In response to the trolls re Brett Kavanaugh not being so bad

[lunatica]

This guy has proven himself to be politically active in all, ALL, his opinions. All of them, and he’s been prolific in his decisions and written opinions. Just reading through them will guarantee the process of vetting him will take some time. He is clearly Trump’s wet dream come true.

Kavanaugh worked with Ken Starr and wrote the final report on Bill Clinton so at one time he seems to have been all for going after the President, yet now he has written that it would be too horrible for the country to pursue any legal action against a President. That includes impeachment, or, as is suspected, any crime Mueller will find that Trump has committed. Trump would get off scott free. Is it a wonder Trump picked him? Trump doesn’t do anything that doesn’t benefit him personally.

He worked in the Bush Administration in a very powerful position as a Bush aid. He was virtually part of every single policy decision made during that administration, which includes the lies they told to go to war with Iraq. Remember those lies? Or maybe you think they weren’t so bad?

And then there is his far right views on the 2nd Amendment. In his perfect world there would be no constraints on any kind of weapon the NRA espouses. He approves of semi automatic weapons and his judicial reason is because they are not singled out in the constitution as being exceptions to the 2nd amendment.

He doesn’t believe healthcare for everyone is Constitutionally mandated or that women have the right to choose. He denied a 17 year old illegal alien the choice to have an abortion and did his best to delay the court decision so the lawful period of having an abortion would pass. He was stopped in time and the court granted the girl her request.

There is plenty more which can also be found in the links below

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/brett-kavanaugh-trumps-supreme-court-pick-has-sided-with-broad-views-of-presidential-powers/2018/07/09/1618bec0-83a8-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2e10fdf7bed4

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/10/4-big-questions-about-brett-kavanaugh/?utm_term=.e3baf4c0c055

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/business/kavanaugh-supreme-court-business-regulation.html

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/judge-brett-kavanaughs-impeccable-record-of-constitutional-conservatism/

And there is so much more if trolls want to educate themselves.

[hlthe2b]

1. Agree and if DUers want to fight any "concerted efforts"....

We need to all respond immediately and directly on every Pro-Kavanaugh thread. It is one thing to post seeking information or clarification on his views, but quite another to attempt to troll or manipulate.

[lunatica]

2. I hope Skinner and the admins are keeping track!

Is there a way of alerting on suspicious posters?

[hlthe2b]

5. unless they are newbies

i.e., <100 posts (in which case one can DU message a MIRT member), but in general, no.

One could email an admin for others, I suppose.

[lunatica]

9. OK I won't alert

There might be a slim chance this person is sincere. In my opinion it is really slim.

[Raster]

3. Not only do trolls NOT want to educate themselves...

...they don't want anyone else to educate themselves either.

[Hoyt]

4. He's suspect, but he did not say, "it's unconstitutional to pursue any legal action against a Pres

That includes impeachment. . . . . ." In fact, he said that under current law, a sitting Pres can be investigated, indicted, in addition to Impeachment. He wants Congress to exempt a Prez from indictment, but not Impeachment. But he believes a Prez can be indicted right now as the laws are written an interpreted. Sounds kind of like the diplomatic immunity offered foreign officials, but Impeachment would still apply under Kav's desires.

Now the other stuff is likely true, maybe even worse than mentioned above. I hope Democratic Senators and investigative reporters look deep into his opinions and writings. Don't think it will ultimately block his nomination, but we ought to know the truth.

[lunatica]

7. What he said about indicting a President was that it would be

too awful for the country to even contemplate. He didn’t seem to believe that when he worked with Ken Starr. So he’s still young and ‘evolving’. He most likely would have the deciding vote to not indict the President.

[rockfordfile]

27. The problem is that he's a far right pos. He can't be trusted for anything.

Nobody is above the law. Our country isn't run by a King.

[Hoyt]

35. I agree, we can't trust him. But that doesn't mean we should distort what he is said.

I know trump and most GOPers have no problem with lying, but we should.

[marylandblue]

34. I read his article, he did not actually say a president can be indicted

It's an inference that can be made from the article, but he himself did not make that inference, and instead said that current law was beyond the scope of the article. He did make clear that he didn't think presidents should be subject to investigations in the first place. No court can pre-emptively block an investigation, only Congress can do that. But a court COULD decide after a subpoena or indictment that the case must be dropped. And it seems that's exactly what Kavanaugh would decide.

[Hoyt]

36. There are actually two articles and this is a summary of what others are saying.

There was a great discussion on Maddow last night by some liberal attorneys.

Here's another article/opinion that makes sense:

"Properly understood, Kavanaugh’s expressed views actually support the opposite conclusion: that the president can be investigated and maybe even indicted unless Congress passes a law saying he can’t — which Congress has not done."

"The key texts here Kavanaugh’s 2009 article in the Minnesota Law Review and his 1998 article in the Georgetown Law Journal. . . . . .

"Now comes the tricky part. In 2009 [during Obama's term surprisingly], Kavanaugh proposed that Congress might pass a law that would protect the president from investigation and indictment while in office. That’s the part that some Democrats are focusing on now — because Kavanaugh was saying that he thought it was a bad idea to go after the president.

"But from a legal and constitutional perspective, Kavanaugh wasn’t saying that the courts should find that the president shouldn’t be investigated or indicted. To the contrary. He was saying that Congress should pass a law ensuring that result, because without it, the president was open to being investigated — and maybe even indicted. . . . . . . ."

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-10/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-doesn-t-give-president-trump-cover

__________________________

To be sure, Kavanaugh could do a 180 if the case were presented to the Court, but he'd either have to dance or admit he's a liar, which probably wouldn't shame him.

I actually believe that sitting Presidents should be subject to Impeachment, and indictment for rape, murder, treason, assault, etc. However, I'm not sure they should be subject to civil and criminal cases of a lesser nature while in office. Their position is so important that some degree of diplomatic immunity makes sense. I'd love to see trump perp-walked for jaywalking or whatever, but it will trap a Democrat someday too.

[marylandblue]

39. Yes they are saying that, but they are missing an important sentence

Where he sidestepped what he thought the current law says. A glaring omission for a law review article, but perfectly in line with an ambitious new judge who wants to expand the powers of the President.

[Hoyt]

41. I don't think so. I think he has plainly said that under current law a Prez can be indicted, but he

believes Congress should protect a Prez from civil and criminal investigations/indictment by specifically enacting a law giving him some sort of diplomatic immunity like a foreign government official. Again, I kind of agree for some civil/criminal actions, but not treason, murder, assault, rape, and something of that nature.

[dalton99a]

6. Beware of self-proclaimed "liberals" and "former Democrats" in editorial and opinion pages

Especially those from the Federalist Society.

They're full of shit

[lunatica]

8. They should be easy to spot.

Kavanaugh is one of the most extreme examples of the black/white choices in a world of shades of gray.

[Freddie]

10. An earlier comment here

Those who think Kavanaugh "may not be so bad" are the same folks
who think it's possible to pick up a turd "by the clean end".

[lunatica]

11. LOL!

That a good one!

There is no telling what the two cells rattling around in the space inside their skulls do when eventually they crash into each other. Does it form a thought, or just spark like a bad electrical connection?

[Nitram]

12. Exactly! Kavanaugh is dangerous.

[lunatica]

13. The Constitution is not his highest ideal

His ultra conservative views are. He will not consider making any ruling that protects the neutrality or intent of the Constitution. He is the very definition of an activist judge. His OPINION trump’s everything. Reading his writings show that.

To make it perfectly clear, in his opinion a woman’s right to choose is superseded by what he thinks is the right that should win. He is personally against abortion so his opinion is more important than the Constitution. So it doesn’t matter that Roe v Wade settled the question that a woman’s rights means NO ONE gets to take her rights away. He thinks his opinion alone is more valid than her rights.

There is nothing objective or intellectually valid about his cave man thinking.

[Nitram]

15. That's true of every conservative judge on the list.

[lunatica]

17. Yes. But this particular one

is quite likely to protect Trump against indictment and impeachment on the grounds that it is Unconstitutional because it would harm the country. He’s already written as much. And he would be the deciding vote.

Trump picked him because Trump would personally benefit. I think it’s the only reason Trump picked him.

[Nitram]

19. Absolutely that's why Trump picked him. That's exactly why Trump should not be allowed to make a

SCOTUS pick until the Mueller investigation is finished.

[The Mouth]

29. It's the only reason Trump does anything.

[lunatica]

37. We must not lose sight of that no matter what it 'seems' like he's doing.

He is what he is and it’s on us to remember that.

In the stages of grief this is the last one which many misunderstand - acceptance

This does not mean to be accepting. It means acknowledgement of the truth.

Once you accept the truth you can decide what to do with this truth in your life.

[RandomAccess]

14. Thanks for all this

He's definitely even worse than I expected, altho I already knew about that decision on the immigrant teen's request for abortion which IMO was pure misogyny.

[Baclava]

21. yep

[Odious justice]

16. He's not so bad in the sense that

he is not a clear proponent of overturning Roe. Trump has no interest in keeping his promise of making abortion illegal with this pick, rather, it is self serving in case Trump is indicted at some point. His base isn't going to pick up on that nuance. Also, just because he has not explicitly said he would overturn Roe doesn't mean he won't. There really isn't any scenario where Trump makes a "good" pick.

[lunatica]

18. "Good" is a relative term

The issue boils down to one thing. What benefits Trump more. Period.

[azureblue]

25. question

how much money has he taken from the Russians?

[elmac]

20. and if there are Democrats who vote for this asswipe

which would also be breaking a precedence that the fascist set when Obama tried to fill a scotus position, should we get the DU boot if we give them hell for it?

[lunatica]

23. I'm not alerting on any who I think are trolls

who have more than 100 posts. But I will fight them.

[Vinca]

22. Unfortunately, the choices in this entire mess are bad and worse.

[airmid]

24. This guy is a nightmare. But to be fair, everyone Trump picks is a nightmare.

[lunatica]

26. That's the truth

We have to be vigilant whether we want to be or not.

We can’t give up. At least not yet since he doesn’t have a dictator’s lock on everything for now.

[Hoyt]

38. Honest to God, we are lucky the nominee didn't show up in a Nazi brown shirt with a confederate flag

The moment trump was elected, we should have expected someone just like Kavanaugh. I think he may get one, maybe two, more nominations before it's over. The best we can hope for from trump is someone who looks at the law and manages to ignore their personal beliefs as much as possible. No, I don't like it, but this was predictable in November 2016.

[Honeycombe8]

28. I've seen some newbies who have stated some cleverly worded praises about Kavanaugh.

Very cleverly worded. "Strict constitutionalist" pops up...and it's supposedly a good thing.

[The Mouth]

31. It wouldn't be bad if they actually *MEANT* it.

However it's simply code for 'right wing Christofascist white power nationalist'.

I mean if any judge simply said 'I'll use the Constitution and ONLY the Constitution (and maybe Federalist papers which are the justifications the people proposing it used when trying to drum up support for it) then they'd at least be rational. But 'Strict Constitutionalist' seems to mean "I'll fill in from the Bible, Mein Kampf and 'None Dare Call It Conspiracy' when I want to.

[Honeycombe8]

32. No. "Strict Constitutionalist" means the Constitution should not be changed. Ever.

Women's rights? Gone. Minorities? Gone. All amendments...gone.

If the Constitution doesn't literally SAY it, it does not exist.

And that is not a good thing. And that is not what most lawmakers and most people believe the Constitution is, which is a living document.

[lunatica]

33. I started this thread on just such a newby's post.

I can’t alert the admins or accuse them of being trolls but I can alert other DUers.

[Honeycombe8]

44. Exactly.

They are carefully worded.

[Cosmocat]

30. CORRECT

This sum of his quote judicial beliefs unquote is whatever is favored by the current lunatic conservative movement is constitutional, whatever they are in opposition to is unconstitutional.

Hes a politican in a robe.

[BigmanPigman]

42. After hearing more than I wanted to about this guy

last night, I drew the same conclusion. This is bad, really bad.

[Honeycombe8]

45. That seems to be the case. nt

[wryter2000]

40. Agreed

At least this one has left a paper trail. We can roast him in hearings

[OMGWTF]

43. However, with trolls these things are features, not bugs.