Spike Bull 's Link
"Liberals Are Freaking Out About The Nomination Of Brett Kavanaugh, But It Is Conservatives That Should Be Concerned
Posted by Michael Snyder
Help D.C. Clothesline Continue Exposing The Truth! The weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth has begun on the left, but the truth is that Donald Trump could have nominated someone far more conservative on Monday night. Over the next several months there will be endless protests in Washington D.C. as liberals moan and groan about “the end of our freedoms”, and Brett Kavanaugh will be relentlessly portrayed as a conservative devil by the mainstream media. And even though NBC News is insisting that Kavanaugh “would make the high court solidly conservative” if he is confirmed, the reality of the matter is that there are some pretty good reasons why conservatives should be deeply concerned about this pick. Just because a Republican president nominates someone to the Supreme Court does not mean that individual will make a good judge. For example, Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy in 1987, and he turned out to be a complete and utter disaster. If Reagan had nominated someone different, the entire modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court could have been completely different. With the Court still so divided, the stakes are incredibly high, and we must not get another Kennedy. So it is troubling that Brett Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy and has always had nothing but good things to say about him. Anyone that would look to Justice Kennedy as any sort of a role model is definitely not fit for a seat on the highest court in the land.
Beyond his connections to Kennedy, what is troubling conservatives more than anything are some of his opinions while serving on the appellate court level.
For instance, not too long ago he ruled that an illegal immigrant “has a right to an abortion in the United States”…
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by President George W. Bush, accepted the assumption in a dissenting opinion he filed last October in the case of Garza v. Hargan that a teenage illegal alien caught at the border and put in detention has a right to an abortion in the United States.
In that opinion he also added that “all parties to this case recognize Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as precedents we must follow.”
READ MORE Politicians & Mass Killers Share Same Psychotropic, Drug-Induced Stare
Throughout his entire career, Kavanaugh has been extremely engaged in Republican politics, but he has never expressed public opposition to Roe v. Wade a single time.
So despite the outrageous claims of the left that Roe v. Wade “is about to be overturned”, the truth is that we actually have no idea how Brett Kavanaugh would rule on Roe v. Wade, and that is absolutely frightening.
In addition, back in 2011 Kavanaugh decided not to rule against Obamacare’s individual mandate…
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by President George W. Bush, declined to rule against Obamacare’s individual mandate when it came before his court in 2011 and argued that the case could not be decided by a federal court until at least 2015 because of the Anti-Injunction Act.
All nine members of the Supreme Court—including Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—would later join in opinions (in the Obamacare case that the Supreme Court decided in 2012) that rejected the argument Kavanaugh embraced that the Anti-Injunction Act prevented a pre-2015 ruling on the Obamacare mandate.
All of the “experts” on television keep telling us how “conservative” Kavanaugh is, but looking at his record that is hard to see.
And let us not forget his extremely close ties to the Bush family…
Following a brief period in private law practice, he became Bush’s White House counsel and then staff secretary before he was nominated to be a federal judge. He met his wife while working at the White House, where she was the president’s personal secretary.
Donald Trump likes to think that he is making his mark on the Supreme Court, but the reality of the matter is that we probably would have gotten the exact same nomination if George W. Bush was still in the White House today.
READ MORE White South African Farmers Seek Refuge In Russia: ‘Matter Of Life And Death’
I hope that he proves me wrong, but I believe that the nomination of Kavanaugh is a huge mistake. I believe that he is a moderate, especially on social issues, and I do not trust him.
But most conservatives are going to assume that Kavanaugh must be wonderful since he is “Trump’s choice”, and they are going to rally around him.
Instead, it will be the left that will try to keep Kavanaugh off the Court, and within minutes of the announcement of his nomination there were already hundreds of protesters on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court building…
It didn’t take long for protests to start. Around 15 minutes after the announcement, chants had shifted to “Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Kavanaugh has got to go.” Some protesters had makeshift signs that had been updated with the nominee only minutes after his announcement.
And of course good old Bernie Sanders was on hand to whip the protesters into a frenzy…
Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., told the crowd of protesters that they should be ready to challenge the nomination.
“Are you ready for a fight? Are you ready to defend Roe vs. Wade?” Sanders said. “This is a tough fight but it is a fight that we can win . . . We have the American people on our side, now we have to go state by state by state to make sure senators do what their constituents want.”
If the Democrats were smart, they would conduct some token protests to make it look good and then confirm Kavanaugh as quickly as possible.
READ MORE Maxine Waters Supporters: Civility is White Supremacy
With Trump in the White House, they simply are not going to get an activist liberal judge on to the Court. Another judge in the mold of Anthony Kennedy is about the best that they could possibly hope for, and that is very likely what they are going to get with Kavanaugh.
In the end, it is true conservatives that should be fighting this nomination, but we all know that is simply not going to happen.
Michael Snyder is a nationally syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters.
Courtesy of End of the American Dream"
The age of the appeasers is dead.
Agreed. We need more baby killin', trannys in the Service and entitlement programs for ALL people, not just US citizens.
"Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without." - Confucius
As stupid is it might be, if a law is Constitutional, it must be enforced unless and until it is changed.
Like Gorsuch said in his confirmation hearing (and I'm paraphrasing) My job is to apply the law, not make it. If you (Congress) don't like the law, it's your job to change it.
The supreme court is no place for an activist...left or right wing.
Again, you've got to look at the whole scope of his work, and there is a lot to look at. Both the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation are elated with the pick. That along with his work is very telling.
Not that you need a lot of money to be a SC justice and interpret the Constitution correctly, but I find it odd that a man of his education and employment stature is so woefully unprepared financially for retirement, or his kid's college costs. Of course, a $255,000/year lifetime pension, if he's confirmed, will certainly help.
Unashamedly guilty here - as long as we're defining 'moderate' correctly. By definition a moderate is not for strict adherence to the Constitution.
Therefore, I oppose moderate whackos as much as I oppose leftist whackos. They both lead us away, albeit at different speeds, from the Founders' intent.
If the former, I'm good to go; the sad reality is we do have some laws that produce less than desirable outcomes but that is the responsibility of Congress to address, not the judiciary. I have no regard for judicial activists and that is not predicated upon which direction they err; neither is acceptable.
I agree with KPC and Trax's assessments on this nominee.
Good question. I think a SC judge should have a well-rounded knowledge of most things, including business and finances. After all, many of their cases, and the laws that apply, relate to those subjects. Kavanaugh's lack of net worth implies to me a lack of acumen in those areas. Either that, or he lives well beyond his means, in which case I question his judgment.
I hope that answers your question.
Two young daughters involved in sports. Any other questions?
Probably. All the rest are.
It's pretty simple really. The man lives in a $1.5 million home. To his credit, it's paid for, which is what I'd expect from a successful lawyer and appellate judge of his age. But, he has less than $50K in the bank, no stocks, bonds, or funds and no 401K. He has 2 daughters who presumably will want college educations, and he's only 10 years away from retirement age. That doesn't sound like a man who has made responsible decisions with his money to me. So, I question his judgment both personally and professionally in those areas.
as long as he adheres to the constitution, and reads it as written, dosnt legislate from the bench, he'll be a good appointee ..
let the left make fools out of themselves.. they are good at doing it, their foolishness will only help come November ..
I suspect those two daughters are also in private school. Appellate court justices don't make a fortune, particularly if you're living in a very expensive real estate area. Yes, they make good money, but not great beltway money. I'm not seeing that Kavanaugh was in private practice for a long period of time, either. It's not a surprise that he is missing a large investment portfolio.
Also....he is not Scalia but he most definitely makes the court more conservative than it was. When one a lib seat comes open it will be game on and if the Republicans have an even larger majority in the Senate, which I fully expect, it will be a Scalia type which will be a donkey punch to the left for decades.
Perhaps he's a trust fund baby and doesn't have to worry about it, who knows. Like I said, it raised an eye-brow for me, but it's not a deal breaker.
Maybe the fact that he isn't rich tells us that he is an honest public servant who grew up without help of a silver spoon.
Is it possible that he values service over wealth accumulation?
In his DISSENTING opinion statement "He agreed with the Trump administration in a recent case that allowed an undocumented minor to obtain an abortion, writing in his dissent that the court created “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand.”"
Yes, the judgement went for the federally funded abortion of an illegal immigrant. But HIS position was a dissenting opinion.
Bownarrow - "...and what we as a society consider reasonable."
You mean like denying the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to millions of people by sucking, ripping and blending them from the womb?
Never knew there was a parent rule that you have to go into debt for your kids college education...
That is what the whole problem is with leftists. They don't care for rights nor laws but for the ones that they take from others and reserve for themselves.
Self serving and spoiled children.
Leftists want to use each decision/idea as the basis for the next.
That is why they hate anyone who wants to use either the Bible or the Constitution as the standard for making decisions.
Hope I didn't raise your blood pressure too much. You asked. I answered honestly.
Let's face it, financial success is a metric by which many influential people are measured. Our POTUS is perhaps the best example of that. Do you think Trump would have been elected without his many business and financial accomplishments? And don't you think that added to his credentials in some way?
A Justice who rules based on written law and the Constitution!
What a shock!
But no shock at all that some here don't approve of that approach, knowing nothing at all about the case, the law which was in question, nor the details of the case.
They'd rather SCOTUS Justices base their decisions based upon politics and 'feelings' as long as it fits their feelings and aligns with their 'alleged' politics.
As long those Justices aren't on the left, that is. If they are on the left, then the rule of written law applies. If they aren't on the left, the rule of law does not apply.
No surprise here, what-so-ever!
Well, Bown, it actually says "...keep and bear arms...but let that go. YES, I am. If he can afford one he can have one as far as my reading of the Constitution says!
What it does not say is 'only if a crazy liberal thinks it is "reasonable"!' THAT interpretation IS scary!
There are some things in the Constitution that might scare me a little but having it in writing as an official policy of this government to recognize that people have RIGHTS well beyond anything a government can give them and way beyond anything that a government can take away from them is not one of those things to me!!!
Was it really in line step with interpreting the law, or was there some implicit and emotional politics involved...?
But other than that one decision, he's been a pretty good choice.
MT in MO's Link
KPC- excellent quote
Spike- you don’t want Blind justice, you want someone to push a conservative agenda. Do you really think the Supreme Court will remain conservative forever?
Welcome back, Kyle.
If he rules on the constitution and how the law is written I say he is a win.
I still think there is a reason why Trump nominated him at this point in time. Either he felt he would get by a tight senate vote. Or if he don’t it will cause a change in some Red state democrat senators come Novembers vote. Then a more conservative judge will be nominated.
Sadly, this is true. There are a number of folks here that feel the same way. They say that want strict constitutionalists, but what they really want are right wing activist judges, just like they want right wing activist reporters and media.
You're more of a hypocrite than I thought. We've seen you blather on about how Trump's financial accomplishments exceeds our wildest dreams many times. And how that somehow qualifies him for the most influential position in the world. Now, when someone uses that same standard on a SC nomination, suddenly it's a "new low, previously thought not to be possible.". You're pathetic, and I wouldn't hesitate to say that to your face in person.
Now run along little man. I have no use for people like you.
What is that number? I've never seen anyone here say that Scalia, Thomas, Alito or Gorsuch weren't Constitutionalists; that they were merely conservative puppet activists. I hope Kavanaugh, if confirmed, is cut from the same cloth.
People seem to forget that at the heart of both the Constitution and Conservatism lies limited government. A strict Constitutionalist Supreme will be defined as a conservative activist by most Americans today.
Henry hit the nail on the head with his post re: using a template or standard piece by which to measure all others. There is only one acceptable standard, or there is no standard.
That said, the dude has had a long and successful career in one of the most lucrative professions in the US. And he's now nominated for the highest position in his profession. Wouldn't you think he'd have more to show for it at 53?
Do you honestly think the framers of our Constitution had crystal balls into the future?
Nope. God-given rights and principles don't require cheap parlor tricks.
However, they do require principled men to keep them. Hence, the Framers' wise decision to include the SCOTUS as the final say on whether or not something is Constitutional.
Unfortunately, we've allowed politics and self-interest to infiltrate every corner of our lives. How else can one explain the legalization of chopping up tiny humans; or being forced to purchase a product?
every person on that list of 25 has something in their background that someone will complain about .... everyone of those finalist's has something in their background one could find fault with ..... every one here aint perfect either, me thinks some sit to high on their branches
As do I.
The “number” I refer to that simply want a right wing activist, both in the SC and the media are obvious. I’ll leave it at that.
The only way a guy has your opinion is if he is solidly a leftist.
I could be wrong about you but I get the impression that you think the constitution is black and white. While in some cases it could be easily applied literally, many of the cases that arrive in the Supreme Court require that the Constitution be relatively abstractly applied to determine a verdict. You sound like you want a judge that is going to see the Constitution and how it applies definitively. I’m not sure how a judge can do that without being an activist or having an agenda.
I'm about as conservative as they come, but I am repulsed by zealots on either side.
There is a vast difference between a strict constitutionalist and a lapdog judge for the right. One easy way to pick out a right wing zealot is to watch what they say to anyone who disagrees with them. They immediately call anyone that might not agree with their assessment of a given situation 100% of the time a leftist, a liberal, a socialist or any one of their made up names for someone who is not all in- all the time.
Same thing with being a fair and balanced journalist. Some people want actual fair and balanced coverage, some people want one side to BE the balance to a radical leftist ideology by doing exactly the same thing only on the opposite end of the spectrum. That's not fair and balanced, that's just one nutcase on the opposite end of the political spectrum from another nutcase. Unfortunately, some people don't quite understand the difference.
Nothin more the liberals want than a left of center Republican Party, a liberal Republican Party. Then they can't lose, can they? A liberal Party if they lose, their radically America hating leftist Party if they win. President Trump has crashed their little plan. Thank you President Trump!
Both these men are hated and treated with vitriol by the majority of the left. Not because they act in, or espouse, an extra-constitutional manner (by definition anti-American), rather because they both stand in support of the Constitution.
Those who advocate for and tolerate a departure from strict Constitutional principle and governance do their best (along with all dems, most repubs, hollyweird, the msm and many athletes with a mic in their face) to characterize supporters of the Constitution as right wing extremists. The reality is they have simply chosen different departure speeds away from our Founding principles. They can't stomach the thought of individual responsibilities being necessary for individual rights and liberties to exist.
There is no 'fair or balanced' based in truth or reality. The only realistic expectation an American should have is to have our rights defended and protected. Regardless of where one sits on the spectrum, if they are not in full support of the Constitution, they are actively working toward its demise, whether they acknowledge it or not.
As he often does, Henry nailed it above when he posted:
"Leftists want to use each decision/idea as the basis for the next.
That is why they hate anyone who wants to use either the Bible or the Constitution as the standard for making decisions."
When I was a child I measured people and men by their height, but what did I know? You have persisted to reside in that same place and time in childhood and your idiotic remarks reflect that persistence. Your glaring educational shortcomings are in dire need of a severely neglected silverware's attention.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
You apparently assume that anyone that doesn't agree with you on specific interpretations of the Constitution are therefore engaging in "a departure from strict Constitutional principle"
That is simply not accurate.
What issues have they moved "way right" on in the last 40-50 years? Nearly every position I can think of has moved left over that time. A correction from a leftist path and getting back to what one sees as the correct path is just that, a correction, not a "move way right". Just as actively opposing leftist/socialist designs on the country is not "moving way right".
What positions do you consider "way right" that conservatives (much less republicans) have moved to recently?
Since we're trying this case in the court of public opinion, the standard for evidence is not quite as stringent as in a real court. Respectfully, KPC, one would need to be willfully blind not to see that my parenthetical list of actors above has overwhelmingly described those who disagree with them politically as extremists, dangerous, misogynists, racists, bigots, homophobes, xenophobes, hate-mongers, war-mongers, etc. This has become the norm from those that vote democrat. You may want to shrug it off as anecdotal, but that is reality. I am not whining about the treatment, simply calling attention to the fact that that is how they act, and therefore think. And as bad as it is for people on the right, the treatment is worse for pro-life dems or black conservatives.
You are wrong - the evidence easily supports my assertion.
"You apparently assume that anyone that doesn't agree with you on specific interpretations of the Constitution are therefore engaging in "a departure from strict Constitutional principle"
That is simply not accurate."
A strict interpretation of the Constitution would not allow for the murder of unborn babies. They aren't going to be born dogs, cats, rats or fish. They are people.
A strict interpretation of the Constitution would not allow the government to force us, at the point of a gun, to buy a product we don't want.
A strict interpretation of the Constitution would not allow for the confiscation of arms from law abiding citizens.
A strict interpretation of the Constitution would not allow for the the same rights of US citizens to be granted to non-citizens.
A strict interpretation of the Constitution would not allow an individual or business to be compelled to provide a good or service in direct conflict with their religion or faith.
These are some of the biggies on the stage at this moment in US history. Any departure from them is anti-American at its core. Yet, nearly all democrats and many republicans want to modify the Constitution by eroding individuals' rights to create some imaginary 'fairness' based on emotion.
Interpretation is not some gaseous cloud of feelings surrounding issues where one can pick and choose their beliefs due to desires or life experiences. Interpretation is simply a way of explaining something - in this case, the Framers' intent. One would be delusional to think the Framers left wiggle room in the Constitution for sanctioned murder of innocents or for the citizenry to be unarmed and left at the mercy of the fedgov.
My assertions are EXTREMELY accurate.
I think you guys are on exactly the same page. You just express it differently.
I'd be comfortable with either one of you guarding my liberties and my God given rights.
That's refreshing, because so many of the self-proclaimed 'conservatives' here couldn't name five of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, have no idea who the primary authors of the Constitution were, and couldn't tell us five of the amendments of the Bill of Rights, let alone name even half of the other amendments.
Essentially, to paraphrase an old saying about a person's lack of knowledge, they couldn't spell the equivalant of The Declaration or the Constitution if you spotted them the C and the T.
But by God, they believe they are conservatives and how dare you challenge that!
Your frame of reference is too short and too shallow.
And yet abortion was legal (up until “quickening” - when a baby was felt to move) and widely practiced at the time the Framers wrote the Constitution and the first laws outlawing abortions weren’t passed 100 years until after the ratification of the Comstitution.
A textualist interpretation of the Constitution reveals nothing about abortion. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. Scalia, one of the strictest Justices of our time, understood this when he said “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.” Goes to show there is plenty of room for Constitutional interpretation, even when taking a conservative approach.
Do you realize you just agreed that there is no Constitutional right to abortion?
This is a matter for the states to decide re. the Tenth Amendment, which states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
For the hard of hearing, this means this is an issue for each state to decide, not for the federal government.
No, it does not.
That's left for the states to decide, which they do.
Worth repeating. Thank you, Kyle.
Abortion isn't a Constitutional issue. It's a moral issue that the left and right have picked sides on.
"Right" took a fairly hard left turn with "Compassionate Conservatism" and other such drivel several years ago. Many republicans became RINOs, democrat lite. That conservatives have turned away from such failure is moving back to their foundations, still a far cry from "far right". They have barely crossed back over the center line....
The right likes foundations. Using the same scale for all. Solid bases of facts and noting results of actions, good and bad. The left seems emotionally attached to fairyland dreams of what the world should be but no idea of the impossible task to make fantasy reality. They always run out of other people's stuff first.
The left see the right moving further right because they themselves move the entire center line to the left...... thus they become that feel good "centrist" with their mobile goal posts and temporary 50 yard lines.....
The 5th and 14th Amendments have been erased from your copy? Sucks to be you. The Declaration of Indepence also addresses the value of human life. It is up to us, up to medical science, to determine what is human life.
You are wrong - the evidence easily supports my assertion."
Apparently you missed my point.
Everything you said is accurate. However, it can all be said about the zealots on the right also. The only thing different is the names that they use. That is why I said the following"
"I'm about as conservative as they come, but I am repulsed by zealots on either side."
You would also have to be willfully blind not to see it play out here and elsewhere on a daily basis.
The notion that being a strict constitutionalist eliminates any differences in interpretation is simply not accurate.
Even Scalia, widely considered to be a strict constitutional textualist, didn't believe the 2A was absolute.
From John Adams to his wife about Independence Day. “The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not. “
The founders were special men. Their knowledge and foresight seams almost prophetic.
without quoting more of each other's quotes, and quotes of quotes, suffice it to say I agree with you on zealots of each side. However, the zealots on the left FAR outnumber those on the right. Provide a list of what you determine to be egregious assaults on Constitutional principle by right wing zealots and I'll respond with ten times that many from the left. The caveat being that threats from either faction must be/have been credible to the point of being argued in front of the SCOTUS or a legislative bill reaching at least the committee hearing level.
People posting opinions on internet forums don't count. They are merely an indication of an ideological bent. They have no teeth. They mean nothing. Therefore, seeing the zealots playing in their respective sandboxes has no bearing on this discussion.
With regard to Scalia's stance on the Second Amendment's limitations, no one is perfect. It seems that most agree the Framers' intent with regard to the 2nd was to codify the Right to defend ourselves from any threat; including a tyrannical, out of control government. If limitations exist that render our personal arms useless against those threats, then what is the point of the 2nd?
The fact remains that those on the political left are not "interpreting" the Constitution differently, they are on a never ceasing, ever increasing campaign to rewrite the very document that provides our structure. The relative handful of right wing whackos don't have the numbers, or necessary support through representation to affect their desired changes.
NvaGvUp - thank you for that sentiment. KPC thinks for himself. I have grown immensely in my views, due in part, to his challenges over the years.
Spike Bull 's Link
Andrew NapolitanoOPINION By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano | Fox News
Judge Nap: What Kavanaugh's SCOTUS confirmation would mean
Judge Napolitano's Chambers: Judge Andrew Napolitano explains how President Trump's Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh's views on the fourth amendment contradict what the framers of the United States constitution.
When Donald Trump started running for the Republican nomination for president in June 2015, he began by attacking the Republican establishment in Washington, and he began his attack by calling the establishment "the swamp."
His real target was the permanent government and its enablers in the legal, financial, diplomatic and intelligence communities in Washington. These entities hover around power centers no matter which party is in power.
A Message from Chevron
The powerful economic lift of natural gas
The natural gas and oil industry supports 10.3 million U.S. jobs today, half a million more than in 2011.
Beneath the swamp, Trump argued, lies the deep state. This is a loose collection of career government officials who operate outside ordinary legal and constitutional frameworks and use the levers of government power to favor their own, affect public policy and stay in power. Though I did not vote for Trump -- I voted for the Libertarian candidate -- a part of me rejoiced at his election because I accepted his often repeated words that he would be a stumbling block to the deep state and he'd drain the swamp.
On Monday night, he rewarded the swamp denizens and deep state outliers by nominating one of their own to the Supreme Court.
Here is the back story.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia -- my friend during the final 10 years of his life -- and his neighbor and colleague Justice Anthony Kennedy often remarked to each other during the Obama years that each would like to leave the Supreme Court upon the election of a Republican president. Scalia's untimely death in February 2016 denied him that choice, but Kennedy bided his time.
When Trump was elected president, Kennedy told friends that he needed to await Trump's nominee to replace Scalia to gauge whether the judicially untested Trump could be counted upon to choose a nominee of Kennedy's liking and Scalia's standing.
Trump knew Kennedy's thinking, and that guided him in choosing Neil Gorsuch for Scalia's seat. Gorsuch believes in the primacy of the individual and natural rights and is generally skeptical of government regulators. He is also a former Kennedy clerk.
So the Gorsuch selection was intended to serve two purposes. The first was to pick a Scalia-like thinker for the court as candidate Trump had promised, and the second was to give Kennedy a comfort level so he could retire and give President Trump a second nominee. It worked.
When Kennedy paid an unprecedented visit to the Oval Office two weeks ago, ostensibly to tell the president of his intention to retire, he also had a secret purpose -- to recommend his replacement. The announcement of Kennedy's departure began a firestorm of lobbying in behalf of four people from a list of 25 potential nominees that Trump had published when searching for Scalia's replacement.
The idea of a published list is novel. But it cemented loyalty from conservatives to Trump, who, of course, had no track record in evaluating or appointing judicial nominees. The standards used to put names on the list involved examining academic credentials and published works and, with the exception of one person, requiring judicial experience with a traditionalist bent, even if brief.
Social and religious conservatives pushed the president to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a fiercely Catholic mother of seven and former Notre Dame Law School professor who is a known opponent of abortion. Intellectual conservatives pushed for Judge Raymond Kethledge, a philosopher like Justice Gorsuch who believes in the primacy of the individual and who recognizes natural rights. The president's sister Judge Maryanne Trump Barry had her brother convinced that her colleague Judge Thomas Hardiman, a blue-collar diamond-in-the-rough conservative, would fulfill his promise to his base.
But at the last minute, a gaggle of Washington lawyers and lobbyists -- called the establishment when you agree with them and the swamp when you don't -- persuaded the president to reject his commitment to his sister and nominate Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He is the man Justice Kennedy had asked the president to nominate and is another former Kennedy clerk.
The suspense over all this was palpable earlier this week. The showman in the president beat a drum so effectively last weekend that we all watched with excited pulse rates on Monday night. I was and remain extremely disappointed. Donald Trump -- whatever you think of him as a president -- has been utterly faithful to his campaign promises in foreign and domestic policy. Until now.
Now he has given us a nominee to the highest court in the land who typifies the culture he railed against when he claimed he'd drain the swamp. This man and this culture accept cutting holes in the Fourth Amendment because they don't believe that it should protect privacy. This man and this culture accept unlimited spying on innocent Americans by the National Security Agency because they don't believe that the NSA is subject to the Constitution.
This man and this culture even looked the other way in the face of deep state shenanigans against President Trump himself. This man and this culture accept the federal regulation of health care and its command that everyone buy health insurance, called Obamacare. This man and this culture embrace the Nixonian mantra that if the president does it, it is not illegal.
What happened here?
The Kavanaugh nomination is not a question of his qualifications; it is a question of his values. It is dangerous for judges to embrace values that diminish personal freedom rather than expand it. When they do that, they reveal their view that freedom comes from the government, not from within us. Thomas Jefferson and all the Founding Fathers profoundly rejected the government-as-source-of-freedom argument, but Judge Kavanaugh accepts it.
Jefferson once remarked that unless you pick someone's pocket or break someone's leg, no one should care how you exercise your freedom or pursue happiness. I wish the president had nominated a person who believes that, as well. But he didn't."
Without a doubt true.
My point, as it pertains to this conversation, was not just about judges, but about what kind of judges posters here claim they want.
"They say that want strict constitutionalists, but what they really want are right wing activist judges, just like they want right wing activist reporters and media."
I have very little fear that we will end up with judges that are too conservative. What does concern me are the right wing zealots...both in the general population and in congress, that are willing to discount good quality judges like Kavanaugh in the hopes of getting some perfect judge that may or may not even exist.
That is why I posted the following:
""Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without." - Confucius
Thank God enough of us were willing to go with the flawed diamond or Hillary would be making these SC picks.
Thank God?....Yes!... on bended knee, out stretched arms and the wails of mercy.