Posted on 07/08/2018 3:16:24 AM PDT by GonzoII
Judge Raymond Kethledge is being increasingly portrayed as the “consensus” or “compromise” candidate for the Supreme Court in media descriptions of President Donald Trump’s decision making process, suggesting his inevitability despite concerns over such a pick among Trump’s base. “As Donald Trump moves to finalize his Supreme Court pick, Judge Raymond Kethledge is getting a behind-the-scenes push portraying him as the consensus choice of conservatives,” Politico reported Thursday, citing positive interviews and support by conservatives like Hugh Hewitt, many of whom are strongly linked with “Never Trump” sentiments.
The narrative picked up from there. On Friday, The Hill adopted Hewitt’s “Gorsuch 2.0” descriptor, imparting, as Hewitt had, an air of inevitability to a Kethledge pick.
The Daily Mail, meanwhile, went all out on the “compromise” narrative. Slamming other possibilities like Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett, the Mail’s Geoff Earle writes, “An emerging potential ‘compromise’ pick to win President Trump’s nomination to serve on the Supreme Court has Midwest roots lauds people who drink beer ‘straight out of the bottle.'”
In contrast to effusive praise of Kethledge’s “heartland appeal,” Judge Barrett is described as “a member of a controversial religious group” who “is being pushed by some evangelical leaders.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
He should the one the press hates the most and name him as the new judge...
Hewitt...leaning towards the Kethledge.
Now, all I need is William Kristol’s nod with a nod from the Washington Free Bacon. /dripping NT sarc
I’ve read quite a bit on the top three. I really like Kethledge. And he’s not an open borders guy. Of the roughly 115 illegal alien cases he’s ruled on, he ruled against the illegals 97% of the time. Hardly an “open border zealot” as described by Ann Coulter, who also thought Chris Christie should be our nominee.
If Ann is against, then I’m for. All I have read he sounds good. And trump’s list was supposedly vetted by heritage and federalist society. Ann likes Kavanaugh, not bad but maybe too long in DC
Evangelicals have absolutely no horse in this race whatsoever. Amy Coney Barrett would worry them because she seems unlikely to stand her ground on Vatican lobbying and evangelicals do not see eye to eye with the Vatican particularly on the issues of open borders and socialism. She has said that she would recuse herself from cases that conflict with her faith, and that would be perfectly fine in a lower court where cases could just be passed on to another judge but that remedy isn’t an option here. Plus 2/3 of the Supreme Court is Catholic. Wouldn’t those other justices also be candidates for recusal on the same reasoning?
Agreed on Coulter and crazy at times, but Kavanaugh did write some amazingly good arguments in the following. Kavanaugh was simply outnumbered in that court. It’s highly doubtful that Kethledge or Hardiman could have done better.
Heller v. D.C. (re. Kavanaugh’s arguments against the assault weapons ban)
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/%24file/10-7036-1333156.pdf#page=46
Kethledge, Hardiman and Kavanaugh all have good records, but Kavanaugh has the most extensive good record. As for the conspiracy theories promoted by some, I have analyzed them and still don’t subscribe to them. They’re riddled with glaring fallacies and obvious subjectivity.
So maybe the new guy/gal will be on onioned by morning?
Don’t like them Catholics, do you?
Anne Coulter's last tweet on Kethledge 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 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.
The article said that Barrett was the evangelicals choice for Supreme Court Justice and I was giving reasons why that was not the case.
I have to disagree. There is very little support in the Midwest for Kethledge, we see/hear more for “Amy” which, IMO is the one who should get the nod. It's really up to Trump to “sell” his choice but then, demodummies have a sworn allegiance to resist
I think so.....but if I recall, Trump leeked it to Fox News first....Maybe it was ABC. No doubt these leeks, like from Orin Hatch are out there to test the water. Trump does everything methodically. If he picks BARRETT it would be for some clear reason that she’s heads above the others, otherwise Kavenaugh or even Harriman is the safe pick. I don’t see how any of these four end up like Souter.
The SCOTUS makes one angry when you think the left judges vote the same, year after year after year. They present no new thought. Their opinions are no more enlightening than a high school kid.
Roe v Wade should not have been heard, period. MARIJuana, the same.
What is your citation for the fact he is in favor of open borders?
There’s probably no more that Kavanaugh could have done outside of a Supreme Court with a majority of reasonable and objective justices.
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.”
This was a bit of odd reasoning on his part
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0293p-06.pdf
Trump’s waiting technique may uncover non-approved leakers.
Although I favor Kavanaugh because of his more extensive record, I think Kethledge would also be a great Supreme Court justice. That’s with the likelihood that he would probably do much more than simply following precedents (lower court job). Same with Hardiman. He would most likely be great.
Absolutely.
Leeks, onions, scallions - oh, you mean “leaks”!
:-)
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.