Tag: U.S. Supreme Court

Brett Kavanaugh Threatens Americans’ Fundamental Right to Vote

The following article by Connor Maxwell was posted on the Center for American Progress website August 9, 2018:

Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh poses for photographs in front of a painting of President Ronald Reagan, July 17, 2018. Credit: Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images

This week marked the 53rd anniversary of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In the years since the VRA’s enactment, however, its protections have not gone unchallenged. In a 2013 decision in Shelby v. Holder, a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court gutted Section 5 of the VRA, a provision that prevented certain jurisdictions from unilaterally manipulating their voting policies and procedures. This ruling allowed legislators to enact discriminatory laws that make voting more difficult for both people of color and low-income Americans. With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy this past July, it is essential that the Senate demand a fair, independent nominee who will defend the fundamental rights of Americans.

Brett M. Kavanaugh is not that nominee. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated a willingness to turn a blind eye to voter suppression and racial discrimination. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, Americans will almost certainly face further erosion of their voting rights.

Kavanaugh’s record shows a willingness to diminish the voices of marginalized groups

As counsel of record for Kirkland and Ellis in 1999, Kavanaugh defended efforts to strip away the rights of Native Hawaiians in choosing the state official responsible for protecting the rights and culture of Hawaii’s indigenous peoples. Kavanaugh argued that giving this choice to Native Hawaiians, instead of all Hawaiian voters, constituted racial separatism rather than an effort to support a community that suffered historic injusticesat the hands of the U.S. government. This demonstrates not only his ignorance of the systems that perpetuate inequality but also his willingness to diminish the voices of marginalized groups for political gain. In the wake of the case, Kavanaugh criticized the Clinton administration in The Wall Street Journal for its support of voting rights for Native Hawaiians. After the election of President George W. Bush, Kavanaugh was hired as an associate by the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzalez. Later, he was nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit.

View the complete article here.

Trump Supreme Court pick: Presidents can ignore laws they think are unconstitutional

According to a new report, Judge Kavanaugh said in 2013 that the president can ignore laws they think are unconstitutional and he defended the Bush administration’s use of signing statements. We already know Kavanaugh would fail to be an independent check on the president. Now, we see why Republicans are trying to hide Kavanaugh’s records from senators and the American people. What else are they trying to hide?

CNN: Trump Supreme Court pick: Presidents can ignore laws they think are unconstitutional

By Manu Raju

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2013 asserted that it’s a “traditional exercise” of presidential power to ignore laws the White House views as unconstitutional, as he defended the controversial practice of signing statements prevalent in George W. Bush’s White House.

The comments could put a renewed focus on Kavanaugh’s time serving as White House staff secretary, who had a role in coordinating Bush’s statements accompanying legislation he signed into law. Critics contend that the Bush White House abused the use of signing statements to ignore laws passed by Congress, though Bush and his allies said such statements were no different than the practices of other administrations.

(MORE)

Supreme Court fight becomes battle for Kavanaugh’s papers

The following article by Jordain Carney was posted on the Hill website July 29, 2018:

The Senate fight over documents related to President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court is boiling over.

Trump pick Brett Kavanaugh, a circuit judge since 2006 who previously worked for President George W. Bush’s administration and Kenneth Starr’s independent counsel investigation into former President Clinton, has a voluminous paper trail that lawmakers estimate tops a million pages.

Democrats want to see as many of those papers as they can, while Republicans seeking to confirm Kavanaugh before the midterm elections favor a narrower scope.

View the complete article here.

In Their Words: Americans Across The Country Voice Their Opposition

Americans across the country know the truth about Judge Kavanaugh: He would roll back women’s rights, the right to affordable and accessible health care, and would fail to be an independent check on the president. It’s clear why Kavanaugh is already one of the most unpopular Supreme Court nominees in recent history.

Americans agree that Kavanaugh is a threat to Americans’ health care:

“I am concerned about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, as he has shown hostility to a person’s right to use birth control and to affordable health care. If he were on the Supreme Court, he would most likely try to limit my access to medication and surgeries that I will die without.” – Maine resident

Continue reading “In Their Words: Americans Across The Country Voice Their Opposition”

Supreme Court Nominee Kavanaugh’s Responses Reveal Views

The following article by Todd Ruger was posted on the Roll Call website July 23, 2018:

Questionnaire part of confirmation process

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, right, and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, conduct a photo-op in Russell Building before a meeting on July 17. Credit: Tom Williams, CQ Roll Call

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh described his volunteer work, his most important decisions and how President Donald Trump picked him in paperwork submitted as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation process.

The questionnaire is a standard part of the confirmation process, and nominees can use it to bolster their case. For instance, Kavanaugh, when asked to list his 10 most important decisions, listed nine cases in which the Supreme Court later agreed with the positions he took as a federal appeals court judge.

Kavanaugh included the 10th case, he said, “because of what it says about anti-discrimination law and American history.” It was his concurring opinion in a 2013 workplace discrimination case, and he told the committee he wrote that “calling someone the n-word, even once, creates a hostile work environment.”

View the complete article here.

Poll: Majority wants next justice to support abortion rights

The following article by Steven Shepard was posted on the Politico website July 3, 2018:

While Anthony Kennedy’s replacement could shift the court on a wide range of issues, most of the early questions for senators who will weigh the nomination have centered around abortion. Credit: John Shinkle, POLITICO

A majority of voters want the next Supreme Court justice to support abortion rights, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll conducted in the immediate wake of Anthony Kennedy’s retirement announcement last week.

With the prospect that President Donald Trump’s pending pick to replace Kennedy could join with the existing four justices appointed by Republican presidents to overturn Roe v. Wade, 52 percent of voters say they hope the new justice supports a woman’s right to an abortion.

Twenty-nine percent say they hope the new justice opposes abortion rights, while the remaining 19 percent don’t know or have no opinion.

View the complete post on the Politico website here.

How Anthony Kennedy’s retirement could explode our political powder keg

The following article by Aaron Blake was posted on the Washington Post website June 27, 2018:

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, 81, said he is retiring. The Post’s Robert Barnes explains why that will ignite a “real fight” for his replacement. (Video: Monica Akhtar /Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Just a couple of days ago, we all dwelled upon just how “civil” Democrats would be in opposing President Trump.

On Wednesday, the GOP got its most prized reward for glossing over Trump’s incivility and for its own brazen political gamesmanship: a chance to create a clear and consistent conservative Supreme Court majority. Continue reading “How Anthony Kennedy’s retirement could explode our political powder keg”

Neil Gorsuch Is Reportedly Alienating His Colleagues in the Supreme Court Left and Right

The following article by Jacob Sugarman was posted on the AlterNet website October 19, 2017:

The Trump appointee has already gotten on the nerves of John Roberts and Elena Kagan.

Neil Gorsuch Credit: DonkeyHotey / Flickr

Long after his presidency is over and Trump has finally shuffled off this mortal coil, Neil Gorsuch will likely still be sitting on the Supreme Court, much to the delight of American conservatives. Gorsuch’s fellow Supreme Court justices do not appear to share their glee. Multiple reports indicate that almost from the moment he was confirmed, the dyed-in-the-wool constructionist has rubbed members of the court the wrong way—and not just the liberals on the bench.

Last month, Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker cataloged all of the judicial norms and practices the Trump appointee has violated during his brief tenure. He has dominated oral arguments where new associates are expected to defer to their seniors, penned condescending dissents challenging the wisdom of a court whose justices claim more than 140 years of experience between them, and barely concealed his contempt for Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, a landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage.  Continue reading “Neil Gorsuch Is Reportedly Alienating His Colleagues in the Supreme Court Left and Right”

What’s At Stake In Supreme Court Gerrymander Decision

The following article by Steven Rosenfeld was posted on the National Memo website October 4, 2017:

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard one of the most politically consequential cases in years, to decide whether partisan gerrymandering, or having elected politicians choose which voters do and don’t cast ballots in specific U.S. House and state legislative elections, is constitutional.

If you want to know why the GOP has not only controlled the House but has supermajorities in states that should be politically purple, such as North Carolina and Georgia, the answer is extreme partisan gerrymandering. Continue reading “What’s At Stake In Supreme Court Gerrymander Decision”