That's more recent

And also good

Kavanaugh has recognized the government’s interest in “supporting American farmers and ranchers against their foreign competitors.” (2014)
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A064A3175BC6DEEE85257D24004FA93B/$file/13-5281-1504951.pdf

So, yeah, on this issue, he's shown a consistent, solid, hardline stance.

Yeah

Other issues?

Guns for example? Since that's more of my area

alright, let me see if he has done a ruling on that issue

Ok

"In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller" (2010)
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/%24file/10-7036-1333156.pdf#page=47

So he's good on gun control.

Good

Thanks!

FLanon, you make a compelling case.

Who do you guys think it’s going to be?

Is anyone watching Watters World ?

The two areas of scrutiny where Kavanaugh is concerned is Obamacare, where he ruled that the individual mandate was in fact a tax and constitutional, and abortion, where while he did rule in one case that an immigrant minor did not have the right to have a subsidized abortion, he was criticized for not doing it on the grounds of abortion not being a right whatsoever.

>ruled that the individual mandate is a tax

When?

Seven-Sky v. Holder

2011

Ah.

"The Affordable Care Act is unusually significant federal legislation that will affect all Americans. One provision of the Act requires most Americans to maintain health insurance or else pay a tax penalty when they file their annual tax returns. That provision — commonly referred to as the individual mandate — is codified in the Tax Code and takes effect in 2014. The tax penalty for those without health insurance is capped at the average price of a health insurance plan. The tax penalty is the only sanction for failing to have health insurance. And the IRS — and only the IRS — may assess, collect, and enforce the tax penalty."

That's probably the biggest drawback where Kavanaugh's concerned, I think that his position on the immigrant abortion case was satisfactory enough in my opinion.

And as for abortion, I don't think he's wrong to rule on a basis that doesn't repeal _Roe_, given his role.

When you work as a judge, your job isn't to overturn the Supreme Court. It's to interpret its opinions.

Yeah, pretty much, his abortion ruling was good enough for me.

The obamacare ruling is his big fault where I'm concerned, but his positions on everything else are good enough for me.

The Obamacare ruling is fine.

Roberts ruled similarly.

The Supreme Court has effectively given Congress unlimited tax authority.

The issue that conservatives have is that this ruling was the roadmap for the SC to make a similar ruling.

True.

Although, ultimately it is inconsequential as we do have Roberts on the court and wouldn't have a majority to overturn that case even if we did appoint a judge which wanted it overturned.

So, looking at it that way, Kavanaugh is really our best choice when looking at it purely from his record.

Anyways, after Trump's pick to replace Kennedy, I have no doubts as to who he should pick to replace Ginsburg should that choice need to be made, and that would be Barrett.

If Kavanaugh should prove to be a wild card on social conservatism, she would absolutely be certain to rule correctly, she is deeply religious to the point that Feinstein discriminated her in her hearings for the appellate courts.

I still want Pryor.

also

Another thing is continuity, Barrett would be a replacement of a liberal woman on the court with a conservative woman, similar to Clarence Thomas being the conservative replacement to the liberal Thurgood Marshall.

I find it hilarious that the big Catholic thing for which Feinstein reprimanded her was the death penalty.