Kavanaugh Supreme Court Nomination

[bae]

Good, bad, indifferent?

The end of the universe, or business-as-usual?

I've been inundated with emails from my progressive sources making this nomination out as the worst disaster in history, we need to FIGHT, and I need to DONATE NOW!!!! (Though they are unclear on the details of how donating money to them would RESIST!.)

What's the story?

[ToomuchStuff]

The last one I knew anything really about was SO'C, as a friend was her Marshall at times.
I figure he would be no different then any other judge. Somethings I would agree with, others not. Some due to bad laws, some due to the ways existing laws get used/enforced, others not.

[Teacher Terry]

Bad

[Alan]

I see nothing wrong with him and see no problem with his eventual confirmation, despite all the associated sturm and drang. I did get a kick out of watching the long line of women dressed in a Handmaid's Tale costumes and all of the unruly people who cannot articulate beyond "bad" disrupting the early proceedings. It's the only reality TV I enjoy.

[JaneV2.0]

It's not the end of the universe, just a setback that will take years to reverse. As pundits have pointed out, a president cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in an ongoing investigation shouldn't be allowed to choose any jurist, let alone one who has signaled an willingness to let him off the hook despite his transgressions. Kavanaugh was chosen for that reason and for his Neanderthal leanings on women's issues and voting rights--which is probably why Republicans held back 42,000 pages of records until the eleventh hour. He's the most unpopular Supreme Court candidate in memory, especially with women--more so than Harriet Myers or Robert Bork. If our new normal is dirty winner-take-all politics, I hope Democrats play by the same rules when they take over; their natural impulse is to play fair, which hasn't served them well.

[iris lilies]

I just read the NYT article about Kavanaugh snd even that doesnt raise alarm bells, with me anyway. It actually seems even handed, what am I missing?

I am interested to know why those here think the abortion ruling and the same sex marriage ruling will be revisited. i mean, do ya’ll have logical reasons why the Supremes will bring those up again? Insider knowledge? Traditionally, and generally speaking, the Court lets previous rulings lie.

And LOL to the moon about Jane’s assertion that the “natural impulse” of Democrats is to play fair.

[Yppej]

Compared to some of the people floated as potential Trump nominees he is reasonable.

[Alan]

And LOL to the moon about Jane’s assertion that the “natural impulse” of Democrats is to play fair.

I know, I laughed out loud too. Maybe Jane isn't old enough to remember the Bork or Thomas nominations.

[Gardnr]

Bad. His past discussion has made it very clear that he wants to reverse Roe v Wade even though he has promised that he will respect presidence. 40 years of being upheld should make that human right permanent. (I am opposed to abortion however I am pro-choice!)

[dmc]

He will be fine. The Democrats are just stirring up their base. Democrats that are planning to run in 2020 will be trying to make some news.

And everything is a excuse to ask for donations.