Why did Trump choose Brett Kavanaugh for SCOTUS?

[osan]

He should have picked me for SCOTUS.

I am very qualified.

Actually, your snark aside, I believe that you are. Beside Gorsuch and Thomas, especially the latter, the justices are mostly chud.

As to why Trump chose Kavanaugh, short of him telling us so with candor that could be trusted, there's no real way to know.

While I trust Trump marginally above the rest of the DC sludge, I still don't trust him. That said, what is Trump to do? Seriously now - how would he know whom to choose? He's an adept businessman and negotiator. He was even a pretty good president, as those beasts go, but he's not a lawyer, nor much of a politician. I'm confident in my opinion that Trump would know a good candidate from bad much beyond filtering by party affiliation, all 'D's immediately scratched from consideration, and for proper cause.

Beyond that, by what means would Trump be able to capably judge the relative merits of the candidates? How would he even know whom to put on a list of same?

Advisors and muck rakers, that's how. Given how things have worked out, especially the cases of the treacherous Roberts and the vast disappointment Barrett, can anyone wonder that everyone whispering in his ears were, in fact, muck raking nitwits at best?

I'd say there are far better things over which to wring one's hands than these questions, unless the point is to dope out the broader question of how justices are chosen in all cases. We all know the process is lousy with political corruption, which makes all choices suspect on their faces. Is there anything else that would be as important to know?

I'd be interested in knowing whose opinions about such choices would be sound. Do such sources even exist, or are we that screwed? I suspect the latter.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Actually, your snark aside, I believe that you are. Beside Gorsuch and Thomas, especially the latter, the justices are mostly chud.

Considering the involvement of Opus Dei via Leonard Leo of The Federalist Society, it is interesting that Gorsuch left the Catholic Church, and does not seem to be following the same agenda as Roberts and Kavanaugh.

As to why Trump chose Kavanaugh, short of him telling us so with candor that could be trusted, there's no real way to know.

While I trust Trump marginally above the rest of the DC sludge, I still don't trust him. That said, what is Trump to do? Seriously now - how would he know whom to choose?
...
Beyond that, by what means would Trump be able to capably judge the relative merits of the candidates? How would he even know whom to put on a list of same?

Advisors and muck rakers, that's how. Given how things have worked out, especially the cases of the treacherous Roberts and the vast disappointment Barrett, can anyone wonder that everyone whispering in his ears were, in fact, muck raking nitwits at best?
...

It would be a very difficult task to know who to pick. Trump probably did as well as he could with the advisers he had.

Remember when Hillary Clinton said that when she needs foreign policy, she said something to the effect that she will go to the Counsel on Foreign Relations?

Likewise, it has been a GOP matter of faith to defer to The Federalist Society on Supreme Court Justices. It is fair to say at this point, with so many failures, that they can not be trusted. Additionally, it should be known that they have an agenda that goes beyond the US Constitution.

 

[TheTexan]

Barrett makes pretty good rifles

 

[osan]

You know who should be the next SCOTUS justice?

Me.

No, I'm not joking. I understand liberty and proper human relations, which is more important than the arcane idiocies in which the sitting justices marinate.

My suspicion is that just as with so many other disciplines, jurisprudence becomes an echo-chamber of sorts and the people who spend their lives inside lose sight of some very basic truths, not seeing the forest for the trees. Their jargon becomes second nature and their thinking follows suit. As ideas creep away from basic sanity piecemeal, not necessarily the result of maleficence or gross ineptitude, those in the chamber don't even notice how their basic world views alter. Furthermore, even if they do, the tendency is to believe that they are going in the right direction - that they are coming into possession of special and superior knowledge; that they are becoming better than the rest. People do this all the time and it is often the source of disastrous result.

None of this can be proven, nor does it really matter. What does matter is that we can observe first-hand their error in abandoning principle as the ONLY relevant factor in their deliberations. Some, including the justices in question, would say my view is simplistic, that the real world is more complicated such that my simple views are insufficient as solutions for many real-world problems. To that I politely say BULLSHIT. Their problem, as well as that of a vast plurality of humanity, is that they play the
"it's complicated" copout card to justify their perversions of what should be Law when they don't like the results of actual liberty.

Liberty often leads to some very nasty outcomes. That is part of liberty's costs. They can be minimized, but they cannot be eliminated, in my estimation. The justices, at best, suffer from the same problem as card-carrying, proud-marching communists and other similar vermin: they reject the costs of liberty, the ugly side of that coin, and so contrive to cut it away, yet keep all the benefits they seek to enjoy. So sorry dickheads, but things do not work that way. TANSTAAFL, and anyone who says otherwise is either a blithering fool, or a peddler of evils. The political world works as a direct and very close analog to energy systems because in all practical effect, it is an energy system whose rules are written not by men, but by the same who authored those of thermodynamics. Call it God, call it Kitchen Sink, the name is irrelevant. What counts is to know the rules and to operate in accord with them. To do otherwise is sub-optimal and can only lead to lesser outcomes, which is the very essence of the philosophy of far too many people, regardless of the political labels to which they attach themselves.

The rules are few, simple, and non-negotiable. We violate them at our peril. The dismal history of the twentieth century should be sufficient testament to convince people of this truth, doing the same things over and over, expecting different results.

Until we decide to grow up and take the steps necessary to be as adults, nothing good is going to come of anything we do, politically speaking. Childishness and our tantrum-infused refusal to learn from our errors isn't going to end well for us, as those with eyes to see can see even now.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Can't wait to see who Biden ends up nominating for SCOTUS. Wonder when we'll see that happen. He won't go his whole presidency without getting at least one. Breyer is currently the oldest on the Court at 83. He'll most likely die or retire before the Midterms. Democrats will make sure the GOP won't fill his seat.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

He picked him because Kennedy would not have retired if he didn't get to choose his replacement.
He is an improvement over Kennedy.
He also had to be approved by McConnell to get through the Senate.

Yeah, how's that working out?

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court sided with the Defense Department on Friday afternoon, blocking a lower court ruling that would force the military to deploy unvaccinated Navy SEALs fighting a Covid-19 vaccine mandate.

There was no majority opinion on the ruling but Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito dissented.
...
More: https://www.courthousenews.com/supr...n-does-not-have-to-deploy-unvaccinated-seals/

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Can't wait to see who Biden ends up nominating for SCOTUS. Wonder when we'll see that happen. He won't go his whole presidency without getting at least one. Breyer is currently the oldest on the Court at 83. He'll most likely die or retire before the Midterms. Democrats will make sure the GOP won't fill his seat.

You know now.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah, how's that working out?

No worse than Kennedy would have done and sometimes better.

 

[unknown]

Because he was told to?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

No worse than Kennedy would have done and sometimes better.

Settling for a slightly better leftist, while the left puts radical leftists on the court. Winning.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Settling for a slightly better leftist, while the left puts radical leftists on the court. Winning.

I would have wanted someone much better.
Trump would too.
Kennedy and McConnell wouldn't.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

A Supreme Court Justice is supposed to make rulings on Constitutional issues but cannot make a ruling on the definition of a woman? It is past time for better SCOTUS. Political leanings and opinions have no place in SCOTUS. That is like manipulating findings in a science experiment to render desired results. If Supreme Court justices cannot uphold the Constitution the SCOTUS should be abolished along with abolishing lower courts. Ruling over the people by whim is not Constitutional.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Related:

SCOTUS Upholds Trump era Foreign earnings tax