New SCOTUS Judge

[Skeptic Ginger]

In the category of "too unbelievable for a movie script":



Linky. (Emphasis mine.)

I wonder if Garland will recuse himself.

 

[tyr_13]

"We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society" is what he said. Kavanaugh was one of the judges from the second list by the Federalist Society.

This is a lie started by Chuck Schumer, picked up and repeated by many news outlets and is now considered gospel by those who want to believe Kavanaugh was nominated to keep Trump from potentially being prosecuted for crimes in the future.

He was referring to civil and criminal investigations, not congressional investigations. Meaning that if you want to prosecute a president civilly or criminally, first impeach him, remove him from office then investigate.


"In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. The president’s job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the president’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution." – Brett Kavanaugh

Thanks for the link, and the phrases to Google to track down other citations. It looks like Kavanaugh did rejoin the Federalists Society. I thought he had cancelled his membership as shown in one of his emails, but apparently he did rejoin. Then he was put on the list, but not the second one it seems? He was added after the second release?

It does appear that I was correct that he doesn't base this belief in law, but thinks it should be so.

That's still rather foolish, as Congressional investigations often only come about when other investigations bring evidence of wrongdoing worth looking further into to light. Some issues can only really be solved by holding those in political power to a higher standard.

His mention of the Constitution is a red herring; it does not support what he is advocating for and isn't even related if he isn't invoking it for support.


And seeing as you're another conservative in the thread, I might as well ask you too; Would you still support Kavanaugh if perjury (on salient judicial issues as has been alleged) is proven? Do you at least entertain the possibility that he is unsuitable regardless of the motivations of those arguing he is unsuitable?

 

[Bogative]

Thanks for the link, and the phrases to Google to track down other citations. It looks like Kavanaugh did rejoin the Federalists Society. I thought he had cancelled his membership as shown in one of his emails, but apparently he did rejoin. Then he was put on the list, but not the second one it seems? He was added after the second release?

I'm not clear on the timeline, I just remember Trump saying that way he would only nominate potential justices recommended by the Federalist Society/the Heritage Foundation.

It does appear that I was correct that he doesn't base this belief in law, but thinks it should be so.

That is correct from what I understand. He recognizes the Supreme Court's opinion that a sitting president can currently be indicted. It's his opinion that Congress should pass a law to prevent it from happening.

That's still rather foolish, as Congressional investigations often only come about when other investigations bring evidence of wrongdoing worth looking further into to light. Some issues can only really be solved by holding those in political power to a higher standard.

I think his point is to have all investigations go through Congress. For example, if a district attorney or local prosecutor has evidence of wrongdoing, they should turn it over to Congress for further investigation rather than issuing an indictment and bogging down a president trying to perform the duties of his office.

I agree with that point of view because it would protect the most powerful office in the country from potential political shenanigans of someone who was elected locally by a small number of people rather than a body of politicians who were elected nationwide.

His mention of the Constitution is a red herring; it does not support what he is advocating for and isn't even related if he isn't invoking it for support.

I believe you are misunderstanding what said. The constitutional mechanism he mentioned is impeachment. The point he is making in the Minnesota Law Review essay is that there is nothing in the Constitution protecting the president from indictment, it would have to be done by Congress.

And seeing as you're another conservative in the thread, I might as well ask you too; Would you still support Kavanaugh if perjury (on salient judicial issues as has been alleged) is proven? Do you at least entertain the possibility that he is unsuitable regardless of the motivations of those arguing he is unsuitable?

It depends. If we find out that he did in fact have a conversation with someone from Trump's law firm that he forgot about, I would still support him. He would have to be something much more consequential for me to stop supporting him.

 

[The Big Dog]

Christ what a load of crap. Criminal my ass, it is a couple of asshats who filed their own complaint.

Were you making an assertion or just repeating the claims of a couple of knuckleheads.

Popehat had equally kind words for this nonsense:

/3 Take this "we have filed a criminal complaint against Brett Kavanaugh" nonsense, hyped recently. This is grifter bunk, deceitfully calculated to imply there's been some official finding of merit.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

"Everybody on the Republican side of the dais knows Kavanaugh’s nomination is purely to further the Republican agenda. Everybody's in on it. It is maddening."
-- Al Franken (Sept 7, 2018)


"My honey my baby, don't put my love upon no shelf
She said don't hand me no lines and keep your hands to yourself"
-- The Georgia Satellites 1986

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Popehat had equally kind words for this nonsense:

I wonder what else he has to say in that thread?

But I care about legal norms and the rule of law, and so should you. And . . . about opposing Trumpism.

****muppetting around the place playing pretend lawyer does not help.

I'm glad you agree with him - Trump should be opposed, and people shouldn't pretend to be lawyers when they are not. Can we assume from now on that you'll start doing the former and stop doing the latter?

 

[The Big Dog]

I wonder what else he has to say in that thread?

This:

/14 The more grifter and/or looney ******** we promote and encourage, the more static there is drowning out real, worthwhile attempts to preserve the rule of law and legal norms.

Cut that **** out.

/end

Good to see that you agree that tweet you inflicted on this thread was "grifter," "looney" "bull ****" and "static."

 

[tyr_13]

It depends. If we find out that he did in fact have a conversation with someone from Trump's law firm that he forgot about, I would still support him. He would have to be something much more consequential for me to stop supporting him.

Thanks again. I did have the 'on a salient judicial issue' qualifier in there. Even with that, for some reason you're the first conservative to actually even try to give an answer to what should be the most basic of standards to hold any judge to, let alone one nominated for the SCOTUS.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... It depends. If we find out that he did in fact have a conversation with someone from Trump's law firm that he forgot about, I would still support him. He would have to be something much more consequential for me to stop supporting him.

That's not what tyr_13 asked. The question was if perjury is found?

There is also an issue about the reason for the meeting. If this was some unrelated meeting with a lawyer in the firm, surely there should be notes about what this meeting was for.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Good to see that you agree that tweet you inflicted on this thread was "grifter," "looney" "bull ****" and "static."

I'm always open to anything I post being assessed.

I understand, though, why you only quoted that one tweet, and didn't link to it or the thread that it was part of. Because that makes people less likely to check your sources, and if people can't check your sources they're less likely to see where your source is critical of you.

Like, for example, how that tweet you've just posted directly followed the one about "****muppetting around the place playing pretend lawyer". So I agree with Popehat, you need to cut that **** out Glad you agree, too.

And you really should link to your sources.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm always open to anything I post being assessed.

I understand, though, why you only quoted that one tweet, and didn't link to it or the thread that it was part of. Because that makes people less likely to check your sources, and if people can't check your sources they're less likely to see where your source is critical of you.

Like, for example, how that tweet you've just posted directly followed the one about "****muppetting around the place playing pretend lawyer". So I agree with Popehat, you need to cut that **** out Glad you agree, too.

And you really should link to your sources.

I do, but then skeptics say that they want me to cut and paste from them because they can't do second grade math.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I do[...]

Do you, though?

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you, though?

Say, it looks like some of my post got cut off:

"but then skeptics say that they want me to cut and paste from them because they can't do second grade math."

Fixed it up for y'all

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Say, it looks like some of my post got cut off:

That's a "no", then. Okay.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The weird money stories are being asked about in writing:

“Have you ever sought treatment for a gambling addiction?” Whitehouse asks pointedly as part of a series of questions submitted this week about Kavanaugh’s unexplained personal debts.

In 2016, Kavanaugh reported credit card and personal loan debts of between $60,000 and $200,000. The Trump White House said these debts were the result of Kavanaugh buying baseball tickets for friends who later paid him back, as well as some spending on home improvements. The 2016 debts did not appear on Kavanaugh’s 2017 disclosure form because they were either entirely paid off or fell below the reporting threshold. Kavanaugh also reported between $60,000 and $200,000 in debt in 2006.

...

Whitehouse also asked about a series of irregularities in Kavanaugh’s personal financial disclosures. How did Kavanaugh’s Bank of America account increase in value from between $15,000 and $50,000 in 2009 to between $100,000 and $250,000 in 2010, if he reported no increase in non-investment income or gifts?

And Whitehouse wants more information about how Kavanaugh and his wife afforded their $1.2 million home in 2006, and how he managed to pay for membership in the Chevy Chase Club, whose initiation fee is reportedly $92,000 with annual dues of more than $9,000.

“All judicial nominees must address all questions posed to them to be voted out of committee,” Davidson said.

Questions about how a justice is reimbursed and by whom, or about the true source of their debt, are not immaterial to the job. Cases can come before the court that involve individuals, or individuals employed by companies, that the justice will have to rule on. If a justice has undisclosed debts or receives undisclosed payments, their impartiality could come into question.

This is precisely what happened with Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas. When President Lyndon Johnson chose Fortas to replace Earl Warren as chief justice in 1968, questions about payments Fortas received from $15,000 in speaking fees from American University’s law school scuttled his nomination. The payments did not come from the university, but from private sources, some of whom could have had cases come before the court.

Linky.

 

[Segnosaur]

The weird money stories are being asked about in writing:

(Article about strange financial dealings involving Kavanaugh... large debts that may have been due to gambling, increases in assets/revenue, and large purchases.)

Linky.

That was... unexpected. After all the concerns raised about Kavanaugh (that he'd "protect" trump, that he'd repeal abortion rights, etc.), it would be amazing if his nomination was stopped because of questionable financial dealings and a gambling addiction. (I'm saying "unexpected" rather than "surprising" because anyone that Trump deals with probably has been involved in financial crimes at some point.)

Does anyone remember these sorts of issues being raised earlier in the nomination process?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

There's been a fundraising effort to pledge money to whoever Collins's opponent will be if she votes for Kavanaugh. It's up to one million dollars, but she is complaining it is an attempt at "bribery". Additionally someone made a crazy threatening phone call.

They have the votes that she could vote against him and then have Pence tie break anyway.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

"Kavanaugh chooses his words very carefully, and this is a dog whistle for going after birth control."
-- Kamala Harris (Sept 7, 2018)

"Kavanaugh called birth control 'abortion-inducing drugs.' He used that term because it's a dog whistle to the extreme right."
-- Hillary Clinton (Sept 12, 2018)


And I thought Kavanaugh was nominated to run interference during the Mueller witch hunt. Well, guess not. The dog whistle says otherwise.

 

[tyr_13]

"Kavanaugh chooses his words very carefully, and this is a dog whistle for going after birth control."
-- Kamala Harris (Sept 7, 2018)

"Kavanaugh called birth control 'abortion-inducing drugs.' He used that term because it's a dog whistle to the extreme right."
-- Hillary Clinton (Sept 12, 2018)


And I thought Kavanaugh was nominated to run interference during the Mueller witch hunt. Well, guess not. The dog whistle says otherwise.

Yeah, everyone knows you can't have multiple objectionable views. That would be like accusing a rapist of murder. No way someone could do both!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Salon article on Kavanaugh's perjury and other problematic emails and POVs is worth a gander.

It ends thusly:

This is the backdrop for what’s unfolding today, with Kavanaugh, only now it’s been taken past the point of absurdity: instead of Nixon, Reagan or Bush’s lying and abuses of executive authority, we have Donald Trump’s, putting all of his predecessors to shame. And we have Kavanaugh’s blatant history of provable perjury being ruthless steamrolled over in pursuit of a solid 5-4 conservative majority, based on the big über-lie that only conservatives are moral enough to be judges.

Half a century of lies are enough. It’s time to let truth back into the Supreme Court, starting with the nomination process.