SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Judge Brett Kavanaugh named Trump's second Supreme Court justice - live updates
President Trump announced his selection of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be his second Supreme Court justice Monday night. Speaking in the East Room of the White House, the president said that what mattered to him was "not a judge's political views, but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the Constitution require."
"I am pleased to say that I have found, without a doubt, such a person," he said in announcing Kavanaugh's nomination. "There is no one in America more qualified for this position and no one more deserving," the president also said. The D.C. Circuit Appeals Court judge "has impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications, and aproven commitment to equal justice under the law," the president continued. He's "a judge's judge, a true thought leader among his peers. He's a brilliant jurist with a clear and effective writing style, universally regarded as one of the finest and sharpest legal minds of our time."
Kavanaugh thanked the president for the nomination, and in anticipating his coming meetings with senators on Capitol hill tomorrow, said, "I believe that an independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic." He promised, "If confirmed by the Senate, I will keep an open mind in every case and I will always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law."
Within a few days of Justice Anthony Kennedy's announcement that he would retire from the court this summer, Mr. Trump had narrowed the field to four: Judges Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Thomas Hardiman and Raymond Kethledge -- all young and all viewed as conservative. Ultimately, the president settled on Kavanaugh, the establishment favorite.
On the issue everyone wants to know about:
Kavanaugh has stated that he considers Roe v. Wade binding under the principle of stare decisis and would seek to uphold it, but has also ruled in favor of some restrictions for abortion.
In May 2006, Kavanaugh stated he "would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully" and that the issue of the legality of abortion has already "been decided by the Supreme Court". During the hearing, he stated that a right to an abortion has been found "many times", citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
In October 2017, Kavanaugh joined an unsigned divided panel opinion which found that the Office of Refugee Resettlement could prevent an unaccompanied minor in its custody from obtaining an abortion. Days later, the en banc D.C. Circuit reversed that judgment, with Kavanaugh now dissenting. The D.C. Circuit's opinion was then itself vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Garza v. Hargan (2018).
See also:
- SCOTUSblog + Round-up + Reactions
- Brett Kavanaugh's track record
- What Brett Kavanaugh could mean for the future of abortion, marriage equality and much more
- Can the Supreme Court confirmation process ever be repaired?
- Press: Democrats must hang tough on high court pick
Previously: SCOTUS's Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire
(Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday July 10 2018, @01:33PM (17 children)
There's nobody better than Judge Brett on restricting the abortion. That's according to his clerk, Sara Pitlyk. She says he's PERFECTO. And she's in a position to know. nationalreview.com/2018/07/judge-brett-kavanaughs-impeccable-record-of-constitutional-conservatism [nationalreview.com]
And don't worry, he's terrific on restricting the birth control too!!!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday July 10 2018, @03:28PM (16 children)
Trump’s Supreme Court nominee decided against net neutrality and for NSA surveillance [theverge.com]
Two popular topics around these parts!
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday July 10 2018, @03:53PM (6 children)
A couple quotes...
When Clinton was president:
“After reflecting this evening, I am strongly opposed to giving the President any “break”... unless before his questioning on Monday, he either i) resigns or ii) confesses perjury and issues a public apology to you [Starr]. I have tried hard to bend over backwards and be fair to him... In the end, I am convinced that there really are [no reasonable defenses]. The idea of going easy on him at the questioning is abhorrent to me...
When Bush was president:
“I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” Kavanaugh wrote. “We should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.” Furthermore, Kavanaugh opined that the “indictment and trial of a sitting President” would “cripple the federal government.”
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @04:12PM (1 child)
> When Bush was president:
> “I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” Kavanaugh wrote. “We should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.” Furthermore, Kavanaugh opined that the “indictment and trial of a sitting President” would “cripple the federal government.”
Well, well, well.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday July 10 2018, @05:59PM
Yes, the magic (R) is even a get out of jail free card!
These guys are shameless putting their Party before the Country.
(Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday July 10 2018, @04:20PM
Tremendous quote, I love that quote. I said that he did the Ken Starr Report, the Bill Clinton Blowjob Report. Which was very tough on President Clinton. But he changed his mind about that one, now he knows how important a President is to our Country. The President is the will of the great American people, of the Electoral College. The President is the Brain of our Country, the Heart. And I have an incredible amount of heart. And brain. I took the brain test, I scored 100%. PERFECTO. There's so many haters of our Country. They go for the heart, they go for the brian. With phoney dossiers, with wiretapps, with crooked so-called investigations. Judge Brett knows. Because he was one of them. He's evolved so much on that one. He's evolved beautifully. Very smart guy, very solid guy. Call your Senators. And EMAIL your Senators. Tell them to CONFIRM JUDGE BRETT ASAP!!!!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 10 2018, @09:29PM
This is what we need to be hearing - but Roe v Wade fills the press.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday July 11 2018, @02:42AM
ie, a republican PUSSY.
no backbone, caves in to align with his party.
he's useless.
therefore, he'll get the seat.
godammitsomuch
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday July 12 2018, @12:29AM
This concerned me so i loolked into it and while I dont really agree I understand where he is coming from. He felt that his own investigation made him miss several chances to take out Bin Laden because they were so focused on Clinton. The again brought up the issue of not investigating a president
In 2009 during the Obama administration.
He suggested that congress made a law or legislation about this, not that the courts decide not to try such a case if it is brought to them. The proper procedure being a congressional investigation (not the fbi) and impeachment (his opinion).
His suggestion would be like what he Roman's had where as soon as someone was out of office they would be investigated/tried/civil suit to not use up resources when they might be needed. This has downsides and positives. If Trump were working for the Russians (nothing found yet and all of what Mueller has released suggests just that Manafort's trouble is unrelated to Trump) it should be something that needs to be investigated immedietly.
From what Kav~ has said I am led to think that as a judge if a case were brought before him he would not just drop it, as all of the hard work has already been done.
I have reservations about him due to how weak he is on the 4th amendment and as stated above I don't agree with his opinion on this, but I understand how he got there.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 10 2018, @03:53PM (7 children)
At the moment, Net Neutrality has no real business being a judicial issue; there's not much law covering it and judges deal with laws. It needs to be a legislative issue though, so we can quit having it decided and redecided by unaccountable bureaucrats.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @04:30PM (4 children)
Gee the corps are arguing it is a 1st amendment issue. Seems like pretty good grounds for judicial review. Also, policies follow laws so yes courts can rulenon them.
Go hack to bed, your brain is tired. Or working normally, but hey thats an opinion so who am i to judge?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 10 2018, @05:19PM (3 children)
It's pretty obviously not a first amendment issue unless the government is interfering with speech somehow. And policies, as long as they're made within the authority granted by legislation, can't (assuming a supreme court who follows the law instead of their feelz) legally be overturned by a judge no matter how many people want them to be.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @05:34PM (2 children)
You're telling the wrong person, I'm just pointing out that the ISPs are making the argument. Also, you ignored the other part about legal hierarchy.
Laws guide policy making, judges rule on laws, so any policy can be ruled on by a judge to determine whether it violates the laws that allow the policy to exist. Keep pushing your simplistic world view where words are highly restricted when you want them to be but fluid and interpretive when they suit your needs.
#hypocrite #crticalthinkingisforthebirds
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 10 2018, @08:11PM (1 child)
Fair enough on the first but no, policies are not really subject to judicial review unless a law was violated during their creation (out of scope of authority) or they violate some law or other. Like it's beyond a judge's authority to say anything about Hawaiian Shirt Tuesday at the CIA. Violation of a law is violation of a law and judges always have the authority to rule on that. You'd kind of figure it would go without saying but here I am having to say it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by exaeta on Monday July 23 2018, @05:29PM
Well it depends. Does the CIA *require* employees to wear hawaiin shirts on tuesday, or is it optional? If if was mandatory, you'd have a pretty good case for judicial intervention.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 3, Informative) by Aegis on Tuesday July 10 2018, @11:27PM (1 child)
At the moment, Net Neutrality has no real business being a judicial issue;
Tell that to the nominee you're defending!
Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites [arstechnica.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 11 2018, @01:09AM
You're reading what you want to argue against into what I said. All did was correct someone's foolish statement.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 10 2018, @07:29PM
It's more of this "Courts can ignore cases they don't like" bullshit which bothers me. And "You don't have this right we said you have because X".
A perfect judge is probably not available. But I'd rather see a judge that recognizes the evils of allowing people to waive rights and furthermore the evils of the court ignorong cases.
Plus national security is code for "tribal bullshit". Can't these judges grow up?