Soutered Again?

Townhall.com ^ | October 14, 2018 | Gil Gutknecht

[arrogantsob]

It perfectly demonstrated the heart of the Demon party where any dissent must be attacked with hysterical force.

Now that they have done this with even a questionable nomination any others will just show this even more. They should remember The Bow Who Cried Wolf.

[Gay State Conservative]

He has a long history on lower Federal courts.That history would either tend to confirm that he's either a “Constitutionalist” or a legislator.OTOH,he been on SCOTUS for a couple of weeks.

[sitetest]

For a Circuit Court judge, a Supreme Court ruling that has been reiterated more than once is a binding precedent, the “settled law.”

It would be judicial activism for a Circuit Court to try to overturn, out of whole cloth, such a precedent.

But the reach of justices on the Supreme Court is greater. Nonetheless, justices who are judicial activists try not to overturn precedent willy-nilly. Neither do they rule on issues not before them.

It will take a well-crafted case that strikes at the heart of Roe’s holding for someone like Kavanaugh (or Roberts) to overturn it. And I think both would be hesitant to overturn it with only five votes. It may take until Barrett is on the Court.

[zeugma]

Rather than his carefully parsed answers to questions put to him by political hacks and decisions that he co-authored, I think the best way to determine the judicial leanings of any nominee is to look carefully at his dissents and concurances. This is because the opinions themselves tend to be consensus documents, though most folks don't normally see them as such. It is where a judge speaks out separately that you get a real feel for how they are likely to lean themselves when they are the ones in the hot seat on the supreme court.

From my reading of Kavenaugh's separate opinions, I'd say he's going to be one that will put more faith in precedent than I probably would. I would also bet that he's going to be one of the alleged 'law and order' types that leans over backward for the government when the government is pushing the limits of its power. Don't expect him to do anything that might reign in things like asset forfeiture. I also don't expect him to do much, if anything to support overturning Roe v Wade. I expect he'll be good on the 2nd amendment, but probably more wishy-washy on the 4th and 5th amendments, especially when they might possibly encroach upon the perceived 'needs of the state'.

From our perspective, I think he'll be an overall plus for getting some cases on the docket that might otherwise have not made it due to liberal opposition.

We'll see. The term's only starting, and there will likely be lots of stuff that can be looked at in greater detail as things get moving on it.

[yoe]

"... I’m going to wait to see his decisions on the cases that come before the Supreme Court..."

Justice John Roberts buckled under the Obama pressure to move his fraudulent medical care forward...I have more faith in Kavanaugh, however, we'll just wait and see.

[rdl6989]

That is too horrifying to contemplate.

[fullchroma]

Well, if he’s a moderate, he’s one that has been “mugged.” Remember the maxim?

[fluffy]

So Kavenaugh agreed with Garland 93% of the time, but is that really distressing? The court hears a lot of mundane cases that result in unanimous decisions, so without knowing what those 7% are it's a meaningless statistic.

During the 2016-2017 Supreme Court session Thomas agreed with Ginsburg 60% of the time. Meaningless.

[DOC44]

“I’m pretty sure his attitude has changed since he saw the democrats accuse him of gang rape. Payback is a bitch.”

Karma may wear a black robe.

[zeugma]

I would go ask Clarence Thomas who HE would like to see on the Supreme Court.

Hell yes.

[Kaslin]

Just so you know

“precedentist.”

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above."precentist"

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Well, we’ll see, I guess. Souter was a total joke, but I suspect Kavanaugh will consider liberal precedents with a jaundiced eye, considering the hateful beating that he took from the Dems. Hopefully, that will be the case.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Originalist is not a word either according to my spell check and yet is in common usage here.

[Paine in the Neck]

I’m expecting he’ll be better than Souter, better than O’Connor, better than Kennedy, but that’s about it.

[elcid1970]

Clarence Thomas’ thousand watt grin during the Kavanaugh swearing in, as well as RBG’s grim glower, spoke volumes about the new Justice.

[arrogantsob]

And Thomas gets the time to do extensive judicial review of hundreds of cases from where?

[Behind the Blue Wall]

IMHO, overturning Roe v. Wade is a generational battle on par with abolishing slavery in the 19th Century and getting rid of Jim Crow in the 20th. If getting Barrett on the court does that and nothing else, I’m good.

[Alberta's Child]

The 93% figure isn't a big deal unless you look closely at the details of individual cases. During the 2016-17 term when Merrick Garland's nomination was left hanging, the U.S. Supreme Court issued UNANIMOUS decisions in 57% of its rulings.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Well, Hillary could have picked a Eric Holder as a nominee!

GOP would have confirmed him...too...
........................................

True.

The GOP rubberstamps whoever the Democrat appoints.
They never return the favor, though.

[jim_trent]

His written decisions on 2nd Amendment cases sealed the deal for me. No, he is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. No one will. Right or wrong, it has been in place too long to simply reverse. However, I do believe that he will chip around the base of it just like the left continually chips around the base of the 2nd Amendment.