Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

That's exactly what he did. It wasn't Bush, it was the White House as quoted in your own previous post before this one. The White House didn't want to release the info and so it wasn't.

I mean, what motivation would there be for not sharing everything after Bush said error on the side of transparency?

 

there's a lot of reasons for not sharing info that is related to personnel matters, in this case judicial nominations. Unless you simply don't trust Burck, Bush's lawyer. I can't tell you--I'm not privy to what's in those files. This I take it is the point of Burck's statements as reported in the Post:

"A Bush representative who has led a team of attorneys reviewing Kavanaugh’s papers confirmed that lawyers have finished going through the records and have turned over about 415,000 pages to the committee, although about 147,000 of those pages are being withheld from public view.

“ 'President Bush directed us to proceed expeditiously and to err as much as appropriate on the side of transparency and disclosure, and we believe we have done so,' attorney Bill Burck, who serves as Bush’s presidential records representative, wrote to the committee.

"Burck said in the letter that 101,921 pages are not being given to the committee because the White House considers them to be protected by presidential privilege and, after discussions with the Justice Department, has directed that we not provide these documents for this reason.' ”
​

Honestly not trying to be coy or evasive here. The way I'm reading that reporting (and I haven't seen any retraction or clarification by the Post or other newspapers including the Times), this is how I currently understand what's going on. Between you and me, I don't think Trump is smart enough to even know what executive privilege is.

ON EDIT: I think I see where the ambiguity is. "Burck said in the letter that 101,921 pages are not being given to the committee because the White House considers them to be protected by presidential privilege." I can see where it might be unclear whether this is being invoked by Burck acting on Bush's behalf or whether the White House is doing the invoking.

 

My understand of the reporting and quote is that 147k pages are being withheld in total with 102k being at the request of the current (Trump)white house/DOJ and the remaining 45k is withheld by Burck/Bush

The one thing not clear would be if they would have released the said 102k if the current admin and not invoked privilege

 

got it. 147k have gone to the committee but will not be available to the public with 102k not going to the committee--but again it's a bit unclear who's doing the invoking of executive privilege here on the 102k, Trump or the administration's lawyers.

 

Bush wanted transparency and has nothing to hide - it's Trump who is hiding and the article refers to the JD actions were directed by the White House which is Trump

 

in reading some of the other coverage of the issue (NY Times, AP, and others), Burck apparently provides a bit more insight as to why the 102k pages are being withheld, this from the Times on Saturday:

"The bulk of the records being withheld 'reflect deliberations and candid advice concerning the selection and nomination of judicial candidates, the confidentiality of which is critical to any president’s ability to carry out this core constitutional executive function,' wrote Mr. Bush’s lawyer, William A. Burck.

"They also reflect 'advice submitted directly to President Bush,' Mr. Burck wrote, as well as communications between White House staff members about their discussions with Mr. Bush, and other internal deliberations."
​

So again, hard to tell what it is about the 102k pages that is so special, but certainly Burck's explanation seems at least reasonable given the basic parameters of executive privilege. And Burck appears to be a straight shooter, at least as reported by this AP article.

 

I thought he said abortion was settled law in an interview. That would seem to put up a pretty high bar to overturn Roe v Wade.

I don't know much about this but I just glanced at blog discussing this and his opinion on this Seven Sky v Holder seems to be nuanced. He didn't seem hellbent on tearing it down from what I can gather. I guess I don't really understand why this is a major concern to you.

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2018/0...bamacare-decision-in-seven-sky-v-holder-2011/

Why would the Supreme Court be involved with Trump? And is there a reason why you think he wouldn’t follow the laws? Supreme Court justices aren’t ever really known to bow to presidential authority.

I’m just trying to understand why these are concerns with him specifically.


I just found this link discussing some of the issues with him.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-conservative-policies-675460

Kavanaugh has passed up opportunities in legal opinions to stake out a position on the landmark 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. And some conservative critics before the announcement raised fresh concerns about comments he made 12 years ago pledging to follow Roe, calling it the “binding precedent of the court.”

“I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully,” Kavanaugh said during his 2006 confirmation hearing for the D.C. appellate court. “It’s been reaffirmed many times.”
______
Still, Kavanaugh’s conservative critics question whether he’ll be eager to supply the vote that tips the court to the right on divisive, far-reaching issues like abortion. That uncertainty mobilized corners of the GOP against Kavanaugh in the run-up to Trump’s decision.

In one closely watched case last year, Kavanaugh wrote a strong rebuke of a D.C. appellate court ruling that allowed a 17-year-old undocumented immigrant to obtain an abortion, decrying the decision a “radical extension of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence.”

However, conservative critics took notice that he declined to sign onto another dissenting opinion declaring that undocumented minors had no constitutional right to an abortion.

Kavanaugh penned a similarly stringent defense of religious organizations’ objections to Obamacare’s requirement that health plans offer contraception coverage.

“When the Government forces someone to take an action contrary to his or her sincere religious belief,” Kavanaugh wrote, ”or else suffer a financial penalty (which here is huge), the Government has substantially burdened the individual’s exercise of religion.”

But it wasn’t enough for ardent conservatives. Kavanaugh’s opinion left the door open for the government to play a role in ensuring contraception access, his critics noted, once again leaving them wondering just far he would advance conservatives’ agenda on key social issues.
______
Kavanaugh is also likely to receive attention on his decisions in Obamacare challenges, including one which his opponents say drew the roadmap for the Supreme Court to ultimately affirm the health care law‘s constitutionality in 2012.

Kavanaugh had ruled a year earlier that Obamacare’s individual mandate wasn’t ripe for a legal challenge until someone paid the penalty for not purchasing coverage. Critics say that cleared the way for Chief Justice John Roberts to split with his conservative colleagues and declare the individual mandate constitutional through Congress’ taxing powers, saving Obamacare from its most formidable challenge yet.

More recently, Kavanaugh sided with the Obama administration in another challenge to the law, concluding in 2015 that Congress went through the proper legislative procedure in passing Obamacare.

A new legal challenge to Obamacare still in early stages could eventually offer Kavanaugh the chance to be the deciding vote to significantly damage a law the GOP has spent years trying to kill. Texas and other states have filed a lawsuit arguing that the elimination of Obamacare’s individual mandate — which the GOP largely repealed in their tax law — means that the rest of the health care law cannot stand.


FWIW that blog gets into a lot of the minutiae of his ACA opinions. Also, I don't really see why there is extreme concern for his views about Roe V Wade based on his history. His ACA related decisions have ultimately allowed it to persist, so I don't understand this concern I guess.

Are there other glaring issues with him?

 

On Roe v Wade, was he saying in '06 that he would follow (actually be bound to follow) Roe v. Wade while on the DC appellate court? That is simply stating the realities of how lower courts are obligated to follow Supreme Court authority.

Or has he said that if the issue was brought to him while he was on the Supreme Court, he would still support it based on stare decisis?

Saying that you will follow binding Supreme Court authority as an appellate judge is a lot different from saying you agree with it or wouldn't change it if legitimately given the opportunity. Saying it is "settled law" now is technically true, but once appointed he would have the opportunity to participate in "unsettling it."

 

why can anybody possibly object to a pasty bag of jowels like Brett Mike Kavanaugh?


Lets get past the dubious nature of his appointment by a career criminal currently under investigation, the fact that everything he writes r is a fetid pile of steaming disingenuity, with the sole purpose to put some shiny turd polish on oppression of the powerless by the powerful.


He went to the RIGHT SCHOOLS as the result of his lobbyist golden boy upbringing- shouldn't that count for SOMETHING?

- Signed

REASONABLE CENTRIST DUDE

 

He hasn't ever given his personal opinion on Roe v Wade so it's impossible to truly know. I guess it would depend on whatever case was brought to the Supreme Court. Is there any precedent of him going against a major precedent?

 

He told Collins that he agreed that it was "settled law."

We may be saying same thing because saying something is "settled law" is not the same as saying what your view on it is or that you won't undo/weaken it.

 

He and Gorsuch co-authored a book on legal precedents apparently. Gorsuch during confirmation touted his deep and abiding respect for it. In his first year, he voted to overturn three former Supreme Court holdings.

So, short answer: don't know. But, I am not sure there is any guaranty that once one gets on the Supreme Court, that individual will truly place respect for legal precedents over his/her own views irrespective of what that individual may have said previously.

 

I guess nobody calls Sean Hannity shitbird?

 

1. NOBODY, I GUESS? CALLS SEAN HANNITY SHITBIRD!
2. SHITBIRD! i guess no body calls SEAN HANNITY?

 

Factually incorrect. It’s a simple lookup on wiki. He had his vote and wasn’t confirmed. Your thought that a full denial of consideration without a hearing and a vote is similar to a consideration with a hearing and a vote is just incredible.


On October 23, 1987, the Senate denied Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against. Two Democratic Senators, David Boren (D-OK) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC), voted in his favor, with 6 Republican Senators (John Chafee (R-RI), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), John Warner (R-VA), and Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (R-CT) voting against him.[34]

 

you must have missed the word, "arguably" . . . and btw your own use of the term "similar" itself implies a claim about similarity, not a claim that two things are identical. Mars is similar to an elephant in that they both have mass. But they are dissimilar in virtually every other way.

The statement "Your thought that a full denial of consideration without a hearing and a vote is similar to a consideration with a hearing and a vote is just incredible" is overblown.

 

Actually he has before. He praised Scalias desent that Roe was incorrectly decided.

Plus his dissent in his most recent case was basically a love letter to Mike Pence and his fascination with control over a women’s vagina.

His views coming into this are pretty clear. It’s whether he gives actual answers in the hearings or not which is the question. My guess is he won’t say a damn word and it will be good enough for someone like Susan Collins who will probably lose her seat next election because of this vote.

Hopefully this will be a reminder for generations to young folks and women that elections matter, and they need to vote. This is what happens when you give the party of Trump and Pence absolute power. They Jam through a SCOTUS nominee with a 38% approval rating because he said that Presidents shouldn’t be investigated.

 

well it sounds like things are off to a rocking start.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-hearing-dle/index.html

Remember yesterday when politicians were praising the late Senator McCain because he called for civility and decorum? I guess as Emily Litella would say . . . “never mind”

 

comments are priceless



and then she doubles down on it later