Supreme Court of the United States

[senorsheep]

So there you have it. Sure, it's only an opinion, but Newt was once up for a top cabinet spot and surely was consulted on the Kavanaugh deal. It was all about Trump, and for Trump. Anyone who thought Kavanaugh, who once said a sitting president could not be indicted, was chosen for anything else is wearing Trump-Colored Glasses. Sad.

Nonsense. Kavanaugh was on Mitt Romney's short list of Supreme Court nominees in 2012, so he clearly had considerable judicial appeal to conservatives that had nothing to do with protecting a Trump presidency.

Here's a link, for those who favor facts and logic over phony political narratives: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...83I18U20120419

[Redbirds Fan]

Nonsense. Kavanaugh was on Mitt Romney's short list of Supreme Court nominees in 2012, so he clearly had considerable judicial appeal to conservatives that had nothing to do with protecting a Trump presidency.

Here's a link, for those who favor facts and logic over phony political narratives: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...83I18U20120419

Here's a fact and some logic. Kavanaugh wasn't on Trump's original list of 11 picks. He wasn't on the supplemental list of ten more. Trump said this was the list he would pick from. Something changed to move Kavanaugh onto that list. He didn't suddenlty get more popular with conservatives. Does it seem logical to suggest that Kavanaugh may have brought something to the table the others didn't?

The question then becomes what it was that moved Kavanaugh onto the list and past everyone else.

[Bernie Brewer]

Here's a fact and some logic. Kavanaugh wasn't on Trump's original list of 11 picks. He wasn't on the supplemental list of ten more. Trump said this was the list he would pick from. Something changed to move Kavanaugh onto that list. He didn't suddenlty get more popular with conservatives. Does it seem logical to suggest that Kavanaugh may have brought something to the table the others didn't?

The question then becomes what it was that moved Kavanaugh onto the list and past everyone else.

The answer was already answered in 1Js post a couple above this one. But the simplest answer is rarely the right, or do I have that backwards. Instead, let’s find and promote the conspiracy. I thought that was only a righty affliction, who knew?

[B-Fly]

Yeah, I hate to ever say 1jay is right, but on this one I think 1jay could very well be right. Redbirds' question regains some traction when one asks why Trump and the GOP stayed with Kavanaugh after the sexual assault allegations started flying, but I definitely believe Kennedy was instrumental in Kavanaugh's initial rise to the top of the list.

[Bernie Brewer]

Yeah, I hate to ever say 1jay is right, but on this one I think 1jay could very well be right. Redbirds' question regains some traction when one asks why Trump and the GOP stayed with Kavanaugh after the sexual assault allegations started flying, but I definitely believe Kennedy was instrumental in Kavanaugh's initial rise to the top of the list.

I would argue, probably ineffectively, that they stuck with him for several reasons, most of which had little to do with how he might or might not protect Trump. I’m sure Trump thought of that aspect, maybe. I suspect timing had something to do with it (like a lot), as did the fact the the GOP dug in when they saw the Dems playing the game. The game = the delayed release of the original accusation. The uncertainty of the midterms. Etc.

[senorsheep]

Here's a fact and some logic. Kavanaugh wasn't on Trump's original list of 11 picks. He wasn't on the supplemental list of ten more. Trump said this was the list he would pick from. Something changed to move Kavanaugh onto that list. He didn't suddenlty get more popular with conservatives. Does it seem logical to suggest that Kavanaugh may have brought something to the table the others didn't?

The question then becomes what it was that moved Kavanaugh onto the list and past everyone else.

Yes, it is logical to suggest that Kavanaugh was elevated past the others for some purpose. The "Kennedy retirement deal" seems most likely to me, based on the factual reporting by professional Washington journalists that I've read.

Maybe Trump did just pick a guy he calculated would cover his rear in case of emergency. Is there factual, professional reporting backing up this scenario? If so, I haven't come across it.

[Bernie Brewer]

Looks like there could be some form of investigation, after all. Anyone else surprised by this (I'm not either)?

From CNN:

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley on Thursday referred Julie Swetnick and her lawyer Michael Avenatti to the Department of Justice for a possible criminal investigation over allegations they made false statements to Congress about now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

"I am writing to refer Mr. Michael Avenatti and Ms. Julie Swetnick for investigation," Grassley wrote in a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, for potential "materially false statements they made to the Committee during the course of the Committee's investigation. "

In a statement, Grassley said, "When a well-meaning citizen comes forward with information relevant to the committee's work, I take it seriously. It takes courage to come forward, especially with allegations of sexual misconduct or personal trauma. I'm grateful for those who find that courage."

Grassley continued, "But in the heat of partisan moments, some do try to knowingly mislead the committee. That's unfair to my colleagues, the nominees and others providing information who are seeking the truth."

Grassley said that Swetnick had contradicted her own allegations in an interview with NBC, and that the committee spoke with "45 individuals, obtained 25 written statements and reviewed numerous other materials" but could not find "any information to corroborate Ms. Swetnick's claims."

"I ask that the FBI investigate whether Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired with Ms. Swetnick to make materially false statements to the Committee," Grassley wrote.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/25/polit...tee/index.html

[nots]

Looks like there could be some form of investigation, after all. Anyone else surprised by this (I'm not either)?

From CNN:





https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/25/polit...tee/index.html

I am all for Avenatti getting slapped down, but this is just grandstanding by the GOP (or at least Grassley). Smart play here is to leave it alone.

[Redbirds Fan]

Yes, it is logical to suggest that Kavanaugh was elevated past the others for some purpose. The "Kennedy retirement deal" seems most likely to me, based on the factual reporting by professional Washington journalists that I've read.

Maybe Trump did just pick a guy he calculated would cover his rear in case of emergency. Is there factual, professional reporting backing up this scenario? If so, I haven't come across it.

Hard for me to accept that Kennedy would be negotiating a "retirement deal" with the administration while at the same time deliberating on cases such as the travel ban, raising ethics issues at a minimum, but it certainly seems to be the leading theory.

[onejayhawk]

Hard for me to accept that Kennedy would be negotiating a "retirement deal" with the administration while at the same time deliberating on cases such as the travel ban, raising ethics issues at a minimum, but it certainly seems to be the leading theory.

You assume a quid pro quo. I doubt it was ever formal. It appears Kennedy's thoughts were common knowledge. Someone might have told him the President was willing to listen.

History indicates at least one more is coming. Who will be next and who will be next?

J

[revo]

Nonsense. Kavanaugh was on Mitt Romney's short list of Supreme Court nominees in 2012, so he clearly had considerable judicial appeal to conservatives that had nothing to do with protecting a Trump presidency.

Here's a link, for those who favor facts and logic over phony political narratives: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...83I18U20120419

Right now, maybe you’re right. A few months from now, maybe not. Are you really this convinced?

[senorsheep]

Right now, maybe you’re right. A few months from now, maybe not. Are you really this convinced?

I'm not convinced of anything. You're the only who could be proven wrong or right a few months from now, because you're the only one claiming to know with certainty the motive for Kavanaugh's selection.

At this point, I don't *know* for sure why Kavanaugh was ultimately chosen, and neither do you. Like you and everyone else speculating, I wasn't in the room when the decision was made. The "Kennedy deal" scenario seems the most likely to me right now, given that it is at least backed by some credible reporting by professional journalists who do ostensibly know people who know people who were in the room.

I do believe that, at this point, your theory - Kavanaugh was plucked out of the ether to give cover to Trump's corrupt Russian connections - is currently unsupported by fact, and doesn't hold up particularly well to logic, either. There may be information I'm not aware of that supports your claim, and if/when it's presented, I'll consider it and recalibrate my thinking accordingly. I need more than your interpretation of an ambiguous Newt Gingrich quote. As of right now, I see nothing but a mildly plausible theory built on your beliefs about who Trump is, what he's done, and what he'd do to cover what he's done. We probably agree on who he is - a petulant scumbag with little respect for or understanding of the government he leads. I'll wait for the Mueller investigation to conclude before I go all in on what he's done. We'll probably not know for sure how he landed on Kavanaugh until his inner circle starts writing books and promoting them in the political media.

[revo]

I'm not convinced of anything. You're the only who could be proven wrong or right a few months from now, because you're the only one claiming to know with certainty the motive for Kavanaugh's selection.

At this point, I don't *know* for sure why Kavanaugh was ultimately chosen, and neither do you. Like you and everyone else speculating, I wasn't in the room when the decision was made. The "Kennedy deal" scenario seems the most likely to me right now, given that it is at least backed by some credible reporting by professional journalists who do ostensibly know people who know people who were in the room.

I do believe that, at this point, your theory - Kavanaugh was plucked out of the ether to give cover to Trump's corrupt Russian connections - is currently unsupported by fact, and doesn't hold up particularly well to logic, either. There may be information I'm not aware of that supports your claim, and if/when it's presented, I'll consider it and recalibrate my thinking accordingly. I need more than your interpretation of an ambiguous Newt Gingrich quote. As of right now, I see nothing but a mildly plausible theory built on your beliefs about who Trump is, what he's done, and what he'd do to cover what he's done. We probably agree on who he is - a petulant scumbag with little respect for or understanding of the government he leads. I'll wait for the Mueller investigation to conclude before I go all in on what he's done. We'll probably not know for sure how he landed on Kavanaugh until his inner circle starts writing books and promoting them in the political media.

Gingrich's quote isn't really ambiguous.

Who here said it was because of Russia? I said it was because Kavanaugh doesn't appear to believe a sitting president should be burdened with lawsuits or indicted. In fact, my initial post is solely about the Dems trying to get his tax returns and said nothing at all about Russia or Mueller's investigation.

[onejayhawk]

He's not alone thinking that. They came to the same conclusion in 1973 regarding Nixon and 1997 regarding Clinton.

J

[Judge Jude]

the most plausible explanation is that Kennedy knew he was going to retire, and the judge that impressed him most was Kavanaugh - and he told Trump's people so, in some fashion.

if anyone thinks that Kennedy's conclusion on that was based on "I want Trump to pick the guy who most likely would give him cover should the spit hit the fan" - well, buy Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, or Kagan a drink sometime and ask them.

just prepare to get your ears pinned back, because imo, all them would tell you how crazy the theory is. Kennedy is respected by his now former colleagues, across the board, to the nth degree. period.

at most, you could speculate that some Trump aide said, "wow, we dug even deeper on Kavanaugh, and having noticed that the Clinton scandal proved to be unsettling for the country, once mused that a sitting President shouldn't necessarily face charges. so all the more reason to take a shot."