U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

BREAKING: President Trump is nominating federal appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh as next US Supreme Court justice - @PeteWilliamsNBC

the golden boy

oh fucking hell Ed Meese is in the audience

ME: It's Kavanaugh.
WIFE: Which one is that?
ME: The shitty one.
WIFE: Not helpful. Aren't they all shitty?
ME: Yeah. Life is meaningless.

— Charles, Star of Mic Dicta (@Ugarles) July 10, 2018

so marvelous that five dudes will strike down or weaken Roe v. Wade!

the NYT is here to tell us this is fine

Akil Ahmar wins this year's Neal Katyal Award for meritorious service on behalf of contrarianism https://t.co/VygfW9czIb

— David Dayen (@ddayen) July 10, 2018

He’s the most qualified Supreme Court nominee ever!

John Marshall himself would've married him iirc

Given the quality of every other Trump nominee to date, I expect that in the next 24 hours we’ll either learn that Brett Kavanaugh has an IQ of 75 or that he owns a coat made of human skin.

I hope he catches Ebola

It’s so fun to wish grievous harm on people I didn’t know existed minutes ago

Two things that could happen but who knows:

Brett Kavanaugh spent 5 years in the Bush White House. He undoubtedly sent tens of thousands of emails. All of those are public record and Democrats and the media should demand that they be posted online like Elena Kagan's emails were.

— Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) July 10, 2018

One final thought: I think Trump has handed Senate Democrats an absolute gift in nominating the principal author of the Starr report, that the confirmation fight will be excruciating for the President, and that he will ultimately regret this decision.

— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) July 10, 2018

But the Democrats!

i agree with people upthread that most people (even fox news watchers) don't give a shit about the supreme court.

but i've seen arguments that trump wants (or has been advised to look for) a tv-friendly nomination fight to motivate the more febrile elements of his base for the midterms.

i agree with people upthread that most people (even fox news watchers) don't give a shit about the supreme court.

Lots of people in the US go to church. Most people who go to church are anti-abortion and know the road to overturning Roe goes through the SCOTUS. Please believe me that churchy types follow these things closely, and if not, their pastors do.

what evidence have we that FOX viewers stay home during elections?

I get that there are people whose vote turns on issues like Roe. I mean that trump imagines (perhaps wrongly) that there’s a significant constituency of people who are in the 65% who don’t normally vote in midterms who might be motivated to turn out for him if he gets a knockabout confirmation hearing.

I don’t think he’s right btw. The set of people who wouldn’t otherwise vote who can be motivated to turn out solely by *controversy* about a Supreme Court nomination process has to be tiny. But in trump’s mind ratings = votes.

SCOTUS is only good to motivate the already politically engaged. Getting a nominee through pre-mideterms, which he probably will, seems neutral for him. Being unable to get one through pre-midterms might slightly motivate republicans but it will also motivate democrats to at least the same degree.

Uh-oh. The influential conservative evangelical American Family Association has come out AGAINST Brett Kavanaugh! @AmericanFamAssc is powerful with the grassroots. Don’t think @realDonaldTrump and @WhiteHouse was expecting this. Worth following. Read their beef. @CBNNews pic.twitter.com/g5SLRBc8oC

— David Brody (@TheBrodyFile) July 10, 2018

I don't understand that Susan Hennessey tweet at all fwiw. Why would that be so?

Fact check: Trump chose names off a list given to him by an interest group, then he interviewed four candidates in under 2 hours last Monday. https://t.co/RpQCgxhgMV

— Christina Wilkie (@christinawilkie) July 10, 2018

Think Hennessy is arguing that the dem attacks will be based on investigations into the president and not about the law

The law is easier to tapdance around and not say anything controversial

Is the idea that democrats will be able to hold "hypocrisy" over him because he was part of the Starr investigation but later 180'd and said presidential investigations are a big waste of time and shouldn't happen?

Our Democratic colleagues cry wolf whenever a Republican president nominates anyone to the Supreme Court. No matter their qualifications. No matter their record. No matter their reputation. It’s the same hyperbole. The same accusations. The same old story. #SCOTUSnominee

— Leader McConnell (@SenateMajLdr) July 9, 2018

remember when this motherfucker said he would oppose any nominee Obama put forth like one day after Scalia died

he's one of the worst people i can think of currently alive, probably top five. just don't say he is like a 'turtle' or some shit because that is so boring and lame

Is the idea that democrats will be able to hold "hypocrisy" over him because he was part of the Starr investigation but later 180'd and said presidential investigations are a big waste of time and shouldn't happen?

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Monday, July 9, 2018 10:16 PM (six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i think the idea is that dems will be able to say "the president clearly nominated this man so he could exonerate himself from the wide-ranging investigation into his misconduct." it's a good line of attack. the more trump's naked corruption is publicly discussed, the better.

xpost

yeah, and then there was that famous meeting of top GOP cronies the night of obama's inauguration where they agreed to oppose every single obama initiative possible. admittedly mcconnell wasn't present at that one, but it just goes to show how thoroughly the GOP executed this strategy a decade ago

xp yeah that part I get I just don't understand what difference it makes that he was part of the Starr investigation

weak credibility re the dignity of the presidency

credibility is overrated

Also, Roger Stone is apparently not a Kavanaugh fan. pic.twitter.com/Q11DenFJni

— Kevin Roose (@kevinroose) July 10, 2018

I don't think Trump cares a fig what Roger Stone thinks about the SCOTUS.

Come to think of it, neither do I.

While working for Ken Starr in 1998, Kavanagh routinely skirted or violated Rule 6 (e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by leaking details of Lewinsky probe.Mueller’s team obeys the law; Starr’s didn’t. Reporters didn’t bust Brett because they benefitted. Will one now?

— Jonathan Alter (@jonathanalter) July 10, 2018

I was a newsmagazine editor in those days (not for same one @jonalter was working for).

My recollection (via our reporters) matches what Jon is saying here about BK’s approach. https://t.co/yjszlxaJdS

— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) July 10, 2018

Not saying they're wrong, but how do they know exactly that Mueller's team doesn't also do this?

Because they know who’s leaking to them and who isn’t? If someone from the Mueller report is leaking, journalists across the board are being incredibly tight-lipped about it, is my impression.

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

— Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) July 10, 2018

So the other nominees were all for show?
Sad to see that Trump is taking this as seriously as the set up for Gorsuch where he got the competition to drive half way across the country to be turned down.
Speaks of a level of trivialisation of what should be a role with recognised weight don't it?

I can't really get too worked up about this revelation. It's not like there's a world in which Trump makes an actually decent pick for SCOTUS. The only people getting screwed here are the other top candidates, all of whom I'm sure are equally as ghoulish as Kavanaugh.

One final thought: I think Trump has handed Senate Democrats an absolute gift in nominating the principal author of the Starr report

I'm sure the Senate Dems are thrilled for a chance to remind everyone that they stood in lockstep support of a p.o.s. President who sent out surrogates to lie for him daily

I can't really get too worked up about this revelation. It's not like there's a world in which Trump makes an actually decent pick for SCOTUS. The only people getting screwed here are the other top candidates, all of whom I'm sure are equally as ghoulish as Kavanaugh.

― evol j, Tuesday, July 10, 2018 8:56 AM (forty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

OTM, this doesn't matter. There's no requirement that the president have any particular kind of process in choosing his nominee, and there's nothing improper about having someone in mind in advance.

Are we sure about that

a sitting justice was in private negotiations with the white house while deciding cases that trump was a party to or had taken a public position on

— mark (@kept_simple) July 10, 2018

Among the many awful things about Kavanaugh, I'm not terribly worked up. Worse is the shit regarding Kennedy's son.

*worked up about the meetings with Trump

American Family Association nuts no like Kav, fwiw

Canon 2 A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities.

B Outside Influence A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the prohibition is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code.

you guys are going to shit when you read about Lewis Powell

Chuck is "on the case"

https://splinternews.com/chuck-schumers-crazy-new-scheme-fight-brett-kavanaughs-1827479465