The legal and Constitutional case against confirming Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court [View all]

[shanen]

I promised a friend that I would contact some Senators about the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. For brevity, I will refer to him as BMK after this. It took me a while to formulate my objections clearly enough, but here are the notes of my analyses (to use in phone calls to the Senators).

The case against BMK for the Supreme Court:

1. BMK says Congress should give the president special protected legal status, essentially putting the president above all normal laws.

2. BMK must believe the Supreme Court would not declare that new special legal status of the president to be unconstitutional, and on the Supreme Court he must intend to vote in support of his position.

3. It is absolutely clear that the original authors of the Constitution did NOT want to make the president into a king of any sort. What BMK is advocating is an absolutely clear violation of the Constitution and nothing less than the total destruction of the Constitutional separation of powers.

4. Even if BMK repudiated his current position, it would be meaningless since he used to be on the opposite side when he was working to use the laws against President Clinton. He can always change his mind again.

As a nominee, BMK is basically similar to the other candidates on the "official" list (of judicial extremists) EXCEPT for BMK's especially extreme perspective on presidential power. It is almost certain that this is the special reason that Trump nominated him, which is a clear conflict of interests.

Now the argument for invoking the "McConnell Rule" against approving a Supreme Court nominee close to an election:

1. By your Senate vote in favor of Neil Gorsuch, you have accepted and endorsed the McConnell Rule.

2. If there is ANY validity in the McConnell Rule, then the proximity of the election MUST be considered before confirming any Supreme Court nominee.

3. The next election is MUCH closer and more proximate than in the case of Merrick Garland.

4. Therefore you must postpone consideration of this vacancy until after the voters have spoken. Or you are a lying hypocrite and SoS.

Just for the Senator's information, I am also circulating these 4-point arguments as widely as I can on social media. I do not know if either of them will "go viral", as they say, but I sincerely believe they are true and that truth will win in the end. Lies don't last and hypocrites will lose, but the truth will prevail among honest people.

I was going to write more on why this Supreme Court nomination is a national issue that should transcend the borders of the states, but I think what I've written already is going to overflow the time I have available, which is only about 5 minutes with the VoIP software I'm using. Now to the phone...