The Easy and Obvious Case Against Kavanaugh: Updated!


Well, if Trump had to make a nomination, we Democrats would want Trump to make one most easy to hold against him, the one most easily shot down as both extreme and dangerous. Thankfully, someone like Trump is as predictable as the tide, and we got our wish.

Step up Mr. Not Yet Justice because You’re So Damn Extreme and Obvious Kavanaugh.

Now, please, everyone settle for a moment.

We have discussed over the last week why the fifth seat is critical to reproductive rights, the right to privacy at all, federalism, we’ve done all that, covered all that, and you were great, the feedback, top-notch. It‘s right here if you care to review.

But, we can skip all of it, and we better.

We can skip all of it because something far far far more important just jumped in line when Trump appointed Kavanaugh. I wrote one week ago that Kavanaugh would be the pick because he was Ken Starr’s top deputy, worked within the George Bush White House and has a twenty-year record of being “on the record” as believing that a president cannot be “investigated” or “indicted” while in office. It is too “distracting.”


That is ALL we need to know. Everything else just became extraneous to the main issue.

THE ISSUE for Democrats MUST BE that this is a 5th Justice who is conflicted out by his own writing on a potential presidential investigation. No one in the United States gets to be their own judge, or pick their own Judge. And the president of the United States of America, who just happens to be under investigation, cannot just by-chance, pick the one damn nominee in the final group that has a history of scholarly work against the idea of investigating presidents.


That is our issue Democrats. If we want to retain any relationship with a nation under laws, a nation where we swear allegiance to the constitution, not a country or a person, then we’re left with absolutely no choice but to deny Trump the ability to appoint someone who just so coincidentally does not happen to believe in investigating presidents as a general principle.

I mean, for the love of god:

“Trump SCOTUS team has looked at Kavanaugh’s past comments on indicting a sitting president, we’ve confirmed. In 2009, Kavanaugh wrote: ‘The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government…’” Acosta wrote on Twitter on July 9, 2009.

Democrats have taken note of the writings, with New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer tweeting, “Kavanaugh has taken numerous positions that question his ability to be an indep. check on @POTUS, saying investigations of presidents should be deferred while in office & a president needn’t obey it when he ‘deems the law unconstitutional.’”

Of course, every part of you wants to rip every hair out of your body right now, he seems to continue to get away with everything he does. But with this pick, he has actually done us a favor. He is favoring us by appointing a man so obviously conflicted with being appointed during a point in time when the president is under investigation.

Now, we all have to get to work. But, please, can we work on the SAME JOB? Object on the basis that the man is conflicted.


Senator Corey Booker, my man! Comes hard on Rachel Maddow’s show and says the one and only one thing that can and should be said, just as we noted above. The one and only thing that stood out about Brett Kavanaugh is that he is the ONE judge who wrote against criminal investigations against the president.

Corey Booker leads the way, Democrats. Get his back!

***It is also just fine to have my back @MiciakZoom

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here