THE REAL REASON TO OPPOSE BRETT KAVANAUGH | The Clarity History Provides | RBG Soon To Be A Chart Topper
July 19, 2018
THE BIG ONE|
Two years ago, SCOTUS nominee JUDGE KAVANAUGH said he wanted to overturn a three decades-old Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of an independent counsel. Manu Raji reports for CNN that Kavanaugh quite plainly said he wants to put “the final nail” in that ruling — a blunt comment that is sure to draw some serious questions from Senate Democrats during confirmation hearings.
SHEDDING SOME MUCH NEEDED LIGHT|
Steve Mazie for The Economist covers Fix the Court’s lawsuit seeking public records from BRETT KAVANAUGH’S years of experience investigating and serving presidents. Mazie is quite clear about why these records are so critical to uncover: “If Mr Trump and most Senate Republicans have their way, Mr Kavanaugh will be finishing his first half-decade on the Supreme Court bench by the time those records are made public. It would be better if the records came to light before senators vote to confirm him to a lifetime appointment shaping American law. Their significance is especially pronounced at a time when a special counsel investigation is examining possible ties between Russian meddling in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign. The Supreme Court could be called upon to resolve several critical questions.”
THE MORE YOU READ, THE MORE YOU KNOW|
“There will be other abortion cases, lots of them, propelled to the court in the belief that a long-awaited moment — the dismantling of Roe v. Wade — is finally at hand. We have no crystal ball to tell us for sure what a new Supreme Court justice will do. But we have words, and we can read.” That’s Linda Greenhouse with The New York Times making the case that JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH would almost certainly help re-criminalize abortion should he make it to SCOTUS.
“To his credit, JUDGE KAVANAUGH has been remarkably transparent over the course of his judicial career, both in his writings and in his public statements. It is refreshing that a nominee has such a relatively clear record.” And such transparency, as Dahlia Lithwick and Jed Shugerman point out in Slate, indicates that Kavanaugh has one of the clearest records against Roe of any recent Supreme Court nominee.
AND YOU CAN TELL EVERYBODY THIS IS YOUR SONG|
NPR’S Nina Totenberg notes that although all eyes are on the Supreme Court nomination, JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG still prevails as a cultural phenomenon who cannot be ignored. Totenberg writes, “A documentary about her life is a smash hit and she’s become a hero to young women, earning the moniker ‘The Notorious RBG,’ with her name plastered on mugs, t-shirts, even baby clothes. Now, however, comes a release more personal — a series of songs written about her life by her daughter-in-law and produced by her son.”
YOU'RE KILLING ME SMALLS|
In The New York Times, Joe Sexton says there only one real reason to oppose the nomination of BRETT KAVANAUGH to the Supreme Court: he’s a Nats fan. With regard to the nominee’s outrageous debt racked up buying tickets to see the Washington Nationals, Sexton notes, “Seriously? He imperiled his family’s finances because he couldn’t get enough of the team that has been a bipartisan waste of time and energy for people in Washington for a decade? Hey, rooting for losers can feel oddly honorable, even vaguely valorous.” But that’s not what you get with the Nats. “They are the most soul-sucking strain of professional sports franchise. Not awful. Not great. Just tempting enough for suckers to believe they might be one or the other. Judge Kavanaugh went to Yale Law School, right? My dad did, too, and I’ve smugly bragged on it for years. But maybe reputations aren’t what they seem — Yale’s, I mean, not my dad’s.”
OTHER NEWSThe Hill
“Like all people, judges are complex. They are individuals with opinions, perspectives and motives that are never fully understood. Conservatives are right to seek conservative judges; just as liberals are right to seek liberal judges. But politicians and activists are wise not to place all their hopes (or fears) on the newest justice. After all, they just might surprise you.”FiveThirtyEight
“The Founding Fathers, in their 18th-century waistcoated wisdom, decided that Supreme Court justices ought to serve for life. This was meant to insulate justices from certain ‘encroachments and oppressions’ that could threaten the judiciary. But it also gives the court — and thus the laws of the land — an unpredictable flavor, one susceptible to the whims of the circulatory, respiratory and nervous systems of nine middle-age-to-quite-old people.”