Who is Brett Kavanaugh? 3 things to know about Trump's Supreme Court pick

[Cannons Front]

resident Trump on Monday night announced federal appeals court judge Brett M. Kavanaugh as his nominee to replace the retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kavanaugh, 53, a graduate of Yale Law School and a former law clerk to Kennedy in 1993, was elevated to the powerful federal appeals court in the District of Columbia by President George W. Bush, under whom he had served as a White House lawyer and staff secretary.
With approximately 300 opinions issued in 12 years as a judge and a raft of legal articles and speaking engagements, Kavanaugh was the most prolific of the nominees the president was said to be considering for the role.
"Throughout legal circles he’s considered a judge’s judge," Trump said in the announcement, labeling the Kavanaugh "one of the sharpest legal minds of our time."
"Judge Kavanaugh has devoted his life to public service," Trump continued. "There is no one in America more qualified for this position and no one more deserving."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/09/who-is-brett-kavanaugh-3-things-to-know-about-trumps-supreme-court-pick.html

[nathanbforrest45]

And now the Character Assassinations begin.

[Peter1469]

He is closer to mainstream than originalist. But he is still a conservative. Probably easier to get confirmed than the others.

[texan]

I hate him! Who is it again?

[nathanbforrest45]

He's Catholic, believes in traditional marriage, believes in private charity

Oh, and was Rush Limbaugh's prediction to be nominated.

What's not to hate?

[DLLS]

by President George W. Bush, under whom he had served as a White House lawyer and staff secretary.

That is enough to cause me to have doubts as to whether or not he will rule as a true constitutional conservative on the bench.

[Tahuyaman]

That is enough to cause me to have doubts as to whether or not he will rule as a true constitutional conservative on the bench.

Huh? Explain that position please.

[jimmyz]

Kennedy clerk. Enough said and a swing vote in his lifetime.

[Tahuyaman]

He is closer to mainstream than originalist. But he is still a conservative. Probably easier to get confirmed than the others.He seems to be an originalist as far as I can tell. Do you think Hillary Clinton would have even considered him?

[Tahuyaman]

Kennedy clerk. Enough said and a swing vote in his lifetime.Who he clerked for doesn’t tell us much if anything at all.

I think he's preferable to anyone Hillary Clinton woukd have appointed.

[Peter1469]

He seems to be an originalist as far as I can tell. Do you think Hillary Clinton would have even considered him?

No.

I only mean of the 4 on the list he is closer to mainstream than the others.

[Lummy]

Abides by Roe v Wade, and opposes Obamacare.

I get that.

[stjames1_53]

It didn't matter who he picked for his nomination, the Alt-Left didn't care about showing their skirts, the world will end today as far as they are concerned. Won't they be surprised when the sky doesn't fall today...............
Even Pelosi got into the whining by announcing she would avenge Obama.........Just wtf does that mean?

[MMC]

That is enough to cause me to have doubts as to whether or not he will rule as a true constitutional conservative on the bench.
Yep the only critique I have about him is his ties to the Neo Cons. Oh and being another Yale/Harvard preppie. Its time to quit picking Judges out of the Ivy League and from the East Coast Lightweights.

[MMC]

And now the Character Assassinations begin.

It was started by the leftness before Trump even chose anyone. Their usual. Disrespect, Ignorance, and that Deviousness. Par for the course with the degenerates of the country.

[MMC]

No.

I only mean of the 4 on the list he is closer to mainstream than the others.



Kavanaugh: 'Extremely Conservative' or Too 'Establishment?'.....


https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2018/187/4c4080c7-8625-4dd7-8819-878e048c14cb.jpg


His nomination is dividing conservatives. First, his supporters. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton heralds Kavanaugh as "extraordinarily conservative." Others champion him as a fighter for religious liberty (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/judge-brett-kavanaugh-religious-liberty-warrior/).


He does have his share of conservative critics, however, thanks to a certain ruling on Obamacare.


In a 2011 ObamaCare case (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=12283140068462647556&scilh=0) where Kavanaugh dissented against the ruling but acknowledged that the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate provision” could fit “comfortably within Congress’ Taxing Clause power.”
Kavanaugh's detractors say that language helped provide the roadmap for the Supreme Court to uphold the mandate a year later. (Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/09/supreme-court-shortlister-kavanaughs-role-in-obamacares-survival-fiercely-debated-by-conservatives.html))


Other conservatives balk at his close relationship with the Bush family, which gives him "establishment" status.


Justin Walker, who clerked for both Kennedy and Kavanaugh, said the "establishment" attack line is unfair. Kavanaugh is "the opposite of the cocktail sipping crowd." …..snip~


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/07/09/scotus-nominee-profile-n2498784


He is more of a Beer and Fishing type outdoorsman.

[DLLS]

It was started by the leftness before Trump even chose anyone. Their usual. Disrespect, Ignorance, and that Deviousness. Par for the course with the degenerates of the country.

I heard that some of the protestors had signs with a blank space for the name of then nominee. When he was announced the protestors took out Sharpies and filled in the blank.

[Cannons Front]

I heard that some of the protestors had signs with a blank space for the name of then nominee. When he was announced the protestors took out Sharpies and filled in the blank.
Could have happened, I did not see it this time but that is what happened last time.

[Tahuyaman]

Could have happened, I did not see it this time but that is what happened last time.

Correct. That happened during the Gorsuch nomination.

[MMC]

:wink:



Judge Kavanaugh’s Record on Second Amendment/Gun Rights


In follow-on litigation to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on the Second Amendment in D.C. v. Heller, a D.C. Circuit panel majority, consisting of two Republican appointees, upheld the District of Columbia’s ban on possession of most semi-automatic rifles and its registration requirement for all guns in D.C. Judge Kavanaugh dissented (in Heller v. D.C. (https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf) (2011)). An excerpt from his dissent:


https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judge-kavanaughs-record-on-second-amendment-gun-rights/



Sen. Chris Murphy: Brett Kavanaugh Is a 'Second Amendment ... (https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/09/sen-chris-murphy-brett-kavanaugh-is-a-second-amendment-radical/)Breitbart News
13 hours ago · Brett Kavanaugh is a true Second Amendment radical. He believes assault weapon bans are unconstitutional, a position way out of the judicial mainstream, far to the right of even late Justice Scalia.

[MMC]

Good news Collins will Vet Kavanuagh.



Susan Collins praises Brett Kavanaugh for 'impressive credentials,' promises to vet.....


“Judge Kavanaugh has impressive credentials and extensive experience, having served more than a decade on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,” Collins said in a statement. “I will conduct a careful, thorough vetting of the president’s nominee to the Supreme Court, as I have done with the five previous Supreme Court Justices whom I have considered.” …..snip~


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/susan-collins-praises-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-has-impressive-credentials-promises-to-vet


There goes the Demos only hope. Now they have no chance to hold it up. As Collins goes so to Murkowski.

[Ransom]

For the record. I believe the Obamacare ruling was not only correct, but then was finally decided by We the People.

The Obama Administration argued that the mandate in Obamacare that was gone over in court...was a tax. That is correct, while Obama was telling us all on tv that it wouldn't add a dime to the national debt, the mandate was being argued as a tax in court. John Roberts wrote for the majority and strongly emphasized the upcoming 2012 Presidential election, that the decision should be made by our Constituents. The correct call. And what happened at the end of 2017.....our GOP Legislature ended the mandate. Ended it where it should have been decided and ended and it was. In our Legislature. Where the people's Representatives decide what is a tax, what is mandated.

[Major Lambda]

That is enough to cause me to have doubts as to whether or not he will rule as a true constitutional conservative on the bench.

EXACTLY !!




Major Lambda

[Major Lambda]

Good news Collins will Vet Kavanuagh.



Susan Collins praises Brett Kavanaugh for 'impressive credentials,' promises to vet.....


“Judge Kavanaugh has impressive credentials and extensive experience, having served more than a decade on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,” Collins said in a statement. “I will conduct a careful, thorough vetting of the president’s nominee to the Supreme Court, as I have done with the five previous Supreme Court Justices whom I have considered.” …..snip~


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/susan-collins-praises-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-has-impressive-credentials-promises-to-vet


There goes the Demos only hope. Now they have no chance to hold it up. As Collins goes so to Murkowski.



Yeah. I don't know what Pennsylvania Avenue brains ( Presidential Advisors ) were thinking when Kavanaugh got picked, but I like the bio below.



Judge Amy Barrett


1. Notre Dame Law School - Summa Cum Laude

2. Economics and Law fellow at George Washington University

3. She teaches courts, and constitutional law

4. She is a staunch conservative.


http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/potential-nominee-profile-amy-coney-barrett/





Major Lambda

[MMC]

Yeah. I don't know what Pennsylvania Avenue brains ( Presidential Advisors ) were thinking when Kavanaugh got picked, but I like the bio below.



Judge Amy Barrett


1. Notre Dame Law School - Summa Cum Laude

2. Economics and Law fellow at George Washington University

3. She teaches courts, and constitutional law

4. She is a staunch conservative.


http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/potential-nominee-profile-amy-coney-barrett/





Major Lambda

Trump has once again out-thought the Demos. Barrett and Kethledge the Demos would go full tilt with the attacks. Along with getting the media to jump in. Which then would cause Collins and Murkowski to waiver and flip flop. The left would be able to go full tilt on them over Roe vs Wade.


Kavanaugh has written on over 300 cases. Moreover, the Demos voted for Kavanaugh to put him on the DC Appellate Court. As did Collins and Murkowski.


Kavanaugh is a Scholar. As well as a History Major. He also has ruled on cases dealing with the separation of Powers. Going by the Constitutional as an originalist. As Larry Elder says....there is no dirt on Kavanaugh. Other than being associated to Bush and being on Ken Starr's Team. So pretty much an MC Hammer.....You Can't Touch This.


Besides clerking for Kennedy. He has hired on more women as clerks. Is respected by all Judges left and Right and Considered to be one of the most intelligent Justices we have out there. Even Kagan had him come and speak at Yale, despite being a Conservative.


With BO the peeps Special Package. His stance was that it wasn't the courts place to make any decision. That it was a policy matter.


That being said.....I would have preferred Trump to go with Barrett. The Demos would have had a better chance at derailing her confirmation. With Kavanaugh.....they can bitch a lil. But they can't get around the fact that they confirmed him in as an Appellate Judge for the Top Appellate Court in the Country. The DC Circuit.


They will give their base a showing by putting up a fight. But really they have no heart for it. Axios, Mike Allen, Politicos Jake Sherman, and other top Leftist Law Pundits are all saying. Kavanaugh gets confirmed.

[MisterVeritis]

He seems to be an originalist as far as I can tell. Do you think Hillary Clinton would have even considered him?
Is that the measure?

We should reject Kavanaugh. We should insist that President Trump nominate a Constitutional Conservative who will reliably support and defend the Constitution as written and understood by the framers.

[MisterVeritis]

Who he clerked for doesn’t tell us much if anything at all.

I think he's preferable to anyone Hillary Clinton would have appointed.
We do not measure a potential Justice against what the loser might have done. We measure the potential justice based on past performance. Kavanaugh appears to be a risky choice. We can do better. We should insist that President Trump withdraw Kavanaugh and pick a Constitutional Conservative instead.

[MisterVeritis]

No.

I only mean of the 4 on the list he is closer to mainstream than the others.
That is not good enough.

[MisterVeritis]

Abides by Roe v Wade, and opposes Obamacare.

I get that.
Kavanaugh worked very hard to discover the means to turn the ObamaCare penalty into a tax. That is enough of a red flag that Kavanaugh must be rejected.

[MisterVeritis]

He does have his share of conservative critics, however, thanks to a certain ruling on Obamacare.

In a 2011 ObamaCare case (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&case=12283140068462647556&scilh=0) where Kavanaugh dissented against the ruling but acknowledged that the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate provision” could fit “comfortably within Congress’ Taxing Clause power.”
Kavanaugh's detractors say that language helped provide the roadmap for the Supreme Court to uphold the mandate a year later. (Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/09/supreme-court-shortlister-kavanaughs-role-in-obamacares-survival-fiercely-debated-by-conservatives.html))

This is a reason to reject him. President Trump can do better. We deserve better.

[Tahuyaman]

That is not good enough.

Exactly. You need people to agree with you 100% of the time on every single issue. You are no different than the resistance types.

[MisterVeritis]

For the record. I believe the Obamacare ruling was not only correct, but then was finally decided by We the People.

The Obama Administration argued that the mandate in Obamacare that was gone over in court...was a tax.
This is false. It is completely incorrect. The obama administration argued it was a penalty. Robert rewrote the statute to call it a tax. Kavanaugh worked very hard to find a way to turn a penalty into a tax. He is unreliable.

[Tahuyaman]

Kavanaugh worked very hard to discover the means to turn the ObamaCare penalty into a tax. That is enough of a red flag that Kavanaugh must be rejected.

That's because it was a tax. He basically said that because the tax was not going to be collected until 2014, it was not able to be judged until it was imposed. Even Scalia agreed with view on that.

[MisterVeritis]

Exactly. He needs to agree with you 100% of the time on every single issue.
Anyone who will seek out a way to interpret a demand that the government force a citizen to buy a product from another private individual is just a tax is not to be trusted.

I do not expect you to understand.

[MisterVeritis]

That's because it was a tax. He basically said that because the tax was not going to be collected until 2014, it was not able to be judged until it was imposed. Even Scalia agreed with view on that.
You err. Completely.

[MisterVeritis]

Exactly. He needs to agree with you 100% of the time on every single issue.
If you want another Kennedy run with Kavanaugh. If you want another Roberts then run with Kavanaugh.

Unreliable is not good enough.

[Tahuyaman]

Again, you require complete agreement with your views or one is an enemy of America.

[Tahuyaman]

You err. Completely.


Nope.

[MisterVeritis]

"today's opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax.

567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45). The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.


Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-114/
We deserve far better than Kavanaugh.

[MisterVeritis]

You err. Completely.

Nope.
Well, yes.

[MMC]

This is a reason to reject him. President Trump can do better. We deserve better.


You are being misled about Kavanaugh. He is the strongest pick of the 4 that Trump was looking at.

Brett Kavanaugh Said Obamacare Was Unprecedented And Unlawful (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/) Brett Kavanaugh has by far the strongest, most consistent, most fearless record of constitutional conservatism of any federal court of appeals judge in the country.


Over 12 years and 300 opinions, he has repeatedly fought for principles of textualism and originalism, reined in regulatory overreach, and ensured that administrative bureaucrats are accountable to the elected president. Nominating Kavanaugh would continue President Trump’s exemplary record of selecting the best-qualified person for the Supreme Court, as he did with his brilliant choice of Justice Neil Gorsuch.


Unfortunately, being the clear best choice has downsides, including inviting unfair attacks. One came Monday in a lengthy article by Christopher Jacobs (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/02/potential-scotus-pick-brett-kavanaugh-wrote-roadmap-saving-obamacare/) claiming that Kavanaugh “wrote a roadmap for saving Obamacare.” That is nonsense, and conservatives should not be misled into thinking otherwise.


In 2011, two judges on the D.C. Circuit upheld the Obamacare individual mandate under the Commerce Clause. Kavanaugh dissented from that decision, which was authored by the respected Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee. Kavanaugh explained that Obamacare could be challenged as unconstitutional, but that a federal jurisdictional statute required such a challenge to be brought in the future.


Critically, and almost entirely absent from Jacobs’ account of the decision, Kavanaugh then called the individual mandate “a law that is unprecedented on the federal level in American history” and observed that upholding the individual mandate would be a “a jarring prospect” that would “usher in a significant expansion of congressional authority with no obvious principled limit.” The government’s argument for the mandate, Kavanaugh continued, would “ultimately extend as well to mandatory purchases of” many other products, a result that would have “extraordinary ramifications.”


Kavanaugh’s thorough and principled takedown of the mandate was indeed a roadmap for the Supreme Court—the Supreme Court dissenters, justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, who explained that the mandate violated the Constitution. I am very familiar with that opinion, because I served as Kennedy’s law clerk that term. I can tell you with certainty that the only justices following a roadmap from Brett Kavanaugh were the ones who said Obamacare was unconstitutional.


Kavanaugh was equally critical of the individual mandate under the weak Taxing Clause argument advanced by the government and catastrophically accepted by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh explained that “no court to reach the merits has accepted the Government’s Taxing clause argument,” thereby showing his agreement with all the courts of appeals that correctly found the mandate unsustainable under that clause.


Kavanaugh is by far the strongest choice for the job. His courageous and influential opinions on countless different issues—presidential power, regulatory overreach, religious liberty, the Second Amendment, and the list goes on—leave no doubt that he would be a forceful conservative justice for decades to come. Conservatives should not be misled by misinformation. Judge Brett Kavanaugh has the principles, the record, and the backbone that we need on the Supreme Court.....snip~


http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/

[Ransom]

Kavanaugh worked very hard to discover the means to turn the ObamaCare penalty into a tax. That is enough of a red flag that Kavanaugh must be rejected.

You tend to say some things in complete error. And then build a wall around yourself in denial. De Nile, MisterV, ain't no river in Egypt. Are we clear.

Cause I'm willing to bet you money. When you argued the War Powers Act, it was clear you'd never read it. I'll just ask afore you go leaping into error, did you read the opinion written by Roberts?

Peter can explain better as I'm not a lawyer. But.....the question put before the court was whether the feds had the ability to provide subsidies to help low-income Americans buy health insurance. 'The challengers' argued that insurance subsidies are allowed only in states that have set up their own exchanges. Roberts wrote that their challenge was plausible.....but that their underlying theory was not. As evidence, he cited the dissent from Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito in the 2012 case that upheld Obamacare's mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty.

"Had Congress meant to limit tax credits to State Exchanges, it likely would have done so in the definition of 'applicable taxpayer' or in some other prominent manner,"

They were argued in court as tax credits...…..paid for by We the People. And as sad as it is, the federal government can Constitutionally tax We the People. Roberts was correct, MisterV. And as if reality didn't prove that, it was We the People who rolled the mandate back. It was mandated in Congress....and repealed in the same place. With the Reps of We the People. Not nine robes in a small office.

Don't get all stubborn either.

[Ransom]

Got a theory about BK as well. Cause he's a Bush Man. Could this be a bone thrown to the Establishment Repubs right prior to 2018 elections. He will need support from the Party, we will need money, these aren't Presidential war chest campaigns, there are street funded and the Liberals are motivated, their hatred alone for everything Trump will being them to the polls.

Kavanaugh is a solid pick, I agree with MMC. And I believe he's anti-abortion and will consider precedence....as he overturns it.

If I were the Left, I'd try to stall for time. They're getting their political hats handed to them every time they turn around, time to go into the Dean Smith Four Corners defense and ride the clock until November. They've a chance at least to add seats. Right now.....they're being chewed to the bone becoming toothpick material.

[MisterVeritis]

You tend to say some things in complete error. And then build a wall around yourself in denial. De Nile, MisterV, ain't no river in Egypt. Are we clear.

Cause I'm willing to bet you money. When you argued the War Powers Act, it was clear you'd never read it. I'll just ask afore you go leaping into error, did you read the opinion written by Roberts?

Peter can explain better as I'm not a lawyer. But.....the question put before the court was whether the feds had the ability to provide subsidies to help low-income Americans buy health insurance. 'The challengers' argued that insurance subsidies are allowed only in states that have set up their own exchanges. Roberts wrote that their challenge was plausible.....but that their underlying theory was not. As evidence, he cited the dissent from Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito in the 2012 case that upheld Obamacare's mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty.

"Had Congress meant to limit tax credits to State Exchanges, it likely would have done so in the definition of 'applicable taxpayer' or in some other prominent manner,"

They were argued in court as tax credits...…..paid for by We the People. And as sad as it is, the federal government can Constitutionally tax We the People. Roberts was correct, MisterV. And as if reality didn't prove that, it was We the People who rolled the mandate back. It was mandated in Congress....and repealed in the same place. With the Reps of We the People. Not nine robes in a small office.

Don't get all stubborn either.
I understand why you want to argue over positions I did not take. Get yourself a life. After you do, should you decide to accept the challenge counter the points I made, not the ones I didn't.

[MisterVeritis]

Got a theory about BK as well. Cause he's a Bush Man. Could this be a bone thrown to the Establishment Repubs right prior to 2018 elections. He will need support from the Party, we will need money, these aren't Presidential war chest campaigns, there are street funded and the Liberals are motivated, their hatred alone for everything Trump will being them to the polls.

Kavanaugh is a solid pick, I agree with MMC. And I believe he's anti-abortion and will consider precedence....as he overturns it.

If I were the Left, I'd try to stall for time. They're getting their political hats handed to them every time they turn around, time to go into the Dean Smith Four Corners defense and ride the clock until November. They've a chance at least to add seats. Right now.....they're being chewed to the bone becoming toothpick material.
He is as risky as Roberts and Kennedy.

We can do better. We should.

[MisterVeritis]

You are being misled about Kavanaugh. He is the strongest pick of the 4 that Trump was looking at.

Brett Kavanaugh Said Obamacare Was Unprecedented And Unlawful (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/) Brett Kavanaugh has by far the strongest, most consistent, most fearless record of constitutional conservatism of any federal court of appeals judge in the country.


Over 12 years and 300 opinions, he has repeatedly fought for principles of textualism and originalism, reined in regulatory overreach, and ensured that administrative bureaucrats are accountable to the elected president. Nominating Kavanaugh would continue President Trump’s exemplary record of selecting the best-qualified person for the Supreme Court, as he did with his brilliant choice of Justice Neil Gorsuch.


Unfortunately, being the clear best choice has downsides, including inviting unfair attacks. One came Monday in a lengthy article by Christopher Jacobs (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/02/potential-scotus-pick-brett-kavanaugh-wrote-roadmap-saving-obamacare/) claiming that Kavanaugh “wrote a roadmap for saving Obamacare.” That is nonsense, and conservatives should not be misled into thinking otherwise.


In 2011, two judges on the D.C. Circuit upheld the Obamacare individual mandate under the Commerce Clause. Kavanaugh dissented from that decision, which was authored by the respected Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee. Kavanaugh explained that Obamacare could be challenged as unconstitutional, but that a federal jurisdictional statute required such a challenge to be brought in the future.


Critically, and almost entirely absent from Jacobs’ account of the decision, Kavanaugh then called the individual mandate “a law that is unprecedented on the federal level in American history” and observed that upholding the individual mandate would be a “a jarring prospect” that would “usher in a significant expansion of congressional authority with no obvious principled limit.” The government’s argument for the mandate, Kavanaugh continued, would “ultimately extend as well to mandatory purchases of” many other products, a result that would have “extraordinary ramifications.”


Kavanaugh’s thorough and principled takedown of the mandate was indeed a roadmap for the Supreme Court—the Supreme Court dissenters, justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, who explained that the mandate violated the Constitution. I am very familiar with that opinion, because I served as Kennedy’s law clerk that term. I can tell you with certainty that the only justices following a roadmap from Brett Kavanaugh were the ones who said Obamacare was unconstitutional.


Kavanaugh was equally critical of the individual mandate under the weak Taxing Clause argument advanced by the government and catastrophically accepted by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh explained that “no court to reach the merits has accepted the Government’s Taxing clause argument,” thereby showing his agreement with all the courts of appeals that correctly found the mandate unsustainable under that clause.


Kavanaugh is by far the strongest choice for the job. His courageous and influential opinions on countless different issues—presidential power, regulatory overreach, religious liberty, the Second Amendment, and the list goes on—leave no doubt that he would be a forceful conservative justice for decades to come. Conservatives should not be misled by misinformation. Judge Brett Kavanaugh has the principles, the record, and the backbone that we need on the Supreme Court.....snip~


http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/
Your pre-digested, pre-canned talking points are nice. They are also not relevant. Kavanaugh is a risky choice, much like Roberts who betrayed the Constitution and the people. He is as risky as Kennedy.

[MMC]

Your pre-digested, pre-canned talking points are nice. They are also not relevant. Kavanaugh is a risky choice, much like Roberts who betrayed the Constitution and the people and Kennedy.
You can't change up Kavanaughs dissent for what it is and you cannot change the reality as to what he ruled in the appellate court. Both are down for the record.


You can have the belief that you don't trust him. But you can't change the truth for what it is. Only a leftist thinks that's possible.

[MisterVeritis]

You can't change up Kavanaughs dissent for what it is and you cannot change the reality as to what he ruled in the appellate court. Both are down for the record.


You can have the belief that you don't trust him. But you can't change the truth for what it is. Only a leftist thinks that's possible.
I have given you facts. You pretend. Why? Am I the only one on this board able to think for myself?

Kavanaugh broke the Constitution to turn a penalty written in the law into a tax. That is a fact.

Once you have that fact understood we can move to the next point.

[Peter1469]

That is not good enough.
I didn't make a moral judgement. It isn't good enough or bad enough. It just is.

[roadmaster]

I don't know the guy, but why do rights feel they have to put up someone in-between while the left will put up a Marxist and get yes votes. Ruth is the face of Antifa, so was Garland. The left wasn't ashamed to put them up.

[MMC]

I have given you facts. You pretend. Why? Am I the only one on this board able to think for myself?

Kavanaugh broke the Constitution to turn a penalty written in the law into a tax. That is a fact.

Once you have that fact understood we can move to the next point.

Really show us his vote on it. You were already shown what he said about it and what was in his dissent. You do know what a dissent is and how that comes to be, Right? Why is there a dissent again?

[MisterVeritis]

Really show us his vote on it. You were already shown what he said about it and what was in his dissent. You do know what a dissent is and how that comes to be, Right? Why is there a dissent again?
Show his vote? He was a judge trying to turn a penalty into a tax. What do you mean show his vote? Do you believe judges vote on the issues they argue in court?

Roberts followed Kavanaugh's lead and rewrote the statute. Roberts committed an unconstitutional act so he could find ObamaCare constitutional.

Aree you an idiot? What do you mean do I know what dissent is? Grow up.

[MMC]

Show his vote? He was a judge trying to turn a penalty into a tax. What do you mean show his vote? Do you believe judges vote on the issues they argue in court?

Roberts followed Kavanaugh's lead and rewrote the statute. Roberts committed an unconstitutional act so he could find ObamaCare constitutional.

Aree you an idiot? What do you mean do I know what dissent is? Grow up.

Yes his vote in the Appellate Court of DC.
Now read it again slowly.....starting from the beginning. Start with the Blue. He said that before Roberts said anything.



Brett Kavanaugh Said Obamacare Was Unprecedented And Unlawful (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/) Brett Kavanaugh has by far the strongest, most consistent, most fearless record of constitutional conservatism of any federal court of appeals judge in the country.


Over 12 years and 300 opinions, he has repeatedly fought for principles of textualism and originalism, reined in regulatory overreach, and ensured that administrative bureaucrats are accountable to the elected president. Nominating Kavanaugh would continue President Trump’s exemplary record of selecting the best-qualified person for the Supreme Court, as he did with his brilliant choice of Justice Neil Gorsuch.


Unfortunately, being the clear best choice has downsides, including inviting unfair attacks. One came Monday in a lengthy article by Christopher Jacobs (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/02/potential-scotus-pick-brett-kavanaugh-wrote-roadmap-saving-obamacare/) claiming that Kavanaugh “wrote a roadmap for saving Obamacare.” That is nonsense, and conservatives should not be misled into thinking otherwise.


In 2011, two judges on the D.C. Circuit upheld the Obamacare individual mandate under the Commerce Clause. Kavanaugh dissented from that decision, which was authored by the respected Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee. Kavanaugh explained that Obamacare could be challenged as unconstitutional, but that a federal jurisdictional statute required such a challenge to be brought in the future.


Critically, and almost entirely absent from Jacobs’ account of the decision, Kavanaugh then called the individual mandate “a law that is unprecedented on the federal level in American history” and observed that upholding the individual mandate would be a “a jarring prospect” that would “usher in a significant expansion of congressional authority with no obvious principled limit.” The government’s argument for the mandate, Kavanaugh continued, would “ultimately extend as well to mandatory purchases of” many other products, a result that would have “extraordinary ramifications.”


Kavanaugh’s thorough and principled takedown of the mandate was indeed a roadmap for the Supreme Court—the Supreme Court dissenters, justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, who explained that the mandate violated the Constitution. I am very familiar with that opinion, because I served as Kennedy’s law clerk that term. I can tell you with certainty that the only justices following a roadmap from Brett Kavanaugh were the ones who said Obamacare was unconstitutional.


Kavanaugh was equally critical of the individual mandate under the weak Taxing Clause argument advanced by the government and catastrophically accepted by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh explained that “no court to reach the merits has accepted the Government’s Taxing clause argument,” thereby showing his agreement with all the courts of appeals that correctly found the mandate unsustainable under that clause.


Kavanaugh is by far the strongest choice for the job. His courageous and influential opinions on countless different issues—presidential power, regulatory overreach, religious liberty, the Second Amendment, and the list goes on—leave no doubt that he would be a forceful conservative justice for decades to come. Conservatives should not be misled by misinformation. Judge Brett Kavanaugh has the principles, the record, and the backbone that we need on the Supreme Court.....snip~


http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/...nted-unlawful/ (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/)


Now tell us again how you know what dissent is. When you ignore what Kavanaugh dissented on.


Oh and watch the diss V. Or I will gimp your ass to the hole and make you look dumber than you do Right now.

[Cannons Front]

As far as his opinion on Obama Care goes, In the Seven-Sky v. Holder (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) case, a forerunner to the landmark Supreme Court ruling, a three judge panel decided 2-1 that Obamacare’s individual mandate was constitutional. While Kavanaugh dissented from the main opinion, however he did not go as far as declaring Obamacare unconstitutional.

I realize that in it's self is an issue for some

However, his reasoning was that the court was not yet in a position to hear the case, because under an arcane 19th-century law known as the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, courts could not hear challenges to a tax that had not been collected yet.

Now you can agree with that or not but he was following the rule of law.

It is however important to note that according to Law professor Justin Walker, who clerked for Kavanaugh as well as Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy during the time the Obamacare case was decided, has argued that Kavanaugh’s critical Commerce Clause analysis was more influential at the Supreme Court level than his tax analysis. “I can tell you with certainty that the only justices following a roadmap from Brett Kavanaugh were the ones who said Obamacare was unconstitutional,”


In today's political environment it important to remember Senate votes are not guaranteed even from your own party, look at some of the Repubs that have voted against Republican bills on Healthcare, on immigration etc...etc... While it is easy to say we need a hard liner and so on, the republicans in the Senate can not be counted on to vote yes and we have no wiggle room. Better to get another Roberts, than IF we loose the Senate end up with a Garland. Kavanaugh has a history of following the rule of law and following the intent of the Constitution for the moment that is pretty good compared to the alternative. If the Repubs hold the Senate and hopefully increase their hold, I would say there is a decent chance of getting another appointment before 2020, use that one to bring the hammer.

[Mini Me]

He's Catholic, believes in traditional marriage, believes in private charity

Oh, and was Rush Limbaugh's prediction to be nominated.

What's not to hate?
Rush Limbaugh!

They are scheduling Limbaughtomies now at your local mental institution!

Don't miss out! We will prey for you! hee hee

[Tahuyaman]

Rush Limbaugh!

They are scheduling Limbaughtomies now at your local mental institution!

Don't miss out! We will prey for you! hee hee


You really should consider engaging your brain before you hit the reply button

[MisterVeritis]

Yes his vote in the Appellate Court of DC.
Now read it again slowly.....starting from the beginning. Start with the Blue. He said that before Roberts said anything.



Brett Kavanaugh Said Obamacare Was Unprecedented And Unlawful (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/) Brett Kavanaugh has by far the strongest, most consistent, most fearless record of constitutional conservatism of any federal court of appeals judge in the country.


Over 12 years and 300 opinions, he has repeatedly fought for principles of textualism and originalism, reined in regulatory overreach, and ensured that administrative bureaucrats are accountable to the elected president. Nominating Kavanaugh would continue President Trump’s exemplary record of selecting the best-qualified person for the Supreme Court, as he did with his brilliant choice of Justice Neil Gorsuch.


Unfortunately, being the clear best choice has downsides, including inviting unfair attacks. One came Monday in a lengthy article by Christopher Jacobs (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/02/potential-scotus-pick-brett-kavanaugh-wrote-roadmap-saving-obamacare/) claiming that Kavanaugh “wrote a roadmap for saving Obamacare.” That is nonsense, and conservatives should not be misled into thinking otherwise.


In 2011, two judges on the D.C. Circuit upheld the Obamacare individual mandate under the Commerce Clause. Kavanaugh dissented from that decision, which was authored by the respected Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee. Kavanaugh explained that Obamacare could be challenged as unconstitutional, but that a federal jurisdictional statute required such a challenge to be brought in the future.


Critically, and almost entirely absent from Jacobs’ account of the decision, Kavanaugh then called the individual mandate “a law that is unprecedented on the federal level in American history” and observed that upholding the individual mandate would be a “a jarring prospect” that would “usher in a significant expansion of congressional authority with no obvious principled limit.” The government’s argument for the mandate, Kavanaugh continued, would “ultimately extend as well to mandatory purchases of” many other products, a result that would have “extraordinary ramifications.”


Kavanaugh’s thorough and principled takedown of the mandate was indeed a roadmap for the Supreme Court—the Supreme Court dissenters, justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, who explained that the mandate violated the Constitution. I am very familiar with that opinion, because I served as Kennedy’s law clerk that term. I can tell you with certainty that the only justices following a roadmap from Brett Kavanaugh were the ones who said Obamacare was unconstitutional.


Kavanaugh was equally critical of the individual mandate under the weak Taxing Clause argument advanced by the government and catastrophically accepted by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh explained that “no court to reach the merits has accepted the Government’s Taxing clause argument,” thereby showing his agreement with all the courts of appeals that correctly found the mandate unsustainable under that clause.


Kavanaugh is by far the strongest choice for the job. His courageous and influential opinions on countless different issues—presidential power, regulatory overreach, religious liberty, the Second Amendment, and the list goes on—leave no doubt that he would be a forceful conservative justice for decades to come. Conservatives should not be misled by misinformation. Judge Brett Kavanaugh has the principles, the record, and the backbone that we need on the Supreme Court.....snip~


http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/...nted-unlawful/ (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/)


Now tell us again how you know what dissent is. When you ignore what Kavanaugh dissented on.


Oh and watch the diss V. Or I will gimp your ass to the hole and make you look dumber than you do Right now.
None of this changes what Kavanaugh did. He spent ten minutes arguing that the penalty written into the law was a tax. While your points above are interesting they are not relevant to what Kavanaugh attempted. Justice Roberts followed Kavanaugh's arguments and gave us ObamaCare. Kavanaugh is a risky choice, no better than Roberts.

From your article: "Kavanaugh spends the better part of 50 pages—longer than the majority opinion justifying the mandate as constitutional—analyzing the Internal Revenue Code, and the Anti-Injunction Act, to support his belief that the mandate qualified as a tax under the act, ..."

You won't do a thing to me little boy. Watch your mouth.

[MisterVeritis]

I didn't make a moral judgement. It isn't good enough or bad enough. It just is.
Moral judgment or not Kavanaugh is not good enough.

[Mini Me]

:wink:



Judge Kavanaugh’s Record on Second Amendment/Gun Rights


In follow-on litigation to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on the Second Amendment in D.C. v. Heller, a D.C. Circuit panel majority, consisting of two Republican appointees, upheld the District of Columbia’s ban on possession of most semi-automatic rifles and its registration requirement for all guns in D.C. Judge Kavanaugh dissented (in Heller v. D.C. (https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf) (2011)). An excerpt from his dissent:


https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judge-kavanaughs-record-on-second-amendment-gun-rights/



Sen. Chris Murphy: Brett Kavanaugh Is a 'Second Amendment ... (https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/09/sen-chris-murphy-brett-kavanaugh-is-a-second-amendment-radical/)

Breitbart News
13 hours ago · Brett Kavanaugh is a true Second Amendment radical. He believes assault weapon bans are unconstitutional, a position way out of the judicial mainstream, far to the right of even late Justice Scalia.

Just great! Better order more coffins!Let the bodies hit the floor!Stack them up like cordwood!
Peter will love this clip;
https://youtu.be/dT_zo9MzRvo

[MisterVeritis]

As far as his opinion on Obama Care goes, In the Seven-Sky v. Holder (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) case, a forerunner to the landmark Supreme Court ruling, a three judge panel decided 2-1 that Obamacare’s individual mandate was constitutional. While Kavanaugh dissented from the main opinion, however he did not go as far as declaring Obamacare unconstitutional.

I realize that in it's self is an issue for some

However, his reasoning was that the court was not yet in a position to hear the case, because under an arcane 19th-century law known as the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, courts could not hear challenges to a tax that had not been collected yet.

Now you can agree with that or not but he was following the rule of law.

It is however important to note that according to Law professor Justin Walker, who clerked for Kavanaugh as well as Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy during the time the Obamacare case was decided, has argued that Kavanaugh’s critical Commerce Clause analysis was more influential at the Supreme Court level than his tax analysis. “I can tell you with certainty that the only justices following a roadmap from Brett Kavanaugh were the ones who said Obamacare was unconstitutional,”


In today's political environment it important to remember Senate votes are not guaranteed even from your own party, look at some of the Repubs that have voted against Republican bills on Healthcare, on immigration etc...etc... While it is easy to say we need a hard liner and so on, the republicans in the Senate can not be counted on to vote yes and we have no wiggle room. Better to get another Roberts, than IF we loose the Senate end up with a Garland. Kavanaugh has a history of following the rule of law and following the intent of the Constitution for the moment that is pretty good compared to the alternative. If the Repubs hold the Senate and hopefully increase their hold, I would say there is a decent chance of getting another appointment before 2020, use that one to bring the hammer.
What matters is that Kavanaugh spent a large amount of time arguing that the penalty, written into law as a penalty was a tax. He did that because a penalty was unconstitutional where a tax was not. Kavanaugh cannot be trusted.

[MisterVeritis]

Oh and watch the diss V. Or I will gimp your ass to the hole and make you look dumber than you do Right now.
Give it your best shot. You lack the intellectual capability to do more than cut and paste what others have thought.

[MMC]

None of this changes what Kavanaugh did. He spent ten minutes arguing that the penalty written into the law was a tax. While your points above are interesting they are not relevant to what Kavanaugh attempted. Justice Roberts followed Kavanaugh's arguments and gave us ObamaCare. Kavanaugh is a risky choice, no better than Roberts.

From your article: "Kavanaugh spends the better part of 50 pages—longer than the majority opinion justifying the mandate as constitutional—analyzing the Internal Revenue Code, and the Anti-Injunction Act, to support his belief that the mandate qualified as a tax under the act, ..."

You won't do a thing to me little boy. Watch your mouth.

Yes it does change what Kavanaugh did....and no where in the Federalist link does it say that he justified the mandate as constitutional. That is what Jacobs said and he has been thoroughly debunked.

Kavanaugh was the dissenting vote in the Appellate Court. 2-1 and was the Roadmap for the SCOTUS Judges, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy who voted against BO Care.


You know I can, and you know how I deal with the diss. So don't go there. Let the leftness play that game and lose like they always do.

[Cannons Front]

What matters is that Kavanaugh spent a large amount of time arguing that the penalty, written into law as a penalty was a tax. He did that because a penalty was unconstitutional where a tax was not. Kavanaugh cannot be trusted.
Better to get another Roberts, than IF we loose the Senate end up with a Garland. Kavanaugh has a history of following the rule of law and following the intent of the Constitution for the moment that is pretty good compared to the alternative. If the Repubs hold the Senate and hopefully increase their hold, I would say there is a decent chance of getting another appointment before 2020, use that one to bring the hammer.

[MisterVeritis]

As far as his opinion on Obama Care goes, In the Seven-Sky v. Holder (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) case, a forerunner to the landmark Supreme Court ruling, a three judge panel decided 2-1 that Obamacare’s individual mandate was constitutional. While Kavanaugh dissented from the main opinion, however he did not go as far as declaring Obamacare unconstitutional.

I realize that in it's self is an issue for some

However, his reasoning was that the court was not yet in a position to hear the case, because under an arcane 19th-century law known as the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, courts could not hear challenges to a tax that had not been collected yet.

Now you can agree with that or not but he was following the rule of law.

It is however important to note that according to Law professor Justin Walker, who clerked for Kavanaugh as well as Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy during the time the Obamacare case was decided, has argued that Kavanaugh’s critical Commerce Clause analysis was more influential at the Supreme Court level than his tax analysis. “I can tell you with certainty that the only justices following a roadmap from Brett Kavanaugh were the ones who said Obamacare was unconstitutional,”


In today's political environment it important to remember Senate votes are not guaranteed even from your own party, look at some of the Repubs that have voted against Republican bills on Healthcare, on immigration etc...etc... While it is easy to say we need a hard liner and so on, the republicans in the Senate can not be counted on to vote yes and we have no wiggle room. Better to get another Roberts, than IF we loose the Senate end up with a Garland. Kavanaugh has a history of following the rule of law and following the intent of the Constitution for the moment that is pretty good compared to the alternative. If the Repubs hold the Senate and hopefully increase their hold, I would say there is a decent chance of getting another appointment before 2020, use that one to bring the hammer.

From the brief: The Anti-Injunction Act, a part of the Internal Revenue Code, only bars pre-enforcement challenges to the assessment and collection of taxes. As is well known, 6 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p6)*6 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p6) Congress, in passing the Affordable Care Act, pointedly rejected proposals to designate the shared responsibility payment as a "tax," instead labeling it a "penalty."[7] That Congress called numerous other provisions in the Act "taxes" indicates that its decision to use the word "penalty" here was deliberate.[8]

Kavanaugh argued that the penalty was a tax. That is enough for me. Kavanaugh led the way for Roberts to rewrite the law. Kavanaugh is an untrustworthy choice.

[MMC]

Give it your best shot. You lack the intellectual capability to do more than cut and paste what others have thought.

You know you can't handle the Phenom. Like a Love TKO.....better let it go



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrnK-KqkgRU


Stick to the JV Team of the leftness. They're more your speed. :wink:

[MisterVeritis]

Better to get another Roberts, than IF we loose the Senate end up with a Garland. Kavanaugh has a history of following the rule of law and following the intent of the Constitution for the moment that is pretty good compared to the alternative. If the Repubs hold the Senate and hopefully increase their hold, I would say there is a decent chance of getting another appointment before 2020, use that one to bring the hammer.
No. Better is to select a Constitutional Conservative.

We will not lose the Senate. We should not settle for a risky choice.

[MisterVeritis]

You know you can't handle the Phenom. Like a Love TKO.....better let it go



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrnK-KqkgRU


Stick to the JV Team of the leftness. They're more your speed. :wink:

You see. You can only cut and paste what others have already thought. You are not competent.

[MMC]

From the brief: The Anti-Injunction Act, a part of the Internal Revenue Code, only bars pre-enforcement challenges to the assessment and collection of taxes. As is well known, 6 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p6)*6 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p6) Congress, in passing the Affordable Care Act, pointedly rejected proposals to designate the shared responsibility payment as a "tax," instead labeling it a "penalty."[7] That Congress called numerous other provisions in the Act "taxes" indicates that its decision to use the word "penalty" here was deliberate.[8]

Kavanaugh argued that the penalty was a tax. That is enough for me. Kavanaugh led the way for Roberts to rewrite the law. Kavanaugh is an untrustworthy choice.

In 2011, two judges on the D.C. Circuit upheld the Obamacare individual mandate under the Commerce Clause. Kavanaugh dissented from that decision, which was authored by the respected Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee. Kavanaugh explained that Obamacare could be challenged as unconstitutional, but that a federal jurisdictional statute required such a challenge to be brought in the future.


Critically, and almost entirely absent from Jacobs’ account of the decision, Kavanaugh then called the individual mandate “a law that is unprecedented on the federal level in American history” and observed that upholding the individual mandate would be a “a jarring prospect” that would “usher in a significant expansion of congressional authority with no obvious principled limit.” The government’s argument for the mandate, Kavanaugh continued, would “ultimately extend as well to mandatory purchases of” many other products, a result that would have “extraordinary ramifications.”....snip~

[MisterVeritis]

Yes it does change what Kavanaugh did....and no where in the Federalist link does it say that he justified the mandate as constitutional. That is what Jacobs said and he has been thoroughly debunked.

Kavanaugh was the dissenting vote in the Appellate Court. 2-1 and was the Roadmap for the SCOTUS Judges, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy who voted against BO Care.


You know I can, and you know how I deal with the diss. So don't go there. Let the leftness play that game and lose like they always do.
You err. Kavanaugh argued the penalty was a tax. Kavanaugh cannot be trusted. He is second best. We need only nominate the best.

You are not competent. The best you can do is find something others have figured out and cut and paste. It is all you have ever done.

[El Guapo]

The fact that card-carrying establishment repube stalwarts, never-Trumpers, Bushies, John McLame et al were falling all over themselves to endorse Kavanaugh is a major red flag for me.

[MisterVeritis]

In 2011, two judges on the D.C. Circuit upheld the Obamacare individual mandate under the Commerce Clause. Kavanaugh dissented from that decision, which was authored by the respected Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee. Kavanaugh explained that Obamacare could be challenged as unconstitutional, but that a federal jurisdictional statute required such a challenge to be brought in the future.


Critically, and almost entirely absent from Jacobs’ account of the decision, Kavanaugh then called the individual mandate “a law that is unprecedented on the federal level in American history” and observed that upholding the individual mandate would be a “a jarring prospect” that would “usher in a significant expansion of congressional authority with no obvious principled limit.” The government’s argument for the mandate, Kavanaugh continued, would “ultimately extend as well to mandatory purchases of” many other products, a result that would have “extraordinary ramifications.”....snip~
Do not quote me if you are not going to address my points.

What you wrote above does not change that Kavanaugh spent time arguing that the penalty, written into the law as a penalty, was not a penalty but instead it was a tax.

That makes Kavanaugh a risky choice.

[MMC]

You see. You can only cut and paste what others have already thought. You are not competent.

That you can't claim ingenuity isn't my problem. Your a lightweight when it comes to the diss. Name calling is the basics. Like I said.....you aren't even in the game. So leave it alone and stick to the business.

[MMC]

From the brief: The Anti-Injunction Act, a part of the Internal Revenue Code, only bars pre-enforcement challenges to the assessment and collection of taxes. As is well known, 6 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p6)*6 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p6) Congress, in passing the Affordable Care Act, pointedly rejected proposals to designate the shared responsibility payment as a "tax," instead labeling it a "penalty."[7] That Congress called numerous other provisions in the Act "taxes" indicates that its decision to use the word "penalty" here was deliberate.[8]

Kavanaugh argued that the penalty was a tax. That is enough for me. Kavanaugh led the way for Roberts to rewrite the law. Kavanaugh is an untrustworthy choice.

Wrong again you aren't reading from Kavanaughs dissent. Here it is again in black and white. From Cannons link.


Before: KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS and SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judges.Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge SILBERMAN, with whom Senior Circuit Judge EDWARDS concurs.
Concurring opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge EDWARDS.
Opinion dissenting as to jurisdiction and not deciding the merits filed by Circuit Judge KAVANAUGH.


I have the greatest respect for my two colleagues on this panel. But my analysis leads me decisively to the conclusion that we lack jurisdiction because of the Anti-Injunction Act. I therefore would vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand with directions that the suit be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. I respectfully dissent.....snip~


He did not argue that the Penalty was a tax.


You lose.....Again!


Oh and from the Federalist Link.


Kavanaugh was equally critical of the individual mandate under the weak Taxing Clause argument advanced by the government and catastrophically accepted by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh explained that “no court to reach the merits has accepted the Government’s Taxing clause argument,” thereby showing his agreement with all the courts of appeals that correctly found the mandate unsustainable under that clause.....snip~

[MisterVeritis]

That you can't claim ingenuity isn't my problem. Your a lightweight when it comes to the diss. Name calling is the basics. Like I said.....you aren't even in the game. So leave it alone and stick to the business.
I did not mention ingenuity although I see no evidence of it in your goofy cut and paste jobs.

[MisterVeritis]

Wrong again you aren't reading from Kavanaughs dissent. Here it is again in black and white. From Cannons link.


Before: KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, and EDWARDS and SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judges.Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge SILBERMAN, with whom Senior Circuit Judge EDWARDS concurs.
Concurring opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge EDWARDS.
Opinion dissenting as to jurisdiction and not deciding the merits filed by Circuit Judge KAVANAUGH.


I have the greatest respect for my two colleagues on this panel. But my analysis leads me decisively to the conclusion that we lack jurisdiction because of the Anti-Injunction Act. I therefore would vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand with directions that the suit be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. I respectfully dissent.....snip~


He did not argue that the Penalty was a tax.

You lose.....Again!

Oh and from the Federalist Link.


Kavanaugh was equally critical of the individual mandate under the weak Taxing Clause argument advanced by the government and catastrophically accepted by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh explained that “no court to reach the merits has accepted the Government’s Taxing clause argument,” thereby showing his agreement with all the courts of appeals that correctly found the mandate unsustainable under that clause.....snip~
I just shake my head.

I did not say I was quoting Kavanaugh's dissent. I explicitly stated I was summarizing his ten-minute argument with the opposing attorney during the hearings. During his harangue, he strenuously argued the penalty was a tax, not a penalty.

I oppose Kavanaugh because of his willingness to rewrite statues in court to make what was unconstitutional, constitutional.
No amount of cutting and pasting better men's ideas can get you past what Kavanaugh did. Underlining, bolding and changing the font colors are cute but are no replacement for thought.

[MMC]

I just shake my head.

I did not say I was quoting Kavanaugh's dissent. I explicitly stated I was summarizing his ten-minute argument with the opposing attorney during the hearings. During his harangue, he strenuously argued the penalty was a tax, not a penalty.

I oppose Kavanaugh because of his willingness to rewrite statues in court to make what was unconstitutional, constitutional.
No amount of cutting and pasting better men's ideas can get you past what Kavanaugh did. Underlining, bolding and changing the font colors are cute but are no replacement for thought.

You should shake your head. The whole time he is arguing against what the other 2 Judges are saying. Read it for yourself.


Moreover, the Supreme Court long ago held that the Anti-Injunction Act applies even to a regulatory tax that effectively prohibits (or mandates) conduct, not just one that disincentivizes (or incentivizes) conduct. See Bailey v. George, 259 U.S. 16, 42 S.Ct. 419, 66 L.Ed. 816 (1922) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6894550733329249783&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1); Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20, 42 S.Ct. 449, 66 L.Ed. 817 (1922) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6894550733329249783&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1). In the twin Bailey cases, the Supreme Court recognized that the Child Labor Tax didn't just discourage employment of child labor; it in effect prohibited it. The Court nonetheless held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred a pre-enforcement suit challenging the prohibition. That Bailey principle remains 44 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p44)*44 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p44) good law, as the Supreme Court explained in Bob Jones: "Moreover, petitioner's argument fails to give appropriate weight to Bailey v. George, 259 U.S. 16, 42 S.Ct. 419, 66 L.Ed. 816 (1922) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6894550733329249783&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1). In that case, the Court held that the Act blocked a pre-enforcement suit to enjoin collection of the federal Child Labor Tax, although the tax was challenged as a regulatory measure beyond the taxing power of Congress. Significantly, the Court announced Bailey v. George (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6894550733329249783&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) on the same day that it issued Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20, 42 S.Ct. 449, 66 L.Ed. 817 (1922), (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6894550733329249783&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) a tax-refund case in which the Court struck down the Child Labor Tax Law as unconstitutional on the grounds that the taxpayer attempted to raise prematurely in Bailey v. George (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6894550733329249783&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1)." 416 U.S. at 740-41, 94 S.Ct. 2038 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1470591527515670855&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1).
So to the extent the majority opinion here tries to argue that there's an Anti-Injunction Act distinction between (i) a civil tax provision that creates a mandate or prohibition and (ii) a tax provision that creates an incentive or disincentive, that distinction does not work. The relevant Anti-Injunction Act question is whether plaintiffs' suit, if successful, would reduce their tax liability. Here, plaintiffs' suit, if successful, would reduce (to zero) their tax penalties for failure to maintain health insurance. Under Bob Jones and Americans United, the Anti-Injunction Act therefore applies.[33] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#[65])
Given the clarity of the relevant Supreme Court precedent, the Government, which otherwise now argues that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar this suit, still expressly disavows the rationale set forth here by the majority opinion. As the Solicitor General recently told the Supreme Court: "The Anti-Injunction Act, when applicable, bars any suit seeking relief that would necessarily preclude the assessment or collection of taxes under the Internal Revenue Code, regardless of the plaintiff's professed motivation for the suit." Brief for United States in Opposition at 16, 22 & n. 9, Liberty Univ. v. Geithner, No. 11-438 (U.S. Oct. 18, 2011) (citing Bob Jones, 416 U.S. at 731-32, 94 S.Ct. 2038 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1470591527515670855&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).
Finally, as a last try, the majority opinion suggests that these Affordable Care Act tax penalties aren't designed to raise revenue for the Government and, for that reason, may not qualify as taxes for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. But the 45 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p45)*45 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p45) Court in Bob Jones held that regulatory taxes are covered by the Anti-Injunction Act as long as they raise some revenue. See 416 U.S. at 741 n. 12, 743 n. 17, 94 S.Ct. 2038 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1470591527515670855&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1); cf. Sonzinsky, 300 U.S. at 514, 57 S.Ct. 554 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16341214597245547111&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1). Here, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the Government will collect about $4 billion a year in revenue from the Affordable Care Act's tax penalties on those without health insurance. See Letter from Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, Cong. Budget Office, to Sen. Harry Reid tbl.3 (Mar. 11, 2010). To put it in concrete terms, that would pay the annual salaries of about 100,000 members of the U.S. Military. That's real revenue.
In short, we cannot avoid the Anti-Injunction Act either by characterizing plaintiffs' complaint as a challenge to the mandate and not to the tax penalty, or by characterizing the Government's goal as regulating the decision to buy health insurance rather than as raising revenue.

VPlaintiffs and the Government have suggested, as have a host of outside commentators, that the courts should decide the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision now because the country has a pressing need for an immediate judicial resolution. I respect that argument. But prudential considerations of that sort cannot override the text of a statute that limits our jurisdiction. There is no "compelling prudential considerations" exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. In any event, the relevant prudential considerations on balance support our waiting to decide this case until 2015, in tax refund or enforcement suits that are brought after the mandate has taken effect.

AContrary to the suggestions of some, we cannot simply disregard the Anti-Injunction Act. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the desire for a final judicial decision on the constitutionality of a law cannot trump constitutional or statutory limits on the judicial power.
In Raines v. Byrd, for example, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act, an issue even more fundamental to government operations and budgetary issues than the current litigation over the individual mandate. But the Court explained that the preference for a prompt judicial resolution of the legislation's constitutionality could not overcome constraints on the Court's jurisdiction — in that case, the Constitution's standing requirement: "In the light of this overriding and time-honored concern about keeping the Judiciary's power within its proper constitutional sphere, we must put aside the natural urge to proceed directly to the merits of this important dispute and to `settle' it for the sake of convenience and efficiency." 521 U.S. 811, 820, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997) (footnote omitted).
Some have contended, however, that Congress would have wanted the courts to decide this case now, notwithstanding the Anti-Injunction Act. But Congress did not express any such alleged intent in the text of the Affordable Care Act. The parties cite no committee report or even an individual statement by a Member of Congress expressing the view that courts should decide challenges to the individual mandate immediately, despite the Anti-Injunction Act. So even if we employ the most generous approach to legislative history, we find no support for this argument. Cf. Puerto Rico Dep't of Consumer Affairs v. Isla Petroleum Corp., 485 U.S. 495, 501, 108 S.Ct. 1350, 99 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10455366949404904248&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) ("unenacted approvals, beliefs, and desires are not laws").
46 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p46)*46 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p46) The invocation of presumed congressional intent is particularly inappropriate here because Congress clearly devoted careful attention to the tax enforcement details of the individual mandate provision. Congress specifically barred the IRS from using some of its traditional tools to enforce the mandate. But Congress did not create an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act to allow pre-enforcement suits challenging the constitutionality of the mandate. Here as elsewhere, courts should not upend the balance Congress struck in the statutory text.
Some have said that the health insurance industry prefers a decision now and that Congress would have wanted courts to accommodate that concern. That is certainly a reason Congress could have decided — and still could decide — to exempt this statute from the Anti-Injunction Act.[34] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#[66]) After all, the voice of the health insurance industry was heard when this legislation was crafted. But Congress did not exempt the individual mandate provision from the Anti-Injunction Act. We cannot rewrite the Affordable Care Act to accommodate an alleged congressional intent to follow the apparent wishes of the health insurance industry.
Some have suggested that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply because these suits have been brought so far in advance of the mandate's 2014 effective date. But there is no "early-bird special" exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. And creating such an exception would pose a host of arbitrary line-drawing problems. The proper audience for such an argument is Congress, which can always carve out an exemption to the Anti-Injunction Act or set up a special judicial review proceeding of the kind employed for the Line Item Veto Act or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. But Congress has not done so, and we must adhere to the congressional choice reflected in the statutory text. See Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 750, 94 S.Ct. 2038, 40 L.Ed.2d 496 (1974) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1470591527515670855&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) ("But this matter is for Congress, which is the appropriate body to weigh the relevant, policy-laden considerations, such as the harshness of the present law....").
If Congress wants the courts to decide the individual mandate suits now, Congress can always remove the jurisdictional limit; the Anti-Injunction Act's jurisdictional bar is statutory, not constitutional. Absent such congressional action, however, we must adhere to the statutory constraints on our jurisdiction no matter how much the parties might want us to jump the jurisdictional rails and decide this case now.

BEven if we could alter our interpretation of the Anti-Injunction Act based on prudential considerations, those considerations on balance support our waiting to decide this case until 2015 (in tax refund or enforcement suits brought after the mandate has taken effect). By waiting, we would respect the bedrock principle of judicial restraint that courts avoid prematurely or unnecessarily deciding constitutional questions.
The Supreme Court recently summarized those essential tenets while declining to reach a vital question about the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act:

47 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p47)*47 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p47) That constitutional question has attracted ardent briefs from dozens of interested parties, but the importance of the question does not justify our rushing to decide it. Quite the contrary: Our usual practice is to avoid the unnecessary resolution of constitutional questions. We agree that the district is eligible under the Act to seek bailout. We therefore reverse, and do not reach the constitutionality of § 5....
In assessing those questions, we are keenly mindful of our institutional role. We fully appreciate that judging the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called on to perform. The Congress is a coequal branch of government whose Members take the same oath we do to uphold the Constitution of the United States....

[MMC]

Next Part.


AThe Tax Code is codified in Title 26 of the United States Code. (The terms "Tax Code," "Internal Revenue Code," and "Title 26" are synonymous.) Title 26 contains 11 subtitles, which in turn are subdivided into chapters numbered 1 through 100.
Within Title 26 is Subtitle D, which is entitled "Miscellaneous Excise Taxes." Within Subtitle D is chapter 48, which is entitled "Maintenance of Minimum Essential Coverage." Within chapter 48 is Section 5000A, which is entitled "Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage" and contains the individual mandate provision at issue in this case.
Section 5000A provides in relevant part:

(a) Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage. — An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.
(b) Shared responsibility payment. —
(1) In general. — If a taxpayer who is an applicable individual, or an applicable individual for whom the taxpayer is liable under paragraph (3), fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months, then, except as provided in subsection (e), there is hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty with respect to such failures in the amount determined under subsection (c).
(2) Inclusion with return. — Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayer's return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.Section 5000A further provides that the amount of the tax penalty is capped at the average price of a health insurance plan. The section also specifies who is covered and who is exempt. For example, lower-income 25 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p25)*25 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p25) individuals and illegal aliens are not required to pay a penalty for failing to have health insurance.
Importantly, Section 5000A(g)(1) sets forth how the tax penalties will be assessed, collected, and paid:

The penalty provided by this section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68.[2] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#[34])As explained more fully below, the cross-referenced provision — subchapter B of chapter 68 — in turn provides that tax penalties "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes." 26 U.S.C. § 6671(a) (emphasis added).
To promote compliance with the individual mandate, Congress did not enact criminal penalties enforceable by the Department of Justice. Nor did Congress impose civil penalties enforceable through civil or administrative complaints brought by the Department of Justice or the Department of Health and Human Services, for example. Instead, Congress established a tax penalty that is codified in the Tax Code, paid on individual tax returns, and assessed, collected, and enforced by the IRS.[3] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#[35]) And most importantly for present purposes, Congress employed cross-references making clear that the penalty must be "assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes."
By requiring that the Affordable Care Act penalties be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes, Section 5000A(g)(1) triggers the threshold question before us: Do we have jurisdiction to hear this pre-enforcement suit in light of the Anti-Injunction Act, which states that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court"?

BEnacted in 1867, the Anti-Injunction Act bars pre-enforcement challenges to tax laws, subject to certain statutory exceptions not relevant here. The Act requires a taxpayer who objects to a tax law to first pay the tax and then assert his or her legal objections in a suit for refund. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7421(a), 7422. Alternatively, a taxpayer may raise legal arguments in defense of non-payment during a deficiency or enforcement proceeding. But a taxpayer may not bring a pre-enforcement suit.
As legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate first popped up in district courts around the country, the Executive Branch initially took the position that the suits were all barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. Indeed, by my count, the Executive Branch told 10 separate district courts that the Anti-Injunction Act barred these cases. The Executive Branch argued that the courts could not decide the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate until 26 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p26)*26 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p26) 2015 (in tax refund or enforcement suits after the mandate has taken effect).
The Executive Branch later changed its mind about the Anti-Injunction Act, however, presumably because of an understandable policy desire to have courts resolve the constitutional question about the individual mandate sooner rather than later.
That said, courts cannot avoid the Anti-Injunction Act. As the Supreme Court has long and repeatedly held, the Anti-Injunction Act is jurisdictional. Jurisdiction goes to a court's authority to decide a case, and courts must consider jurisdictional issues even when the defendant does not raise them. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506-07, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=263839110266911189&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1).[4] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#[36])
Because the Anti-Injunction Act is jurisdictional, courts must apply the Act even when the Executive Branch affirmatively waives or does not assert it, and even when the parties jointly ask the courts to decide the relevant merits issues immediately. See Enochs v. Williams Packing & Navigation Co., 370 U.S. 1, 5, 82 S.Ct. 1125, 8 L.Ed.2d 292 (1962) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11710133748379763358&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) ("The object of § 7421(a) is to withdraw jurisdiction from the state and federal courts to entertain suits seeking injunctions prohibiting the collection of federal taxes."); id. at 7, 82 S.Ct. 1125 ("Otherwise, the District Court is without jurisdiction, and the complaint must be dismissed.").
The text of the Anti-Injunction Act manifests its jurisdictional status. The Act says that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court." As the Supreme Court has explained, statutes like the Anti-Injunction Act that govern "a court's adjudicatory capacity" or that "speak to the power of the court rather than to the rights or obligations of the parties" are jurisdictional. See Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1202, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3353387031555031823&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1); Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1237, 1243, 176 L.Ed.2d 18 (2010) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9239501292734016508&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).[5] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#[37])
Moreover, when "a long line of this Court's decisions left undisturbed by Congress has treated a similar requirement as jurisdictional, we will presume that Congress intended to follow that course." Henderson, 131 S.Ct. at 1203 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3353387031555031823&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). That interpretive principle certainly applies here: Since the Anti-Injunction Act's enactment in 1867, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Act is jurisdictional. See Jefferson County v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 434, 119 S.Ct. 2069, 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8541607339380746109&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) ("The federal statute Congress had in plain view was an 1867 measure depriving courts of jurisdiction over suits brought `for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection' of any federal tax."); Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 749-50, 94 S.Ct. 2038, 40 L.Ed.2d 496 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1470591527515670855&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1)27 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p27)*27 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p27) (1974) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1470591527515670855&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) (affirming Fourth Circuit's holding that the District Court lacked jurisdiction under the Anti-Injunction Act); Enochs v. Williams Packing, 370 U.S. at 5, 82 S.Ct. 1125 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11710133748379763358&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) ("The object of § 7421(a) is to withdraw jurisdiction from the state and federal courts to entertain suits seeking injunctions prohibiting the collection of federal taxes."); Dodge v. Osborn, 240 U.S. 118, 119, 122, 36 S.Ct. 275, 60 L.Ed. 557 (1916) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5486708605437418116&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) (affirming dismissal of suit to enjoin assessment and collection of taxes on jurisdictional grounds); Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 10, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5893140094506516673&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) (discussing inapplicability of the Anti-Injunction Act in order to "put out of the way a question of jurisdiction"); see also Snyder v. Marks, 109 U.S. 189, 194, 3 S.Ct. 157, 27 L.Ed. 901 (1883) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18368917612955317806&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) (referring to the "government" and not the Executive Branch alone in saying that the Anti-Injunction Act was "enacted under the right belonging to the government to prescribe the conditions on which it would subject itself to the judgment of the courts in the collection of its revenues"); Cheatham v. United States, 92 U.S. 85, 88-89, 23 L.Ed. 561 (1876) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14261583915594015592&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) (same).[6] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#[38])

[MMC]

Then the next.


What is more, the Executive Branch itself agrees that the Anti-Injunction Act is jurisdictional. It is true that the Executive Branch now argues that the Act does not bar suits involving the tax penalties at issue in this case. But the Executive Branch has not suggested that the Court can skip the Anti-Injunction Act question altogether and proceed directly to the Commerce and Taxing Clause issues. Indeed, the Executive Branch has expressly rejected that proposition and has recently reaffirmed its position that the Anti-Injunction Act is jurisdictional. See Reply Brief for United States at 2-3, Dep't of Health & Human Services v. Florida, No. 11-398 (U.S. Oct. 26, 2011).
The jurisdictional status of the Anti-Injunction Act reflects the Constitution's separation of powers in operation. Under the Constitution, Congress possesses the power to tax and spend, as well as the power of the purse over appropriations of money. Congress zealously guards those prerogatives. Here, Congress has not afforded discretion to the Executive Branch to waive or forfeit the Anti-Injunction Act's bar with respect to the assessment and collection of taxes. Rather, by making the Anti-Injunction Act jurisdictional, Congress has commanded courts to abide by the Act even when the Executive Branch might not assert it. Congress has thereby ensured that the flow of revenue is not interrupted by litigation.
Therefore, even when the Executive Branch does not assert or affirmatively tries to waive the Anti-Injunction Act, we cannot overlook it. To do otherwise would 28 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p28)*28 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#p28) contravene the basic separation of powers tenets that underlie jurisdictional principles. When Congress has established a jurisdictional limit on the courts' power, especially in cases involving monies due to the Federal Government, it would be inconsistent with our constitutional structure for a court to grant the Executive Branch authority to waive or forfeit that jurisdictional limitation.
In a drive-by attempt to crack the solid wall of precedent holding that the Anti-Injunction Act is jurisdictional, some have cited Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 639-40, 57 S.Ct. 904, 81 L.Ed. 1307 (1937) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8426251106033758246&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1). But that case involved a suit by a shareholder against a private corporation, not against the Government. The case shows simply that the Anti-Injunction Act does not necessarily apply in private litigation between a corporation and its shareholders. See Brief for United States at 29 n. 18, Alexander v. "Americans United" Inc., 416 U.S. 752, 94 S.Ct. 2053, 40 L.Ed.2d 518 (1974) (No. 72-1371) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1470591527515670855&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) (similarly describing Helvering v. Davis (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8426251106033758246&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1)).[7] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#[39]) That scenario obviously does not encompass this case. In any event, even if this jurisdictional bar were relaxed when the Executive Branch affirmatively waived the Act, the Executive Branch has recently reiterated to the Supreme Court that it has not asserted, and will not assert, any Helvering v. Davis (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8426251106033758246&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1)-based waiver in these cases. See Reply Brief for United States at 6, Dep't of Health & Human Services v. Florida, No. 11-398. As revealed by the many Supreme Court cases before and since that have described the Anti-Injunction Act as jurisdictional, the Court's 1937 Helvering v. Davis (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8426251106033758246&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) decision did not undermine the jurisdictional status of the Act.
The majority opinion nominally acknowledges that we must address the Anti-Injunction Act but says we should defer to the Executive Branch's analysis of why the Act does not apply. The majority opinion cites no relevant authority suggesting that courts should defer to the Executive Branch's interpretation of jurisdictional statutes such as the Anti-Injunction Act. Not even the Executive Branch has argued that it should receive such deference. The majority opinion's approach appears to be nothing more than a roundabout way of saying that courts can essentially pass over the Anti-Injunction Act when the Executive Branch claims the Act does not bar a suit. That approach is functionally equivalent to saying that the Act is not jurisdictional. But that's incorrect. We must independently analyze the Act, and we cannot just defer to the Executive's interpretation of it.
In sum, the Anti-Injunction Act is jurisdictional. The text of the Act speaks to the power of the courts, which means it is jurisdictional. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Act is jurisdictional. We therefore must address the Anti-Injunction Act.[8] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#[40])

[MMC]

Finally.


The significant implications of a Commerce Clause decision in this case — in either side's favor — lead to this point: If we need not decide the Commerce Clause issue now, we should not decide the Commerce Clause issue now. I therefore would not strain to sidestep the Anti-Injunction Act.



[43] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#r[75]) Under the Constitution, the President may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the President deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 906, 111 S.Ct. 2631, 115 L.Ed.2d 764 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1508365253681917692&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1) (the President possesses "the power to veto encroaching laws or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional") (citation omitted). Similarly, Congress may repeal or decline to pass a statute based on its own constitutional interpretation even if the courts have (or would have) upheld the statute as constitutional.

This power does not work in reverse, either for the President or Congress. In other words, the President may not enforce a statute against a private individual when the statute is deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Nor may Congress pass a statute and have it enforced against private individuals simply because Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court. In those situations, the Judiciary has the final word on the meaning of the Constitution. See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=913322981351483444&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1); Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12360733536043994298&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310, 110 S.Ct. 2404, 110 L.Ed.2d 287 (1990) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17009672765313209145&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1).
[44] (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12283140068462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#r[76]) For purposes of this discussion, when referring to the Government's Commerce Clause argument, I am referring to both the Commerce Clause and the supplementary Necessary and Proper Clause.....snip~

[MMC]

I did not mention ingenuity although I see no evidence of it in your goofy cut and paste jobs.

No need to explain your limitation.

[Tahuyaman]

No need to explain your limitation.

You mean limitations. He has many.

[MisterVeritis]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by MisterVeritis http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2378432#post2378432)
I did not mention ingenuity although I see no evidence of it in your goofy cut and paste jobs.

No need to explain your limitation.
Is my limitation that I do not see ingenuity where none exists?

[MisterVeritis]

Finally.
snip~
I already know you can cut and paste. Good job.

Address my argument if you can. Try to use your own words rather than someone else's words. If you can.

[MisterVeritis]

You mean limitations. He has many.
This is true. I do have many limitations. We all do.

Does it bother you that someone with so many limitations bests you every time we disagree?

[Tahuyaman]

This is true. I do have many limitations. We all do.

Does it bother you that someone with so many limitations bests you every time we disagree?


Speaking of limitations, your imaginations isn't one.

[MisterVeritis]

Speaking of limitations, your imaginations isn't one.
You raise a good point. One of my fans told me I should write fiction. She said the same thing you do, I have a great imagination. It was one reason for my engineering success. As a designer, I could see what we intended before we designed it.

[Tahuyaman]

You raise a good point. One of my fans told me I should write fiction. She said the same thing you do, I have a great imagination. It was one reason for my engineering success. As a designer, I could see what we intended before we designed it.

I'm sure your engineering prowess is a product of a vivid imagination.

[MisterVeritis]

I'm sure your engineering prowess is a product of a vivid imagination.
Right. That is how I retired well as a manager 3. The things I designed were installed all over Iraq and Afghanistan. The total value of the program when I retired was near two billion dollars.

[Tahuyaman]

Lol....... Hilarious.

[MisterVeritis]

Lol....... Hilarious.
I had a different response from the people who had limbs and lives saved because of what we did.

[Tahuyaman]

I had a different response from the people who had limbs and lives saved because of what we did.
At least you said “we” instead of I.

[MMC]

I already know you can cut and paste. Good job.

Address my argument if you can. Try to use your own words rather than someone else's words. If you can.



Again, he was explaining out Section 5000A. As to what it is and what it was saying. Maintaining all throughout his dissent that that the Court shouldn't even be considering the matter.

[MMC]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by MisterVeritis http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2378432#post2378432)
I did not mention ingenuity although I see no evidence of it in your goofy cut and paste jobs.

Is my limitation that I do not see ingenuity where none exists?

No, it means you could not discern ingenuity despite its glaring and obvious use.

[MisterVeritis]

At least you said “we” instead of I.
I was the lead designer in the beginning of the program. When I retired we had around 100 engineers.

One cannot run a large program by oneself.

[MisterVeritis]

Again, he was explaining out Section 5000A. As to what it is and what it was saying. Maintaining all throughout his dissent that that the Court shouldn't even be considering the matter.
None of that matters. What matters is his ten-minute harangue about the penalty being a tax. It showed what he intended and it set up Roberts to stab the nation in the back.
We should reject Kavanaugh because it is risky to seat him.

[MisterVeritis]

No, it means you could not discern ingenuity despite its glaring and obvious use.
It requires no ingenuity to cut and paste someone else's work into your posts.