# Brett Kavanaugh is the new Supreme Court nominee. Any Thoughts? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 10, 2018, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642 "2018-07-10T08:53:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/1 "2018-07-10T08:53:44Z")
The President went with the safest choice. Impeccable credentials. Kavanaugh clerked for Justice Kennedy. He’s taught law at Yale, Harvard and Georgetown. Kavanaugh comes from the DC Circuit to the Supreme Court as does Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The late Justice Antonin Scalia also came from that court. A solid choice that even drew praise from Jeb Bush. Imho There were far more conservative judges that could have been nominated. The President made the best choice available. > **[Donald Trump’s remarkably predictable and practical Supreme Court pick | CNN...](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/09/politics/donald-trump-scotus-nominee/index.html)** > > President Donald Trump’s selection of Brett Kavanaugh as his Supreme Court nominee reflects a startlingly, well, normal and predictable decision from this most unconventional commander in chief. > [@](#): > > the similarities between Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are striking – Ivy League educated, Supreme Court clerks, Circuit Court judges. > > In short, neither man is, on their faces, wildly unqualified for the position to which Trump nominated them. You can disagree with some of their views or past rulings. But what you simply cannot say is that they have no business being considered for the nation’s highest court. They are just the sort of people that, say, President Jeb(!) Bush might have nominated if he had won the GOP nomination and presidency instead of Trump. > > Bush, in fact, issued an approving tweet of the Kavanaugh pick shortly after Trump made it. “Excellent choice for SCOTUS,” Bush tweeted. “Judge Kavanaugh will be a strong defender of the Constitution.” > > For someone as unorthodox and unpredictable as Donald Trump, his two Supreme Court choices may be the most predictable and practical things he has done in office. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/2 "2018-07-10T09:09:41Z")
Where Kavanaugh stands on key issues. I’m very encouraged that he is reasonable. I can see Kavanaugh filling a similar role, as a swing vote, as Kennedy. > **[Where Brett Kavanaugh stands on key issues | CNN Politics](https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/politics/kavanaugh-on-the-issues/index.html)** > > The Senate confirmed Brett Kavanaugh, 53, to the Supreme Court Saturday, where he could easily serve for more than two decades and change how the nation's laws are interpreted. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/3 "2018-07-10T09:47:41Z")
Thankfully, we know the President hates it when he [thinks](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/991267863674675200) that a special prosecutor’s investigation into a president is leaking confidential information to the media, so that’s one thing we KNOW Brett Kavanaugh has CERTAINLY never done in his whole entire life, not even once. [Oh](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-vince-foster-files-703344): > [@](#): > > The publicly available listing of Kavanaugh’s files doesn’t suggest there will be much documenting any interaction with the media, but after Trump’s announcement Monday night, one prominent reporter foreshadowed what may be another line of attack on Kavanaugh. > > “While working for Ken Starr in 1998, [Kavanaugh] 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,” author and Daily Beast columnist Jonathan Alter wrote on Twitter. “Reporters didn’t bust Brett because they benefited. Will one now?” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/4 "2018-07-10T10:47:04Z")
Kavanaugh has stated that under no circumstances should a President be indicted; that right there is probably why Trump wants him on the court. Of course Kavanaugh felt entirely differently on the matter when it was Clinton instead of Trump. He’s just another partisan scumball. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/5 "2018-07-10T12:21:27Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Kavanaugh has stated that under no circumstances should a President be indicted; that right there is probably why Trump wants him on the court. > > Of course Kavanaugh felt entirely differently on the matter when it was Clinton instead of Trump. He’s just another partisan scumball. Do you have a cite for this? I mean this, specifically - that a President shouldn’t be indicted under any circumstances. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/6 "2018-07-10T12:27:34Z")
> [@](#): > > “While working for Ken Starr in 1998, [Kavanaugh] 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,” author and Daily Beast columnist Jonathan Alter wrote on Twitter. “Reporters didn’t bust Brett because they benefited. Will one now?” This too - what were the specific instances where he violated the rule, and what is the evidence? I am reluctant to simply take the word of a partisan opinion writer for it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/7 "2018-07-10T12:33:15Z")
My first thought upon hearing the news was, “Thanks, Jill Stein!” > [@Shodan](#): > > Do you have a cite for this? I mean this, specifically - that a President shouldn’t be indicted under any circumstances. I wouldn’t use those exact words to describe his position, but the assertion is not a fabrication: > [@](#): > > 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. 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… > > But the law as it existed was itself the problem, particularly the extent to which it allowed civil suits against presidents to proceed while the President is in office. With that in mind, it would be appropriate for Congress to enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against presidents, like certain members of the military, be deferredwhile the President is in office. The result the Supreme Court > reached in Clinton v. Jones—that presidents are not constitutionally entitled to deferral of civil suits—may well have been entirely correct; that is beyond the scope of this inquiry. But the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office… > > Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President. In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. > **[Kavanaugh\_MLR.pdf](https://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf)** > > 220.81 KB This basis for the opinion is not really a high-minded dissection of separation of powers, but just simply, “A President can do a better job if we all just stop bothering him with questions about criminal wrongdoing.” ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/8 "2018-07-10T12:34:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Do you have a cite for this? I mean this, specifically - that a President shouldn’t be indicted under any circumstances. > > Regards, > Shodan > [@](#): > > … > after Kavanaugh emerged on President Trump’s shortlist for the Supreme Court, a suggestion the judge made in a 2009 law review article swiftly took center stage: “Provide sitting presidents with a temporary deferral of civil suits and of criminal prosecutions and investigations,” Kavanaugh proposed. > > The judge emphasized that no one is above the law, but he pointed out that the Constitution already provides a solution if there’s a scoundrel in the White House. “If the president does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available,” he wrote. > … [Source](https://www.npr.org/2018/07/10/627504728/brett-kavanaugh-supported-broad-leeway-for-presidents-under-investigation?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news) Ninja’d. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/9 "2018-07-10T12:52:41Z")
Did you miss the word “specifically”? > [@Der Trihs](#): > > Kavanaugh has stated that under no circumstances should a President be indicted… It may be against the rules to say this is a fabrication, but it certainly isn’t true. Actually, in a sense it’s kind of encouraging - the left can’t make any true accusations against Kavanaugh, and fair-minded people will recognize what this says about their case. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/10 "2018-07-10T13:10:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Did you miss the word “specifically”? It may be against the rules to say this is a fabrication, but it certainly isn’t true. > > Actually, in a sense it’s kind of encouraging - the left can’t make any true accusations against Kavanaugh, and fair-minded people will recognize what this says about their case. What on earth are you talking about? He suggested that Congress pass a law “exempting” the President from criminal investigation and prosecution until he is out of office. Further, that such a bill would be wise to include a prohibition on even _questioning_ the President. That’s literally what Kavanaugh proposed. If there’s a quibble with **DT** ’s phrasing, I would suggest two: first, that **DT** was too broad when he said that the President “in no circumstances” can be indicted, because he didn’t specifically call out how such a proposed law would apply to former Presidents; and second, **DT** was _too narrow_ when he limited his comments to indictments, when Kavanaugh suggested that Presidents should not even be _investigated_ when they are in office, much less indicted. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/11 "2018-07-10T14:43:26Z")
I’m fine with it. I am not a fan of Roe really, but at the same time I don’t want it struck down. I really don’t see that happening with this makeup. Barrett maybe, this guy, no. I’m simply tired of leftist meltdowns. I know they’re going to meltdown when this guy is confirmed anyway, but not nearly as much as if somebody like Barrett got in. ---
**Author:** ![Patx2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/73ab20/32.png) [@Patx2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patx2)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/12 "2018-07-10T15:06:16Z")
Obviously, there is no one Trump could have chosen that the Dems would be thrilled about. Isn’t this guy the one that saved the individual mandate on Obamacare without which I don’t know that Obamacare would’ve been viable. So, the Dems have that to smile about while the Republicans are most likely a bit annoyed. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/13 "2018-07-10T15:12:02Z")
> [@Patx2](#): > > Obviously, there is no one Trump could have chosen that the Dems would be thrilled about. Isn’t this guy the one that saved the individual mandate on Obamacare without which I don’t know that Obamacare would’ve been viable. So, the Dems have that to smile about while the Republicans are most likely a bit annoyed. Yeah. It’s been said that Kavanaugh gave Roberts the idea of ObamaCare being a tax. IF Kavanaugh doesn’t get through, I don’t think it will be because of the Collins types worried about Roe, I think it will be a few Republicans thinking he’s not “conservative enough.” There is no doubt in my mind that the desire is to get someone to the right of Kennedy. This guy may be it, but I don’t know. In any case, I don’t think there will be any problems getting this guy in. I mean, I think Democrats are going to try to obstruct ANY pick Trump makes whose name isn’t Merrick Garland, but I don’t think that will really work. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/14 "2018-07-10T15:23:42Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Kavanaugh has stated that under no circumstances should a President be indicted; that right there is probably why Trump wants him on the court. > > Of course Kavanaugh felt entirely differently on the matter when it was Clinton instead of Trump. He’s just another partisan scumball. To be clearer, Kavanaugh was suggesting that Congress pass a law saying that the President cannot be indicted. If passed, this law would formalize the current Department of Justice guidelines. Kavanaugh was not saying that he would find the Constitution forbids such an indictment - merely that he thinks it would be a good idea, which the DOJ Office of General Counsel has agreed with during both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations. Your phrasing invites a certain ambiguous inference: that Kavanaugh ruled such a law or constitutional barrier already exists. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/15 "2018-07-10T15:39:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > What on earth are you talking about? He suggested that Congress pass a law “exempting” the President from criminal investigation and prosecution until he is out of office. Further, that such a bill would be wise to include a prohibition on even _questioning_ the President. > > That’s literally what Kavanaugh proposed. If there’s a quibble with **DT** ’s phrasing, I would suggest two: first, that **DT** was too broad when he said that the President “in no circumstances” can be indicted, because he didn’t specifically call out how such a proposed law would apply to former Presidents; and second, **DT** was _too narrow_ when he limited his comments to indictments, when Kavanaugh suggested that Presidents should not even be _investigated_ when they are in office, much less indicted. I think this is a more accurate read. Ironic since he was also on the team that investigated Clinton. My take…he’s okay. I was hoping for someone non-ivy league, not a Washington insider. Diane Sykes would have been my pick. While Kavanaugh did write a [dissent in Heller II](https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=374096013001097121113117085070127069101073010028061025100083028029012095085029015000032030033008111111007024127000089127002126044057037006047083000022089074014076000011049031115106082093084087113068001071119121118024126119016069028100080030117072119&EXT=pdf)that would have had favorable results, the approach he took in that dissent was weird. I dont think his interpretation of Heller is very good, and as a result I think he could be unpredictable. I’m glad he’s skeptical of Chevron though. Kind of a mixed bag, kind of meh. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/16 "2018-07-10T17:28:08Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > What on earth are you talking about? He suggested that Congress pass a law “exempting” the President from criminal investigation and prosecution until he is out of office. Further, that such a bill would be wise to include a prohibition on even _questioning_ the President. > > That’s literally what Kavanaugh proposed. If there’s a quibble with **DT** ’s phrasing, I would suggest two: first, that **DT** was too broad when he said that the President “in no circumstances” can be indicted, because he didn’t specifically call out how such a proposed law would apply to former Presidents; and second, **DT** was _too narrow_ when he limited his comments to indictments, when Kavanaugh suggested that Presidents should not even be _investigated_ when they are in office, much less indicted. What he said was that the legislature should pass a law but it has not passed that law. I think it is great that he wants the law to be a certain way and yet recognizes that it isn’t and is still constraining. That is exactly what a judge needs to be, hypercognizant of the difference between his own opinion and the law. ---
**Author:** ![Patx2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/73ab20/32.png) [@Patx2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patx2)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/17 "2018-07-10T17:40:40Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > Yeah. It’s been said that Kavanaugh gave Roberts the idea of ObamaCare being a tax. IF Kavanaugh doesn’t get through, I don’t think it will be because of the Collins types worried about Roe, I think it will be a few Republicans thinking he’s not “conservative enough.” There is no doubt in my mind that the desire is to get someone to the right of Kennedy. This guy may be it, but I don’t know. In any case, I don’t think there will be any problems getting this guy in. I mean, I think Democrats are going to try to obstruct ANY pick Trump makes whose name isn’t Merrick Garland, but I don’t think that will really work. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/18 "2018-07-10T18:01:35Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > What he said was that the legislature should pass a law but it has not passed that law. I think it is great that he wants the law to be a certain way and yet recognizes that it isn’t and is still constraining. That is exactly what a judge needs to be, hypercognizant of the difference between his own opinion and the law. So if Merrick Garland had written an Op-Ed suggesting that Congress write a law to provide free abortions to everyone up until the moments before birth, do you suppose that article would be generally taken as: 1. An indication of his extreme views on a controversial subject; or 2. A demonstration of his “hypercognizant” recognition of the distinction between his own opinion and the law? ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/19 "2018-07-10T18:13:11Z")
I’m not interested in dismissing Kavanaugh over an issue that’s not likely to appear on the court docket any time soon. Indicting a president is something the nation can deal with when and if it ever happens. I’m keeping an open mind until more is reported on Kavanaugh’s rulings and written opinions. His respect for stare decisis and whether he’ll let Roe v Wade stand as established law. The court docket is full of pending cases. I’ll watch the hearings to learn more about Kavanaugh. Any Republican nominee will have conservative leanings. Kennedy has them. Kavanaugh will have a moderate view on some issues. I hope he can get past some of the right wing in the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2018, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642/20 "2018-07-10T18:14:38Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So if Merrick Garland had written an Op-Ed suggesting that Congress write a law to provide free abortions to everyone up until the moments before birth, do you suppose that article would be generally taken as: > > 1. An indication of his extreme views on a controversial subject; or > 2. A demonstration of his “hypercognizant” recognition of the distinction between his own opinion and the law? Those predisposed to support Garland? (2) Those predisposed to oppose Garland? (1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brett-kavanaugh-is-the-new-supreme-court-nominee-any-thoughts/817642.md?page=2)