New SCOTUS Judge

[Meadmaker]

His second amendment rulings are extremist, and reek of judicial activism.


(From what I've read, which is just an article about them, not the opinions themselves.)

 

[Bob001]

Not to defend this in anyway, but the fact that the United States practices "Birthright" citizenship when most other major developed western democracies don't is a factor in all this.

Why Jus Soli is the default on the American continent but nearly unheard of in Europe, Asia, or Africa is not a crazy question to ask.

I'm no historian, but in many countries one's identity was largely shaped by his ethnic group or nationality, which is not the same as the nation one lives in. Look at the disputes today about who has a right to live in Burma. America was created as a new place, welcoming to all, at least in theory. You can move to China or Poland, and even become a citizen, but you can't become Chinese or Polish. Anybody who comes to the U.S. can become American, no different from any other American, and his children born here will be always be indisputably American. The real intent of "birthright" citizenship is to emphasize the rule of law, and reduce the impact of ethnic and religious distinctions. There is also the practical question: Imagine debating whether someone born in the U.S. was a citizen based on whether he could prove that one or both of his parents was a citizen at the time of his birth. Would every birth have to be documented by federal immigration authorities? Etc. "Birthright" citizenship is inclusive, and the single qualification is simple; anything else is exclusive, that is, designed to keep people out. (And "birthright" citizenship is a right-wing construction. Nothing in the Constitution uses that term.)

 

[Stacko]

Don't forget Vince Foster conspiracy theories.

The NYT cites his non-belief in Vince Foster conspiracy theories as evidence that he's a moderating force.

But Judge Kavanaugh, 53, has also formed lifelong friendships with liberals, many of whom praise his intellect and civility. In his professional life, before he became a judge, he was often a moderating force.

Working for Mr. Starr, Judge Kavanaugh concluded that Mr. Foster had in fact killed himself. He opposed the public release of the narrative portions of Mr. Starr’s report detailing Mr. Clinton’s encounters with a White House intern. As staff secretary to Mr. Bush, he said in 2006, he strived to be “an honest broker for the president.”

It's an odd way to concede that mainstream conservatism in the US has been crazy for a while now.

 

[ahhell]

Souter is the most recent prime example, although I should also give a nod to Chief Justice Roberts, who went liberal on the most important SC decision of his career to date.

It will be amusing to hear all the Democratic senators blathering on about the importance of stare decisis over the next week or two. Never mind that many of the important cases decided over the last 60 years or so have ignored historical precedent. Brown v. Board of Education is simply the most obvious example--would anybody care to contend that Plessy should have remained the law of the land, and segregation in education continued? How about Dred Scott or Koramatsu?

Secondly, are you actually saying its perfectly acceptable to (for example) overturn Roe v. Wade because other historical precedents have been overturned in the past?

I think he's pretty clearly saying it will be amusing to hear people argue against overturning Roe V Wade because its established precedent when that's pretty clearly a bad reason to leave it in place, and those folks using that logic, clearly wouldn't use the same logic to defend keeping other precedents.

I'm no historian,

but in many countries one's identity was largely shaped by his ethnic group or nationality, which is not the same as the nation one lives in. Look at the disputes today about who has a right to live in Burma. America was created as a new place, welcoming to all, at least in theory. You can move to China or Poland, and even become a citizen, but you can't become Chinese or Polish. Anybody who comes to the U.S. can become American, no different from any other American, and his children born here will be always be indisputably American. The real intent of "birthright" citizenship is to emphasize the rule of law, and reduce the impact of ethnic and religious distinctions. There is also the practical question: Imagine debating whether someone born in the U.S. was a citizen based on whether he could prove that one or both of his parents was a citizen at the time of his birth. Would every birth have to be documented by federal immigration authorities? Etc. "Birthright" citizenship is inclusive, and the single qualification is simple; anything else is exclusive, that is, designed to keep people out.

(And "birthright" citizenship is a right-wing construction. Nothing in the Constitution uses that term.)

That last bit makes the first bit redundant. There are two phrases for what we are talking about Jus Soli and the one that everyone who doesn't speak latin understands, the phrase you refer to as a right wing construct.

In terms of citizenship rights the two common systems are Jus Soli(right of soil or birthright) and Jus Sanguinus(blood right, citizenship by descent.) Wait, isn't there a thread about this somewhere. Nevermind, you likely know this. Anyrate, I suppose we can start just saying Jus Soli instead of birthright citizenship is that makes you feel better.

 

[Segnosaur]

Has anyone gone from literally 'Hitler' to 'Predictable and Practical' in two years?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/politics/donald-trump-scotus-nominee/index.html

You referenced ONE article, that deals ONLY with the supreme court pick (nothing about Trump locking children in cages, or getting buddy buddy with Putin) and one that doesn't even address most of the complaints that people here have about Kavenaugh (such as Kavenaugh's statements about how presidents shouldn't be subject to certain criminal investigations.)

Heck, the biggest 'praise' that this article gives to Kavenaugh is not that he is a moderate or centrist (or someone that would be a 'swing vote') but that he was someone that a person like Jeb Bush might have picked... which means that he's still solidly in the 'right wing' side of the political spectrum.)

So yeah, concerns that Trump may be a wannabe authoritiarian and that democracy is currently suffering are still alive and well.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1016642192616706050

Source familiar tells NBC that Justice Kennedy had been in negotiations with the Trump team for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh (his former law clerk) Kennedy felt comfortable retiring - @LACaldwellDC & @frankthorp

 

[crescent]

His second amendment rulings are extremist, and reek of judicial activism.


(From what I've read, which is just an article about them, not the opinions themselves.)

JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S RECORD ON GUN POLICY

In a follow-on case to Heller known as Heller II, Judge Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that Washington DC’s assault weapons ban and registration laws violate the Second Amendment. While two other judges cast deciding votes upholding both laws, Judge Kavanaugh instead sided with the gun lobby’s position that every type of firearm that is marketed and sold to enough Americans enjoys absolute constitutional protections, concluding that because assault weapons are in “common use” today and were not historically regulated, they cannot be prohibited under the Second Amendment. Similarly, Judge Kavanaugh determined that because most states do not require registration of firearms, it is unconstitutional to have a mandatory registration law—meaning that under his circular logic, any gun regulation that is not already widespread is constitutionally suspect.

In the same dissent in Heller II, Judge Kavanaugh interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Heller to require judges to disregard compelling public safety justifications for gun regulations and consider only the text of the Second Amendment and the history and tradition of regulating in a certain area when deciding if a challenged law is constitutional. Under Judge Kavanaugh’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, there is an “absence of a role for judicial interest balancing or assessment of costs and benefits of gun regulations.” This radical view would allow judges to pick and choose which gun regulations have adequate historical support and invalidate all other laws. For example, Judge Kavanaugh might vote to strike down important gun safety laws that address modern dangers that did not exist at the time of the founding of the United States, like extreme-risk protection order laws that remove guns from the possession of likely mass shooters, and domestic violence restraining order laws that protect victims of domestic abuse (a crime that wasn’t even recognized in early American history).

Finally, while Judge Kavanaugh has not issued a major ruling on the issue of public carry of firearms outside the home, he did cast a dissenting procedural vote in Grace v. District of Columbia stating he would leave in place a lower-court ruling striking down DC’s concealed carry licensing law pending appellate review. This suggests that Judge Kavanaugh was sympathetic to the view that the District of Columbia’s “good reason” requirement for concealed carry permit applicants is unconstitutional, a position that places him well outside the mainstream. Judges have overwhelmingly upheld similar concealed carry requirements, including those in place in California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey—and in each case, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review, leaving favorable lower-court decisions upholding strong concealed carry permitting laws in place.

 

[Bob001]

Question: Should it matter that Kavanaugh is Catholic? That will mean that six or seven (depending on how you count Gorsuch) justices are Catholic, and two are Jewish. No mainstream Protestants, no non-believers, certainly no Muslims or Buddhists. Can we really say that someone's upbringing and core beliefs won't have any impact on their legal perspectives?

More broadly, are Catholics over-represented in the legal profession? Is there something about being raised in a religion with strict rules and a rigid hierarchy that makes a legal career appealing?

 

[LSSBB]

Question: Should it matter that Kavanaugh is Catholic? That will mean that six or seven (depending on how you count Gorsuch) justices are Catholic, and two are Jewish. No mainstream Protestants, no non-believers, certainly no Muslims or Buddhists. Can we really say that someone's upbringing and core beliefs won't have any impact on their legal perspectives?

More broadly, are Catholics over-represented in the legal profession? Is there something about being raised in a religion with strict rules and a rigid hierarchy that makes a legal career appealing?

Maybe it's because there's something about being, theoretically, anti-abortion as a Catholic, that appointing type people find appealing to certain constituents.

 

[theprestige]

Question: Should it matter that Kavanaugh is Catholic? That will mean that six or seven (depending on how you count Gorsuch) justices are Catholic, and two are Jewish. No mainstream Protestants, no non-believers, certainly no Muslims or Buddhists. Can we really say that someone's upbringing and core beliefs won't have any impact on their legal perspectives?

More broadly, are Catholics over-represented in the legal profession? Is there something about being raised in a religion with strict rules and a rigid hierarchy that makes a legal career appealing?

Given that the law is a system of strict rules and a rigid hierarchy, you seem to be making a case that only devout, Jesuit-trained Catholics are really qualified to sit on the bench.

Assuming we really want to dig into the upbringing and core beliefs of the nominees. Which might not be a bad idea. There's no constitutional requirement that the Supreme Court justices be drawn from the legal profession. There's something to be said for the idea that the Constitution is accessible to every citizen, and any citizen should be qualified to evaluate what it says about our nation and our laws.

 

[Bob001]

Given that the law is a system of strict rules and a rigid hierarchy, you seem to be making a case that only devout, Jesuit-trained Catholics are really qualified to sit on the bench.
.....

I'm not making that case at all. I'm asking whether people who were raised as Catholics and continue to practice might find the legal professional especially appealing, not that they are in any way more qualified to be judges.

 

[LSSBB]

I'm not making that case at all. I'm asking whether people who were raised as Catholics and continue to practice might find the legal professional especially appealing, not that they are in any way more qualified to be judges.

Everyone is guilty. It's either what you've done, or what you failed to do.

 

[Brainster]

First of all, I think there is a difference between a precedent that EXTENDS human rights/equality and one that limits human rights/equality. American society values (as well as laws and judicial rulings) have given more freedoms over the years and some people don't really want to lose that.

Secondly, are you actually saying its perfectly acceptable to (for example) overturn Roe v. Wade because other historical precedents have been overturned in the past?

Yes, of course. Now, I am not saying that it should be done casually; there is a real value to our society stemming from stare decisis. But the courts are not perfect. Plessy was terrible law, and while Brown is not perfect, it is miles better. And Plessy was decided 7-1, as compared to 5-4 for Roe.

As for your first point, who decides what is a human right and what is not? Is the right to keep and bear arms a human right, like the right to abortion or gay marriage? Does the ratchet only go one way on that as well?

 

[C_Felix]

https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1016642192616706050


Source familiar tells NBC that Justice Kennedy had been in negotiations with the Trump team for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh (his former law clerk) Kennedy felt comfortable retiring - @LACaldwellDC & @frankthorp

This is what I came to post.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/anthony-kennedy-agreed-retire-trump-promised-replace-brett-kavanaugh-report/

 

[JoeMorgue]

As for your first point, who decides what is a human right and what is not? Is the right to keep and bear arms a human right, like the right to abortion or gay marriage? Does the ratchet only go one way on that as well?

This is my issue with the "But it's different because X is a right" argument, it assumes we all agree on what our rights are.

A popular progressive commentator, I believe it was Rachel Maddow, said something to the effect once of "Somethings don't get to be voted on. That's why they are called rights" and will I understand and respect the point she was trying to make it essentially turns the word "right" into what you call something you won't want to argue.

 

[Bob001]

This is my issue with the "But it's different because X is a right" argument, it assumes we all agree on what our rights are.

A popular progressive commentator, I believe it was Rachel Maddow, said something to the effect once of "Somethings don't get to be voted on. That's why they are called rights" and will I understand and respect the point she was trying to make it essentially turns the word "right" into what you call something you won't want to argue.

There's a difference between rights inherent to being a human being and rights bestowed by law. The UN Declaration of Human Rights asserts that all human beings, just by virtue being human, are entitled to dignity, life, liberty and security, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of movement, etc. You don't get to vote on whether people should be enslaved or tortured or unjustly imprisoned. Most religions have core teachings about how people must treat other people.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

On the other hand, rights bestowed by law can be changed. Without debating the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment -- and the NRA's view is one extreme, not Holy Writ -- there is no universally agreed-on right to keep and bear arms. Most countries don't have anything like it. It's certainly fair to make a distinction between moral and legal rights.

 

[dudalb]

Question: Should it matter that Kavanaugh is Catholic? That will mean that six or seven (depending on how you count Gorsuch) justices are Catholic, and two are Jewish. No mainstream Protestants, no non-believers, certainly no Muslims or Buddhists. Can we really say that someone's upbringing and core beliefs won't have any impact on their legal perspectives?

More broadly, are Catholics over-represented in the legal profession? Is there something about being raised in a religion with strict rules and a rigid hierarchy that makes a legal career appealing?

Not crazy about Kavenaugh, but ,frankly, this is a slightly more sophisticated version of 'No Popery Here!"

It was John F Kennedy who said that Anti Catholicism was the last bigotry to have a following among intelleuctuals....

 

[dudalb]

Yes, of course. Now, I am not saying that it should be done casually; there is a real value to our society stemming from stare decisis. But the courts are not perfect. Plessy was terrible law, and while Brown is not perfect, it is miles better. And Plessy was decided 7-1, as compared to 5-4 for Roe.

As for your first point, who decides what is a human right and what is not? Is the right to keep and bear arms a human right, like the right to abortion or gay marriage? Does the ratchet only go one way on that as well?

WHat is you stand on Abortion?
Just interested.

 

[Brainster]

There's a difference between rights inherent to being a human being and rights bestowed by law. The UN Declaration of Human Rights asserts that all human beings, just by virtue being human, are entitled to dignity, life, liberty and security, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of movement, etc. You don't get to vote on whether people should be enslaved or tortured or unjustly imprisoned. Most religions have core teachings about how people must treat other people.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

On the other hand, rights bestowed by law can be changed. Without debating the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment -- and the NRA's view is one extreme, not Holy Writ -- there is no universally agreed-on right to keep and bear arms. Most countries don't have anything like it. It's certainly fair to make a distinction between moral and legal rights.

I note that the UN Declaration contains no mention of the right to an abortion, or gay marriage.

 

[theprestige]

There's a difference between rights inherent to being a human being and rights bestowed by law. The UN Declaration of Human Rights asserts that all human beings, just by virtue being human, are entitled to dignity, life, liberty and security, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of movement, etc. You don't get to vote on whether people should be enslaved or tortured or unjustly imprisoned. Most religions have core teachings about how people must treat other people.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

On the other hand, rights bestowed by law can be changed. Without debating the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment -- and the NRA's view is one extreme, not Holy Writ -- there is no universally agreed-on right to keep and bear arms. Most countries don't have anything like it. It's certainly fair to make a distinction between moral and legal rights.

If it's possible to have rights that are not bestowed by law, then the fact few countries bestow the right to bear arms by law, does not signify that it is a legal right rather than a moral one.

Even if Big Brother tells me that the Party has voted down my legal right to life, I can still say that I have a moral right to life that they cannot vote down.