Posted on 07/10/2018 8:20:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I’ve got a piece up over at the Washington Post about the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. It was a safe choice — and an opportunity lost. There was a choice out there that fired the conservative imagination, the kind of choice that arguably only a Donald Trump would have the guts to make:
There was a moment, in the early afternoon of July 9, when conservatives contemplated the delightful possibility that they might witness the best possible version of President Trump — the man with the will (and flair for the dramatic) that would allow him to be bolder than the average Republican president. The best version of Trump would have been nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Would another Republican have the guts to put forward a nominee who would so clearly inflame the culture wars? Would another Republican president shatter the GOP nominee mold by selecting a mother of seven kids, an outspoken Christian and a graduate from a “normal” non-Ivy League law school? The base-motivating, electrifying pick was right there, in the palm of his hand.
Then, he went establishment. He chose a man that any Republican president would have nominated. He made the best safe choice he could: Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
This does not mean that Kavanaugh will be a bad justice. Over time, I think he’ll prove to be a solid (and perhaps even excellent) pick. And, over the next several weeks, we’ll see an avalanche of progressive attacks, many of them labeling even his best and most rigorous opinions “extremist” or “dangerous.” Kavanaugh will be an easy pick to defend. But it’s simply a fact that tonight my inbox is lighting up with responses — many of them from Trump supporters — expressing a sense of regret.
And to those saying, “Relax, it will be her next time,” we should remember all the passed-over judges who never, ever saw that “next time.” There’s zero guarantee that Trump will get another SCOTUS pick. We don’t know of any justices pondering retirement, and nobody should be ghoulish enough to predict any justice’s demise. Don’t for a moment think Ruth Bader Ginsburg will step down under President Trump. So, until proven otherwise, I stand by my assessment.
One final note: You wouldn’t believe how often conservative professionals ask my advice about how “open” to be on their CV’s, in their social media, and online about their conservative religious affiliations. Ever since Brendan Eich, there’s a palpable sense that there’s a stained-glass ceiling descending on certain professions (including law) restricting the upward mobility of orthodox Christians. Barrett’s nomination wouldn’t “just” have put an outstanding originalist on the Court for 30 years, it would have helped blunt the force of secular bigotry. The direct confrontation between an angry secular Left and an accomplished, poised Christian professional would have represented a culturally important moment.
But alas, it was not to be. Kavanaugh will be an excellent judge. In a more functional political system, he’d win confirmation by an overwhelming majority and not the slim margin he’ll likely receive. I’ll defend him vigorously from unfair critiques tomorrow, but tonight I join many conservatives in a slight sigh of regret. There was a better choice.
You didn’t answer my questions
Have you read his decisions. Did you hear him speak last night?
I want a judge with fidelity to the constitution as written.
So, Never-Trumper David French didn’t (and still doesn’t) like Donald Trump because he was not like any other Republican President. Now he condemns Trump for making a choice that any other Republican President would have made.
David, take a break from your office, and go back home and get the meds that you forgot to take today.
BTW, I don’t trust French, Will, Ericson, Hewitt or any other Never Trumper out there. They are all about themselves, and cannot even be intellectually honest enough to say, “Hey, I made a mistake, sorry; Trump 2020!!” At least then, they might earn back some of the respect that they tossed into the garbage can by supporting Felonia von Pantsuit...speaking of whom, how would French feel about ANY choice for the USSC which that creature would have made? Do you see, David, how bloody wrong you were? How about the rest of you fair-weather, I-want-to-keep-getting-invited-to-the-right-parties, conservatives?
RE: I do think that nominating Barrett would result in the absolute loss of the House bringing the specter of impeachment and who knows what else.
If that is what we always fear, then we might as well avoid nominating true constitutionalists to the bench in order to avoid a confirmation battle. Let’s just nominate those who will be acceptable to moderates. Someone like John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. No more Scalias.
It’s just a rumor, what is known that Kennedy wanted to retire and he did. Maybe that list with several of his clerks on it may him feel it was safe to retire. That is far more likely then the deal rumor. I probably should not have brought it up.
I don't believe that RBG has been doing much on her own for years. Her opinions, her Oral Argument questions (when she is awake), her interviews, and her speeches are all likely written long before she ever gets to see them. As long as she is vertical and breathing, that is all they need from her.
This was a rumor started in a tweet by an NBC reporter based, she says, on only one source. She has since retracted the tweet, but the damage was done. Typical plant of damaging info by the dishonest media types and their sometimes real, sometimes made up sources. I’m on my cell phone, or would find the link for you. Story is on Townhall, if memory serves.
Unlike Barrett, Kavanaugh has a long list of decisions to look at. He has dealt with real cases involving actual people so no, what you see is what you get. Barrett is an academic and I will almost guarantee you that she would be the one to go squishy when the rubber meets the road. She has been a appeals court judge since November 2017, thanks to Trump. Lets see how she does with it.
National Review is praising Trump’s nomination of Kavanaugh, Halfwit. You (and several of the other posters)aren’t bright enough to understand what is and isn’t a Conservative, or when someone is supporting Trump.
LAW & THE COURTS
A Worthy Pick
By THE EDITORS of National Review
July 9, 2018 11:09 PM
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s new nominee for the Supreme Court, is a whip-smart legal conservative. As a judge in the highest-profile appeals court in the nation, he has shown an exemplary dedication to the rule of law. He has defended the separation of powers against threats coming from multiple directions. He has repeatedly cautioned his colleagues on the bench not to attempt to play a legislative role. He has also insisted on enforcing constitutional structures of accountability on government agencies. He has vindicated the right to free speech (against certain campaign-finance regulations), to bear arms (against the D.C. government’s attempts to implement sweeping bans), and to religious liberty (against a version of the Obama administration’s “contraceptive mandate”). And he has followed Supreme Court precedents even when gently suggesting they should be rethought.
His decisions have also been influential, with the Supreme Court repeatedly adopting his analysis and in one case running several block quotes from his opinion. Some conservatives have faulted the reasoning of a few of his opinions, but usually have not disagreed with the decisions he reached. His ruling on a challenge to Obamacare’s individual mandate is an exception to this rule — some conservatives do fault his decision — but even it has an asterisk. He would have dismissed the case on the ground that the courts did not yet have jurisdiction over it, in keeping with views he has long advocated. He did not bless the idea that the federal government could order people to buy a product, as the four most liberal members of the Supreme Court later would have done. Nor did he rewrite the text of Obamacare to uphold it, as Chief Justice John Roberts did.
It would be utterly implausible, indeed laughable, for Senate Democrats to try to portray Kavanaugh as unqualified. They will instead try to present him as a right-wing monster. They will try to make him pledge to keep the Supreme Court rather than legislatures in charge of abortion policy, even though the Constitution requires no such thing; then they will condemn him for refusing to take the pledge. They will portray his concern for the structural limits on government power as a blanket hostility to government, which it is not. And they will cherry-pick decisions in which he ruled against a sympathetic cause or litigant, as is sometimes a judge’s duty.
They will call him every name in the book. But before too long, they will, as they should, be calling him “Justice.”
I don’t believe Kavanaugh will be another Anthony Kennedy or even David Souter. He seems to be another Roberts - not awful, but not good enough.
What good would it do to lose the House over a nominee that cannot get past confirmation? You lose two big important things. You no longer have the House, and your nomination fails.
Exactly. Trump is playing the long game here, knowing he most likely will have at least one, if not two more picks before it’s over.
“This is a man who almost always plans far ahead so his strategy is usually not apparent in the beginning.”
Trump plans long-term to outsmart his short-term oriented opponents (and that is even more successful in politics than in business, as the time horizon is never more than 2 or 4 years away (Senators don’t give a damn about reelection until at least 3-4 years before an election, and do whatever they damned well please before that).
Pretty much everyone underestimates this guy - he’s not only smart as a whip, but he works very hard; he’s literally figuring out ways to outsmart his opponents while they are sleeping. But let them continue to underestimate him...it’ll make his (and therefore OUR) success in the future more certain.
I completely agree which is why I wanted Barrett, Kavanaugh was my second choice. Barrett would have fired up the base big time. Hopefully her time will come because we need to join in earnest the culture wars before we lose by default.
RE: What good would it do to lose the House over a nominee that cannot get past confirmation? You lose two big important things. You no longer have the House, and your nomination fails.
1) You are assuming that nominating a Scalia-like textualist would cause you to lose the house. How does that follow...
2) If what you fear is your nominee failing because he is too much like Scalia, then we should avoid anyone like Scalia and Thomas altogether and just nominate someone like Roberts and Kennedy.
With that kind of “fear” we get what we deserve, always an unreliable swing vote that gave us Obama-care and gay marriage.
thx for the info.
did that neocon craphead really mention “secular bigotry”.
wish some one would ask why can’t we simply have a protestant on the court? ( ivy league catholics are getting on too often, i’m still ok with this one but really)
That’s what I’m thinking too. The Left is going to throw everything they have at this battle-hardened and extremely competent nominee and you can only do that for so long before the public figures out there is no there, there. This will put Trump in the strongest position possible after the midterms and yeah, I don’t think this isn’t the last one either.
Amy Coney Barrett would have absolutely failed as a nominee.
RE: Amy Coney Barrett would have absolutely failed as a nominee.
And the reason for that would be???
Yup, that Ginsburg creature looks like a walking corpse and Breyer, the descendant of Romanian Jews, is over 80.
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.