^^^ Not to mention the track record of being a clear and able writer that I asked for.

According to the Daily Beast, Justice Kavanaugh will make contraception and same-sex unions illegal.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/...nd-same-sex-marriage

Whoa, Kavanaugh's powerful, dude...




Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s Supreme Court Pick, Is Probably the End of Abortion Rights and Same-Sex Marriage
He's a hard-core conservative on everything from the environment to big business, but just quiet enough on social issues to make opposing him difficult for Democrats.

Jay Michaelson
JAY MICHAELSON
07.09.18 10:33 PM ET
When President Trump Monday nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, he probably doomed the right to abortion, same-sex marriage, and maybe even contraception.

Kavanaugh, 53, has spent 12 years as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court, often thought of as the second most powerful court in the country. Prior to that, Kavanaugh worked for the Office of the Independent Counsel under Ken Starr. There, he headed up the probe into the suicide of longtime Bill Clinton attorney and friend Vince Foster and eventually helped write the Starr Report about President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

“Judge Kavanaugh has impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications, and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law,” Trump said during a prime-time address at the White House.

That much is true. There is no question that Kavanaugh is highly qualified and widely respected. In addition to serving as a judge, Kavanaugh teaches at both Harvard and Yale law schools. (Well-known liberal professor at Yale, Akhil Amar, published “A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh” in the New York Times after the announcement.) His ethical reputation is impeccable.

But while Kavanaugh’s record on women’s and LGBT rights is sparse, it gives good reason to suspect that he could be the swing vote to strike down Roe v. Wade, the abortion-rights case. This, after all, is what Trump promised in 2016: that Roe would be “automatically” be overturned should he be elected. And Kavanaugh has been praised by numerous right-wing organizations.

In the case of Garza v. Hargan, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that an undocumented teenage immigrant was entitled to obtain an abortion without having to obtain familial consent (as is required in several states).


Kavanaugh vigorously dissented, asking, “Is it really absurd for the United States to think that the minor should be transferred to her immigration sponsor ― ordinarily a family member, relative, or friend ― before she makes that decision?”

Those are strong words, endorsing not only parental consent rules but enforcing them in extreme circumstances. If you are looking for signals that a Justice Kavanaugh would limit or overturn Roe, Garza is a giant red flare.

Surprisingly, however, Kavanaugh may not be conservative enough to survive the confirmation process. There is even talk that conservatives might revolt against Kavanaugh, as they did in 2005 against George W. Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers. The reason? Many conservatives wanted Kavanaugh to cast doubt on the teenager’s right to get an abortion at all, which another dissenting judge did.

Legally speaking, that objection is absurd. Not unlike “judicial minimalist” Chief Justice John Roberts, Kavanaugh was discussing the case at issue, not some hypothetical issue. And he was responding to the circuit court’s holding, not writing an essay.

But there’s more. Some conservatives have pointed to dicta in another Kavanaugh opinion, a dissent in Priests for Life v. HHS, a case similar to Hobby Lobby involving the Affordable Care Act’s contraception requirement. While dissenting in favor of the Catholic religious organization objecting to the requirement, Kavanaugh wrote that the “the Government has a compelling interest in facilitating women’s access to contraception” because of a variety of factors, such as “reducing the number of unintended pregnancies would further women’s health, advance women’s personal and professional opportunities, reduce the number of abortions, and help break a cycle of poverty.”

Kavanaugh is writing here about the state’s interest in access to contraception, not whether an individual has a constitutional right to access it. Those are totally different questions. But Kavanaugh’s opinion doesn’t question the constitutional right either, which rests on the same foundations (substantive due process, privacy, family) as the right to obtain an abortion. It is reasonable to wonder whether Judge Kavanaugh’s dicta in Priests for Life suggests more flexibility on contraception and abortion than hard-right conservatives would like.

Politically, however, it might be enough to tar Kavanaugh with the “soft on abortion” label in the right-wing echo chamber, and all it takes is a single Republican senator to doom his nomination, assuming no Democrats cross the aisle. Already, the Democrats’ leader in the Senate, Charles Schumer, said he would oppose Kavanaugh.

As for LGBT issues, Kavanaugh’s record is thin, but enough to worry LGBT activists, who fear he will limit or overturn gay people’s constitutional right to marriage. In a case anticipating the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby case, Kavanaugh held that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that qualified insurance plans include contraception coverage violated the religious freedom of employers.

That is the same logic that was at issue in last month’s Masterpiece Cakeshop case before the Supreme Court, which pitted the rights of LGBT people to be free from discrimination against a bakery owner’s rights to religious freedom. (The court ruled in favor of the owner on a technicality.)

Moreover, despite the misgivings of some conservatives, Kavanaugh was vetted by the Federalist Society and its de facto leader Leonard Leo. It is highly unlikely that the Federalist Society would approve a judicial candidate who didn’t toe the line on overturning Roe, and Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case.

While the Federalist Society can ask Judge Kavanaugh about his views privately and get a straight answer, it’s a certainty that when Congress asks, he will chant the mantras of “I will apply the law fairly and respect precedent” and “I can’t comment on any hypothetical case.”

That’s just like what Trump said in nominating Kavanaugh.

“In keeping with President Reagan’s legacy, I do not ask about a nominee’s personal opinions,” he said. “What matters is not a judge’s political views but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the constitution require. I am pleased to say that I have found, without doubt, such a person.”

In contrast, the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo said following the nomination that "Brett Kavanaugh is among the most distinguished and respected judges in the country, with nearly 300 opinions that clearly demonstrate fairness and a commitment to interpreting the Constitution as it’s written, and enforcing the limits on government power contained in the Constitution.”

Unlike what Trump said, Leo’s statement is a dog-whistle to conservatives. “Interpreting the Constitution as it’s written” means that substantive due process, the doctrine underneath Roe, Obergefell —and even Griswold v. Connecticut, which forbids the government from banning contraception — is illegitimate. That means all those cases are on the chopping block.

And “enforcing the limits on government power” means curbing the power government agencies. Here, Kavanaugh’s record is crystal clear: he has voted to overturn several EPA decisions; sided with conservatives on net neutrality, holding that the Obama-era FCC exceeded its authority; and said in 2016 that the entire Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutional.

“‘Interpreting the Constitution as it’s written’ means that substantive due process, the doctrine underneath Roe, Obergefell — and even Griswold v. Connecticut, which forbids the government from banning contraception — is illegitimate.”
Kavanaugh may be a relatively blank slate on abortion and LGBT equality, but the slate is covered with chalk when it comes to environmental, health, safety, and consumer protection regulations.

Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen noted that “in one decision—later reversed by the Supreme Court—he blocked an Environmental Protection Agency rule that would limit dangerous interstate air pollution from power plants. In another case, he barred people who regularly drive on highways from suing to secure stronger car and truck safety standards.”

What’s most surprising about Trump picking Kavanaugh, though, are Kavanaugh’s stated views on presidents defending themselves against criminal investigations while in office.

After his stint working for Starr, Kavanaugh wrote in the Minnesota Law Review, that Congress should consider passing a law exempting the president civil and “criminal prosecution and investigation” while they are in office.

That may seem like Trump’s most fervent wish, and it has been interpreted that way by some left-leaning commentators. Actually, however, Kavanaugh’s reasoning cuts the other way, and poses a real risk for Trump.

“Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job is, I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The country wants the President to be ‘one of us’ who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office.”

In other words, it’s impossible to function as both the subject of a criminal investigation and the president of the United States. Moreover, Kavanaugh said, impeachment is the appropriate process for such matters.

It remains to be seen whether Kavanaugh will sail through his confirmation process, or be opposed by the right, or be opposed by a handful of moderates siding with the Democratic opposition.

Perhaps anticipating some of the criticism of Kavanaugh, American Conservative Union President Matt Schlapp (who, like Kavanaugh, is former Bush 43 administration official) wrote in The Hill that “Too many times, conservatives have been burned by Supreme Court nominees who lack a judicial record that demonstrates their approach.”

Yet Schapp distinguished Kavanaugh from such past candidates, saying “Judge Kavanaugh has consistently, boldly, and fearlessly applied textualism and originalism to a striking range of legal issues.”

That is exactly what advocates women’s and LGBT rights fear.

Even the machine that twisted the suspension cables for the Golden Gate Bridge isn't powerful enough to untwist the Dem panties that are currently in knots over Kavanaugh's nomination. The preprepared fill-in-the-blank faux outrage is overflowing.

Are there any cases in the pipeline to SCOTUS that could overturn Roe v Wade? How about gay marriage? Why is the left freaking out so much?

It's as if the day after confirmation LGBT people will be assassinated and babies shoved up women's viginias.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Are there any cases in the pipeline to SCOTUS that could overturn Roe v Wade? How about gay marriage? Why is the left freaking out so much?

It's as if the day after confirmation LGBT people will be assassinated and babies shoved up women's viginias.

That was supposed to happen after DJT got elected. The gays with all the gay hand wringing and talk about being sent to gay camps etc...

I'm waiting for someone to get a challenge to Griswald up the food chain. I'd love to see that piece of legal trash crushed.

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
I didn't like his decision on a particular eminent domain case a number of years ago (government condemning property for commercial development), but did like his decision on another eminent domain case subsequent to that (government suing to stop subdividing out of environmental concerns). Both went against the property owners. All rather proving the point that's being made.

Kelo vs New London? Roberts wasn't on that one but nevertheless that one chapped my hide.

Boy, that sure looks like it. I would've sworn Roberts was on the one I'm thinking of, but I could be confused.

Given how fast the “Stop Kavanaugh” signs, shirts and banners went up, I have to wonder if this is going to be like a NCAA tournament to where we will start seeing people in Uganda wearing “Stop Barrett” T shirts?

If some of you didn't get the choice(pick) that you wanted, just wait!!! With luck and karma, DJT may make 1-2 MORE picks for SCOTUS before his time is up.....ahhh, what a wonderful thought.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If not during President Trump's time, then the 8 years that Mike Pence is in office.



Sidebar...some of you with your negativity amaze me. The dude isn't even sworn in yet and some of y'all are all up his sphincter with your negative waves, Moriarty.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If not during President Trump's time, then the 8 years that Mike Pence is in office.

I can't wait to see who Ivanka picks also.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
I'm waiting for someone to get a challenge to Griswald up the food chain. I'd love to see that piece of legal trash crushed.

No one is overruling Griswold. It is a logical disaster as far as legal reasoning and constitutional jursiprudence, but after 53 years it isn't going anywhere.

You hoping it gets overruled is just as overwrought as the left fearing it will be overruled.

Settle down.

Let's get real. Griswold and Roe are almost certainly not going to be overruled. What can happen is that the states so inclined will pass restrictions on abortion. (Requiring second opinions, stricter licensing, whatever.) As long as they don't amount to de-facto bans, this new court might uphold some of those restrictions when previous courts wouldn't. That is what the fight is actually about. I'd say the chance that Roe is overruled is close to zero, and the chance that Griswold is overruled is zero.

(And no state would impose restrictions on contraception, anyway.)

We need one thread for SCOTUS discussions. Trying to keep up with both is confusing.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:No one is overruling Griswold. It is a logical disaster as far as legal reasoning and constitutional jursiprudence, but after 53 years it isn't going anywhere.

You hoping it gets overruled is just as overwrought as the left fearing it will be overruled.

Settle down.

Let's get real. Griswold and Roe are almost certainly not going to be overruled. What can happen is that the states so inclined will pass restrictions on abortion. (Requiring second opinions, stricter licensing, whatever.) As long as they don't amount to de-facto bans, this new court might uphold some of those restrictions when previous courts wouldn't. That is what the fight is actually about. I'd say the chance that Roe is overruled is close to zero, and the chance that Griswold is overruled is zero.

(And no state would impose restrictions on contraception, anyway.)

Agree 100% with every thing though I would add that Griswold is a backwards abortion of logical reasoning. Talk about pulling shit out of your ass, complete with emanations.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
We need one thread for SCOTUS discussions. Trying to keep up with both is confusing.

Maybe the easiest way to do it is to simply drop these two threads and start a new one on the confirmation process - the big story is no longer that Kennedy retired or who's in the pool of potential nominees.

I agree, a thread specifically on Kavenaugh's confirmation would be best.

How about the one I just opened about wooing the Senators?

Let’s go to that one.

I don't know if the SCOTUS, even with five solid conservatives, would have the guts to say that Griswald is utter legal bullshit (which, of course, it is.) That would slaughter a lot of left wing sacred cows. But if you want to get jurisprudence back in sync with the Constitution itself, it HAS to go.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
I'm waiting for someone to get a challenge to Griswald up the food chain. I'd love to see that piece of legal trash crushed.

No one is overruling Griswold. It is a logical disaster as far as legal reasoning and constitutional jursiprudence, but after 53 years it isn't going anywhere.

You hoping it gets overruled is just as overwrought as the left fearing it will be overruled.

Settle down.

Let's get real. Griswold and Roe are almost certainly not going to be overruled. What can happen is that the states so inclined will pass restrictions on abortion. (Requiring second opinions, stricter licensing, whatever.) As long as they don't amount to de-facto bans, this new court might uphold some of those restrictions when previous courts wouldn't. That is what the fight is actually about. I'd say the chance that Roe is overruled is close to zero, and the chance that Griswold is overruled is zero.

(And no state would impose restrictions on contraception, anyway.)

I am as sure as I can be that they won't overrule Griswold. And it is a wreck of an opinion.

But they don't have to overrule it. There is old, bad law out there that just dies out without being overruled. No one cites it anymore, and everyone knows it doesn't have much precedential value. Judges and lawyers don't claim the penumbras and emanations as the source of "new" rights. Some legal threads just turn into dead ends.

The damage is done, if you think Griswold led to Roe. The courts may allow more abortion restrictions now. They will distinguish the old cases, and shunt them onto sidetracks of varying degrees of irrelevance without ever overruling them.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
No one cites it anymore, and everyone knows it doesn't have much precedential value.

Like it never even happened.