Thune: I Will Vote to Confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court

Pat Powers

 Thune: I Will Vote to Confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court

“I will support his nomination to the Supreme Court this fall, and I hope my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, reach the same conclusion about this well-qualified, mainstream jurist.”

 Thune meets with Judge Kavanaugh (high-resolution photo attached). 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today released the following statement after meeting with Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court:

“After today’s meeting with Judge Kavanaugh, I am confident that the president’s nominee has exactly what it takes to defend the Constitution and call balls and strikes from the bench, which will serve the American people well now and for many years to come. Over the course of his judicial career, he has effectively demonstrated his commitment to deciding cases based on the law, not on his own political opinions or preferred outcomes. With that in mind, I will support his nomination to the Supreme Court this fall, and I hope my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, reach the same conclusion about this well-qualified, mainstream jurist.”

###

12 thoughts on “Thune: I Will Vote to Confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court”

  2. his reasoning is good. And he’s the kindest and most approachable Senator that SD ever had other than maybe Jim Abdnor..

  3. Thine will vote for him for the same reason the Democrats won’t-he is an honorable man who believes in the Constitution.

    1. What a bunch of crap. As Americans we ALL believe in the Constitution. It’s the interpretation of the Constitution where we differ. Newsflash: interpreting the Constitution is what the Supreme Court does.

      1. Wow, what a bunch of crap. The deranged protestors outside Thune’s office, when he was to meet with Kavanaugh, do not believe in the Constitution. They didn’t just silently protest, they attempted to prevent the meeting from happening. Leftist’s logic: If Thune can’t meet with Kavanaugh, then he can’t support the nomination. You and your fellow Americans are great at “interpreting” the Constitution to fit your agenda; that’s your America and your fellow Americans.

        How about all the Americans who stop speakers from holding events on college campuses? How are they interpreting the Constitution? Are they not familiar with the 1A? You are such an idiot.

        1. Not true. Many of those protesters knew they could be arrested, and 74 of them were. They know they broke the law, and are willing to pay the consequences for their illegal actions. Can we say the same about our president?

        2. The first amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to free speech. It says nothing about what private citizens may or may not do. Perhaps you should read those bill of rights again, oh constitutional scholar (this should not be taken as support for moronic college students who shout down everyone they disagree with).

  5. A future Democrat President could appoint more Supreme Court Justices expanding the number presently serving if needed. Interesting times ahead.

    1. You are correct except for one little fact. ANY President can appoint more Supreme Court Justices expanding the number presently serving. There is nothing in the Constitution that says there are nine members. The fact of the matter is President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to this in the 1930’s when SCOTUS ruled some of his programs unconstitutional. He was soundly criticized for trying to pack the Supreme Court and eventually backed off. I do predict that a Democrat President is more likely to attempt this than a Republican, but Trump could do this himself if he wanted.

      1. Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866. This Act reduced the number from 10 to seven. The decrease was to take effect as the seats became vacant.

        However, only two seats were freed up by 1869, so there were eight justices. Congress added one seat back in and decided that there should be nine justices. The Judiciary Act of 1869 officially set the number, and it has not budged since.

        1. That doesn’t mean it can’t. FDR threatened to pack the court, which lead to the cliched saying about “a switch in time that saved the nine” which may or may not be historically accurate.

Comments are closed.