no one could tell anything about Kavanaugh based on his 300+ written decisions, 13 of which were upheld by SCOTUS.
Maybe some of the documents are about wedding plans and dance lessons. That means they are personal, and to liberals, there is no need to release them.
Maybe he exchanged cookie recipes?
I don't believe it matters what it reveals about his views on anything. No one who who wants to see these documents has any intention of voting for him. Or is it your position that the Democrats on the committee are looking for reasons to approve Kavanaugh?
How exactly is that responsive to my comment?
I think they're trying to do their job and fully vet and evaluate the nominee. There's no reason at all that any relevant documents should be withheld from the judiciary committee.
If you really need that explained, then I see no point in it.
You know this HOW?
During that time period, the WH was dealing with torture, warrantless wiretaps, Guantanamo Bay, habeas corpus and indefinite detention of AMERICAN CITIZENS. I can't imagine there is anyone who doesn't think that those issues are important. The FEW documents that were released prove that Kavanaugh WAS involved with back and forth discussion on legal questions and documented HIS opinion.
Just math. The committee already has over 500,000 pages of documents for this hearing. Unless the committee has asked for 5 million pages (it hasn't) then 90% of the documents aren't missing.
By the way, it appears to be undisputed that the amount of documentation for Kavanaugh exceeds that of the last five nominees combined. So the claim that they don't have enough information looks pretty silly.
Be it via the written or spoken word, or a cartoon, when you allege someone has lied … THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU THE ACCUSER!
You imply I'm a liar then, upon calling you on it, you call my response "a bit bullying and a tad threatening," really?
If/when you believe a falsehood or outright lie has been posted, you have every right to either correct the record via specific rebuttal/refutation, and/or to simply state that you question the accuracy of what's been posted; but implying whatever you don't happen to agree with is the statement of a liar … those are "fighting words."
My question is not about the 'number missing', it is about your characterization that the missing documents would NOT be relevant and informative about his worthiness to be on the Supreme Court.
How do you know THAT?
Mmmmm .... Snickerdoodles ......
Well, since many stated they would vote against him from the day he was nominated, I have to say, your comment doesn't hold water.
Could be, but why hide them?
[deleted]
Maybe when there’s nothing but mockery in one’s argument, one should remain silent.
It could have been zero, ya know.
The 100,000 pages not made available beg the question, what are they hiding....
Kavanagh worked for Bush, who made torture legal. We need to know what Kavanagh did.
The request for such documents makes me ask "why don't they want to look at the 300 legal opinions he has written?" It also makes me ask "what's wrong with the 500,000 pages of documents they already have?"
Chances are the stuff not released is either classified or confidential, and most of them are probably not even written by him.
Sounds like you don't know much about the structure of our government since those are readily available to the Senate. No need to ask our Fuhrer to provide them.
Who is your magical, mythical Fuhrer, and why do you chose to live in a country under a Fuhrer?
is your country Skrekkville?
Oh my God, that's dumb. Of course I know that.
The point was: why are those readily available decisions insufficient for rendering a decision on whether or not Kavanaugh would make a good judge?
Ummmm......because they're not relevant to his unusual views about executive power, nor do they pertain to his role in the WH on the decision to illegally torture prisoners.
We already know that at least one GOP nominee slipped through the Senate's confirmation process despite being a key member of Bush's torture conspiracy. Members of the judiciary committee have previously said that Bybee never would have been confirmed had they known of his role, so it's important to be much more careful with Kavanaugh......particularly since both Bush and Trump are advocates of torture.
At the very least the public can assume that Kavanaugh was part of Bush's criminal torture conspiracy and is thus unqualified to be a judge of any kind, given what we already know of his role regarding the treatment of prisoners..
Fortunately, we don't do justice in this country based on partisan assumptions.
Uh ... wrong.
We're not supposed to, at any rate.
Never underestimate the power of the Democrats to get their parrots to speak on demand.
Immediately after announcing they would vote against Kavanaugh, the Democrats made the silly request for hundreds of thousands of documents they know they have no right to see. The exact sort of documents Obama withheld from the Committee when Kagan, another government lawyer, was going through the confirmation process. But Schumer knows his parrots don't understand that. He doesn't actually want the documents. They've already announced they aren't voting for him anyway, the contents don't matter one bit.
He just wants the talking point that "documents are being withheld" to keep up his minions perpetual outrage. He's got his talking point and the parrots are squawking.
Hope you at least get a cracker for your efforts.
When the GOP stole Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court seat, they set the stage for a miserable battle
If Obama had been as great as he was made out to be by the MSM, and as being as good as he was made out to be, he, and the "Democrats", wouldn't have lost control of congress so quickly !
Blame the Media, Not the Republicans. MSM made Obama and the Democrats to be something he/they really weren't, and it came back to bite them.
Elections have consequences.
Maybe the democrats shouldn't have let Hillaryious Hillary railroad her way to the nomination.
We've been over this. The senate is not obligated to consent to any particular nominee. In that case, the Senate did not consent. Obama could have nominated someone else. He chose not to. Blame him.
Not the point! The Senate Majority Leader regardless of party or politics, has the responsibility to allow regular order … and not be a fucking partisan hypocrite, denying the right of a sitting POTUS to have a SCOTUS nominee voted up or down … because of a coming POTUS election whereby, in the hopes of a Republican winner, a white nationalist sympathizer, anti-Obama, Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation butt boy, might be nominated and approved!
Intelligent, reasonable people, resent having some bullshit-partisan spit in their faces and tell them "it's raining!"
YES.....The POINT.
The past can't be erased. It happened.
Democrats messed up, and now they are placing blame elsewhere...… AGAIN. TYPICAL !
Garland NEVER HAD A SEAT TO STEAL, so why publish that lie?
Yep might as well. Ta hell with protocol or appearances or even a possible conflict of interest involving the some of the most powerful people in the world. Idology over country !
.
sarc !
Do you honestly believe any Senator is going to change their vote based on these hearings?
Yep, since they announced publicly on two separate occasions that they wouldn't confirm Republican nominees in similar situations.
Probably not , but getting a chance to go thru all Kavanaugh’s history it would may give those who oppose this mans nomination actual reason(s) to either continue or seize their objection to his nomination. I'm constantly reminded of the screw up on the last president's term. "We have to pass it it find out what's in it." Well I think we ought to stop doing that, and they shouldn't have done it then. We hire these people to do the best job they can according to the rules set up long ago. When they dont do their job, it pisses me off.
This time it's "Get this guy in as soon as possible regardless." WTF is next ?
PS: IMO: I would not trust ANY nominated person 100% who has the power to oversee the one who appoints them, especially when the person doing the appointing is already under some suspicion of wrong doing.
..................................................
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is withholding more than 100,000 pages of Brett Kavanaugh’s records from the Bush White House on the basis of presidential privilege ahead of the Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation hearing.
The Senate Judiciary Committee was notified of the action Friday.
..........................................
IF both These Shoes were on the other foot I'll bet the republicans would be none to happy at this time either.
But, I'l bet Kavanagh's confirmed and sitting on the bench before our heads finish spinning.
.
Just makin America great ... ?
Time will tell.
.
Democrats are opposed to Kavanaugh based merely on speculation and the fact Trump nominated him---and NO other reasons.
Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society , a conservative lawyers' group, advises President Trump on judicial nominations and helped create the list of potential Supreme Court candidates for the president.
................................
Kavanaugh would be a young addition who could help remake the court for decades to come with rulings that could restrict abortion, expand gun rights and roll back key parts of Obamacare.
"He is a brilliant jurist, with a clear and effective writing style, universally regarded as one of the finest and sharpest legal minds of our time," Trump said
...............................
AND I'm not going to do research on this but I repeat: IMO: I would not trust ANY nominated person 100% who has the power to oversee the one who appoints them, especially when the person doing the appointing is already under some suspicion of wrong doing.
But also like I said I expect to see Kavanagh in place very quickly !
yep, when ya have the power ya make the rules.
and as usual, Time will tell whether the right decisions were made or not.
Kavanaugh could not have been rated higher as a SCOTUS pick by the American Bar Association.
Unanimously.
Here's How Kavanaugh Was Rated By Other Lawyers - 1600 Daily
1600daily.com › Uncategorized
Sep 01, 2018 · The American Bar Association has rated Brett Kavanaugh as a nominee, and the results are nothing less than stellar. The Daily Caller reports: The American Bar Association’s (ABA) standing committee on the judiciary released its evaluation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh Friday, awarding him a unanimous “well-qualified” rating.
We will see after November 6th.
If all potentially relevant documents were released, no one would have to speculate.
That’s precisely the point.
Interestingly the republic survived just fine for 200+ years without constant partisan confirmation nonsense like this.
Both sides are guilty. Guilty as sin.
Defending eithers actions is a fools errand.
Projection at its rightwing "finest."
Or, alternatively and more accurately, the truth.
Is that you Kellyanne?
Is that you, Abuela?
And what are the Democrats going to do about this? Nothing! As usual. Oh, they WILL whimper as they are confirming this nut, then they'll whimper some more as Roe gets overturned. Maybe one day they will grow up and realise no one is going to come running when they cry, and actually stand up to the Republicans' ruthlessness, but I'm not holding my breath.
Those records have no bearing on his judicial temperament, nor are they a reflection of how Hercules as a Justice.
You know this HOW?
[deleted]
If they were truly problematic they could have just followed the Democrat standard and just "Hillirated" them.
That is to say, intentionally lost, erased or destroyed them .....
Which, of course--and as every other lie about Clinton--never happened: as the Russian theft and then Wikileaks publication of the "missing" 30,000 emails proved.
WikiLeaks did no such thing.
God, where do you GET this crap from????
The hive .... that's where ....
it is as though they have never read a newspaper or listened to radio or television.
SMH
Want to bet he/she will never admit to that!?!
Especially those who admit they troll.
Say what? I want to read her E-Mails.
So did they personally send them to you? I don't know of anyone else who has seen her deleted E-Mails.
I don't know whats funnier your statement or the people that liked it.
So, If it's something Democrats want and doesn't get in THEIR timely matter, The Justice Department is bad. If it's anything Trump is denied, the Justice Department is Good.
Got it !
The Democrats in this "Hearing"
, which is just an introduction meeting for Kavanaugh, Not an Executive Hearing, sound like a bunch of whining Babies !
Booker is one of the worst in the Baby Matter. "Why can't we just Love one another" !
Democrats bitching about "Not Enough Documents".
Kavanaugh has supplied more paperwork than any other Justice that proceeded him.
If that's true it's only because he's been so deep in the filth of republican politics for so long. That's his problem, not the Dems for wanting to expose it all.
Bullshit. Democrats have loved him, before NOW !
He was part of the failed get-Clinton-at-all-costs Starr investigation in the mid 90s and a major player in the derailing of the FL recount in 2000. So, he's been part of the filthy republican political operation for decades.
[deleted]
Okay !
They're taking any credibility they had and lighting it on fire. When you bitch and moan about everything under the sun, it causes people to not listen to arguments over stuff that might actually matter. It's like crying "wolf!"
The Democrats in this "Introduction Hearing", were all smiles when the "Protestors" started "Whining loudly". I'm surprised Booker" didn't get up and "anoint" them.
Senator "Sheldon" is NOW whining about "Justice Roberts" and his Five?, which has NOTHING to do with Kavanaugh.
According to "Sheldon", big money can buy the "Supreme Court" Justices.
[ Deleted ]
And right after Senator Lee urged Democrats to make legal arguments and not the ramifications, Whitehouse wants to bitch about decisions based on who supported them and what (in his opinion) the outcome of those decisions were. [Deleted]
The "Flexible Constitution".
What was REALLY Meant.
Yep !
Just now, Ben Sasse was legendary. Bring back the School House Rock government!
I feel that if you didn't like Stasse's speech, you weren't paying attention, didn't care, or are simply more interested in scoring some vague political points rather than hearing what he said.
A HYPOCRITE'S HANDWRITING ON THE WALL …
“I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” Kavanaugh wrote in 2009, three years after Bush appointed him to the D.C. Circuit."
“This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or 1990s (when going after the then POTUS, Bill Clinton).
________________________________________________
How convenient … situational judicial ethics prefiguring the saving of the very likely guilty, fat ass-conspiratorial, child-incarcerating, xenophobic racist POTUS via a stacked deck SCOTUS!
And just who is O.K. with this?
The Trump base … t he same people who blame Blacks, Mexicans, Jews and liberals for their problems because they can't be bothered to take a shred of personal responsibility for a single thing, despite constantly passing judgment on others.
The same people who's egos are too fragile to accept things as obvious as the existence of global warming and white privilege.
The same people who carry the water of oligarchs, decrying “class warfare” every time anyone makes even a meager attempt to level the playing field, completely ignoring the fact that the oligarchs declared a silent war on us decades ago. (because they’re too cowardly to just come out and say it). The same people who betrayed their fellow Americans when they elected a treasonous con man to our highest office.
What judicial decisions has Kavanaugh's courts rendered that you disagree with, and why?
Do you believe that SCOTUS should have upheld his opinions 13 times?
What judicial decisions has Kavanaugh's courts rendered that you disagree with, and why?
Do you believe that SCOTUS should have upheld his opinions 13 times?
Of the 13 times, how many were upheld by a 5-4 vote … strictly partisan?
Your turn to answer questions …
What judicial decisions has Kavanaugh's courts rendered that you AGREE with, and why?
So now you only answer legitimate questions with your own questions.
gee, some might think you simply incapable of answering the questions if that is the very best you can do.
That's YOUR GAME almost always, and now, you evade the challenge to address specific Kavanaugh decisions WHICH YOU ONLY ALLUDED TO AS IF YOU ACTUALLY KNEW THEM CHAPTER AND VERSE.
I posted actual decisions after you tried to fake your way around your zeal-without-knowledge support of Kavanaugh … without your giving a single word on any specific decision.
Your questions …
What judicial decisions has Kavanaugh's courts rendered that you disagree with, and why?
You SPECIFICALLY CITED NONE in trying to play your usual gotcha' game.
Do you believe that SCOTUS should have upheld his opinions 13 times?
I responded to that by noting that all the decisions came dow 5-4 … REPUBLICAN APPOINTEES BEING THE 5 in every case.
So again, I pose your question to you in reverse … of the 13 decisions I posted, which do you agree with and why?
ONE LAST SHOT … as far as I can tell, not one Trumpian in this thread noted any Kavanaugh decisions … but sure ranted against democrats … like the Great White Hope you support, not based on anything but demagoguery and whining about so-called "fake news" when you can't refute facts … you don't come with anything but pronouncements, vitriol and bluster!
Make a specific argument as to why Kavanaugh should be confirmed … no "MAGA" and other slogans, quips or pronouncements … cite specifics from his record and make a defense for his confirmation.
Depart from the know-nothing Trump-rally crowds and respond like American democracy is not a carnival show!
'Zeal without knowledge'. I'm stealing that A. Mac.
Kavanaugh went with the majority of the court some 97% of the time. A court with more members appointed by Democrats than Republicans. Decisions were repeatedly upheld by SCOTUS.
Whether they were 5-4 or 9-0 matters not. They are either upheld or struck down. It isn't "Upheld BUT...."
yeah, you cited some cases. Great for you. You never said what about those cases you disagreed with based on law.
But let's take just the Obamacare case you cited.
His opinion became EXACTLY what the Obama Administration, despite repeated statements to the American people claiming it was NOT a tax, argued in front of SCOTUS. Had he NOT made that argument, it is likely that the Obamacare mandate would have been dead, and Obamacare itself without it.
In the "affirmative case" you cited, why would any law limiting voting to only one set of people be Constitutional? And why would Hawaiians be governed by a different set of elected officials than the rest of Hawaiian citizens? If ONLY native Hawaiians were allowed to vote, what would stop some group that you don't like from doing the same in any other state, preventing a group from voting because they weren't the "right" race or color??
I didn't cite any cases because I wanted YOUR opinions on what cases you thought he decided wrong.
How in the hell am I supposed to know what you think?
SMMFH
It sure as hell does. A 5-4 can have multiple written dissents. Dissents are cited all the time and in some cases cited to support overturning a SCOTUS ruling. A 9-0 ruling HAS NO dissents.
In FACT, Kavanaugh has cited many a dissent in his own rulings and writings.
Yes, dissents are often noted.
But the fact is that whether the decision is 5-4 or 9-0, it has the exact same effect. It holds the exact same weight unless reversed at a later date, which can happen to any court decision, whether it was unanimous or not.
Take Roe v. Wade for example. It wasn't unanimous, but what effect has that had on actual practices? Neither was Citizens United, but what is in effect?
No it doesn't. Dissents MATTER. Ask Kavanaugh.
If SCOTUS rules on a matter of law, and the vote isn't unanimous, what is the result of the ruling? Does it carry the force of law?
How are lower court cases handled on appeal if they went against the split SCOTUS decision? Is it the same as if there were no SCOTUS ruling?
Just to underscore what Dulay said in his/her response to that completely wrong statement here's a primer on the concept of stare decisis :
Appellants, particularly to the SC, hope their cases have a strong majority in the favor with no more than 2 dissenters in order to strengthen the case for stare decisis. It's for that reason that a unanimous verdict is considered particularly strong by future courts. Tellingly, the SC's 5-4 decision in Bush v Gore in 2000 specifically included the admonition that it should not be taken as stare decisis-- IOW, it admitted to its own weakness as a decision.
Yes, I know all that. What I keep pointing out to apparently no avail is that the decisions by SCOTUS, whether unanimous or not, hold the same weight under law until reversed.
Is that not true?
For example, Roe v. Wade was a 7-2 decision, but in applying the law, it is the exact same as if the decision was 9-0 as it is under the 7-2 decision.
Same with Citizens United, but with different numbers.
I must not be making myself clear Tex.
What I am talking about is that 9-0 opinions do not include dissents. 5-4 opinions DO, sometimes more than one.
While it is more common for 'majority' opinions to be cited in future rulings BUTT, in some cases, the dissenting opinions of cases are just as illuminating as the 'majority' opinion. An example is Scalia's dissent in Lawrence. It has been cited by both sides of the fence in multiple rulings. In FACT, Scalia's own dissent in Lawrence was cited in the Obergefell opinion.
So what I am saying is that quite often, dissents move jurisprudence. Having dissents on record gives us at least two sides of the debate on the issue. Dissents give fodder to lawyers who are arguing cases and judges that are writing opinions.
The unanimous rulings do not give us the benefit of documented 'opposing views', side by side with the majority opinion. We KNOW that even unanimous rulings are 'in question', Kavanaugh's writings call into question Nixon v. U.S.
This is getting old.
I am not arguing that dissents don't matter. They do, but not in the enforcement of the judgment.. I am not arguing that dissents aren't cited in other cases.
I am not arguing ANY OF THAT!
I AM arguing that SCOTUS decisions, when rendered, no matter the number in agreement or dissent, has the same weight of law when applied.
I am saying that if someone has SCOTUS uphold his majority decisions, then it is highly likely that the majority could find no fault or not enough fault IN the decision to overturn it. The SCOTUS decision, no matter what the numbers are in it, carries the same weight when applied. If Roe v. Wade would have gone the other way by the same numbers, abortion might not be legal right now. It did NOT, so abortion IS legal. Men and women know that Roe v. Wade decided that abortion was indeed legal. Do you really think many CARE what the numbers in agreement or dissent were--they just want to know what the verdict was, because that is what is important.
Personally, I WANT justices who have SHOWN a good grasp of the law--enough so that they are not constantly overturned by another court. I don't understand people who don't want that same thing.
What about Kavanaugh's judicial record do you take exception to, why, and was his decision overturned or not?
Have you looked at every ruling he made or did you cherry pick this one and for what reason?
Tell us the ones YOU'VE looked at … the one I cited is quite obvious as its potential impact is imminent and a threat to the rule of law.
Instead of asking questions, post an actual rebuttal if when you disagree or don't care for what I post! Make an argument pro or con rather than post a gotcha' question that reveals nothing of your knowledge of the subject at hand.
I'm not excusing Trump for anything he has done, but Kavanaugh has an impeccable reputation as a jurist.
And now's your chance to explain specifically what makes it "impeccable" without the summary pronouncement.
How about him deciding with the majority some 97% of the time and SCOTUS upholding him some 13 times?
Heck, look at HIS record compared to Kagan's judicial record.
Heck … just make a case for his "impeccable" reputation and don't change the subject!
13.2.3
Still waiting for any reason you cited those cases but didn't say what about his decisions you didn't like.
Tell you what; choose one decision at-a-time, post it, state your feelings pro or con and I'll follow stating mine; then I'll post another, state my feelings and you follow.
In that format, neither one of us will be twisting in the wind, open to critiques while the other stands on the sidelines.
Oh, FFS.
I ask a simple question and you won't answer it.
That's okay, I expected little and got nothing.
I'll move on to people who will at least answer.
Read 13.2.3 and get back to me--or not.
I don't have the patience for word games today, and apparently you are more interested in that kind of shit, so have fun.
13 of how many? And where's your source for that?
And what's the basis for impugning her record?
Okay, how is suggesting looking at her record impugning it?
And here, this is from Wikipedia:
Notable cases
The Supreme Court has adopted Kavanaugh's position on cases 13 times, and has reversed his position only once. These included cases involving environmental regulations, criminal procedure, the separation of powers and extraterritorial jurisdiction in human rights abuse cases.[19][42] He has been regarded as a feeder judge.[43]
19--^
Jump up to:
a b c d e f g h i j Shane, Scott; Eder, Steve; Ruiz, Rebecca R.; Liptak, Adam; Savage, Charlie; Protess, Ben (July 15, 2018). "Influential Judge, Loyal Friend, Conservative Warrior — and D.C. Insider". The New York Times. p. A1. Retrieved July 16, 2018.
42--^
Jump up to:
a b Jones, Ashby (2018-07-10). "Judge Brett Kavanaugh: In His Own Words". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2018-08-18.
Now, once again, based on his judicial record, what are your objections to Kavanaugh, what cases do you base that on, and which were overturned by another court?
Given conservative states' record on voter suppression and the SCOTUS' gutting of the Voting Rights Act, let's see …
Affirmative action: Kavanaugh in 1999 wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a group that opposes race-based affirmative action in college admissions. The brief argued that a Hawaii law allowing only native Hawaiians to vote in elections for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was unconstitutional in prohibiting people from voting because of their race. (The Supreme Court agreed with that argument in a 7-2 decision.)
BUT … Civil rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers point in particular to an opinion he wrote in 2012 delaying but ultimately allowing voter identification requirements in South Carolina that were opposed by the Justice Department, and to his description in 1999, when he was a lawyer in private practice, of a government program for Native Hawaiians as a “naked racial-spoils system.” In that case, embracing the language of Justice Antonin Scalia, Kavanaugh wrote in a newspaper column that the Supreme Court would eventually, inevitably find that “in the eyes of government, we are just one race.”
Vanita Gupta, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said, “That kind of statement really signals that he will bring an anti-civil-rights agenda to the Supreme Court and fails to recognize the current reality of being a person of color in this country and the history of discrimination.”
“Kavanaugh’s worldview is not demonstrated by the fact that he’s appeared before black law students and hired diverse clerks,” she said, noting that he has also appeared nearly 50 times before chapters of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group that has helped shape Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees, including Kavanaugh.
Well, kudos for FINALLY answering at least in part.
As for the first case--Obamacare-- you proved only that everything I wrote was true, and you merely SPECULATED as to what his "motives" were. Not one thing you mentioned had a thing to do with laws or precedent. An utter fail, IOW. Fact STILL remains he was impartial and ruled in a way that even the Obama Administration thought enough of his legal arguments to change their tune and decide it WAS a tax.
In the second case you cite, really what matter is that SCOTUS UPHELD HIM. That alone tells me that some of the greatest legal minds in the country got together and decided in the MAJORITY that he was correct.
Now you can argue that YOU thought he was wrong, or that "leading Democrats" thought he was wrong, but not a single one of you offer anything regarding precedent to make the case that his ruling was wrong.
That his addition will push the Court yet further to the extreme right, far out of touch with the society it makes judgments upon. It will be much like the infamous Taney court of the 1850s. But you seem to labor under the mistaken notion that all that matters is that a nominee has to have a judicial record and the bigger the better. He or she also should demonstrate something more human. Would it surprise you to know how many and highly esteemed SC justices had no judicial experience at all before attaining that position?
Once again I ask what in his judicial record do you object, and why?
And you respond with "He will push the Court farther to the right"?
I see we are done here when you simply refuse to answer a simple question.
I really don't see how you manage to draw that conclusion based on his record when he has gone WITH the majority on his court--a court with more Democratic-appointed judges than Republican ones, the vast majority of the time. Do you think his court was right-leaning, despite its makeup?
Kavanaugh turns his back on the father of a daughter murdered by gun violence …
THIS IS WHO KAVANAUGH IS!
Do you know for a fact that they know each other?
What difference does that make in his nomination hearings? Does it have any bearing on them?
More questions … more evasiveness …
It happened in the middle of a contentious meeting taking place in a country whose political divide seems to grow deeper by the day.
As the room broke for lunch during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a man approached the judge from behind and was able to get his attention. Kavanaugh turned to look at the man, who later identified himself on social media as Fred Guttenberg, the father of Jaime Guttenberg, one of the 17 people killed in the Parkland school shooting in February, as he stuck out his right hand. He appeared to say, “My daughter was murdered at Parkland."
_____________________________________________
Good night, Texan1211.
So Kavanaugh didn't know the guy from Adam.
Maybe Kavanaugh was preoccupied with oh, I don't know--his confirmation hearing?
Guttenberg said 'I'm Fred Guttenberg and my daughter Jaime was murdered at Parkland'. He said on The Last Word that is how he has been introducing himself to 'officials' since his daughters murder.
O'Donnell brought up that Kavanaugh had the chance to 'fix' it, find Guttenberg in the hearing room after the break and shake his hand. He didn't. Who knows if it even crossed his mind. Mores the pity.
There would be no point to that.
Do you seek out people who are CLEARLY at odds with you to shake their hand? Oh i'm sure you do ..... every time right?
The rule of the day from the hive ...... anything goes to subvert his nomination ....... anything!
I just posted a seed about that Dulay.
If this pussy is seated and he overturns the semi-automatic weapons ban (which he plans to do) he will have a lot of blood on his hands like the current administration and the gop and the NRA.
The NRA back this pussy and I'm sure they've lined his pockets with lots of blood money.
How is "HE" (Kavanaugh), going to do that ?
They seem to think that a single SCOTUS Justice has great power.
I wonder why, if Kavanaugh can overturn decisions, why can't people like Ginsberg do the same?
Yeah, the whole confirmation show is for the benefit of Democrats to make it look like they are doing something!
Anyone with a lick of sense KNOWS that the Dems won't be voting for him--whether they get everything he has ever written or tapes of every spoken word he has ever uttered. That is just some outlandish "excuse".
They have already admitted as much.
Only Kavanaugh is going to "Judicially disqualify" himself so he can argue guns in front of the Supreme Court.
The Stupid Shit stuff that flitters around the net is mind boggling, and the Lemming followers of the lie are.....well.....(Fill-in-the-blank)
Take the "Parkland" father handshake diss by Kavanaugh. Anyone being looked at for the supreme court wouldn't want to be seen as biased one way or another. Kavanaugh did the right thing. Stay neutral. Just say high and walk away. Liberals are making such a BULLSHIT argument over this "incident". Liberals love "Conflict and disruption" !
Exactly!!
Had the head of a gun manufacturer approached Kavanaugh and Kavanaugh HAD shaken his hand, the left would be having apoplectic fits for MONTHS!
The left luvs them some bad.....they hates good ! Not Prudent...…. EVER !
Just because you fail to see the point, doesn't mean there isn't one.
What I do is irrelevant. What Kavanaugh did or didn't do is.
The 'hive' had NOTHING to do with Kavanaugh shunning Fred Guttenberg. He has no one but himself to blame for the 'optics'.
And maybe the father of a daughter murdered by some loser with access to a deadly weapon, was, in his grief and frustration, hoping to express that grief to a potential Justice of the SCOTUS … IN THE HOPES THAT HE WOULDN'T BE A PIMP FOR THE NRA IN CASES REGARDING THE 2nd AMENDMENT.
Poor, tired, preoccupied Judge Kavanaugh … he got to leave the room and head home with his daughters …
… unlike the father of his dead daughter.
Get some perspective all you Trumpians … some assholes do "go out on the 'Fifth Avenues' of America and shoot someone," only to have the NRA and right-wing apologists declare that …
1. This is not the time to discuss politics, and …
2. This is the time for us to send out our thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims.
Any questions?
Kavanaugh is under no obligation to shake any stranger's hand.
Perhaps the guy should have made an appointment to meet Kavanaugh if it is so important to him.
Look, I can sympathize with the father. It was a horrible tragedy that any of those kids were shot and killed.
But that doesn't give him some inherent right to demand to be recognized by a potential SC justice because he wants to make some point.
NO SC Justice decides any case by himself.
Why hasn't the father done the same with every sitting SC Justice?
I didn't way he was, did I Tex?
BTFW, Kavanaugh was well aware the Guttenberg would be at the hearing, since he was on the list of INVITED guests.
Yeah, how dare the murdered child's father reach out his hand to introduce himself and to be flat out ignored by this pussy Kavanaugh?
Oh, FFS.
I didn't write that you said that, I merely stated the obvious.
And I am positive Kavanaugh pored over the whole list of invitees.
Y'all are attempting to make mountains out of molehills, simply because you don't kike Kavanaugh based on the fact Trump nominated him.
What in Kavanaugh's judicial record do you object to, and have higher courts rejected his findings?
Nah there is no point to it. In the end its just another ploy to discredit anything that is remotely related to Trump
It's absolutely relevant and a cogent point to the discussion at hand
So sez the hive ......
Was he?
Did you personally read the invited guest list to him? Maybe you did...
I guess you were there.
Where you with the group of screaming snowflakes that the Democrats used to interrupt the proceeding?
Senator Feinstein INTRODUCED the invitees at the beginning of the hearing. Keep
BTW, a TEAM of people prepared Kavanaugh and I doubt that they failed to go over the list of invited guests with him. Though if they did, it wouldn't be out of character with Trump's team of incompetents.
You're entitled to your opinion, as am I.
Oh please do explain how what I personally do is relevant to the discussion at hand.
I speak for no one but myself.
Who gives a flying fuck?
WTF difference can it POSSIBLY make regarding his hearing and confirmation whether he shook some stranger's hand?
Really going there huh?
No one is obligated to shake the hand of someone who is clearly hostile to them. No one, including you.
Get it now?
NO, Senator Feinstein did...
I believe what Guttenberg said that he said. He has repeated it multiple times since the hearing.
NO, I was here dealing with the group of screaming snowflake conservatives about the hearing...
Such a contradiction when lumping both statements together as a whole.
If it doesn't make a difference, why are you talking about it?
Hey, didn't you know that whether he shakes a hand is one of the very most important things Kavanaugh or any nominee must do to pass muster from Democrats?
Well, that, and vow to never overturn Roe v. Wade.
Actually 'lumping both statements together as a whole' is an intentional misrepresentation of the content AND context of both statements.
Well done.
Please proceed.
Actually, YOU went there...
Nowhere in any of my comments have I said that Kavanaugh was 'obliged' to do a fucking thing.
Yes, I get that you read things into my comments that don't exist.
I believe that's what you think.
[deleted]
Because some people here consider this relevant and fucking brought it up. it isn't relevant at all, and I don't mind pointing that shit out to those who think it is.
Why are YOU talking about it?
Look, I can sympathize with the father. It was a horrible tragedy that any of those kids were shot and killed.
But that doesn't give him some inherent right to demand to be recognized by a potential SC justice because he wants to make some point.
He made no "demand" -- he extended his hand in a universally accepted gesture of civility and accord -- he was invited to the hearings … read down …
NO SC Justice decides any case by himself.
Kavanaugh would be the "5" in a 5-4 SCOTUS vote protecting the NRA and gun advocates against any reforms.
Why hasn't the father done the same with every sitting SC Justice?
Maybe he has … not the point … he is active in meeting as many officials as he can … how many such grieving parent get to meet with SCOTUS justices?
Fred Guttenberg Pushes for "Common-Sense" Gun Reform After His Daughter's Murder at Parkland
Every year for the past eight or nine years, Fred Guttenberg took the stage at his daughter Jaime's dance recital for a routine called "Dancing Dads." The number featured all of the dance dads doing their best to follow choreography and ended with all of the girls joining their fathers onstage.
Guttenberg, who calls himself the "world's worst dancer," hasn't decided if he's up for it again this year. Though the dance studio has asked him to participate, he would have to dance without his daughter. Jaime was killed by the gunman who tore through Marjory Stoneman Douglas High this past Valentine's Day. She was 14, a Best Buddies volunteer, and a lifelong dancer who hoped to one day become a physical therapist.
Forget for a moment about the Brett Kavanaugh documents Republicans are trying to bury and take a moment to pay attention to the overt disdain Kavanaugh showed Tuesday to the grieving father of a girl who died in the Parkland shooting massacre earlier this year. Not only did Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, literally turn his back on Fred Guttenberg as Guttenberg tried to introduce himself at the nomination hearing, Kavanaugh went a step further and tried to have Guttenberg removed from the Senate hearing room, according to his account on CNN .
Guttenberg, who wears two wristbands to commemorate his daughter, Jaime, said security approached him following the lunch break and "pulled me out of the room." Judge Kavanaugh, Guttenberg explained, "thought that I may have crossed a boundary. ... and I'm certain he was the one who told them to take me out because he described these bracelets that I wear on my wrists which commemorate my daughter.”
Wow. This is a colossal mistake on Kavanaugh’s part. Snubbing Guttenberg was bad enough for a nominee whose approval ratings are already sucking wind . But asking security to remove Guttenberg, especially when he likely had a grasp of who Guttenberg was, is truly a moment of someone showing you who they are .
Guttenberg had been invited to the hearings by ranking Senate Judiciary Committee member Dianne Feinstein.
Well, you hang your hat on Kavanaugh not being confirmed because he hurt someone's feelings, okay?
WTF does THAT have to do with Kavanaugh's qualifications?
What other purpose did you have? Please be specific.
You mean like picking something out of a link and harping on it for a whole thread which has nothing to do with the original comment?
No.
Wow what a pussy and a heartless bastard to boot!!!!!!!!
Sigh.
I'll try one last time with you:
What in Kavanaugh's judicial record worries you or makes you think he isn't qualified to sit on SCOTUS?
Please try to confine your answer to what I asked--not imaginary things or whether he shook someone's hand or not.
"Oh please do explain how what I personally do is relevant to the discussion at hand. I speak for no one but myself. "
I [No Value]
It shows his complete lack of character. If your kid was killed in a school shooting, I am betting your attitude would be MUCH different. But like most on the right it's, "well, doesn't affect me so I don't give a fuck". Then you no doubt would turn around and blame the dems for dividing the nation.
[Wrong URL for that type of entertainment.]
I think "Congress Folks" are the one to go to. NOT someone that isn't even confirmed to the court yet. The "Supreme Court" isn't supposed to be legislatures anyway …….. unless you want them to be.
Deflection. My question wasn't about what YOU think I think.
It was: other than to misrepresent my comments, what was your purpose in 'lumping both statements together as a whole'?
You've answered by posting:
Proof that the purpose of your 'lumping' was to give yourself leave to make a disingenuous allegation.
Again, well done.
Please proceed.
[Irony]
Then flag it.
Oh wait, it's too late because you already replied to it.
Are you aware of the use of the very common (to the point of being universal) social courtesy of introducing oneself to another person by offering one's hand to that person?
Sure do, and am also smart enough to know that NONE of that shit has a damn thing to do with any opposition to Kavanaugh or his confirmation hearing.
Still got that open challenge to ANYONE opposed to Kavanaugh based on his judicial record to explain which cases they think he got wrong, and whether or not his decision was overturned or not.
Well Garsh Dernit…...ya got me.
LOL!
Not YOU!
I have been a victim of my own poor typing skills and being able to think what I want to say much faster than I can type, so I can certainly empathize!!
Yes, because there is absolutely no security screening people at these things. Why there was a guy in the back row there with an RPG. /s
It sure goes the character of a man and Kavanaugh flunked that test of it.
So reaching out a hand to introduce oneself is clearly hostile? Wow!
That pussy Kavanaugh turned his back on this man.
What a pussy.
Get it now?
[deleted]
Well, in all fairness, I am sure their opinions of him doing that have probably "evolved" since he's a Democrat!
Until they aren't...… AGAIN !
Doubtful since he did so prior to 1962 a full 18 years before PETA's founding.
And that changes what he said today, and what PETA is "Today".....how ?
It is kinda fun watching the left spinning around like whirling dervish's on yet another nonsensical non-issue.
But it is getting old ......
SOS EVERY DAY!
TO ANYONE HONESTLY OPPOSED TO KAVANAUGH BECAUSE OF HIS JUDICIAL RECORD:
What in his JUDICIAL RECORD is cause for concern to you?
When have his majority opinions been struck down by a higher court, and why?
The silence speaks volumes.
Seems like perhaps NO ONE was genuine in their opposition to Kavanaugh based on his judicial record and are merely opposed because of who nominated him.
But I would love someone to actually prove me wrong.
Let’s stop sending members down a wrong road in order to move them away from the reality; the objection to Kavanaugh is not based on any of his decisions ... rather, it’s the intended set up predicated on stacking the court with a fifth Republican appointee which will enable all 5-4 outcomes to preclude Trump being questioned, subpoenaed, indicted and/or locked up no matter how egregious his misfeasance or crimes!
Kavanaught is the hand picked plant of the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society ... he is Trump’s get out of jail free card and enabler of "The Coronation of Trump!"
He is one of the five "tailors" who would, given the opportunity, sew the emperor’s new clothes for the first King of America!
actually, there will be another before trump leaves office. (read 6 / 3)
Don't like it? Change the constitution. Otherwise your comment is much to do about nothing.
Yeah, i'm sure it makes you feel good to get it out but that is about all it amounts to.
certainly wouldn't want to appoint a Justice based on decisions.
So, in other, truer words, all the whining about documents being done by Senate Democrats is nothing more than a dog-and-pony show for the Democrats to look like they are actually doing something!?!?!?!?!
I am sure their base will be fooled by those antics.
But, kudos to you for at least admitting publicly that Kavanaugh is just a pawn in Democratic game-playing, and the Democrats have no real concern over him AT ALL BASED ON HIS ACTUAL JUDICIAL RECORD.
The saddest part is, despite Democratic histrionics, we ALL know some Democrats will vote to confirm this very fine choice.
You can make rhetorical pronouncements or you can address the reality I shared with you.
The Democrats and the people are entitled to all relevant information for the very purpose of thwarting the very set up I described.
Now you’re up to date.
Kavanaugh is the pawn and kudos to you for realizing this is about a pawn, you just had him on the wrong side of the board.
Good debate!
I don't believe you would recognize reality, based on your comments, if it walked up and slapped you in the face!
Like I said, at least YOU have the guts to admit what is really going on here.
Democrats in the Senate simply won't admit to it, but, hey, they are YOURS!
So you have based your ENTIRE opposition to Kavanaugh on sheer suspicion and fantasy.
That sounds really, really SMART.
And yes, it IS necessary to say that was SARCASM.
You are not a gracious loser.
Why bother, if your "set up" is a reality as you proclaim, then the next pick will be the same. Hardly doubt this can be dragged out until 2020.
The reality is the nominee should be affirmed based on many things not what President picked them.
Are you stating Obama did the same in order to stack the court in his favor?
What specific ruling has Kavanaugh made to lead you to think this way about him?
I would argue that him voting in the majority in such high percentages tells us MUCH more about him than your wild guesses could ever do.
Especially when you bother to look at real facts--like the court he sat on had more Democratic-appointed judges than Republican-appointed ones.
Seems like a man you claim will be such a "maverick" would not be swayed by politics, as evidenced by his fucking record.
But have fun with your dream and conspiracy theories and your little fantasies.
I'll toast you on the day Kavanaugh is confirmed, and throw in a towel to sop up the tears!
That is freaking HILARIOUS, coming from someone who had done little else but bitch, moan, and cry since November 2016.
Not true, he does take a lot of nice Photographs ...... there is that.
too much MSNBC viewing
Great!!!
LMAO!
Pity his obvious talent for photography doesn't translate into cogent political arguments.
'You are not a gracious loser.'
Boy Howdy - you got that right!!!!!!!!!
So classy! So typical!
The maturity of some folks here is quite underwhelming.
awe....jealous of Rachel?
Well, we can't forget that little old Rachel scooped the world and proved that Trump paid taxes.
it was a GLORIOUS day for Democrats everywhere!
The nasty that comes from that mouth is preaching about classy.
'awe....jealous of Rachel?'
No but I bet you are. She is quite intelligent and has grace and decorum. . . .
I forgot to mention, Rachel also has class.
Not everyone is astute enough to "get the picture" … or … forthright enough to acknowledge that a winning image isn't a "fake news," Photoshopped fraud, rather a correctly exposed inconvenient truth.
But thank you otherwise for the compliment re: photography talent; you might have been equally complimentary had you been privy to my 30+ years of handing plaintiffs their asses upon wrongly placing my clients into adverse actions via faulty, or, lack of, "evidence."
Your former career or current career doesn't make cogent arguments, either.
They do, but only to clear thinking recipients.
If this is what you meant as a that qualifier (13.2.3 above):
it's impossible to tell you were somehow making a reference to stare decisis. But I'll take your word for that's what you had in mind.
I don't care what you take my words as.
If you don't understand what I write, ask for clarification.
But since you mentioned it, I will explain:
SCOTUS decisions all have the same weight of law when applied, whether the decision was 9-0 or 5-4.
That is why Roe v. Wade makes abortion legal, and it doesn't matter whether the decision was split or not.
And yes, sometimes dissenting opinions are cited in court cases. As are majority opinions, but far more.
Congratulations! You've now clarified something that no one claimed and that which was not clear at all in your initial effort. Now, why was that so painful?
Clear to most. Sorry you didn't get it any of the other times I said it.
Challenge STILL OPEN AND UNMET:
Based on his judicial record, why are you opposed to Kavanaugh, based on what cases, and were those decisions reversed?
See 1.1.14
How is asking what in his judicial record is bothering some keeps bothering you so much?
I think it is because as hard as you try, you can find nothing to disqualify him based on his record.
Which is why I see lots of spinning and misdirection.
Typical day.
Yawn.
SOSDD
Check the definition of the word “only” and then go back and read the answer to the deceptively posited question you continue to ask ... in hopes that you’ll sucker some into responding to your logical fallacy.
Your premise is false; Kavanaugh’s judicial record is only part of what defines his positions on key issues.
ONLY ... small word, significant distinction you deceptively imply in your false premise,
Good night.
If I wanted to know ANY of the other reasons why someone is opposed to Kavanaugh, then I would have asked that. God knows enough has been spewed on THOSE reasons that such a question isn't necessary.
But that isn't what I asked, because I wanted to see who really objected to Kavanaugh as a judge, based on real trials and real decisions--not on what ifs and maybes.
Every time someone asks something you don't like, you pull this crap. Take it to someone else.
You are challenging members to take a position on the basis of your false premise … Kavanaugh's writings are more telling than decisions made on specific cases and thus, limited issues.
A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise(proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. ... For example, consider this syllogism, which involves a false premise: If the streets are wet, it has rained recently.
I call bullshit on that.
Here is why:
NOT A FALSE PREMISE.
Period.
Stop.
If no one is opposed to Kavanaugh based on his judicial record, just freaking SAY SO.
Play you little word games with someone else.
I'm opposed to Kavanaugh based on his judicial record. I disagree with his opinions on:
Garza
PRIESTS FOR LIFE
SISSEL
SEVEN-SKY
MENORAH MEDICAL CENTER
So why don't you review those cases and tell me why I shouldn't oppose Kavanaugh's based on that judicial record.
Thank you for answering--I have been asking the same questions to all---including you--for 3 days now.
This is the ONLY freaking answer I have got.
Garza--Kavanaugh made a compelling argument that the government has an interest in a minor child without anyone here and no one to talk to getting an abortion.
He specifically wasn't opposed to the actual abortion--he wanted for her to be given a sponsor--someone to talk to and advise if asked, and also stressed the time limit she was under regarding the abortion deadline approaching.
In Priest for Life, Kavanaugh cited SCOTUS precedent of Hobby Lobby. Precedent is very important to him, which is why I love it when some get all frothy over him, thinking he will overturn Roe v. Wade. And SCOTUS upheld him in that case.
Sissel was a suit about whether the ACA originated on the House or not. It raised revenues, and all revenue bills must originate in the House. It was a more technical case--not really about the merits of the ACA. Kavanaugh agreed that the bill did begin in the House and thus satisfied the Origination Clause.
Seven Sky case- Kavanaugh considered the insurance mandate a tax--a position so popular that the Obama Administration adopted it and argued at SCOTUS that the mandate WAS a tax, despite months of claiming otherwise.
In Menorah, which was a unanimous decision, the decision was made because the meeting between employer and employees was not mandatory. Also, the hospital was required by law to set up a peer review system, which then reported any possible infractions to a state board, which determined any penalties--not the hospital. The court found that employees were not entitled to union representation at voluntary meetings.
I won't tell you not to oppose him for those cases--everyone has the same rights to agree or not agree.
Doesn't make me right and you wrong or vice-versa because we disagree on Kavanaugh.
I just wanted to hear any cogent argument to oppose him based on his judicial record.
Obviously these cases were or are important to you, so why do you disagree with his decisions?
Hey, cut me some slack, my wife has been sick since Saturday. I'm just catching up...
Bullshit. Kavanaugh was well aware of the time it takes to get a 'sponsor' and he intentionally drug out the process.
The minor had PLENTY of people to 'talk to' including women @ the shelter she was being held in, teachers, counselors, medical staff, lawyers [female] and the Texas judge that heard her first hearing.
She was 17. If she had committed a fucking crime, they would have thrown her in adult lockup and prosecuted her as an adult.
The ruling was returned for reconsideration, it wasn't overturned.
BTW, precedent is ONLY important to him as long as he is a lower court judge. After that, he will happy join the party and overturn precedent. See his email...
Kavanaugh didn't 'agree', he dissented in that case.
The ACA mandate case started well before the Seven Sky hearing and since amicus briefs had already been filed in those cases and with the SCOTUS, arguing that it was a tax when Kavanaugh wrote his dissent, let's NOT pretend that Kavanaugh instigated the Obama Administration's argument. It's a ridiculous posit.
Secondly, Kavanaugh's dissent stated that the court had no jurisdiction because of the 'Anti-injunction Act'. The SCOTUS obviously disagreed.
I disagree with the ruling in total.
I note that you gave me a litany of his opinions but NO reason WHY I should support Kavanaugh because of them.
Um, I was never trying to convince you to approve of Kavanaugh. I don't care if you agree with him or not.
All I wanted, as stated NUMEROUS times, was someone to actually object to something Kavanaugh did while on the bench.
Not because of some email or because someone said he did this or that or thinks this or that, but verifiable facts based on cases. Now, we can continue to disagree about his decisions, but I say how many times he has been upheld vs. how many times he was reversed is a pretty good argument in his favor.
I do think, in my opinion, that you are basing a lot of your personal opinion of him on speculation as to what you think he will do when confirmed. I will continue to judge ALL nominees based on their record as a judge.
Hope your wife recovers quickly.
Another deceptive logical fallacy. His judicial record could subjectively be flawless while his personal position in cases he never judged could be compromising in cases to come before him.
You can play this game and punctuate it with ad hominem crap, but it doesn’t fit the realities.
Please take your endless word games elsewhere.
No need to speculate, I pointed out some of his opinions that I believe to be his judicial philosophy. You want him to be judged on his record but not have me 'speculate' what his record illustrates?
You can not speculate on his record--it is simply fact.
What I said was that I feel you base your opinion on him more on what you THINK he'll do once confirmed vs. what he has actually done as a judge.
I am basing what I think he will do IF confirmed on what he has actually done as a judge.
So here's MY question to you. Do you think that Kavanaugh should be confirmed after committing perjury in all three of his confirmation hearings?
Oh and I have to say that Kavanaugh did JUST THAT in the record. He unequivocally stated what the conservative judges would vote for...the only one he wasn't sure about was O'Connor.
I really don't think Kavanaugh speculated on hos own record--that would be rather ridiculous.
No perjury.
He sure as hell made predictions on how SCOTUS Justice's would vote.
So the evidence that he DID receive confidential Democratic party documents doesn't bother you a bit. Got ya. It IS evidence of perjury, no matter what you claim though.
Okey-dokie then.
I can tell that the whole hearing was nothing but a show for Democrats to appear tough.
Booker especially. Funny thing is, despite his wanting to know everything, he had already stated he was going to vote against Kavanaugh, The rest of all his little rants was window dressing to gin up his constituents.
So should I disregard the 'contribution' in the hearings of the GOP Senators who stated that they were going to vote FOR Kavanaugh?
You've been referring to, without citing, a figure of being in the majority in 97% of his decisions. Where do you get that number?
I have also been asking the very question you quoted without an answer.
Look it up yourself if it interests you that much.
I am not about to do your research when you won't answer the simplest of questions.
Which question would that be? And I had already look for that figure up before I asked you to back it up (pretty much betting on the certainty it would be bogus) and the one and only reference to anything with his name and 97% was this partial sentence part of a WSJ editorial on the google search that was :
When I went to that article it was behind a firewall and I'm not about to buy a subscription to the WSJ. But what my research did tell me is that if this is your source, it comes from a pro-Kavanaugh opinion piece from the very rightwing WSJ editorial page. If that's the source for your claim, no wonder you've been refusing to divulge it. By definition it would be some kind of variation or combination of deceit, rightwing invented arithmetic and just plain BS.
Thanks for playing our game. I'm sorry but there is no consolation prize.
AH, I see the problem now.
You keep on wanting to play games while I am more serious.
I am sure you can find some playbuddies here.
Have fun.
The Democrats of the Senate Judiciary Committee are on a roll. And they’re taking some risks to get their points across.
Gotta luv it when Democrat Liberals think it's great when one of their own is willing to "Break the Rules" under the guise of "Justice", yet sit there and whine and cry when they think Trump, and even in this Kavanaugh Hearing, they say the Republicans are "Breaking the Rules" and should be stopped.
What a bunch of Hypocrites.
I hear that "Some Leaks" aren't as Illegal as "Other Leaks", depending on which Democrat you speak to !
What rule was McConnell following when he refused to allow Merrick Garland a hearing? Republicans: Hypocrites R' Us. Don't pretend you give a shit about rules.
We are on Kavanaugh. Didn't you get the memo ?
I thought Liberal types told everyone it is ludicrous to dwell on the past now ?
Did that "Change" ……. AGAIN !
I'll leave it to the creator of this discussion to decide if discussing SC nominations in general is off topic.
Okay ?
You have that in reverse, my friend … cart before the horse.
I hope other democrats follow Booker's lead and release other "committee confidential" documents and, in doing so, declare to Americans …
"YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHEN A POTENTIAL JUSTICE-FOR-LIFE IS LYING TO YOU!"
Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."
The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized ...
From what I understand, those documents were already cleared to be released, and a lot of Senators knew he was going to do it (on both sides). It was a lot of showboating for nothing.
Biden rule..................
Me thinks this Booker guy is looking to run for President in 2020, so what better way to make him look like a martyr than now.
"He's sooooo wonderful and full of that Loooooove and justice Stuff " !
Thats what the rumors are LOL. I just watched an interview with the Bush records rep and he said those records were cleared for release last night and that he was surprised by Bookers "histrionics". I actually read them a few hours ago.
Durbin was "Dumb"....founded, as to who these people were that could make a decision on what was confidential or not. Imagine electing one into office numerous times, and he admits he doesn't know WTF is going on, or who people in his own building are.
Julian Paul Assange and Edward Joseph Snowden are "Wanted Criminals" for doing such.
But then you Have Mr./Miss Chelsea Elizabeth Manning. That was okay because HE....wanted to be a …...SHE ! So nothing to see there.
They're politicians, professional bullshitters LOL, all of them.
I really like Booker. It sounds like some of the documents reveal some racist views on the part of Kavanaugh as well as his anti-choice views.
If true then I'm not surprised that the GOP tried to keep them from the public.
Yeah but the drones eat that shit with a spoon ...... and usually ask for seconds, thirds, fourths and so on .....
They are also available for the public to read
Well now, we can't let the herd know that now can we? Keep digging for more stuff that can be interpreted negatively towards the T and K men ..... the drones will thank us in the morning, then we can .... release the Drones!!!
My sister thinks he didn't even read past the subject line, and thought he had something.
At least that's what the GOP claims now despite the threats Cornyn was making against Booker. Looks like Booker forced their hand.
.
What "news"? Faux News or real news?
When was that a rule? When was that ever used? Hint: NEVER. It was a comment by Biden, nothing else. Never a policy, never done. Until the GOP pulled it out of their asses. So I'd call that a big fat GOP LIE that has been in circulation for a couple of years. I hope one day every shit thing GOP has done comes back to haunt them big time.
I have no idea why this comment was to me. Nothing in my comment had anything to do with what you just said to me.
You characterized Booker’s release of a document as “showboating.” My comment explains why bringing such so-called “secret documents” into the light of day is important, and, provides one very specific reason as rob why Republicans want certain documents kept secret.
There is no bigger showboated/grandstander than Trump himself, generally running his mouth, not to inform, but to invite via lies and demagoguery.
Be consistent ... if you object to showboating ... nail all of it.
Booker just clowned himself.
The really sad part is some people actually fell for it.
You've been referring to, without citing, a figure of being in the majority in 97% of his decisions. Where do you get that number?
The Senators on the Committee. It's been on the TV for the last three days.
Why do you think they fight so hard to get re-elected.
Based on your comment, Pelosi says it best of all about themselves:
"We have to vote for it, so we can know what's in it".
In even simpler wording:
"It gives us 4 more years to ignore it if you do" !
Or....
Stop voting "Name Recognition" so these bozos don't get "Tenure". Ya know how hard it is to fire one with "Tenure".
We will never see term limits.
THE SPECIFICS!
The New Jersey Democrat referred to the documents Thursday when he asked Kavanaugh about an email that described preferences for minorities who faced discrimination as a "naked racial set-aside." The document had been declared confidential by a veteran Republican lawyer who has represented Trump administration officials.
"The emails being withheld from the public have nothing to do with national security," Booker said.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate GOP leadership that disregarded legislative norms and refused to consider President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, called Booker's threat "irresponsible and outrageous."
"No senator deserves to sit on this committee or serve in the Senate in my view if they decide to be a law unto themselves," Cornyn said.
Traditionally, the National Archives would review Kavanaugh's papers from his time in the federal courts and his tenure in President George W. Bush's White House, a process that will take until the end of next month.
Instead, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, over Democratic objections, had Bush lawyer Bill Burck, a veteran Republican attorney who also has represented Trump administration officials go through the papers and decide which ones the panel can see, and which of those can be made public.
Papers released to the members of the committee but not allowed to be made public are considered "committee confidential."
Just because Burke released the 'hold' on the documents doesn't mean that they are no longer 'Committee confidential'. That is unless Sen. Grassley relinquished his Chairmanship over to Burke.
I think you are mistaking me for someone else...
My bad and I sincerely apologize; indeed the comment was intended for someone else ... I will take it down and repost it where intended.
Again, my apology.
No worries.
Another post, another whistle past the grave yard and another weak-ass-I-have-nothing-of-substance-to-add-so-I’ll-rag-on-type-face-choices-then-flag-any-all-come-backs.
Truly Trumpian.
Such a rule is arbitrary and capricious and may be subject to the FOA.
And I question expulsion from the Senate as a viable sanction since a duly elected Senator can only be dismissed via due process.
Trump ass kissers make up shit to pander to the Jess Willard crowd.
It came out in the hearing that there is NO actual 'rule' about how a document is characterized as 'Committee confidential'.
Grassley was making up shit as he went along during this hearing...
Grassley stated, that as Chairman, he had the authority to act 'for the Committee'. In all prior confirmation hearings, 'Committee confidential' documents were minimal [in some cases, just one line in a document] AND agreed to by the Chairman AND the Ranking member.
That should read, FOIA ... Freedom of Information Act.
WTF is 'constitutional privilege'?
As far as I can find, it doesn't exist.
I think it's something that the Republicans and, Trump came up with to "fast track" another judicial appointee through the system.
Sunshine Law, FOA ...
Yes Wally, I realize that y'all have come to believe that the ends justify the means...more's the pity.
Maybe, some shit was exposed during the hearings that some of the Republican Senators don't like or, have campaigned on in the past, if they confirm then the folks back home will know they don't give a flying fuck about those issues and, might not vote for them this time around, which means they will lose their comfy little jobs.
As I said, there are Republicans that would be committing political suicide by voting to confirm, here's one,
All it would take is three Republicans changing their vote in the Senate and, Kavanaugh would be out.