Brett Kavanaugh will be Trump’s SCOTUS nominee

[Anti-Neocon]

Larry "Nuke Iran" Klayman actually wrote something good here:

https://www.newsmax.com/larryklayman.../10/id/870888/

[Swordsmyth]

Larry "Nuke Iran" Klayman actually wrote something good here:

https://www.newsmax.com/larryklayman.../10/id/870888/

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6650708

[Swordsmyth]

In a somewhat unprecedented move, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein has asked the offices of all 93 U.S. attorneys to each provide up to three federal prosecutors to assist the Justice Department in reviewing government records of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Even The New York Times admits this move is "an unusual insertion of politics into federal law enforcement."
While the Justice Department has helped work on previous Supreme Court nominations, department lawyers in Washington typically carry out that task, not prosecutors who pursue criminal investigations nationwide.
Mr. Rosenstein’s email, which had the subject line “Personal Message to U.S. Attorneys From the Deputy A.G.,” included the sentence, “We need your help in connection with President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the Supreme Court.”
Former law enforcement officials told the Times that Rosenstein's request is troubling.

"It’s flat-out wrong to have career federal prosecutors engaged in a political process like the vetting of a Supreme Court nominee. It takes them away from the mission they’re supposed to be fulfilling, which is effective criminal justice enforcement," Christopher Hunter, a former F.B.I. agent and federal prosecutor for almost 11 years, told the publication.
But Michael Zubrensky, a former Justice Department lawyer who oversaw the agency's Office of Legal Policy, said Kavanaugh's long paper trail could be the reason for Rosenstein's request.
Sarah Isgur Flores, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, told the Times that prosecutors have been used in the past to vet Supreme Court nominees. "[T]he scope of the production of executive branch documents we’ve been asked for is many, many times as large," she said.

Rosenstein also wrote that he would need the equivalent of 100 full-time attorneys to work on the nominee's confirmation hearing.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...-picks-records

[Brian4Liberty]

In a somewhat unprecedented move, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein has asked the offices of all 93 U.S. attorneys to each provide up to three federal prosecutors to assist the Justice Department in reviewing government records of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Even The New York Times admits this move is "an unusual insertion of politics into federal law enforcement."
While the Justice Department has helped work on previous Supreme Court nominations, department lawyers in Washington typically carry out that task, not prosecutors who pursue criminal investigations nationwide.
Mr. Rosenstein’s email, which had the subject line “Personal Message to U.S. Attorneys From the Deputy A.G.,” included the sentence, “We need your help in connection with President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the Supreme Court.”
Former law enforcement officials told the Times that Rosenstein's request is troubling.

"It’s flat-out wrong to have career federal prosecutors engaged in a political process like the vetting of a Supreme Court nominee. It takes them away from the mission they’re supposed to be fulfilling, which is effective criminal justice enforcement," Christopher Hunter, a former F.B.I. agent and federal prosecutor for almost 11 years, told the publication.
But Michael Zubrensky, a former Justice Department lawyer who oversaw the agency's Office of Legal Policy, said Kavanaugh's long paper trail could be the reason for Rosenstein's request.
Sarah Isgur Flores, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, told the Times that prosecutors have been used in the past to vet Supreme Court nominees. "[T]he scope of the production of executive branch documents we’ve been asked for is many, many times as large," she said.

Rosenstein also wrote that he would need the equivalent of 100 full-time attorneys to work on the nominee's confirmation hearing.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...-picks-records

A loyalty investigation, with the added benefit of finding enough dirt to ensure future loyalty.

[Brian4Liberty]

In 2016, Kavanaugh reported having between $60,000 and $200,000 in debt accrued over three credit cards and a loan. Each credit card held between $15,000 and $50,000 in debt, and a Thrift Savings Plan loan was between $15,000 and $50,000.
...
His public filing does not include his home, which he purchased with his wife, Ashley, in 2006 for $1.2 million. Public real estate filings indicate that the couple has refinanced their mortgage twice, most recently in 2015. Their currentmortgage is $865,000.

His past financial disclosure forms reveal that Kavanaugh has incurred significant credit card debt on and off for more than a decade. He previously reported between $60,000 to $200,000 in debt among three credit cards and a loan in 2006, the same year he was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...6a7_story.html

Sounds like a guy who never had any worries about future income. Maybe his off-book assurances are substantial enough that he has no need to worry.

[TommyJeff]

Sounds like a guy who never had any worries about future income. Maybe his off-book assurances are substantial enough that he has no need to worry.

He bought an expensive home a year before the market collapsed and had debt less than 2 years ago on some credit cards which he has since fully paid off ....... is there a point this story?

[devil21]

He bought an expensive home a year before the market collapsed and had debt less than 2 years ago on some credit cards which he has since fully paid off ....... is there a point this story?

I don't know if there's a point, but it would be interesting to know if he happened to get bailed out of his mountain of debt (a la Trump/Soros and Trump/Wilbur Ross), instead of him actually paying it off. It would indicate who, if anyone, he might owe favors to.

[TommyJeff]

I don't know if there's a point, but it would be interesting to know if he happened to get bailed out of his mountain of debt (a la Trump/Soros and Trump/Wilbur Ross), instead of him actually paying it off. It would indicate who, if anyone, he might owe favors to.

That would be interesting but it’s often wrong to pose such hypotheticals without any factual basis. The media does it quite often and that often snowballs into big stories which prove to be false. I think it best to condemn after we learn about bush paying off his debt rather than speculating

[Swordsmyth]

That would be interesting but it’s often wrong to pose such hypotheticals without any factual basis. The media does it quite often and that often snowballs into big stories which prove to be false. I think it best to condemn after we learn about bush paying off his debt rather than speculating

There are much better reasons to oppose him anyway.

[Anti Globalist]

Who is the best Supreme Court Justice we've ever had?

[TommyJeff]

There are much better reasons to oppose him anyway.

Well said friend, tried to give positive rep but apparently I need to spread the wealth.

[TommyJeff]

Who is the best Supreme Court Justice we've ever had?

GEORGE WASHINGTON
(fast forward to 9:22)
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5806699007001/

[devil21]

Who is the best Supreme Court Justice we've ever had?

Any of them prior to the 1930's.

[Aratus]

Who is the best Supreme Court Justice we've ever had?

John Marshall

[fcreature]

Yep. This was a very disappointing pick. Worst of the 4 finalists IMO. He's no Gorsuch. I'm sure he'll be pushed through but sure would be great for him to get knocked out during confirmation. Maybe Trump can get it right on round 2 after Republicans pick up more Senate seats in the midterms.

[Swordsmyth]

It was only a matter of time before failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton weighed in on President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, and it appears to have been time she spent working on a top notch critique: that Kavanaugh could return the United States to the days of slavery.
Speaking to the American Federation of Teachers Friday night, Clinton warned of "devastating consequences" if Kavanaugh is confirmed to the bench.
"Let me say a word about the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court," Clinton said in her speech. "This nomination holds out the threat of devastating consequences for workers rights, civil rights, LGBT rights, women’s rights — including those to make our own health decisions."

"It is a blatant attempt by this administration to shift the balance of the Court for decades and to reverse decades of progress," Clinton continued.
And that's where she landed on her new strategy of attack: warning of a return to the agrarian pre-Civil War America.
"I used to worry that they [the Republicans] wanted to turn the clock back to the 1950s. Now I worry they want to turn it back to the 1850s," Clinton said.
The 1850s, of course, predate the American Civil War, meaning that Clinton believes that under Kavanaugh it may be possible for the United States to return to a time where enslaving members of the human race was not simply legal, but regular practice in many states. Given her fear for both women and minorities, it seems she's extrapolating on the leftist fear of an instituted "Handmaid's Tale," where subjugation is a matter of course.

More at: https://www.dailywire.com/news/33079...&utm_content=1

[Swordsmyth]

Kavanaugh is President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement. Now the liberal group UltraViolet is trying to derail his nomination using the anti-sex abuse harassment known as #MeToo.
Kavanaugh had previously clerked for 9^th U.S. Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski from 1990 to 1991. Kozinski abruptly retired last year after 15 women accused him of sexual harassment. Now Ultraviolet is tying Kavanaugh to Kozinski by demanding an investigation into whether the Supreme Court nominee knew about his former boss’ alleged abuse.

"Judge Kozinski’s office had a long history of being a toxic and dangerous environment for women," chief campaigns officer for UltraViolet, Karin Roland, told McClatchy in a statement. "The American public deserves to know what Kavanaugh saw and heard, and if he did witness or hear about any harassment, what he did or could have done to report it."

More at: https://www.dailywire.com/news/33142...&utm_content=1

[TommyJeff]

It was only a matter of time before failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton weighed in on President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, and it appears to have been time she spent working on a top notch critique: that Kavanaugh could return the United States to the days of slavery.
Speaking to the American Federation of Teachers Friday night, Clinton warned of "devastating consequences" if Kavanaugh is confirmed to the bench.
"Let me say a word about the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court," Clinton said in her speech. "This nomination holds out the threat of devastating consequences for workers rights, civil rights, LGBT rights, women’s rights — including those to make our own health decisions."

"It is a blatant attempt by this administration to shift the balance of the Court for decades and to reverse decades of progress," Clinton continued.
And that's where she landed on her new strategy of attack: warning of a return to the agrarian pre-Civil War America.
"I used to worry that they [the Republicans] wanted to turn the clock back to the 1950s. Now I worry they want to turn it back to the 1850s," Clinton said.
The 1850s, of course, predate the American Civil War, meaning that Clinton believes that under Kavanaugh it may be possible for the United States to return to a time where enslaving members of the human race was not simply legal, but regular practice in many states. Given her fear for both women and minorities, it seems she's extrapolating on the leftist fear of an instituted "Handmaid's Tale," where subjugation is a matter of course.

More at: https://www.dailywire.com/news/33079...&utm_content=1

If she had 3 Judge nominations, I’m sure she would have appointed moderates and not shift the court for decades (her words). Hahaha!!

[Swordsmyth]

If she had 3 Judge nominations, I’m sure she would have appointed moderates and not shift the court for decades (her words). Hahaha!!

The left will fall into the pit they dug for the rest of us.

[gaazn]

Some Republicans should vote No just because they railroaded Merrick Garland for no reason. At least they should've gone thru the motions and then railroaded him if they had the votes. But everyone is afraid of going against the team.

[Swordsmyth]

Some Republicans should vote No just because they railroaded Merrick Garland for no reason. At least they should've gone thru the motions and then railroaded him if they had the votes. But everyone is afraid of going against the team.

Nobody "railroaded" Garland, they just refused to consent to him and let the court swing far left, they were absolutely right.

They should vote against Kavanaugh because he isn't good enough.

[Swordsmyth]

The Pew Research Center released the results yesterday of a new national survey.

A week after Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to fill Justice Anthony Kennedy’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, the public is split in its early views of the nomination. Overall, 41% think the Senate should confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, while about as many (36%) say they should not; 23% do not offer a view on the question. Public is split on Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court
In February 2017, views of Neil Gorsuch’s nomination were similar, though the balance of opinion was more positive. At that time, 44% said the Senate should confirm Gorsuch to fill the seated vacated by the late Justice Antonin Scalia; fewer (32%) said it should not.
And most previous nominees to the court during the presidencies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush were initially viewed more positively than negatively.

Note, for example, that in 2005, 27% of Americans said Harriet Miers shouldn’t be confirmed to the Supreme Court, less than the 36% who now say the same about Kavanaugh, and Miers’ nomination was kind of ridiculous.
The results were nearly identical to those released yesterday by Gallup, which found a narrow plurality of 41% of Americans want to see Kavanaugh confirmed, while 37% do not. The report added, “This four-percentage-point margin is slimmer than any Gallup has measured in its initial read on 10 prior nominees since 1987.”

More at: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...public-support

[Jan2017]

He bought an expensive home a year before the market collapsed and had debt less than 2 years ago on some credit cards which he has since fully paid off ....... is there a point this story?

he's a regular guy sorta
amounts maybe normal now compared to our debts outta college which were nil really

[Swordsmyth]

In a private meeting Wednesday, McConnell apparently told senior Republicans he may keep pushing back the confirmation vote for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh until right before the November midterms, sources tell Politico. Why? Because Democrats keep trying to surface the nominee's long paper trail, and McConnell, it seems, is sick of it.
Even before President Trump had announced his nominee to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, Democrats were dead-set on a strategy of resistance, warning Trump's pick could cement a conservative majority on the nation's highest court and spell disaster for issues like reproductive rights. Since then, Democrats have been requesting every piece of Kavanaugh's records in an attempt to find something they can use to fight his confirmation.
McConnell is apparently ready to retaliate. He's already canceled the Senate's August recess, and is looking to drain Democrats' campaign time even more by delaying Kavanaugh's confirmation vote, per Politico. The delay would mean red-state Democrats wouldn't be able to leave the Capitol and utilize valuable campaign time until the Kavanaugh vote, and his potential confirmation would serve them a crushing defeat just days before voters head to the polls.

More at: http://theweek.com/speedreads/785916...-campaign-time

[spudea]

Rand said he won’t confirm him, does anyone know why? Thanks

From his Facebook page just now, he will vote to confirm. https://www.facebook.com/SenatorRandPaul/

After meeting Judge Kavanaugh and reviewing his record, I have decided to support his nomination.
No one will ever completely agree with a nominee (unless, of course, you are the nominee). Each nominee, however, must be judged on the totality of their views, character, and opinions.
I have expressed my concern over Judge Kavanaugh’s record on warrantless bulk collection of data and how that might apply to very important privacy cases before the Supreme Court.
In reviewing his record on other privacy cases like Jones, and through my conversation with him, I have hope that in light of the new precedent in Carpenter v. United States, Judge Kavanaugh will be more open to a Fourth Amendment that protects digital records and property.
Of course, my vote is not a single-issue vote, and much of my reading and conversation has been in trying to figure out exactly how good Judge Kavanaugh will be on other issues before the Court.
My conversation with Judge Kavanaugh reinforces my belief that he will evaluate cases before the Supreme Court from a textual and originalist point of view.
I believe he will carefully adhere to the Constitution and will take his job to protect individual liberty seriously.
On issues such as property rights and reining in the administrative state, Judge Kavanaugh has a strong record and showed a deep commitment during our meeting. His views on due process and mens rea show a thoughtful approach to the law and its applications. His views on war powers and separation of powers are encouraging.
Finally, his strong defenses of the First and Second Amendments in landmark cases show someone who isn’t afraid to challenge the status quo and will fight with backbone. Judge Kavanaugh will have my support and my vote to confirm him to the Supreme Court.

[Zippyjuan]

From his Facebook page just now, he will vote to confirm. https://www.facebook.com/SenatorRandPaul/

I said Rand would probably end up voting for him.

[Swordsmyth]

From his Facebook page just now, he will vote to confirm. https://www.facebook.com/SenatorRandPaul/

I hope this means that there are enough NO votes that Rand can look like a team player.

[Anti Globalist]

Any of them prior to the 1930's.

Any in particular that stick out to you?

[devil21]

Any in particular that stick out to you?

John Rutledge seemed like a decent dude (slavery aside). His history appears to be someone interested in establishing the new America instead of like so many of the others still (quietly) being British loyalists.

But who knows what's real or bogus info about historical accounts of Justices.

[Swordsmyth]

President Donald Trump on Monday expressed his appreciation to Sen. Rand Paul for his promise to support the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

“Thank you to @RandPaul for your YES on a future great Justice of the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh,” Trump wrote in a Monday evening tweet. “Your vote means a lot to me, and to everyone who loves our Country!” (RELATED: RAND’S REVEAL: PAUL JUST ANNOUNCED HIS DECISION ON THE KAVANAUGH CONFIRMATION)

Thank you to @RandPaul for your YES on a future great Justice of the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh. Your vote means a lot to me, and to everyone who loves our Country!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2018

More at: http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/30/tr...naugh-support/