MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Justin Amash Says Brett Kavanaugh Is a 'Disappointing Pick' for Supreme Court

"Kavanaugh is not another Gorsuch—not even close."

Libertarian-leaning Rep. Justin Amash (R­–Mich.) isn't happy with President Trump's choice of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

The D.C. Circuit Court judge is not a staunch defender of Fourth Amendment protections that prevent improper searches and surveillance by the government, Amash said in a tweet:

Amash's impression of Kavanaugh's Fourth Amendment record is shared by Reason's Jacob Sullum, who wrote that the judge "seems to take a narrower view of Fourth Amendment rights," than First Amendment or Second Amendment rights.

Unfortunately for civil libertarians who might prefer a different nominee, Amash isn't in a position to do anything about Kavanaugh. It is the Senate's job to confirm the president's nominees to the Supreme Court, and Amash is in the House. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican who shares some of Amash's impulses and has often expressed opposition to the feds spying on Americans, said on Twitter that he looked forward to reviewing Kavanaugh's record "with an open mind."

Photo Credit: Oliver Contreras/Sipa USA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Jerryskids||

    At least it's not Rudy 9/11.

  • mchughjj||

    Can we have Rudy, v. 9.11 back? The current Rudy is either senile or is being paid a lot for his blind Trump patronage.

  • DajjaI||

    Free speech is most important. As long as we have that we can fight government overreach and other forms of bad legislation.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I agree, though free speech won't last without the 2nd and 4th amendments being fully supported.

  • Blargrifth||

    No basic human right is "most important." Once you start creating exceptions for one you risk applying a conditional filter for them all.

  • Eddy||

    I doubt Trump cares for good judicial appointments, he's just trying to follow the implied deal he made with the people who *do* care.

    There are some tensions among the conservatives who care about judicial appointments, eg among libertarians, prolifers and Federalist Society types. Trump probably thinks he can get by with appointing a swamp creature with some good decisions and ties to prior Republican administrations.

    It's the swamp creatures with ties to prior Republican administrations who are more likely to be NeverTrumpers if they're not appeased.

  • Agammamon||

    I don't believe Trump cares one whit about 'implied deals' - unless its what other people are supposed to do for him. Frankly, he strikes me like my current employer. Whatever he says is malleable and reversable and he never said that, he swears, that's not what he meant, etc, unless written down - and even then . . . Whatever I say I'm expected to stick to.

    Its why I take great care in dealing with him and charge him more than anyone else to work there.

  • Robert||

    Then explain why Sessions.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I was under the impression that the deal was actually "express", not "implied". As in he oughtright said that he'd nominate people approved of by the Federalist society.

    Which is considerably better than you could count on your average Republican President doing; On judicial nominations, Trump isn't an ordinary Republican President, who bats .500 on a good day. He's a superb Republican President.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    And you're a superb current Republican, Brett -- which is great from the perspective of authoritarian right-wing yahoos, but objectionable to libertarians, liberals, moderates, and RINOs.

    Adoring a "unitary executive" advocate with extreme views of presidential privilege, while claiming to be a libertarian? That's the spectrum talking.

  • damikesc||

    Rev, who ELSE should hold executive power? The Constitution lists the President as the one who wields it.

  • damikesc||

    Hell, the Bush family alone gave us some unbelievably shitty judges...and Clarence Thomas, who is excellent.

  • Conchfritters||

    Disappointing- at least his last name isn't Souter.

  • Michael Hihn||

    NOT being another Gorsuch is GOOD (in itself). The 4th Amendment is the bad part, among others.
    Trump is still OWNED by his base of (mostly) wackos and conspiracy nuts, and the Russians who financed his fortune when his many bankruptcies made him one of America's worst deadbeats. Putin will be collecting on his investmemt soon. (When Kim is done humiliating Trump)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Here's absolute proof that Faxsibnatibng is a psycho! (sneer)
    Blindly pasting words you know nothing about can be dangerous.

    (My tone and boldface in self-defense of aggression, by a brainwashed puppet-on-a-string)

  • Nardz||

    Linking to your personal enemy list is definitely the best way to prove someone else is a psycho

  • Michael Hihn||

    Anyone who clicks the link will see ABSOLUTE proof that you're a psycho ... and a pathetic fucking liar.

    It's not a personal enemies list, you shameful piece of shit. It's a list of people who have ATTACKED ME ... and I show how psycho they are in one place.. Including your unprovoked assault here.

    P.S. Don't flatter yourself. I have no enemies list, because I don't give a flying fuck what conservatards think ... for several decades now.

    xoxoxoxo
    just a libertarian

  • hello.||

    Your own family won't even come visit your dying old obsolete ass in your Medicare nursing home you pathetic piece of shit.

  • Michael Hihn||

    BOOGA BOOGA
    (sneer)

  • ThomasD||

    Medicare is the 'nicer' side of nursing home care - rehab and such (all short term.) It's Medicaid that covers long term placement (aka warehousing.)

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Maybe it's time we all got together and worked on getting rid of this nutcase. It could really unite the commentariat, as Fake Hihn is a common enemy.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (Self-defense from another unprovoked assault)
    :ABSOLUTE PROOF that Last of the Shitlords is a psycho

    Fake Hihn

    And a bully and a stalker

    (boldface in defense of aggression. By the Authoritarian Right)

  • hello.||

    Blindly pasting words you know nothing about can be dangerous.

    You literally copy and paste the same exact same post at least 5 times in every thread. I know it's hard to keep track when you're in the terminal stages of Alzheimer's but please shut your obsolete old fucking mouth.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Too adult for me ....

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Michael Hihn||

    You literally copy and paste the same exact same post at least 5 times in every thread.

    Link to just two, fucking psycho.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Trump is still OWNED by his base "

    The horror! A politician loyal to the people who voted for him!

  • Michael Hihn||

    The horror of an adult who doesn't know what "owned" means. Why are they always Trump or Bernie voters?

  • Jickerson||

    He isn't. And even if he was, he should be committed to the Constitution above all else.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The 4th Amendment is the bad part...

    Of the Bill of Rights?

  • SIV||

  • Eddy||

    Amar is a fellow Yale Law professor.

  • Eddy||

    ...though it's still a bad sign.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's because he's said that abortion access isn't going away.

    Their worst fears were not realized.

  • Eddy||

    When did he say this?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Kavanugh has stated that he considers Roe v. Wade binding under the principle of stare decisis and would seek to uphold it,[23] but has also ruled in favor of some restrictions for abortion.[24][25][26]

    In May 2006, Kavanaugh stated he "would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully" and that the issue of the legality of abortion has already "been decided by the Supreme Court".[23] During the hearing, he stated that a right to an abortion has been found "many times", citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey.[23] "

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.....h#Abortion

    He may favor putting various restrictions on abortion, but he apparently considers abortion rights a done deal.

    The Democrats and the press are looking like fools right now crying about the end of abortion because of this pick. If Roe v. Wade is overturned in the future, it will probably require another judge to be appointed. It probably won't be because of this guy.

  • Eddy||

    Well, that's unfortunate.

    Maybe what he said when nominated to a lower court won't bind him on the highest court.

    At least Slate is worried.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's like steering a cruise ship. They can't suddenly go into reverse, and they were already full speed ahead on abortion rights.

    They'll oppose him over his opposition to abortion rights even if he isn't opposed to them.

  • Eddy||

    They'd oppose Earl Warren if Trump nominated him, that's a given.

  • Jickerson||

    That was his position when being nominated to a lower court, where he had no real power to challenge abortion rights. This can't be interpreted to mean he won't oppose abortion rights if he is on the Supreme Court.

  • Tony||

    HAHAHA.

    You guys get your anti-human Republican theocratic pro-crony horsecrap and are still bitching because it's not quite evil enough.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It is VERY rude to laugh at the mentally handicapped.

  • hello.||

    We're still not going to stop laughing at you Mikey.

  • MarkLastname||

    That's a mirror you're laughing at, Mikey.

  • hello.||

    He doesn't even believe in jailing people for failing to bake cakes or purchase health insurance! SATAN!@@!!!!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Fuckimng liars be crazy/

  • MarkLastname||

    Anti-human? I don't even know what to make your nonsense anymore. It just seems like the random noises of someone having a schlerotic fit.

  • Michael Hihn||

    SO adult, the thugs.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    You're a useless retard.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Are your parents proud of how you turned out?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    In the comments, some Lefty views are readily apparent. They hate Brett Kavanaugh. The Lefties seem to think the article was positive because they came from the same University.

    Additional funny stuff from the comments are that:
    Lefties still are bitter about Hillary losing;
    Trump is guilty of something they just know it;
    The longer Mueller takes the more convincing his secret accusations will be;
    Lefties are bitter about Garland never getting onto the SCOTUS;
    Anything including violence is acceptable to put Lefties in charge;
    They need guns because non-Lefties have guns so Lefties starting a war will end badly for them.

  • ColoradoKook||

    If there's anything Live PD has taught me, it's that the Fourth Amendment is already dead.

  • shane_c||

    Gorsuch hasn't shown that he's great on the 4th Amend. The only case he's had he made up an excuse not to vote for it. I like Kavanaugh better. Gorsuch is a social conservative imo, he specifically attacked "libertarian theory". Kavanaugh seems like he'll be more moderate on social issues, better on free speech, separation of church and state.... more like Kennedy. That's my impression.

  • ravenshrike||

    Made up an excuse? That's an interesting way of saying he dissented from a majority opinion that furthered 4th amendment protections narrowly by pointing out that the TPD is farcical in its entirety.

  • hello.||

    Obamacare, taxpayer funded abortions, and compulsory cake baking. Fuck yeah!

  • shane_c||

    I think I spoke too soon, he actually doesnt seem very good separation of church and state. I raed he supported students using the school loudspeaker for prayers at football games. He's starting to seem further right than I thought.

  • Ken Shultz||

    These were the names on Hillary Clinton's short list:

    Merrick Garland
    Sri Srinivasan
    Jane Kelly
    Paul Watford
    Jacqueline Nguyen
    Goodwin Liu
    Mariano Florentino Cuéllar
    Lucy Koh
    Patricia Ann Millet

    http://thehill.com/regulation/.....st-emerges

    Which of them is better than Kavanaugh on the Fourth Amendment--and also acceptable on the Second Amendment?

    Any of them?

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    What possible difference does that make at this point?

    The issue now isn't Trump's picks vs. Clinton's picks, it's which choice Trump makes off his own list.

    Getting fucked by a bad Trump pick is no better than getting fucked by a bad Clinton pick. Either way, your asshole is still sore.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Clinton's picks are relevant--especially going forward.

    Chances are that six months from now, we'll be arguing about whether Trump should be removed from office.

    Two and a half years from now, we'll probably be arguing about whether Trump should be reelected.

    One legitimate reason why a libertarian might have voted for Trump was because Trump's short list of Supreme Court nominees was dramatically superior to Hillary's short list on questions like the Second Amendment. For goodness' sake, Hillary was campaigning on picking judges that were hostile to gun rights.

    That question will come up again.

    P.S. And there probably isn't enough time to get another pro-Second Amendment nominee approved before the Democrats take control of the Senate four months from now. The alternatives are probably between this guy right now--or nobody on Trump's list.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "Clinton's picks are relevant--especially going forward."

    No, they aren't. That was a concern in 2016 - two years ago. Why don't you provide us a list of who Harold Stassen might have nominated? It would be just as relevant as the list you posted. I mean, he's got just as much chance of ever being president as Hillary does.

    Gorsuch was a great pick. Perhaps expecting Trump to do something competently two times in a row is asking too much...........

  • Ken Shultz||

    Seems like Hillary is gearing up to run again, and if the competition is Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren, she has a great chance of winning the nomination again.

    Even if she doesn't, do you think the other Democrats' short lists will be fundamentally different on the Second Amendment?

    "Because the Democrats' short lists are a serious threat to gun rights" will remain a good reason to support keeping Trump in office until the next election is over. You might still vote against him and for the Libertarian candidate--if they nominate someone who isn't openly hostile to freedom of association, passively opposed to gun rights, etc.

    There is more than one important issue in the world, but, like I said above, I think the Second Amendment is especially vulnerable over the next 20 years. Seems like we're always one more kook away--and one Democrat president away--from them coming after our gun rights.

    Hillary Clinton sure as hell wouldn't have let the Las Vegas shooting crisis go to waste--and she wouldn't have wasted these SC picks on people who were just wishy-washy on gun rights either.

  • Eddy||

    "Seems like Hillary is gearing up to run again"

    Another sequel? She's worse than Freddy and Jason put together.

  • CE||

    Clinton has no chance this time. Even Democrat voters aren't that dumb.

  • Eddy||

    "Hold my organic, locally-sourced craft beer and watch this." /Dem voters

  • CE||

    Dems have been arguing that Trump should be removed for 2 years already. It's not going to happen.

  • CE||

    It's worse when "your guy" makes a bad pick, because you could have had someone halfway decent. You expect the other side to make bad choices.

  • shane_c||

    They all would probably be better on the 4th, obviously much worse on the 2nd.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Why do you say they would probably all be better on the Fourth--because they're Democrats?

  • shane_c||

    Yes just look at the most recent case about cell phone data, it was the liberals and Kennedy that voted for the 4th Amendment. All the conservatives dissented and voted for the govt.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "it was the liberals and Kennedy that voted for the 4th Amendment. All the conservatives dissented and voted for the govt."

    Gorsuch's opinion was actually better on the 4th than the majority's, but to get that you'd actually have to read it. No way to change the mind of the partisans.

  • shane_c||

    When he actually votes for the 4th Amendment on a real case then I'll believe it. And that still doesn't change the fact that all the other conservatives dissented.

  • damikesc||

    He said what the argument should have been (for future reference), but since the argument was not made, he had to argue on the arguments made.

    He provided exactly how to fix the defects.

  • shane_c||

    That's a mistake, it was actually the liberals and Roberts, not Kennedy.

  • Agammamon||

    I don't think anyone here (outside of Tony) would say that we haven't dodged a bullet with Trump in the WH.

    *However*, he's in the WH, not her. So yeah, whoever he picks will be better than what she would have - but still, is it a good pick?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why did Ken SHIT on 95% of our Constitution?

  • hello.||

    Why did you SHIT in 100% of your adult diapers?

  • Michael Hihn||

    I saw your face.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "These were the names on Hillary Clinton's short list:"

    Reason liked all of them much better.

  • chipper me timbers||

    I'm not a fan. He seems a lot more like Alito than Gorsuch.

  • SIV||

    Alito is worse than Roberts on 1A. I'm not happy with Kavanaugh but he seems good on 1A and 2A.

  • Eddy||

  • Eddy||

  • Just Say'n||

    The LA Times is right. That Daily Beast article was unhinged.

    Good creative writing, though. Nice obscure reference to the Knights Malta in a baseless conspiracy theory. Could have used more Russia, though.

  • Just Say'n||

    Did anyone catch tonight's episode of the apprentice? Trump fired Amy despite the fan support.

  • mchughjj||

    I think she wasn't crying on the elevator down to the limo.

  • Anastasia Beaverhausen||

    Rand Paul's "open mind" - he'll say some things in opposition and then cave in the end like he always does.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Yeah, he shut down the federal government on a spending bill, citing the debt .... then voted FOR tax cuts with TWICE the damage to the debt! Stealing from his own children and grandchildren. Sad.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "elections have consequences"

    Cry more!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Relevance?
    To ANYTHING?

  • hello.||

    "WAHHHHHH!!!!! All of you young people get to keep more of your money instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep my obsolete demented old ass clinging to life in this government-funded nursing home!!!!! WAHHHHHHHHH!!!!"

    Go fuck yourself you old piece of shit.

  • Michael Hihn||

    AGREES that Rand Paul is a fucking phony, so he ATTACKS me for being correct.

  • Eddy||

  • Michael Hihn||

    No, he's just a retarded dumbfuck, with a long string of bankruptcies, who owes his entire fortune to a Russian money launderer, the only one who'd finance his deadbeat ass,

    Now Putin is collecting the interest, after Kim continues Trump's string of failures ... and his goobers would defend him from even murder (even after HE says they cannot be trusted). The clown car,

  • Eddy||

    "Hey, New York Times, think you know how to bash Trump? Holy my grape juice and watch this!"

    "In "The Trump of the Super-Deceiver," the noted philosopher, Valiant Thor, lays out what we know about the Antichrist. Thor includes a chart showing the genealogy of the Antichrist, as well as speculation about whether the Antichrist is alive today, and who it might be. This is the first book to suggest, based on news reports from the Middle East, that Donald Trump may be the Antichrist. Timely and cogent in relation to today's political scene."

  • Agammamon||

    . . . It is the Senate's job to confirm the president's nominees to the Supreme Court

    While I know what you mean here (I hope), that's a confusing sentence.

    Its not actually the Senate's job to confirm the nominee - it it were then the Senate's confirmation would be meaningless. As in, they would be required to say yes no matter what - as that's their job.

    Its the Senate's job to review the President's pick and give - or withhold - their OK for that person to take up that position.

  • hello.||

    While I know what you mean here (I hope), that's a confusing sentence.

    The braindead Millennial twat said exactly what he meant and meant exactly what he said. He really is that stupid.

  • VinniUSMC||

    Unfortunately for civil libertarians who might prefer a different nominee, Amash isn't in a position to do anything about Kavanaugh. It is the Senate's job to confirm the president's nominees to the Supreme Court, and Amash is in the House.

    It's not really that confusing (or a sentence), if you know how to read.

  • prolefeed||

    It's not confusing, it just gets a basic fact wrong. Yes, the House doesn't get to confirm or reject SCOTUS nominees. No, the job of the Senate is to either confirm or reject nominees.

    You may have meant the latter, in which case doubling down instead of acknowledging the point isn't the way to go.

  • Thomas O.||

    "Its not actually the Senate's job to confirm the nominee - it it were then the Senate's confirmation would be meaningless. As in, they would be required to say yes no matter what - as that's their job."

    Robert Bork and Harriet Miers would beg to differ.

  • Thomas O.||

    "Its not actually the Senate's job to confirm the nominee - it it were then the Senate's confirmation would be meaningless. As in, they would be required to say yes no matter what - as that's their job."

    Robert Bork and Harriet Miers would beg to differ.

  • RoninX||

    Too bad we can't get Justin Amash as a Supreme Court Justice...

  • unlocker download||

    Unlocker is a software which is used to delete a file in Windows that could not be removed previously. Unlocker software which can delete files or folders that are hard-deleted and can detect the program running the file. The use is easy, with just one click Unlocker Software

  • Stilgar||

    None of the seriously mentioned contenders were very good outside of the 2nd amend. On the whole, thought Hardiman was the least bad. Kavanaugh is a statist on most issues and don't doubt he worships the blue uniform. But he writes pretty opinions!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do ANY of your people support the entire Constitution? As a libertarian does?
    The odds are overwhelming that you've been totally brainwashed on 2A

  • agen bola terpercaya||

    I think this a joking. agen bola sbobet

  • Sarkari Jobs||

    Check live available Navodaya Vidyalaya Result 2018 Class 6 because result has been published for class 6 and class 9

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online