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: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Tuesday July 10 2018, @10:44PM (7 children)
While you've got a point, the system is strongly rigged in favor of only two political parties mattering. And at least two political parties mattering.
Voting for a third party may make you feel righteous, but it doesn't do anything else. (Actually, last time I decided that none of the four major parties had a candidate or a platform I liked. I actually ended up voting for Hillary as the "least bad", despite her major reason for voting for her [that I heard] was "because she's a woman". This I don't actually count as a strike against her, despite precedents like Thatcher, but it sure isn't a mark in her favor. And there were decent reasons to not like her as a candidate. It's just that all the others were worse.)
Things are so bad, or I've noticed that things are so bad, that I prefer a lottery over an election.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 11 2018, @01:15AM (2 children)
Next time do like I did and play the long game. Vote for the third party most likely to garner enough votes to automatically get on the ballots and make it into the debates next time around. Voting for the least bad is letting the two parties dictate the rules of the game and you're always going to lose when you do that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday July 11 2018, @05:14PM (1 child)
I did that for decades. It doesn't work. The system is designed broken, and the name of the problem is "plurality wins".
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday July 11 2018, @06:26PM
It's the only thing that does work. The two parties spend obscene amounts advertising though. Did you think you'd win without cost?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 11 2018, @03:15AM (3 children)
Every year, the lesser evil becomes less good and the evil becomes more evil -- this is the end result of short-term thinking (i.e. lesser evil voting). The only power voters really have left, is the power of spoiling. There is no other way to be heard. If you "vote blue no matter who" (or vice versa), you clearly and publicly designate yourself and your opinions as utterly and wholly irrelevant. You actively say with your vote: "Do whatever the fuck you want no matter how horrible it is, and I'll still vote for you."
Lesser evil voting is how we got here. The way out is by being willing to spoil, to say "if you aren't the one, I'll wait and in the meantime, I'll do my level best monkeywrench the machine you rode in on until it is replaced by something decent." Spoiling is a super-power, which is exactly why you are indoctrinated to avoid it.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday July 11 2018, @10:23AM
Not only that, but political parties do take note of where third party votes go. If a third party starts to get significant support, whichever of the major parties is closest will tend to drift towards it in an effort to win back those votes.
In terms of influencing actual policy, third party votes are far more effective than just another taken-for-granted R or D vote.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday July 11 2018, @05:30PM (1 child)
They have, indeed, been getting worse for the last several decades, but I think the main driving force behind that is faster computers, larger databases, and data mining. This enables cheaper more centralized control.
Third parties don't appear to help. Neither in the short term nor in the long term. In the history of US politics, when one party becomes moribund, the remaining party splits in half. Usually only one half gets a new name, but it's happened that both changed their names. Third parties can hang around for centuries, but they never become one of the two main parties. And there will only be two main parties as long as the voting system is "plurality wins". "Majority wins" would give third parties a real chance, which is the benefit of Instant Runoff Voting, Condorcet, etc.
Actually, though, I'm not in favor of a system that allows the candidates to be bribed while running (or even before announcing candidacy). So I'm more in favor of a lottery where every high school graduate in in the candidate pool, subject to the offices age restriction, and where you aren't allowed to decline selection. But also with a requirement that you can't ever take money (or other rewards) from anyone except the government after selection. That means your stocks and property are confiscated when you get office, but it also means that there should be a quite generous payment package. Say twice the median income for life. Not bad for two years work (if you get selected as a US Representative). This would require power to be decentralized a bit more, as you'd get some selected who are rather incapable....but it's not like the current system always produced decent candidates. This system would select, on the average, office holders who have the goals of the average person and the intelligence of the average person. Etc. This is hardly ideal, but the current system is broken enough that I think it would be an improvement.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday July 11 2018, @08:04PM
It doesn't matter if the third party prevails or the corrupt party disintegrates and splinters into new groups -- the point is progress and the only way such progress is possible at certain points, is through destruction of the status quo. What comes out of those ashes is what matters way more than whether want into that conflagration remains. One thing is absolutely certain though, voting for a party that actively harms you while taking the self-entitled view that it is owed your vote, only encourages and expands such harmful behavior and can only serve to make matters worse.