TRUMP NOMINEES ON DIFFERENT PAGES | Immigration Case Could Come Down To Gorsuch And Kavanaugh | Dems Reconfigure Courts Strategy

October 11, 2018

Robert Barnes with The Washington Post notes that during yesterday’s oral arguments over immigrant detention, Trump’s two SCOTUS nominees appeared to be on very different pages. While JUSTICE GORSUCH questioned the reaches of the government’s power in detaining immigrants eligible for detention, JUSTICE KAVANAUGH seemed in favor of the court not imposing a time limit on those detentions.

“It didn’t take long for the newly reconstituted Supreme Court to find itself in familiar territory Wednesday: divided down the middle over illegal immigration.” That’s Richard Wolf with USA Today also reporting on yesterday’s immigration case before justices. Wolf notes where the liberal and conservative justices differed in their thinking and suggests, “By the end of an hour’s debate, it appeared the court might seek a compromise between requiring immediate detention and allowing years-long delays.”

Elana Schor and Burgess Everett with POLITICO say Senate Democrats have a hard choice to make: fight another batch of GOP judicial picks or focus on elections. “On Thursday, McConnell is expected to begin setting up votes on judges and executive branch nominees for next week, according to two GOP sources familiar with the leader’s plans. And by calling up the judicial nominations now, McConnell will force Democrats to swallow more confirmations before their imperiled incumbents can leave Washington to campaign.”

Even though JUSTICE KAVANAUGH is settling in to his cushy lifetime gig, Democrats aren’t giving up on their fight over Kavanaugh. Josh Gerstein with POLITICO reports Democratic leaders are taking steps to obtain and release detailed documents and emails about the sexual assault allegations against him and disputed aspects of his service during the Bush administration — a process that will likely take years or even decades to fully play out.

Lawrence Hurley with Reuters reports it is unlikely JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGHwill recuse himself from politically charged cases in which his fairness and independence might be questioned. Hurley writes, “Recusal demands by Kavanaugh critics including Democratic lawmakers and liberal commentators focused on two main areas: certain cases involving Trump himself; and cases involving Democratic Party lawmakers or interests, considering Kavanaugh’s angry remarks about Democrats during a Sept. 27 Senate hearing. Some also have suggested Kavanaugh should step aside in cases on women’s issues in light of sexual misconduct allegations made against him last month. He denied the allegations.” But legal experts say Kavanaugh probably won’t opt out of any such cases.

Fifteen complaints have been filed against JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, and they were transferred Wednesday to a federal appeals court in Colorado by CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS. The complaints were originally filed at the federal appeals court in Washington where Kavanaugh had previously served. In a letter to the Chief Circuit Judge of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Roberts wrote, “I have selected the Judicial Council of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to accept the transfer and to exercise the powers of a judicial council with respect to the identified complaints and any pending or new complaints relating to the same subject matter.” It’s possible the transfer occurred in part because JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND is the chief judge for the D.C. Circuit where the complaints were originally filed.

In the first episode of a new podcast from the Opinion section of The New York Times, “The Argument,” the columnists debate if BRETT KAVANAUGH’S confirmation broke the Supreme Court. Ross Douthat, Michelle Goldberg and David Leonhardt lead the conversation on the pod, and the intro for the episode notes, “Michelle feels the patriarchy’s boot on her neck. David cautions Democrats against running on the #MeToo movement in the midterms. And Ross sings. Seriously.”