Tuesday, July 10, 2018

It's Kavanaugh

The left is freaking out...but it's one long, continuous freak out anymore over there...punctuated by occasional bouts of abject hysteria...so...business as usual. No matter who Trump picked it'd be about the same. So: no real information to be gleaned from their reaction. They'll say any conservative nominee is against Roe, and they're saying that about Kavanaugh, even though he's on record as having said:
"If confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be binding precedent of the court. It's been decided by the Supreme Court." He added: "It’s been reaffirmed many times."
Yes, that certainly does sound like he's gunning for Roe alright... Jesus.
   Conservative reactions are mixed. Which is, to my way of thinking, good. If nobody's happy, I'm happy. Needless to say, the right is happier than the left. Given the current madness on the left, though, I'm ok with that, too. Since free speech is now...and I still don't really understand how this happened...a conservative cause, I guess I'm a conservative now...? WTH America; sometimes I just can't figure you out.
   From libertarian la-la land (where I myself have always vacationed, and now seem to have taken up something like part-time residency) Somin writes, reassuringly:
The Trump administration has been disturbingly abnormal in many ways. But the president's nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is as conventional as such selections are ever likely to get. Kavanaugh is a well-liked and widely respected jurist - and a pillar of the conservative legal establishment. I like many of his decisions, and am far more critical of others. But it's hard to argue that any of his views are outside the current legal mainstream. [my emphasis]
   "Extensive paper trail," strong on First- and Second-Amendment protections, critical of Chevron...though also some bad stuff... But I'm not wild about judging judges by their conclusions. Judges should be judged by their reasoning...and I haven't read any of his decisions. Also, IANAL, so even if I had, all I can usually do is kibbutz. (Though, man, I love reading interesting legal opinions. Lawyers man...dudes can reason...)
   If I were betting money given what I've manged to get my lazy ass to read, I'd bet: good pick.
   I haven't forgotten about the Garland Incident. And I continue to think that the Pubs have to pay a price for that. But I don't know what, when, nor how. I kinda doubt that Mt. Kavanaugh is the hill to die on. Also: do you want Barrett? Because blocking Kavanaugh is how you get Barrett.
   (Also: man, I can't help but keep thinking about how much I like the idea of expanding SCOTUS to like 59 Justices... In a half-assed I-really-have-no-idea-what-I'm-talking-about kind of way...)


Blogger Pete Mack said...

Ah yes. Ken Starr's main man. Just what we want in a non-partisan judge.

8:33 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Oh yeah...I forgot about that.
Well, that's obviously not good. But, unless there are damning details, I guess I can live with it.

9:03 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home