Rand just sold out on Kavanaugh

[Origanalist]

Just throwing this out there...

Here’s The Libertarian Case For Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Nomination

http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/29/...rt-nomination/

[brushfire]

[Swordsmyth]

Just throwing this out there...

Here’s The Libertarian Case For Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Nomination

http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/29/...rt-nomination/

I don't want him but he will be an improvement over Kennedy and he is better than many of the other people who were suggested.

I will not cry if he is confirmed.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm hoping that Rand knows Kavanaugh won't make it even with his vote and is taking the opportunity to look like a team player.

Related?

Arizona Senator Jeff Flake fled the country for Zimbabwe this week seemingly for the sake of preserving the African nation's fledgling democracy — but many political observers stateside suspect that there is a notable secondary effect of such a trip: to delay the upcoming hearing on President Donald Trump's Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

The Republican lawmaker, who has been an ardent Trump critic, touched down in the African country to serve as an official observer of the country's historic elections over the past weekend. According to his office, the senator will stay in the region for approximately three more weeks. That's important because it means Flake will miss the Senate's mandated early return to Washington, D.C. next month.

More at: https://www.salon.com/2018/07/31/off...ett-kavanaugh/

[fcreature]

Predictable thread is predictable.

He wasn't the best choice of the bunch. Certainly were better, but also were worse. Should still be a significant improvement over what we've had.

I'm not going to hate on Rand over this decision.

[Jan2017]

I'm not going to hate on Rand over this decision.

Me either . . .
Kavanaugh's DC Court of Appeals dissent considered the Obamacare individual mandate as a "tax and hence unconstitutional" -
and is in direct contrast to Chief Justice Roberts perspective of the now gone individual mandate - an interesting dynamic on the Court if it ever comes up again.

[loveshiscountry]

Of course he did.... on his core issue too.

Rand said he had an issue with it. But I never heard him say it was the sole reason or his core issue which would cause him to not endorse Kavanaugh or anyone else.

[nikcers]

Rand said he had an issue with it. But I never heard him say it was the sole reason or his core issue which would cause him to not endorse Kavanaugh or anyone else.

Yeah Rand said basically he would have a talk with him and see if he likes what he hears. The thing about the Supreme Court is one judge can't change everything. I think it was definitely a political gamble for sure, we never know whats around the corner, maybe Rand can talk Trump out of war with Iran..

[eleganz]

Trump literally had to tweet to thank Rand because he knew he needed the vote.

Next time a big issue comes up, the ears will be open. Especially after their wins together thus far.

[timosman]

Trump literally had to tweet to thank Rand because he knew he needed the vote.

Next time a big issue comes up, the ears will be open. Especially after their wins together thus far.

Rand is Trump's protege. The only person with a spine in the senate.

[Matt Collins]

Rand said he had an issue with it. But I never heard him say it was the sole reason or his core issue which would cause him to not endorse Kavanaugh or anyone else.

You must have missed his filibuster?

[Matt Collins]

Trump literally had to tweet to thank Rand because he knew he needed the vote.

Next time a big issue comes up, the ears will be open. Especially after their wins together thus far.

That's not how it works. That's a quick way to get screwed.

[acptulsa]

Rand is Trump's protege. The only person with a spine in the senate.

Say what?

You do realize Rand Paul has been in political office five times as long as Trump has, right?

Rand said he had an issue with it. But I never heard him say it was the sole reason or his core issue which would cause him to not endorse Kavanaugh or anyone else.

You must have missed his filibuster?

I didn't miss his filibuster. But I didn't hear him say that during his filibuster.

[Jan2017]

So this is great . . . the President has tweeted how Rand will vote.

Now, knowing that he has Rand's vote . . . Kavanaugh can get grilled - in a friendly, but inquisitive, way - about the
issue of electronic surveillance from the perspective of the libertarian constitutional originalists.

Throw it ALL on the table at the confirmation hearings now, Rand.

Electronic surveillance and cyberwarfare is the 21st century cold war 4D chess game -
we don't need the McCains or CNNs trying to micromanage the President of the United States in every chess move.

We need responsible citizens to demand our governments get that Doomsday Clock turned back a few minutes
from it's current highest level ever - the ticks in the present year are just as they were in the countdown to doom as it was in 1953 -
and no one needs a Johnny McCain or George Brennan or John Bolton dumping "jet fuel" on the "Cold War tarmac."

[timosman]

You do realize Rand Paul has been in political office five times as long as Trump has, right?

Yeah, I also watched the most recent election.

[acptulsa]

Yeah, I also watched the most recent election.

So you saw Trump get 17,000 times as much free publicity as the rest of the GOP candidates combined?

[timosman]

So you saw Trump get 17,000 times as much free publicity as the rest of the GOP candidates combined?

Do we have to?

[acptulsa]

Do we have to?

The verb 'saw' is past tense, unless it applies to cutting wood. I think the word you thought you saw is 'see'.

[specsaregood]

I trust that Randal is doing what he thinks is best to move the country in a freedom-oriented direction.

[Matt Collins]

Now, knowing that he has Rand's vote . . . Kavanaugh can get grilled - in a friendly, but inquisitive, way - about the
issue of electronic surveillance from the perspective of the libertarian constitutional originalists.

Throw it ALL on the table at the confirmation hearings now, Rand.

Which means nothing. A SCOTUS candidate cannot be judged on what they say because there is no way to hold them accountable. The only thing that might be close to figuring out what they are going to do is if they have a record.

[Jan2017]

Which means nothing. A SCOTUS candidate cannot be judged on what they say because there is no way to hold them accountable. The only thing that might be close to figuring out what they are going to do is if they have a record.

So . . . no hearings needed ? Uhm, I think you are wrong.

Rand could ask about any or many of Kavanaugh's 300 written opinions over 12 years - majority opinions and dissents -
on issues that run the gamut - to get the prospective SCOTUS Justice's perspective on the Constitution and law and liberty principles.

[juleswin]

So . . . no hearings needed ? Uhm, I think you are wrong.

Rand could ask about any or many of Kavanaugh's 300 written opinions over 12 years - majority opinions and dissents -
on issues that run the gamut - to get the prospective SCOTUS Justice's perspective on the Constitution and law and liberty principles.

Then why wouldn't he just say that he would wait after the hearing to determine whether he votes for the judge or not? This is just wrong of Rand and I believe he damages his political credibility with effortless capitulations like this.

[Jan2017]

Then why wouldn't he just say that he would wait after the hearing to determine whether he votes for the judge or not? This is just wrong of Rand and I believe he damages his political credibility with effortless capitulations like this.

Respectfully - but also adamantly - disagree.

No need for Rand to wait if he has already made up his mind - as also has Utah Sen. Lee in principle with his "easy confirmation" statement -
Rand got some political capital this week . . . some "Benjamins" politically, so to speak.

[Matt Collins]

Rand could ask about any or many of Kavanaugh's 300 written opinions over 12 years - majority opinions and dissents -
on issues that run the gamut - to get the prospective SCOTUS Justice's perspective on the Constitution and law and liberty principles.

Why do that when he could just read the written opinions?

[loveshiscountry]

Why do that when he could just read the written opinions?

So why do SCJ nominees get vetted? Shouldn't we just read what they wrote and not even ask questions to clarify?

You're not the only one, but we have to many cannibals in the freedom movement.

[Matt Collins]

So why do SCJ nominees get vetted? Shouldn't we just read what they wrote and not even ask questions to clarify?

It's called a "dog and pony show"

Confirmation hearings are a joke, they don't matter. The nominee could say anything he wants, and then as soon as he is confirmed do the exact opposite. There is no way to hold them accountable because they can't be removed unless they somehow break the law (sadly ruling contrary to the law doesn't count).

[timosman]

It's called a "dog and pony show"

Confirmation hearings are a joke, they don't matter. The nominee could say anything he wants, and then as soon as he is confirmed do the exact opposite. There is no way to hold them accountable because they can't be removed unless they somehow break the law (sadly ruling contrary to the law doesn't count).

Our system is broken?

[Matt Collins]

Our system is broken?

Not that part of it.

But stare decisis and judicial "interpretation" is absolutely against what was intended by most of the Founders

[luctor-et-emergo]

Not that part of it.

But stare decisis and judicial "interpretation" is absolutely against what was intended by most of the Founders

Ideally there would be no party influence and all votes would be based on merit alone. Is there an absolute need of confirming a nominee right now?

[eleganz]

That's not how it works. That's a quick way to get screwed.

Please do tell, how exactly does it work in Trump era?