Posted on 07/08/2018 4:48:42 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
National conservative leader and former Ohio Secretary of State and U.N. Ambassador Ken Blackwell expressed grave doubts Sunday about Judge Raymond Kethledge’s nomination to the Supreme Court, pushing back on the “Gorsuch 2.0” label advocated by Kethledge supporters by using “Souter 2.0.” On Twitter, Blackwell, who was a senior member of the Trump transition team, wrote that Kethledge “worried” him. “We can’t afford Souter 2.0,” he wrote, referring to George H.W. Bush nominee Justice David Souter, who, despite the endorsement of many solid conservatives, became an anchor of the left-wing of the Supreme Court for almost 20 years:
J. Kenneth Blackwell @kenblackwell Kethledge for #SCOTUS worries me. Reminds me too much of Souter. Been on bench for a decade, very few big cases - we can't afford Souter 2.0. 9:07 AM - Jul 8, 2018
The term was a play on “Gorsuch 2.0,” a moniker coined for Kethledge by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt this week. Hewitt has links to “Never Trump” sentiment and relied on some Never Trumpers in the conservative legal world to bolster the case for Kethledge. The term, which implies a certain inevitability of a Kethledge pick, was widely picked up by the press. The Hill, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and others published pieces referring to “Gorsuch 2.0.”
Blackwell, in his tweet, referred to Kethledge’s lack of “big cases” in his time on the federal bench.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Hugh Hewitt is a conservative like Bowe Bergdahl is the Sergeant York of Afghanistan.
This entire discussion and so many others are conducted at the level of a campaign to be college sorority president. This is Bush League conservatism. It's what the Bushes do.
Kethledge is a sitting judge on a court of appeals. It's a tough enough job so show him a bit of respect. If you have a disagreement, cite the case and state where you think his argument in the written opinion is wrong and why it matters.
And being intellectually honest in this manner not only shows some respect for the individual whose qualifications to sit on the SC you are questioning, but it also is a necessary ingredient of that fundamental basis for self-respect - integrity.
Shirt if that you are just a lazy sniveling Bush League intellectual fraud.
I don't know that I am a Kethledge fan. Never studied the guy, never thought about it. But he is making all the right kinds of enemies, I must say.
I’ve never seen the likes of this. It’s an orchestrated campaign.
I have read pieces all over the internet and twitter about Kethledge. Legal scholars have commended his originalist rulings. His rulings on 2A, religious freedom, free speech and the administrative state are all conservative.
He and Gorsuch are close friends and go fishing together. VP Pence asked Kethledge who he would recommend for SCOTUS last go round and Kethledge strongly advocated for Gorsuch. Talked 4-5 minutes without stopping.
He attends the Anglican Church of North America, which left the Episcopal Church when they turned left. He packs- has a concealed carry permit.
I could go on, but because Breitbart and Ann Coulter have proclaimed him immigration zealot, the die is cast. Instead they want Kavanaugh, the guy who showed Roberts how to make Obamacare work. Count me out.
I’m pretty sure DJT is listening very closely to people like Ken Blackwell and Mike Pence.
Loud voices in his inner circle. You can bet Trump doesn’t want his legacy to be forfeited because he picked a swamp creature for the court.
Kethledge is a strong conservative, to the right of Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch.
I have never seen so much defamation against a conservative here.
It’s the usual intellectually lazy Bush League conservatism - I know what I want and hey, Jackson, could you bring us another round please.
Cole Porter already wrote their theme song:
(I drink to your health)
Naw, lets drink to your wealth
Your my bon ami
Hey, that’s french
A liberty fraternity
...What a swell party, swell party
Swelligant, elegant party this is!
In 2013, for example, Kethledge sided with an illegal alien who overstayed a tourist visa and then spent the next ten years, while in the country illegally, trying to get an employment visa. Two separate employers filed paperwork that would have allowed the Indian national to remain in the United States, and both times the applications were denied when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) found the jobs to be bogus. Kethledge ruled, over a dissent by a Bill Clinton-appointed judge, that the alien himself had a right to challenge the determination that the employers did not qualify to keep foreign workers in the country, rather than just the employers themselves.So, Kethledge seems to be implying that an Illegal Alien has similar rights to a citizen here. That's a troubling scenario if true.
Even more troubling for those who prefer an America First interpretation of immigration law, Kethledge’s opinion in Patel v. USCIS expressly rejected the government’s contention that the sole purpose of those laws is to protect American workers and benefit American businesses that need foreign labor in qualifying circumstances where they cannot find Americans. “One can speculate that Congress meant to exclude certain aliens to protect American workers, and admit other, ‘qualified’ aliens to help American employers,” Kethledge wrote. “But there is no basis in the text of the statute—none—to conclude that Congress was completely indifferent to the interests of the ‘qualified immigrants’ themselves.”Here, Kethledge seems to be trying to present himself as a "Textulist", while at the same time legislating from the bench in favor of the Illegal Alien since "But there is no basis in the text of the statute—none—to conclude that Congress was completely indifferent to the interests of the ‘qualified immigrants’ themselves."
Once again, joining Ann Coulter as a liar, Breitbart lies about what Kethledge actually held. Here is Ketchledges actual decision in PATEL v UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP ANDIMMIGRATION SERVICES
Here is what Ketledge wrote:
Patel filed suit in federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the denial [of an employment petition] as arbitrary and capricious. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of prudential standing. We reverse.
IOW the district court held that Patel did not have standing to seek judicial review of an administrative decision by USCIS. Kethledge holds that Patel does have standing to seek judicial review.
As Kethledge wrote: in enacting the Administrative Procedure Act, Congress intended to “make agency action presumptively reviewable.” ... Thus, a plaintiff lacks prudential standing only if his “interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit.”
...[excerpting a lot more well-written argument] Kethledge concludes:
Disembodied notions of statutory purpose cannot override what the statute actually says. What § 1153(b)(3) says is that the alien, ultimately, is the one who is entitled to the employment visa. The alien’s interest in receiving it is therefore within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statute. Patel has prudential standing to challenge the denial of his prospective employer’s petition for an employment visa.Of course the Administrative State would like for its determinations not to be judicially reviewable. But that is tyranny.
SO, in conclusion, Breitbart lied, like Coulter lied, and you are too lazy to read what Kethledge actually wrote. Good job there.
Ping to Post 11.
See my post 11 above. So now both Coulter and Breitbart are intellectually lazy liars.
I shouldn't have to do their work for them, which is easy enough for them to do. If they want to tell me what Kethledge held, they could at least read what he wrote and quote him accurately. If he is in error, then show us the error. But, in fact, his reasoning is pretty tight and pretty well grounded in established precedent.
And why do these folks want to defend Agencies from judicial review as provided for under the Administrative Procedures Act. That is a route to unchecked administrative power.
I thought conservatives despised the administrative state and its abuses of unconstitutional powers conferred by a Congress too lazy to do its own job. I guess they are all Bush League conservatives.
What is this conspiracy to get Ketledge? Is Bannon undermining Trump again. I thought Bannon quit.
Guy Benson
@guypbenson
6h
Strong conservative in this realm reaches out in response. Says after closely examining Kethledge’s decade (1000+ decisions), *nothing* is concerning re: originalist/textualist bona fides. Says Gorsuch 2.0 moniker “absolutely” apt & ‘unreliable’ whispers are mystifying. #scotus
.......
I don’t know exactly what Ann and Breitbart are after, but I know Ann is all in for Kavanaugh. She’s not being honest in her criticism, as you point out.
The above tweet summarizes the situation. From everything I’ve read about him, Kethledge should have excited conservatives. That he hasn’t, is indeed “mystifying”...
I don’t know how much influence Bannon has anywhere now, but nothing surprises me. Maybe he’s part of it, or not.
Agree on the administrative state, another area Kethledge shows strength.
B effin S. As Scalia wrote many many many many many many times, in interpreting legislative intent you apply the clear letter of the law as written. You resort to secondary sources only if the law as written is ambiguous. This is not ambiguous.
Period. And no-one can claim he is a conservative who believes that the administrative acts of the Administration should not be judicially reviewable.
I am just appalled that Coulter would abuse an honorable and competent judge for her own political ends. It is utterly inexcusably despicable. Especially for a "conservative" attorney. Show reasoned polite disagreement, fine, but by all indications he is a fine public servant and we should be grateful.
(iii) Other workers
Other qualified immigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing unskilled labor, not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.
Kethledge was not deciding the merits of Patel's case, which you are trying to argue here. All he ruled was that Patel had standing to seek judicial review of the administrative decision and Kethledge did so on the basis of the black and white text in the Administrative Procedures Act.
Please try to be accurate. Kethledge is applying the law as it was written by Congress. Want a different law, get Congress to pass it.
What you are advocating is for the judge to ignore the law and make up his own laws. You are no better than the liberals you despise.
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.