Trump is announcing his pick for the Supreme Court tomorrow.

I have a bad feeling the fix is in. I think Trump made a deal with Justice Kennedy that if Kennedy leaves, Trump will nominate Brett Kavanaugh, who clerked under Kennedy and was a Bush guy.

Justice Kennedy was a 'swing vote' - meaning he's a RINO who voted with the Libs half the time - and Kavanaugh has already made some lib decisions from the bench (on Obamacare and making our govt pay for an abortion for an illegal alien) so it looks like we're going to be stuck with Kavanaugh - another 'swing vote' RINO on the Supreme Court. Darn.

That will be another reason I don't like Trump - making a deal to nominate a RINO/lib to the Supreme Court.

Wish it could have been Mike Lee.

***********

SCOTUS Shortlister Brett Kavanaugh on Obamacare and Judicial Restraint

Reviewing the record of a possible replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy.

[reason.com]

"If Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, he may well end up with a jurist in the mold of John Roberts."

(Justice John Roberts is another 'swing vote' meaning RINO who votes with the Libs half the time and screwed us over on Obamacare and other decisions.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2018 02:53PM by Jennifer.

Oh, I see the Libs think Kennedy's resignation is related to the Lib's Crazy 'Trump/Russia Collusion' Conspiracy Theory -

Did Anthony Kennedy Resign from the Supreme Court to Protect His Son?

The 81-year-old justice's resignation announcement triggered a spate of conspiracy posts focused on his son's connections to Donald Trump and Deutsche Bank.

[www.snopes.com]

This may be one of the more important presidencies because of the number of Supreme Court justices that may leave. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is getting real old. And if Obama is impeached for fraud, his supreme court picks will become invalid.

Prana to say Obama's court pick would become invalid if fraud was proved is false.

Qbama does not want to hold office again, So it kind of makes it very pointless to Impeach a president who left office.

The Constitution allows only two penalties as a result of impeachment: removal from office, and being banned from holding future federal office.
Technically, it is probably the case that Congress could impeach a President who had left office in order to prevent them from holding future office in the Federal government. This would not only prevent a one-term president from returning to seek another term at a later time, but would prevent a former president from running for Congress or serving in the cabinet of a future president or as a federal judge or Supreme Court justice. However, it’s hard not to see this as a huge waste of Congress’s time.

Quote
Prana
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is getting real old.

Yes, Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have quit under Obama, but they figured Hillary would get the presidency.

So I was right about Trump making a deal with Kennedy. Kennedy resigned on June 30th and Trump said on July 4th that he had already made his decision. It was a set-up since Kennedy's resignation.


**********

From The Washington Times:

"Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a thoroughly Washingtonian choice for the Supreme Court. He grew up in Washington, D.C. After law school (Yale) and clerkships (3rd and 9th Circuits, and Justice Anthony Kennedy), he worked for Ken Starr first at the Office of the Solicitor General and later in the independent counsel's investigation into former President Bill Clinton. He had a brief stint at the D.C. office of mega-firm Kirkland & Ellis before joining former President George W. Bush's White House for five years. That ultimately earned him a nod for a judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In other words, he's well-connected to the Bush machine, and therefore an unexpected choice for President Trump."

So Kavanaugh is part of the Washington Establishment/The Swamp and will be another RINO. The Liberals should be happy, but they won't be.

Kavanaugh is responsible for Justice Roberts upholding Obamacare.

Possible SCOTUS Pick Kavanaugh Wrote Roadmap To Save Obamacare

[thefederalist.com]

"Which is worse: An unelected judge opining on how a mandate to purchase a product could meet constitutional muster, or giving Congress instructions on how to ensure it will? Kavanaugh did both.

JULY 2, 2018

In a 2015 dissent to an Obamacare case, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia famously opined that the court had concluded “that this limitation would prevent the rest of [Obamacare] from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law.… We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

Last week’s retirement announcement from Justice Anthony Kennedy, coupled with news placing Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, high on President Trump’s list to replace Kennedy, has drawn attention back to the legal wrangling over the law. Some observers have claimed that Kavanaugh, in a 2011 opinion written when the D.C. Circuit considered Obamacare’s constitutionality, supported the law’s individual mandate.

As in many other cases, however, the truth contains more nuance than that simple declaration. Even as he avoided a definitive ruling on the merits of the case, Kavanaugh revealed himself as favorably disposed to the mandate. Worst of all, in so doing, he cultivated a theory that ultimately led Chief Justice John Roberts to uphold the mandate."

*********

Also the Liberals should like this about Kavanaugh - regarding Religious Liberty -

Potential Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Has A Troubling Record On Religious Liberty

If Kavanaugh's views were adopted by other courts, then other frivolous claims attacking religion in the public square would have a better chance of being heard in federal courts.

[thefederalist.com]

Jennifer, see the following: Brett Kavanaugh is SES (Senior Executive Services) and so is his wife.

She cracks me up, that woman. I didn't even know about the SES so I looked it up and ran into an article on their website -

DEEP STATE – SHADOW GOVERNMENT REVEALED: SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE

[aim4truth.org]

*******

This article on their website was interesting-

ROGER STONE: KAVANAUGH IS DEEP STATE’S PICK FOR SUPREME COURT

Remember, Kavanaugh helped Clintons by intimidating Vince Foster witness

[www.infowars.com]

"Twice in the recent past so-called conservative Republican presidents have had an opportunity to remake the US Supreme Court and set it on a solidly conservative direction.

Unlike President Ronald Reagan who gave us supreme court justices like William Rehnquist and Anthony Kennedy, George H.W Bush gave us David Souter who joined the liberal block on the court while his son George W Bush gave us John Roberts who cast the deciding vote to save Obamacare. President Donald Trump must be cautious not to make such a mistake.

Donald Trump’s appointment of a second supreme court justice, even before he and his party have to face his first mid-term congressional elections, may be the single most consequential decision – and opportunity – of his entire presidency.

This is blazingly apparent just in the insane, mass conniption fit thrown by the radical left since the moment Anthony Kennedy’s resignation was announced. The appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who by all reports is on the president’s short list, would be a mistake, however.

Kavanaugh is not only the candidate of Karl Rove and the Bush family, but the mainstream media praise for his potential appointment shows he is a deep state quisling."

********

It just bothers me that so many Trump supporters defend Trump and think he's totally innocent in this pick - that Trump had to appoint Kavanaugh or he doesn't realize Kavanaugh is Establishment/Deep State/RINO or whatever.

I think this is just another example of Trump being himself - on the side of Libs/RINO's/Establishment.

It's all very depressing.

Here is Mark Levin podcast from last night where he discusses Kavanaugh and why he's such a terrible pick for Supreme Court Justice -

Mark Levin Show PODCAST - July 10,2018

[www.youtube.com]

(Summary of Tuesdays Mark Levin Show) - there have been 113 Supreme Court justices in the entire history of the US and as much as we respect the President, we can't sit on our hands and refrain from asking tough questions about Judge Brett Kavanaugh. The gold standard of a justice is never a risky pick because you know well in advance what you're getting, Kavanaugh wasn’t that standard. Risky appointments have historically taken several years to prove badly. When we make concessions on Supreme Court nominations the nation suffers. We hope that Kavanaugh will be as impeccable as Justices Scalia, Thomas, or Gorsuch. There's no question he's of good moral character, but he's not up for the priesthood - he's up for the Supreme Court. Then, Chief Justice Roberts' decision fined citizens $1500 in additional taxes for failing to buy Obamacare health insurance. The government saying you shall have health insurance is an example of the coercive power of the government. Congress never called Obamacare a tax, the Court did, and Kavanaugh agreed. Kavanaugh rewrote the statute and argued that the anti-injunction act was his justification because the tax penalty had not been applied to anyone yet. Also, Kavanaugh's view of impeachment is absurd; "dastardly" behavior doesn't meet the standard for impeachment. Kavanaugh is good on issues of the administrative state. This is good because most cases that come before the Supreme Court don’t have broad-based impact on each of us, they're isolated to the parties of those particular cases. Kavanaugh is not Ginsberg or Sotomayor but we don't know him so it’s risky. If he turns into the next Scalia, that’s great, but we're not here to sabotage.

"Another red flag concerning Kavanaugh -

Rand Paul airs concerns about Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh’s stance on Fourth Amendment

[www.theblaze.com]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday he has some concerns about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

President Donald Trump’s appointment of Kavanaugh has polarized many in the Senate, the report noted, and many have kept quiet about their opinions. Paul is considered a swing vote in the nomination.

Why is Paul concerned?
Appearing on “Fox & Friends,” Paul said he is concerned Kavanaugh could cancel out Justice Neil Gorsuch’s vote on the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. He implied that Kavanaugh would be OK with the National Security Agency collecting phone records from millions of Americans, for example.

In an opinion, Kavanaugh defended the NSA, by writing that law enforcement needs sometimes outweigh “the intrusion on individual liberty.”

Paul pointed to information revealed by NSA whistleblowers Edward Snowden and others about how the government agency was “collecting all of our metadata, all of our phone records and storing it in Utah. I mean millions and millions and millions of pieces of data. Basically, Kavanaugh ruled that he was just fine with it. That basically, the national security required it.”

Kavanaugh wrote, in part:

Even if the bulk collection of telephony metadata constitutes a search,[…] the Fourth Amendment does not bar all searches and seizures. It bars only unreasonable searches and seizures. And the Government’s metadata collection program readily qualifies as reasonable under the Supreme Court’s case law. The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient “special need” – that is, a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement – that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty. Examples include drug testing of students, roadblocks to detect drunk drivers, border checkpoints, and security screening at airports. […] The Government’s program for bulk collection of telephony metadata serves a critically important special need – preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. See THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004). In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program. The Government’s program does not capture the content of communications, but rather the time and duration of calls, and the numbers called. In short, the Government’s program fits comfortably within the Supreme Court precedents applying the special needs doctrine.

Paul disagreed.

“I think if we give up our liberty for security, with what [Benjamin] Franklin said, and that’s neither — neither liberty nor security,” Paul said."

So depressing that we're going to end up with this guy who isn't good enough to be a Justice on the Supreme Court.

Dershowitz Slams Kavanaugh For Saying A President Could Be Impeached For 'Dastardly Behavior'

[www.dailywire.com]

On Tuesday morning, attorney Alan Dershowitz, who was appearing on CNN with host John Berman to discuss his new book, The Case Against Impeaching Donald Trump, took issue with newly-announced Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s statement that “dastardly” behavior could be enough to impeach a president.

The exchange began with Berman noting an article Kavanaugh wrote in 2009. Berman stated, “Brett Kavanaugh has written extensively about investigating and prosecuting a president in an article in the Minnesota Law Review in 2009. One of the things he says is, ‘The indictment and trial of a sitting president would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas.’”

Dershowitz agreed with Kavanaugh’s statement, noting that according to the Constitution, a president can only be prosecuted after he’s been impeached and after he’s left office. He added that the framers of the Constitution rejected a proposal to make maladministration, rather than a criminal action, an impeachable offense.

Berman then quoted Kavanaugh saying, “If the president does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available.”

Dershowitz responded, “He’s dead wrong. He should read the Constitution, and I think when he does read the Constitution, and when he reads my book, and I will send him a copy of it, he will see I’m right and he’s wrong. Dastardly is not a criteria for impeachment. If you allow dastardly to be a criteria for impeachment, then you really create a lawless process. What does dastardly mean? Who defines dastardly?”

Rand Paul will support Kavanaugh: After meeting Judge Kavanaugh and reviewing his record, I have decided to support his nomination.

Yes, I knew the minute I read that Rand Paul had some misgivings about Kavanaugh that he would end up voting for him. And all the rest of the Conservatives will also because it's so important that Trump gets a 'win.' Like with the bad tax bill. So we'll end up with another RINO/Lib on the bench just like Kennedy before him and like Roberts is. So depressing.

Then there's this that I read today. All the courts are stacked with partisan libs and they're changing the culture; they don't give a crap about the Constitution. And I don't know why Trump isn't getting all the Republicans he can to fill all the vacancies he has; he's either not even filling the positions or just letting the RINO's or libs left over from Obama stay there. Terrible. The Libs are light years ahead of the Conservatives/Republicans in all culture and government. Although they deserve to be because they're brilliant, true to their ideology, instead of stupid, wishy-washy caving cowards, like our guys on the right. The left has been steamrolling us since Woodrow Wilson brought in Progressivism. When the right finally gets some power, all they ever do is slow down the Lib's progress a tiny bit. They're bullies; we're cowards.

9 insane court rulings on major issues in just a few days

[www.conservativereview.com]

Congress might be out for the summer, but the courts are just getting started.

While the GOP Congress does nothing to advance the platform of the party when they win elections, the Left is winning 50-year culture battles on the most consequential issues of our time through the new legislature: the courts. Federal judges have filled the power vacuum left behind by impotent legislators who are obsequious to the courts and they are giving Democrats victories on immigration, election law, abortion, sexuality, religious liberty, and wage controls in a matter of a few days that they could never dream of accomplishing through the legislature.

The worst element of this left-wing judicial coup is that they are completely shielded from electoral reprisal. At least if a Democrat Congress would enact these priorities, they’d lose the next election. Now, Republicans are on the hook for the status quo and are starring down the barrel of a wave election against them. Ironically, however, they have abdicated all their power and the Left is still in charge through the judiciary.

Here are 9 examples where the left-wing judiciary has steamrolled any hint of conservative victory in just the past few days. Collectively, these examples demonstrate that even if conservatives win a clear majority on the Supreme Court, absent congressional efforts to reclaim power from the lower courts they created, the Left will still win every culture battle and even now some fiscal battles:

Quote
Jennifer
"Another red flag concerning Kavanaugh -

Rand Paul airs concerns about Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh’s stance on Fourth Amendment

[www.theblaze.com]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday he has some concerns about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

President Donald Trump’s appointment of Kavanaugh has polarized many in the Senate, the report noted, and many have kept quiet about their opinions. Paul is considered a swing vote in the nomination.

Why is Paul concerned?
Appearing on “Fox & Friends,” Paul said he is concerned Kavanaugh could cancel out Justice Neil Gorsuch’s vote on the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. He implied that Kavanaugh would be OK with the National Security Agency collecting phone records from millions of Americans, for example.

In an opinion, Kavanaugh defended the NSA, by writing that law enforcement needs sometimes outweigh “the intrusion on individual liberty.”

Paul pointed to information revealed by NSA whistleblowers Edward Snowden and others about how the government agency was “collecting all of our metadata, all of our phone records and storing it in Utah. I mean millions and millions and millions of pieces of data. Basically, Kavanaugh ruled that he was just fine with it. That basically, the national security required it.”

Kavanaugh wrote, in part:

Even if the bulk collection of telephony metadata constitutes a search,[…] the Fourth Amendment does not bar all searches and seizures. It bars only unreasonable searches and seizures. And the Government’s metadata collection program readily qualifies as reasonable under the Supreme Court’s case law. The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient “special need” – that is, a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement – that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty. Examples include drug testing of students, roadblocks to detect drunk drivers, border checkpoints, and security screening at airports. […] The Government’s program for bulk collection of telephony metadata serves a critically important special need – preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. See THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004). In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program. The Government’s program does not capture the content of communications, but rather the time and duration of calls, and the numbers called. In short, the Government’s program fits comfortably within the Supreme Court precedents applying the special needs doctrine.

Paul disagreed.

“I think if we give up our liberty for security, with what [Benjamin] Franklin said, and that’s neither — neither liberty nor security,” Paul said."

Judge Napolitano agrees Kavanaugh is lousy on the 4th Amendment

(I think this is something we all can agree on - I think none of us agreed with the Patriot Act. In fact, that's when I switched from being a Democrat: when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 I was so happy, but the first words out of Nancy Pelosi's mouth were - "Impeachment is off the table" - because I wanted Bush impeached. Then double whammy - the Dems renewed the Patriot Act. That was when I left the Democrat Party)

JUDGE NAPOLITANO: KAVANAUGH IS AN ENEMY OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT

[mises.org]

Today begins the Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. At Mises University this year, during a talk on how the courts disregard natural law in America, Judge Andrew Napolitano looked at some troubling moments in Judge Kavanaugh's legal career.

Here is a clip from that lecture:

(Please watch the video at the Mises Link)

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Brett Kavanaugh and the Patriot Act

In a discussion on natural law, Napolitano noted that Judge Kavanaugh had established a record of supporting government surveillance on Americans, even when there was not probable cause to believe a crime was being committed.

Kavanaugh's support for abuse of government power in this case, has been buttressed by the Patriot Act, one of the most anti-Fourth-Amendment pieces of legislation passed in recent decades.

Napolitano goes on to outline the many ways the Patriot Act violates the natural rights behind the Fourth Amendment, concluding:

"What young lawyer was the scrivener when they were putting together the Patriot Act?"

It was, of course, Brett Kavanaugh.

(Please watch the video at the Mises Link)