A Photo That Needs No Words

Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

This Reporter Gets It

Kimberly Strassel is a journalist and member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board. Unlike many in her profession, she is a conservative. Moreover, she has been steadfast in her support of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and has been very vocal about it on Twitter.

Yesterday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (RINO-AK) broke with her Republican colleagues and voted against invoking cloture on the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. While saying that Kavanaugh was a good man she said he was not the right man for the Supreme Court "at this time".

Strassel, in a pair of tweets, points out what Murkowski is really standing for.


<

2)
--to abandon due process and presumption of innocence.
--to potentially leave High Court at a 4-4 deadlock, putting the loony 9th circuit in control of everything that matters to Alaska--development, prop rights, gun rights, enviro rules, etc.
Quite the statement.

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) October 5, 2018

Cloture Invoked On Kavanaugh Nomination

The Senate voted 51-49 to invoke cloture on debate regarding the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. This means that a final vote can be taken as early as Saturday afternoon. Cloture was invoked at 10:36am EDT which started the 30 hour clock on debate. If the Democrats relinquish the floor at anytime during that 30 hour period, the final vote can be called.

The only Democrat to vote for cloture was Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) while the only Republican to vote against it was Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Manchin is up for re-election this year while Murkowski doesn't have to face Alaska voters until 2022. President Trump won both states in the 2016 election.

If this vote holds without any more Republican defections, then Judge Kavanaugh will become Justice Kavanaugh. The one wrinkle in this right now is Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) who plans to be out of town on Saturday to attend his daughter's wedding. Too bad she didn't have a June wedding!

The ayes and nays are below:

Grouped By Vote Position 

YEAs ---51

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Capito (R-WV)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Gardner (R-CO)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)

NAYs ---49

Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harris (D-CA)
Hassan (D-NH)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Hirono (D-HI)
Jones (D-AL)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Markey (D-MA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Smith (D-MN)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Will Kavanaugh Be Found Unmutual?

I saw this posted this morning on MeWe by Kevin Z. Williamson. The more I watched it, the more I thought The Prisoner was way ahead of its time and that it was a preview of what we might see today from certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Will Judge Kavanaugh be found to be disharmonious? Will he be deemed unmutual? Will DiFi remember to wear her top hat and stripes?

Ford's Prepared Testimony Before The Senate Judiciary Committee

Earlier today I published the prepared testimony of Judge Brett Kavanaugh which contained his unequivocal denial of participating in any and all sexual assaults. Needless to say, I believe him.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's attorney has now posted her prepared testimony which is scheduled to be delivered before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow. If this were the court of law instead of the court of public opinion, this case would never have even gotten to trial. As it is, this was meant to be the Democrat's bombshell revelation that would take down a good man and destroy his chances of serving on the Supreme Court. I imagine it was also intended to force him to step down from his position as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I think it will fail as well it should.

Dr. Ford Written Testimony by on Scribd

Judge Kavanaugh's Prepared Statement For Thursday's Senate Hearing

Judge Brett Kavanaugh's prepared testimony for his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee has been released. In it, he addresses the charges by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that he sexually attacked her at a party 36 years ago. He categorically denies it.

It is a strong statement but I wish he might have taken the approach of Justice Clarence Thomas and called it for what it is - bullshit. However, Kavanaugh is a more measured, judicious, and temperate person than I am which is why he's a judge and I'm not.

As posted at The Atlantic:

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Members of the Committee:

Eleven days ago, Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing a serious wrong more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, unequivocally, and categorically. The next day, I told this Committee that I wanted to testify as soon as possible, under oath, to clear my name.

Over the past few days, other false and uncorroborated accusations have been aired. There has been a frenzy to come up with something—anything, no matter how far-fetched or odious—that will block a vote on my nomination. These are last-minute smears, pure and simple. They debase our public discourse. And the consequences extend beyond any one nomination. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country.

As I told this Committee the last time I appeared before you, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I am and will always be. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. This effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. I am here this morning to answer these allegations and to tell the truth. And the truth is that I have never sexually assaulted anyone—not in high school, not in college, not ever.

Sexual assault is horrific. It is morally wrong. It is illegal. It is contrary to my religious faith. And it contradicts the core promise of this Nation that all people are created equal and entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. Allegations of sexual assault must be taken seriously. Those who make allegations deserve to be heard. The subject of allegations also deserves to be heard. Due process is a foundation of the American rule of law.

Dr. Ford’s allegation dates back more than 36 years, to a party that she says occurred during our time in high school. I spent most of my time in high school focused on academics, sports, church, and service. But I was not perfect in those days, just as I am not perfect today. I drank beer with my friends, usually on weekends. Sometimes I had too many. In retrospect, I said and did things in high school that make me cringe now. But that’s not why we are here today. What I’ve been accused of is far more serious than juvenile misbehavior. I never did anything remotely resembling what Dr. Ford describes.

The allegation of misconduct is completely inconsistent with the rest of my life. The record of my life, from my days in grade school through the present day, shows that I have always promoted the equality and dignity of women.

I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me by Dr. Ford. I never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind with Dr. Ford. I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in some place at some time. But I have never done that to her or to anyone. I am innocent of this charge.

The Committee Vote Is Friday

September 25, 2018

 

RESCHEDULED NOTICE OF COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING

 

        The Executive Business Meeting originally scheduled by the Committee on the Judiciary for Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building has been rescheduled for Friday, September 28 at 9:30 a.m.

 

        By order of the Chairman.

I. Nominees

Brett M. Kavanaugh, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Jonathan A. Kobes, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit

 

Kenneth D. Bell, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina

Stephanie A. Gallagher, to be United States District Judge for the District of Maryland

Mary S. McElroy, to be United States District Judge for the District of Rhode Island

Carl J. Nichols, to be United States District Judge for the District of Columbia

 

John M. O'Connor, to be United States District Judge for the Northern, Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma

 

Martha Maria Pacold, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois

 

Mary M. Rowland, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois

 

Steven C. Seeger, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois

II. Bills

S.2785, DETER Act (Durbin, Graham, Blumenthal, Cruz)

S. 3178, Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018 (Harris, Scott, Feinstein, Leahy, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker)   

Grassley Statement On Kavanaugh's Accuser (Updated)

Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a statement today regarding Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and her allegations of an attack by Judge Brett Kavanaugh while they were teenagers. The statement below does a good job at being respectful to Ford, calling out Dianne Feinstein and the Democrats, and nailing those in the media who leaked Ford's name. Grassley has always championed whistle blowers and he brings that credibility to this statement.

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley issued the following statement regarding the nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

“Anyone who comes forward as Dr. Ford has deserves to be heard, so I will continue working on a way to hear her out in an appropriate, precedented and respectful manner.

“The standard procedure for updates to any nominee’s background investigation file is to conduct separate follow-up calls with relevant parties. In this case, that would entail phone calls with at least Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford. Consistent with that practice, I asked Senator Feinstein’s office yesterday to join me in scheduling these follow-ups. Thus far, they have refused. But as a necessary step in evaluating these claims, I’ll continue working to set them up.

“Unfortunately, committee Republicans have only known this person's identity from news reports for less than 24 hours and known about her allegations for less than a week. Senator Feinstein, on the other hand, has had this information for many weeks and deprived her colleagues of the information necessary to do our jobs. The Minority withheld even the anonymous allegations for six weeks, only to later decide that they were serious enough to investigate on the eve of the committee vote, after the vetting process had been completed.

“It’s deeply disturbing that the existence of these allegations were leaked in a way that seemed to preclude Dr. Ford’s confidentiality.

“Over my nearly four decades in the Senate I have worked diligently to protect whistleblowers and get to the bottom of any issue. Dr. Ford’s attorney could have approached my office, while keeping her client confidential and anonymous, so that these allegations could be thoroughly investigated. Nevertheless, we are working diligently to get to the bottom of these claims.”

UPDATE: A special meeting is scheduled for Monday and both Ford and Kavanaugh will appear.

Judiciary Committee to Hear from Kavanaugh, Ford in Public Hearing

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today announced that the Committee will hold a public hearing with Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

“As I said earlier, anyone who comes forward as Dr. Ford has done deserves to be heard. My staff has reached out to Dr. Ford to hear her account, and they held a follow-up call with Judge Kavanaugh this afternoon. Unfortunately, committee Democrats have refused to join us in this effort. However, to provide ample transparency, we will hold a public hearing Monday to give these recent allegations a full airing,” Grassley said.

Below is the official notice for Monday’s hearing.

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue Monday, September 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. By order of the Chairman.

A New Word For The Political Lexicon - Feinsteined

Ari Fleischer, former press secretary for Pres. George W. Bush, has come up with a new word for the political lexicon. It is Feinsteined. This is when an anonymous letter from an anonymous source with an unknown allegation is supposedly sent to the FBI in an effort to derail the nomination of a judicial candidate. In this case, the nominee is Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the allegations may or may not be something non-sexual he did at a party with a girl when he and she were 17 years old.

First came getting “Borked.” Now there is getting “Feinsteined.” A secret source. An unknown allegation (from high school) and an FBI referral. This isn’t advice and consent. It’s attack and burn. https://t.co/YKWlox1klo

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) September 14, 2018

In the interest of full disclosure, I may or may not have gotten drunk at a New Year's Eve party when I was 17 and may or may not have kissed a girl at the stroke of midnight who was another guy's girlfriend and may or may not have gotten in trouble with my mom for coming home drunk from a party.

Tweet Of The Day

The tweet of the day comes from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) who just nails Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) over his attempted "I am Spartacus" moment yesterday.

For those who may have missed it, Booker ostensibly released an email from Judge Brett Kavanaugh that was marked "committee confidential" in what he wanted to be a gotcha moment. When he released it Booker said he would be violating Senate rules by doing so. What he failed to say and what we later found out is that the email was no longer classified committee confidential and Booker knew it. Oh, and by the way, the email showed Kavanaugh arguing against racial profiling post 9-11.

On this day in 71B.C. the Thracian gladiator Spartacus was put to death by Marcus Licinius Crassus for disclosing confidential scrolls. When informed days later that in fact the Roman Senate had already publicly released the scrolls, Crassus replied “Oh, ok, my bad”.

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) September 7, 2018

Quote Of The Day From Ben Stein

I like Ben Stein. I don't think any actor could have done his deadpan teacher in Ferris Buehler's Day Off any better. Sometimes his politics are a bit too country club Republican for my tastes but I can live with that. That said, I found his take on a couple of the Democrats questioning Judge Brett Kavanaugh absolutely spot on.

In an article for The American Spectator entitled, "What Mazie Doesn’t Know", he wrote on Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris:

Anyway, Judah Friedman and I drove around in his car, a gleaming Mazda 6, and listened to the torture of Judge Kavanaugh by some asinine nitwit named Mazie Hirono, a Senator from Hawaii. God help us. Book her, Danno. Somehow, she attacked Mr. Kavanaugh so violently she made me want to vomit. My guess is that she’s so INCREDIBLY stupid that she thought he was suddenly going to throw his hands in the air and say, “Senator, you nailed me. I was a concentration camp guard at Belsen. I surrender.”

Thirty minutes later, a true nitwit, our California Senator, Kamala Harris, started doing her Tom Cruise imitation trying to make Kavanaugh “confess” to having said the words “Mueller” and “investigation” to some unknown someone last year. She obviously thought she was just a spectacular courtroom bully. In fact, she was a pitiful little weasel.

And meanwhile, every few minutes some psycho in the audience gets up and starts cursing at Kavanaugh and the GOP. It’s really sad. What a bunch of losers the leftists and their pals in the audience are. They’re not going to get anything on Kavanaugh. There’s nothing to get. He’s a mega genius jurist who will make a superb High Court justice.

Stein is right. Kavanaugh will make a superb Supreme Court Justice and the Democrats on the committee know they can't do a damn thing to stop him. I do like his characterization of Willie Brown's ex-girlfriend as "a pitiful little weasel." 

Panen Et Circenses

After the first day of the confirmation hearings on Brett Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court, I imagine this might be how the conversation around the Kavanaugh's dinner table goes.



Dad (Brett):  Well girls, you got to attend daddy's confirmation hearing this morning. What did you think?

Liza:  I hated it. There were all those rude people jumping up and down hollering.

Dad:  Those were just the Democrats on the committee play acting for the TV cameras.

Liza:  No, I mean those people in the back of the room.

Dad:  Honey, they were sad, sad people who think my being on the Supreme Court is the end of the world.

Liza: But Dad, you've been a judge for years and the world hasn't ended.

Margaret:  I think they are just losers!

Mom (Ashley):  Honey, you know we don't speak about people that way. If we thought about people like that do you think your Dad and I would volunteer to feed the homeless at the soup kitchen?

Margaret:  Noooo. But who let them in?

Dad:  Everyone in the audience had a ticket which they got from the Senators on the Judiciary Committee.

Margaret:  Didn't the Senators know they were going to act up?

Dad:  Of course they did, sweetie. They wanted them to act up so it would play on TV news.

Liza:  What about that bald guy with glasses who charged at you with his hand out?

Dad:  I found out he was Mr. Guttenberg. He wanted a photo op.

Liza:  The guy who did the Bible?

Dad:  No, Liza. This Mr. Guttenberg lost his daughter when that deranged boy went on the killing spree down in that Florida high school. He blames the gun and not the people who ignored the boy's threats and cries for help. People like the FBI and the school system.

Liza:  That's crazy.

Dad:  I agree that it seems crazy. However, you have to understand that sometimes when people lose a child they have a hard time dealing with their grief. Some people channel that grief and put it towards a solution so it never happens again and some like Mr. Guttenberg just want to blame an object.

Margaret:  Dad, what I don't understand is why the Democrat Senators were acting up and also why they wanted those crazy people to yell at you?

Dad:  You've started to read about the Romans in your history class, haven't you?

Margaret:  Yeah.

Dad:  The Roman emperors used to put on pageants called circuses where they had lions and gladiators and Christians. It wasn't pretty. They'd set the lions on the Christians and the gladiators were trained to kill one another. It got pretty gory.

Liza/Margaret (simultaneously):  Ewwww.

Dad:  I agree. These Roman emperors thought these circuses would entertain "the people". In exchange, so long as they were entertained and also got fed the emperor stayed in power. It is called bread and circuses. Politicians nowadays don't actually set lions on Christians but they do promise them everything but the moon and hold hearings like my confirmation hearing. They do it to placate their supporters who they think are stupid enough to believe it.

Margaret:  Nobody's that stupid!

Dad:  Unfortunately, honey there are some people that are.

Liza:  Do you have to go back tomorrow?

Dad:  Yes and then two more days after that.

Liza:  Yuck.

Mom:  I agree, yuck, and now with that I'm changing the subject (mumbling - even though Cory Booker and Kamala Harris need a good west Texas horse whipping)

Liza/Margaret:  Mom!

Dad:  Yes, dear.

Tidbit From Judge Kavanaugh's Questionnaire

All nominees for Federal judicial nominations submit answers to a standardized questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee. The questionnaire has answers to questions regarding everything from date of birth and education to significant cases in which the nominee participated.

The questionnaire for Judge Brett Kavanaugh has been received by the Senate Judiciary Committee is now online. Scanning through it I found this tidbit. Question 13 (i) asks the nominee to provide citations to significant opinions that he or she authored on federal or state constitutional issues.

Number one on Judge Kavanaugh's list is his dissent in Heller II (Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Circuit, 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). These citations are not listed in chronological order which would seem to indicate that Judge Kavanaugh considers this dissent one of his most important opinions.

I like that and it speaks well to where he stands on the Second Amendment. It gives me hope that future Second Amendment cases might just get a hearing once Judge Kavanaugh becomes Justice Kavanaugh.

Email Subject Line Of The Day

You have to hand it to the gun prohibitionists. Those that don't have Mike Bloomberg's money at their disposal will find any reason to ask for money. This is especially true of that cult of personality known as Giffords.

Here is the subject line of their latest email missive asking for money.

Gabby and Mark need you to rush an emergency donation to help us stop Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. Let me explain why this request is so important.

Don't wait. Don't think about it. Send money now. Operators are standing by. A donation of only $3 will feed a starving prohibitionist for a day. Wait, I think I'm getting these pleas for donations confused a bit.

The email goes on to promise, "We are no doubt going to send a number of emails about Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination." At least that is honest of  their Executive Director Peter Ambler to acknowledge that this just the first in a series of emails. Having been on their mailing list for a few years, I can assure you that each and every one of them will have some "ask" for a donation or to sign up on their mailing list.

GOA Supports Kavanaugh Nomination

This is one endorsement from a gun right group I didn't see yesterday morning. It is from Gun Owners of America. There endorsement is a bit more tempered than that of the NRA or SAF. In my opinion, it is like that of some of us in the gun rights community or that of social conservatives. We had favorites other than Kavanaugh but can live with him as he will help solidify the conservative majority on the Supreme court.

From GOA:

Erich Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA), issued the following statement on Pres. Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court:

“Gun Owners of America is optimistic that Judge Brett Kavanaugh will be a huge improvement over the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy on many constitutional issues, including the Second Amendment.

“Initial reports suggest that Judge Kavanaugh deeply respects the Second Amendment, even though he was not the strongest of the finalists.

“Nevertheless, Judge Kavanaugh filed a pro-gun dissent in Heller II, arguing that Washington, DC’s ban on semi-automatic firearms was arbitrary and unlawful.

“In fact, his dissent was so well argued that GOA’s subsequent legal briefs have repeatedly held up his dissent as the model to follow.

“In another case, Kavanaugh correctly interpreted the Firearm Owners Protection Act to find that a defendant could not be sentenced to 30 years in prison for use of a fully-automatic firearm if he was unaware that the gun fired automatically.

“Kavanaugh also supported the prevailing opinion in the Citizens United case, which affirmed GOA’s voice in the political arena.

“GOA hopes that the Senate will confirm Kavanaugh — and that the Supreme Court will take up more Second Amendment cases, thus repealing the onerous and unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms that exist throughout the country.”

And Now The Reactions From The Prohibitionists, Part 3

Let it not be said that the cult of personality known as Giffords would be left out of making their opposition to Judge Brett Kavanugh known. While I may have serious doubts that Ms. Giffords actually wrote her piece in opposition, it does go out over her name.

From Giffords and Giffords Law Center:

July 9, 2018 — Giffords, the gun safety organization founded by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and Captain Mark Kelly, released the following statements after the announcement of President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court following the retiring of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Former Representative Gabrielle Giffords:

“In nominating Judge Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice, the Trump Administration is once again showing brazen disregard for the people it claims to protect. Judge Kavanaugh’s dangerous views on the Second Amendment are far outside the mainstream of even conservative thought and stand in direct opposition to the values and priorities of the vast majority of Americans. America needs a Supreme Court justice who respects the Second Amendment but who also realizes reasonable regulations that reduce gun violence do not infringe on anyone’s constitutional rights. But that’s not the kind of justice President Trump nominated today.

“America’s gun violence epidemic weighs daily on the minds of so many families in our country. Parents live in fear of hearing their children describe to them what it’s like to go through an active shooter drill. Too many people in communities across the country live in fear of being shot in their neighborhoods. In states across the country, students and voters have been speaking up, taking to statehouses, and demanding that lawmakers pass effective gun safety legislation. Their advocacy is delivering results: just since the massacre in Parkland, more than 50 gun safety bills have passed in 26 states. Should the Senate confirm the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, we have every indication to believe that he will prioritize an agenda backed by the gun lobby, putting corporate interests before public safety. Make no mistake, the progress we’ve achieved passing firearm laws that save lives every day will be in serious danger.”

Hannah Shearer, Staff Attorney and Second Amendment Litigation Director at Giffords Law Center

“Judge Kavanaugh has expressed a dangerous hostility toward reasonable gun regulations and made clear he believes the government’s power to address gun violence is extremely limited. Judge Kavanaugh rejects the idea that courts should consider public safety when judging gun cases and would strike down bedrock gun laws like those that restrict civilian use of the dangerous, military-style weapons regularly used in mass shootings.

“Even Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative Supreme Court justices in modern history, endorsed reasonable firearm regulations like the ones Judge Kavanaugh would strike down. Judge Kavanaugh’s positions on the Second Amendment are outliers far outside the mainstream, and confirming him to the Supreme Court could negatively impact efforts to fight gun violence for many years to come. The notion of Judge Kavanaugh serving on our nation’s highest judicial bench should worry Americans who care about the safety of their families and communities. Now is the time for them to speak up and demand a nominee who will respect centuries of American legal tradition, recognize that gun rights have always gone hand-in-hand with responsible regulations, and put the life and liberty of all Americans ahead of the interests of the gun lobby.”

Since District of Columbia v. Heller was decided by the Supreme Court ten years ago, the lower courts have overwhelmingly upheld reasonable gun safety laws more moderate than the handgun ban Heller invalidated. The United States Supreme Court has not granted review in a significant Second Amendment case since Heller and its companion case, McDonald, and they have denied review in more than 80 cases. The confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh could mean that the Supreme Court intervenes more in these lower-court cases and overturns decisions that have consistently protected public safety.

In the near future, the Supreme Court may have the opportunity to rule on a variety of Second Amendment issues that are pending in the lower courts. For example, a series of NRA-backed lawsuits were filed this spring to challenge strong concealed carry permitting laws in New Jersey, Maryland, and New York. The NRA has also filed or supported a number of suits challenging critical gun safety measures adopted after the Parkland massacre, including laws that restrict access to the large capacity magazines used in Parkland and other mass shootings. Any one of these cases could be the next major Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court, with critical implications for public safety.

Frankly, I do hope Hannah Shearer is correct in her assumption that the Supreme Court might finally start hearing Second Amendment cases. Their failure to do so merely has encouraged judges in lower courts who disagreed with Heller to ignore that opinion and to use the Supreme Court as a doormat.

And Now The Reactions From The Prohibitionists, Part 2

The Brady Campaign wasted no time in signalling their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh. I'm sure like the opponents marching on the steps of the Supreme Court last night, they had pre-printed press releases with the names Hardiman, Kethledge, and Barrett inserted in them.

From the Brady Campaign:

Washington, D.C., July 9, 2018 - This evening, President Trump announced his nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, replacing retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. The Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence expressed serious apprehension over the nomination, citing Judge Kavanaugh’s previous hostility to common-sense gun safety laws.

Brady Campaign co-president Avery Gardiner:

“We don’t have to guess when it comes to Judge Kavanaugh’s track record on gun laws - he’s made it quite clear where he stands. And for a president who took more than $30 million from the NRA, Judge Kavanaugh is a perfect fit. This is a judge who sees no difference between assault weapons and handguns, and who has stated that there is no judicial role when it comes to regulating gun ownership. We call on Judge Kavanaugh to tell the American people clearly and plainly how he interprets the Second Amendment. If he is as hostile to gun laws as he appears to be, then we will fight this nomination tooth and nail.”

Brady Campaign co-president Kris Brown:

“The NRA paid good money to get this nomination, and make no mistake - they’re popping champagne as we speak. Wayne LaPierre called this no less than the ‘ultimate prize,’ and we can all expect the gun lobby to outspend the million dollars they spent during the last Supreme Court nomination to push for Judge Kavanaugh. We at Brady are not going to let that happen without a fight, and without demanding a rigorous and exacting standard of questioning for Judge Kavanaugh about his judicial record. Brady has been at the frontlines of the legal battles for gun safety for nearly three decades, and we will press forward with this important fight in the weeks, months, and years to come.”

Brady VP of Litigation Jonathan Lowy:

“Judge Kavanaugh must tell the American public whether he will protect their most important right — the right to be safe from gun violence — or whether he will cater to the gun lobby’s agenda to let virtually anyone carry any gun, any time, anywhere. At the end of the day, it’s a simple question. Do you believe that the right to guns overrides the right to be safe from being shot? If the answer is yes, you simply aren’t fit for a lifetime appointment to America’s highest court.”

BACKGROUND

Judge Brett Kavanaugh has a history of opposition to common-sense measures to promote gun safety.

• In Heller v. District of Columbia (note: this is a different case than the landmark Supreme Court decision in 2008), Judge Kavanaugh dissented from the panel opinion that upheld a city law banning possession of semi-automatic rifles and requiring registration of all guns. In his dissent, Kavanaugh wrote that “there is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles.” Kavanaugh further wrote that “semi-automatic rifles have traditionally not been banned and are in common use today, and are thus protected” by the Second Amendment. This would run counter to what numerous federal courts have ruled, placing the viewpoint far outside the mainstream legal opinion.
• The dissent also read that there is an “absence of a role for judicial interest balancing or assessment of costs and benefits of gun regulation,” indicating that Kavanaugh would potentially rule against any sort of common sense gun safety laws.
• Of the panel of three Republican-appointed judges, Kavanaugh was the only one to dissent and argue that the assault weapon ban is unconstitutional. The Brady Center also recently published a report on the 10-year anniversary of the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court case. 

The report:

• Discusses the reality of what Heller does and does not allow, including that there are clear and valid reasons for certain firearms, such as assault weapons, to be banned from personal use and possession;
• Explores the ongoing position, held by Brady and which numerous courts have agreed with, that the Heller decision can coexist with reasonable gun measures and laws; and
• Examines key developments over the past ten years, over which approximately 1,200 Second Amendment challenges have been considered by state and federal courts. Many of the disputes have focused on common-sense gun laws regarding public carry, assault weapons and large capacity magazine bans, prohibited purchasers and background checks, and gun safety regulations. In over 90% of these cases, the courts have sided with Brady’s interpretation of Heller. Notably, the Supreme Court has only agreed to hear one major Second Amendment case in the decade since Heller; a Court featuring Kavanaugh could choose to hear many more cases in the near future.

Jonathan Lowy knows that the US Constitution does not include a "right to be safe from gun violence (sic)" nor does it explicitly include a right to privacy. It does, however, have the enumerated individual right to keep and bear arms. Hmm.

They are correct that the Supreme Court might finally agree to hear cases in the future involving the Second Amendment. Since McDonald, with the exception of Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court has not heard a Second Amendment challenge and Caetano didn't involve firearms but rather stun guns.

Just because courts have misconstrued and ignored Heller and McDonald doesn't mean they are right. That is akin to saying in 1910, 90% of white southerners thought segregation was correct. It wasn't.

Finally, and I find this amusing, in the clearest indication that the Brady Campaign is not sharing in the largesse of Michael Bloomberg, they have resorted to promoting high priced lipstick as a means of fund raising.

And Now The Reactions From The Prohibitionists, Part 1

Just as sure as the sun comes up in the East, so too is the opposition by the gun prohibitionists to anyone that President Trump might have picked to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. It wouldn't have mattered if it was a DC insider like Kavanaugh or an outsider like Hardiman or Kethledge. If they ever said or wrote anything that was pro-gun rights, then they were anathema.

From Michael Bloomberg's wholly owned Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors:

“President Trump vowed he’d never let the NRA down, and with the Kavanaugh pick, he chose someone whose judicial record demonstrates a dangerous view of the Second Amendment that elevates gun rights above public safety. We oppose this nomination and urge the Senate to vote it down.”

The Supreme Court made clear in its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, that “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” The Court also confirmed “that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Judges appointed by both Republicans and Democrats since then have repeatedly upheld reasonable gun laws as consistent with the Second Amendment.

MORE INFORMATION ON JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S SECOND AMENDMENT RECORD:

• Judge Kavanaugh has applied an extreme and dangerous interpretation of the Second Amendment when determining whether a law is constitutional, one that does not take into account a law’s impact on public safety.
• Judge Kavanaugh has made clear he would strike down prohibitions on the AR-15 and other assault-style weapons. In 2011, he dissented from a decision upholding Washington, D.C.’s prohibition on assault-style weapons and its requirement to register handguns. The dissent put Judge Kavanaugh at odds not only with the two other Republican-appointed judges on the court hearing the case, but also every other federal and state appeals court to address the issue.

That last line says more about how judges have ignored and perverted the Supreme Court's rulings in Heller and McDonald than it does about Judge Kavanaugh.

NSSF "Backs President's Selection" Of Kavanaugh

The National Shooting Sports Foundation weighed in on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy. They approve.

From NSSF:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the trade association for the firearms, ammunition and related industries, tonight expressed its strong support for President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to become an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

“We are pleased to lend our support to President Trump’s nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and urge the Senate to approve his nomination before the next term begins on the first Monday in October,” said Lawrence Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “We are confident that Judge Kavanaugh will serve our nation with distinction as an Associate Justice of our nation’s highest court and that he will make decisions that will serve to protect the Second Amendment and other Constitutionally guaranteed rights of law-abiding Americans.”

NRA-ILA "Applauds" The Kavanaugh Pick

Continuing on with the across the board approval of the Kavanaugh pick by gun rights groups is the response of the NRA through its NRA-ILA arm.

From NRA-ILA:

Fairfax, Va. -The National Rifle Association (NRA) applauds the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill Justice Anthony Kennedy’s seat on the United States Supreme Court.

“President Trump has made another outstanding choice in nominating Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court. He has an impressive record that demonstrates his strong support for the Second Amendment,” said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director, NRA-ILA. “We urge the Senate to swiftly confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, just as it confirmed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.”

During his tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh wrote a strong dissenting opinion in opposition to Washington, D.C.’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and registration requirement by applying an historical test consistent with Justice Scalia’s opinion in Heller.

“Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated his clear belief that the Constitution should be applied as the Framers intended. To that end, he has supported the fundamental, individual right to self-defense embraced by Justice Scalia in the historic Heller decision. ”

“On behalf of our six million members, the NRA strongly supports Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. We will be activating our members and tens of millions of supporters throughout the country in support of Judge Kavanaugh. He will protect our right to keep and bear arms and is an outstanding choice to fill Justice Kennedy’s seat,” concluded Cox.