The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Kavanaugh's Paradox
For more than a month, protestors have demonstrated outside of Justice Kavanaugh's house. The purpose of these gatherings is clear: to pressure the Justice to change his vote in Dobbs. On Tuesday, Nicholas John Roske traveled to Justice Kavanaugh's house with the same purpose. But instead of wearing a pussy hat, he brought a bag filled with weapons. Even after this apparent assassination attempt, the protestors came back to Kavanaugh's house to demonstrate. And they will likely continue protesting outside of his house until Dobbs is decided.
Still, Kavanaugh faces a paradox. In February, he joined Justice Alito's majority opinion. And Politico suggested that in early May, Kavanaugh was still with the majority. But we were told that Roberts had not yet circulated his concurrence. No doubt the protestors hope that pressuring will deprive Alito of a majority to save Roe. Mr. Roske chose different means, but had the same ends. If in fact, Kavanaugh did change his vote after May, in response to the Chef's blue plate special, then perhaps the protests and death threats will stop. We would be blind to reality if we thought this prospect did not play some role in Kavanaugh's decision-making. But I think this calculus is backwards. If Kavanaugh does change his vote, we will learn about it. Jan Crawford, Joan Biskupic, and others will find out. And the protestors packing pussy hats and Glocks will know the playbook: the way to change Justice Kavanaugh's vote is through pressure on his family. If it worked once, it will work again.
Thus, the paradox: if Kavanaugh changes his vote to uphold Roe, the protests may stop in the short-term, but will continue in the long-term. Ruth Sent Us can buy a house on Kavanaugh's block to set up a 24-hour vigil. If Kavanaugh stands by his vote to reverse Roe, the protests in the short-term will continue, but will fade in the long-term. Standing firm will send a clear and unequivocal message that neither fear nor favor will affect the judicial power.
I do not envy Justice Kavanaugh's position. Indeed, I can't fathom why anyone would want to serve on the Supreme Court. To be more precise, I can't fathom why any conservative would want to serve on the Supreme Court. Liberal jurists are feted with honors at every juncture. But conservative jurists are excoriated and personally attacked. I wonder, in hindsight, if Kavanaugh still would have pursued a position on the Supreme Court, knowing what we know now: the first confirmation hearing, baseball tickets, Spartacus, Christine Blasey Ford, Michael Avenatti, Ronan Farrow, the second confirmation hearing, yearbook, beer, Klobuchar, Saturday Night Live, Matt Damon, the Dobbs leak, and now an assassination attempt outside of his home. During this time, Kavanaugh and his family have been dragged through such painful experiences, one after the other. Was it all worth it? And to what end? To swallow the Chief's blue plate special?
The Court has announced opinions will be issued on Monday and Wednesday of next week.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You know, you're allowed to have a thought without posting about it.
You're also allowed to look up what a paradox is.
A paradox is two wiener dogs. 🙂
I did look up "paradox" and the first listed meaning was :
"one (such as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases"
which seems to fit the contradictory phases of a short term benefit and long tern harm quite well.
How did your analysis land far enough away to suspect a misuse of the word ?
En passant, I will note that there is nothing unusual about "Kavanaugh's paradox" - it seems to be a particular case of the general hostage problem. By folding now, you might save a hostage immediately and thereby increase the payoff expectation for future hostage taking.
To be more precise, I can't fathom why any conservative would want to serve on the Supreme Court. Liberal jurists are feted with honors at every juncture. But conservative jurists are excoriated and personally attacked.
Laughable.
Yes, how awful that Americans are gathering in peaceful demonstration. What in the world are they thinking, they must believe there is freedom to express their opinion. I mean if they are protesting abortion they can get in peoples faces and are protected by Supreme Court rulings even though some crazy people have used violence against abortion clinics.
But don't they know freedom only goes one way, the freedom to protest and actively attack and harass those seeking abortions and those providing abortions. To protest the other way is just wrong, anti-American, hateful and will not be tolerated by a right wing hostile to all rights except ones they approve of.
Maybe if Brett had lied so blatantly at his confirmation hearings protesters would not be as angry and vocal. But there is a price liars must pay.
What lies?
That he regarded Roe v. Wade as settled law.
Why? Has something happened to change it?
That's not a lie. Now, if they'd asked him, "And would you unsettle it given the chance?" and he'd said "No.", THAT might have been a lie.
But all they did was ask him about the status quo, and he correctly identified it.
You know perfectly well that the script is "I can't comment on a case that might come before me."
Residential picketing (1) is very wrong, (2) should be illegal.
What is happening outside the judges house is illegal under state and federal laws, given that the intent is to change his ruling.
But then, we have two tier justice.
The picketing is prohibited, but there is just cause here for non-violent civil disobedience.
Tell us what other parts of core constitutional rights you would like to outlaw.
So please post your home address so we can send some protestors there. And the names of your family members. It's freedom of expression after all.
And we can add the leaders of Ruth Sent Us.
I'm more interested in knowing the leaders of Jane's Revenge, personally. Wish the DOJ was as interested...
"Wish the DOJ was as interested..."
What leads you to believe DOJ is not?
As the Supreme Court said in Frisby v. Schultz, there are important reasons to prohibit picketing of private homes. These reasons probably apply with even more force to picketing the homes of judges and justices.
What is being done to Kavanaugh sounds less like a peaceful demonstration than an organized attempt to harass and intimidate him to change his decision for reasons of personal safety and comfort rather than the legal reasons.
I'm quite certain that Kavanaugh is very aware that some people don't want to see Roe overturned or emasculated. If not, I'm absolutely certain that he figured that out after a couple nights of "demonstrations". At some point it's just harassment and intimidation as continuing it is not productive unless Kavanaugh caves due to fear (which I don't expect him to -- I'm confident he's very aware of the train that would set in motion for every major case).
Having said that, if the law doesn't ban residential picketing (which I think it should), I support the protesters' right to peacefully demonstrate in front of his house.
Hopefully more places will ban residential picketing and I expect they will as what's good for the goose is good for the gander so this technique can be used by both sides so both sides have a motivation to stop this potential non-productive intrusion on their own lives.
Again there's the conflation of "intimidation" and "harassment" with "critical speech". Insecure politicians do it all the time, but the public should be better than that.
Sid Finkel's comment - "Maybe if Brett had lied so blatantly at his confirmation hearings protesters would not be as angry and vocal. But there is a price liars must pay."
Tell us what lie he said in in confirmation hearing.
You do realize that every justice in the last 50 years has stated the stare decisis should be respected to the extent precedent was correctly decided. How many times did Ruthie vote against stare decisis? quite a few as I recall. how many times has Kavanaugh voted against stare decisis - so far - none
Fink : Yes, how awful that Americans are gathering in peaceful demonstration
It should be noted, in passing, that - though it was by no means new to them - the BLM protests showed good tactical co-operation between "peaceful demonstrators" and the rioters and thugs. Which is not to say, of course, that there were no genuinely peaceful demonstrators, merely that there were plenty who were "peaceful" rather than peaceful, ie were organised to support the violent ones tactically. In the simplest terms, those lobbing projectiles at the cops (masked) were to be found several rows back, protected by a barrier of "peacefuls." While the auxiliaries fetched new projectiles.
There was a good article at the time explaining the three tiers into which the serious demonstrators divided themselves - the "peaceful" shield wall - many, the auxiliaries (fetchers and carriers) - not many, and the "soldiers" - also not many.
There was also an excellent video, which I'm too lazy to track down, which showed this in action on a very small scale. There was an altercation outside some Korean manicurist parlor, I think in LA, to do with some trans related spat (the Koreans had been unwoke, and the woke turned up to protest.)
In any event some woke protesters turned up to shout and jostle, some locals interposed themselves between the protesters and the shop entrance and there was a bit of pushing and shoving, but mostly shouting. Then a guy with a bicycle turned up, on the woke protestors side, and held it (he was dismounted) as a barrier against the local defenders. As soon as he was in position, another guy showed up carrying a long flexible strip of metal, maybe ten feet long and slashed it like a whip over the heads of the protesters into the locals defending the Korean shop, catching one guy a horrible slash wound in the face. He went down and the whip guy walked briskly off, while the bicycle guy provided an excellent block to prevent any of the locals going after him. It was a neatly executed maneoevre demonstrating the effectiveness of the shield / auxiiary / soldier formation.
Sidney,
It is your comment that is the lie.
I do not envy Justice Kavanaugh's position. Indeed, I can't fathom why anyone would want to serve on the Supreme Court.
Sure, Jan.
Imagine people assembling and redressing grievances.
Stupid. It's one thing to protest. What these people are doing is not only reprehensible, but quite illegal.
I'm so sorry. When do I report to Lefortovo?
I am pretty sure no Soviet dissident ever "protested" in front of anyone's home. As I see it, the people who do this sort of thing have more in common with Lenin & Co. than the dissidents they'd later imprison (not to mention Hitler & Co.).
By assembling to redress grievances, don't you really mean insurrection? Or is that only when your enemies do it?
The rights you are thinking of in 1A are:
1. Peacably assmble.
2. petition the government for redress of grievances.
On 1 it could be argued that residential picketing is not peacable.
On 2 please note that the right is not to petition the government not to redress your grievances by self help.
That's a pretty stupid definition of peaceable.
The Court has announced opinions will be issued on Monday and Wednesday of next week.
Sucks to live in NY considering body armor is now illegal. Oh well, they voted for Democrats.
The number of people -- other than professionals -- who wear or wore body armor in NY was, and will remain, vanishingly small.
I think protesting outside someone's personal home is terrible and should be illegal and it is reprehensible that the man was going to kill Kavanaugh, but where do you get that only conservative justices are personally attacked and liberal justices are not? Maybe right now conservative justices are getting attacked more than liberals justices, but I would think that has more to do with the fact that the Court's decisions now lean decidedly conservative.
People don't have nearly as much reason to protest/attack a justice if that justice is not in the majority and doing so would not possibly change decisions. If it were a 6-3liberal majority, my guess is it would be liberal justices getting more attacks than conservative justices.
That all does not excuse the attacks on the justices, as they are still wrong.
" I think protesting outside someone's personal home is terrible and should be illegal "
And another rousing meeting of Libertarians For Big-Government Censorship is convened at a natural spot . . . a blog operated by authoritarian movement conservatives prancing about in garish, unconvincing libertarian drag.
Please post your real name and home address so we can send somemone there to protest.
Are you somehow under the belief that your post isn't hypocritical bullshit?
If so, you're wrong.
Ever hear of the Non-Aggression Principle? "Protesting" in front of someone's home is pretty fucking aggressive...
The problem that the she-male Kirkland has is that anyone who disagrees with she/it deserves to go to the re-education camp. From following the comments from the recent past, my guess is that Ms. Kirkland has life-size posters of Trump, DeSantis, et al. in her/its bedroom and regulalry rubs one off on them. Otherwise, why should she/it spend so much time perusing opinions that obviously drive her/it into shrieking ululations?
Just my opinion, but I don't think harassing someone outside their home is right and if that makes me not libertarian, so be it.
It is the difference in fundamentals. Conservatives have not rioted or physically attacked leftist judges except in the most personal, individual instances; leftists have physically attacked their adversaries routinely over the last 60 years.
I read the title of the post and assumed it was about Justice Kavanaugh going back in time and killing his grandfather.
This was a let down.
A more entertaining version of the paradox, and that would sell better in movies, is one where he goes back to and prevents his parents from getting together because of an Oedipal relationship with his mother.
"McCavanaugh, you butt-head. I told you to never come into this place".
This is still the Reason website; that level of writing skill left the building years ago.
" But instead of wearing a pussy hat, "
When I used one of those words, Prof. Volokh instructed me not to do so again.
I expect a different outcome here. I am a liberal-libertarian mainstreamer, not a conservative, so different rules may be expected to apply with respect to this white, male, conservative blog's censorship.
(Which, by the way, is entirely within Prof. Volokh's rights. His playground, his rules. Partisan hypocrites have rights, too.)
" Indeed, I can't fathom why anyone would want to serve on the Supreme Court. "
From a guy who would pay plenty to lick the urinal in any conservative justice's office suite.
Kavanaugh's Quandary
Now that would have been a good title for the post.
The person who wrote this is a law professor. At an especially shitty law school -- one ranked higher than maybe six of the 200-odd schools in the United States -- but an accredited law school.
This person also was invited by Prof. Volokh to join the Volokh Conspiracy, whose aim is to try to make conservatives' backward, bigoted, superstition-laced views more palatable among a broader group of Americans than the usual Federalist-Heritage-Republican-Koch-Olin-American Enterprise audience that right-wing law professors get to address.
Good luck with that one, clingers.
Once again, this half-wit can only engage in name-calling and credential-signalling (if you're going to credential-signal, you have a responsbility for revealing your own). My guess is that she/it had mommy or daddy problems, and one or both of the parents were religious in some way (probably Southern Baptists, but maybe orthodox Catholics). Some professor in her/its freshman sociology class made fun of religious people and this credulous fool went from being an intolerant bible-thumper to being an intolerant hater of all religions. She/it obviously needs therapy and should never have acces to a weapon of any sort (though I'm certain that she would probably shoot herself/itself with it in any case).
You are precisely the type of defender Profs. Blackman and Volokh deserve.
And you are precisely the kind of Grima Wormtongue lickspittle that the illiberal left counts on to parrot its nonsense.
oooooooh...he played the LoTR card! Now roll the 12-sided die.
With Advantage!
Would you have preferred Uriah Heep?
It is a lickspittle, and an utter lackwit. The foaming at the mouth hatred for religion seems the standard, clueless variety that comes w/ the presumption of superiority in the very dim common left-leaning sorts. Same with the masturbatory credential fetishism. All in all, it's just an unpleasant, small-minded bigot.
What's your alma mater, Rev? Lay your cards down. For all your credential tongue-wagging you must have quite the pedigree.
Why would you simply assume, with no evidence at all, that the protests influenced his decisions?
Because you don’t like Kavanaugh and you can assume that “the reality is” he’d cave easily? Or because that’s what you’d do?
Let me be blunt here. Not everybody has no composure, is easily startled, and has the reflexes and courage of a rabbit. Not everybody caves quickly to hecklers on life’s really big decisions. Perhaps that’s your reality. But it’s not everybody else’s reality.
Congress or a state legislature could prohibit picketing judges and justices homes if it wanted to. The Supreme Court upheld bans on picketing homes in Frisby v. Schultz.
from the Wall Street Journal:
Targeting the Supreme Court
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been sitting on a bill to protect the Justices’ families.
My understanding (and it's sketchy, so I might be wrong) is that she and the Dems in the House strongly support the bill. But she--and other Dems--have been trying to expand the bill, to include court clerks and some other staff. If so, then it's a great reason to have been delaying the bill. If my info is wrong, then shame on her for sitting on it.
I hope she is waiting for Republicans to exchange votes on something better Americans desire -- universal background checks, perhaps, or gun registration -- before offering a single Democratic vote on something the clingers want.
No free swings. This should be handled the way Republicans addressed debt ceiling legislation.
If Republicans want to whimper and bluster rather than negotiate and succeed, that's their right.
gun registration? Hey man..salon or the wapo is calling...hell Trotsky is calling..Reason is bad on many libertarian issues but at least with the 2A they are solid
No, it isn't.
The restriction should not be limited to Supreme Court Justices.
However it should really be up to the states to implement such laws anywhere but in D.C. I looked at Article I, Section 8 and didn't see anywhere that Congress has the power to impose such laws. However, I'll look carefully again. Perhaps it's buried deep in the penumbras of the penumbras and I missed it because it's so faint that only the James Webb Space Telescope would be able to discern it - if it still can after the meteoroid hit it suffered.
Agreed. This is strictly an exercise of state police power, which the federal government only gets to exercise in DC and federal properties purchased with the consent of a state legislature.
It already HAS been prohibited. The DoJ won't do a thing about it.
Protesting at people's homes is classless (but that's the essence of Leftism). I don't think that it should be illegal in itself, but other, especially local, rules should limit it. After all, these scum are not merely causing problems for the politicians, judges, et al, who they are protesting, but also making life quite difficult for anyone who happens to live near them.
If I were Kavanaugh, I would go out on my front lawn with my AR15 and tell these starvellings, elf-skins, dried neat’s-tongues, bull’s-pizzles, and stock-fish to come and take it. But that's probably why I'm not a federal judge.
I would accept protest rules involving justices' homes that mirrored those associated with abortion clinics.
Beyond that, quit whimpering, clingers.
Do you not have access to a thesaurus, you whinging turd (whimpering, betters, etc.)? God, get out of your parents' basement; remove yourself from your weird hate-porn with anyone to the right of Pol Pot; read a book or two; then you might be competent to make an actual argument.
Abortion clinics are public institutions. The homes of judges (and other venal parasites who work for the government) are not. If you do not understand the distinction, then you need some remedial education (short bus variety).
Give us your home address (I forgot, give us your parents' home address), and see what you think about random assholes making the neighborhood unlivable. But, I forgot, the Left's long-term plan is to make every place in the country unlivable by defunding the police, coddling criminals, promoting the diddling of children, etc.
And, of course, since you're an insignificant Hinckley type, why would anyone waste time on you?
Irony alert:
"And, of course, since you're an insignificant Hinckley type, why would anyone waste time on you?"
Public streets and sidewalks are public property, you bigoted, half-educated, destined-for-replacement loser.
Medical facilities that provide abortions generally are not public institutions. But the roads and sidewalks adjoining them are.
Shoving progress down the throats of racist, ignorant, gay-hating, right-wing rubes has been one of the more enjoyable experiences of my life. Thank you for losing the culture war and for your continuing compliance with the preferences of your betters, clingers.
" But that's probably why I'm not a federal judge."
I'll bet that there are other reasons.
The privacy of five Justices and their families is being invaded?
Cry me a river.
And there is already such a statute.
18 USC Sec. 1507.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
This comment is predicated on the notion that Kavanaugh was indeed numbered among Alito's draft decision supporters.
Kavanaugh lied about Roe to Susan Collins during his confirmation. Absent that lie, if Collins is to be believed, Kavanaugh would not have been confirmed. Collins and Murkowski were both on record against confirmation of a Justice who would not support Roe. During the vote, Murkowski voted, "present," because she had a reason to do it which would not have applied if her vote had been consequential to the outcome.
Whatever you think of lying during confirmation hearings, no one should be surprised that consequent major decisions about which people feel passionate will be regarded as less-legitimate if their outcome seems to depend on a lie told by the justice to get confirmed.
Put that together with McConnell's antics managing the Garland nomination, and the Barrett nomination, and the Supreme Court will continue to struggle for legitimacy sufficient to do its job. That makes willingness by Alito's partisan clique to press for maximal political outcomes an unusually ill-advised and dangerous choice.
Bystanders are unrealistic who demand that such recklessness be accorded customary deference. It will not happen, and those demonstrating are not the cause of a loss of decorum and dignity which has been inflicted on the Court by some of its members, and by Mitch McConnell.
These accumulating misjudgments risk serious adverse consequences for the nation, during crises which the Supreme Court as it is currently constituted and operating will be incapable of alleviating. More the opposite. The Court cannot hope to mitigate controversies of which its own conduct is the cause.
How do you figure?
Collins said so publicly.
Said what publicly?
That during a meeting in her office Kavanaugh lied to her about supporting Roe. I saw Collins say that on television. Maybe you can find it on You Tube.
Collins said "kavanaugh said something to her in private
How do you know it was kavanaugh that "lied" vs Collins that lied
Here is a quote I just looked up:
"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office," Collins told NBC News. "Obviously, we won't know each Justice's decision and reasoning until the Supreme Court officially announces its opinion in this case."
I can see how someone motivated to see it otherwise might suppose Collins is merely befuddled. I do not think Collins is stupid. I do not much respect her honesty. The Alito decision made her look bad for caving on the Kavanaugh nomination, which she might have been willing to do despite knowing he would not support Roe. Or, he might have actually lied in her office.
"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office,"
Happily the "and" means we don't need to guess at what was said in her office, we can rely on the actual transcript of the actual hearings to identify the alleged lie.
You claim to be the history guy, expert at rooting out the historical facts. And here you've got an official government dcument to work with. So go get the actual quotes from the hearing that prove the lie and post 'em here. Chapter and verse.
Even better, Sen. Collins should publish what the nominees said to you.
Americans deserve to know the degree to which important public officials are cynical liars.
Lee Moore, bad news from historiography, just for you. The, "and," you like so much does not prove what you want it to prove—that Kavanaugh said the same thing in the office as in the Senate. It proves that he spoke in both places, not what he said in both places. You could assume it was the same, but that would be you assuming.
The bad news part is in historical reasoning you don't get to pick between contradictory interpretations without evidence to explain why. Each side of the contradiction is equally a part of the historical record. Without more evidence, you give creedence to each, and suspend judgment. If you then want to develop alternatives based on each side of the contradiction, have at it, but you still suspend judgment.
You are being idiotic. If, as Collins claims :
If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office
then, no, we are not required to conclude that Kavanaugh said "the same thing" in the Senate as he said in Collins' office, and I am not assuming that . But we are required to conclude - because that is the meaning of "and" that both
(a) in the Senate he said something that is completely inconsistent with what is included in the Alito opinion, and
(b) in Collins' office he said something that is completely inconsistent with what is included in the Alito opinion
It may not have been the same something, but we do know that Collins claims (a) as a fact and (b) as a fact. We cannot check (b) because it was a private meeting. But we can check (a) because it was a Senate hearing with a transcript.
So we could at least prove, one way or the other, whether half of Collins' claim - that which relates to what he said in the Senate being completely inconsistent with the Alito draft opinion - is true or false.
You have characterised Collins' "completely inconsistent" language as a denoting a Kavanaugh lie and you have been invited to prove it, from readily available public sources. If you can show Kavanaugh lied in the hearing, it is irrelevant to your claim of a lie whether Collins is correct about (b). You will have shown the lie if you can find it in the hearing transcript.
The notion that Kavanaugh lied to Collins and/or Murkowski is dependent upon believing what Collins and/or Murkowski say about their conversations with Kavanagh. Since both Collins and Murkowski are both borderline senile and remarkably stupid, I doubt seriously that they actually remember or understand the content of their respective conversations with Kavanaugh. That is, Kavanaugh could have (and almost certainly did) made statements to them about his respect for precedence, and he probably said that he would be unwilling flippantly to overturn long-standing precendents. Neither of these situations consist in a promise to protect one of the silliest and extra-constitutional Supreme Court decisions in America history.
More importantly, asking potential justices how they will rule on particular cases demonstrates an obvious ignorance of the character and function of judges generally and Supreme Court justices specifically. And, if you don't understand that, then you are part of the problem.
By coincidence, I have a remarkable series of photographs of a vole. It was indeed a questing vole, which I imagine was as confident in its judgments as you seem to be, but briefly surprised. By a snowy owl, which had it for dinner.
Even when reason seems to stand against it, the old rule cannot be entirely ignored: anything is possible, if it happens.
No, he didn't.
If he had said, "I will vote to uphold Roe," then that would have been a lie, assuming he didn't mean it and subsequently change his mind. But there is precisely zero chance that a competent - let alone experienced - judge like Kavanaugh would have ever made such a direct promise.
Nieporent —The lie alleged by Collins was said to have occurred in an office meeting. At that time a prospective vote count might well have alerted Kavanaugh that without her vote, his appointment would fail. That he might well have taken as a certainty. Collins had long maintained she could not support any candidate who would overturn Roe.
I get that your remark could reflect a judgment that Kavanaugh was smart enough to befuddle Collins, while keeping his sense of integrity intact with an ambiguous answer. My remark reflects a judgment that Kavanaugh's ambition was so desperate that he might have concluded for safety's sake, in private, an outright lie might be less risky than an attempted legal circumlocution.
After all, a judge as experienced as Kavanaugh could well anticipate what latitude sophisticated legal commenters such as yourself might grant.
The lie alleged by Collins was said to have occurred in an office meeting.
No. Read my reply to your earlier comment. Collins claims that the Alito opinion (with which Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are supposed to agree) is :
"completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office"
which means we don't need to know anything about what was said privately in her office. The transcript of the public hearings should be sufficient. So quote from the transcript what you imagine to be Gorsuch's and Kavanaugh's lies.
Lee Moore, which do you suppose is more likely, that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch said exactly, word for word, in the office what they said in public, or that there were variations in what they said?
I am not trying to argue that Kavanaugh lied, or did not lie. Here is exactly what I said in my first comment, "Absent that lie, if Collins is to be believed, . . ." At this point I am suspending judgment. You are not. And you do not know what Kavanaugh said in Collins' office. Why do you care so much?
which do you suppose is more likely, that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch said exactly, word for word, in the office what they said in public, or that there were variations in what they said?
As explained above, this is entirely irrelevant. Collins does not state that they (but let's stick to Kavanaugh) said exactly, word for word, the same thing in the office and in the Senate. She says that what Kavanaugh said in the Senate was "completely inconsistent" with the Alito opinion AND what Kavanaugh said in her office was "completely inconsistent" with the Alito opinion.
You have chosen to characterise her claim of "complete inconsistency" as a lie.
I am not trying to argue that Kavanaugh lied, or did not lie. Here is exactly what I said in my first comment, "Absent that lie, if Collins is to be believed, . . ."
Hopeless and diingenuous crawfishing. What you actually said was :
Kavanaugh lied about Roe to Susan Collins during his confirmation. Absent that lie, if Collins is to be believed, Kavanaugh would not have been confirmed.
ie not only have you clipped out your first sentence, which is a direct accusation that Kavanaugh lied, you have then feebly attempted, with your editing, to pretend that "if Collins is to be believed" refers to you being open minded about whether Collins correctly remembered the conversation with Kavanaugh. But filling in the missing part of your sentence shows clearly that what you were being open minded about was whether Collins would really have voted not to confirm Kavanaugh, unless he had made statements to her that you assert to be a lie.
At this point I am suspending judgment.
No, you are trying - hopelessly but amusingly - to get the toothpaste back in the tube. You do not want to go and look at the Senate transcript because you know perfecty well that you will not find there what you would like to find.
You are not.
Wrong again. I do not claim that Kavanaugh said nothing in the Senate hearings that is contradicted by the Alito opinion. I haven't looked, and don't plan to. You are the guy saying he lied. I'm telling you how to prove it, without having to speculate about what went on in a private meeting.
And you do not know what Kavanaugh said in Collins' office.
Correct. And as explained we do not need to know, if as Collins claimed (or as you paraphrase her) he lied in the Senate hearings. The evidence, if it exists, is out in the open.
Why do you care so much?
I don't care that much. I merely enjoy pointing out what a swamp of confusion your brain is.
It doesn’t look like Kavanaugh promised to reaffirm Roe v. Wade any more than Ruth Bader Ginsberg promised to reaffirm Bowers v. Hardwick. The answers acknowledge the precedent, acknowledge people feel strongly about it, but seem otherwise wuite evasive and non-commital. A contemporary report by Vox, no conservative organ, interpreted Kavanaugh’s answers as saying he hadn’t promised anything. And that seems a fair interpretation.
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/9/5/17822974/brett-kavanaugh-abortion-views-supreme-court-hearing
Once again, just because we feel really strongly about issues doesn’t give us a free pass to accuse people who disagree witj is of lying, bad character, etc. Nor does it give us a free pass to interpret things we’d normally interpret favorably unfavorably. I’ll say the same thing to you I said to Professor Blackman when he simply asserted out of thin air that Kavanaugh was likely to change his vote over the protests and the assassination attempt. Just because you don’t like Kavanaugh doesn’t give you the right to assert he lacks character.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg set the standard for evasive answers that give the questionner an impression the nominee is sympathetic to their views without actually committing to anything. Every Supreme Court nominee since, liberal or conservative, has done it. What Kavanaugh did here is pretty standard for Supreme Court nominees. I think an honest, fair, neutral assessment would see that. Nobody on the left castigates Ruth Bader Ginsberg for the sympathetic noises she made to mollify conservative Senators during her hearings. She even hinted that maybe Roe v. Wade had gone a bit too far. What Kavanaugh did was pretty much the same sort of thing.
Tell that to Senator Collins. She is the one who said publicly that Kavanaugh lied to her, in an office meeting, during the confirmation.
The draft Dobbs opinion goes into considerable detail to explain Alito’s view that it isn’t just that Roe was wrongly decided, there’s a lot more on top of it (never accepted by the country, unworkable, etc.)
Moreover, it sounds like 6 justices are inclined to sign on to a judgment in favor of Mississippi, not 5.
If what Kavanaugh said was that 5 judges thinking a precedent was wrongly decided isn’t [by itself] enough to overturn it, as Salon reported, he didn’t lie. Everything depends on the implied “by itself” in those brackets.
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/03/susan-collins-says-brett-kavanaugh-lied-to-her-about-abortion--but-josh-hawley-is-not-buying-it/
Collins did not use the term "lie."
Nieporent — My recollection was that she did use the word, on television, very shortly after the Alito draft was announced, and that I saw and heard her say it.
Because I found quoted text in which she did not use the word, and cannot find a clip of what I remember seeing, I supplied the text.
I am suspending judgment. I continue to entertain that memory mainly because I remember the TV sound bite as being shorter than the quoted text. I was surprised at how short and abrupt it was, and without follow-up. It seemed weird when I saw it. I cannot rule out that my memory is playing tricks.
I do not approve of residential picketing, although I don't think it should be illegal. I do not approve of using violence and intimidation as political tactics, and I sure as hell don't approve of assassinating Supreme Court justices. All of this is making me sick to my stomach.
That said, what, precisely, were conservatives expecting after pulling that little stunt of confirming ACB within a few weeks while denying Merrick Garland a hearing with a year still to go in Obama's second term? That the left would meekly accept it as decades of what had been settled rights were rolled back? This was entirely predictable. Institutional democratic norms exist for a reason and this is what happens when they get blown up.
And here's the real problem with taking and keeping power through stunts and anti-democratic institutions: It's one thing to lose fair and square; most people can accept that. But when you lose because the rules themselves are unfair and the other side pulls stunts, that can't help but produce rage. This is going to get worse before it gets better.
"That said, what, precisely, were conservatives expecting after pulling that little stunt of confirming ACB within a few weeks while denying Merrick Garland a hearing with a year still to go in Obama's second term?"
What did progs expect when they illegally change voting laws and "enhance" an election?
"That the left would meekly accept it as decades of what had been settled rights were rolled back?"
It's a normal action of the Democrats. Didn't take Brown v Board of Education very well, either.
"And here's the real problem with taking and keeping power through stunts and anti-democratic institutions: It's one thing to lose fair and square; most people can accept that. But when you lose because the rules themselves are unfair and the other side pulls stunts, that can't help but produce rage. This is going to get worse before it gets better."
Remember this when the GOP gets Congress. Democrats won't like having their members disqualified from serving on committees, but c'est la vie.
You do realize that a majority of the Supreme Court justices that decided Brown v. Board of Education were Democrats, right?
And that just because Trump tells you that voting laws were illegally changed doesn't make it so, especially when the judges that looked at it (including some Republicans) found no evidence of it? If Trump told you that the universe was birthed by pink unicorns, would you believe that too?
Immaterial. The people who griped and bitched about it were exclusively Democrats.
"And that just because Trump tells you that voting laws were illegally changed doesn't make it so"
PA Supreme Court said it happened in PA. As does a basic reading of the state constitution.
"especially when the judges that looked at it (including some Republicans) found no evidence of it?"
The ones that simply decided to not rule one way or the other? Solid case made.
"If Trump told you that the universe was birthed by pink unicorns, would you believe that too?"
No. If Democrats said it was not, though, I'd have serious doubts.
Assuming that to be true (and it's not; Barry Goldwater didn't like that decision either), how are policies the Democrats abandoned 50 years ago relevant to anything today?
The 2020 election received exhaustive scrutiny from judges, journalists, and government officials. Time after time, the GOP's own investigators found no evidence of voter fraud. Extending voting hours because of Covid was the right thing to do. Dude, Biden won fair and square. Get over it.
Democrats have not changed their views that darker skinned folks are inherently inferior. They have doubled down on that if anything.
Biden is an illegitimate President. And the dumbest man to hold the office to boot. And the least competent by a healthy margin as well.
And you, sir, could equally as well believe in pink unicorns, leprechauns, or mermaids. Good day to you.
" I do not approve of using violence and intimidation as political tactics"
Agreed on violence, but you're using the tactic of conflating "intimidation" (or as often seen "harassment") with expressing disapproval/criticism.
I'm fine with disapproval, even harsh disapproval. What I meant by intimidation was thinly veiled (or maybe not so thinly veiled) threats. Is there another word you think I should have used instead?
what, precisely, were conservatives expecting after pulling that little stunt of confirming ACB within a few weeks while denying Merrick Garland a hearing with a year still to go in Obama's second term?
They were thinking that when the Presidency and the Senate, whose agreement on a nominee is required for a judicial appointment to go through, are in opposite hands politically, each will act in its politically best interests. So they would expect a Democrat Senate with a Republican President, to perform the selfsame manoevering.
It is not, after all, as if Party D has always nodded through Party R nominations out of deference to the President. Prior to the vacancy arising on Scalia's death. the Ds had successfully rejected Bork, come within a couple of votes of defeating Thomas, and produced 22 votes against Roberts, ushering in (if we ignore the previous D reaction to Rehnquist, Bork and Thomas) the modern period of substantial opposition voting against a SCOTUS nominee. Then 42 "No" votes were then awarded to Alito, plus an attempted filibuster. Only after that, with Sotomayor and Kagan, did any D nominee get any substantial opposition (and still less than Alito or any subsequent R nominee.)
I think you just need to accept that the Ds have kicked the Rs just as hard, and probably harder, than the Rs have kicked the Ds, that there was nothing particularly shocking about the Garland-Gorsuch, and Barrett manoevering, that precisely the same thing would have happened the other way round, and that from now on you just have to accept that the two political branches will act in what appears to them to be in their best interests, within the rules.
The overexcitement about Garland, on the left, derives from thwarted delight at getting control of SCOTUS, followed by shock and horror at Trump beating Clinton, exacerbated by complete blindness to the "norm" injuries ther side inflicted on the Rs, prior to Garland.
Democrats have opposed specific nominees they thought were too extreme. But they gave Reagan a Supreme Court appointment in his last year,
They confirmed Kennedy in 1988, but the vacancy arose in June 1987. And in the meantime they had :
(1) borked and voted down Reagan's first choice. And after his second choice withdrew,
(2) they stated that if Reagan's next nominee was unacceptable to Senate Democrats, they would refuse hearings for any candidate until after the 1988 presidential election - ie a clear threat to garland unless they were sent a squish.
Hence we finished up with a famous squish called Kennedy.
So the vacancy was not a "last year" vacancy, and they threatened a conditional garland anyway ! Even your attempted counter-example turns out to be an Ur-example of the Dems playing hardball 🙂
Like I said, they rejected an extremist nominee. They did not announce that they would flatly refuse to consider anyone Reagan nominated.
"Liberal jurists are feted with honors at every juncture. But conservative jurists are excoriated and personally attacked"
What a ridiculous statement. You're obviously blinded by partisan bias so extreme you're starting to inhabit the alternate reality where you'll soon start thinking 'You know those QAnon guys are making a lot of sense...'
Liberal jurists are feted by liberals, conservative jurists are feted by conservatives (although there's *far* more internal dissent between liberals and progressives than conservatives). Conservative jurists are personally attacked by liberals, liberal jurists are personally attacked by conservatives. What kind of intellectually dishonest hack who follows SCOTUS as closely as you do could have missed the endless personal attacks from conservatives on Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation? You think her and the current liberal Justices don't get death threats?
It's also remarkably naïve to think the same crap won't continue the next time the Court does something as wildly unpopular if he doesn't change his mind.
Give me a break. Yet another article by Blackman not worthy of this site.
"endless personal attacks from conservatives on Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation?"
Kavanaugh accused of gang raping girls in high school.
Brown Jackson had her rulings questioned.
Yup, same thing. Really.
So you're equating Kavanaugh's treatment with Jackson's? You're nuts
Hmmmm...
whine /(h)wīn/
noun
a long, high-pitched complaining cry.
"the law professor gave a small whine"
a complaining tone of voice.
"there was a hint of a whine in Josh's voice"
a feeble or petulant complaint.
"a constant whine about the quality of public service"
verb
give or make a long, high-pitched complaining cry or sound.
"the law professor whined and scratched at the back door"
complain in a feeble or petulant way.
"the law professor whined about the increased work"
Origin:
Old English hwīnan ‘whistle through the air’, related to whinge. The noun dates from the mid 17th century.
"Indeed, I can't fathom why anyone would want to serve on the Supreme Court." Hahahahah. Power? Immortality?
The mistake with Kav is he wanted to live with the left-wing commies in suburban DC. He should sell his house and move to a more rural location with plenty of acres of land between his house and the road. And if anyone goes on his property give them one warning then shoot them....killing a few wokie nyc bolshie types will send a message and they won't go on his property again.
"Did you see the dress she was wearing?" seems like a poor take to me.
As a veteran and volunteer firefighter who has been shot at in service to the oath of this country I would welcome the opportunity to put myself in jeopardy to face the bully. They will never stop until somebody stands up. Take a risk for once, many people do every day to keep you safe.
In many states, doing so will get you in trouble.
...so it is best to kill your opponents and not keep them alive.
As you can see from my screen name, I am concerned with some #MeToo issues.
There is a Stanford Professor, Michele Dauber, who ran the campaign against Stanford student Brock Turner and who is lately in the news for being fanatically anti-Johnny Depp on Twitter. She has promoted false narratives about many #MeToo issues.
Suspecting she was advising Christine Blasey Ford - I was not pro- Kavanaugh, just against false narratives to support #MeToo - I investigated Christine Blasey Ford - she lives about 30 miles from me.
1 She lied about moving 4 times to avoid harassment and threats - she did not move once - still lives on the same street with a Scottish name in Palo Alto -
2. She said she would give away her GoFundMe donations after she was criticized for taking them, when as a rich woman (house valued at $4.3M, beach house at $1.1M) she did not need them. She said she would post to the GFM to tell which charity she gave to - that was in November 2018 - no word so far - I think she will soon close the GFM page, but take a look now, please.
3. She said she added a door to her house as an escape route because of Kavanaugh incident trauma - but in fact, she added it to rent the place as a therapist office - I went to the house - she had a stone path and gate on the way to added door - both not needed for an escape route.
So, my take on her is she saw Peter Strzok get $450K in a GFM, and figured she could take in more with the underlying abortion issue , and she was right. Mostly just a way to get some bucks, in my view.
The paradox you state is true. I understand there is a specific law prohibiting this type of protest at a residence to intimidate a SCOTUS justice.
Enforce the damn law. These protestors appear to be above the law whereas J6 protestors are below the law. Just enforce the damn law.
I'm against Roe but I really don't have a problem with residential picketing. If you want to run the country/state/city/school district, that's what you sign yourself up for. It might be distasteful but it's constitutionally protected and the cases holding otherwise are letting "icky" get in the way of sound jurisprudence.
So, what you mean is that it isn't constitutionally protected but you think it should be.
Maybe this is all a false flag operation to back Kavanaugh into a corner where he can't change his mind without looking weak.
>On Tuesday, [Name Deleted] traveled to Justice Kavanaugh's house with the same purpose.
I thought the consensus nowadays is that we don't give these kind of crazies publicity.
Josh, you appear to be saying something not true or not known to be true:
"In February, he joined Justice Alito's majority opinion. And Politico suggested that in early May, Kavanaugh was still with the majority. "
The leaks on the Five were about the conference vote only. Once the draft goes out Feb 10th, all we know is that the initial votes from December are not changed through perhaps first week of May. That does not mean Kavanaugh supports the Alito draft. It means the draft caused radio silence. I wish you would make clear what you are assuming versus telling everyone about Kavanaugh as a fact. See here:
http://www.law-politics.com/Journals/blog/2022/05/14/the-conservative-blabbermouth/
"Liberal jurists are feted with honors at every juncture. But conservative jurists are excoriated and personally attacked. " To quote someone: "Oh, boo ****ing hoo!"
Talk to some "liberal jurists", and some retired ones. Ask 'em about their "fan mail".