Trump's 2nd Supreme Court Pick Defies Expectations

[Elderberry]

VOA News by Masood Farivar 5/1/2019



President Donald Trump has boasted that adding two conservative justices to the U.S. Supreme Court is among his biggest achievements.

Except that one of Trump’s picks hasn’t quite followed the script.

Since being sworn in last October, Justice Brett Kavanaugh has defied the expectations of some by occasionally breaking with the court’s conservative bloc to join liberals such as Justice Stephen Breyer.

An analysis of Kavanaugh’s 22 early decisions shows that he’s stuck close to Chief Justice John Roberts, who has been gradually carving a more moderate path during the Trump era.

"The expectation was that he would probably be in the same or similar voting sections with his conservative colleagues more often than he would be with his liberal colleagues," said Adam Feldman, a court watcher who runs the blog Empirical SCOTUS.

Feldman, who conducted the analysis, said "the fact that [Kavanaugh] joined with the liberals in a higher percentage of decisions, in total, this term is somewhat surprising."

To be sure, it’s too early to draw conclusions based on such a small number of cases. Still, conservatives are less effusive of Kavanaugh’s record compared with Trump’s other pick, Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Gorsuch is often compared to the late Antonin Scalia, the court’s conservative intellectual anchor whom he replaced in 2017, while Kavanaugh veers to the right of Anthony Kennedy, the centrist former justice whose seat he occupies.

"Justice Kavanaugh, so far has been cautious in the sense that he usually almost always joins the majority," said Curt Levey, president of the conservative Committee for Justice.

More: https://www.voanews.com/a/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-pick-defies-expectations-/4898248.html

[Restored]

Predicted before Trump chose him. He was considered the least conservative.

[ABX]

Predicted before Trump chose him. He was considered the least conservative.

Exactly. The best thing Kavanaugh had was the sex allegations because they distracted from his liberal policies. We had several threads here on it but the overall opinion was it didn't matter as long as we 'stuck it to the dems'.

[Jazzhead]

Just as the article says, it is too early to draw any conclusions.

[TomSea]

And probably confirmed by the Senate because he was able to sway the votes that he was a middle-of-the-roader, like a deal struck but I think the deal is only for the near future.

I mean, if you get Senator Collins to vote for you,  you may not be a conservative...

I think there was a backroom deal, that's what I thought.

[sneakypete]

Feldman, who conducted the analysis, said "the fact that [Kavanaugh] joined with the liberals in a higher percentage of decisions, in total, this term is somewhat surprising."

Wouldn't that depend on the individual cases? Not EVERYTHING tagged as being "conservative" is good public policy,and not everything tagged as "liberal" is bad public policy. Each cases rises or falls on it's own merits.

BTW,I saw this without having any idea at all of the details of any of these cases. I am just guessing somebody needed to wrote x amount of works to justify his paycheck,so he threw a bunch in incidental crap together to keep his job.

[sneakypete]

I think there was a backroom deal.....

@TomSea

That means nothing at all in a world where there is ALWAYS a back room deal of one form or another.

[TomSea]

@TomSea

That means nothing at all in a world where there is ALWAYS a back room deal of one form or another.

EZ to say, some are thinking Kavanaugh should be a vote to overturn Roe v Wade. For the timebeing he can't be counted on for decisions like that and probably other comparative situations .  People say, "why is Kavanaugh voting this way?", that's why he' voting that way.

@sneakypete

[Cyber Liberty]

Just as the article says, it is too early to draw any conclusions.

Yup.  Exactly.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Wouldn't that depend on the individual cases? Not EVERYTHING tagged as being "conservative" is good public policy,and not everything tagged as "liberal" is bad public policy. Each cases rises or falls on it's own merits.

Even more important is that the Supreme Court is not supposed to base its decisions on what is good public policy or bad public policy.   A badly-written law may be bad for the country, but it is not up to the Court to "fix" it.  That's the job of Congress.  As Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote:

"I always say, as you know, that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job."

[sneakypete]

Even more important is that the Supreme Court is not supposed to base its decisions on what is good public policy or bad public policy.   A badly-written law may be bad for the country, but it is not up to the Court to "fix" it.  That's the job of Congress.  As Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote:

"I always say, as you know, that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job."

@Maj. Bill Martin

True. I was trying to make the point that we should never let partisanship get in the way of good,or to promote bad merely because it is being pushed as "conservative".