Just recently, on another thread, I posted the D.C. Circuit Opinion in Seven-Sky v. Holder, including the Kavanaugh dissent begining at page 39.

SHAPIRO:

3. Worst, Kavanaugh upheld Obamacare ... in Seven-Sky v. Holder, in which he stated that the Obamacare penalties were actually ‘taxes.’”

Shapiro's claim primarily indicates that he did not review Kavanaugh's opinion in Seven-Sky.

At page 39, it begins, "KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, dissenting as to jurisdiction and not deciding the merits:"

At page 65, it ends, "I have greatest respect for my two colleagues on this panel. But my analysis leads me decisively to the conclusion that we lack jurisdiction because of the Anti-Injunction Act. I therefore would vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand with directions that the suit be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. I respectfully dissent."

https://www.scribd.com/document/382840264/Seven-Sky-v-Holder-No-11-5047-DC-Cir-8-Dec-2011-Obamacare-Kavanaugh-Dissent-at-39

- - - - - - - - - -

In Sissel, the majority found that the Affordable Care Act was not a revenue-raising bill for purposes of the Origination Clause and therefore did not have to originate in the House.

Kavanaugh wrote a dissent, joined by Circuit Judges Henderson, Brown, and Griffith, asserting that the Origination Clause applied to the Affordable Care Act as a revenue-raising bill, but that the Act did originate in the House as required.

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judges HENDERSON, BROWN, and GRIFFITH join, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc: This case raises a serious constitutional question about the 2010 Affordable Care Act, one of the most consequential laws ever enacted by Congress. Did Congress’s enactment of the Act comport with the Origination Clause of the Constitution? The Origination Clause provides: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” U.S. Const. art. 1, § 7, cl. 1. The Origination Clause therefore requires that bills for “raising Revenue” originate in the House of Representatives. Revenue bills may be amended in the Senate “as on other Bills,” but they must originate in the House. If the Affordable Care Act did not meet the requirements of the Origination Clause, then the Act – or at least revenue-raising provisions such as the individual mandate – must be invalidated.

In my view, the Affordable Care Act complied with the Origination Clause, but not for the reason articulated by the three-judge panel opinion. The panel opinion concluded that the Affordable Care Act was not a revenue-raising bill for purposes of the Origination Clause and therefore did not have to originate in the House. In my respectful view, that conclusion is untenable. The Affordable Care Act established new subsidies for the purchase of health insurance and expanded the Medicaid program for low-income Americans. Those new subsidies and expanded entitlements cost an enormous amount of money. So as not to increase the annual budget deficit and the overall national debt, the Act imposed numerous taxes to raise revenue. Lots of revenue. $473 billion in revenue over 10 years. It is difficult to say with a straight face that a bill raising $473 billion in revenue is not a “Bill for raising Revenue.”

The Affordable Care Act therefore was a revenue-raising bill subject to the Origination Clause. That said, the Act did in fact originate in the House, as required by the Clause. Although the original House bill was amended and its language replaced in the Senate, such Senate amendments are permissible under the Clause’s text and precedent.

So in concluding that the Affordable Care Act complied with the Origination Clause, the panel opinion reached the right bottom line, but relied on what I see as a faulty rationale.

[...]

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was H.R. 3590 which originated in the House.

09/17/2009 — House — Introduced in House

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scribd.com/document/382876864/Sissel-v-DHHS-13-5202-DC-Cir-7-Aug-2015-en-Banc-Kavanaugh-dissent-at-32-Origination-Clause

The estimable Ben Shapiro offers what is super-ambitiously titled “The Run-Down: Here’s What You Need To Know About Trump’s Top 5 Possible Nominees.”

An article I posted here, based on the Fred Barnes list which matched a list given to CNN or some other libmedia outlet.

I'm interested in Kavanagh's record. Shapiro did not explain how Kavanagh was so favored by so many solid legal eagles despite Shapiro's alarmism about his record.

Clearly, there is a lot more to know about Kavanagh.

I notice that Mike Lee is so anti-abortion, even since being put on Trump's justice list, that it seems impossible for him to get confirmed at all. Unless Cocaine Mitch got Trump to nominate him and plan to lose that confirmation vote to have an open USSC seat in view of the voters just before the 2018 midterms. It was a major factor in Trump winning the 2016 election. And Cocaine Mitch always plays for keeps.

I knew they would politicize the hell out of this vacancy in both parties but apparently I was naive about just how far they might go to win the midterms.

If that's actually McConnell's game, and he pulls it off, I will change my view of him to great respect and admiration for his political skills. True Machiavellians who are any good at it are hard to find, and the masters of the art are like the most venimous snakes or tree frogs: exotic beasts worthy of respect for their skills, if not for their motivations.

I doubt McConnell would go for it. Or Lee. But we underestimate them if we don't think they are capable of plotting something like that. And if the Dems relented and confirmed Lee after a bitter fight, nothing lost really. The GOP base would go into the midterms energized enough to match the Dems.

But it would nationalize the midterms like never before. A real re-run of 2016.

And that would be fatal to at least 4 Red-state Dem senators. McConnell needs those seats to withstand the next two election cycles when the GOP has to defend a lot of seats.

I'm interested in Kavanagh's record. Shapiro did not explain how Kavanagh was so favored by so many solid legal eagles despite Shapiro's alarmism about his record.

Clearly, there is a lot more to know about Kavanagh.

He's the goto guy for Clinton Arkanicide cover ups, conducted the investigation into Vince Foster's death. He's as corrupt as they come, a job requirement for any DC Circuit Court Judge.

---

On July 20, 1993, Hillary Clinton's former law partner, and then deputy White House counsel for President Bill Clinton, Vincent Foster, was found dead in Virginia's Fort Marcy Park. The official U.S. government conclusion is that Foster committed suicide in the park. In May of 2016, candidate Trump stated that the circumstances of the death were "very fishy." At the 2004 confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) stated: "Mr. Kavanaugh served in the Office of Independent Counsel under Judge Starr, where he conducted the office's investigation into the death of former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr." A 1998 New York Times article also states that Kavanaugh "led the investigation into the death of the deputy White House counsel Vincent W. Foster Jr."

There is something 'fishy' about one of Trump's potential Supreme Court nominees

He's the goto guy for Clinton Arkanicide cover ups, conducted the investigation into Vince Foster's death.

We'll probably hear more about this soon enough.

I think it's more likely Trump will pick one of the others.

I think it's more likely Trump will pick one of the others.

The Trumpster probably wants to keep Kavanaugh right where he is, in case any dead bodies turn up at the White House that he needs to get rid of.

Well, Trump has set the date already.

President Donald Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One he plans to announce his choice to succeed retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy on July 9. The president says he is considering two women among a group of at least five potential candidates for the nation's high court. Trump says as many as seven candidates may be interviewed.

An article I posted here, based on the Fred Barnes list which matched a list given to CNN or some other libmedia outlet.

I recalled seeing the Ben Sharpio piece somewhere around here late at night, but I don't think it was a thread article. I didn't recall where it was at. My earlier posting of Kavanaugh's dissent was on the generic thread about Trump's possible nominees.

Shapiro did not explain how Kavanagh was so favored by so many solid legal eagles despite Shapiro's alarmism about his record.

Shapiro did not substantiate why he is alarmed about Kananaugh's legal record. Seven-Sky and Sissel serve to undermine or contradict the related negative aspersions.

There appears to be political campaign in progress by those who have treated Kavanaugh as a favorite son and paved the road for him since he left school. The influence appears to emanate from the penumbra of the Bushes.

I believe Kavanaugh is the clear frontrunner in the minds of his political benefactors, but Trump is more influenced by loyalty to Trump rather than owing loyalty to the Bushes and the neo-cons.

The pick announcement is now scheduled for July 9, and two women, Amy Coney Barrett and Allison Eid are reportedly in the final seven, both Trump appointees.

I believe Mike Lee is a politician, not a qualified jurist, and should be a non-starter. Mike Lee wrote enough nonsense in Our Lost Constitution that the Senate democrats could have a field day regarding his qualifications.

http://www.fbicover-up.com/miguel-rodriguez.html

[Very long 24-page article]

In 1994 and 1995, Miquel Rodriquez was the lead prosecutor investigating Mr. Foster's death.

http://www.fbicover-up.com/ewExternalFiles/MiguelRodriguezMemo.pdf

Miguel Rodriguez 30-page Memo of 9-29 Dec 1994 contesting finding of suicide.

http://www.fbicover-up.com/ewExternalFiles/Miquel%20resignation%20ltr.pdf

The resignation of Rodriguez is dated January 17, 1995.

Brett Kavanaugh was born February 12, 1965.

The Starr Report was published September 11, 1998.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh

He received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Yale University and his Juris Doctor from Yale Law School, where he served as Notes Editor of the Yale Law Journal. He is married to Ashley Estes, a native of Abilene, Texas, who formerly served as Personal Secretary to the President in the White House at the same time as her future husband. They have two daughters.

Kavanaugh clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, as well as Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit and Judge Walter Stapleton of the Third Circuit. Prior to his Supreme Court clerkship, Kavanaugh earned a one-year fellowship in the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States, Kenneth Starr, during which he worked on the Whitewater investigation.

Kavanaugh was later a partner at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, where his practice focused on appellate matters. Kavanaugh also served as an Associate Counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel, where he handled a number of the novel constitutional and legal issues presented during that investigation and was a principal author of the Starr Report to Congress on the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton and Vincent Foster investigation.

Kavanaugh sworn in by Justice Kennedy as President Bush and Kavanaugh's wife, Ashley, look on.

After George W. Bush became president in 2001, Kavanaugh served for two years as Senior Associate Counsel and Associate Counsel to the President.

I think it is clear that Trump's choice must be a woman. And also a man.

He (and/or she) should come from one of the three crucial Rust Belt states. And Ohio and Iowa. And the other 45 states too.

I think there is a perception that Kavanagh is being pushed by a faction of the Beltway elites, perhaps the same ones that thought Kennedy was so terrific on the Court. This may hurt Kavanagh with Trump.

Kavanagh and Kethlidge are both former Kennedy clerks, like Gorsuch was. And Kennedy got that secret interview with Trump and is rumored to have offered his own recommendations of a few judges to replace him. Of course, Kennedy knows that Trump's sister is a federal judge and that she probably fills him in on some of the various wranglings of the different courts and the dominant justices of the modern era.

If it were my choice, it would be Hardiman or one of the women.

If it were my choice, it would be Hardiman or one of the women.

An advantage of a Trump appointee to the Circuit Court is that it will be the same senators who confirmed him/her last year, voting to confirm to SCOTUS this year. And it will be Trump's guy/gal, not Bush's.

A woman or minority (Thapar, 6th Cir.) may be more difficult for those senators to oppose and change their votes.

A woman or minority (Thapar, 6th Cir.) may be more difficult for those senators to oppose and change their votes.

You can readily see why McConnell, among others in the GOP, would like to put the first Asian on the Court.