# Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 4, 2018, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733 "2018-09-04T12:49:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/461 "2018-09-09T16:53:02Z")
As for the judgment of organizations like the ABA, I no longer trust large organizations (any of them, really) as trustworthy judges of personal character. There’s very little way to know which ones are like the Catholic Church/Penn State/Michigan State athletic depts, unless something’s come out about them, and I see no reason to give any large institutions the benefit of the doubt on such an important matter (in terms of personal character, at least). ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/462 "2018-09-09T16:56:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > As for the judgment of organizations like the ABA, I no longer trust large organizations (any of them, really) as trustworthy judges of personal character. There’s very little way to know which ones are like the Catholic Church/Penn State/Michigan State athletic depts, unless something’s come out about them, and I see no reason to give any large institutions the benefit of the doubt on such an important matter (in terms of personal character, at least). I don’t know if this helps your argument in this venue, but the republican party is pretty much “there” too. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/463 "2018-09-09T17:12:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Oh, then that’s completely different. Let me rephrase: > > And “he wasn’t on the first list” has got to be one of the silliest _observations_ about him. If that is even in the top 100 _observations_ about him, then I think we can just give him his SCOTUS robes right now and be done with it. And if it were in the top 100 lies that trump made, then trump would be a virtue of honesty compared to the reality. It is just pointing out one more campaign promise that he made that his supporters will not just defend, but even celebrate him breaking. You are correct in that it is not that big a deal, but only because it is dwarfed by all the other corruption and deceit around his nomination. In a normal situation, it would actually be a pretty significant issue. If you are a lawyer, and you try to defend your client’s shoplifting by pointing out that it is not as bad as his serial killing, it may not be the best of all possible defenses. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/464 "2018-09-09T17:15:23Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Well, trump did do the unprecedented, and claimed to have already chosen who he would pick for and SCOTUS seats that opened up on his term. He chose to do that, he chose to make that a campaign promise, no one forced him to do that. > > It is not that this disqualifies Kavanaugh, it is that trump supporters don’t seem to care in the slightest when he breaks and changes the promises that he made to them. > > So, sure, less about Kavanaugh, and more about the character of the constant lies and deceit that comes from the man who put nominated him. > > It just surprises me that trump supporters celebrate him for his dishonesty and go out of their way to defend his lies, as if that is a quality that they actually like in a president. He didn’t make that promise. In fact, [he explicitly said:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/18/donald-trump-releases-list-of-11-potential-supreme-court-nominees/?utm_term=.052ff49668a4) > [@](#): > > In releasing the list Wednesday, the candidate made clear that it only pertains to the seat formerly occupied by Scalia. The campaign said in a statement that “this list was compiled, first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from highly respected conservatives and Republican Party leadership.” So, if you want to slam him for Gorsuch, that might make some sense, since he wasn’t on the very first list. But it should be noted that Trump [added Gorsuch to “the list” in Sept of 2016, before the election.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-expands-list-of-possible-supreme-court-picks/) Frankly, I’m not seeing any broken campaign promises here. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/465 "2018-09-09T17:21:48Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Was Kavanaugh on the list that trump claimed he would pick from while he was on the campaign trail? If not, then I don’t understand how you can think that your defense of trump holds any water. > > … > > You voted for trump when he said he would pick his nominees from that list of 11. Then he broke his promise, and added a bunch more judges. … The original list was for Scalia’s replacement. [See here for how PolitiFact scores his performance on that campaign promise](https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1360/nominate-someone-his-list-justices-replace-antonin/). The list of 25 was for Kennedy’s replacement. Another promise kept. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > … So, go ahead and nitpick septimus on the 11 vs 25, but on the timeline, he is entirely correct, and your defense of trump is entirely wrong. … We both agree that “entirely correct” doesn’t remotely describe septimus’ statement that I quoted in post #426, yes? > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Well, trump did do the unprecedented, and claimed to have already chosen who he would pick for and SCOTUS seats that opened up on his term. He chose to do that, he chose to make that a campaign promise, no one forced him to do that. > > It is not that this disqualifies Kavanaugh, it is that trump supporters don’t seem to care in the slightest when he breaks and changes the promises that he made to them. PolitiFact and I both rate Trump’s statement a “Promise Kept”. YMMV, obviously, but yours, and septimus’ accusation of a “broken promise” here are unconvincing. ETA: ninja’d by **John Mace** , but **septimus** and **k9bfriender** are still just as wrong. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/466 "2018-09-09T18:05:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Oh, then that’s completely different. Let me rephrase: > > And “he wasn’t on the first list” has got to be one of the silliest _observations_ about him. If that is even in the top 100 _observations_ about him, then I think we can just give him his SCOTUS robes right now and be done with it. “Not on the first list” is only half the observation. Not being on the first list but appearing on the second, that is the observation. The observation is that something has _changed_, because the two things are _different_. If I am wrong about that, I welcome your correction, however sternly worded it may be. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/467 "2018-09-09T18:14:33Z")
By the way, does anyone know? Were both lists vetted by both Heritage _and_ the Federalists, or just one? Not an accusation, mind you, just curious. (Some of you guys seem a mite edgy today, don’t want to provoke anyone needlessly…) ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/468 "2018-09-09T18:19:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > He didn’t make that promise. In fact, [he explicitly said:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/18/donald-trump-releases-list-of-11-potential-supreme-court-nominees/?utm_term=.052ff49668a4) > > So, if you want to slam him for Gorsuch, that might make some sense, since he wasn’t on the very first list. But it should be noted that Trump [added Gorsuch to “the list” in Sept of 2016, before the election.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-expands-list-of-possible-supreme-court-picks/) > > Frankly, I’m not seeing any broken campaign promises here. > [@](#): > > "I’m going to submit a list of justices, potential justices of the United States Supreme Court that I will appoint, from the list — I won’t go beyond that list,” Trump said at a news conference in Washington in late March. > [@](#): > > I plan to use this list as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justice_ **s** _.” My emphasis. It requires some pretty serious twisting and special pleading in order to make the case that he was only talking about the currently vacant seat. I see your quote there of “the candidate made clear that it only pertains to the seat formerly occupied by Scalia.”, but I do not see where he made that clear, just that it is claimed to be so. He lies and backtracks things he has said all the time, I’m not surprised that this is one of the many lies he has told, I am just surprised that there is so much defense for it. And yes, he lied about that too, as he then added Grosuch to that list, but that is a separate lie, one that also was defended by trump supporters, but not the one that we are talking about here. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The original list was for Scalia’s replacement. [See here for how PolitiFact scores his performance on that campaign promise](https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1360/nominate-someone-his-list-justices-replace-antonin/). That is utterly irrelevant to this thread. > [@](#): > > The list of 25 was for Kennedy’s replacement. Another promise kept. So, he made that promise before or after you voted for him? > [@](#): > > We both agree that “entirely correct” doesn’t remotely describe septimus’ statement that I quoted in post #426, yes? We agree that he had the numbers conflated, but he had the timeline correct. > [@](#): > > PolitiFact and I both rate Trump’s statement a “Promise Kept”. YMMV, obviously, but yours, and septimus’ accusation of a “broken promise” here are unconvincing. Do you for some reason see Kavanaugh’s name on that cite, to make it relevant to your claims here, that I am missing? I do not see his name anywhere, so what exactly do you think you are proving, or did you post in the wrong thread? > [@](#): > > ETA: ninja’d by **John Mace** , but **septimus** and **k9bfriender** are still just as wrong. I do not think that word means what you think it means. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/469 "2018-09-09T18:29:54Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > “Not on the first list” is only half the observation. Not being on the first list but appearing on the second, that is the observation. The observation is that something has _changed_, because the two things are _different_. > > If I am wrong about that, I welcome your correction, however sternly worded it may be. You are not wrong. The different lists are different. The fist list has 11 names on it. The subsequent lists have more names on them. That’s a change. You have observed correctly, and I agree with your observation. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/470 "2018-09-09T18:56:33Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > My emphasis. It requires some pretty serious twisting and special pleading in order to make the case that he was only talking about the currently vacant seat. > [@Trump](#): > > I plan to use this list as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices.” Emphasis added. If you insist on parsing the particulars, then he used that list “as a guide”. If Kavanaugh is significantly different from the folks on that list, then I guess he broke a campaign promise. Is Kavanaugh significantly different? > [@k9befriender](#): > > I see your quote there of “the candidate made clear that it only pertains to the seat formerly occupied by Scalia.”, but I do not see where he made that clear, just that it is claimed to be so. It’s the Washington Post. I don’t think they made that up, but I guess it’s possible. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/471 "2018-09-09T20:02:59Z")
I predict he’s too invested in his “lies” & “broken promise” position to admit he was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/472 "2018-09-09T20:51:58Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > …What distinguishes Kavanaugh from all the names on the original list is that Kavanaugh has, essentially, pledged to make sure that Donald Trump can’t be held accountable for any crimes he may have committed, while he occupies the White House. … > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you link to this “pledge”, please? And, if you don’t mind, a literal quote from him would be best. Not someone else’s paraphrase of what he “pledged”. Nice try, but of course I didn’t write that Kavanaugh had given a pledge, but that he “has, essentially, pledged”–as indeed he has. Since you indicate a wish to become educated on this topic, I’ll recommend a couple of non-paywalled articles: > [@](#): > > BRETT KAVANAUGH: TRUMP’S SUPREME COURT PICK THINKS PRESIDENTS SHOULD BE IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION > BY SHANE CROUCHER ON 7/10/18 AT 5:09 AM > President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court once wrote that sitting presidents should be immune from criminal investigation because their job is too important and prosecution would be a burdensome distraction. > > …Writing for the Minnesota Law Review in 2012, in an article titled “Separation of > Powers During the Forty-Fourth Presidency and Beyond,” Kavanaugh said his experience working for the Bush White House made him realize being president is “far more difficult than any other civilian position in government.” > > …he now believes, after working for over five years in the Bush White House, that Congress should pass a law giving presidents immunity from civil suits and criminal investigations and prosecutions until they leave office. > > …and that a president’s indictment and trial “would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas.” > > “Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation—including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators—are time-consuming and distracting,” Kavanaugh wrote. … > **[Kavanaugh Argued for Presidential Immunity](https://www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-trumps-supreme-court-pick-thinks-presidents-should-be-immune-1015521)** > > President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, has written that presidents should be immune from prosecution. This article focuses on Kavanaugh’s general beliefs that a president’s powers should extend to making his decisions paramount above any existing or subsequent court decision (mainly via “signing statements”), but also touches on his theory that presidents may not be held accountable for crimes or other violations: > [@](#): > > Kavanaugh’s expansive view of presidential authority raises critics’ fears > Bob Egelko Sep. 8, 2018 > …His participation in a process that elevated executive authority over congressional lawmaking also fed opponents’ fears that Kavanaugh would construe presidential power broadly in disputes between Trump and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Asked by Democratic senators whether Trump would have to comply with a subpoena from Mueller, and whether a president could be indicted while in office or could pardon himself, Kavanaugh refused to answer. > > …Kavanaugh, who was appointed by Bush to a federal appeals court in 2006 after five years on his staff, made clear his views of a president’s authority in a 2009 law review article, in which he said a president should not be subject to criminal investigations or civil suits while in office. > > …As a judge, Kavanaugh wrote an opinion in 2011 that said the president, under the Constitution, “may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the president deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.” In a 2014 law review article, he said a president who considered a law unconstitutional — whether or not it regulated “private individuals” — could refuse to follow it “until a final court order says otherwise.” … [https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/Kavanaugh-s-expansive-view-of-presidential-13213561.php](https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/Kavanaugh-s-expansive-view-of-presidential-13213561.php) Here are a couple of Washington Post articles detailing Kavanaugh’s views on whether Trump should be excused from facing legal consequences of his actions, and on whether Kavanaugh would rule on such questions should he become an Ass. Justice: Issues for Brett Kavanaugh: the president who chose him and the … [https://www.washingtonpost.com/...kavanaugh...president.../09d2daca-ad28-11e8-a8d7-](https://www.washingtonpost.com/...kavanaugh...president.../09d2daca-ad28-11e8-a8d7-)… Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh won’t commit to removing … [https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../kavanaugh.../97fda1ac-b081-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3](https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../kavanaugh.../97fda1ac-b081-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3)… …that should be enough to get you started. Lots of links inside the articles to Kavanaugh’s writings, too. Good luck! ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/473 "2018-09-09T21:40:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And “he wasn’t on the first list” has got to be one of the silliest charges against him. If that is even in the top 100 reasons not to confirm him, then I think we can just give him his SCOTUS robes right now and be done with it. That’s an incredibly silly statement. The problems with Kavanaugh are his profound disregard for the poor and powerless; his incredible disregard for victims; his insistence that the law owes nothing to injured foreigners, even those in this country–these three intersect in several of his dissents–and his tendency not to want to challenge anyone in authority, ever. He is a bad judge. He lacks the moral compass needed to be a judge. He would be a sick joke as a justice as he _is_ a sick joke as an appellate judge. The stuff with the list is simply pointing out that Trump had a _reason_ to add this guy, this amoral flack, well after agreeing to the list conservatives provided him. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/474 "2018-09-09T21:43:20Z")
I’m sorry. I misspoke. I don’t know that Kavanaugh is actually amoral. He’s _immoral._ He protects the powerful and denies protection to the weak. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/475 "2018-09-09T21:46:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You are not wrong. The different lists are different. The fist list has 11 names on it. The subsequent lists have more names on them. That’s a change. You have observed correctly, and I agree with your observation. So close! But not quite. The part you miss is that a particular name shows up where it had not before. Can we think of any reason why he is promoted from absence to a status of anointment? There is that one thing, about how generous he is in his interpretation of Presidential power. You’ve heard, yes? Now, here we get into the weeds a bit. People I have read suggest that he is not only exceptional in that regard, he is almost unique. We would need reliable testimony about the others on the various lists. Obviously, if they _all_ shared that view. we could just wad up that speculation and dispose of it, poof! gone! Or if a majority of those worthies held that view, it would be too weak to crawl into our attention. And of course, if the opposite is true, that he is, in fact, unique in that regard…that’s a whole 'nother thing, isn’t it? (Just to be ruthlessly honest, I don’t _know_ this, I am told by sources I tend to trust that it is so, but I do not claim authority. I remain, as always, open to evidence.) The only way this question becomes “silly” is if _you_ have solid evidence. These views are firmly in the centrist mainstream of legal thought? I doubt that, again, relying on sources I have come to trust. If you are firmly convinced otherwise, here’s your chance. Here’s _another_ chance. But silly? No. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/476 "2018-09-09T21:50:31Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Oh, then that’s completely different. Let me rephrase: > > And “he wasn’t on the first list” has got to be one of the silliest _observations_ about him. If that is even in the top 100 _observations_ about him, then I think we can just give him his SCOTUS robes right now and be done with it. Fine. Hypothetically, the 55th most interesting observation about some nominee is, “He wasn’t on a list the President promised to pick from a while back.” The second most interesting thing is, “He objects to politically prosecuting a sitting President more than he objects to a sitting President committing crimes.” The first most interesting thing is, “He objects even to investigating a sitting President more than he objects to a sitting President committing crimes.” Somewhere in the top ten is, “He thinks US corporations should be able to murder foreigners with utter impunity.” Would you hand _that guy_ a seat on the high court? Really? Because Kavanaugh resembles that guy a little too much. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/477 "2018-09-09T22:33:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Facts, like “black lives don’t matter much to Bernie Sanders”? And?? Seriously, Sanders has been a big believer in the notion that the problems of persons of color in America were largely an outgrowth of class and income, and that racial prejudice as a thing of its own wasn’t a big deal. “Black lives don’t matter much to Bernie Sanders” qualifies as an exaggeration, but no more than that. If that’s the best charge you can aim at Brock, he’s clean AFAIAC. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/478 "2018-09-09T22:50:08Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Nice try, but of course I didn’t write that Kavanaugh had given a pledge, but that he “has, essentially, pledged”–as indeed he has. Yes, I left off the weasel word you used. If you’d like to change your statement to something that doesn’t contain the word “pledge” in it, that’s fine with me. > [@](#): > > Since you indicate a wish to become educated on this topic, I’ll recommend a couple of non-paywalled articles: I’ve been around the block a few times on this particular issue, so I’m quite familiar with that quote. Thing is, it’s not me who needs to be educated about it. He says he thinks Congress should pass a law about this, as your cite explicitly says. You even quoted that part yourself. If he were running for Congress, we might call that a pledge. But he’s not running for Congress, and there is no such law, and so there is no pledge, “essentially” or otherwise. > [@](#): > > This article focuses on Kavanaugh’s general beliefs that a president’s powers should extend to making his decisions paramount above any existing or subsequent court decision (mainly via “signing statements”), but also touches on his theory that presidents may not be held accountable for crimes or other violations That sound horrible!! Except for the fact that your selective quoting left off this bit: > [@SF Chronicle Article](#): > > In a 2014 law review article, he said a president who considered a law unconstitutional — whether or not it regulated “private individuals” — could refuse to follow it “until a final court order says otherwise.” > > That is consistent with modern-day signing statements, which presidents attach to legislation they sign or issue soon afterward. They typically challenge provisions Congress has attached to essential spending bills that a president, for practical reasons, cannot veto. So, the charge against him is that he stated something that modern presidents typically do. Not so horrible after all. > [@](#): > > Here are a couple of Washington Post articles detailing Kavanaugh’s views on whether Trump should be excused from facing legal consequences of his actions, and on whether Kavanaugh would rule on such questions should he become an Ass. Justice: Those links don’t work for me. But never mind because: > [@](#): > > …that should be enough to get you started. Lots of links inside the articles to Kavanaugh’s writings, too. Good luck! Yes that’s enough. Enough to be finished since it’s clear you are mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2018, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/479 "2018-09-09T23:21:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So close! But not quite. The part you miss is that a particular name shows up where it had not before. Can we think of any reason why he is promoted from absence to a status of anointment? There is that one thing, about how generous he is in his interpretation of Presidential power. You’ve heard, yes? > > Now, here we get into the weeds a bit. People I have read suggest that he is not only exceptional in that regard, he is almost unique. We would need reliable testimony about the others on the various lists. Obviously, if they _all_ shared that view. we could just wad up that speculation and dispose of it, poof! gone! > > Or if a majority of those worthies held that view, it would be too weak to crawl into our attention. And of course, if the opposite is true, that he is, in fact, unique in that regard…that’s a whole 'nother thing, isn’t it? > > (Just to be ruthlessly honest, I don’t _know_ this, I am told by sources I tend to trust that it is so, but I do not claim authority. I remain, as always, open to evidence.) > > The only way this question becomes “silly” is if _you_ have solid evidence. These views are firmly in the centrist mainstream of legal thought? I doubt that, again, relying on sources I have come to trust. If you are firmly convinced otherwise, here’s your chance. Here’s _another_ chance. But silly? No. Well, now you’re bringing up quite a different issue. You’re suddenly talking about how his views compare to the universe of jurists out there, when the issue of being new to the list is only relevant if his views are markedly different from all the others on the list. Are they? I already cited my source, which is the ABA Standing Committee. Unanimously given Kavanaugh the highest rating they have. Perhaps every single one of them missed Kavanaugh’s dangerous, “almost unique” views, but that would seem odd. Still, feel free to bring your sources to the discussion-- it would help flesh out your argument and allow for a fuller debate. I honestly don’t know how Kavanaugh’s views compare to the other 20-odd folks on the list. But I’m inclined to take the advice of the ABA Standing Committee, which has not been shy in the past of noting judicial outliers. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2018, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733/480 "2018-09-10T00:09:46Z")
Excerpts of interest from the _ABA Journal_ > **[Dinosaur Comics!](https://qwantz.com/index.php?comic=3336)** > > you either die a nerd, or live long enough to see yourself become a jock. or maybe there's a third option too. probably there's lots of ways to live your life when you really think about it > [@](#): > > …The standing committee gave Kavanaugh a well-qualified rating by a substantial majority when he was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 2003 and in 2005, then rated him as qualified in a new review in 2006. That year, a substantial committee majority gave Kavanaugh a qualified rating, while a minority gave him a well-qualified rating. > > While the full compilation of evaluation materials are confidential, the chairman of the committee will provide written statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee when requested, to elaborate on the reasoning behind a candidate’s rating. In 2006, the then-chairman of the committee, Stephen L. Tober, was asked to explain how Kavanaugh’s rating had changed. The change was not due to turnover among the committee members, Tober wrote, because six committee members who had previously rated Kavanaugh as well-qualified had downgraded their ratings to qualified after a supplemental evaluation… > [@](#): > > …Some concerns arose in 2003 about Kavanaugh’s experience. At the time, he had never tried a case to verdict or judgment, his litigation experience was in the company of senior counsel, and he had little experience with criminal cases. > > Additional interviews in 2006 amplified those concerns, Tober said. One judge who witnessed an oral argument said Kavanaugh’s performance was “less than adequate,” demonstrating experience on the level of an associate. In addition, the judge reported that Kavanaugh appeared “sanctimonious,” Tober said. A lawyer who observed Kavanaugh in court reported that he “did not handle the case well as an advocate and dissembled.”… At the end, this odd little note… > [@](#): > > …Kavanaugh has argued one Supreme Court case, _Swidler & Berlin v. United States (1998)_, on behalf of the government. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Swindler & Berlin, saying that attorney-client privilege protected the notes of the lawyer for deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster before Foster committed suicide… This must have been when he was working for the widely-admired Javertbot, Mr. Starr, late of Baylor University, Athens on the Brazos. Probably wasn’t that deeply involved in his disgraceful episode. Was just on his way to lunch, and dropped by to argue this minor thingy. Yeah, that must be it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-democrats-actually-stop-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh/820733.md?page=25)