Kavanaugh ruled for Trump casino in 2012 unionization case

[brooklynite]

Source: The Hill

President Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2012 sided with the future U.S. president's casino in a case over unionization, Bloomberg reported.

Kavanaugh threw his weight behind Trump Entertainment Resorts' successful attempt to end a unionization effort at one of its casinos six years ago.

He voted with two other Republican-nominated judges on the D.C.-based federal appeals court to set aside an order by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that would have required the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in New Jersey to bargain with the United Auto Workers.

Labor advocates point to this ruling as evidence that Kavanaugh's appointment could lead to the targeting of laws to protect workers and specifically target the dwindling number of unions in the U.S.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/399463-kavanaugh-sided-with-trump-casino-in-2012-case-over-unionization

[lagomorph777]

1. Conflict of interest.

Dems need to be all over this in the sham confirmation hearing!

[onenote]

4. No conflict of interest

Democrats should be opposing Kavanaugh because of his jurisprudence, not a made up "conflict of interest."

Judges (and Supreme Court Justices) often rule on whether actions taken by the president that nominated them are constitutional or otherwise comply with law. No one thinks it's a conflict for them to do so. Ruling on a case (particularly where his vote wasn't decisive) involving Trump before Trump even was running for president doesn't disqualify Kavanaugh from being nominated.

However, the judicial philosophy should.

[Achilleaze]

2. Should a republican traitor be allowed to handpick his own republican judge?

I think that to let compromised republican Comrade Dirty Donny* pick his own judge would be shitting and pissing all over the rule of law.

republicans seem eager to do so. Some wicked evil shit going down in KGOP republicanland.

* aka republican Draft-Dodger-in-Chief

[turbinetree]

3. Yepper, some Federalist Society asshole that thinks when a majority of

workers and voters ask and want to be represented by people in a vote for unionization of the rule of a majority, mind you 50+1 majority, this POS says, fuck democracy, we don't need any stinking forms of democracy and votes of 50+1 fuck that, your fucking peons, I'm all in for one man rule...................got it......................move on

This "guy" doesn't even believe in the Constitution, because he thinks that a president can run rough shod over the rule of law and break every fucking law without any consequences, while you and me, well that's a different story........................we can't run rough shod over the rule of law...............................so we get the proverbial book thrown at us........................he really can go F himself , and how he got on the bench is beyond me and anyone else from this Federalist Society thing, they hate the Constitution

[SayItLoud]

5. Recuse himself?

Any legal eagles here please share your view, law knowledge: If a case rose to the SC level and it concerned tRUMP what's the protocol (if any) with regard to a judge recusing her/himself?

[onenote]

7. No recusal.

Judges at every level routinely rule on questions of whether the president that nominated them has exceeded his constitutional authority or otherwise not acted in accordance with law.

[FakeNoose]

6. I thought Trump forfeited ownership of his casinos years ago

When his bankruptcies happened in the 1990's didn't Trump lose ownership then? Any casinos that currently have Trump's name on them, I believe he's just managing them under contract. In other words he's getting paid a franchise fee, nothing more.

So Kavanaugh may have ruled in a way that pleased Trump, however he didn't own the casinos in question. If I'm wrong about that, someone please let me know.

[onenote]

8. Trump maintained control until 2009

Various bankruptcies led to various reorganizations of the Trump casino properties, but it wasn't until 2009 that Trump was effectively forced to give up control of Trump Entertainment to Carl Icahn, although Trump did maintain a 10 percent interest (in part as compensation for a licensing arrangement that allowed the casinos to continue to use the Trump name).

The case discussed in the OP arose in 2007, while Trump was still in control, but didn't reach the DC Circuit until 2012 (the casino shut down in 2014).

In any event, it doesn't matter whether Trump was or wasn't the owner. Kavanaugh's signing onto a unanimous DC Circuit ruling handed down before Trump was even running for president does not create a conflict. As noted above, federal judges routinely rule in cases involving actions taken by the president that nominated them and no one considers it a conflict. For example, both Ginsburg and Breyer, Clinton nominees, participated in the Clinton v. Jones case.

[FakeNoose]

9. OK thanks for the correction

Normally I'd agree with you that a federal judge should be expected to render fair, impartial judgments no matter whose case it is. However we've never had a President that demanded personal loyalty oaths from employees before. This is all-new territory and it needs to be looked at thoroughly.