Trump’s SCOTUS nominee appears to be a climate skeptic

WUWT reader Joel O’Bryan writes:

Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, Judge Brett Cavanaugh from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, has a long judicial history of dissenting on not just the CO2 endangerment finding by the EPA, but on Obama’s entire environmental regulatory agenda when those cases made it to him as an appellate judge.

For example, the LA Times writes,

“Kavanaugh was skeptical of several of the Obama administration’s environmental regulations, including efforts to limit greenhouse gases and hazardous air pollutants.”

And here from page 32 of his dissenting opinion on

“KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:

This case is plainly one of exceptional importance. A decision in either direction will have massive real-world consequences. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce describes the EPA regulations at issue here as “the most burdensome, costly, far-reaching program ever adopted by a United States regulatory agency.” Petition for Rehearing En Banc at 1. On the other hand, EPA issued these regulations to help address global warming, a policy issue of major long-term significance to the United States. Put simply, the economic and environmental policy stakes are very high.”

Reference available at:

194 thoughts on “Trump’s SCOTUS nominee appears to be a climate skeptic

  1. Consider this decision by Judge Kavanaugh, it is called the “White Stallion” decision, written in 2012:

    “Suppose you were the EPA Administrator. You have to decide whether to go forward with a proposed air quality regulation. Your only statutory direction is to decide whether it is “appropriate” to go forward with the regulation. Before making that decision, what information would you want to know? You would certainly want to understand the benefits from the regulations. And you would surely ask how much the regulations would cost. You would no doubt take both of those considerations—benefits and costs—into account in making your decision. That’s just common sense and sound government practice.

    So it comes as a surprise in this case that EPA excluded any consideration of costs when deciding whether it is “appropriate”—the key statutory term—to impose significant new air quality regulations on the Nation’s electric utilities. In my view, it is unreasonable for EPA to exclude consideration of costs in determining whether it is “appropriate” to impose significant new regulations on electric utilities.”

    It could be called the “Well Duhh” decision. He is definitely a judge who can cut through the BS. Good choice!

    • It’s not just good practice to consider the cost, it’s the law, and has been for decades.



        Note that (false) global warming alarmism and resulting higher energy costs just increase human suffering and Excess Winter Deaths.

        We’ve known these facts for decades, and re-wrote this paper in 2015 after the landmark Lancet study was published.

        Most politicians are so incompetent that they should not even opine about energy matters, let alone set policy.

        “When uninformed politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die.”

        By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015


        Excess winter deaths average about 100,000 per year in the USA in the four winter months. That is two 9/11’s per week for 17 weeks EVERY YEAR.

        I suggest that reducing those excess winter deaths by even a few percent is significant.

        It is notable that in the recent Lancet study, the lowest Excess Winter Mortality rates were in hot countries Brazil and Thailand, but even in such hot countries more people die from cool weather than hot weather.

        Elderly people migrate to warm climates because it is more pleasant AND because they live longer and healthier lives.

        Adaptation to cold weather is clearly the most important factor to reduce excess winter mortality.

        Flu shots, when they work, provide some benefit.

        And warmer is better.

        Increasing energy costs due to foolish “green energy” schemes is clearly counterproductive and causes more winter deaths, especially among the elderly and the poor.

        The problem with green energy is that it is not green and produces little useful energy.

        Cheap, reliable abundant energy is the lifeblood of modern society.

        When uninformed politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die.

        It IS that simple.

        Regards, Allan

      • Thus the EPA decision to ignore costs. Laws don’t apply to government agencies like the EPA. They make their own rules.

    • Andy,

      the key statutory term in radiation protection regulations, ALARA, purports to keep exposures to ionizing radiation due to civilisatory causes “As Low As Reasonably Achievable”. In no instance of my professional life did a national or international regulator body ever attempt to establish the key term “reasonable” by balancing costs to benefits in quantifiable scales, if costs of their regulations to enterprises and to society were identified at all – if only qualitatively. Even worse, the putative benefits, reduction of health risks, were guesstimated on the basis of a theoretically thoroughly unreasonable “linear-no-threshold” (LNT) postulate which in addition is at odds with an ever increasing body of experimental and epidemiological evidence. Nevertheless, the LNT-mantra (any tiny amount of (only) artificially caused radiation exposure) provokes premature deaths, the number of which is proportional to the size of the population exposed, is marketed by those, whose funding depends on the thereby engendered “radiophobia” – with the obliging assistance of merchants of dread, the media. Worst of all, in the meantime, hazards to the biosphere itself count among the accepted risks to be curbed as low as possibly achievable –whatever the costs might be?

      Radiophobia, Carbonphobia, … the same procedures as …

      Rainer Facius

      BTW: Thanks for your pointer to your recent book, which arrived yesterday.

      • Unfortunately the LNT “standard” is used by EPA and many medical fundraisers (e.g. American Heart Assoc) to apply to virtually everything they wish to regulate including CO2. “Preventable” deaths based on LNT calculations are cited as justification as if there had been actual body counts!

        • George Daddis : The TERM I really like to call an obfuscation is
          “INCREASED MORTALITY” . What is really meant by this term ?
          Can you actually DIE more often than once ?
          Do they mean that the DEATH RATE has increased ?
          Do they mean that the SURVIVAL RATE has declined ?
          Or do they just want to impress with damned statistics ??
          are BOTH in the same realm as “CATCH 22” …….popular expressions
          with variable levels of application and understanding ..what do you think ?

      • In the UK we use ALARA (as low as reasonably practicable), because one can always achieve lower levels, but is it practicable to do so? ALARA is much better than ALARP, as it involves looking at the cost/benefit ratio.

    • He uttered the cost word. That qualifies him and also paints a target on him at the same time.

  2. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2-1 decision said EPA does not have the authority to enact a 2015 rule-making ending the use of hydrofluorocarbons commonly found in spray cans, automobile air conditioners and refrigerators. The three-judge panel said that because HFCs are not ozone-depleting substances, the EPA could not use a section of the Clean Air Act targeting those chemicals to ban HFCs.

    “Indeed, before 2015, EPA itself maintained that Section 612 did not grant authority to require replacement of non ozone-depleting substances such as HFCs,” the court wrote.

    “EPA’s novel reading of Section 612 is inconsistent with the statute as written. Section 612 does not require (or give EPA authority to require) manufacturers to replace non ozone-depleting substances such as HFCs,” said the opinion, written by Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

    • The Supreme Court cases that have dealt with EPA’s efforts to address climate change have taught us two lessons that are worth repeating here. See, e.g., Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014). First, EPA’s well intentioned policy objectives with respect to climate change do not on their own authorize the agency to regulate. The agency must have statutory authority for the regulations it wants to issue. Second, Congress’s failure to enact general climate change legislation does not authorize EPA to act. Under the Constitution, congressional inaction does not license an agency to take matters into its own hands, even to solve a pressing policy issue such as climate change.

        • Let’s make that worse and worse the more I read about him. Pretty much an arch neo-Con if ever there was one. Hope the Dems block his nomination.

          • This is funny – if you go to the site linked in that poster’s nic, you will find it features “proof” from Al Gore that 97% of all scientists agree that Global Warming is our greatest threat.

          • Yea, yea, we know. Anything to the right of a communist is an arch-conservative.
            BTW, a neo-con is pretty much the opposite of an arch conservative.
            It’s really sad when the trolls can’t even keep up with their own made up adjectives.

          • “Let’s make that”…one of the best endorsements I’ve seen yet

            odd…the liberals want the law to protect their right to violence, destroy property, and lie…..but don’t want a judge that goes by the law

          • ivankinsman: an “arch neo-Con” ?? By Juxtaposition I guess that makes you an Arch Progressive!
            Curbing the overreach of unelected bureaucrats, because they refuse to evaluate the costs or their actions, is exactly what we need in government these days.

            Progressives are too few in numbers to get a plurality of votes for your agenda, so you rely on bureaucrats to do what you can’t get done at the ballot box. That is sneaky and despicable.

          • Ee-van, you apparently don’t know how the process works. Democrats don’t have the votes, they can’t filibuster and they have almost no ability to derail him. He has a huge amount of previous cases, he has a stellar reputation and he has a lot of well placed friends.

            The guy is a shoo-in. Frankly, I’m not dancing in the streets about the guy. I think he is far too much “in the club” but I am happy about his defenses of religious freedom and the second amendment. His history of curbing bureaucratic stupidity is just icing on top.

            And the progs can’t do anything about it. Chances are good that the republicans will retain the Senate and Justice Ginsberg will open another seat. Then the court will look BEAUTIFUL!!

            All because the Dem’s nominated a horrible candidate. I mean really, what were you all thinking when you nominated Felonious Von Pantsuit?

          • You forgot to mention the abortion issue. Seems the US christian fundamentalists want to take the country back to the Middle Ages. And it looks like this guy will do it for them.

          • This is a false argument. All that overturning Roe means is that it goes back to state regulation of abortion. It is perfectly fine in liberals minds to let states impose extra regulations on a right explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights but not to impose any kind of oversight or restriction whatsoever on a concept made up out of thin air.

          • What exactly is a “Christian fundamentalist”. I am Christian with multiple degrees, including Engineering and Theology and as someone who has studied the idealogical beliefs of all religions along with their various branches and I have never met a Christian Fundamentalist. That is a made up category designed to apply a derogatory implication.

            Look, Ee-van, you have a right to dislike Christians. I dislike progs, so fair is fair. But you really should know which Christians believe the things you don’t like and why. It lends weight to your arguments. For instance, I think abortion is evil, but my solution according to my beliefs and those like me (my branch, if you will) is vastly different than, say, those that believe in dominion (they have a name and a belief system, one which I utterly disagree with).

          • ivankinsman: “I am a Christian And-eee. I go to church most Sundays. But I am also pro abortion.”

            I do not envy you; holding diametrically opposed beliefs, rending your very soul in two.

          • then you are In-name-only.

            study Natural Law. eliminate your internal conflict.

          • Fascinating.
            Any restrictions on the right of a woman to kill her baby is the equivalent of taking us all the way back to the middle ages.

          • Gnomish- I don’t need to be related to a person to object to their murder. And I certainly do object to killing someone because they are an inconvenience.


          • if mere objections, feed your need- it can’t matter to anybody.
            if you should attempt to impose conditions on anybody else’s life, that would guarantee drama.
            The distinguishing characteristic of the Trollocene era is unbridled disrespect for a person’s absolute right to control his own consciousness.
            the continual attempts to direct attention, alter views, impose one’s will on others- is ultimately going to resolve.
            it resolves to STFU. the only question is who ends up having his mouth forcibly shut.
            this is nature taking its course. when nature decides what she wants, there is no sense resisting. 🙂
            suffer if you must, but i assure you it does nothing to develop any virtue.

          • gnomish, the real disrespect is levied by those who disrespect life and pretend that a woman owns the right to murder the life she assisted in creating. It is murder. period.

            I bet you are anti-capital punishment too. real consistent there bud

          • but wait- there’s moar! you also are a mentalist and a gambler! could you get any crazier?
            and, really, do you love punishment so much? it’s what distinguishes the sadomasochists from the rest!

          • Ivankinsman : I can only assume that you have NO KNOWLEDGE
            of HISTORY or you wouldn’t refer to the Middle Ages as being the
            worst possible outcome !
            A few achievements were :
            (Parliament), Magna Carta.
            Trade and Business: Marketplace & Trade Fairs, Banks.
            Architecture: Cathedrals, Castles, Romanesque, Medieval, Gothic Architecture.
            Formal Learning: Guilds, Universities.
            leading up to the Renaissance , which
            was pretty good considering !
            How about the DARK AGES ???
            And “abortion on demand” doesn’t
            actually sound as though it would be
            out of place in the DARK AGES !
            Abortion as a part of Womens
            “Rights”….. stupid garbage more like !!

          • GOOD. I don’t agree with murder and I’m not even religious. SO figure that out there swedish

          • Sorry, but you vitiate the force of your comment by deliberately misspelling Christian. Such ill-tempered stupidity surely will not win many heart, souls, or votes.

          • Here in Japan abortion is legal. The only difference between is that in Japan the state is not allowed to pay for abortions. You are free to choose, but you are required to pay for the consequences of your choice yourself.

          • Ok and I think that is a perfectly acceptable system. An abortion is an individual woman’s choice – the state should have nothing to do with it. Perhaps for very poor individuals, exceptions could be made.

            Ban legal abortion and it simply goes underground in many situations and illegal abortions are highly unsafe.

          • @ Andrew Cooke: Actually, they did not have much choice. In fact FVPs operatives both took over the DNC and many state election committees before the election, stacked the delegate count in her favor, and stole the election from Sanders at the polls in many states but most obviously in California. As so often with progs the most ruthless candidate “won” nomination.

          • “Ee-van, you apparently don’t know how the process works. Democrats don’t have the votes, they can’t filibuster and they have almost no ability to derail him”

            And we can thank Harry Reid for that by being the first to use the “nuclear option”, failing to realize that one day his party would be in the minority in the Senate.

          • If ivankinsman is unhappy, I’m plum tickled to laughter!
            The unhinged response of all ivan’s socialist kinsmen to President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court of the United States of America is a sure sign he has chosen well!

          • …and all the riots, profanity, property destroyed, and costumes seems like it was just yesterday

          • Hello ivankinsman, thank you for the clearifiction

            ” Just like the GOP unhinged response to Merrick Garland. Same dog, different lamppost.”
            It was so refreshing that you admit “your” response is unhinged.
            Thought I disagree that the GOP response was “unhinged” it is pleasing to see you apply the some standard to you own viewpoint “unhinged”

            thank you self honest is always a good thing.


          • Obama had already seated 2 extreme liberal activists to SCOTUS. The dems in congress had spent the prior 7 years completely sidelining the GOP, ramming anything they wanted through, enacting the nuclear option, etc. Then slick Obama thinks if he nominates a moderate liberal the GOP will play nice? Obama and the dems killed all goodwill and bipartisanship for a long time. Trump’s rise was a result of their actions. You own it.

          • Yep it is ALL the fault of the Democrats.
            Trump baser code of conduct:
            1) lap up his B.S. and then regurgitate it
            2) blame everything on the Democrats

          • “Just like the GOP unhinged response to Merrick Garland. Same dog, different lamppost.”

            You mean the response to Garland that simply followed the Dem playbook:
            Sen Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in 2007 that President George W. Bush shouldn’t get to pick any more Supreme Court justices because Schumer was afraid the bench leaned too far Right. Schumer made this remark a whole 19 months before the next president was inaugurated

            In 1960, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a resolution to block President Eisenhower from being able to make any more recess appointments to the Supreme Court

      • I just hope he doesn’t really believe that climate change is “a pressing policy issue”. To me it is quite the opposite.

  3. Some people don’t want the “settled science” questioned. A judge who asks questions might cause them to think, for once.

  4. This new nominee is a complete disaster on many issues, particularly that of the environment. The Democrats must block his nomination, just as their’s was blocked by the GOP. A compromise candidate will then have to be chosen by Trumpus Dickus:

    • ‘complete disaster on many issues, particularly the environment’ but you fail to identify even 1 to back up your argument. You seem to have the stupid notion that everything that POTUS recommends has to be opposed……that doesnt help anyone least of all the environment that often needs a considered and scientific but swift response, the example quoted above shows good common sense arbitration rather than blind political rubber stamping which is what went on between Obama and the EPA

      • Like most of his tribe, this troll knows what he is told to know and believes what he is told to believe.

          • Trump is over in Europe this morning criticizing Germany for making a deal to buy Russian oil.

            That doesn’t sound like “Putin good” to me. If Germany stopped the deal that would cost Putin money.

            Of course, there’s not much chance of Merkel stopping the deal since she is clueless.

            Merkel should listen to Trump. Trump sees the Big Picture. She doesn’t.

          • Merkel is putting German industry interests over those of the EU. Nobody likes her over her pro migrant decision and want her out. She is as two-faced as your Master – why they don’t like each other.

    • God forbid the people have the ability to decide for themselves.
      That’s what liberals are for.

    • “The Democrats must block his nomination”…elections have consequences

      ….guess who said that

      • I’ve known quite a few Republicans who have declared that a president has a right to a nominee of his choice and that the Senate should only block a nominee if the nominee is blatantly incompetent.

        • Yes, the Liberals say that all the time when a Liberal president is in Office. And Republicans usually vote for the Liberal president’s choice in fairly large numbers.

          No so, the other way around, though. It’s a one-way street for Republicans.

    • “This new nominee is a complete disaster on many issues”

      The disaster you speak of is simply that you disagree with him. Perhaps it is your position that is the disaster. Of course that would never occur to you .

      And speaking of compromise, if you recall, George Bush spent the last two years of his presidency trying to comprise with the left. And all they did was to demonize him and shove it back up his keister. So you can take your compromising and do the same.

        • It really is interesting watching the left go apesh$t whenever they don’t get there way.
          I don’t remember any Obama officials being chased from restaurants or attacked while shopping back when Obama was engineering the government takeover of the health care system.

    • I strongly suspect that such deranged and pathological ‘thinking’ is part of a bizzare sexual ritual used by the victim’s of ‘progressivist’ teaching to alleviate stress?

      • I hope you all know that progressives hate you all as much as you hate them which is the state of affairs in the US.
        My Polish nephew who lived in Seattle said US politics is always the same – GOP gets in and rolls back Dem legislation and vice versa. Not really a good long term plan for the country but can’t see much changing.

        I am very anti illegal immigration and you still call me a ‘progressive’ ( Just shows how much you are all entrenched in your position. So you cannot expect real progressives to change either.

        • ivan bubbala!
          We don’t hate you or your regressive kinsmen. You are not worth that strong of an emotion. We just don’t agree with your irresponsible choices, your dictatorial attitudes, your split-tongue hypocrisy, and we refuse to be forced to participate in them with you.

          • And Obama had 8 years as President and you just had to sit there wailing and mewling. Trump will have his day in the sun but time and death wait for no man.

        • Illegal immigration is just one issue currently effecting this country. It is a tool, not a source of the problems. Frankly, I’m not anti immigration. Were I in their shoes, I suspect I would do the same thing they do. Unfortunately, however much I sympathize, open borders is NOT a solution. It is a suicide pact.

          It is obvious where you stand on CAGW, but that is also just a tool used by the progs. The real issue is where you stand on the nature and use of government and the type of economic system we should use in America today. I would like to believe, Ee-van, that you aren’t a prog, but some of the things you say and the way you say them make you seem like one.

        • Oh, and hate…, I don’t hate. I dislike, disagree and even disassociate, but I don’t hate. I’ll save that bit of incivility for the frothing progs.

        • true colors….
          “I hope you all know that progressives hate you all as much as you hate them ”

          Ivan, we disagree, not hate….the left has the market cornered on hate.

          …I will not support a political party…that represents people that violently riot, destroy property, put people in the hospital or even kill, thinks it’s fine dress up in silly costumes and to use as many cuss words as show us all how educated, mature, and responsible they are..

          The democrat party in this country represents people I would not be caught dead associating with….I will not support them

          • Ok and I respect your right to this opinion. What I find distasteful is that many people who have commented here think that anyone who is remotely concerned about the environment is immediately branded a radical screaming leftie progressive and ALL Democratic supporters are seen in the same light.

            It just shows how extreme the political divide has become in the US, and it is sad.

          • Gee I had the impression the “extreme political divide” and intolerance was part of the plan to foment civil war about two years from now. (next close approach of mars for you astrology buffs)

          • “next close approach of mars for you astrology meaningless twaddle buffs”

            Fixed it for ya.

          • ivan,
            Now you profess to know what other people think?!! Hogwash!
            I have cleaned up several progressive messes left behind by slovenly people marching for ‘socialist justice’ and similar tripe. I have cleaned up old farmsteads with all sorts of abandoned ‘hazardous’ materials. I have cleaned up littered road side ditches, streams, and lakes, because it was the right thing to do with all the trash that slovenly people left behind.

            You profess to care about the environment while the people you hate are hands-on cleaning it up. Thanks for illustrating your split-tongue hypocrisy soooo clearly!

          • He cares so much for the environment that he’s willing to spend unlimited amounts of OPM on it.

          • As always, ivanski sees what he is told to see.
            In his mind it’s impossible to oppose whatever he wants without being a screaming lunatic.

        • It is well known that the largest hate group in the USA, perhaps the world, is the Democrat Party. Call them the Resistance Party, for that’s what they’ve been doing for the past two years against the most successful president in my lifetime (and I remember “Ike” well).

          Now the Democrats have turned into the Party of Tyranny and Violence–just listen to any of their leaders if you doubt it.

          Once the Judiciary is cleansed from the rabble that would legislate from the bench, the long term trajectory of the US will improve considerably. We’re already seeing the best economy ever and job growth is the key. The labor participation rate is already reflecting this tremendous turnaround in the economy.

          • Keep on listening to Fox and looking at Breitbart. I suggest you look at some alternative sources e.g. the negative impact of tariffs, the increase to the national debt with the tax reforms benefiting the top 10% etc., the alienation of America’s closest allies, the theft of the taxpayers money by the recently fired head of the EPA etc

          • So let’s discuss each issue you brought up. First, don’t assume that people are so stupid and ignorant that the only place they get their beliefs is from journalist.

            Second, tariffs are bad when trade is essentially neutral. When the other side has tariffs and a massive trade surplus with you, then tariffs are a tool, albeit one that should not be overly used, but can be used.

            Third, the tax reforms are benefitting those who provide jobs. Want jobs. Lower the corporate rate. End of story. It should be noted that taxes have had a MUCH smaller effect than the millions of workers imported into our country in the last decade. That has suppressed wages, which has had a beautiful effect on the bottom line and made the rich MUCH richer and the middle class MUCH poorer.

            Fourth, Scott Pruitt was easily targeted because of bad decisions. I suspect that thanks to the advanced tactical capabilities of Democrat para-organizations, whoever is head of EPA who is not A True Believer will be destroyed. Makes you wonder if more straightforward solutions are called for.

            Even better, I didn’t get any of that information from Fox News. See, Ee-van (the Russian pronunciation, by the way), most of us eeee-vil conservatives do read the other side.

            We just disagree with their conclusions and solutions.

          • If you think Scott Pruitt was forced to resign because of Democratic tactics then it just goes to show how totally unobjective you are, simply stating “blame the Democrats”. What you have written is completely absurd, in fact derisable.

          • Now, now Ee-van, your words would have more validity if you were not “totally unobjective”, as you put it. I happen to be from Oklahoma, know a little bit more about Scott Pruitt than you do, have access to the rest of the story, and find myself disapproving of his actions. However, despite that, I can also assure you that his greatest failing was being against what the frothing progs wanted.

            The head of the IRS during the Obama Administration weaponized the IRS in an evil way, yet I’ll be t you defend their actions. Felonious Von Pantsuit and the Obama administration lied about Benghazi yet I’ll bet you forgave their actions. Those were actual stains on American honor, yet Scott Pruitt, with his poor financial decisions, is the ‘anti-Christ’ in your book.

            Just admit it Ee-van. Look in the mirror. Unobjective is your middle name.

          • I’ll go as far to condemn HC as you go in condemning Pruitt. She was not my choice of Democratic candidate – too far to the left for my liking. Much more centrist Dems who could have done a better job.

            Pruitt took on the EPA to get his greedy snout in the American taxpayer trough and was pretty blatant about it. Good riddance.

          • Not to rudely interject myself in your discussion, but I agree that it’s disgusting to see a public servant take advantage of his position for personal enrichment. I don’t pretend to have the full story, or all the details like Andrew Cooke, but to the extent that Mr. Pruitt did so, I believe he deserves to be removed from his position. Even despite the fact that I approved of the direction he was taking the EPA.

            And, I’d like to point out, it would be refreshing to see more of this type of internal policing in politics. This is how you build credibility. I’ve long argued that reasonable people can disagree about policy based their competing worldviews. It’s not possible, however, to have these discussions in good faith without practicing ideological consistency.

            Calling for the removal of a politician, who’s pushing your agenda but abusing his power, is as credible as it gets. I’d love to see Democrats and left-leaning pundits give credit where it’s due for this. And maybe use it as a wake-up call to do the same on their side of the aisle. I’m prepared to be wrong, but I can’t recall any modern examples of this on the left/Democrat side…


          • Actually, I get most of my information from You should check them out.

            You have a myopic view of tariffs (as if doing nothing about them will solve the trade imbalance problem). Obama doubled the national debt through quantitative easing, not Trump. (The only way to reduce such a huge national debt is to get the economy roaring, which is what Trump is doing.)

            Some of America’s “closest allies” need to be alienated since they’re really not our friends. The long history of economic abuse (going on 67 years) must come to an end.

            And Scott Pruitt did an excellent job although he admittedly had some problems (his actions as head of the EPA reversed a long history of abuse by his predecessors). Oh, I didn’t get that from Fox or Breitbart–it was from working two decades as a mining engineer trying to get domestic mines permitted through a maze of EPA regulations that were designed to kill jobs and destroy our economy. I’ve had first-hand experience in that sector of the economy.

            You should actually listen to Fox News and read Breitbart rather than just parrot derogatory bullet points the Left levels at those organizations. (I’ve noticed the Left will seldom parry their arguments; rather, they always denigrate the messenger.)

            Finally, you should check out the #WalkAway movement on Youtube. Thousands are waking up to the mind control you demonstrate in your comments and are rejecting it.

            MAGA! (which will happen in spite of your destructive efforts!)

          • Trump B S just being regurgitated.

            Obama introduced QE – just like Europe – to get the world out of the 2008 financial crisis. Do more reading.

          • Keep on listening to Fox and looking at Breitbart. I suggest you look at some alternative sources e.g. the negative impact of tariffs, the increase to the national debt with the tax reforms benefiting the top 10% etc., the alienation of America’s closest allies, the theft of the taxpayers money by the recently fired head of the EPA etc

          • …so far the “negative side of tariffs” has put almost 1000 people back to work in just steel alone and steel is booming…unemployment is at record low…and the economy is off the charts

          • The problem with tariffs is people only look for those who go back to work because of them.
            What about the people who are going to lose their jobs because consumers have less to spend because they are forced to spend more for everything made from steel?
            What about the people who are going to lose their jobs because any export with steel in it has become less competitive on the world market?

          • Agree. As Milton Freidman used to say; “If the Japanese want to subsidize the American consumer, let ’em.”

          • I have watched both, and the only time there is any screaming hatred on either is when they are interviewing some Democrat who is demanding the right to control everything others do.
            Like most socialists, you define hatred as anyone who disagrees with you.

          • Yeah yeah yeah. The Trump base are as clean as driven snow and no-one screams hatred at anyone, not even the Donald who never hates any of his opponents but is always complimentary and affable. [Snip]

            [Passion is ok. Personal insults are not. -mod]

          • As I said before, you see what you are paid to see.

            When it comes to hatred and insanity, nobody takes a back seat to the average leftist/socialist.

          • I suggest you request a full tuition refund from the Liberal institution of “higher education” that brainwashed you and left you with the inability to think clearly. You are taking mega doses of the “blue pill”, which has you parroting Fake News like it was reality.

            Someday you’ll come to your senses.

          • In your eyes everyone who criticises Trump is a ‘liberal’. I can think perfectly clearly and don’t just spew out everything the Master states. When did you get your lobotomy?

          • You are a bit optimistic there RockyRoad. Sometimes, some people just never do come to their senses due to having drunk too deeply of the kool-aid.

        • “I am very anti illegal immigration and you still call me a ‘progressive’”

          They call that the aggrieved innocence pose.

          Do you have an emotional need to provoke arguments, Ivan, and to keep cluttering up discussions by repeatedly replying to people who respond to your provocative statements? You’ve already posted here over 10 times today!

          You seem to be using a classic troll strategy. You claim to not be a progressive because you disagree with the progressive position on some issue that is not the main topic of the site–in this case immigration.

          Guess what? WUWT is about the CAGW narrative, not immigration. And most of us are not fooled by your claiming opposition to illegal immigration as some kind of credentials. We have seen that strategy before, many times.

          If you want to keep using that strategy, you should at least include a link to something you have posted in opposition to illegal immigration, instead of just making an unverifiable claim.

          • [Snip]

            [The mods trust that the participants of the above “conversation” get the message that this particular off-topic diversion is now done… -mod]

          • “Go and preach somewhere else my friend.”

            Even though you claim you aren’t a progressive, Ivan, you’re following the progressive playbook by demanding that I stop communicating.

            Thank you providing the quite instructive contrast between my comment and your response.

            By the way, I went to that Visegrad website, Ivan–the one you mentioned to “prove” that you are not a progressive. Unfortunately your name didn’t appear at all on the entry page you linked to.

          • Not what you say but the preaching voice you adopt in saying it. Don’t worry – the Visegrad site is completely 100% my work.
            Where you go wrong is lumping pro-migrant luvvies with those who are concerned over the environment (like myself) in the same boat. The two issues are completely separate. I think CAGW is having a big impact – you don’t. End of story.

          • There is no law against “preaching”, dear ivan. Unless, of course, you’re so unsettled in your convictions (or so brainwashed by a constant diet of Fake News) that you believe others don’t have the right to respond.

            Well, spine up, my dear sir; we all have the right to refute your lies and hatred.

          • What Fake News? Who is talking about Fake News? Why are you even introducing this? Ah because your Master talks about It, so of course you have to as well because you cannot think for yourself. Pathetic.

        • Ivan, I’ve never seen conservatives hate like progressives hate. I, and all the conservatives I know, have no desire to chase progressives out of restaurants, theaters, or gas stations. Nor do I wish to harass them, bully them, fantasize about raping their children, or shout them down in public forums and then claim to be ‘tolerant’ and ‘inclusive’. That, alone, is a huge difference between conservatives and progressives.

          Here is another difference. Conservatives believe that all political differences should be debated in the public forum. But progressives do not want to debate. From climate change to social issues, they make it clear they’re not interested in debate or even listening to what the opposition has to say. They’re only interested in imposing their will on everyone else. And if they can’t elect a majority to carry out their agenda, they want the courts to mandate their will on the majority. It is very revealing that progressives publicly announced they would oppose any Supreme Court nominee with a history of fidelity to the Constitution, even before they knew who the nominee was going to be. That tells you all you need to know about progressives and their attitude toward the Constitution and the democratic process. It’s always their way or the highway, regardless of how many people actually agree with them.

          • Same goes for Trump and his base. Anyone who, for example, disagrees with his agenda is immediately branded a screaming radical progressive who wants to turn the US into a socialist nivarna.

          • This is a fair point. BUT, as a conservative who has consistently critiqued President Trump for (what I perceive to be) missteps, and was a very vocal advocate against voting him into office (vocal in my local circles), the flip side to the die-hard Trump fans is the (not to be too dramatic here) frothing anti-trump crazies on the left. (Apologies if that sounds insulting.)

            Sheesh! I think it’s completely reasonable to criticize the president. It’s our First Amendment right, dangit, and practically the very definition of “American”. But great day in the morning, the Democrats and the left (in general) have got to get a handle on themselves. Not everything he’s done is worth screaming and crying over like it’s the end of the world. And frankly, it makes it almost impossible to have substantive critiques of legitimate complaints, when his every move is treated like a war crime.


          • I agree. The Dems have moved way too much over to the left. They have to move back to the centre – as you say get a handle on themselves – if they want to make inroads come November.

          • “Same goes for Trump and his base”

            Ah the old “I know you are what am I”/”I’m rubber you’re glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you” refrain. Most people realize that that isn’t an actual argument by the time they reach middle school.

          • This is a response from Donald Tusk – the President of the European Union – to Donald Trump, in whom you seem to put so much trust. This is now how America’s traditionsl allies view him. Is this a state of affairs most Americans want – where China and Russia are treated in a more positive fashion?:

            Dear @realDonaldTrump. US doesn’t have and won’t have a better ally than EU. We spend on defense much more than Russia and as much as China. I hope you have no doubt this is an investment in our security, which cannot be said with confidence about Russian & Chinese spending 🙂

          • Trump’s populism is a direct threat to EU bureaucrats.

            It’s no surprise that this guy would come out and criticize Trump. He is not going to be kicked out of his EU office for saying such things so he feels free to vent his feelings.

            Let him. It won’t make a bit of difference to Trump or to the USA.

            He should worry more about trying to keep the EU together than about Trump.

            Or, now that I think about it, maybe that is one and the same. He criticizes Trump as a way to criticize European populism, which is growing and threatening the fabric of the EU. European populists *like* Trump.

            But still, his critcism of Trump is like water off a duck’s back. Nobody, other than the Leftwing Media, cares about what this EU bureaucrat has to say.

          • He can pull whatever he wants, Ivan; you’re not the judge of what’s correct or acceptable here.

            You TRY to be the judge, which is typical of an over-bearing Leftist/Democrat/Progressive (the choice is yours) that deems themselves superior to others attributable to listening to a constant diet of mainstream media (better names lame-stream since so much of it is just Fake News).

        • Ivan,
          Contrary to what you hear from the MSM we on the right are not filled with hate toward yall on the left. Most are sad that yall consistently, and self-inflictedly, become victims to “The Wizards’ First Rule”. Yall, never seem to have an objective conversation with the person in your bathroom mirror. Fall victim to your own internal propaganda, confuse beliefs and facts and never question when new data comes into your view, just reject. Yall have effectively killed that internal and evolutionary necessary voice that keeps your cognitive dissonance from running wild.

          Now as far as your “nephew in Seattle” story goes; that comes under the heading of “cool story bro” and tells me that you have no first hand experience of being in America. I have lived in Seattle as well. It is as left wing as it gets; and its local economy is completely borked due to all the Microsoft millionares ( good for them ). I have lived in 11 States starting in the SE and working my way up the East Coast then boucing to the West for 12 years and now back to the SE. I have been to all but two States so I have a bit of experience…

          The country is very much Red at the local and state level these days, thanks Obama. More than half of all State Houses are Republician; the Republicans stand a good chance of still being the governing party during the next census. That’s a big and important thing in America.

          And yes if you are Polish, I recently saw your one leaders say no to any sort of immigration.

    • “The Democrats must block his nomination”
      Hahahahhha, thank you Harry Reid.

      Should note that this pick also gives Trump a slot to nominate his choice to the second highest court – the DC Appeals Court. Democrats cant stop that either.

        • Hello ivankinsman,
          There are very good reasons why Trump’s pick will not be blocked. There some potential cases that can positively effect smaller states both red and blue. They are of greater importance the the petty issues you hold dear.

          this is an example, it likely to make it’s way to the supreme court

          Guess which states will lose electoral college votes.


        • It would have to be republicans doing the blocking ivan, as they have the majority in the Senate. You can thank Harry Reid (a Dem) for the fact that the minority party can no longer block nominations like they use to.

          • If this nomination goes through before the mid-terms you mean? And somehow I think it won”t – not after the way the GOP behaved when Obama was President.

      • Nor will even Susan Collins be able to stop “shovel ready” RBG’s REAL conservative replacement after we pick up 5 more senate seats in November.

    • Blocking a nomination is easier if you have a majority in the Senate. I don’t agree with people who say the Kavanaugh nomination is a sure thing; I can think of two or three very questionable Republican votes right now.

      Clearly Democrats will try to portray Kavanaugh as an “extremist” and we get a chance to see whether that works with the voters as well as it works on CNN reporters. Kavanaugh clearly has the educational background, the intellectual ability and the experience on the bench to be a quality SC justice, so a “minimally qualified” evaluation from the American Bar Association wouldn’t fool anyone.

      They’ll have to go with something else. What makes this interesting is the Republicans can play politics with the confirmation issue too, and I suspect this was a significant part of Trump’s thinking.

      It will be interesting (unless you’re looking for a little peace and quiet the next few months).

      • Alan, You are right Kavanaugh’s appointment is certainly not a sure thing with such a narrow majority in the Senate. However as of today several “reluctant” or skeptical Republican Senators have now either changed to a definite yes or at least not rejecting his appointment out of hand as was being suggested by the MSM. The whole Roe V Wade fiasco is almost bizarre. Let’s say Kavanaugh fails because of Roe v Wade. What that will do for certain is activate the Republican base like no other single issue which they may have already done with their initial response to any nomination. However, the Dems are going to have to come up with something else significant to stop his confirmation.

  5. It will be interesting to see how the Democrats attack Judge Kavanaugh. He doesn’t have much of a history on the abortion issue, which is the issue the Democrats will try to whip up the most hysteria over, so they may not get much traction from that avenue of attack.

    The Left is also voicing concerns over Kavanaugh for his postion that the president can’t be indicted while in Office, which is a perfectly reasonable postion to hold, but the Left is saying this means Kavanaugh won’t hold Trump accountable and that’s why Trump picked him.

    Kavanaugh says a president should not be indicted in Office because if that were the case then a president would spend all his time defending himself in court instead of governing. Kavanaugh said a president and any wrongdoing he might do should be dealt with through Congress and the impeachment process, not through criminal courts while in Office. After he leaves Office is a different matter. I don’t think this attack will amount to much either.

    Some Republicans have voiced concerns over Kavanaugh but I don’t think it is enough that he will lose their votes.

    We definitely need to elect more Republican Senators because Republicans barely have a majority now and because we need to neutralize the votes of some Republican Senators like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney and maybe a couple of others.

    We need about 10 more Republican Senators come Nov. 2018.

    • Being indicted puts the executive office under the thumb of the judicial branch.
      Separation of powers alone is sufficient to argue that a sitting president can’t be indicted.
      If the evidence is that clear, impeach, convict and then indict.

    • You left out the brain dead McCain. If he cannot fulfill his duties by voting on one of the most important checks and balances in our Constitution then he needs to be removed from office.

      • Will McCain be able to travel to DC for the ultimate confirmation vote is the question. His laudatory comments on President Trumps SCOTUS choice are below:

        “In selecting Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the vacancy left by Justice Kennedy, President Trump has chosen a nominee with impeccable credentials and a strong record of upholding the Constitution,” McCain said in a statement.

        “Over the course of Judge Kavanaugh’s impressive legal career, he has built a reputation as a fair, independent, and mainstream judge who has earned widespread respect from his peers,” McCain continued. “One of the Senate’s highest constitutional responsibilities is to provide advice and consent on nominations to the Supreme Court, and I look forward to the Senate fulfilling this critical duty through a fair and thorough confirmation process,”

          • Most senators died years ago, were stuffed and placed on wheels. The pages roll them out for a vote count. Other than that they are mostly harmless.

    • The Left is also voicing concerns over Kavanaugh for his postion that the president can’t be indicted while in Office, which is a perfectly reasonable postion to hold, but the Left is saying this means Kavanaugh won’t hold Trump accountable and that’s why Trump picked him.

      I don’t think that’s what he said. He said that in his opinion the indictment of a sitting president would paralyze the entire government and that the Congress should pass legislation preventing it, given there is already a consitutional remedy for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. He said that nothing in the Constitution or statues prevents indicting a sitting president.

      His own words:

      “A second possible concern is that the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President,” he wrote. “But the Constitution already provides that check. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available. No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress.”

  6. I wouldn’t call Kavanaugh a ‘climate skeptic.’

    He wrote: ‘“The task of dealing w/global warming is urgent & important.”

    But also: ‘EPA may act only within the boundaries of its statutory authority.’

    So his view is probably that climate is up to Congress. A reasonable view… for a lawyer

  7. I watched a video a couple of days ago where college students were being asked about Trump’s judicial picks. This was 4 or 5 days before the pick was announced.
    The students were vehemently against the appointment, several even declared that they had seen on TV that he was a racist.

    • Ah, the cry of the post modern zealots, ‘You’re a racist/homphobe/climate denier/mysogynist/other’. The same said people 500 years ago would be baying for the blood of witches. Funny despite how many times we are told how times have changed, the nature of people changes so little.

    • Yeah, heard that too. One of the morning radio shows played some of the audio from about 20 or so of the students. Apparently you can lead a snowflake to water AND make them drink.

  8. Kavanaugh’s dissent clarifies by discussing the “absurd results” doctrine:

    In considering a different Clean Air Act program targeted at motor vehicle emissions, the Supreme Court said that the term “air pollutant” meant “all airborne compounds of whatever stripe,” which included greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 529 (2007). But all parties here, including EPA, agree that the Massachusetts v. EPA interpretation of the term “air pollutant” cannot control in this case, for purposes of this very
    {USCA Case #09-1322 Document #1411145 Filed: 12/20/2012 Page 33 of 52}
    different Clean Air Act program for stationary facilities.
    Rather, as the parties agree, we must look to the text and context of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration statute to determine what “air pollutant” covers here.
    Looking at the relevant statutory text and context, there would initially appear to be two plausible interpretations of the term “air pollutant” for purposes of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration statute: (i) more broadly, an airborne compound that is deemed harmful and is regulated by EPA in any Clean Air Act program, which would include greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide; or (ii) more narrowly, the six air pollutants that are regulated by EPA in setting and enforcing the NAAQS, which would cover carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particle pollution, and sulfur dioxide, but would not include greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
    EPA chose the broader interpretation of “air pollutant,” thereby greatly expanding the reach of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration statute. But that broader interpretation has a glaring problem, as EPA itself recognized.
    In the context of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration statute, EPA’s broader interpretation would not mesh with other provisions of the statute and would lead to absurd results. That’s because the Prevention of Significant Deterioration statute requires pre-construction permits for facilities with the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year (or, for some facilities, 100 tons per year) of any covered pollutant. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7475(a)(1), 7479(1). That would be a very low trigger for emissions of greenhouse gases because greenhouse gases are emitted in far greater quantities than the NAAQS pollutants. As a result, the low trigger would mean a dramatically higher number of facilities would
    {USCA Case #09-1322 Document #1411145 Filed: 12/20/2012 Page 34 of 52}
    fall within the program and have to obtain pre-construction permits.
    In an unusual twist, EPA openly acknowledged the unreasonableness – indeed, the absurdity – caused by its interpretation of the statute. If the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program were interpreted to require preconstruction permits based on emissions of greenhouse gases, EPA candidly stated that the result would be “so contrary to what Congress had in mind – and that in fact so undermines what Congress attempted to accomplish with the PSD requirements – that it should be avoided under the ‘absurd results’ doctrine.” 74 Fed. Reg. 55,292, 55,310 (Oct. 27, 2009).
    But faced with those absurd consequences from the broader interpretation of the statute, EPA surprisingly did not choose the seemingly obvious option of adopting the narrower and more sensible interpretation of the term “air pollutant” for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration statute – the interpretation limited to NAAQS air pollutants. Instead, EPA plowed ahead with the broader interpretation. And then, to try to deal with the absurd repercussions of that interpretation for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration statute, EPA re-wrote the very specific 250-ton trigger in the permitting requirement of the statute, unilaterally raising that trigger for greenhouse gas emissions from 250 tons to 100,000 tons – a 400-fold increase. See 75 Fed. Reg. 31,514 (June 3, 2010). EPA believed that re-writing the statute’s permitting-triggers provision in this way would reduce the number of facilities that would require pre-construction permits and thereby “tailor” the absurdity – that is, alleviate some of the absurdity
    {USCA Case #09-1322 Document #1411145 Filed: 12/20/2012 Page 35 of 52}
    caused by interpreting “air pollutant” to cover greenhouse gases.
    This is a very strange way to interpret a statute. When an agency is faced with two initially plausible readings of a statutory term, but it turns out that one reading would cause absurd results, I am aware of no precedent that suggests the agency can still choose the absurd reading and then start rewriting other perfectly clear portions of the statute to try to make it all work out. And just recently, the Supreme Court reminded the Executive Branch and the lower courts that this is not the proper way to interpret a statute: Instead of “reading new words into the statute” to avoid absurd results, as the Government had urged in that case, the Court said that the statute should be interpreted so that “no absurdity arises in the first place.” Kloeckner v. Solis, No. 11-184, slip op. at 13 (U.S. 2012). . . .

    (Emphasis added)
    Here Kavamnaugh clearly addresses the legal issues, (and not whether greenhouse gases warm or not).

    • In regards to re-writing the level that would trigger pre-construction approval;
      Where the heck did the EPA get the statutory approval to change what the law says just to make life easier for them?

      • And the EPA per statute are required to consider cost vs benefit of every rule proposal. They thumbed their nose at the benefit part and said smugly “So sue us.” Our fabulous nominee had the last word. The judiciary determined the EPA were cheating and invalidated their capricious rule making. BOOM! More such winning coming, much more, with Kavanagh on the highest court for life. But thanks for playing.

    • What I found so surprising is that the EPA was allowed to rewrite the rule. It points to significant corruption in the judicial system.

      The EPA has no authority to rewrite congress and it is the courts duty to uphold this. Allowing a bureaucrat to override congress is madness. It spits on the constitution.

  9. Have spent the morning studying Kavanaugh’s record, can’t see anything to make me not want him on SCOTUS. Therefore he is totally unacceptable to the left.

    And I have yet to find anything indicating Roe V Wade is still in any form of contention, it is settled, done, over. The battle now, and has been, over tax payers paying for abortions. THAT is the actual point that so many Americans are angry about. Abortion is a medical procedure, the vast majority of Americans accept that. Paying for it for other people is the problem.

    • On the one hand, abortion is killing.

      On the other hand, abortion may reduce the crime rate. If people aren’t born into circumstances that produce criminals then crime won’t happen.

      So, paying for someone’s abortion is way cheaper than paying to keep their kid in jail. You could look at it like that.

      Given that abortion is a highly emotional subject, I really don’t trust any studies to be fair and unbiased. I’m firmly on the fence and I’m not moving.

      • wanna know a secret?
        you go down to the Feminist Women’s Health Center at any university town and ask for a premenstrual extraction, aka D & C.
        women have been able to get free abortions for decades.
        the ‘issue’ can only live where this truth is unknown.
        wanna know another one?
        women achieve majority status by pregnancy. this will never stop.
        and the little hostage guarantees them a paycheck- and now they have dependents and influence.
        never gonna give that up.
        it’s social mobility for those with nothing to offer.

      • OK, list for me the plaintiffs who are petitioning SCOTUS to revisit Roe V Wade. I have searched and found nothing. All of this is a fraud thrown out by leftists because they have nothing else. Oh, and it was SCOTUS that struck down Separate But Equal. Then 1964 Civil Rights Act brought it back. “all animals are equal, some are just more equal than others” Thank you Mr Orwell.

  10. I don’t know, I really just don’t know whether I can continue to take all this winning.

  11. from page 32 of 52 of the subject Judgment at:

    KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial
    of rehearing en banc:

    This case is plainly one of exceptional importance. A
    decision in either direction will have massive real-world
    consequences. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce describes the
    EPA regulations at issue here as “the most burdensome,
    costly, far-reaching program ever adopted by a United States
    regulatory agency.” Petition for Rehearing En Banc at 1. On
    the other hand, EPA issued these regulations to help address
    global warming, a policy issue of major long-term
    significance to the United States. Put simply, the economic
    and environmental policy stakes are very high.

    Of course, our role is not to make the policy choices or to
    strike the balance between economic and environmental
    interests. That job is for Congress and the President when
    considering and enacting legislation, and then as appropriate
    for the Executive Branch – here, EPA, under the ultimate
    supervision of the President – when exercising its authority
    within statutory constraints. Our job as a court is more
    limited: to ensure that EPA has acted within the authority
    granted to it by Congress. In this case, I conclude that EPA
    has exceeded its statutory authority. I respectfully disagree
    with the panel opinion’s contrary conclusion, and given the
    overall importance of the case, I respectfully dissent from the
    denial of rehearing en banc.

    [end of excerpt]

    I do not necessarily see Judge Kavanaugh as a climate skeptic – rather I see a judge with some common sense, who objected to the “mission creep” of the EPA as it over-reached in its mandate.

    EPA over-reach has been a chronic problem through recent administrations and it needs to be stopped. The problem is apparently so deeply embedded within the EPA that it might be better to simply disband the EPA and all its regulations and re-create it with a clear focus on real pollution, not on false and destructive nonsense like CO2 abatement and global warming hysteria.

    • He’s a skeptic as a lawyer should be, skeptical not of the science but of the bureaucratic over-reach to impose politically desired solutions that bypasses Congress’s legislative intent.

      For that “sin”, the Left has already applied the Climate “D word” label to him. Anyone in positions of authority as Supreme Court Justices are, who opposes the “any means necessary” to the Left’s desired end, is a threat.

  12. We don’t need a climate “skeptic” on the court; we need a justice that will keep the EPA within its legislatively-established roles and powers.

  13. Anyone not expressing skepticism regarding humans as the primary driver of CLIMATE CHANGE, is an abject buffoon.

  14. The picture of the President and Cavanaugh shaking hands is a real study in body language.

  15. There were times when America was even more divided than today. One such time was 1973.

    SECRETARIAT briefly brought the country together.

    Secretariat had won the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness by a few lengths.

    The final race of the Triple Crown, the Belmont, starts at 19:18 of the video – watch it!*

    Penny Chenery, owner.
    Lucien Laurin, trainer.
    Ron Turcotte, jockey.


    Secretariat won the Belmont by 31 lengths!

    “Certainly, after performing autopsies on several thousand thoroughbred horses, including mares and stallions, no other horse came close to Secretariat’s heart size.

    So I considered the heart weight officially as 21 pounds. The heart was in perfect shape, not diseased in any way, but just considerably larger than any other horses I autopsied.”
    A normal heart size for a thoroughbred is 8½ pounds.

    Here is a shorter video of just the Belmont.

  16. On this site it is to be expected that Mr Kavanaugh’s attitude to Climate Change would be examined. I’m not surprised at the ventilation of his attitude on the emotive subject of abortion.

    However, it does seem odd that no-one appears to care about his attitude to Net Neutrality. This has (possibly) very serious consequences for civil liberties.

    Still, I’m Antipodean and can afford not to worry about this U.S. issue — at least, until it is used as leverage to further suppress civil liberties here.

    Best of luck with getting the right guy!

  17. GOOD !
    Hope that turns out to be TRUE !
    I suspect that THE SCEPTICS CASE is going to NEED ALL THE HELP IT CAN GET !
    ( Mostly , it seems , the MONEY is on the side of the DOOMSAYERS !! )

Comments are closed.