Kavanaugh roundup
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2018 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Madigan…
Democratic Party of Illinois Chairman Michael J. Madigan is calling on senators to reject President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, and instead insist on a consensus candidate who will stand with the majority of Americans in supporting a woman’s right to choose, access to quality health care and voting rights.
“President Trump has said he would only consider Supreme Court candidates who will roll back women’s most fundamental rights, restrict access to health care and impose a narrow special interest agenda on Americans for 40 years or more,” Madigan said. “As Trump continues putting his own extreme ideology ahead of what’s best for the country, it’s up to senators to insist on a candidate who will respect the law and precedent, instead of a right-wing ideologue whose goal is to move the court to the right and enforce minority rule on our country from the bench for a generation. And it is now up to each and every one of us to hold our elected leaders accountable.”
Madigan has launched a petition drive calling on senators to stand with this vast majority of Americans by rejecting Trump’s anti-choice nominee and instead provide Trump with a list of mainstream candidates who will protect women’s health, ballot access for all, quality health care and other hard-won rights and freedoms.
Concerned citizens can sign Madigan’s petition at http://bit.ly/noextremecourt.
If you click that link, you’ll see this banner headline: Join Chairman Michael Madigan and the Democratic Party of Illinois in Opposing Trump’s Extremist Supreme Court Nominee.
That’s something different.
* Pritzker…
“Donald Trump’s choice for the Supreme Court could upend the rights of communities across Illinois and considering that Bruce Rauner is in ‘constant communication’ with the White House, I call on this governor to oppose Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination in full force,” said JB Pritzker. “This nomination comes less than four months before an election and entirely disregards precedent set by the Senate Republican’s own majority leader. It is an attempt by Donald Trump to remake the court in his own, hateful image and will leave us with a judicial branch that sides with special interests instead of vulnerable communities. A woman’s right to choose is on the line, LGBTQ rights could be rolled back, affordable healthcare could be brought down, fair housing, consumer protections, and environmental protections could all be decimated. There are lives on the line here and this is a moment that calls for leaders of all political stripes to come together. I call on Bruce Rauner to join me in opposing this nomination and to stand up for the rights of Illinois’ families.”
* Rauner…
* Kwame Raoul…
Kwame Raoul, Democratic candidate for Attorney General, issued the following response to President Trump’s appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“I am incredibly disappointed that Donald Trump has put so many critical protections on the line, including the right to access abortion safely and legally. I will not stand by and allow my children to have fewer rights than my generation or see Illinoisans made vulnerable to federal attacks on healthcare, voting rights, the environment, the rights of workers or the importance of diversity on college campuses.
Illinois now has laws protecting access to abortion in case Roe v. Wade is overturned, but Illinoisans must be able to trust their Attorney General to enforce these laws and defend them in court. That’s why it’s more important than ever to elect leaders who will fight back and be a strong advocate for women and victims of assault, not just a bystander to the attacks.
So much hangs in the balance, and I urge the Senate to reject this nominee.”
While running for Congress in 2014, Republican candidate for Attorney General Erika Harold told the State Journal-Register that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest, stating, “I would not discriminate (against the fetus) based on the circumstance of conception.”
She re-confirmed this position in a recent interview on WCIA.
Reporter: “In a previous run for Congress, you mention that even in cases of rape and incest - which most Republicans carve those out - you are still opposed to abortion. Have your views at all evolved or changed on that particular issue?”
Harold: “My views are clear. I will uphold Illinois law, and that’s what’s important for voters to know about this.”
* Erika Harold…
* RAGA…
The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) praised President Donald J. Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to the Supreme Court of the United States. RAGA Chairman and Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge offered the following statement:
“Judge Brett Kavanaugh is eminently qualified to serve as an Associate Justice of the highest court in the United States. In our divisive times, where politics is pervasive in our society, we often look to the courts for clarity. I have every confidence that Judge Kavanaugh will serve with distinction on the Supreme Court; he will apply textualist and originalist reasoning to the legal questions of our time.
“’The president shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… Judges of the supreme Court…’ so reads our U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2. I urge the Senate to take up this worthy nominee and confirm him swiftly.”
* US Rep. Mike Bost…
“I am pleased to see President Trump nominate Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He is a highly qualified jurist with the temperament and mindset to interpret the U.S. Constitution in the spirit in which our Founders wrote it. I expect Judge Kavanaugh to showcase his sterling credentials and brilliant legal mind in the weeks ahead during confirmation hearings conducted in the Senate.”
* And now let’s hear from the only two people from Illinois who will actually have a vote. Sen. Durbin…
The next Justice will likely be the deciding vote on whether Americans will keep affordable health insurance for pre-existing conditions, whether women will lose the freedom to make their own health care choices, and whether we have a Constitution that protects the rights of all Americans or just big corporations and wealthy elites.
Brett Kavanaugh is a judge who consistently favors big business and undermines protections for consumers, workers, women, and the environment. Replacing Justice Kennedy’s swing vote with a far-right jurist like Judge Kavanaugh could change the rules in America. Just as troubling, in light of the ongoing Russia investigation, Judge Kavanaugh has expressed staunch opposition to criminal investigations of sitting Presidents.
With a subservient Republican Congress and a far-right Supreme Court, there is a real risk that the worst impulses of the Trump presidency will go unchecked. The stakes for this nomination are historic.
* Sen. Duckworth…
“The newfound urgency to fill Justice Kennedy’s Supreme Court seat from many of the same people who refused to even consider President Obama’s nominee is transparent opportunism that represents everything Americans hate most about politics today. We can’t ignore the reality that Donald Trump wants to take us back to a time when insurers could refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or that he promised to only nominate Justices who would put the government back in between women and their doctors.
“If he succeeds, it won’t only affect people like me who could be prevented from having children through IVF; the impacts will be felt by everyone. Whoever replaces Justice Kennedy will play a critical role in the lives of all women and every single American. Moving forward, I will thoroughly review Judge Kavanaugh’s rulings, evaluate his qualifications and look for him to make it clear to the American public that he would be independent, not simply a rubber stamp for Donald Trump’s whims, if he hopes to earn my support.”
* Mark Maxwell’s Twitter feed was particularly helpful last night. For instance…
- allknowingmasterofracoondom - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:40 am:
Does Madigan really believe anyone gives a rip what he thinks about SCOTUS?
No, of course not. He is way too smart to believe that. But, nice opportunity to pretend like he actually does give a rip.
- DuPage Moderate - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:43 am:
This all just makes it so hard to vote for a Democrat. I keep trying - but stuff like this makes it impossible.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:45 am:
–That’s something different.–
Well, the new millennium is almost upon us, and Madigan’s communications crew is always at the cutting edge.
I just hope they’re updating their software to account for that Y2K thingy.
- Birdseed - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:46 am:
The sad part of this is that the same criticisms would have been voiced no matter the nominee. The end is nigh.
- CharlieKratos - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:47 am:
Trump picked Kavanaugh less because he’s anti-Roe/anti-gun control and more because he’s stated that a sitting POTUS is above the law and can’t be indicted (after arguing the opposite vs Clinton).
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:47 am:
Shocking DD doesn’t like the pick. Just shocking.
- PJ - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:49 am:
==This all just makes it so hard to vote for a Democrat==
Ha. Love to get your thoughts on the Garland nominating process. Did it also involve rending of garments about how you couldn’t vote Republican anymore?
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:50 am:
–But, nice opportunity to pretend like he actually does give a rip.–
He actually cares about collecting voter data on those motivated by this issue.
Online petitions likes this have been SOP in politics for quite some time now, it’s just new to Madigan and DPI.
- Birdseed - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:51 am:
=== - CharlieKratos - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:47 am:
because he’s stated that a sitting POTUS is above the law and can’t be indicted ===
Got a link for that?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:52 am:
Durban is a pro-abortion Catholic- he’s certain about the former, hypocritical on the latter.
- Techie - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:53 am:
How convenient that Kavanaugh no longer believes in investigating a sitting President, despite having been thoroughly involved in the Kenn Starr investigation into Bill Clinton…
Democrats need to act in lock step and follow the McConnell doctrine by refusing any nominee until after the election. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
- DuPage Moderate - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:54 am:
PJ - it certainly pushed my family that way.
In fact, it earned Clinton two votes out of my house and yielded two Democratic primary pulls out of my house this March as well.
What a mistake.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:54 am:
the list that was given to Trump is filled with anti choice folks. but this pick is also pro President, except, of course, when it came to Clinton. Durbin’s questioning of Kavanaugh should be quite interesting as Kavanaugh never answered a letter from Durbin from mid 2000s on an apparent lie Kavanaugh made in his testimony years previous. Also, there are claims that Kavanaugh was the leak in the Starr investigation, leaking to reporters. the guy plays for team R in a big way.
- illini97 - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:59 am:
“- DuPage Moderate - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 9:43 am:
This all just makes it so hard to vote for a Democrat. I keep trying - but stuff like this makes it impossible.”
Perhaps you are not the moderate swing voter you’re presenting yourself as. If opposition to a conservative judicial nominee by the liberal party is a disappointment to you, I’m not sure you were trying to back the liberal position to begin with.
- Whatever - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:06 am:
==Trump picked Kavanaugh less because he’s anti-Roe/anti-gun control and more because he’s stated that a sitting POTUS is above the law and can’t be indicted (after arguing the opposite vs Clinton).==
Writing a law review article proposing that Congress enact laws requiring lawsuits and prosecutorial investigations of a president be suspended while he or she is in office is not “saying a sitting POTUS is above the law.” And he says he came to favor the idea, in part, because of his experience with the Clinton special prosecutors.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:06 am:
===He actually cares about collecting voter data on those motivated by this issue.===
The fear for Dems is an average or lower turnout with disenfranchised Dems or Indies that are inclined to vote against the GOP to sit out.
Data allows Dems to know who to drag out with this.
Same as “fair maps” or “progressive income tax”
Just another measure.
Kavanaugh is a “W” appointee, allows GOP members that feign Trump resistance the cover to vote for Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh has been confirmed before with Dem support, all the while being framed as a former clerk for Kennedy too.
- nonBeliever - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:38 am:
Democratic Party of Illinois Chairman Michael J. Madigan is calling on senators to reject President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh,
Of course he is and he just has to make an announcement since he is a politician of the opposing party that made the nomination.
Important to seem important at all times.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:41 am:
Don’t depend upon judges or presidents to make laws when that power lays in the legislature because Executive Orders are easily voided, and unconstitutional judge decisions are rescinded.
The good news is when this court says that something is unconstitutional, you also get your path to a constitutional fix that the court will uphold.
- ZC - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:45 am:
Mark Maxwell is on it, at least. The most direct thing we know, is that the NRA didn’t think Kennedy would overturn a local assault weapons ban in IL. Kavanaugh has literally said in a formal decision that he would.
We are getting much closer to the Nazis marching in Skokie again, but this time with loaded AR-15s. Joy.
- CharlieKratos - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:45 am:
Birdseed…
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/politics/brett-kavanaugh-washington-insider-presidents-shielded-from-litigation/index.html
- Cocoa Dave - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:58 am:
Madigan forgot to add that Lisa is available and will soon be out of a job.
- Anon-I-Guess - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:11 am:
Anyone notice the similarities in looks between Kavanaugh and John Bradley? Or was that just me?
- lost in the weeds - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:22 am:
The Kavanugh opinion relies on traditional bans of weapons to determine if a law is constitutional. Where there automatic rifles and mass shootings in 1789?
- Todd - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:37 am:
Democrats need to act in lock step and follow “the McConnell doctrine by refusing any nominee until after the election. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
As I recall Justice Kagan was nominated and confirmed by Obama in a mid-term election year like August of 2010, so yea, good for the goose good for Trump
- Just Me - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:37 am:
Whenever Madigan doesn’t have anything good to say about the state Democratic Party, he brings in federal issues. How many mailers has his candidates sent out on social security and medicare over the years?
- Christopher - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:44 am:
While some of you say that Madigan’s opinion against Kavanaugh doesn’t count, I’m glad that someone is at least speaking out against Kavanaugh and Trump. After the shameful Republican display when they refused to accept and seat Merrick Garland, Democrats should play the same game - it’s only fair. I can’t believe what damage to human rights Kavanaugh could do as a member of the Supreme Court and hope many others speak out against him, too.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:58 am:
==Where there automatic rifles and mass shootings in 1789?==
Ever heard about that War of Independence these guys fought in, risked everything they and their families had, and were targeted by invading armed forces over?
The right of defend yourself wasn’t an legal abstraction - it was an awful necessity.
But you go ahead and imagine thety were clueless.
- Todd - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 12:12 pm:
“Where there automatic rifles and mass shootings in 1789?”
Who’s talking about machineguns? Or do you not understand what you are talking about?
Semi-autos have been around since about 1885. And as the court has noted rights adapt with technology, if not the First Amendment would only apply to the printing press, quill and spoken word. . . .
- logic not emotion - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 12:18 pm:
seems like a good choice.
- Last Bull Moose - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 12:26 pm:
A socially conservative court would put issues of abortion and gay marriage back to the states. Illinois citizens have no fears as state law protects both access to abortion and gay marriage.
I like the laws we have. I also think the past rulings on abortion and gay marriage were judicial over reach. One of those good outcomes wrong method conflicts.
- dbk - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 12:33 pm:
Best short intro to the candidate I’ve read is by Dylan Mathews over at vox explainer. Scotusblog has a comprehensive round-up (with links) of takes on the nomination, as per their usual.
Pro-business, anti-union (goes without saying), pro-overturning of Roe v. Wade, anti-environmental regulation (goes with pro-business), (most probably) anti-ACA, anti-federal fair housing regulations almost certainly.
That’s for starters.
I don’t see the mechanism for the Dems stopping this nomination, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 12:52 pm:
Like all politics, it comes down to the rules and votes.
You can complian all you want about the failed Garland nomination, but the simple fact is Obama and the Democrats didn’t have the votes. Period.
In this case, the GOP might have the votes. The margin is too thin to be sure. And those complaining about it only being a simple majority, research who changed the rules.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 1:16 pm:
==I don’t see the mechanism for the Dems stopping this nomination==
Don’t necessarily have to, they just need to start winning elections. Big ask since the national party is run by dummies, but that’s the first step. If they can get in the same position republicans are in now (which dems were for first two years Obama was in office), they can expand to 11 or even 13 and pack it with young liberals willing to pull a Kennedy and overturn whatever precedent the trump court creates in near future. Supreme Court hasn’t always been 9 Justices, and doesn’t have to stay at 9 either.
- Techie - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 1:29 pm:
- Todd - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 11:37 am:
Democrats need to act in lock step and follow “the McConnell doctrine by refusing any nominee until after the election. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
As I recall Justice Kagan was nominated and confirmed by Obama in a mid-term election year like August of 2010, so yea, good for the goose good for Trump
—–
Does this mean that you think it’s fair or just that McConnell completely abdicated his duty by flat-out refusing to consider Merrick Garland? Because that’s what I’m getting from what you said.
If that’s the case, I couldn’t disagree more. McConnell’s actions are a complete abuse of power and show everything that Americans hate about politics - namely, people abusing power to uphold the power of the wealthy and trample upon the rest of us.
- Todd - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 3:54 pm:
Techie –
I will admit that I was happy Obama didn’t get to pack the Court. I would have preferred The Senate to vote Garland down. But the outcome is the same no liberal judge.
the Left is trying create an issue out of McConnel saying no with a presidential election, where the incumbent can’t run again is the same as a midterm. And under the example I pointed out, Kagan was approved in an election year of a mid term election.
I see that as more analogous to the current situation.
If you want to talk about abuse of power we can talk about the IRS scandal, fast & furious for starters.
IF the left and the senate dems want to play games, then so be it. and I can’t wait for RBG to go so we can get Hardiman
- Sue - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 4:21 pm:
Techi- what don’t you understand about how the majority party controls the senate day to day operations. McConnell determines who gets a vote. The Dems have no say over scheduling but good try
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jul 10, 18 @ 10:56 pm:
== Democrats need to act in lock step and follow the McConnell doctrine by refusing any nominee until after the election. ==
The Democrats, with only 49 by themselves, don’t have the votes to stop it. That’s the whole ball game right there.