Posted on 07/06/2018 5:42:57 AM PDT by familyop
One of the judge’s most famous dissents came in a 2008 challenge to the constitutionality of a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) panel called the Public Company Accounting and Oversight Board (PCAOB). Members of the PCAOB had stronger protections against termination than comparable agency officials, prompting conservative critics to argue the panel was a roving, unaccountable fourth branch of government.
Two judges on a three-judge panel hearing the case at the D.C. Circuit found for the PCAOB and defended its constitutionality. Kavanaugh dissented, arguing the structure of the panel unlawfully restricts the president’s power to appoint and remove executive branch officers. His opinion begins explicitly with an originalist analysis — which runs another eight pages — and explains how the board threatens the separation of powers.
On review at the Supreme Court, a five-justice majority composed of the Court’s conservatives reversed the D.C. Circuit’s decision. The ruling repeatedly quotes Kavanaugh’s opinion, as well as his comments at oral argument. Some legal commentators have suggested the high court would not have taken the case but for his sweeping dissent.
If we lose the Senate this NOvember then we’re in trouble.
That's what I am hearing too. I do like Barrett best, she would make the rats heads explode. They really do fear and hate her most.
Thomas is only 70 years old
Thanks. The unfortunate thing is he apparently is close to the Bushes (was a staff attorney in the WH for W) and he clearly was a fixer on the Vince Foster case—harassing a witness and writing an apparently false report.
The pic at this link is enough to make a Freeper hurl:
https://www.infowars.com/roger-stone-kavanaugh-is-deep-states-pick-for-supreme-court/
Good point.
It would seem familyop is a “Deep Stater.”
Certainly, apparently, in sentiment, if not profession.
You claim that “Kavanaugh would not be a good Justice.”
What has led you to form this opinion? Are there aspects about him that give you pause that aren’t already being discussed?
If it’s a feeling in your gut, it’s fine to say so; just throttle back on the certainty level of your claim commensurate with that. So, for example, “Kavanaugh gives me a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach. I can’t readily articulate why, but something about him leaves me unsettled.”
Just a hunch but if Buzzi croaks, I think both Breyer and Thomas retire, knowing Trump’s picks will control the court.
My guy, Zen Master, thinks if Buzzi croaks that Breyer will hang on til they cart him out. He says no way two go out at once except by death of both, as they like to give the rookie a full year on the court with the rest of it intact.
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.