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

[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 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 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/

[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 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 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/

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.