Ken Blackwell on Kethledge: ‘We Can’t Afford Souter 2.0’

Breitbart ^ | 8 Jul 2018 | Ian Mason

[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.

[SoConPubbie]

I know the following is of a much less important, if non-existent, impact to the ruling, however, once again, the relevant statute (§ 1153 (b)(3).A.iii) requires:

(iii) Other workers
Other qualifiedimmigrants 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.

From the factual history of this case:

In October 2006, Deluxe Inn, a motel in Lansing, Michigan, filed a Form 9089 with the Department of Labor on Patel’s behalf. In that application, Deluxe Inn claimed that it was offering Patel a position as a lodging manager at an hourly wage of $22.28, or $46,342 per year, that it had advertised the position previously through a notice in two issues of a local newspaper, but that no qualified American workers had applied for the job.

This is laughable. An job posting in a "local" newspaper, twice, is supposed to suffice as proof that another American was not available to take the job?

This is the kind of thing that should have been mentioned by a jurist that is supposed to be super conservative, a textualist, etc.

You'll notice that Kethledge said nothing about this.

[SoConPubbie]

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.

Seriously???

It is the job of a higher court, to review the full case, not just the issue raised. If the case is flawed, for some other reason then the issue that landed the case into review, do you think the higher court would/should simply ignore it?

If there is a foundational issue in the facts of the case, do you think the court should put blinders on and ignore it?

If the legislation the case is based on is incorrect in some fashion, would you not expect individual jurists to comment on it?

Have you not read the many statements made by Thomas concerning the incorrect nature of various policies/precendents/statutues with respect to the 10th Amendment?

[AndyJackson]

It is the job of a higher court, to review the full case, not just the issue raised.

Ah, no! That is not what an appellate court does in a case like this.

[AndyJackson]

If there is a foundational issue in the facts of the case, do you think the court should put blinders on and ignore it?

You show your ignorance. There is no factual record because there were no proceedings in a lower court to establish a factual record. There were no proceedings because that lower court determined the individual lacked standing. So he appealed. The Appellate Court reversed, which means that they determined Patel had standing, sending the case back to the trial court for a full hearing on the facts of the case, hearing sworn testimony from both sides.

[AndyJackson]

You'll notice that Kethledge said nothing about this.

He shouldn't because it is irrelevant. The issue before the court of appeals was whether Patel had standing to seek judicial review. You want the appellate court to predetermine the likely outcome of that review before it happens. That is not how judicial process works.

[SoConPubbie]

There is no factual record because there were no proceedings in a lower court to establish a factual record.

Sorry, not true. We may not be talking about the same thing here.

From SHASHIKANT PATEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES:

Factual Background
In October 2006, Deluxe Inn, a motel in Lansing, Michigan, filed a Form 9089 with the Department of Labor on Patel’s behalf. In that application, Deluxe Inn claimed that it was offering Patel a position as a lodging manager at an hourly wage of $22.28, or $46,342 per year, that it had advertised the position previously through a notice in two issues of a local newspaper, but that no qualified American workers had applied for the job.

[AndyJackson]

Your ignorance is on full display.

[trebb]

I’m just glad that it’s in Trump’s hands....

[Sans-Culotte]

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.

Yeah, but you gotta admit, a ringing endorsement for Kethledge from Hugh "I heart Romney" Hewitt is cause for concern.