Senate The Supreme Court

This is why Trump nominated him:

Scholarship
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.”[51] This article garnered attention in 2018 when Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump, whose 2016 presidential campaign is the subject of an ongoing federal probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.[51]

 

Frankly, the main reason the author of this piece doesn't feel particularly anxious about RvW being overturned is because he's a man.

 

Yup. Trump likely glided over all the other 'litmus' test issues and just went for the guy who'd likely vote in his favor on all the lawsuits and investigations.

 

Which is why it should be (and maybe actually is? I mean, nobody in this administration cares) illegal for the President to nominate a Justice when being investigated in a case that could end up at the Supreme Court.

 

What in dissenting to allow a 17year old undocumented immigrant an abortion gives you the idea he'll not overturn Roe v Wade?

 

And Trump said he'd be nominating judges who would overturn Roe v Wade. FFS, learn your lesson and believe him.

 

I don't think Trump actually gives a damn one way or the other about abortion. He knows that his base wants him to be anti-abortion, so he goes along. What he cares about is holding onto power, and it looks like Kavanaugh will help him do that. I think that's all there is to it.

 

Isn't it a pretty common opinion that the president can't be indicted while in office and must be impeached first?

 

Opinions are mixed and it's never been adjudicated.

 

But it is precedent that a President can be sued(during the Clinton administion, which was one of the factors that lead to the Lewinsky mess, actually), I'd imagine Trump might very well want to overturn that precedent.

 

Another thing about Kavanaugh is not only is his stance that a sitting president should not be indicted, but also that the president should have full power over special counsels, to hire and fire at will. This will probably be the end of Mueller's investigation.

 

As a practical matter, Roe is pretty much already dead. The Democrats should focus on legislation giving women back the dignity and respect that state abortion restrictions have stripped away, not just on the rulings of the Court. A federal “Freedom of Choice” Act that guarantees the right to unrestricted first trimester abortion, while deferring to the states between the 16th week and viability (with the right to fully ban after viability, should a state so choose, with strong protections/exceptions for the life and health of the mother) would be a legally sound compromise that a majority of the public would probably support.

In a post-Roe area, even a deeply conservative Supreme Court would have difficulty overturning such a law, given that Justice Kennedy himself made the argument in Gonzales v Carhart that Congress has the authority to regulate abortion, despite the existence of Casey and Roe. He was also careful to state that the ‘direction’ of such legislation was entirely up to Congress; in other words, the Court cannot rule that Congress may only restrict, and not expand, access to abortion, as doing so would be a polical and not judicial exercise. For the Court to overturn future abortion rights legislation (should it ever be passed), it would potentially have to reverse that very standard and declare that the Constitution requires that abortion be banned. Such a decision would have far-reaching consequences well beyond abortion, and even arch-conservatives such as Justice Scalia and Clarence Thomas have shied away from embracing that particular point-of-view (Antonin Scalia spoke publicly against interpreting the Constitution in this manner). By giving the states leeway, it might help defuse a 10th-Amendment challenge to such a law as well (which would be moot in my opinion, as no such concerns were raised by the Court in Gonzhales re: the late-term abortion ban).

In other words, Democrats would be well-served to win back power in Washington and pass laws. The Court is key, but it’s likely lost for now. Let’s turn the GOP’s arguments against them, and box the Court into a corner with a solid and well-supported law.

 

Define "viability?" Artificial wombs would be created in 2 years, tops.

Women should have bodily autonomy, full stop. Medical decision between her and her doctor.

 

I agree completely in principle (especially as a physician) but practically speaking, that type of law will never make it past a Senate filibuster, and the Supreme Court would gut it to the bone. Even my own state medical society voted down a resolution at last year’s House of Delegates asking PAMED to fully back equal access to all women’s health services that are available under the law. The debate on the resolution went IMMEDIATELY to abortion, and the resolution was sunk by doctors from the rural counties who feared that we would be seen as endorsing a “controversial” subject. The point is, this conflict is deeply rooted in American society, and I’m looking for a way forward that can get majority support. What you suggest is the ultimate goal, but it’s going to take an awful lot to get there. And supporters of liberal abortions laws like you and I are currently in retreat in Washington when it comes to policy.

As far as viability goes, the standard should be “natural viability”, not whatever science can cook up. It makes sense, and science changes so fast sometimes regardless that it’s also the most reasonable legislative path to take.

 

Precisely. I think he said he'd only nominate justices who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I mean, what more does one need? Sure, let's parse all the judicial opinions and pour over the guy's career and have lengthy hearings and argue about whether or not the anxiety over Roe is over blown . . .

Or just listen to what the guy who nominated him said and take it at face value. He said he would only nominate justices who would vote to overturn Roe. He nominated Kavanaugh.

And I'll just once again point out that the vast majority of these pieces about how Roe isn't going to be overturned are essentially men going "calm down, ladies," and most women know how those situations turn out. Like, please, ladies, let the sweet reassurances of Leonard Leo fill you with peace.

 

So, like this guy? David "Brexit" aka "Calm Down Dear" Cameron?

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1809150?query=TOC

An article on the days before Roe. It’s a short but powerful read.

 

I wondered about this before, and it looks like I was right.

Can’t believe this guy is going to get on the high court. It’s so obvious Trump rigged this so he could get away with wrongdoing. And Kennedy has pretty much destroyed his own legacy as well.