Loading...

"The Bush lives loudly in Kavanaugh." - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title "The Bush lives loudly in Kavanaugh.", we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : "The Bush lives loudly in Kavanaugh."
link : "The Bush lives loudly in Kavanaugh."

"The Bush lives loudly in Kavanaugh."

Said former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli II, about Brett M. Kavanaugh, who is (supposedly) one of 3 finalists for the Supreme Court nomination, quoted in "Trump narrows list for Supreme Court pick, with focus on Kavanaugh and Kethledge" (WaPo).

Cuccinelli is making a very witty play on "The dogma lives loudly within you," which is something  Sen. Dianne Feinstein famously said to Amy Coney Barrett, who is another one of the 3 finalists.

Kavanaugh worked in the George W. Bush White House, and that counts as a negative, apparently, among Trump people. Cuccinelli also said, "He looks, walks and quacks like John G. Roberts Jr." I remember when John Roberts seemed like perfection in a Supreme Court nominee, but things have changed.

The 3rd potential nominee is Raymond Kethledge, and WaPo says "Kavanaugh and Kethledge have the 'inside track,' according to a person close to the president," because Coney Barrett has less than a year of judging to top off her 10 years of law professing. (I'll just note that Elena Kagan was mainly a law professor/dean and had not served as a judge at all before joining the Supreme Court.)

So... at the moment, it looks like Kethledge is the one. Here's a Politico article, "Kethledge gets 11th hour push as potential consensus pick for Supreme Court/Boosters for the Michigan-based judge are portraying him as eminently confirmable." I guess if "11th hour" things are possible, it could turn out to be someone we haven't been talking about yet, but I'll read this article anyway:

Former aides and supporters of Kethledge, a Michigan resident who moves outside Washington circles and is considered the least known of the leading contenders, are quietly circulating positive information about the judge’s personal life, political profile and reassuring record on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit...

Confidants also are sharing tidbits from what they describe as his encouraging early interactions with Trump, who is prioritizing personal chemistry and political magnetism along with a potential nominee’s legal record. “They just really hit it off,” said one Republican close to the White House....

Kethledge lacks Kavanaugh’s vast D.C. network and does not excite grass-roots conservatives in the same way as Barrett — a Roman Catholic, Notre Dame law professor and mother of seven who is electrifying the anti-abortion ranks....

What religion (if any) is Kethledge? I'm having a hard time finding an answer, though I see that Hugh Hewitt, pushing Kethledge in "Here’s who Trump should pick for the Supreme Court" (WaPo), called him "a man of faith." What faith? Is it possible that he's not Catholic, like every other Republican appointee?

Back to the Politico article:

Kethledge met his wife, Jessica, when they were only 13 years old. The couple have two children... Kethledge... once gave a speech at his alma mater, the University of Michigan Law School, which includes a somewhat unflattering comparison of himself to Bill Murray’s character in “Caddyshack.”

Golf. There's a point of affiliation. Hey, I found the "Caddyshack" quote, in this speech text, which begins:

For me, speaking in Room 100 of Hutchins Hall is always like coming home again. In law school I took more classes in this room than I can remember, but the one I remember best, of course, was Commercial Transactions with James J. White. I have never had a better professor anywhere than Jim White. I took that class twenty-six years ago, which is a bit hard to believe, and in those days we were here each morning, four days a week, at 8:00 a.m. sharp. In Professor White’s class everything was sharp, not least his sense of humor, which I have often since described as “predatory.” One day’s class comes to mind, especially today. We had been working on some issue arising under the Uniform Commercial Code. At the end of class, Professor White chose three panels of three students apiece and told each panel to prepare an opinion on the issue and to read it to the class the next day. I got picked for one of the panels and then somehow got the task of writing up our opinion and reading it to the class. What I wrote up by hand at 7:15 a.m. the next morning was more “talking points” than a judicial opinion, but I figured I could just wing it from there when I presented to the class. Well, when I got to class I knew I was in trouble when I saw that the other eight students on the panels were wearing suits, whereas I was wearing jeans and a t-shirt. And then I saw that the other two panels had printed out copies of their opinions, indeed enough for the whole class, whereas I had my sheet from a legal pad. So I sat up on this very dais with two students from the other panels, feeling a bit like Bill Murray in Caddyshack, as each of them read their panel’s opinion. Then I stumbled through mine, saying something like, “The creditor can’t recover here because, you know, he didn’t perfect his interest, so, you know, he loses.” At the end of that performance Professor White nodded rather gravely and said, “Mr. Jones and Ms. Smith, I see that you have copies of the opinions you’ve prepared, so please distribute those to the class.” Then he turned to me and said, “Mr. Kethledge, what have you got there—scraps of paper?” I think I said, “It’s actually just one piece of paper,” but that didn’t do me much good. Well, I’m wearing a suit today, and I’ve written some opinions in the meantime, so I hope I can make amends now.

Today, after almost ten years on the bench, I’d like to offer some reflections about cases involving statutory interpretation and administrative law. The law governing statutory interpretation, especially, has changed significantly since the time I was here as a student. That was the tail end of the era when lawyers would resort to the statutory text only if the legislative history was ambiguous. What brought that era to an end, of course, was the jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia. Now, as Justice Kagan recently declared, “we are all textualists.”

Yet as a practical matter textualism has a certain fragility. Not in a doctrinal or logical sense: there is a straight line from the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I; to a statutory text that has met those requirements; to the meaning that the citizens bound by that text would ascribe to it, which is to say its public meaning; and to what is then the law, which as judges we are bound to apply. In these respects, the inquiry is essentially the same as the one in constitutional cases: namely, what is the meaning that the citizens bound by the law would have ascribed to it at the time it was approved. By fragility, instead, I mean a certain fragility in application. For the first reflection I offer is this: There is nothing so liberating for a judge as the discovery of an ambiguity.

Said former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli II, about Brett M. Kavanaugh, who is (supposedly) one of 3 finalists for the Supreme Court nomination, quoted in "Trump narrows list for Supreme Court pick, with focus on Kavanaugh and Kethledge" (WaPo).

Cuccinelli is making a very witty play on "The dogma lives loudly within you," which is something  Sen. Dianne Feinstein famously said to Amy Coney Barrett, who is another one of the 3 finalists.

Kavanaugh worked in the George W. Bush White House, and that counts as a negative, apparently, among Trump people. Cuccinelli also said, "He looks, walks and quacks like John G. Roberts Jr." I remember when John Roberts seemed like perfection in a Supreme Court nominee, but things have changed.

The 3rd potential nominee is Raymond Kethledge, and WaPo says "Kavanaugh and Kethledge have the 'inside track,' according to a person close to the president," because Coney Barrett has less than a year of judging to top off her 10 years of law professing. (I'll just note that Elena Kagan was mainly a law professor/dean and had not served as a judge at all before joining the Supreme Court.)

So... at the moment, it looks like Kethledge is the one. Here's a Politico article, "Kethledge gets 11th hour push as potential consensus pick for Supreme Court/Boosters for the Michigan-based judge are portraying him as eminently confirmable." I guess if "11th hour" things are possible, it could turn out to be someone we haven't been talking about yet, but I'll read this article anyway:

Former aides and supporters of Kethledge, a Michigan resident who moves outside Washington circles and is considered the least known of the leading contenders, are quietly circulating positive information about the judge’s personal life, political profile and reassuring record on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit...

Confidants also are sharing tidbits from what they describe as his encouraging early interactions with Trump, who is prioritizing personal chemistry and political magnetism along with a potential nominee’s legal record. “They just really hit it off,” said one Republican close to the White House....

Kethledge lacks Kavanaugh’s vast D.C. network and does not excite grass-roots conservatives in the same way as Barrett — a Roman Catholic, Notre Dame law professor and mother of seven who is electrifying the anti-abortion ranks....

What religion (if any) is Kethledge? I'm having a hard time finding an answer, though I see that Hugh Hewitt, pushing Kethledge in "Here’s who Trump should pick for the Supreme Court" (WaPo), called him "a man of faith." What faith? Is it possible that he's not Catholic, like every other Republican appointee?

Back to the Politico article:

Kethledge met his wife, Jessica, when they were only 13 years old. The couple have two children... Kethledge... once gave a speech at his alma mater, the University of Michigan Law School, which includes a somewhat unflattering comparison of himself to Bill Murray’s character in “Caddyshack.”

Golf. There's a point of affiliation. Hey, I found the "Caddyshack" quote, in this speech text, which

Loading...

begins:

For me, speaking in Room 100 of Hutchins Hall is always like coming home again. In law school I took more classes in this room than I can remember, but the one I remember best, of course, was Commercial Transactions with James J. White. I have never had a better professor anywhere than Jim White. I took that class twenty-six years ago, which is a bit hard to believe, and in those days we were here each morning, four days a week, at 8:00 a.m. sharp. In Professor White’s class everything was sharp, not least his sense of humor, which I have often since described as “predatory.” One day’s class comes to mind, especially today. We had been working on some issue arising under the Uniform Commercial Code. At the end of class, Professor White chose three panels of three students apiece and told each panel to prepare an opinion on the issue and to read it to the class the next day. I got picked for one of the panels and then somehow got the task of writing up our opinion and reading it to the class. What I wrote up by hand at 7:15 a.m. the next morning was more “talking points” than a judicial opinion, but I figured I could just wing it from there when I presented to the class. Well, when I got to class I knew I was in trouble when I saw that the other eight students on the panels were wearing suits, whereas I was wearing jeans and a t-shirt. And then I saw that the other two panels had printed out copies of their opinions, indeed enough for the whole class, whereas I had my sheet from a legal pad. So I sat up on this very dais with two students from the other panels, feeling a bit like Bill Murray in Caddyshack, as each of them read their panel’s opinion. Then I stumbled through mine, saying something like, “The creditor can’t recover here because, you know, he didn’t perfect his interest, so, you know, he loses.” At the end of that performance Professor White nodded rather gravely and said, “Mr. Jones and Ms. Smith, I see that you have copies of the opinions you’ve prepared, so please distribute those to the class.” Then he turned to me and said, “Mr. Kethledge, what have you got there—scraps of paper?” I think I said, “It’s actually just one piece of paper,” but that didn’t do me much good. Well, I’m wearing a suit today, and I’ve written some opinions in the meantime, so I hope I can make amends now.

Today, after almost ten years on the bench, I’d like to offer some reflections about cases involving statutory interpretation and administrative law. The law governing statutory interpretation, especially, has changed significantly since the time I was here as a student. That was the tail end of the era when lawyers would resort to the statutory text only if the legislative history was ambiguous. What brought that era to an end, of course, was the jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia. Now, as Justice Kagan recently declared, “we are all textualists.”

Yet as a practical matter textualism has a certain fragility. Not in a doctrinal or logical sense: there is a straight line from the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I; to a statutory text that has met those requirements; to the meaning that the citizens bound by that text would ascribe to it, which is to say its public meaning; and to what is then the law, which as judges we are bound to apply. In these respects, the inquiry is essentially the same as the one in constitutional cases: namely, what is the meaning that the citizens bound by the law would have ascribed to it at the time it was approved. By fragility, instead, I mean a certain fragility in application. For the first reflection I offer is this: There is nothing so liberating for a judge as the discovery of an ambiguity.

Thus articles "The Bush lives loudly in Kavanaugh."

that is all articles "The Bush lives loudly in Kavanaugh." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article "The Bush lives loudly in Kavanaugh." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-bush-lives-loudly-in-kavanaugh.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: