7.2 F
Chicago
Tuesday, January 31, 2023
HomeIllinois PoliticsUPDATE x3: Kavanaugh Confirmed by U.S. Senate, pulling Court to the Right

UPDATE x3: Kavanaugh Confirmed by U.S. Senate, pulling Court to the Right

Date:

spot_img

Screen Shot 2018-10-06 at 3.14.52 PM

DC – The US Senate voted today to confirm what many consider to be pro-life Judge Brett Kavanaugh – filling the vacancy left by pro-abortion Justice Anthony Kennedy following his retirement.

Notable Republican responses followed President Trump, who tweeted: 

Screen Shot 2018-10-06 at 3.25.51 PM

UPDATE: Illinois Republican Party Executive Director Travis Sterling said, "We applaud the U.S. Senate for confirming Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. He is a highly-qualified jurist with extensive experience in faithfully interpreting and defending the Constitution of the United States."

Congressman Darin LaHood, a Republican representing IL's 18th CD, said in a statement: “The U.S. Senate’s confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court today is historic. His judicial temperament and measured approach will ensure that our Constitution is interpreted properly, as intended by our founding fathers. 

"For over 12 years on the D.C. Court of Appeals, Judge Kavanaugh has established a judicial record of faithfully upholding the rule of law and abiding by our constitutional principles. He has displayed the utmost fairness and impartially and will be a great addition to the US Supreme Court. Having been through seven FBI background investigations throughout his tenure, Judge Kavanaugh has been thoroughly vetted more than any other nominee in our history and I have full confidence in his judicial abilities as the next Associate Justice to the Court.”

UPDATE x2: Illinois' two US senators voted against Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation. 

“We have to think about what it would mean if Judge Kavanaugh were to be confirmed to the Supreme Court with credible sexual assault allegations against him. Specifically what it would mean to the millions of women across America who were survivors of sexual assault, women who have been scared to come forward with their stories for fear they would be mocked, ridiculed, and shunned," Senator Dick Durbin said in a statement announcing his intention to oppose the confirmation.

"What would it mean for them to see Brett Kavanaugh sitting on that bench in that Court across the street day after day for decades casting what may be the deciding vote on cases that profoundly affect their rights?  It would shake the confidence of millions of Americans and the integrity of our Supreme Court.  We should not take that risk,” said Durbin.  “With so much at stake, we should not confirm a nominee to the Court unless we are sure that the nominee’s qualifications are beyond question.  I do not have that confidence in Brett Kavanaugh. I will vote no on his nomination.”

UPDATE x3: Junior Senator Tammy Duckworth said losing on the Kavanaugh vote was "tough." 

Screen Shot 2018-10-06 at 7.25.56 PM

More to come …

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories

19 COMMENTS

  1. Just thinking back to all those purist National Review reading, never-Trumpers, who just 2 years ago were excoriating Trump on these pages as “not a real conservative.”
    Well, how many Supreme Court Justices did McCain and Romney get to appoint?
    Also thinking of RINO Rauner, who just 2 weeks ago on NPR was mimicking Leftists, in calling for a further delay on the Kavlanaugh vote.
    Will his laughably underwhelming 22% in the polls now shrink to 3rd party status? Say 17%?

  2. I think you all are living in a fantasy lad. The court now consists of:
    Two conservative justices:
    Thomas
    Alito
    Three moderates:
    Kavanaugh
    Gorsuch
    Roberts
    Four lefties:
    Ginsburg
    Breyer
    Sotomayor
    Kagan
    Sadly Alito and Thomas are getting up there. They need to start actively looking for true conservative replacements and get them added to Trump’s list and then consider stepping down under Trump’s second term if the Republicans hold the Senate.

  3. And it might not be hard to place Roberts to the lefty side giving you a 2-2-5 court, with the lefties holding 5 seats. It really depends on how much of an egregious sin you think Roberts logic on Obamacare was.

  4. I am hopeful the he will base his rulings on the Constitution as opposed to the pressures of those in power or with powerful voices.
    He won’t. Kavanaugh already told you he he believes in precedent. If he was a constitutionlist he would be open to revisit the results of Marbury v. Madison, he is not.

  5. WOW! I was making vague reference to former 1 term State Senator Mark Rhoads, and others, but had forgotten how foolish he was.
    Thank you for reprising us of his anti-Trump diatribes on IR.
    Rhoads had latched on to the conservative movement in the late 70s to obtain his single term in the State Senate, and then launched off to support Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan, for President – thinking it would get him re-elected.
    It didn’t.
    He lost after 1 term.
    He then emerged as a supposedly “conservative” commentator for the ultra-left-wing Chicago Sun-Times, was cashiered, and then re-emerged as a RINO commentator on Illinois Review.
    There he began trashing Donald Trump.
    And was as wrong about that as he was when he opposed Ronald Reagan.
    Thank you for reminding us of his earlier anti-Trump RINO maunderings.

  6. “Precedent”: That’s just a stack of bandages piled on top of a deep, gaping, bleeding wound.
    Until the “wound” is closed up by a new or revised law from Congress, the “wound” is never really healed.
    A “legal precedent” is often just the opinion of one half-crazy judge that other judges pass along because they are either too busy, too lazy or to ignorant to investigate and contest it.

  7. Great comment Frank. Yes, back to the center where it belongs. Personal politics should never influence a justice’s opinion, only the original meaning & intent of the law. Anything outside applying the original meaning and intent is legislating from the bench and judicial tyranny