Kavanaugh Confirmation

[Grand Vol]

Thanks.

I’m really not a liberal although I sometimes side with them on social issues. Libertarian would probably be most accurate if I have to be labeled. Since I’ve seen it used for Corker, McCain, and Flake, RINO would be the most accurate if one was trying to be pejorative.

In 2007, in a class action suit, Kavanaugh wrote an opinion overruling a District Court injunction against Department of Disability Services. The case was brought by a class of individuals in DDS care who had been deemed by DDS to have “always been incapable of making medical decisions.” Essentially, the government argued that DDS had the ability to force medical care on the plaintiffs without consulting them because they were incapable of understanding what was best for them. -489 F3d 376.

The case does not contain much specific explanation of the plaintiff’s condition, probably because it’s a class action and the class was defined as people who fall within the relevant statutory definition. I disagree with the premise that the government should be allowed to decide what’s best for an individual and also question the capacity of the government to decide who is capable of understanding what’s best for them.

He has also found reasonable suspicion existed to pay down a motorist based on the fact that a driver could not provide proof of ownership or the last name of the owner of a car that had never been reported missing or stolen. 510 F3d 342

He upheld (albeit apologetically), a circuit court’s decision to use conduct for which a man was acquitted to enhance the man’s sentence. 530 F3d 920

In fairness, I did not see a dissenting opinion attached to any of these, so the other two judges on his panel agreed with K on these decisions, none agreed with me.

Again to be fair, the last of those three, on its face, is probably more to his credit in two ways: 1. he recognizes that the practice is unfair and he doesn’t like it. 2. He applies the law as he interpreted it to be at that time, rather than finding a way around it. Some of my concern is that he’s just there as a fallback plan if Trump loses immunity by congressional majority.

I recall a few others where he was the dissenting opinion and I disagreed with his dissent. I didn’t take notes or anything when I looked at this back in October and those were a little more difficult to find I’ll have to look for them and we’re moving this weekend.

Also for what it’s worth, as I recall, the major liberal bitch about Gorsuch was the Hobby Lobby case. It infringed on reproductive rights, I think the argument was. Personally, I don’t have very strong opinions one way or the other about contraception or abortion, but HL is a family owned company. He was basically saying “look, the government can’t tell a family they have to do something that violates their religious beliefs” and his other opinions that received criticism were fairly consistent with that philosophy. If I’m a liberal, I broke rank on that nomination because I thought those were fair and reasonable judgments.

There are also some Kavanaugh cases involving abortion for which liberal legal academics have criticized K and have claimed that at least one of them signals his intentions to overturn Roe v. Wade because he wouldn’t allow a detained illegal immigrant to leave detention to get an abortion. You probably won’t ever see me harping on those.

Wasn't so hard, was it?

Yeah, I'm a condescending ass. You can say it.

 

[Matt2496]

I think it was the irrational allusion to it being a grand conspiracy orchestrated by the Clintons is what has people unnerved. That was just kind of ... weird. Eerie. Wacky. Alex Jones-ish. Breitbart. Bizarre.

I didn't really see a lot of Republicans jump up to defend it. Still haven't. I think what bothers people is that he started off with denial, which is fine, then sort of got unhinged with the partisanship, which is worrisome for a Supreme Court Justice.

It suggests that he has a side to him that is pure partisan, that he is a bit of an operative, given his history. Basically a plant by the Republicans to get good results for Republicans on things like gerrymandering, regulatory questions, state's rights (on Republican agenda items). That sort of thing.

I see nothing wrong with the partisan display considering that the D's have been partisan to the umpteenth degree throughout this entire process. He's just returning the favor.

Once K gets on the SC, the partisan politics ends right there. K isn't a politician; K is a judge. Judges do not care about partisan things, but rather focus on rightful Constitutional interpretation. This is why the founding fathers enacted no term limits on court justices: to prevent politics from infiltrating the court. Sadly, both sides have made the courts revolve around partisan politics in recent years.

However, based on K's many years as a judge on the 2nd highest court on the land, I have no worries about how he'll do on the SC.

 

[BeecherVol]

I think it was the irrational allusion to it being a grand conspiracy orchestrated by the Clintons is what has people unnerved. That was just kind of ... weird. Eerie. Wacky. Alex Jones-ish. Breitbart. Bizarre.
.

It would be if that was what he said.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I think it was the irrational allusion to it being a grand conspiracy orchestrated by the Clintons is what has people unnerved. That was just kind of ... weird. Eerie. Wacky. Alex Jones-ish. Breitbart. Bizarre.

I didn't really see a lot of Republicans jump up to defend it. Still haven't. I think what bothers people is that he started off with denial, which is fine, then sort of got unhinged with the partisanship, which is worrisome for a Supreme Court Justice.

It suggests that he has a side to him that is pure partisan, that he is a bit of an operative, given his history. Basically a plant by the Republicans to get good results for Republicans on things like gerrymandering, regulatory questions, state's rights (on Republican agenda items). That sort of thing.

I would agree with all of that and also point to the way Kavanaugh handled Sen. Klobuchar's line of questioning. He showed a temperamental side. She was asking him pertinent and reasonable questions and he became defensive and testy. He tried to pose the questions back to her when the point of the hearing was to assess his behavior - not hers. However, I don't expect for any of the Republican holdouts to vote against Kavanaugh's confirmation due to any of this. They will simply point to the lack of corroboration of Ford's accusations and say that their vote was based solely on Kavanaugh's credentials. As they do this, they will go out of their way to be respectful of Ford and of women who have been sexually assaulted. That is the smartest political maneuver for all of them and hard to argue with objectively speaking...

Now, having said that, it's possible that Flake doesn't care about politics anymore because his career in public life could be over. If that is the case, then who knows what he might do?

 

[Matt2496]

It would be if that was what he said.

Yeah, I heard nothing about Clinton conspiracies in his testimony.

 

[McDad]

You keep touting how many lawyers are signing said petitions, I'm not sure anyone cares. It may have significance for you EL,I could care less.
I've known scores of lawyers through my life, about 10% were good and honest who actually cared about their clients. The others were used car salesman.

I bet we could get 200,000 signatures of health care professions agreeing with your statement.

 

[Vol_Doc]

Care to point out specifics?

I'm not going to make a list, but Lindsey Graham's outburst during the confirmation hearing was a good example. I know it's probably hard for you to see, as a die hard GOP guy. Being of a more independent mindset, I find most of them repugnant. The Republican party I committed to way back in high school died long ago. I'm only registered so I can vote in the primaries, and because I'm not a Democrat.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

I bet we could get 200,000 signatures of health care professions agreeing with your statement.

You are spoT on. Id say about 20,% actually care for their clients, the others are there for the money.

 

[Carl Pickens]

This is where @Carl Pickens needs his water cannon.

It's a target rich environment and I'd love to unleash the hose of hell upon them.

You carry a man purse.... You get the hose
You have a megaphone in your hand.... you get the hose
If you look like a liberal freak.... you get the hose

 

[Carl Pickens]

I'm not going to make a list, but Lindsey Graham's outburst during the confirmation hearing was a good example. I know it's probably hard for you to see, as a die hard GOP guy. Being of a more independent mindset, I find most of them repugnant. The Republican party I committed to way back in high school died long ago. I'm only registered so I can vote in the primaries, and because I'm not a Democrat.

You do realize Graham voted in favor of Obama's nominees because he believes the president should have the authority to choose and that if the individual is qualified they shouldn't be obstructed...

 

[tumscalcium]

You keep touting how many lawyers are signing said petitions, I'm not sure anyone cares. It may have significance for you EL,I could care less.
I've known scores of lawyers through my life, about 10% were good and honest who actually cared about their clients. The others were used car salesman.

Church

 

[Vol_Doc]

Yeah, I heard nothing about Clinton conspiracies in his testimony.

He just said "revenge on behalf of the Clintons." He didn't specifically suggest they were behind this. I can see how it might be interpreted that way, though.

 

[lawgator1]

He didn't say it was orchestrated by the Clintons; he said "revenge on behalf of the Clintons": "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups, "

I don't see much of a difference in this context between "by" and "on behalf of" the Clintons. The point is, he's invoking the GOP's favorite boogeyman (and woman) which seems like its politicking by a Supreme Court Justice, which just not proper. That's the job of the GOP Senators, not him. It was inappropriate for him to go that far, given what he is nominated for.

Probably because most Republicans agreed with him.

Here's the thing you keep avoiding. If someone accused you of being a rapist, a serial rapist even, without ANY evidence save the word of two people it allegedly happened to, you are telling me you wouldn't defend yourself?

And if those very same people kept poking at you and using those terms and digging further into your background that has EVER been done before looking for any evidence of impropriety, you wouldn't lash out eventually?

They continue asking you about the stupidest **** on the planet instead of your case history and continue to call you a drunk and a rapist, you'll just sit there and take it?

You poke the tiger's cage long enough, he's gonna get pissed and find a way out. Then he's gonna eat you. You know? You have it coming as well.

Good on Kavanaugh for lashing out at the idiocy going on. Good for him for pointing out the partisan stupidity. Someone needed to do it.

You keep ignoring the context. Sure he can defend himself. Sure the GOP Senators can get some tv time saying its all a pro-Clinton conspiracy of some kind.

But the nominee himself should not say that. He's not supposed to get into partisan politics, even if he thinks its an issue and even if he's right. It gives one the impression that he rule based on partisan leanings, not principles. Big difference.

I see nothing wrong with the partisan display considering that the D's have been partisan to the umpteenth degree throughout this entire process. He's just returning the favor.

Once K gets on the SC, the partisan politics ends right there. K isn't a politician; K is a judge. Judges do not care about partisan things, but rather focus on rightful Constitutional interpretation. This is why the founding fathers enacted no term limits on court justices: to prevent politics from infiltrating the court. Sadly, both sides have made the courts revolve around partisan politics in recent years.

However, based on K's many years as a judge on the 2nd highest court on the land, I have no worries about how he'll do on the SC.

You are making my case. He should not be invoking partisan claims or arguments at all. Deny it. Let the GOP Senators handle the Dem-bashing. Once he went over that line, and then went WAAAAAYY over that line, he caused a lot of people, including some GOPers, to queston his fitness.

 

[Vol_Doc]

You do realize Graham voted in favor of Obama's nominees because he believes the president should have the authority to choose and that if the individual is qualified they shouldn't be obstructed...

Why did you bring up Obama? I didn't vote for him? Doesn't excuse his outburst, regardless.

 

[vols4sure]

I'm not going to make a list, but Lindsey Graham's outburst during the confirmation hearing was a good example. I know it's probably hard for you to see, as a die hard GOP guy. Being of a more independent mindset, I find most of them repugnant. The Republican party I committed to way back in high school died long ago. I'm only registered so I can vote in the primaries, and because I'm not a Democrat.

So your example is a Republican calling out Dem behavior that you agree is repugnant?

 

[golfballs]

lmao
Democrats Fear the Party’s Kavanaugh Obsession Could Backfire

 

[Obsessed]

Why did you bring up Obama? I didn't vote for him? Doesn't excuse his outburst, regardless.

His outburst was needed.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Chuck Shumer's loser cousin, Amy Shumer, and hundreds of other Communists, were arrested today inside the Hart Senate Office Building.

 

[Matt2496]

You are making my case. He should not be invoking partisan claims or arguments at all. Deny it. Let the GOP Senators handle the Dem-bashing. Once he went over that line, and then went WAAAAAYY over that line, he caused a lot of people, including some GOPers, to queston his fitness.

One opening statement doesn't nullify 10+ years of an impeccable, un-biased track record as judge.

 

[nuclearjunky]

You keep touting how many lawyers are signing said petitions, I'm not sure anyone cares. It may have significance for you EL,I could care less.
I've known scores of lawyers through my life, about 10% were good and honest who actually cared about their clients. The others were used car salesman.

Butch is a lawyer?!?!?!

 

[Obsessed]

Chuck Shumer's loser cousin, Amy Shumer, and hundreds of other Communists, were arrested today inside the Hart Senate Office Building.

I’d love a link. I want to read it while having a cold one.

 

[Vol_Doc]

So your example is a Republican calling out Dem behavior that you agree is repugnant?

Yep. Wasn't excusing the Democrats. I clearly stated both sides are being childish. Was responding to GV's query. They're a bunch of kids. We need some real leaders in Washington. Sadly, conditions only seem to be getting worse.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Why did you bring up Obama? I didn't vote for him? Doesn't excuse his outburst, regardless.

I didn't "bring up" Obama.... I pointed out that graham voted in favor of his nominees based on what he perceived as their merit....his outburst was based on the same issue .... that Kavanaugh is qualified, but the sh** show put on by the democrats is nothing but a smear job.... I'm not a Graham fan at all and have said so on many occasions...but I respect the stance and his outburst in this instance....he at least showed some common sense and guts.... both of which are seriously lacking in our government

 

[NurseGoodVol]

I don't see much of a difference in this context between "by" and "on behalf of" the Clintons. The point is, he's invoking the GOP's favorite boogeyman (and woman) which seems like its politicking by a Supreme Court Justice, which just not proper. That's the job of the GOP Senators, not him. It was inappropriate for him to go that far, given what he is nominated for.





You keep ignoring the context. Sure he can defend himself. Sure the GOP Senators can get some tv time saying its all a pro-Clinton conspiracy of some kind.

But the nominee himself should not say that. He's not supposed to get into partisan politics, even if he thinks its an issue and even if he's right. It gives one the impression that he rule based on partisan leanings, not principles. Big difference.





You are making my case. He should not be invoking partisan claims or arguments at all. Deny it. Let the GOP Senators handle the Dem-bashing. Once he went over that line, and then went WAAAAAYY over that line, he caused a lot of people, including some GOPers, to queston his fitness.

If be was contentious like this on a constitutional matter involving a scotus case id say too much, but in his job interview with allegations presented against him, held by dems, botched from the beginning, i say his words are fair.

 

[bamawriter]

I don't see much of a difference in this context between "by" and "on behalf of" the Clintons. The point is, he's invoking the GOP's favorite boogeyman (and woman) which seems like its politicking by a Supreme Court Justice, which just not proper. That's the job of the GOP Senators, not him. It was inappropriate for him to go that far, given what he is nominated for.

I didn't care for the comment, but there is a difference between accusing the Clinstons of orchestrating the effort against him and accusing the Democrats on the SJC of orchestrating the effort against him because, in part, they are pissed at his history with the Clintons.

That said, to suggest that his demeanor should be in question when he's defending himself against the most vile accusations is to suggest that absolutely nothing is off limits for elected legislators. There is no bottom of the barrel when it comes to nakedly political efforts to ruin a person. But no matter how low a Senator is willing to stoop, a judicial nominee must not show any emotion in response. I'm sorry, that is absurd.