Every week, the WoW! community and our invited guests weigh in at the Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: Will Judge Kavanaugh Be Confirmed And What Will The Vote Be?
Don Surber: Yes.
50-50 with Pence breaking the tie.
Democrats are too dumb to allow Trump State Democrats to save their hides and one of RINOs will bolt.
Rob Miller: I have no doubt Kavanaugh will be joining the Supreme Court.
I see the vote as 52 to 54 in favor, 48 to 46 against, not accounting for any abstentions.
The only Republicans I see trying to sabotage this are Ben Senseless from Nebraska, Jeff Flake from AZ because he’s leaving and (long shot) Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. I doubt that Susan Collins votes against Kavanaugh. I’ve never agreed with her politics, but she has guts and integrity. The threats she’s been getting from the Left are exactly the sort of thing to make her dig her heels in. They grow ’em tough in Maine.
The Dems I see crossing over to vote for Kavanaugh are Heidi Hightkamp, Joe Manchin, and Claire McKasskill, with Doug Jones, Jon Tester and Joe Donnelly as possibles. With the exception of Jones (whose going to want to be re-elected in a Trump state) they’re all in tough races for re-election in states Trump carried.
As an aside, I think the Dems erred badly in trying to smear Kavanaugh with a #metoo accusation at the last minute by a Left wing nut job. It’s like a baseball pitcher with a hot curve ball or fast ball he keeps relying on to do the job. Eventually the batters get wise, expect that it’s coming and start
hammering it. As another aside, I’m eagerly waiting a thorough investigation into DiFi’s Chinese spy and the huge profits she and her husband made in China.
Jeffrey Avalon Friedberg: Yes he will be confirmed: 53-47.
The Democrat Violent Dementia was just Showtime…and their Audience appears to have been Everybody Else!
Doug Hagin: Yes, he will. Sadly, the Democrats will make it party line, with two maybe three exceptions
Dave Schuler: I agree with Don. Kavanaugh will be confirmed 50-50 with Pence breaking the tie. The vote will be essentially along party lines with Susan Collins joining the Democrats to vote against confirmation.
Bookworm Room: I believe that Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed despite the latest accusations — claims that have no contemporaneous corroboration and that come from a hard Left, Bernie-supporting academic. The Left will believe them (or will pretend to believe them), conservatives will not (and will not be pretending), and the Senate will split on straight party lines. The only risk is that Sen. Collins will have a panic attack, but I think Trump will call her with something akin to Margaret Thatcher’s famous reminder to Ronald Reagan not to go “wobbly.”
Laura Rambeau Lee: : One thing we can count on. The left always resorts to unsubstantiated claims of sexual misconduct when they have nothing else. They bring forth salacious unproveable accusations from, this time, a lefty professor related to an “incident” that happened over three decades ago in high school and then go on the Sunday morning mainstream media circus circuit, expressing the need for a delay in the vote until everything is thoroughly investigated. The fact that Senator Dianne Feinstein knew in July and kept this information from everyone throughout the personal meetings and public “inquisition” of Judge Kavanaugh until the final week of the process proves they have nothing valid to use as a reason for denying his appointment.
Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed. He is extremely qualified and as an originalist who believes in a strict textual interpretation of the Constitution will ensure the court remains conservative for decades to come. His nomination affirms again that our vote for President Trump was the right one for the future of our country.
One has to believe there are a few Democrats who remain silent but are appalled by the tactics of those within their party. The vote will be close, perhaps 52 or 53, but in the end Brett Kavanaugh will be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Well, there it is!
Make sure to drop by every Monday for the WoW! Magazine Forum. And enjoy WoW! Magazine 24-7 with some of the best stuff written in the ‘net. Take from me, you won’t want to miss it.
The Supreme Court of the United States just hours ago dismissed Hawaii’s challenge to President Trump’s extreme vetting executive order remanding the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for dismissal as the case is now moot due to the expiration of the 120-day pause which ends today.
Washington Times by Stephen Dinan and Andrea Noble
…The justices acted on the same day that the 120 period expired.
“Because those provisions of the Order have ‘expired by [their] own terms,’ the appeal no longer presents a ‘live case or controversy,’” the justices said.
The order comes as the Trump administration is expected to announce an updated policy on refugee vetting and admissions later Tuesday. President Trump has already slashed the overall refugee target from 110,000 people in 2017 to 45,000 in 2018.
But as the administration works improve its vetting procedures for visitors and would be immigrants to the U.S., it continues to be embroiled in court battles over the legality of its plan to curtail admissions to the U.S. from countries where there are concerns about terrorism and vetting procedures to confirm the identities of travelers[…]
Last month, POTUS issued a third travel ban that included Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. The usual judicial activists in Hawaii and Maryland have blocked the ban from going into effect with the exception of North Korea and Venezuela.
You can view the Supreme Court’s order below or here in pdf format.
16 1436 TRUMP PRESIDENT OF US ET AL V INT’L REFUGEE ASSISTANCE ET AL, 16 1436 Trump v. Int27l Refugee Assistance, extreme vetting executive order, National Security, Supreme Court of the United States, Travel Ban
On Friday, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to step in on the travel ban and to stay lower court rulings.
SCOTUS has asked lower courts to file their responses to TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. INT’L REFUGEE ASSISTANCE, ET AL. no later than 3 p.m. on Monday, June 12, 2017.
SCOTUSblog by Amy Howe (Friday, June 2, 2017)
Arguing that lower courts “openly second-guessed” President Donald Trump’s determination that national security concerns require a freeze on new visas for travelers from six Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen), last night the federal government asked the Supreme Court to step into the legal dispute over the constitutionality of the executive order that the president signed on March 6. The government also asked the court to put on hold two lower-court rulings blocking the implementation of the executive order, telling the justices that those rulings undermine “the President’s constitutional and statutory power to protect” the United States.
Last night’s filings came in two separate challenges to the March 6 order, popularly known as the “travel ban.” One challenge originated in Maryland, where a federal district judge blocked the implementation of the order on March 16; last week the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit largely upheld the Maryland judge’s order. Another challenge came from Hawaii: A district judge there also ruled for the challengers, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit heard oral argument in the government’s appeal on May 15, but the appeals court has not yet issued its decision. Yesterday the government urged the Supreme Court to review the 4th Circuit’s ruling on the merits and to freeze the district court’s order barring the implementation of the travel ban. The government also asked the justices to freeze the Hawaii court’s ruling blocking the travel ban until the 9th Circuit appeal is resolved – and, if necessary, while the government seeks review of that decision in the Supreme Court.
The government characterized the 4th Circuit’s ruling as “remarkable.” The president, it emphasized, has “broad authority to suspend or restrict the entry of aliens outside the United States when he deems it in the Nation’s interest.” Moreover, it added, the challengers conceded in the lower courts that the provision of the executive order putting a temporary hold on visas for travelers from the six countries listed in the order “could be constitutional if issued by some other President.” But, the government stressed, the 4th Circuit nonetheless ruled that the travel ban likely violated the Constitution because the president intended to discriminate against Muslims, even if the order does not actually say so. That conclusion simply has no basis in the law, the government argues: The Supreme Court “has never invalidated religion-neutral government action based on speculation about officials’ subjective motivations drawn from campaign-trail statements by a political candidate.”
Contending that the “stakes are indisputably high” and that the lower court’s ruling “creates uncertainty about the President’s authority to meet” national security threats, the government asked the justices to act quickly and announce before their summer recess at the end of June whether they will review the 4th Circuit’s ruling on the merits. That schedule, the government explains, would allow the two sides to file their briefs over the summer, so that the Supreme Court could hear oral argument in the case soon after the court’s new term begins in October.
The government’s request for review of the 4th Circuit’s ruling on the merits requires four votes, but the government needs five votes to prevail on its requests to freeze the orders blocking implementation of the travel ban, so the court’s disposition of those two requests could provide an early glimpse into the justices’ views on the challenges. The court is likely to ask the challengers to weigh in on the government’s efforts to obtain temporary relief; an order asking for their views could come at any time, perhaps even as soon as today.
You can read the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari below or in pdf format here.
On September 26, 1986, during a swearing in ceremony, President Ronald Reagan appointed William H. Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice to the U. S. Supreme Court. See Scalia being sworn in below:
The swearing in ceremony of both William H. Rehnquist as Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice to the U. S. Supreme Court in its entirety can be viewed here.
2016 Presidential Election, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama, Hillary Clintion, Justice Antonin Scalia, Kamala Harris, Obama nominee, Senator Ted Cruz, Supreme Court of the United States, U S Senate
SCOTUS Blog by Tom Goldstein ( (Feb. 14, 2016, 5:47 PM))
This post substantially revises and supersedes my earlier one on how the political parties will likely approach the Scalia vacancy, in which I had concluded that Ninth Circuit Judge Paul Watford was the most likely nominee. On reflection, I think that Attorney General Loretta Lynch is more likely. I also think that the Republicans will eventually permit the nomination to proceed on the merits and reject it on party lines.
In thinking about how to respond to the vacancy on the Supreme Court, the administration has two priorities. First, fill the Scalia seat by getting a nominee confirmed. The stakes could not be higher: the appointment could flip the Supreme Court’s ideological balance for decades. Second, gain as much political benefit as possible and exact as heavy a political toll as possible on Republicans, particularly in the presidential election. Precisely because of the seat’s importance, this is the rare time that a material number of voters may seriously think about the Court in deciding whether to vote at all and who to vote for.
Those priorities reinforce each other. The Republican Senate leadership has staked out the position that no nomination by President Obama will move forward. Because Republicans hold the Senate majority, they have the power to refuse to hold confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee and/or a floor vote on the nominee. So, any effort to replace Scalia is dead on arrival unless the political dynamic in the country forces Republicans to change their minds and allow the nomination to proceed.
Not surprisingly, Republican priorities are the exact opposite. Fundamental conservative legal victories over the past two decades hang directly in the balance. To take just one example, Ted Cruz is exactly right to say that a more liberal replacement for Justice Scalia is very likely to overturn the Supreme Court’s recent recognition of a Second Amendment right to possess firearms or at least render it a nullity as a practical matter. There are dozens of other examples. Conversely, a Republican appointee would not only preserve those victories but continue the Court’s steady move to the right.
In addition, blocking President Obama’s nominee is good politics for important subsets of Republicans. Most directly, the Supreme Court is a signal issue for the conservative Republican base in a way that it is not for core Democratic constituencies. Since at least Richard Nixon, conservatives have effectively rallied against the Supreme Court as a liberal institution that is out of control. We see that dynamic today in Republican candidates’ remarkable attempt to frame even Chief Justice Roberts as a failure, based on his votes to uphold the Affordable Care Act and the administration’s implementation of the Act.
Those competing priorities put the political parties in a deadly embrace from which neither will easily budge. The administration feels a constitutional responsibility to press for the confirmation of a nominee and every political advantage in doing so. Republicans cannot accede to that effort because their base will not permit it.
In all of this, it is impossible to overstate the importance of Ted Cruz, who will make the appointment a central issue in the campaign and who will drive enormous pressure against proceeding with any nomination. That pressure is likely to be too great for the Republican Senate leadership to overcome, even if it concludes that it would be better politics to do so….
SOURCE: Tom Goldstein, How the politics of the next nomination will play out, SCOTUSblog (Feb. 14, 2016, 5:47 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/ (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 US)