Kavanaugh shouldn't have been nominated, but substantively does it make any difference?

[onenote]

Imagine that Trump hadn't nominated Kavanaugh. Does anyone really think that the person he would have nominated instead of Kavanaugh would be any less likely than Kavanaugh to vote on cases exactly the same way as Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito?

Yesterday sucked. Today will suck. But we didn't lose the court yesterday or today or whatever day Kavanaugh is confirmed by the full Senate. We lost the court when McConnell got away with stonewalling Garland and then again on November 8, 2016.

[Cosmocat]

1. Practically yes, but its an extra scoop of fuck you

To have the fifth, majority making Supreme be an out-and-out partisan piece of s***.

[janterry]

2. Probably for the Trump 'trials'

and certainly for women - if he's approved.

Sure, in the long run - we'll run those old men off the Senate. And eventually, we'll legislate our ways out of this mess. The country will right itself again.

But Kavanaugh with his conspiracy theories and hack approach to partisanship - that will matter

[Squinch]

3. I really prefer not to have a drunken molester on the Supreme Court. It matters to me.

It matters to every woman who ever went through anything like what he did to women.

[zanana1]

4. If Kavanaugh isn't confirmed...

Trump will just pick somebody just like him, or even worse (if that's possible). We're not going to get an impartial Supreme Court Justice.
Trump has had far too many lucky breaks IMO.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Not necessarily . . . . .

Yes, Trump will nominate a clone of Kavanaugh, but there could be a different Senate.

The design of the Constitution compels a President to strategically nominate a candidate to the USSC whom s/he prefers AND whom can get adequate votes even from a Senate whose majority is the Opposition.

Therefore, barring a Lame Duck Session vote, Trump can nominate a series of undesirable Libertarian candidates until his term runs out in 2021 (I'm being optimistic) and waste time. Or he can nominate a moderate jurist who is not extreme and whom can garner the democratic votes.

Reminder: Democrats aren't being contrarian or partisan. They want a fair and impartial judge on the Supreme Court.

[zanana1]

9. He could pick a second one before Nov. 6. nt

[onenote]

10. why would you rule out a lame duck session?

McConnell would have every incentive in the world to call one if he's about to lose the majority on January 3.

[Stare Decisis]

5. It makes a world of difference.

Time and time again I have seen honorable judges discard partisan concern and rule according to their best interpretation of the law. I trust a principled conservative like Chief Justice Roberts more than I would a left wing version of Kavanaugh to do right by the rule of law.

A partisan hack on the court is the living nightmare that Madison and Adams evoked as a potential.

[onenote]

12. If you think that Trump would nominate someone more like Roberts than like Gorsuch, Thomas or Alito

I may want to discuss with you a bridge I'm thinking about selling.

[zanana1]

6. I haven't trusted the Supreme Court since Bush v. Gore. nt

[Vinca]

8. It's a given that he'll nominate a right wing nut, but Kavanaugh has pretty much stated the POTUS

is above the law. If a subpoena or any charges are brought against Trump, Kavanaugh is the SCOTUS vote that supports Trump.

[onenote]

11. It takes five SCOTUS votes.

So if Kavanaugh is unique in his views about a presidential subpoena, he loses. The question is whether there are four others on the court that would vote the same way. If there are, he gives them the fifth vote, but its also pretty clear that he's not unique and that Trump could easily find a clone of the other four that feel the same way and achieve the same result.

[pnwmom]

13. Besides the FU to women? Yes, there's another huge reason.

Kavanaugh has written saying that not only shouldn't Presidents be indicted while in office -- they shouldn't even be investigated.

[onenote]

14. Again -- how does that impact the outcome of any case if there aren't four other justices that agree

If Kavanaugh is the only one with that view, he loses when and if the issue arises. If he's not, then obviously Gorsuch et al share the same view and there are any number of other potential repub nominees that Trump could have made that would vote the same way.

It seems as if some DUers have forgotten how the SCOTUS works -- one Justice doesn't get to make a final decision on anything. It takes five. And anyone who thinks that Trump had decided not to nominate Kavanaugh he would have nominated a swing vote justice like Kennedy rather than another red meat conservative like Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas, they're living in a fantasy world.

Again, I don't think Kavanaugh should have nominated. I don't think he should be confirmed. But my point is that if he had never been nominated, or if his nomination fails, Trump has plenty of choices, and with a lame duck session that certainly would be called by McConnell, the opportunity, to confirm someone who would be just as likely to provide a fifth vote to the Roberts-Gorsuch-Thomas-Alito wing of the Court as Kavanaugh is.

[pnwmom]

15. There is SOME reason that DT is so intent on this far right conservative and not another.

I think it's because he's more confident that BK will bring the 5th vote to that view than he is of others on the list.

[onenote]

16. Really? Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas and now Kavanaugh are the only ones

that he can be confident will vote that way. Not a single other crazy right winger in the judiciary or in academia etc. except those five.

Do you understand how silly that sounds?

[NewJeffCT]

17. I think there is something to it as well

It might just be that Trump loves his position on near unlimited executive power and thinks Kav can get others to vote along with him. I think Trump might just be that shallow.