Whenever a Republican President is set to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, The Nation puts out a list of “10 Questions (The nominee who is our latest Emmanuel Goldstein) MUST answer”. The Kavanaugh nomination has been no exception, but unlike past nominees this time around I’ve decided to help our nominee by offering some deeply thought and analytical responses to potential questions from various Left Wing Extremists. So let’s get to it!
ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights
“The 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey resulted in splintered opinions. The controlling opinion, which Justice Kennedy joined, reaffirmed a woman’s right to make the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability. States could restrict abortion after viability, allowing for life and health exceptions, and regulate abortion throughout pregnancy as long as the restrictions did not impose an ‘undue burden.’ Two justices wrote separately and recognized the constitutional right to abortion, but did not think the Court should allow greater state restrictions on access. And four justices issued a minority, dissenting opinion that would have overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. If you were on the Court in 1992, which of the opinions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey would you have joined?”
Brother Bob suggests: “Given your concern about anyone suffering ‘undue burdens’, how about the burden of the living organism who is capable of feeling pain and feels genuine suffering during your Right to Choose (TM)”
CAMPAIGN FINANCE
Chiraag Bains, Director of Legal Strategies for Demos
“Do you believe that the Constitution requires that we allow corporations and wealthy individuals the unfettered ability to translate their economic might into political power through campaign contributions and expenditures—even if it drowns out the voices of working-class Americans and erects barriers to candidates of color who lack access to big money and the mostly white donor class?”
Brother Bob suggests: “Are you suggesting that only Oligarchs who own media companies are entitled to free speech? Sorry, but I am not on board with giving the retailing billionaire who owns The Washington Post nor the foreign national who owns The New York Times a monopoly on free speech.”
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Priya Raghavan, counsel for the Brennan Center’s Justice Program
“Justice Kennedy expressed on several occasions a concern that the American system of incarceration and corrections is deeply broken. Given the stark racial disparities found in our criminal-justice system, and our country’s standing as the world’s leading incarcerator, share your views on how we can better ensure equality under the law and protection from undue deprivation of liberty.”
Brother Bob suggests: “What is broken are the policies of The Radical Left that has been an incubator for criminal activity in predominantly non-white neighborhoods. Unlike you, I promise to work to preserve the rights of those who don’t like being crime victims, regardless of victimhood status of said perps.”
ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
Cindy Cohn, Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
“How should the Constitution view mass data collection by the government—for example, copying or viewing all Internet activity routed through a service provider? How should the Constitution address those who are impacted by, but not targeted by, surveillance?”
Brother Bob suggests: “This is an excellent question. As a Constitutionalist, I fully supporting every last of the unconstitutional measures started under the Bush administration and ramped up under President Obama”
THE ENVIRONMENT
Patrice Simms, Vice President of Litigation for Earthjustice
“Are you committed, unequivocally, to defending the people’s right to access the courts to hold the government and powerful corporations accountable to the rule of law as it relates to preserving clean air and clean water, and ensuring a safe and healthy environment for children, families, communities, and workers?”
Brother Bob suggests: ” calling for restricting anyone’s access to the courts? What kind of stupid question is that?”
EXECUTIVE POWER
Nan Aron, Founder and President of Alliance for Justice
“If a case flowing from the Mueller investigation and involving the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with Russia were to arrive at the Supreme Court, how would you address this given your past statements that presidents should not be subjected to investigation while in office?”
Vincent Warren, Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights
“Two central questions that are likely to be raised in the near future are whether a sitting president can be indicted, and the extent to which the scope of presidential pardon power includes the president’s ability to pardon himself. Given your writing on the first question, and given that both answers are questions of law more than fact, what is your view on each?”
Brother Bob suggests: “Given that the only actual collusion with Russia we’ve seen has been the Clinton campaign buying opposition research from the Russians while the Obama administration’s intelligence services used this as a pretext to spy on the presidential campaign of the representative of the opposition party. If President Trump were to commit such an egregious abuse of power I would fully support indictment.”
IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
Aziz Huq, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law at the University of Chicago
“The Supreme Court just said that the Korematsu decision was wrong. Why, in your view, was Korematsu wrong, and what practices are prohibited now that it has been overturned?”
Brother Bob suggests: “Because any nimrod can understand that taking precautions regarding who we allow into this country is not the same as racially motivated internment camps. Who do we look like – Democrats?”
LGBTQ RIGHTS
Chase Strangio, trans activist and staff attorney at the ACLU LGBT & HIV Project
“Do you have personal concerns about transgender individuals using multi-user, single-sex facilities like restrooms and locker rooms? Would you be comfortable being in a public restroom with a transgender individual? Would you be comfortable with your children being in a public restroom with a transgender individual? If you do have concerns, what are they and how would they impact your consideration of cases involving transgender litigants?”
Brother Bob suggests: “Of course I don’t want to allow creeps to stalk our wives and daughters in bathrooms and locker rooms. What the Hell is wrong with you?”
UNIONS, LABOR, AND COURT PRECEDENT
Charlotte Garden, associate professor at Seattle University School of Law
“During his confirmation hearing, then-Judge Alito stated: ‘Although the Supreme Court has the power to overrule a prior precedent, it uses that power sparingly, and rightfully so.’
Yet, Justice Alito recently authored the majority 5-4 opinion in Janus v. AFSCME, overturning Abood v. Detroit Board of Education—a landmark case on the rights of labor unions. The Abood decision had stood for over 40 years, and was relied upon by state and local government employers across the country. As a result of the Court’s 180 on this issue, the stability of the collective bargaining systems for millions of American workers in the public sector has been turned upside-down.
Do you agree with Justice Alito’s view that the Court should overrule prior precedent only sparingly? If so, did the Janus majority overturn Abood too easily? And how can we know that talk of respect for precedent is not just talk, and that you will not vote to overrule similarly venerable cases on topics including labor rights, affirmative action, or abortion?”
Brother Bob suggests: “I thought that this was supposed to be 10 question, but what the Hell; I’ve indulged the rest of this idiocy. First, I fully support the right of anyone who wants to work not be forced to join a union and I’m OK with reversing bad precedent – simple enough for you? Affirmative action – I fully oppose any kind of discrimination based on race, sex, religious views, etc. And if you want to ask about abortion, then come right out and ask directly. For starters, how about if for a change we have an honest conversation on the subject?”
Kavanaugh –
Marxists hate him
Atheists hate him
Gun grabbers hate him
Globalists hate him
Anti-Americans hate him
Social Justice Warriors hate him
Bernie Sanders hates him
Democrats hate him
Hillary hates him
Feminists hate him
Lets get him confirmed.
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) September 4, 2018
https://twitter.com/MediaJuggernaut/status/1037013273856667648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/LedgeSomewhere/status/1036981635919491073?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/status/1036999400202092550?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
It will be such a pleasure to watch Senate Dems treat Brett Kavanaugh with the
civility & bipartisan goodwill they pretended to find so admirable in John McCain.— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 4, 2018
Follow Brother Bob on Twitter and Facebook
Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog
K will answer every question put to him and nobody cares what the peanut gallery wants asked. After that process, barring some unlikely surprise revelation, he will be confirmed.
The rest is extraneous noise.
I was struck by the rouge’s gallery of genetic throwbacks that had to be dragged out of the visitor’s gallery. Democrats should be so proud of the quality of useful idiots they have at their disposal.
your whole article is a complete waste…
why?
well, did you ever bother to read the rules of what you are allowed to ask or not?
the biggest rule is your not able to ask his opinoin on specific cases or how he might rule if they come up… ie. you cant ask anything of substance that will tell you today what he thinks he will rule on tomorrow in a case that is not before him…
ie. you screwed up cookie…
your first point says:
If you were on the Court in 1992, which of the opinions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey would you have joined?”
if pressed he says, its settled law…
duh
press it and he says he cannot answer which result he would reach in a particular case because he wouldn’t want to prejudge it….
so this whole point of questions i would ask that would do better than crafty people with teams of people despreately doing the same and paid to do it, and whose lives future money and all that rest in the outcomes…
Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained that she could “offer no forecasts, no hints” on how she might rule on issues that might come before the Supreme Court
sheesh…
Ummm, a corporation is owned by those who a share holders, private citizens. Yet, the left want unions, that are also funded by private citizens, held to a more relaxed standard on political contributions than corporations. Why am I not surprised? If you check with OpenRecords you will find that unions are some of the biggest contributors to Democrat candidates.
@artfldgr: #4 great post,
I want to know who is paying the dude in the pics https://twitter.com/NottaLemming/status/1037365556469555201
@artfldgr: Yes, this isn’t one of my more substantive posts, but it’s main purpose was to mock the idiotic line of questioning we would get if The Radical Left were holding the hearings
@kitt: I wonder if that’s the same guy who Bob Creamer had paying their Brown Shirts to assault Trump Rally attendees?
@Brother Bob:Wonder if that cash shows up as income on her taxes she needs to pay her fair share.
@artfldgr:
Ginsburg wouldn’t NEED to telegraph her future votes. No doubt most of those who supported her were well aware of how she would vote.
It is supremely important to the left to control the courts. All disputes could wind up there and if liberal judges can enforce the liberal ideology from the bench, the Constitution would inevitably die. This is why, in my mind, it was such a gift from God that Trump defeated Hillary and kept her filthy, criminal hands off the Supreme Court.
Brett Kavanaugh’s perjury avalanche — 50 years in the making
Will republicans continue to support a Supreme Court nominee when it’s now documented that he committed perjury?
@James D: First, your link doesn’t work. Second, do you renounce Hillary, Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Lynch, Holder, Rice, Clapper, Strzok and others that have committed perjury? Do you renounce Obama after lying about Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, spying on Trump, Iran, ISIS, Benghazi and transparency? Or, like investigating Hillary, does it only bother you if a Republican does it?
Brett Kavanaugh’s Perjury Avalanche—50 Years in the Making
Your bullshit distraction about Hillary, Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Lynch, Holder, Rice, Clapper, and Strzok doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the question about the GOP’s intention to turn a man who previously lied under oath into a Supreme Court Justice. They want to give a known perjurer a lifetime job to oversee and interpret the law of the land at the highest level, and Trump, presently under investigation himself, thinks it’s just fine. This is America. What the hell is wrong with this picture?
The a-holes withholding documents and trying to ram this confirmation through before an election that’s only two months away are the same a-holes that cock blocked Obama’s nominee for a year, not even allowing the man the courtesy of a hearing, claiming it was only fair to wait til after the election.
It’s neither bullshit or a distraction (gee, Greg threw that word around a lot, didn’t he?). The point is whether or not you actually concern yourself with lies and perjury or if you just latch onto the left wing talking point of the day.
What YOUR article provided was a lot of crybaby nit-picking. For instance, a “lie” about an opinion held in 2003 is actually nothing but a probable change of opinion. That happens. 8 pages of documents provided by Democrats out of the thousands and thousands of documents he has been sifting through and he forgot them? Is that a hanging offense?
YOU wanted to make a known perjurer AND corrupt criminal PRESIDENT. Still think it’s “bullshit” and a “distraction”? You don’t care about justice, you just want liberals in charge, no matter HOW corrupt they are.
You don’t care about people lying about national security but you pretend to be turned inside out because Kavanagh doesn’t agree with liberals. I see no lies nor perjury. I also believe perjury doesn’t exist as long as the left refuses to hold their own responsible for the most egregious and harmful cases of perjury.
Distraction a word that describes one of the main ways Trump operates, you dumb bastard. Talk about how the gaslighting s.o.b. operates with anyone who doesn’t
have his head as far up his ass as far as you do and see how often the word comes up.
p.s. F.U. is not a university. You a-holes ARE the danger. We’re going to rub your noses in your own shit this November. We won’t have knifed the GPO in the back. YOU idiots did it.
@Deplorable me: It wasn’t a distraction when Hillary was running for President and you voted for her, was it? So, in reality, you LIKE liars and to be lied to, you just don’t like Republicans and the only way you can contrive a reason to oppose them is to accuse them of lying, especially when they aren’t.
I guess you accept the fact that you have been made a total fool of, as expressed by your descent into the realm of vulgarity. It’s a liberal characteristic; lose an argument, call names and throw vulgar terms around.
Indeed, WE are a danger; a danger to lying, corrupt liberalism that seeks to destroy this country and replace it with Venezuela… or Iran. I hope you enjoy Kavanagh and Gorsuch for a long, long time, courtesy of your lying little weasel Harry Reid. You like it?
No, this ain’t Greg. Greg is smart.
@James D: when was he convicted of perjury? Oh, he wasn’t. When was he charged with perjury? Oops, not charged. The 300 case K wrote opinions on are the best way to determine his work as a judge. You lose, we win, see ya in court.
@Meremortal: Well, liberals get to convict those they fear of crimes in their own heads. An accusation is a conviction, yet they can ignore and accept the biggest and most harmful lies and REAL perjury from their own icons. James D. actually admits it.
@Deplorable me: Yes, Arkansas disbarred Bill Clinton for lying to a Grand Jury, but liberals don’t care. You notice the liberal commenting here doesn’t care about anything but insulting others and projecting his moral preening. 600 days of Trump and they still can’t figure out why Dems hold less political offices than they have in 96 years. That’s the legacy of their demigod teleprompter reader.
@Meremortal: You see what I asked in #12 and what @James D: response was in #13. They don’t object to lying as a principle; they HAVE no principles. They merely like to use the accusations to denounce anyone they disagree with.
@Meremortal:
What he claimed under oath is part of his recorded testimony. There’s now proof he received documents he testified he never received and discussed topics he claimed he never discussed. Had that been known then, he wouldn’t have been confirmed to the office he presently holds. Please tell me how such perjury is not a huge problem when you’re being considered to be a Supreme Court Justice.
@James D: Your “proof” is that Leahy says so? In the first place, he could have simply been “mistaken”; wasn’t that one of your excuses for one of your favored liars? However, a statement from Leahy that he got the documents is more of a confirmation he didn’t; Leahy has been known to tell a lie or two. He’s called “leaky” Leahy, because he likes to leak classified information that benefits HIM. THAT’S who you are basing your trust on.
Unless someone told Kavanagh that the attachments on the emails were stolen, how would he know? Why would he suspect?
OR, maybe he didn’t know what the markings meant. Is that feasible?
@Meremortal:
First, my apologies for confusing you with one of the lefties who posts here. I based it on some wording you used in the Kaepernick thread. Obviously you are not him using another screen name as he has been known to do. As for the messiah, Kris Paronto had some choice words for him in reference to comments (more like lies) he made about Benghazi. They are at the Sep 7 point in the thread.
@James D: Great, since it’s an open and shut case, I’m sure the Dem leadership will bring criminal charges.
@Deplorable me: Agreed, and let’s add another a main liberal goal: preening in public about their imagined moral and mental superiority in all matters.
@another vet: Thanks for the link and no worries on the other thing. Keep rocking, vet.
@Meremortal: Got to. The left is pushing the country to the brink.
@Meremortal:
We’re going to remove the republican House majority in the November elections and then burn the corrupt, festering Trump administration to the ground after January. Want to see what some real swamp draining looks like? Just keep watching. We’re about to show you.
Trump is turning November into a referendum on Trump. How do you think that will work out? There’s no electoral college to monkey around with this time around. Congressional elections are democracy in action.
@James D:
Based on what? I presume you are talking of removing Trump from office (correct me if I’m wrong), so, aside from anticipating having the votes to do it, what would be your LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL basis for doing so? A butt bruised by an election is not mentioned in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment. So, what is the legal basis for impeaching Trump?
One of the things that proves James D. is not Greg is that it appears JD has not been here before. Apparently, he thinks no one here is aware that Trump’s poll numbers (pretty much meaningless, since the media’s coverage of Trump is biased and negative) is 5 points above where Obama was at this point in his disastrous administration (when he was getting almost totally positive biased media coverage). If the election is a referendum on what the non-liberal hater thinks of Trump, you guys are in really big trouble.
OK, FIRST, “monkey around” is racist and an indication of racism, if you haven’t been paying attention to your racist, obstructionist, crybaby leaders and candidates. Why would you use such a racist term? Are you racist? Should we spend the rest of our time accusing you of racism and forcing you to explain and apologize for using the term?
I prefer to get to your point; that you believe that because Trump didn’t assume victory, have a sense of entitlement and ignored key states and campaigned his ass off instead of being a staggering drunk relying on the media to hand him an election, he “monkeyed around” with the Electoral College. Actually, the DEMOCRATS attempted to “monkey around” with it, trying to convince, intimidate and threaten College voters to change the vote of their state and vote for the sot that ignored them, preferring to campaign only where she could be guaranteed to face a friendly audience and NO questions.
No, Trump won because YOUR candidate was a piece of trash. Hillary should have been indicted and charged and your stupid party should never have corrupted their own primary process to make sure she was the candidate and, as a result, she LOST. And, it is a great thing she lost, because she proved herself incompetent, corrupt and untrustworthy as Secretary of State.
@Deplorable me:
Watch and learn.
@James D: Aren’t you even going to apologize and beg for mercy for using such a racially-charged term as “monkey around” or do you admit that making accusations of racism over such a commonly used phrase is stupid and in itself racist?
Declining to answer will confirm my second point.