Home | About | Donate

Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s Supreme Court Pick, Will Drive U.S. Law Hard to the Right


Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s Supreme Court Pick, Will Drive U.S. Law Hard to the Right

Bill Blum

President Trump announced the nomination of ultraconservative District of Columbia Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday night. Short of selecting 7th Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a religious zealot who belongs to the fringe Catholic cult People for Praise and was reportedly among the finalists for the nod, Trump could not have chosen a candidate who poses a greater threat to progressive values and causes.


The Koch Brothers, the Mercers, and all the other “Dark Money” Dementos, are creaming in their jeans.


Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s Supreme Court Pick, Will Adhere to the U.S. Constitution when Making his Decisions



It is refreshing to hear of justices and judges who make rulings based on what laws, or the Constitution, actually say rather than what they “interpret” it to mean. Interpretations are inherently biased and subject to the whims of fashion and culture. If we change sufficiently as a culture that the wording of older laws or the Constitution are no longer viable or applicable, then we have provisions to change those troublesome elements rather than just ignore or “interpret” them away.


Once you have control of the courts you control the country’s future. Look again at Germany 1933 and see how we are following that playbook now. The only thing that will save us now is Trump’s incompetency.


Nothing says incompetency like a lifetime of making real estate deals in the most vicious real estate market in the country. Or owning globally known icons. Or turning around the economy from the nightmare Obama years(remember this gem, “Whats he going to do, make a better deal? These jobs are gone” Or ending the Korean War? Or all time low black & Latino(soon women) unemployment? Or millions off SNAP? Or the largest tax rate cut in history? $300 Billion repatriated since?

His competency goes on & on, I wouldn’t rely on it faltering for your salvation.


The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Where does it “actually say” that everyone everywhere has a right to have a gun for self-defense and defense of his home and family, and may carry that gun anywhere he goes for personal protection?

When the rulings eliminating the militia clause were made by the right-wing justices, what part of the Constitution “actually said” they could do that?


Read it again. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Any restriction on my right to keep and bear arms is an infringement of that right.


Sieg Heil!!! Yeah, and ALL the jobs and ALL those companies coming back to the US. Oh, he’s creating (albeit low paying) jobs caging little brown kids. You fucking nutcases will maybe wake up when his economic “policies” crater the economy even worse than the last Republican President.

Edit to add: Oh, and you forgot to blame the “black guy” for ALL the imagined injustices you “suffer” from. Fucking whiners…


It doesn’t have to.
The 2nd amendment doesn’t give permission to U.S. citizens to keep and bear arms.
Any reference to bearing arms as a “constitutional right” is actually incorrect.

The 2nd amendment merely recognizes a fundamental human right.
It could be removed entirely and there would be no change in that right. It just emphasizes that the government shall not infringe on that most basic human right of self defense.

Sport shooting, duck hunting, etc., are just additional benefits.

Seriously, compare it to the 18th and 21st amendments.
The 18th put in place significant alcohol restrictions and the 21st removed those.

There are no restrictions on keeping and bearing arms in the constitution.
The 2nd amendment merely points out a basic right, but doesn’t provide for or reverse any part of the constitution such as the 18th and 21st amendments do.


Read it again.
Nowhere does it say “Any restriction on (the) right to keep and bear arms is an infringement of that right.” Not anywhere.

What it does say is “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,…”

See? You want interpretation, not to follow the wording as written. You just want it interpreted the way it gives you what you want.


What a wonderful, and far-right wing interpretation of the Constitution.


Those who actually learned English recognize that as what’s called an independent clause.
A “well regulated Militia” is A reason not to infringe on citizens rights but is in no way the ONLY reason.

Honestly, the duplicity of folks claiming that the Bill of Rights was put in place to guarantee the government’s right to keep and bear arms or that somehow everywhere the “people” is mentioned refers to people except the 2nd amendment (which somehow means the government!) is astonishing.


When reading become “right wing”?
I like you, you’re funny.

Or perhaps you can provide an actual argument to what I said about the constitution?


Honestly, the duplicity of those who want a “strict reading” of the Constitution, yet rely on the NRA lawyers to give them talking points to subvert centuries of established law regarding what the words they are reading really mean, is astonishing.

P.S.: I know English. I didn’t have to rely on the NRA to tell me what an independent clause is, as do those who use that as an argument. An independent clause is not relegated to irrelevance by virtue of its being included in a larger sentence.


A “well regulated Militia” is A reason not to infringe on citizens rights but is in no way the ONLY reason.

Just the only one written down, for a strict reading of the actual words.


I have provided an “actual argument.” You have ignored it to continue your right wing propagandist monologue.

I’m finished here. Have a nice day.


Nope. Just straight reading. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand. Shall not, for any reason, be infringed.


I’m as liberal as they get but as of now I have the right to own guns and wouldn’t give them up if I was supposed to. I’d save a bullet for my head if they came knocking and I’m betting many other gun owners would too. I’m still not clear where or when gun ownership became such a right wing issue. I can’t stand 99% of the things they do. Or the democrats either, for that matter; 95% or so.


Got a rocket launcher? A little heavy artillery? How about some weapons of mass destruction? Shall not be infringed? Don’t let those libtards get in the way!


You would shoot yourself in the head to defend the 2nd Amendment? I think that’s a fine idea. Apparently popular among old white guys in Wyoming.