Posted on 07/07/2018 6:16:30 PM PDT by springwater13
Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, told President Trump this past week that Judges Raymond M. Kethledge and Thomas M. Hardiman presented the fewest obvious obstacles to being confirmed to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court, according to Republican officials briefed on the conversation.
While careful not to directly make the case for any would-be justice, Mr. McConnell made clear in multiple phone calls with Mr. Trump and the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, that the lengthy paper trail of another top contender, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, would pose difficulties for his confirmation.
Mr. McConnell is concerned about the volume of the documents that Judge Kavanaugh has created in his 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as well as in his roles as White House staff secretary under President George W. Bush and assistant to Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.
On Saturday afternoon, Mr. Trump was undecided about his pick — which he has said he will reveal in a prime-time address on Monday night — according to three people in contact with him. He went back and forth every few hours between the four options in front of him, with Judge Kethledge getting the least attention, people familiar with his thinking said. It is similar to how Mr. Trump has approached most of his self-imposed deadlines for appointees, toggling between choices until nearly the last moment.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
McConnell is a Republican and the leader of the Senate. IIRC, he is the one who saved Gorsuch’s seat from Obama, and he led the vote for Gorsuch. He wants to get the nominee approved. I think we’ll win the senate again, but I don’t want to take that chance.
I will give him that but as far as his suggestion on nominees hell no.
Start with the wikipedia on both judges ... then drill down as needed.
I want to apologize and correct what I wrote about “heightened scrutiny.” In the case that Hardiman was involved in, the phrase was used in a different context by one of the judges. Strict scrutiny does agree with what you wrote, in that it should be used to test the constitutionality of a gun control statute.
Anyway, Kethledge, Kavanaugh and Hardiman each supported the Second Amendment in a different way in their respective cases, with the cases of Kethledge and Hardiman being related in regards to prohibited persons. Kavanaugh wrote an opinion against an assault weapons ban. Heller was cited in all of the mentioned cases that the three were involved in (along with other citations).
Trump should ask Sununu to list them in preference, & take least favorite of Sununu.
And knowing that and the reaction here, the quickest way to torpedo a choice is to suggest there is a turdle-nudge towards him.
reverse reverse reverse reverse psychology.
How about we forget about all of that and just discuss the man's appellate record, which appears solid in fact.
First Annie Tweet references href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17769770680674522297&q=Van+Don+Nguyen+v.+Holder,+571+F.3d+524&hl=en&as_sdt=20003"> Van Don Nguyen v. Holder, 571 F.3d 524
Opinion written not by Kethledge but by Merritt. All three judges on the panel reversed and did so because of a recent Supreme Court decision on the grounds that the law requiring deportation was for "crimes of violence" and the SC has held on multiple times that this phrase is ambiguous and not well defined in law.
These three judges UPHELD THE LAW. Don't like the law, get Congress to pass a new one. And they did so applying the 2008 Decision of the SC which SCALIA WROTE. The judges here explained:
Justice Scalia recently explained in Santos that the rule of lenity prevents courts from having to "read the mind" of Congress and is a "venerable" requirement that the federal courts have applied for 526*526 two centuries when interpreting ambiguous criminal statutes. When a criminal statute is ambiguous as to its intent, the "tie" goes to the defendant. Because we cannot find that auto theft is "unambiguously" a crime of violence under Section 16(b), we should follow the ancient rule and overrule the administrative agency in this case..
STRIKE ONE against crazie Annie.
COULTER LIED - and with that little taradiddle I am done with coulter and will never believe her again. Credibility gone poof vanished up in smoke.
First Annie Tweet references Van Don Nguyen v. Holder, 571 F.3d 524
Opinion written not by Kethledge but by Merritt. All three judges on the panel reversed and did so because of a recent Supreme Court decision on the grounds that the law requiring deportation was for "crimes of violence" and the SC has held on multiple times that this phrase is ambiguous and not well defined in law.
These three judges UPHELD THE LAW. Don't like the law, get Congress to pass a new one. And they did so applying the 2008 Decision of the SC which SCALIA WROTE. The judges here explained:
Justice Scalia recently explained in Santos that the rule of lenity prevents courts from having to "read the mind" of Congress and is a "venerable" requirement that the federal courts have applied for 526*526 two centuries when interpreting ambiguous criminal statutes. When a criminal statute is ambiguous as to its intent, the "tie" goes to the defendant. Because we cannot find that auto theft is "unambiguously" a crime of violence under Section 16(b), we should follow the ancient rule and overrule the administrative agency in this case..
STRIKE ONE against crazie Annie.
COULTER LIED - and with that little taradiddle I am done with coulter and will never believe her again. Credibility gone poof vanished up in smoke.
Yeah, the nytimes is a reliable news source, at least for the hard left and their international crime ring. Order your subscription today.
My take, ban posting articles from this source of antiamerican lie machine.
Lazy Mitch just want the Prez to make his job easier. He is no fighter.
Kavanaugh’s arguments against the assault weapons ban are behind the link. He argued using more than Heller and tried to do what was effectively impossible in that lower court with that majority.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/%24file/10-7036-1333156.pdf#page=46
[Excerpt:]
“KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, dissenting:...In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”
[Much more behind the link and well worth reading.]
“Scrutiny” alone allowed for “limitations.” Not good in that case, because it wasn’t about people who were prohibited because of criminal histories or mental illness.
Most interestingly, Kavanaugh’s argument about “text, history, and tradition,” being an argument concerning interpreting the Constitution and intents behind it, would be effective in the Supreme Court with a majority of reasonable and objective judges. The previous federal assault weapons ban stayed with us for ten years without being stopped by the Supremes.
Like me, you are an enemy of blackrobed tyrants and the union mob. You gotta great home page.
Like the NYTimes orders, let’s all pile on the republicans and their leaders and not mention the RATS. I suppose how they vote on confirmation won’t be worthy of our attention.
I don’t know what Hardiman’s faith if. I’ve searched the internet. He might not have any faith. If he’s a practicing Catholic or Evangelical that’s good. If he’s nothin not so good. Hell he might be an atheist. If so he might as well be a democrat.
Bingo!
and be counted among the sit home and pouts who gave us obama, twice
Reid had the Senate remove the filibuster for nominees for inferior courts, but left the filibuster intact for Supreme Court nominees. McConnell had the Senate remove the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees when the Democrats attempted to filibuster the Gorsuch confirmation.
How the Rats vote is a given other than a few up for election this year. What is the pubbie leadership in Congress you speak of? I sure haven’t seen it.
Mitch led the charge that blocked obunga’s appt and got Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. These are top priority issues that will have impacts for decades. You need to think about that and stop reading the NYtimes.
You sight one thing, Gorsuch. How about something else? Zero leadership other than when he is carrying the swamp banner. I don’t read the NYTs but do have a realistic view on Uniparty leadership. I assume you’re a big Ryan fan as well. You Uniparty types are the biggest roadblock to Trump and his conservative agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.