Cliff Kincaid: Brett Kavanaugh's chickens come home to roost

[TomSea]

Brett Kavanaugh's chickens come home to roost
By Cliff Kincaid
December 10, 2018

Citizen journalist David Risselada has written a book, Psychopolitics in America: A Nation Under Conquest, in which he explains how so many are being led astray by what passes for the "conservative media." Consider the case of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was sold by Fox News and other beltway groups as a conservative pro-lifer. After Kavanaugh's Monday ruling in favor of Planned Parenthood, many grassroots conservatives are beginning to realize they were misled about his real record. One conservative website called it a "betrayal."

It wasn't a surprise to us. My group, America's Survival, Inc., was virtually alone in exposing Kavanaugh's real record on abortion and other social issues. We published the 44-page report "The Deep State Wears Black Robes" and called his nomination a "Trojan Horse." Yet, Fox News and other conservative media, as well as various Washington, D.C.-based conservative groups, advertised Kavanaugh as a strong conservative. Many of them were invited to the White House to listen to Kavanaugh hail the legacy of "liberty" of the man he would replace, pro-abortion and pro-gay Justice Anthony Kennedy. That turned out to be an indication of Kavanaugh's liberal direction on the court.

We had conducted a careful study of Kavanaugh's record, noting that he was a virtual clone of Justice Kennedy. A liberal Catholic, Kavanaugh actually had a record of ruling against evangelical chaplains. But one leading conservative told me I had gone off "the deep end" by opposing Kavanaugh. Fox News refused to cover our detailed critique of his record. It was a very controlled "debate" with "both sides" defined so as to exclude the real truth.

Read more at: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kincaid/181210

Cliff Kincaid can take a gloating "I told ya so". His words for some are worth reading. I hope Kavanaugh can be steered correctly and I think it all comes down to that Kavanaugh got Collins' vote. Everyone was saying, "Oh, what a great speech she made" and I think it was pretty good... but we may eventually, see this is politics as usual. Maybe in a few years, (he's bound to have a long tenure), Kavanaugh will be making the correct decisions.  Just my view.

Kincaid was so much against Kavanaugh, I think he took flak for it, sounded like a tinfoil conspiracy-type (which he is on some topics) when mentioning something about Kavanaugh and Vince Foster and the cover up of Foster's death.

[Sanguine]

Unfortunately, his confirmation process was turned into a #MeToo circus so we didn't get to learn much about Kavanaugh. 

[TomSea]

They say, Kavanaugh has a very clear and long track record on Judicial issues, his rulings and so forth though, I agree, the country should not have been dragged through that debacle.

[Hoodat]

Kincaid was so much against Kavanaugh, I think he took flak for it, sounded like a tinfoil conspiracy-type (which he is on some topics) when mentioning something about Kavanaugh and Vince Foster and the cover up of Foster's death.

I had an issue with Kavanaugh's executive past as well, primarily his work for Ken Starr.  The work that Kavanaugh performed tor Starr bore zero fruit.

[Jazzhead]

The case had nothing to do with abortion.   It is about whether a citizen has a private right of action under Federal law to sue a state's decision to exclude Medicaid payments to providers not deemed "qualified" "for any reason . . . authorized under state law".   

The case involves a question of federalism and separation of powers.    As such,  the split in the circuits should have been reviewed by the SCOTUS,  in large part because the Supreme Court's prior decisions have been the root cause of the ambiguity.   The Court had historically permitted federal private rights of action that are not explicitly provided for under federal law,  but then appeared to backtrack in Gonzaga v. Doe (from 2002),  when it held that the creation of a private right requires "clear and unambiguous terms".

The SCOTUS, as we all know,  doesn't review every case that is put before it,  and refusing to hear this one is nothing unusual.    I have no idea why the majority decided this controversy, which is admittedly inside baseball,  didn't warrant the Court's current attention.   But it pisses me off to see Clarence Thomas imply that the newest member of the Court was somehow intimidated into not seeing things Thomas' way.    THIS ISSUE IN THIS CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION. 

Welcome to the Court,  Justice Kavanaugh,  just don't be surprised at being back-stabbed by your fellow conservatives.       

[Oceander]

The case had nothing to do with abortion.   It is about whether a citizen has a private right of action under Federal law to sue a state's decision to exclude Medicaid payments to providers not deemed "qualified" "for any reason . . . authorized under state law".   

The case involves a question of federalism and separation of powers.    As such,  the split in the circuits should have been reviewed by the SCOTUS,  in large part because the Supreme Court's prior decisions have been the root cause of the ambiguity.   The Court had historically permitted federal private rights of action that are not explicitly provided for under federal law,  but then appeared to backtrack in Gonzaga v. Doe (from 2002),  when it held that the creation of a private right requires "clear and unambiguous terms".

The SCOTUS, as we all know,  doesn't review every case that is put before it,  and refusing to hear this one is nothing unusual.    I have no idea why the majority decided this controversy, which is admittedly inside baseball,  didn't warrant the Court's current attention.   But it pisses me off to see Clarence Thomas imply that the newest member of the Court was somehow intimidated into not seeing things Thomas' way.    THIS ISSUE IN THIS CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION. 

Welcome to the Court,  Justice Kavanaugh,  just don't be surprised at being back-stabbed by your fellow conservatives.       

Exactly on point. 

[Wingnut]

I have to agree with our two legal beagles on this one.