Categories
Supreme Court

Kavanaugh’s Fellow Justices Consider Him An ‘Intellectual Lightweight’ And Are ‘Losing Patience’: Report

As the key swing vote on the United States Supreme Court, you’d think Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh would take his job a bit more seriously.

But according to a revealing report from Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, Kavanaugh is actually considered to be an “intellectual lightweight” by his colleagues and they’re rapidly “losing patience” with him.

When he was nominated for the high court by failed former president Donald Trump, Kavanaugh was known very differently.

During his 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Kavanaugh styled himself as a brainy operator who combined intellectual firepower with affable moderation, in rhetoric if not in substance. He wanted to be the conservative whom liberals could respect—Justice Antonin Scalia without the volcanic temper—and the high-minded jurist who could sell right-wing legal theories to the public as common-sense constitutional principles.

But it turns out that almost no one respects Kavanaugh, no matter their political affiliation, and what he’s become is “a man with seemingly few fixed convictions and even fewer interesting things to say. To the extent that his colleagues think about him at all, they seem to view him as a fixer who can cobble together five votes for a diaphanous majority opinion that decides almost nothing.”

Translation: Brett Kavanaugh is a lightweight. Oh, and he likes beer. A lot. He made that clear during his confirmation hearings.

Kavanaugh’s written rulings have been threadbare, sometimes composed of a sentence or two, and often drawing scorn from his fellow justices, who have called him out in their own writings. Consider:

  • In U.S. v. Texas, “Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote her own five-page concurrence picking apart Kavanaugh’s majority opinion.”
  • Also in U.S. v. Texas, “(Neil) Gorsuch pointed out that Kavanaugh was ‘simply ignoring’ several important questions that undermined his logic.”

How much do his fellow justices dislike Kavanaugh? According to Stern, they can’t hide their contempt for their colleague.

Thomas, Barrett, and Gorsuch aren’t the only members of the court who are losing patience with Kavanaugh. Justice Elena Kagan memorably castigated him for treating “judging as scorekeeping,” whining about “how unfair it is” when he loses, and repeating the same bad arguments “at a higher volume.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor has repeatedly accused him of outright dishonesty by misrepresenting precedent and dangling false promises. In a fed-up dissent in just her first term, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson compared a Kavanaugh majority opinion to the children’s book If You Give a Mouse a Cookie. Alito’s rebuttal to Kavanaugh’s dissent in Sackett v. EPA consisted of exactly one sentence: Kavanaugh’s argument, Alito wrote, “cannot be taken seriously.”

Where does that leave the highest court in the land? Well, Kavanaugh can only be removed by impeachment, and there’s certainly no political will for that to happen, especially since no Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached and removed from office. Samuel Chase was impeached, but he remained on the court.

For now, Kavanaugh will remain the ultimate judicial lightweight who is seen as a joke by his colleagues on the bench. And in some ways, that’s a fitting punishment for his past sins.

 

Categories
Supreme Court

Elena Kagan Mops The Floor With Brett Kavanaugh In SCOTUS Ruling

A ruling just released from the U.S. Supreme Court features a hilarious footnote in which Justice Elena Kagan uses logic and reason to remind fellow Justice Brett “I like beer!” Kavanaugh that the law applies to everyone, including large corporations who try to get out of paying their employees.

Mark Joseph Stern of Slate caught the dustup between Kagan and Kavanaugh in a case where Kagan was in the majority on an opinion involving overtime pay for a man who worked 84 hours a week but was denied overtime by his employer.

The case is Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt. In it, Michael Hewitt alleged that he often worked as much as 84 hours a week on an offshore oil platform owned by Helix but was only paid a set amount for weekly work, not hourly, even though he clearly exceeded 40 hours work in a week, meaning he was entitled to overtime.

Kavanaugh, along with Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, were in the minority, ruling that Hewitt wasn’t entitled to receive overtime for his work. Kavanaugh also authored the dissenting opinion.

That led Kagan to make the following notation in the footnotes of the majority opinion, clearly aiming her comments at the three justices who had ruled against Hewitt, especially Kavanaugh since he was the author:

“The dissent… tries just to power past the regulatory text. The dissent reasons that because Hewitt received more than $455 for a day’s work, he must have been paid on a salary basis. That is a non-sequitur to end all non-sequiturs. Hewitt’s high daily pay ensured that the HCE rule’s salary-level requirement would not have prevented his exemption: $963 (per day) is indeed more than $455 (per week).”

In another footnote to the majority opinion, Kagan also wrote that Helix had made an argument in their filing before the Supreme Court they failed to make in lower court filings, which would normally mean the high court wouldn’t even consider it in their ruling, and yet Kavanaugh saw fit to “opine on it anyway” in his dissent.

Categories
Donald Trump Gun Nuts Supreme Court

Trump’s Three Handpicked SCOTUS Justices Just Handed Gun Lovers A Giant Setback

Donald Trump loves to brag about the fact that he managed to appoint three associate justices to the Supreme Court during his failed presidency. It’s literally the only bright spot in his term in office.

But it appears that Trump’s single “accomplishment” will also turn out to be another miserable failure, based on a decision from the high court on Monday, USA Today reports:

“The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up three challenges to a federal ban on gun ownership for people convicted of nonviolent crimes, disappointing Second Amendment advocates who hoped a more conservative court would begin to chip away at the restriction.

“By not taking the appeals, the nation’s highest court let stand a series of lower court rulings that prohibited people convicted of driving under the influence, making false statements on tax returns and selling counterfeit cassette tapes from owning a gun.”

Particularly galling to gun fetishists will be the fact that Amy Coney Barrett didn’t agree to form a majority with four other conservatives, which many believed she would based on her prior rulings while an appellate court judge:

“Several of the court’s conservatives signaled in recent years that they were interested in revisiting the issue, and it’s not clear why they chose not to do so. Four conservative justices have expressed a desire to address outstanding Second Amendment questions – enough to take a case but one vote short of the five needed to corral a majority. Many expected Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, seated last fall, to provide that fifth vote.”

But she didn’t, and that means that Trump’s hot air about how he was going to cement a conservative majority on the court is nothing but rhetoric. If a right-wing judge like Barrett won’t agree to hear a case on who can own a gun, has the court actually swung to the right?

Gun control supporters hailed the the decision, with Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and policy director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, remarking:

“If nothing else is clear from today’s decision, the court signaled that it’s not making a 180-degree turn where it’s going to take every gun case and rule for the gun lobby in every case.”

Another gun case remains before the justices, but it’s unclear when exactly the court will decide whether or not to take it.

In the other case, a New York law is in question:

“Two New York state residents who sought a license to carry guns outside their home but were denied because they didn’t meet the state’s requirement of having a ‘special need for self protection.'”

Will Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett agree to hear that case? Based on their decision today, it seems unlikely.

Categories
Justice Department Supreme Court U.S. Senate

Justice Department May Reopen Investigation Into Alleged Misconduct By Brett Kavanaugh

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is demanding that the Justice Department and FBI reopen their investigation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, The Guardian reports:

“The FBI is facing new scrutiny for its 2018 background check of Brett Kavanaugh, the supreme court justice, after a lawmaker suggested that the investigation may have been ‘fake.’

“Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic senator and former prosecutor who serves on the judiciary committee, is calling on the newly-confirmed attorney general, Merrick Garland, to help facilitate ‘proper oversight’ by the Senate into questions about how thoroughly the FBI investigated Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.

“The supreme court justice was accused of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford and faced several other allegations of misconduct following Ford’s harrowing testimony of an alleged assault when she and Kavanaugh were in high school.”

Whitehouse’s allegations about the FBI investigation of Kavanaugh drew immediate reaction on social media, where many suggested the justice needs to be examined for all of his prior behavior:

https://twitter.com/everyone_blue/status/1371845863505588233?s=20

https://twitter.com/dambaras/status/1371845591978938376?s=20

If Kavanaugh truly has nothing to hide, he should welcome Sen. Whitehouse’s call for a real FBI investigation. But he won’t.