i mean tbh i would think criminalization of abortion is the last thing that uber wealthy/high-profile white dudes like trump would be trying to accomplish

In 2009, Kavanaugh wrote an article for the Minnesota Law Review where he argued that U.S. Presidents should be exempt from “time-consuming and distracting” lawsuits and investigations, which “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”[49]

from his wiki.. HAHAHAHA

i wonder why trump picked him..

eta- also that a president can fire any special counsel and the president should not be indicted no matter what evidence is uncovered.

Why? In their dream world it would only be illegal for the woman, not the man who impregnated her.

loose ends need to be tied up. pregnant bitches having your illegitimate children = leverage

The wealthy will always have access to abortion

The Conservatives on the Supreme Court won't outlaw abortion, just uphold States rights to make it essentially illegal.

This guy seems terrible. Like even way worse than Gorsuch.

I'll get a massive erection if this dude is blocked by Senate.

nah he's not (but he's obviously ****ing awful)

I don't think people realize how truly terrible Gorsuch is

Barrett, for instance, would have been a much more conservative pick than Kavanaugh, and probably Kethledge too

#genuinesmiling

The route to go for illegality is fetal person-hood.

NYT Opinion page strikes again



Don't worry you don't have to read it to know it's not a realistic liberal case for him.

Plus he clerked for Kennedy. Plus he hates abortions (at least he ruled against it before). Plus he wrote the Ken Starr impeach Clinton report. Plus he's a white dude.

Good lord this dude literally checks every trump dream box. I regret not looking into this for the free money.

Feel like this could have been a lot worse. This is an appointment GWB might have made. Pretty obvious there was 0 chance of doing any better than that.

I saw "opinion" and then "nytimes.com" and I'm like



lol, zero chance of that happening.

Akhil Amar always comes across as a bit duchy and kumbaya. As long as it's a "principled conservative" Yale grad he's fine with it. It would be better to have another Thomas, whose judicial legacy will disappear in a puff of smoke the minute he's off the court.

https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/s...14384447799296

I'd bet $100 he submitted this with the title himself. This is how they think. #podpeople


https://twitter.com/JakeAnbinder/sta...17701248962561

I guess him and Gorsuch can bond over f*cking over employees

This Is The Day Trump Became President

Yup. Really, A Handmaid's Tale is a must-read if you want to understand religious conservatism in America. Rest assured Trump's kids will never face any consequences for whatever unwanted pregnancies they've created.

What could go wrong?

Liberal Case for Donald Trump

The Opening Arguments podcast had an ep on Kavanaugh last week, correctly anticipating he would be the pick. Highlights are (and I hope I'm not ****ing any of this up since I'm going from memory and have no transcription to help)...

Kavanaugh dissented from the majority of the DC Circuit on a challenge to Obamacare's contraceptive requirement - this is after the big one was struck down in Hobby Lobby, but Kavanaugh objected to a new requirement that organizations notify their employees that because of their beliefs, their medical coverage would not include access to contraceptives, and employees would have to seek them elsewhere. Kavanaugh agreed with the argument of the religious groups that telling employees they didn't have contraceptive access might make them get contraceptives elsewhere, and thus make the organization complicit in people getting contraceptives. So, that one's a doozy.

There was another case Torrez (the podcast lawyer) cited along with this one to make the case that Kavanaugh believes in a huge expansion of religious rights, one where separation of church and state doesn't mean the government can't endorse religious exercise, it simply can't establish a state religion.


He also brought up a dissent Kavanaugh made in a case about pregnant detained migrants being denied access to an abortion, which Torrez highlighted for the flowery language used (something like "these girls are alone, in a country far from home, away from their families, with a huge decision to make") that someone like Gorsuch would ordinarily laugh at if it wasn't used to advance an argument he favored.


Lastly, there was a bunch of stuff about Chevron deference (my bad explanation cribbing from what Torrez explained that a real lawyer can correct: Chevron deference is the idea that if authority Congress gives to executive agencies through legislation is too ambiguous, then it's not the job of the courts to interpret the law for the agencies, the job of the courts is to verify if the agencies' interpretation of the law is permissible by the law). Torrez said that Kavanaugh has never, on the DC circuit, voted to uphold a regulation via Chevron deference, and that he (like Gorsuch) has made arguments suggesting that judges should be able to, in essence, legislate from the bench in these cases rather than deferring to federal agencies. So, there's something for the next time you hear conservatives crying about "activist judges".

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both have expressed the opinion that federal agencies that make legislation are violating the separation of powers in the Constitution. I think looking at their interpretations from this perspective shows that they think that neither judges nor the executive branch should be legislating. Executive agencies under both political parties have used Chevron deference in an effort to advance their given agendas by circumventing the legislative process, and it has advanced to the idea that unless specifically prohibited these federal agencies can do almost anything.

Kavanaugh isn't as much of a hardliner on Chevron as Gorsuch. Kavanaugh wrote an opinion on Net Neutrality that highlighted the "major questions" aspect of Chevron that has often not been considered by the courts in the past. Using his approach eliminates some of the ability for federal agencies to usurp legislative powers without scrapping Chevron altogether.

I believe that Gorsuch is more of the opinion that Chevron itself was judicial overreach.