Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh weighed in on precedent, a topic he will likely return to frequently over the course of his confirmation hearings.
The role of precedent, he said, was to “ensure stability in the law, which is critically important.”
“People rely on the decision of the courts,” Kavanaugh told Judge Chairman Chuck Grassley.
Grassley seems to have recognized the fundamental problem with Kavanaugh is that he is essentially lawless and is governed by ideology whenever he gets an opening to assert his views. On SCOTUS there is no constraint on him (short of impeachment, which in his case is a higher possibility than prior justices because I think there’s a bad whiff to his financial dealings).
These questions from Grassley get Kavanaugh to appear more mainstream. But the Democrats aren’t going to let up, particularly on voting rights, abortion rights and presidential power.
It is early in the day, but Kavanaugh doesn’t impress me as having the same kind of intellect as Roberts (for example.) He is using very repetitive vocabulary with the seeming purpose of saying “precedent” as many times as he can. I don’t sense genuineness, but rather an overriding intention of simplistically meeting criticisms that have come from opponents to his nomination.
Electricity comes out of the wall when you flip the switch.
There should be one comment thread for this nomination hearing.
Feinstein up first for Dems. I do like her, it must be said. She obviously gets along very well with Grassley. Not sure what the point of her asking softball questions is, particularly since she does not do follow up questions. Kavanaugh just waffled on pompously in the manner of Gorsuch, offering banal opinions about Supreme Court history.
The big question is whether the Democrats have the guts to go after Kavanaugh on his character (Guttenberg; absurd pro-Trump statement when accepting nomination) and his opaque finances. Republicans would not hesitate.
[quote=“nemo, post:5, topic:76971”]
There should be one comment thread for this nomination hearing.
[/quote]Agreed - and we seem to have fewer comments per thread under this new format.
Yes, Kavanaugh has exactly the same quality of pomposity that Gorsuch does (combined with a touch of sneering condescension, it seems to define success in GOP world)