What do you expect? Since the Republicans stole a supreme court seat, and denied the government chosen by the people to be enacted. Im sure you would probably rage if the democrats find a way to keep Trumps pick from being seated though, wouldnt you?
The Repubs didn't steal anything. Bo the Peep got his 2 nominations in. The Precedent was set by the Demos and the Biden rule. Oh and the Demos can't do anything except hope on some Repubs to tank this confirmation. Which wont be happening with all on record with Kavanaugh already.
If you look at both the Jacobs article and the Federalist article, it's a bit of a mixed bag. Whether or not Kavanaugh intended to or not, I think his reasoning on the subject may have influenced Roberts into making the eventual ruling that he did. It became a game of semantics. If the mandate is called a tax, it's ok; if it's called a mandate, its not ok. As Kavanaugh says; here's how congress can make it a tax, instead of a mandate. From the Jacobs article: This discussion about the potential problem with the Government’s Taxing Clause argument also shows how easily Congress could eliminate any such potential problem. For example, Congress might keep the current statutory language and payment amounts and simply add a provision as basic as: “The taxpayer has a lawful choice either to maintain health insurance or make the payment to the IRS required by Section 5000A(a)-(c).” Or Congress might retain the exactions and payment amounts as they are but eliminate the legal mandate language in Section 5000A, instead providing something to the effect of: “An applicable individual without minimum essential coverage must make a payment to the IRS on his or her tax return in the amounts listed in Section 5000A(c).” Any of those options—and others as well—would ensure that this provision operates as a traditional regulatory tax and readily satisfies the Taxing Clause. But of course, none of that happened. The case was litigated as a mandate, but Roberts, acting as a one man Congress, labeled it a tax instead; as his way of upholding the law. I think it's also telling that Kavanaugh, in all likelihood, would have also upheld ObamaCare if only Congress had made the simple tax provision he proposed. I remain skeptical of Kavanaugh, and would have preferred Kethledge instead.
Jacobs was debunked. Here was the actual dissent. Susan SEVEN-SKY, also known as Susan Sevensky, et al., Appellants v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., et al., Appellees. No. 11-5047. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued September 23, 2011.Decided November 8, 2011. KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, dissenting as to jurisdiction and not deciding the merits: That reasoning independently demonstrates that the Anti-Injunction Act precludes 23*23 us from deciding this case at this time. The Tax Code is never a walk in the park. But the statutory analysis here leads to a firm conclusion that the Anti-Injunction Act bars this suit. Although the following is an over-simplification, the Act's most important provisions are five: (1) an increase in federal spending, including through Medicaid, on health care for lower-income families and individuals; (2) the creation of state-run "exchanges" designed to help individuals without employer-provided or other health insurance obtain insurance more easily and cheaply than they can now on the open market; (3) a requirement that most employers provide health insurance to their employees or pay higher taxes than they otherwise would; (4) banning insurers from denying coverage or charging higher rates to individuals with pre-existing conditions or health problems; and (5) a mandate that most citizens maintain health insurance or else pay a tax penalty on their tax returns. Plaintiffs take exception to that last element: the mandate that individuals maintain health insurance or else pay a tax penalty on their tax returns. Plaintiffs argue that Congress lacks authority to impose such a mandatory-purchase requirement under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the Taxing Clause, which are the constitutional bases cited by the Government to justify the mandate. Plaintiffs point out that a federal mandatory-purchase requirement is unprecedented in American history. Although some States have imposed similar mandates for their citizens to maintain health insurance or auto insurance, for example, plaintiffs explain that the Federal Government does not possess a general police power over its citizens and has not previously employed such mandates. Within Title 26 is Subtitle D, which is entitled "Miscellaneous Excise Taxes." Within Subtitle D is chapter 48, which is entitled "Maintenance of Minimum Essential Coverage." Within chapter 48 is Section 5000A, which is entitled "Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage" and contains the individual mandate provision at issue in this case. Section 5000A provides in relevant part: As explained more fully below, the cross-referenced provision — subchapter B of chapter 68 — in turn provides that tax penalties "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes." 26 U.S.C. § 6671(a) (emphasis added). To promote compliance with the individual mandate, Congress did not enact criminal penalties enforceable by the Department of Justice. Nor did Congress impose civil penalties enforceable through civil or administrative complaints brought by the Department of Justice or the Department of Health and Human Services, for example. Instead, Congress established a tax penalty that is codified in the Tax Code, paid on individual tax returns, and assessed, collected, and enforced by the IRS.[3] And most importantly for present purposes, Congress employed cross-references making clear that the penalty must be "assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes." By requiring that the Affordable Care Act penalties be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes, Section 5000A(g)(1) triggers the threshold question before us: Do we have jurisdiction to hear this pre-enforcement suit in light of the Anti-Injunction Act, which states that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court"? https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...462647556&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr As you can see he was explaining it out. As to what it is and what it was saying. Maintaining all throughout his dissent that that the Court shouldn't even be considering the matter.
I switched my vote to Kavanaugh after doing some research on him, but was quite impressed by his short list in general.
Of course you dont see it that way. But the simple fact of the matter is, sitting prez gets to pick the nominee. Some get more. Some get less. Some get none. Mitch McConnell stole this from the Dems, and nothing you can say will ever change that.
Then there was Bork. So no there was no stealing from the Peep who Garland wouldn't have served under.
I voted Amy Coney Barrett, with tongue-in-cheek. Of course, of all the possibilities, I would want Kavanaugh. But, the one with the surest path to quick confirmation that wouldn't involve a month-long bloodbath would be the woman. Why? Because anyone who is a member of a minority, or a female, automatically has most obstacles removed. But, any White, conservative male, especially over the age of 50 is automatically targeted for the heaviest hatred bombardment by the rabid Democrat-Left.
Senator Rand Paul, M.D. for Supreme Court Justice. We need a strict constitutionist in the mix. And Paul made us aware Kavanaugh favors National Security needs over the 4th Amendment.http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/its-kavanaugh.537112/page-3#post-1069354910 Moi
