Brett Kavanaugh
Forums:
"The establishment would like for you to think that the Supreme Court is an impartial judicial institution whose decisions are above politics. That was perhaps once true, but it is certainly not the case anymore.
Donald Trump just announced that he will nominate Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Let me be absolutely clear: this nomination is a 100 percent political decision, and one that will have a profoundly negative effect on the lives of working people of this country for decades to come if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed.
Brett Kavanaugh’s record has made it clear he will use his position on the court to protect corporations at the expense of workers, to allow corporations and the wealthy to buy elections and to undermine voting rights. Further, given the fact that Donald Trump stated repeatedly during the campaign that any nominee of his would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, I have no doubt that is exactly what Brett Kavanaugh will do."
“In a 2009 law review article, Kavanaugh said his experience in the White House persuaded him that "the job of president is far more difficult than any other civilian position in government" and that presidents should be exempt from civil lawsuits and criminal investigations or prosecutions while in office.”
"President Trump just announced an extreme ideological pick for the Supreme Court, and more than any president I have seen, he has been very clear about what he wants in a Supreme Court nominee. He wants someone who would roll back the rights and freedoms for women, workers, for LGBTQ Americans, and for so many others.
In nominating Judge Kavanaugh he has picked someone who would swing the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation against women, workers, patients, and families."
Far in advance of Trump's election so many of us worried about his choices for Supreme Court Justices; there was nothing as important. Our fears were founded in reality. I am sickened. We are fucked. Again.
- Log in to post comments
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: You know better....
LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL
LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER
GOD BLESS DONALD TRUMP !!!!!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: I rang a silent bell
Vive la résistance!
Vive la résistance!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
This nomination is all about
This nomination is all about protecting Trump from the Mueller investigation. Trump doesn't want to testify and it seems that Kavanaugh is against forcing the president to do so.
Know Nothing, you seem a little dense for this board. I think you'd fit in better at the comments section on yahoo.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Without a net
"No one more deserving, no
"No one more deserving, no one more qualified".
- Trump
But he picked Gorsuch first.
This has been the plan since day 1.
- Merrick Garland is the Chief Judge on the Court of Appeals which Kavanaugh serves on below him.
- Worked with Ken Starr on the Clinton blow job scandal.
- He once argued that Bill Clinton could be impeached for lying to his staff and misleading the public.
- Kavanaugh’s argument in 2009 was a sitting POTUS should be immunized from indictment because of the uniquely arduous nature and singular responsibilities of the job.
- He argued the impeachment process was sufficient protection against “dastardly” deeds:
Minnesotalawreview.org
- In 2009, Kavanaugh wrote, “The indictment and trial of a sitting President...would cripple the federal government...”:
Minnesotalawreview.org
In short, he was SPECIFICALLY vetted for his views on indicting a sitting POTUS. Digest that one!
- 2012 Kavanaugh says "Criminal investigations take the President's focus away from his/her responsibilities to the people.
"And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably gonna do a worse job as President."
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
In 2011, Kavanaugh dissented
In 2011, Kavanaugh dissented from a majority opinion of the DC Circuit that upheld a ban that applied to semiautomatic rifles in the District of Columbia.
In his dissent, he wrote that the Supreme Court had previously "held that handguns -- the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic -- are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens."
Citing a previous high court ruling, Kavanaugh went on to say, "It follows from Heller's protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that DC's ban on them is unconstitutional."
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: nebulous nelly
Good for you, Ender, your
Good for you, Ender, your killing tools are safe.
Yay! More gun related deaths!
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Without a net
Ender - You're a "one trick
Ender - You're a "one trick pony".
Now go clean your guns, we expect them to be clean when we come to take them.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Def. High
Let's leave the 2nd out of it
Let's leave the 2nd out of it for a moment.
Ender, if there was no 2nd Amendment, would you think:
1. Current gun laws are too strict and onerous?
or
2. Current gun laws are about right?
or
3. We need more laws restricting gun ownership?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
Too strict. At federal level,
Too strict. At federal level, I want suppressors to protect my hearing and short barrel rifles/shotguns shouldn't be class III. Also like to see some some federal preemption laws that prevent states and local municipalities from restricting gun rights.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Def. High
So you really think that
So you really think that there are not enough guns and gun owners out there?
I think there are too many.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Without a net
>>> Citing a previous high
>>> Citing a previous high court ruling, Kavanaugh went on to say, "It follows from Heller's protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that DC's ban on them is unconstitutional."
So you're good with the Kavanaugh pick just because of his stance on guns?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
>> So you're good with the
>> So you're good with the Kavanaugh pick just because of his stance on guns?
Don't know. That was just the first thing I googled when I got to work.
The local radio guy said he was a safe pick that the democrats would find hard to bash. Is that true T.O.D.?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Without a net
Ender - He was appointed in
Ender - He was appointed in 2003 by W to the Court of Appeals.
His confirmation was DELAYED 3 years because of a contentious fight due to him being seen as highly partisan.
So there is that...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 2 Room Shack
>>That was just the first
>>That was just the first thing I googled when I got to work. <<
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
This nomination is all about
This nomination is all about protecting Trump from the Mueller investigation. Trump doesn't want to testify and it seems that Kavanaugh is against forcing the president to do so.<<<
I can't help but think this is the sort of thing that Trump finds appealing as a "stand out issue" by which he was selected.
All talk of ideology is secondary to maintaining his grip on power as the world's "greatest con man".
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: jonaspond
Ender is the intelligent
Ender is the intelligent coward that enables the moronic shooter to keep guns in their hands. It's really not even worth discussing at this point.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Zebrachaser
Changing gun laws will add a
Changing gun laws will add a new twist to the next mass shooting.
In addition to why did it happen people will ask how did the shooter get the gun.
Not much more unfortunately. The genie is out of the bottle.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 2 Room Shack
where's thom? #maga.
where's thom?
#maga.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ausonius
Live by the court, die by the
Live by the court, die by the court.
Democrats decided long ago (correctly) that they could not get their agenda passed through the legislative process so they have used the courts for decades to implement their goals. Well and good, except that court rulings can be overturned much easier than a law that has been passed by duly elected representatives of the people. Lose the courts, lose your agenda.
Perhaps the left will now consider returning to the traditional method that our system was designed to operate under. Elect people who back your ideas, and have Congress pass those ideas into laws.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 2 Room Shack
>Elect people who back your
>Elect people who back your ideas, and have Congress pass those ideas into laws.<
helps to gerrymander, equate $$$ as free speech and flow tons of unregulated campaign $$ from special interests...aka corporations to the candidates....
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Oaksterdam Dan
Next democratic president
Next democratic president with a democratic senate should "pack the court" until there's a 6-5 liberal majority like Mitch stole from Obama.
Stolen court for generation is upon us. Pack the court as a huge fuck you to (R) who misrepresented the Biden rule to cover Mitch's BS campaign to steal a seat then complained when (D) misrepresented the Mitch rule. File under "All's fair in love a war"
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Oaksterdam Dan
>>>>Democrats decided long
>>>>Democrats decided long ago (correctly) that they could not get their agenda passed through the legislative process so they have used the courts for decades to implement their goals. Well and good, except that court rulings can be overturned much easier than a law that has been passed by duly elected representatives of the people. Lose the courts, lose your agenda.
Republicans decided long ago (correctly) that they could not get their anti-abortion/anti-women agenda passed through the legislative process so they have used the courts for decades to implement their goals. See Obama years for detail on (R) using the courts every time they don't get there way.