More stupid Brett Kavanuagh tricks

CNET -When pressed by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, to explain why he disagreed with the rest of his colleagues on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit that the Federal Communications Commission was within its authority to create the rules, Kavanaugh said he was simply following legal precedent and wasn't looking to strip the agency of its power.

Kavanaugh, a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, supported a petition from the broadband industry for the full court to rehear the case that upheld the FCC's right to impose utility-style regulations on internet services. Specifically, the court in its decision said the agency had the authority to reclassify internet services as a so-called Title II service under the Communications Act. This reclassification served as the basis for the strict net neutrality rules adopted by the Obama administration in 2015.

The full court denied the petition to rehear the case. It cited the so-called the US Supreme Court's Chevron doctrine, which gives expert federal agencies the discretion to interpret ambiguous statutes. But Kavanaugh disagreed and wrote a dissenting opinion.

NY Times -Judge Kavanaugh did not say whether he would be prepared to reconsider Roe, and he declined an invitation to agree with a statement from the Casey decision that the right to abortion allows women to “participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation.”

He said instead that the right to abortion was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court.” That statement is less categorical than it appears at first blush. To call a decision “settled law” is not to say it is set in stone...

When Judge Kavanaugh was asked more specific questions about Mr. Trump, he declined to answer.

“Can a sitting president be required to respond to a subpoena?” Ms. Feinstein asked.

Judge Kavanaugh said that was “a hypothetical question about what would be an elaboration or a difference from U.S. v. Nixon’s precise holding.”

“I can’t give you an answer on that hypothetical question,” he said.

He gave a similar answer to whether Mr. Trump could pardon himself.

“The question of self-pardons is something I’ve never analyzed,” he said. “It is a question that I’ve not written about. It is a question therefore that is a hypothetical question that I can’t begin to answer in this context as a sitting judge and as a nominee to the Supreme Court.”