Brett Kavanaugh nominated for Supreme Court Justice

[MennoSota]

United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh started working to secure his place on the high court Tuesday.

Kavenaugh is meeting with senators to ask for their support. The U.S. Senate votes on nominees to be Justices on the Supreme Court. A simple majority is required.

President Donald Trump selected Kavanaugh to replace retiring 81-year-old Justice Anthony Kennedy. It is likely to be one of the more important decisions of his presidency.

"There is no one in America more qualified for this position, or more deserving,” the president said. Trump spoke during the television announcement of the nomination from the White House East Room on Monday. He called Kavanaugh a "brilliant jurist" who has "devoted his life to public service.

The 53-year-old Kavanaugh has served as a federal judge for 12 years. And, he has been part of some highly disputed legal cases.

Before he was a judge, he ran an investigation into the death of a deputy adviser to President Bill Clinton. It was ruled a suicide, but some people dispute this.

Later, he worked on Bill Clinton’s impeachment over a sexual relationship with a White House intern.

He also took part in legal action over the vote recount in the state of Florida during the 2000 presidential election. He later joined the administration of President George W. Bush.

Strong reactions from members of both parties

Trump’s choice was met with predictable reactions from Republicans and Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called Kavanaugh "an impressive" nominee who is "well qualified" to sit on the nation's highest court.

Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called him a "candidate worthy of the Senate's consideration." Grassley’s committee will hold hearings on Kavanaugh's nomination before it goes to a vote before the full Senate.

Democrats are worried that Kavanaugh will join with the court's other four conservative members to reverse legalized abortion in the United States. Abortion became legal in 1973 in a famous case known as Roe versus Wade. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has promised to protect abortion rights. He said he would work to defeat Kavanaugh, in his words, “with everything I have.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/learningenglish.voanews.com/amp/4476983.html

 

[Lamb]

I admit I haven't been keeping up with all of this. I guess now we'll start hearing about every bad thing he's ever done since the age of 12 :huh:

As much as I would love for Roe v Wade to be overturned I won't be holding my breath. The Supreme Court is like a turtle when it comes to getting things done.

 

[Albion]

It is correct to say that the Obstructionist Party will try to stop the confirmation of Kavanaugh and that it would have been the exact same way if the president had nominated someone that they themselves had recommended. Merrick Garland, for example.

But for them to succeed in denying Kavanaugh, all the vulnerable Democrat Senators who are up for reelection in states that went for Trump would have to vote against Kavanaugh, which would doom their own chances of reelection and guarantee that whoever the President nominates in place of Kavanaugh will be assured of confirmation. Most of those potential replacements are thought to be more conservative than Kavanaugh.

 

[TangledWeb]

Kavanaugh said in 2006 that he would follow Roe v. Wade if confirmed to the D.C. Court because it was already ruled on by the Supreme Court but what is hopeful is that in 2016 he said that the principle of stare decisis was not absolute. Perhaps we have a savior in our midst who will return the country back to a great place to live in again instead of the cesspool of murdering children it has fought to become

 

[MennoSota]

Kavanaugh said in 2006 that he would follow Roe v. Wade if confirmed to the D.C. Court because it was already ruled on by the Supreme Court but what is hopeful is that in 2016 he said that the principle of stare decisis was not absolute. Perhaps we have a savior in our midst who will return the country back to a great place to live in again instead of the cesspool of murdering children it has fought to become

Indeed, the murder count for abortion is beyond the pale. However, morality can never be legislated from the bench.
We need a great repentance in our nation. One the likes of King Josiah.

 

[NewCreation435]

Seems like there was more of an uproar about Trump's last pick for Supreme Court than this one

 

[Albion]

Seems like there was more of an uproar about Trump's last pick for Supreme Court than this one

It does. However, I expect that to change once the hearings start. At the moment, the Dems aren't sure what it is that they will make into their supposed reason for saying they cannot support the nominee.

 

[psalms 91]

It does. However, I expect that to change once the hearings start. At the moment, the Dems aren't sure what it is that they will make into their supposed reason for saying they cannot support the nominee.

Same reasoning the Republicans used I guess would work. Personally, I just wish they would all do their jobs and stop this nonsense. The eprson Obama put up was an acceptable nomination to both sides and Trump seems to have picked one that is acceptable only to one side but he is highly qualified IMHO

 

[Albion]

Same reasoning the Republicans used I guess would work.

Huh? :huh: The last time that the Republicans were faced with confirming or rejecting a SCOTUS nominee put up by a Dem president, it was with Elena Kagan, an unimpressive selection, but they voted for her confirmation with little complaint. Before that it was Sotomayor. But the Democrats, if you check the record, almost never choose to confirm a Republican nominee without making a big fight of it.

 

[psalms 91]

Huh? :huh: The last time that the Republicans were faced with confirming or rejecting a SCOTUS nominee put up by a Dem president, it was with Elena Kagan, an unimpressive selection, but they voted for her confirmation with little complaint. Before that it was Sotomayor. But the Democrats, if you check the record, almost never choose to confirm a Republican nominee without making a big fight of it.

Short memory I guess, your memory apparently doesnt go back to 2015 - 16 a nominee who acceptable to both sides but they dug in to create what we now have. When you talk about reasonable please start with your own party.

 

[Albion]

Short memory I guess, your memory apparently doesnt go back to 2015 - 16 a nominee who acceptable to both sides but they dug in to create what we now have. When you talk about reasonable please start with your own party.

I'm pretty sure that my party has never nominated anyone to the SCOTUS, friend. You really should know what you are talking about before committing it to print.

That aside, you are referring to Merrick Garland, I take it, but the Republicans in that instance did not savage Judge Garland, say he was unqualified, or anything of the sort.

 

[psalms 91]

I'm pretty sure that my party has never nominated anyone to the SCOTUS, friend. You really should know what you are talking about before committing it to print.

That aside, you are referring to Merrick Garland, I take it, but the Republicans in that instance did not savage Judge Garland, say he was unqualified, or anything of the sort.

No, they just dug in and refused to confirm him

 

[Albion]

But there is nothing comparable there. The Republicans did not find fault with Garland. They simply refused to change the rules that the Senate had been working under and which had been established by the Democrats when they had the majority--and without consulting the Republicans. The Dems were merely victims of their own deviousness.

 

[psalms 91]

But there is nothing comparable there. The Republicans did not find fault with Garland. They simply refused to change the rules that the Senate had been working under and which had been established by the Democrats when they had the majority--and without consulting the Republicans. The Dems were merely victims of their own deviousness.

And now it has come home to roost with the Republicans

 

[Albion]

I would be interested to know how that is supposed to make sense. It looks like the GOP will win out with two seats on the Supreme Court and the Democrats will gain none. That's thanks in part to the changes made in Senate procedures when they, the Dems, were in charge.

 

[psalms 91]

Problem is that not all Republicans will vote to confirm as of now and elections are coming up in November and I seriously doubt that they will hold the senate

 

[Albion]

Problem is that not all Republicans will vote to confirm as of now and elections are coming up in November and I seriously doubt that they will hold the senate

You are certainly out of step with all the political experts--on both of those guesses. We will just have to remember this exchange when we see what has happened in November.