Trump picks conservative judge Kavanaugh for U.S. Supreme Court

[webfact]

Trump picks conservative judge Kavanaugh for U.S. Supreme Court

By Lawrence Hurley

 

U.S. President Donald Trump and his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh are seen in the East Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., July 9, 2018. REUTERS/Jim Bourg

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Monday announced Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, picking a conservative federal appeals court judge who survived a previous tough Senate confirmation battle and helped investigate Democratic former President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

 

In picking the 53-year-old Kavanaugh, Trump aimed to entrench conservative control of the court for years to come with his second lifetime appointment to the nation's highest judicial body in his first 18 months as president.

 

Kavanaugh now faces what appears to be another fierce fight for confirmation in the Senate, where Trump's fellow Republicans hold a slim majority. If confirmed, Kavanaugh would replace long-serving conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his retirement on June 27 at age 81.

 

"Throughout legal circles he's considered a judge's judge, a true thought leader among his peers," Trump, who named conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch to the court last year, told an applauding audience in the White House East Room.

 

"He's a brilliant jurist with a clear and effective writing style, universally regarded as one of the finest and sharpest legal minds of our time. And just like Justice Gorsuch, he excelled as a legal clerk for Justice Kennedy," Trump added, saying his nominee "deserves a swift confirmation and robust bipartisan support."

 

Kavanaugh has amassed a solidly conservative judicial record since 2006 on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the same court where three current justices including Chief Justice John Roberts previously served. Some conservative activists have questioned whether he would rule sufficiently aggressively as a justice.

 

Kavanaugh potentially could serve on the high court for decades. Trump's other leading candidates for the post were fellow federal appellate judges Thomas Hardiman, Raymond Kethledge and Amy Coney Barrett.

 

"My judicial philosophy is straightforward: a judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law. A judge must interpret statutes as written. And a judge must interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history, and tradition and precedent," Kavanaugh said during the ceremony in which he underscored his ties to his family and his Roman Catholic faith.

 

Kavanaugh served as a senior White House official under Republican former President George W. Bush before Bush picked nominated him to the appeals court in 2003. But some Democrats accused him of excessive partisanship and it took three years before the Senate eventually voted to confirm him.

 

Kavanaugh worked for Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation of Clinton helped spur an effort by congressional Republicans in 1998 and 1999 to impeach the Democratic president and remove him from office. Kavanaugh in 2009 changed his tune on the Starr probe, arguing that presidents should be free from civil lawsuits, criminal prosecutions and investigations while in office.

 

Trump defeated Clinton's wife, Hillary Clinton, in the 2016 presidential election and has disparaged both Clintons.

 

Democrats in the past also have pointed to Kavanaugh's work for Bush during the recount fight in the pivotal state of Florida in the 2000 presidential election, a controversy that was resolved only after the conservative-majority Supreme Court sided with Bush over Democratic candidate Al Gore, settling the election outcome.

 

Kavanaugh once served as a Supreme Court clerk under Kennedy.

 

The appointment will not change the ideological breakdown of a court that already has a 5-4 conservative majority, but nevertheless could move the court to the right. Kennedy sometimes joined the liberal justices on key rulings on divisive social issues like abortion and gay rights, a practice his replacement may not duplicate.

 

Kennedy, 81, announced on June 27 plans to retire after three decades on the court, effective on July 31.

 

Republicans hold a slim 51-49 majority in the Senate, though with ailing Senator John McCain battling cancer in his home state of Arizona they currently can muster only 50 votes. Without Republican defections, however, Senate rules leave Democrats with scant options to block confirmation of Trump's nominee.

 

'SUPERB CHOICE'

"President Trump has made a superb choice. Judge Brett Kavanaugh is an impressive nominee who is extremely well qualified to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who earlier in the day accused the "far left" of "scare tactics" to try to thwart the nomination.

 

A group of Democratic senators from Republican-leaning states - lawmakers who could be pivotal in the confirmation fight - declined Trump's invitation to attend the White House announcement.

 

Trump last year appointed Gorsuch, who has already become one of the most conservative justices, after Senate Republicans in 2016 refused to consider Democratic former President Barack Obama's nominee Merrick Garland to fill a vacancy left by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. As a result, Democrats have accused Republicans of stealing a Supreme Court seat. Gorsuch restored the court's conservative majority.

 

Democrats are certain to press Trump's latest nominee on the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, a decision some conservatives - particularly conservative Christians - have long wanted to overturn.

 

Trump has previously said he wanted "pro-life" justices opposed to abortion rights. Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer earlier on Monday said Trump's nominee should be obligated to make his or her views clear on matters like the Roe ruling.

 

The new justice can be expected to cast crucial votes on other matters of national importance including gay rights, gun control, the death penalty and voting rights. The court could also be called upon to render judgment on issues of personal significance to Trump and his administration including matters arising from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing Russia-related investigation and several civil lawsuits pending against Trump.

 

The timing of the nomination means that Kennedy's replacement could be confirmed before the start of the Supreme Court's next term on the first Monday in October.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Eric Walsh, Eric Beech, Steve Holland, Andrew Chung, Amanda Becker and Jeff Mason; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-07-10

[pegman]

Trump thinks this is his "Stay out of jail judge" pick.

[riclag]

A judge who interprets the Constitution as it is. Seems like a nice family man, that all American's can trust

[riclag]

8 minutes ago, pegman said:

Trump thinks this is his "Stay out of jail judge" pick.

P Trump can't go to jail as a President.Your mistaken!

Edited July 10, 2018 by riclag

[zaphod reborn]

Just now, pegman said:

Trump thinks this is his "Stay out of jail judge" pick.

Exactly, and he is probably miscalculating on this single-issue litmus test.  Kavanaugh was involved in the Ken Starr investigation of Clinton's BJ and the perjury charge which arose from that.  Each time the issue of criminal charges has arisen in the last 50 years, the OLC has issued guidance to the DOJ on handling of the charges.  The prior Presidents (Nixon and Clinton) had relatively minor charges, obstruction of justice and perjury.  When Nixon was ordered by SCOTUS to release tapes there would have been much more serious criminal charges, but Nixon resigned shortly thereafter and was given a full pardon by Ford, so no criminal charges arose.  Kavanaugh opined that Clinton's perjury charge didn't outweigh the importance of his executive branch duties, so he could only be impeached, and not indicted.

 

Trump's crimes are a whole other animal.  He will be charged with a conspiracy to bribe, launder money, and commit fraud to circumvent campaign finance laws.  He also will be found to have been compromised by Russian influence, due to the massive amount of money laundering he was doing for Russian oligarchs. SCOTUS would have a difficult time either requiring impeachment prior to indictment, or allowing Trump to pardon himself and his co-conspirators, which includes his sons, Kushner, Manafort, and Stone.

 

Frankly, Kavanaugh was the most qualified selection on Trump's final four, so I don't object to his confirmation.  Elections have consequences, even if the electoral system was tilted in Trump's favor by Comey and the Russians. 

[Boon Mee]

Excellent pick on Trump's part plus, with Ginzburg definitely off the court during Trump's administration(s) he will be able to get another staunch constitutionalist on the Supreme Court. 

[alanrchase]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

A judge who interprets the Constitution as it is. Seems like a nice family man, that all American's can trust

How do you "interpret" something as it is? 

[riclag]

6 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

How do you "interpret" something as it is? 

 a judge to apply the text only as it is written, in the ( C)

Edited July 10, 2018 by riclag

[rudi49jr]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

A judge who interprets the Constitution as it is. Seems like a nice family man, that all American's can trust

'that all American's can trust'

 

Except when you're LGBT or a woman in need of an abortion, to name but a few groups who will probably not trust this 'nice family man' at all.

[Roadman]

Draining the swamp? The whole USA governance system needs drained. Presidents picking judges? How more corrupt can you get? 

[alanrchase]

21 minutes ago, riclag said:

 a judge to apply the text only as it is written, in the ( C)

So no need for any interpretation then. 

[Presto]

A judge who interprets the Constitution as it is. Seems like a nice family man, that all American's can trust

'How do you "interpret" something as it is?'

 

 

Logical reasoning is not the strong suit of the ultra-right.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Presto

[riclag]

14 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

'that all American's can trust'

 

Except when you're LGBT or a woman in need of an abortion, to name but a few groups who will probably not trust this 'nice family man' at all.

No worries  mate, your abortion argument is etched in stone for ever to live. the new SCJ  won't touch it.

Edited July 10, 2018 by riclag

[malibukid]

what a joke, i remember growing up in America and we would say the pledge of allegiance every morning at school. it ended with,  "one country indivisible with liberty and justice for all," ha ha. that America never existed. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by malibukid

[riclag]

11 minutes ago, Roadman said:

Draining the swamp? The whole USA governance system needs drained. Presidents picking judges? How more corrupt can you get? 

Presidents pick'em . The Senate  approves them!. If they don't get approved ,then the President chooses another... It's in our laws (C). It's worked for over 200 + years!!

[malibukid]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

Presidents pick'em . The Senate  approves them!. If they don't get approved ,then the President chooses another... It's in our laws (C). It's worked for over 200 + years!!

this congress will bend over and take it.  they have shown little spine with this guy.  scarred to death of the coming November mid-terms. all yes men.

[stevenl]

23 minutes ago, Presto said:

A judge who interprets the Constitution as it is. Seems like a nice family man, that all American's can trust

'How do you "interpret" something as it is?'

 

 

Logical reasoning is not the strong suit of the ultra-right.

See the 'thanks' from riclag. LOL.

Edited July 10, 2018 by stevenl

[riclag]

2 minutes ago, malibukid said:

this congress will bend over and take it.  they have shown little spine with this guy.  scarred to death of the coming November mid-terms. all yes men.

It's been goin on for 200+

[ELVIS123456]

2 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Excellent pick on Trump's part plus, with Ginzburg definitely off the court during Trump's administration(s) he will be able to get another staunch constitutionalist on the Supreme Court. 

Ginzburg will obstruct as much as possible but dementia is taking hold and she will be asked/made to leave within Trump's term of 8 years.  Trump will pick another Constitutionalist and ensure USA continues to focus on what matters and not 'social justice warrior' issues in the years ahead.  That plus all the Court appiontees over the remaining years of his term will ensure everthing done under Obama to the legal system will be undone.  Great days. 

 

[zaphod reborn]

52 minutes ago, riclag said:

Presidents pick'em . The Senate  approves them!. If they don't get approved ,then the President chooses another... It's in our laws (C). It's worked for over 200 + years!!

Except that McConnell broke the system in 2016 by refusing to allow the Senate to hold confirmation hearings and a vote on Garland and imposing the nuclear option for the Gorsuch nomination so that confirmation only required a simple majority (usually 50 in favor, rather than 60).  Obama could have challenged McConnell in court, and, according to Dershowitz, would have won on Constitutional grounds.  However, Obama was a wimp, and Gorsuch was the result.

Edited July 10, 2018 by zaphod reborn

[whatsupdoc]

As I understood, 9 judges at the supreme court is not a given (apparently there used to be more in the past). The next (Democratic) president might appoint additional judges (if he/she has the backing of the senate).

That would be fun!

[Skeptic7]

?

The  final hammer blow to destroy an already weakened wall that was intended to keep subjective religious/superstitious BS out of government and legislating. 

 

A dark day indeed for the once great secular government, which set it well apart from most others. This asshat, like the (now) majority of justices will put their superstitious dogmas before The Constitution, which they are sworn to uphold. They will put their silly, backasswards, regressive and oppressive beliefs before the rule of law.  ?

[zaphod reborn]

2 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:

As I understood, 9 judges at the supreme court is not a given (apparently there used to be more in the past). The next (Democratic) president might appoint additional judges (if he/she has the backing of the senate).

That would be fun!

Yes, court packing is possible, but 9 justices was established by the Judiciary Act of 1869.  Changing a law that has been on the books for 150 years is not easy.  The number of justices had been set by legislation in 1789 and again in 1802, prior to that.

[Trouble]

14 hours ago, Roadman said:

Draining the swamp? The whole USA governance system needs drained. Presidents picking judges? How more corrupt can you get? 

The President picks the nominee and the Senate votes to confirm the nominee after public hearings.  How would you propose it be done?

[Trouble]

15 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

'that all American's can trust'

 

Except when you're LGBT or a woman in need of an abortion, to name but a few groups who will probably not trust this 'nice family man' at all.

You are correct about not trusting anyone but that's because of the hype constantly put out by the far left and right on certain issues. Exactly what is going to be taken away from the LGBTQ community? There will be no return to negating gay marriage ruling. Rulings on whether people can be forced to do something against their beliefs is another issue constantly confronting the courts.  Gay rights versus the rights of certain others for not providing a service which they feel is against their belief has become a cause celebre for the left but it now seems like it is okay now for people on the left to heckle people or ask them to leave a restaurant for their political beliefs and/or jobs (Sarah Sanders). The constant hype of the Roe v. Wade in politics has been an anchor around the nations political neck for decades.  If some case was brought before the Court the most the court could do would be to return the issue of abortion back to the states, not rule against abortion.  What has happened since the R vs. W decision is that states have independently made laws about abortion relating to the terms of pregnancy and set some rules. Unfortunately even in the states there is no common sense or consensus on issues so differing laws on the issue.  I certainly don't want someone having an abortion 3 days before giving birth but neither do I want the government telling a woman she can't have an abortion at all.  Now the hot button issue for the left seems to be whether the Court can take away the right to contraceptives.  It's not about contraceptives but who is supposed to pay for them. Doubt that the court will ever rule that men can't use a condom. But the false narrative about taking away contraceptives is what the fringe groups agitate about.  Christ, the problem with everything today is the extremes on the left and right.  I would guess the majority of people in the USA don't give a rat's ass about any of the issues I have set forth.  It's the fringe on the left and right causing all this turmoil.  

 

With this nomination, the news media on all sides will be talking about this for weeks over analyzing and the TV news will be getting their panels together critiquing every word said. The sad issue is that the Democrats in the Senate will do everything in their power to negate the nomination and excoriate this guy with little ability to be objective. Then there are those like the has been Rick Santorum who condemned the pick.  I suppose he is not conservative enough for Santorum.  I sometimes feel like the fringes are running things and the media on both sides just pushes the fringe's agenda.  

[Scott]

Troll posts removed.  

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, Trouble said:

You are correct about not trusting anyone but that's because of the hype constantly put out by the far left and right on certain issues. Exactly what is going to be taken away from the LGBTQ community? There will be no return to negating gay marriage ruling. Rulings on whether people can be forced to do something against their beliefs is another issue constantly confronting the courts.  Gay rights versus the rights of certain others for not providing a service which they feel is against their belief has become a cause celebre for the left but it now seems like it is okay now for people on the left to heckle people or ask them to leave a restaurant for their political beliefs and/or jobs (Sarah Sanders). The constant hype of the Roe v. Wade in politics has been an anchor around the nations political neck for decades.  If some case was brought before the Court the most the court could do would be to return the issue of abortion back to the states, not rule against abortion.  What has happened since the R vs. W decision is that states have independently made laws about abortion relating to the terms of pregnancy and set some rules. Unfortunately even in the states there is no common sense or consensus on issues so differing laws on the issue.  I certainly don't want someone having an abortion 3 days before giving birth but neither do I want the government telling a woman she can't have an abortion at all.  Now the hot button issue for the left seems to be whether the Court can take away the right to contraceptives.  It's not about contraceptives but who is supposed to pay for them. Doubt that the court will ever rule that men can't use a condom. But the false narrative about taking away contraceptives is what the fringe groups agitate about.  Christ, the problem with everything today is the extremes on the left and right.  I would guess the majority of people in the USA don't give a rat's ass about any of the issues I have set forth.  It's the fringe on the left and right causing all this turmoil.  

 

With this nomination, the news media on all sides will be talking about this for weeks over analyzing and the TV news will be getting their panels together critiquing every word said. The sad issue is that the Democrats in the Senate will do everything in their power to negate the nomination and excoriate this guy with little ability to be objective. Then there are those like the has been Rick Santorum who condemned the pick.  I suppose he is not conservative enough for Santorum.  I sometimes feel like the fringes are running things and the media on both sides just pushes the fringe's agenda.  

Why will there be no return to negating gay marriage ruling? Nothing in the Constitution prohibits it.

Ruling that the states have absolute control over abortion would negate Roe v. Wade

And this is the judge who ruled that the government had the right to stop a 17 year old immigrant detainee from getting an abortion.