Justices are 'losing patience': Brett Kavanaugh skewered as a 'lightweight' in brutal analysis
T he U.S. Supreme Court has a clear intellectual liability in Justice Brett Kavanaugh, according to a legal analyst, and the other justices are sick of "lightweight" opinions.
Patience is wearing thin for the Donald Trump appointee, who rarely writes important or noteworthy opinions – in fact, he wrote the fewer words than any justice in the most recent term -- and his colleagues keep calling out his lack of rigor in their own opinions, reported Slate
"[Clarence] Thomas, [Amy Coney] Barrett, and [Neil] Gorsuch aren’t the only members of the court who are losing patience with Kavanaugh," wrote senior writer Mark Joseph Stern. "Justice Elena Kagan memorably castigated him for treating 'judging as scorekeeping,' whining about 'how unfair it is' when he loses, and repeating the same bad arguments 'at a higher volume.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor has repeatedly accused him of outright dishonesty by misrepresenting precedent and dangling false promises . In a fed-up dissent in just her first term, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson compared a Kavanaugh majority opinion to the children’s book If You Give a Mouse a Cookie . [Samul] Alito’s rebuttal to Kavanaugh’s dissent in Sackett v. EPA consisted of exactly one sentence: Kavanaugh’s argument, Alito wrote, 'cannot be taken seriously.'"
The only justice who hasn't blasted his opinions is chief Justice John Roberts, with whom Kavanaugh has voted the same in 98 percent of cases, but Stern found the few opinions he does author tend to sound more like backlash management than legal analysis.
"It wasn’t supposed to be like this," Stern wrote. "During his 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Kavanaugh styled himself as a brainy operator who combined intellectual firepower with affable moderation, in rhetoric if not in substance. He wanted to be the conservative whom liberals could respect — Justice Antonin Scalia without the volcanic temper — and the high-minded jurist who could sell right-wing legal theories to the public as common-sense constitutional principles."
"Over the past five years, that version of Brett Kavanaugh has receded from view," Stern added. "In its place has emerged a man with seemingly few fixed convictions and even fewer interesting things to say. To the extent that his colleagues think about him at all, they seem to view him as a fixer who can cobble together five votes for a diaphanous majority opinion that decides almost nothing.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
There probably aren't going to be any dinner invitations issued to Brett.
How old is he? He could be suffering from early dementia. It sounds like he used to be very good as a judge and could write worthy opinions. Now it sounds like he phones it in
He's 58 years old and according to the article and what other justices have written about him he does phone it in.
Dementia can hit people in their 40's
[✘]
This clickbait as you refer to it is accurate, that being so proves that once again you really don't have much in your popgun.
compared to who, among his conservative peers...
I thought the guy was an entitled rwnj clown during his confirmation hearings.
a beneficiary of wealth and influence over the course of his entire life...
The other justices don't seem to appreciate his writings or lack there of.
he's only a place holder for the federalists...
like 5 other judges on that corrupt bench...
... corrupt thumper bench.
[deleted]
Can you produce any evidence that the justices didn't say/write what is shown in the article? Or do we have another example of you being unable to address the article?
bingo
[deleted]
Nothing about beer in the article, it's about what other justices have written about his writings or lack of.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
bbl, sparty, texan nothing in the article is about beer or beer drinking by Brett, it's about his participation in some of the decisions of the court.
Comment on that or don't comment at all.
[deleted]
There is nothing in the article about his confirmation or dems lying.
Address the content of the article or don't comment.
Yeah, some folks don’t like centrist judges I guess.
SOSDD if it’s not your cup of tea.
[ Deleted ]
[deleted]
[deleted]
...
All that teenage beer guzzling killed some brain cells.
[✘]
[deleted]
John - read 4.2.1 - too difficult to follow?
[deleted]
Seems that no one has anything to say about what the article is about. Too bad since it is interesting and could have repercussions within SCOTUS.
This seems par for the course for NT partisans. It's about scoring points and not about substance. Back to the article.... There seems to be some pattern here with some of the conservative court to misrepresent precedent and/or outright disregard precedent in an effort to turn back decades of liberal advancement. On the outside looking in - it seems as if they start with a conclusion and twist the legal narrative to fit it.
That seems to be the case and I remember during their hearing with Congress that they stressed that precedent was important. Seems that that wasn't the case at all.
My perspective on what this court is doing is (besides granting some bromide new case opinions to liberals) intentionally bringing the court back into alignment with the idea that the third branch of government should not be making any opinion which is not 'originalist' constitutional. That is, this "conservative" court wants to out of the business of the states and federal legislature no matter the calls for them to assist the citizens of this country with reason and practical decision-making when states and congress won't act for goodness sake. The court is basically taking a position: Don't come to us; go to your governors or to your (elected) representatives. And, that is precisely what red states have been persistently demanding and complaining about since the sixties!
To be fair, the constitution does give broad powers to the states, to the house of representatives, and the senate - but what are real people to do when those organizations won't give them fairness or justice but instead keep its members trapped in oppression and second-class status? You turn to whomsoever will hear you out and exert their power and influence to aid you.
SCOTUS is signaling that will not be them. And to that end, we see SCOTUS reversing its own prior opinions by a different set of justices.
Also, as we can see now there has been and is always at least two ways of looking at any dilemma, problem, policy, or issue - SCOTUS is displaying a conservative 'take' on the law which technically it can do because the constitution allows it, but it is not helpful at all to the bulk of the people living here and now.
That argument doesn't fly with all of their recent opinions. They seem to only apply it where they want to.
What they want is to turn back the clocks to overturn rulings like same sex marriage and minority rights. They are doing it by giving the states more power to regulate it, because they didn't succeed in blocking them at the federal level. The rights of minorities today were incrementally gained and red states with the court's help are trying to incrementally inching them back. We know their excuses are lies because they keep telling us what they want and it's a return to a conservative white patriarchal power structure... "because everything worked that way" is what I read someone post not long ago.
And because these decisions are nationally unpopular they can be reversed again when these old conservatives seats are up for grabs again. Provided the nutcases don't get their ultimate wish of a total grab of all power structures. They want it, they think they can get it if they try hard enough, but it would necessitate a new civil war. Some of the crazier nut fuckers are okay with that idea too.
Emphatically. My attitude about some conservatives was formed when I watched Majority Leader McConnell 'stiff' President Obama's choice of a supreme court justice using a novel approach to counsel no appointment would be consented to. Then, when now Justice Barrett came up in the same set of circumstance (as the Obama years), the same Senate Majority Leader reneged on himself deliberately and with abandon to hastily INSTALL a majority justice just in the nick of time. It was an act of raw political power at work, all morals and standards thrown out the window.
After that, we came to realize the full strategy of some conservatives, because it was then that Senator McConnell started speaking about a conservative-led SCOTUS as opposed to a "liberal-led" (it was not) supreme court (as several conservative presidents had appointed justices who did not "toe or satisfy conservative wishes/dreams on the high court).
I was never more appalled than to hear it so flatly stated that all that happened was a part of a scheme to 'take over' the court and through hook or crook set back court precedents and REINJURE prior harmed citizens who had received 'relief' from the same court. That is when I fully became aware of just how dirty the politics of the Right can be: The conservative RIGHT is literally waging political WARFARE on the liberal-LEFT!
And that is when I hated them. And for good reason: This kind of conduct has been done to minority folks like myself all my life. That is, I grew up in a place surrounded by double-dealing white conservatives who talk out of both sides of their mouths and were famous for feigning friendship before stabbing minorities and now liberals) in the back! The times was changing. But, the old 'snake' is not fully dead. . . and so it has revived itself and is standing up again with a vengeance!
Justice Kavanaugh appears to be behaving in that vein of saying one thing and doing another and the liberals and a few of his 'own' associates are calling him out for it! Albeit for different foundational reasons.
The difference is now people like you are more organized and have more support in voting than ever before and we all know how dirty politics is. What really needs to happen is not tit-for-tat politics we see today, but a series of sit down moments where experts explain why someone is right or wrong. I don't know how that can happen in our over partisan populist divided world. I'm just only slightly less pissed off at Democrats these days as I am with Republicans - neither side wants to do more than raise money off that divide.
I am decidely against MAGA conservatives, because their whole ideology is to regress liberals in order to take over this country using political 'dark arts.' As for the democrats I sincerely wish they would end moving us forward to our extremes-including pushing for excessive rights for transgirls and transwomen —trans-rights should not inflict hardships on cis-girls and cis-women; and, senior-rights should regard the wisdom of aspiring to have a president literally "aging out" before our very eyes.
The MAGA are not true conservatives. They are right wing populists.
There are a number of left wing populists as well.
To subjugate the smallest minority of citizens in the off chance one or two girls might be inconvenienced? hmmm... okay... I think there might be a better solution, but its so polarized politically no one is listening to real experts.
that's what they're stuck with since they've learned not talk about anti-choice before an election...
This is most unusual. How can a court of "supremes" have a rock on the dias? Worse, what do you do about your 'own' who is not carrying his weight? Can the court remove its own? Or must he be impeached and on what grounds? Of course, I am assuming this has risen to a high level of distraction at this point. (I don't know that for sure, though.)
In a way, this is just desserts for a court that wants to be considered "weighty" but chooses to knock over its 'brethren' decisions made to affect how people truly live for a heavy 'pat' of regressive ideology.
So an inept justice, if he is, is it a fair deal?
I doubt if they could remove one of their own and I don't see any movement that would execute that position.
It is an interesting situation that is taking place on SCOTUS.
Between Kavanaugh's weak opinions and Robert's inability to control the court and some of the more brazen ethical breaches it sets up the Progressives with cause to remake the court were they to gain enough control.
Yup, this court is setting a new standard, and IMO it's not good.
[✘]
That is what is so 'funky' about all this 'dealing' going on with the SCOTUS: The court is intended to be one with the fact, singular, of constitutional law. And although constitutional law is not really moral law (emphasizing rights and wrongs), we should all agree that using the constitution to bring about good on behalf of people (who else are we going to apply laws to?) would be a desirable thing for which one would wish.
The mere notion that a judicial branch has a partisan streak or streaks plural, running down the center of the court is bizarre and yet no one seems to care to stop that from occurring.
What does that mean?
Ok.
Exactly, this bizarre partisan streak is the first time in history that SCOTUS has been so inflicted.
The Supreme Court, the third branch of the federal government, constitutionally was planned to be a decider of matters of interpretation of federal laws. However, because of the immaturity of state governments and the federal legislatures to make responsible laws which benefit the citizens of all communities equally in human and civil rights the court found itself drawn into the 'strange new world' of having to hear and opine on individual and group cases where harm (standing) for which a higher court could 'referee' and decide outcomes for more than just government institutions but lifestyle and cultural choices as well.
What distinction are you trying to draw between human and civil rights?
What does this mean?
Do you know what human rights are? If so go with that and do similarly with civil rights. I am okay with that.
As for your second question think about it as you would Roe vs. Wade and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Both ended up before SCOTUS.
Article III, Section 1 - The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,
And, who is going to be making the determination of what the definition of "good Behaviour" is?
very few republicans that I can think of...