Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing

[Pressing-On]

[Pressing-On]

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I hate dirty politics.

I guess this is just how the game is played.

Anyway, while I may not agree with him on everything, I don't see a glaring reason not to confirm him.

Lisa Blatt is a "liberal feminist lawyer," using her words. She was one of three individuals who introduced Kavanaugh at the hearing today.

Excerpts of an article she wrote (IIRC this was also her statement in the hearing today)

"""Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who had long been considered the most qualified nominee for the Supreme Court if Republicans secured the White House. The Senate should confirm him.""""

"""He is supremely qualified."""

"""My standard is whether the nominee is unquestionably well-qualified, brilliant, has integrity and is within the mainstream of legal thought. Kavanaugh easily meets those criteria."""

"""It’s easy to forget that the 41 Republican senators who voted to confirm Ginsburg knew she was a solid vote in favor of Roe, but nonetheless voted for her because of her overwhelming qualifications. Just as a Democratic nominee with similar credentials and mainstream legal views deserves to be confirmed, so too does Kavanaugh—not because he will come out the way I want in each case or even most cases, but because he will do the job with dignity, intelligence, empathy and integrity.

Democrats should quit attacking Kavanaugh—full stop. It is unbecoming to block him simply because they want to, and they risk alienating intelligent people who see the obvious: He is the most qualified conservative for the job. """

Link

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by n david

He is the most qualified conservative for the job.

And therein lies the problem for the Dimmies, he's a conservative. And if that wasn't criminal enough, he had the audacity to be appointed by their mortal enemy, Trump.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

Lisa Blatt is a "liberal feminist lawyer," using her words. She was one of three individuals who introduced Kavanaugh at the hearing today.

Excerpts of an article she wrote (IIRC this was also her statement in the hearing today)

"""Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who had long been considered the most qualified nominee for the Supreme Court if Republicans secured the White House. The Senate should confirm him.""""

"""He is supremely qualified."""

"""My standard is whether the nominee is unquestionably well-qualified, brilliant, has integrity and is within the mainstream of legal thought. Kavanaugh easily meets those criteria."""

"""It’s easy to forget that the 41 Republican senators who voted to confirm Ginsburg knew she was a solid vote in favor of Roe, but nonetheless voted for her because of her overwhelming qualifications. Just as a Democratic nominee with similar credentials and mainstream legal views deserves to be confirmed, so too does Kavanaugh—not because he will come out the way I want in each case or even most cases, but because he will do the job with dignity, intelligence, empathy and integrity.

Democrats should quit attacking Kavanaugh—full stop. It is unbecoming to block him simply because they want to, and they risk alienating intelligent people who see the obvious: He is the most qualified conservative for the job. """

Link

This tells me he is another Trojan Horse "justice". Typical of the GOP, appointing people that communists like. Just like Ginsberg, and all the others.

"Most qualified conservative for the job". More and more people are waking up to the fact that "conservative" isn't what they thought it was, and are no longer identifying as "conservative". I know I have, and I know many others (out in the real world, not intardnetistan) who have as well.

But hey, the C-SPAN hunger games are part of the Big Club, that neither you nor I are members of....

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This tells me he is another Trojan Horse "justice". Typical of the GOP, appointing people that communists like. Just like Ginsberg, and all the others.

"Most qualified conservative for the job". More and more people are waking up to the fact that "conservative" isn't what they thought it was, and are no longer identifying as "conservative". I know I have, and I know many others (out in the real world, not intardnetistan) who have as well.

But hey, the C-SPAN hunger games are part of the Big Club, that neither you nor I are members of....

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This tells me he is another Trojan Horse "justice".

Except that his track record pretty much speaks for itself, as to whether he would judge Constitutionally or not. Just because one lefty likes him, doesn't mean he's a "Trojan horse". Hey, maybe you're right and we'll have another Kennedy justice. However, there's nothing at this time to confirm that assertion.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Except that his track record pretty much speaks for itself, as to whether he would judge Constitutionally or not. Just because one lefty likes him, doesn't mean he's a "Trojan horse". Hey, maybe you're right and we'll have another Kennedy justice. However, there's nothing at this time to confirm that assertion.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, forcefully defended the National Security Agency’s dragnet collection of domestic call records, alarming privacy advocates who view the collection as unconstitutional.
...
The dragnet ingested and stored for five years domestic phone call metadata for potential later use in intelligence investigations, but there was no evidence it ever helped foil a terror plot against the U.S.

Kavanaugh wrote that the dragnet collection did not constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, citing the third-party doctrine established by the Supreme Court's 1979 decision in Smith v. Maryland — a common perspective among judges.

But he added that even if it was a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, the government was allowed to take the records because it had a “special need” in preventing terrorism, overriding the privacy interests of people whose records were taken without a warrant. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ation-question

The opinion he write is here: http://lyldenlawnews.com/wp-content/...A-11-20-15.pdf

[Esaias]

"Track record"? His track record is that he wrote an opinion tossing the fourth amendment into the trash can.

But he's a "conservative" so the games continue...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"Track record"? His track record is that he wrote an opinion tossing the fourth amendment into the trash can.

But he's a "conservative" so the games continue...

"...citing the third-party doctrine established by the Supreme Court's 1979 decision in Smith v. Maryland."

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...s/442/735/#739

That is his job as a judge - to cite law that is already established by the Supreme Court. It is NOT his job to WRITE law, which he did not do.

Good grief.