RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Moderate? When has he joined the opposition on rulings?

A bunch of times. The Justice he has sided with most is Roberts, at 90%+. Amusingly enough he's far less of an ideologue than RBG was.

That's supposed to be remarkable? It's basically that he voted with the majority more than 90% of the time.

You're pushing some crazy barrow about Roberts being a liberal. Get a grip!

[-Astoria-]

I do hope it's not going to be the former.

The Chad 2017 Trump: "I will appoint qualified strict constructionists who will be impartial and fair"
The virgin 2020 Trump: "I will appoint an extremist ideologue diversity hire, who has been a judge for 3 years, and has no respect for your inalienable rights as an American, for no other reason than she is a STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMYN WHO DON'T NEED NO MAN"

What are you on about, this time?

[Washington Resistance Army]

A bunch of times. The Justice he has sided with most is Roberts, at 90%+. Amusingly enough he's far less of an ideologue than RBG was.

That's supposed to be remarkable? It's basically that he voted with the majority more than 90% of the time.

You're pushing some crazy barrow about Roberts being a liberal. Get a grip!

Roberts is, and has been for some time, more or less the new Kennedy swing vote. Kavanaugh siding with him more than any other Justice casts him in a very moderate light.

[Loben III]

A bunch of times. The Justice he has sided with most is Roberts, at 90%+. Amusingly enough he's far less of an ideologue than RBG was.

That's supposed to be remarkable? It's basically that he voted with the majority more than 90% of the time.

You're pushing some crazy barrow about Roberts being a liberal. Get a grip!

im going to be quite amused when the Dems kick and scream all the way through the confirmation.

very, VERY amused.

[Aclion]

The authors never even intended for the supreme court to be limited to nine members. Literally the only requirement is the president nominates someone and the senate consents to their appointment. That's it.


kav is literally our most moderate justice.

Moderate? When has he joined the opposition on rulings?

Several times. Apple, Inc. v. Pepper which allowed iphone users to sue apple for monoply practices, Flowers v. Mississippi which dealt with dismissing jurors on race, and Gee vs. Planned Parenthood which dealt with states that had disqualified planned parenthood as a healthcare provider.
Those are just examples though.It's better to look at his Martin-Quinn score

[Greed and Death]

Moderate? When has he joined the opposition on rulings?

Several times. Apple, Inc. v. Pepper which allowed iphone users to sue apple for monoply practices, Flowers v. Mississippi which dealt with dismissing jurors on race, and Gee vs. Planned Parenthood which dealt with states that had disqualified planned parenthood as a healthcare provider.
Those are just examples though.It's better to look at his Martin-Quinn score

Flowers was a 7-2 decision.

[The Black Forrest]

Examples?

When I have seen Robert’s swing vote I did not see Kav.

Got a couple examples?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kav ... %93present)

Ok.

“A statistical analysis by The Washington Post estimated that Kavanaugh was more conservative than Neil Gorsuch and less conservative than Samuel Alito.”

Not exactly a moderate classification.

“ Brian Bennett writing for Time magazine cites Kavanaugh's 2009 Minnesota Law Review article as defending the privilege of the president to immunity from prosecution during tenure in office.”

Not exactly a moderate stance.

“ An evaluation of Kavanaugh's appellate court decisions was performed by two law professors for the Washington Post, They rated his decisions in four areas: rights of criminal defendants; support for rules regarding stricter enforcement of environmental protection; upholding the rights of labor unions; and siding with those bringing suits alleging discrimination. They found he had the most conservative voting record on the D.C. Court in three of those policy areas, and the second-most in the fourth, between 2003 and 2018.[6]”

Not exactly a moderate classification.

“According to the Judicial Common Space scores, a score based on the ideology scores of the home state senators and the president who nominated the judge to the federal bench, Clarence Thomas is the only justice more conservative than Kavanaugh.”

Not exactly a moderate classification.

“ On February 27, Justice Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice Roberts and the court's liberal justices in Garza v. Idaho, a Sixth Amendment case in which the court held that the Sixth ”

Ok. A moderate move.

“ In December 2018, as a swing vote, Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice Roberts and the court's four more liberal justices to decline hearing cases brought by the states of Louisiana and Kansas, which sought to block women from choosing to receive Medicaid-funded medical care from Planned Parenthood clinics.”
Ok a moderate move....then in two months we have:
“In February 2019, Kavanaugh joined three of his conservative colleagues to vote to reject a request for a stay of a Louisiana law to restrict abortion.”


“Also in February, Justice Kavanaugh was a part of the majority in decisions relating to the death penalty. On February 7, 2019, Kavanaugh was a part of the majority in a 5–4 decision rejecting a Muslim prisoner's request to delay the execution in order to have an imam present with him during the execution.[217] On February 19, 2019, Kavanaugh joined Roberts and the court's four liberal justices in a 6–3 decision blocking the execution of a man with an "intellectual disability" in Texas.[218][219]”

Both a moderate and conservative move.


His LGBT decent was rather conservative.

—————————

Ok. You did list a few situations where he did flip and followed Roberts. I didn’t know that as I am not a SCOTUS follower. Is he a moderate? No. Is he more moderate then Alito or Thomas? Sure.


538 painted him as a hard conservative in the beginning.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fivethirtyeight/

This guy has a few interesting stats which make him a milder conservative.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/empi ... -expected/

As pointed out he sided with the conservatives on contentious issues. Time will tell if he will be a moderate swing vote.

I view Kav as an Ideologue. As that is wanted on the SCOTUS these days.

I thought the same of Roberts and have been proven wrong at this point.

Time will tell for Roberts and Kav.

[The Black Forrest]

A bunch of times. The Justice he has sided with most is Roberts, at 90%+. Amusingly enough he's far less of an ideologue than RBG was.

strange that liberals lived in fear of him to the point they dragged up a rape accusation that didnt fly.

Do you ever have anything constructive to add or is it always just sniping?

[Loben III]

strange that liberals lived in fear of him to the point they dragged up a rape accusation that didnt fly.

Do you ever have anything constructive to add or is it always just sniping?

i do when the situation calls for it.

[The Black Forrest]

That's supposed to be remarkable? It's basically that he voted with the majority more than 90% of the time.

You're pushing some crazy barrow about Roberts being a liberal. Get a grip!

Roberts is, and has been for some time, more or less the new Kennedy swing vote. Kavanaugh siding with him more than any other Justice casts him in a very moderate light.

The problem is he also sides with Alito a great deal. Not exactly moderate light.

[US-SSR]

Which the Senate did not do. In 2016.



Article II Section 2: "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur"

Different wording. Stop digging.

The senate refusing to give a nominee a hearing is within their power just as it's within their power to grant a hearing during an election year, 17 supreme court justices have been appointed during an election year by the senate, also to point out that no supreme court candidate has been appointed during a lame duck session.
The senate refusing to give a nominee a hearing is part of their core role in appointments as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent and simply by not acting.

McConnell's main justification in 2016 is that it was too close to an election. If there was any constitutional support for blocking the Senate from considering Obama's nomination ... don't you think McConnell would have cited it?

This falls under Article 1 Section 5, which in part reads:...Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...

The latest twist is if the Senate moves to confirm in a lame duck session the House will impeach Trump (again) or Barr, which would stop the Senate conducting any other business until after dealing with the impeachment trial and setting up additional procedural delays.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The senate refusing to give a nominee a hearing is within their power just as it's within their power to grant a hearing during an election year, 17 supreme court justices have been appointed during an election year by the senate, also to point out that no supreme court candidate has been appointed during a lame duck session.
The senate refusing to give a nominee a hearing is part of their core role in appointments as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent and simply by not acting.

This falls under Article 1 Section 5, which in part reads:...Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...

The latest twist is if the Senate moves to confirm in a lame duck session the House will impeach Trump (again) or Barr, which would stop the Senate conducting any other business until after dealing with the impeachment trial and setting up additional procedural delays.

Wtf why is everyone in DC suddenly an accelerationist lol, what is 2020 good lord

[Senkaku]

The latest twist is if the Senate moves to confirm in a lame duck session the House will impeach Trump (again) or Barr, which would stop the Senate conducting any other business until after dealing with the impeachment trial and setting up additional procedural delays.

Wtf why is everyone in DC suddenly an accelerationist lol, what is 2020 good lord

I would say we had a good run but we manifestly did not; gonna start making exile plans lol

[The Black Forrest]

The latest twist is if the Senate moves to confirm in a lame duck session the House will impeach Trump (again) or Barr, which would stop the Senate conducting any other business until after dealing with the impeachment trial and setting up additional procedural delays.

Wtf why is everyone in DC suddenly an accelerationist lol, what is 2020 good lord

Well? If you think you are going to loose the Presidency and possibly the Senate; why not rush to take control of SCOTUS?

[Kowani]

The latest twist is if the Senate moves to confirm in a lame duck session the House will impeach Trump (again) or Barr, which would stop the Senate conducting any other business until after dealing with the impeachment trial and setting up additional procedural delays.

Wtf why is everyone in DC suddenly an accelerationist lol, what is 2020 good lord

It’s like watching the engineers take every safety valve off the engine.

[Grinning Dragon]

The senate refusing to give a nominee a hearing is within their power just as it's within their power to grant a hearing during an election year, 17 supreme court justices have been appointed during an election year by the senate, also to point out that no supreme court candidate has been appointed during a lame duck session.
The senate refusing to give a nominee a hearing is part of their core role in appointments as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent and simply by not acting.

This falls under Article 1 Section 5, which in part reads:...Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...

The latest twist is if the Senate moves to confirm in a lame duck session the House will impeach Trump (again) or Barr, which would stop the Senate conducting any other business until after dealing with the impeachment trial and setting up additional procedural delays.

I too read that early today, and to be honest it strikes me as a hail mary. While the house would go through it's sham impeachment, the senate can still hold confirmation hearings at the same time, as the senate is not at the mercy of the house.
The next question that can be begged, under what could they impeach the president? Nominating a candidate for the supreme court, is hardly an impeachable offense.
Also, what does barr have to do with any of this? nancy has gone full cuckoo.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Wtf why is everyone in DC suddenly an accelerationist lol, what is 2020 good lord

It’s like watching the engineers take every safety valve off the engine.

It's insane. I swear I actually died in December and am living in some insane bizarro world now.

[Senkaku]

It’s like watching the engineers take every safety valve off the engine.

It's insane. I swear I actually died in December and am living in some insane bizarro world now.

I think it's been longer than just since december lol

[Grinning Dragon]

Don't remember if lamar alexander was on the list of wishy-washy senators, however he released a statement in favor of a nomination and the ensuing senate confirmation process.

No one should be surprised that a Republican Senate majority would vote on a Republican President’s Supreme Court nomination, even during a presidential election year. The Constitution gives senators the power to do it. The voters who elected them expect it. Going back to George Washington, the Senate has confirmed many nominees to the Supreme Court during a presidential election year. It has refused to confirm several when the President and Senate majority were of different parties. Senator McConnell is only doing what Democrat leaders have said they would do if the shoe were on the other foot. I have voted to confirm Justices Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh based upon their intelligence, character and temperament. I will apply the same standard when I consider President Trump’s nomination to replace Justice Ginsburg

Sen. Lamar Alexander announces stance on US Supreme Court nomination

[Washington Resistance Army]

Don't remember is lamar alexander was on the list of wishy-washy senators, however he released a statement in favor of a nomination and the ensuing senate confirmation process.

No one should be surprised that a Republican Senate majority would vote on a Republican President’s Supreme Court nomination, even during a presidential election year. The Constitution gives senators the power to do it. The voters who elected them expect it. Going back to George Washington, the Senate has confirmed many nominees to the Supreme Court during a presidential election year. It has refused to confirm several when the President and Senate majority were of different parties. Senator McConnell is only doing what Democrat leaders have said they would do if the shoe were on the other foot. I have voted to confirm Justices Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh based upon their intelligence, character and temperament. I will apply the same standard when I consider President Trump’s nomination to replace Justice Ginsburg

Sen. Lamar Alexander announces stance on US Supreme Court nomination

Some lists had him included but his support more or less means it's a done deal. Romney has still been quiet (afaik) and even if he sided with Collins and Murkowski it looks like they have the votes.

[Tekania]

I find this take amusing, given that in general the Anglosphere as a whole is fucked, the US just more so. If you really wanna find a stable, non-crazy political system have a look at Western Continental Europe.

Also, the development of this thread shall go into my mental folder of "examples why common law systems are useless and the US need to rewrite their constitution to resemble a modern country", but then most of you guys seem to actually like it.

I'm an Australian, and I mostly like their Constitution. A Bill of Rights was a great idea, though I don't want it here because of how long it takes courts to put flesh on those bones.

Two things I don't like: the wording of the Second Amendment. I cannot see how the first clause allowing a militia, and the second clause allowing the people to be armed, can be separated completely. I see it as "the people should be allowed their own guns, for the purpose of serving in a militia" which pretty strongly implies no guns for any other purpose. Maybe they assumed that no good law-abiding gun owner would refuse the call to arms from their State. If so, they should have said so.

And the amendment process. It's too difficult.

Your interpretation of the constitution is precisely why a bill of rights was added. But it's important to note, that the US Constitution is constructed as a list of what the government can do, not a list of what the people can do. The bill of rights is not an outline that exists to give people rights, but enumerated specific rights. Rights not enumerated also exist. That is there are more right than simply whats outlined in the bill of rights.

Alot of people, including people in the US who like to class themselves as strict constructionists have a problem fully grasping that.

[Grinning Dragon]

Don't remember is lamar alexander was on the list of wishy-washy senators, however he released a statement in favor of a nomination and the ensuing senate confirmation process.


Sen. Lamar Alexander announces stance on US Supreme Court nomination

Some lists had him included but his support more or less means it's a done deal. Romney has still been quiet (afaik) and even if he sided with Collins and Murkowski it looks like they have the votes.

I agree that the votes are there, the talking heads that cover supreme court dealings such as this have pretty much said the same thing. I do wonder what type of backroom promises are being horse traded to secure the votes? If only walls could talk.
I also wonder how much of an influence wall street is putting on a nomination and confirmation.
Chalk one up for "fortune favors the bold"

[Major-Tom]

Don't remember is lamar alexander was on the list of wishy-washy senators, however he released a statement in favor of a nomination and the ensuing senate confirmation process.


Sen. Lamar Alexander announces stance on US Supreme Court nomination

Some lists had him included but his support more or less means it's a done deal. Romney has still been quiet (afaik) and even if he sided with Collins and Murkowski it looks like they have the votes.

The only real wild card might be Gardner, but tbh I don't see him voting against it.

[Major-Tom]

That's supposed to be remarkable? It's basically that he voted with the majority more than 90% of the time.

You're pushing some crazy barrow about Roberts being a liberal. Get a grip!

Roberts is, and has been for some time, more or less the new Kennedy swing vote. Kavanaugh siding with him more than any other Justice casts him in a very moderate light.

Uh-huh.

The court isn't always contentious, voting with Roberts (who is still viewed as a Conservative justice), does not make one a moderate. The notable justice who I expected to be rigidly conservative but has turned out to vote with the liberal wing a good deal is Justice Gorsuch, but not Kavanaugh.

[Kir Taz Norld]

Kinda sucks that trump is gonna get a Supreme Court nom. Pissed off at the hypocrisy compared to when the situation was reversed, but hey