Replies

Could be the deal that Kav gets confirmed in exchange for not going after the fake witnesses.

Art of the Deal. I sense President Trump's handiwork.

And, really, it's a win-win-win for the Country, and for Trump.

1) He gets someone he nominated.

2) But after Kavanaugh's Kafkaesque Kangaroo Kommittee rape by the left, do you think he'll EVER vote to the left of Attila the Hun again in his life? Do you think he will have an IOTA of sympmathy for any #PoundMeToo cases?

3) And, the Dems, having overplayed their hand, ENRAGED the Trump base, who will likely INCREASE the GOP majorities in both House and Senate.

...and if the Dems renege, see #3. Trump can simultaneously RELEASE the FBI investigation, prosecute the fake witnesses and Dems, and re-nominate Kavenaugh to be welcomed in by acclamation.

"2) But after Kavanaugh's Kafkaesque Kangaroo Kommittee rape by the left, do you think he'll EVER vote to the left of Attila the Hun again in his life? Do you think he will have an IOTA of sympmathy for any #PoundMeToo cases?"

He'll write opinions in favor of those who have likely been assaulted based on a full body of evidence. He's as straight as an arrow and cool as a cucumber (see quote below, emphasis in bold mine). He won't be unjust towards anyone. He'll be the most honest and fair judge on the Supreme Court, regardless of who is involved in the case.

What would our nation's founding fathers have done with related cases? That is the question, and we all know the answer. I'm sure he received a bit more of an education about what's going on out here after the recent experience.

Heller v. D.C. - Appeals (2010-2011, not the 2008 case)
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/%24file/10-7036-1333156.pdf#page=46

[Excerpts:]

“KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, dissenting:...
[...]
In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.

In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns – the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic – are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It followsfrom Heller’s protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional.
[...]
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.”