DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump will announce Supreme Court nominee at 9 p.m.

Per the President's Twitter: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump



Who will it be? Who should it be? Raymond Kethledge, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, someone else?

I think that Coner Barrett would have been a good choice, but she has a rather sparse judicial record.

It looks like it's down to 2, at least to Politico.

Trump said to narrow down Supreme Court search to 2 contenders - POLITICO
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/0...avanaugh-702297

Trump said to narrow down Supreme Court search to 2 contenders
Hardiman and Kavanaugh have emerged as the two late-in-the-game favorites.
By JOSH GERSTEIN, ELIANA JOHNSON, LORRAINE WOELLERT and MATTHEW NUSSBAUM 07/09/2018 10:32 AM EDT

Judges Thomas Hardiman and Brett Kavanaugh have emerged as the most likely contenders for the Supreme Court as President Donald Trump edges closer to his primetime announcement on Monday, according to a Republican who spoke to the president in the past 24 hours and a Trump adviser.

Trump returned to the White House on Sunday evening from a weekend at his golf resort in New Jersey where he had been considering four finalists for the seat: Hardiman, Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge and Amy Coney Barrett. While Trump has been known to change his mind up to the last minute, Hardiman and Kavanaugh stood out as clear front-runners after a weekend of deliberations.

“We haven’t excluded the other two,” said the Trump adviser, who confirmed that Hardiman and Kavanaugh are seen as the favorites as of Monday morning. The Republican close to the process called it “very unlikely” that Kethledge or Barrett would get the seat.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump has remained coy during the search, pledging to choose from a campaign-era list of 25 contenders who have been green lit by conservatives, but otherwise not publicly tipping his hand as to who he’s favoring.

“I have long heard that the most important decision a U.S. President can make is the selection of a Supreme Court Justice - Will be announced tonight at 9:00 P.M.,” Trump wrote on Twitter on Monday morning.

The White House has moved rapidly since Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement on June 27, recognizing the legacy-making potential of Trump’s second Supreme Court pick.

Trump has also asked advisers which candidate will be more like Neil Gorsuch, who Trump elevated to the court shortly after taking office, according to a friend who has spoken to the president in recent days.

Kavanaugh, 53, stands out as the most establishment choice. A former Kennedy clerk and graduate of Yale Law School, Kavanaugh has sat on the powerful D.C. Circuit Court since 2006. But he also has extensive ties to the Bush family — which could be a significant mark against him for Trump — and some conservatives have voiced concern that he may not be reliable on hot-button issues such as abortion and Obamacare.

His candidacy could also be hurt by his long paper trail from the Bush White House and his time as a lawyer for Whitewater Independent Counsel Ken Starr, which could slow down a confirmation process that Republicans hope to have wrapped up before the November midterms.

But Kavanaugh has the support of some key constituencies, including prominent business groups who are high on his reputation as a crusader against regulatory overreach.

Hardiman, 53, emerged late in the process as a strong contender. A judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Hardiman enjoys a good rapport with Trump and is popular among gun-rights activists, a key part of the Trump base.

He was also the runner-up last year to Gorsuch and comes highly recommended by Maryanne Trump Barry, the president’s sister who serves on the 3rd Circuit alongside Hardiman.

I know they Cherry pick these but Christ.

lol that reminds me when Jesse Watters would go to Daytona Beach and ask all these drunk coeds, in bikinis, about the 2nd amendment.

AND POOF!!!

JUST LIKE THAT!!!

The Liberal Democrats went from crying about children being taken from their parents to crying about the Supreme Court pick taking away their right to kill children!!!

Unhinged.

Nobody is forgetting anything.
People are writing everything down- in indelible ink.
Adding this AND Ivanka's tariff exemptions to the ever-expanding list of corruption and incompetence.

#dayofreckoning

If I were choosing, it would be either Barrett or Kethledge, but I think that any of his final 4 are quality candidates.

if Democrats kill children then why are there still Republicans?

Because they are terrible aims?

Because you can't kill the undead.

I was being serious.

What group has the most abortions?

Hint: It's not the Republican base. It is mainly younger women, often unmarried, and most often, minority women.

Liberals are killing their own future voters, and Republicans are the ones trying to save them.

I love how the most active pro-birthers don't put their money where their mouth is and become foster parents or even advocate for children's welfare. I think most of them are closet perverts who have a fixation with the woman's vagina. Why else would you care so much for the unborn, but not the living?

I was laughed at, I was ridiculed, I was told I was crazy, I was told it was impossible,I was told it would never happen in 1,000 years. but I stuck by my guns I have said the reason that swayed my decision to vote for Trump was that he would elect two Supreme Court Justices that would over turn Roe V Wade. THANK YOU GOD that it may finally happen and innocent babies will stop being slaughtered by the Millions.

I dare you to accuse me of that with my record of standing up for the innocent babies,

I still don't think it will happen even if Trump appoints a third before it's over. GOP would lose the female vote (majority of females) over it.

ok, but what about after they're born.

GM is pretty pure on this point in his beliefs, I'll give him that. None of the right-to-life crowd seem to feel the 'after birth' argument is as serious though. Just so the baby has a chance to suffer, that's all they want.

And before anyone says a thing. Suffering is a big part of living. Especially for those born into bad situations where abortions are the most appropriate thing a woman could do.

I didn't laugh at you.
I disagreed with your premise, and I did so respectfully. We agreed to disagree.

If such a thing comes to pass, it will not stop abortions. It will criminalize them, sending women to back alleys and coat hangers, just like in the 1930's.

I've always been in the camp that promotes this POV: abortions should be considered an absolute last resort, but when that option is to be taken, it should be safe and performed under controlled circumstances.

It is not my place to dictate to another how to handle her own medical options. Not my right at all.

And this is coming from someone who began life without parents.

More later... heading to work.

We're heading that way on healthcare period.

'I Can't Afford That': Trapped and Injured by Subway Car, Woman Begged Bystanders Not to Call Ambulance Due to Expense

"In the face of a grave injury, a series of calculations follow...This discord, between agony and arithmetic, has become America's story, too."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/0...anders-not-call

If I had the world experience I have now, and the world was as it is now before I had kids, then I would never bring a child into this world for any reason.

The best way to not have children out of wedlock is to not have sex outside of marriage. It's really pretty simple, and is the only way to avoid out of wedlock pregnancies.

There are enough ways to avoid pregnancy that anyone really wanting to do so can manage to do so. However, many can't even control themselves long enough to take precautions.

Also, many men look at a bunch of kids as some symbol of masculinity ... even though they provide nothing, or next to nothing, for their care and upbringing. I had a guy who worked for me at Wendy's who had 6 kids. He was a grill cook at Wendy's. He told me that he takes care of his kids. I asked how. He said that he buys his baby diapers. If men would be more responsible, then we would not have so many kids conceived and born (or aborted) outside of marriage.

I worry about a civilization that uses abortion as birth control. It is a sad commentary on where we have gone as a people.

I hope, I pray, and I beg that it will happen bro.

Then maybe adoption won't be such a nightmare. My niece just adopted a Mexican baby. They should have a second child adopted already but the parents of the kid who is in foster care and 16 years old who knocked up a 14 year old who is in foster care are fighting the adoption to be stopped. Let me remind you the parents of the parent don't even have custody of their own child yet they are fighting the adoption My own daughter may be adopting Children in the next few years. I support medicare and medicade so don't toss that crP MY WAY. yOUR BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE BUDDY.

I know your feelings and have nothing but mad respect for you GM, but I'm rooting just as hard against you on this one. This would do little to solve the abortion issue except cause much more pain IMHO. At my age I won't be having any need of an abortion, nor do I assume my children or grandchildren will. But I don't think taking away the safety measures of legal abortion will stop unwanted children from suffering.

No you didn't. You never have and I don'tthink you ever will.

Swish bashed the hell out of me on this subject, and I guess most of my reply was directed at him. Now please don't get me wrong. I like and respect Swish we agree just as much as we disagree. BUT we do disagree 110 percent on this subject which is cool with me because we have always done so with respect for each other



Once again cool with me buddy. We disagree 100 percent BUT we do so with respect for each other so while I don't expect either of us to change our minds I also don't rule out the possibility that we might



I am fine with that it it saves a half million babies a year. If 500,000 babies live and 20,000 woman choose to die while murdering their babies I have zero problem with that, as I am sure the babies don't either.

Don't get me wrong if it comes down to the babies life or the mothers, I think the mother has a right to live. I don't agree with babies being aborted because of incest or rape BUT I can concede those times to save the lives of other children.

If you want to get back with me please feel free to do so bro. I love ya no matter if we agree or disagree on this subject.

You disagree with me...... lol I would expect nothing less bro. We disagree 100 percent on this subject. The ONLY bright side I can take if Roe V wade is not overturned is that you and several others I know will be happy. I have no problem with that as my feelings having everything to do with the folks who preform abortions rather than the folks who support them. As I pointed out to Clem earlier we disagree sometimes YET we still respect each other. I pray every day that so many other members of this message board could learn how to do instead of fighting with each other.



I pray that maybe just maybe one or two others can learn that you can love each other while still disagreeig.

Hillarious you actually think it’ll stop. No. You’ll just force it back underground where women will die, get infections, or have serious complications.

I hope women stop sleeping with conservative men. Most of them are likely completely uptight in bed, and hung up on missionary position, lights off, nooky anyway.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen, unless you want us to call you Blue.

That's a bit drastic, but funny nonetheless.

I like you, YTown. I also respect your religious nature.

However, I think your post is unfair. Of course, younger women who are not married and have less education and economic resources are going to have more abortions.

Those aren't reasons to chastise or condemn them. That doesn't sound like the attitude your Jesus would have. Cast the first stone comes to mind.

Kavanaugh was no surprise to me. He is the most likely to protect Trump in an impeachment or criminal case brought in front of the SCOTUS. And he will be confirmed because the conservatives will all like him, he checks all the boxes.

So are you saying the kids are better off killed before being born into a bad home?

You seem to know a lot about what men do in bed.

It’s funny you see that as derogatory. Says all you need to say for me to know you.

He is against separating children from parents for ILLEGAL immigrants but want to separate children from parents by killing the children for Americans...

Actually he wants to prematurely free fetuses from their cages.

Go read the entire chain.

I replied to a comment of

if Democrats kill children then why are there still Republicans?


with: Because they are terrible aims?


And then I explained why I said that.

I am sorry if it upsets anyone, but I doubt that my comments upset anyone as much as an abortion upsets the life of the unborn child who faces the forceps and vacuum.

Unwanted pregnancy is almost 100% avoidable. (outside of, maybe, as the result of rape) Birth control is available everywhere. Heck, we have far more in depth sex education that at any time in our history. kids understand the mechanics, and how a child is created.

Abortion is also not without consequences for a lot of women. These consequences can be emotional, or physical, or both. It is not like taking an antibiotic to cure an infection. Many women who have an abortion experience severe guilt over what they have done. (even if no one else knows they have had an abortion) There are instances where a woman has an abortion, and it destroys their ability to ever have a child.

I know that you believe in a stronger degree of personal responsibility than many today do. I don't see the baby as being the one who should be held responsible for the actions of his/her parents. That baby has every right to the life his parents created. Maybe he has a tough life. How many of us also have had a tough life? Is that a reason to destroy a child in the womb? I don't think so. You know that I believe in the Bible, and I have read through it a number of times now. What is one of the major truths of the Bible? That God often uses the least likely person for a task he has in mind. A disadvantaged life is not enough of a reason to end the life of a child for me. Besides, many lives of disadvantage turn into lives of great consequence.

As far as what Jesus would tell a woman considering an abortion. I believe that He would do as He did with the woman at the well. He would shine a light on her life to that point, would forgive her of her sins, and would explain why she should not have an abortion. Heck, He might even offer her a look at her son or daughter as a 5 year old, and/or as an adult. One thing is for sure, He would give that woman a chance to come to Him, in faith and repentance of her sins.

I am not saying that this is you, but many people think that Jesus just told people that whatever they were doing was just fine ..... and that's not true. Jesus told people to turn from their sins .... and to accept Him, the Living Water, as the means to eternal life. He told people to go an sin no more .... not to go and sin as much as your want.

Humor in ridiculousness is hard to find!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/0...rabilities.html

Trump's Supreme Court pick: Democrats will fight hard to stop Kavanaugh but he has few vulnerabilities

President Trump may like to spring a surprise on the news media, but with his announcement Monday night for the Supreme Court he went with the safe choice.

His pick of Brett Kavanaugh, a federal appeals judge in Washington, may have run counter to his instincts against picking inhabitants of the D.C. swamp, or those with deep connections to the Bush administration. But in elevating his reason over his impulses, Trump has picked a nominee who will work to limit the great threat to individual liberty today: the administrative state.

Kavanaugh will provide thin gruel for Democratic opponents. He has impeccable credentials: he graduated from Yale College and Law School (where one of us overlapped with him as a student), clerked for two appeals judges, and then the U.S. Supreme Court for the departing Justice Anthony Kennedy.

He served as a prosecutor on Kenneth G. Starr’s independent counsel investigation into Whitewater (which will twist Democrats demanding Trump’s impeachment into knots), as an associate counsel and then staff secretary in the George W. Bush White House (where we both worked with him), and then as a judge for more than a decade on the D.C. Circuit appeals court.

Even though Democrats will go to any lengths to stop Kavanaugh, he presents them with few vulnerabilities.

He has written no opinions on their holy-of-holies, abortion or gay marriage. To the extent that he has written on these topics, he has observed that the government might have a compelling interest in providing contraceptives and that an alien might have a due process right to an abortion.

He has written no major opinions on free speech or religion, nor has he displayed any sympathies for the criminal defense bar.

Instead, Kavanaugh’s creates a deeper challenge to liberalism: rolling back the administrative state.

Progressives have evaded the Constitution’s checks and balances on the federal government by unceasingly expanding its regulatory reach, transferring the actual authority to make the rules from Congress to unelected bureaucrats, and then demanding that judges defer to the results virtually without question.

It is through this judicial-agency industrial complex where, as the Obama administration displayed on everything from immigration to education to health care, progressives have imposed their views on the American people and the states with little democratic accountability.

Kavanaugh has repeatedly challenged the foundations of this runaway state. He has written significant opinions overturning two misbegotten examples of this dynamic.

In the first, he found the Consumer Finance Protection Board (CFPB) violated the Constitution because it vested all power over consumer finance in the country in one person, but insulated him from removal by the president.

In the second, he struck down a new federal accounting board, because it too was insulated from presidential control, even though Article II of the Constitution vests the president, and the president alone, with the duty to see that “the Laws be Faithfully Executed.”

In both cases, Kavanaugh has made clear that he would put the text and history of the Constitution first, and mistaken precedent second, which should cheer the hearts of conservatives.

Like Justice Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh will pursue the administrative state into the weeds. He explained his views at length in a 2010 book review in the Harvard Law Review. Basing his argument on the constitutional separation of powers, he found, unremarkably, that the function of the courts is not to legislate, but to interpret and apply, statutes.

That is not difficult to do when the statute is clear. But what if it is ambiguous? Under what is known as the “Chevron” doctrine, courts have been expected to defer to a reasonable interpretation of the Executive branch agency that administers the statute. Deference is due when a statute is “ambiguous,” though not when it is “clear.”

But, Kavanaugh argued, how are courts to understand the “clear/ambiguous” dichotomy? They must do so in order to give the agency the deference due to it under Chevron. But the dichotomy seems to be more like a gradient than a sharp, bright-line distinction. How much “clarity” does a statute need to be considered “clear” and “unambiguous”?

In the end, and perhaps surprisingly, Kavanaugh’s critique of Chevron is fundamentally directed against the expansion of executive authority and in favor of broader congressional control.

Democrats usually present themselves as defenders of Congressional power, in opposition to Republicans, whom they portray as apologists for presidential power.

If Democratic senators chew on Kavanaugh’s opinions, however, they will find that he would return substantial power to lawmakers, and take it back from bureaucrats managed by the president.

What Kavanaugh does not have is a track record on the social and cultural issues that deeply divide the nation.

If Democratic senators were to put good judicial policy over partisan politics, they would rush to embrace a nominee who has no established positions on abortion, gay marriage, or privacy rights.

They followed such as strategy to great success with Justices Kennedy and David Souter, who were thought to be conservatives by Presidents Reagan and Bush, but who eventually came to uphold Roe v. Wade and other liberal landmarks.

But the left wing of the Democratic Party fears that these precedents will fall when Kavanaugh joins the court to form the first five-justice conservative majority in living memory, and will pull out all the stops to prevent it.

In the end, though, Kavanaugh’s credentials and track record will only make it all the easier for Republicans to confirm him to the Supreme Court and portray his Democratic opponents as obstructionist partisans.

You were born from a cage? Explains a lot.

Believe me Liberal, you don't know me and I never met anyone like you except on here..