"Will Kavanaugh provide cover for Trump?"
Come on. Why on earth do you think he was picked??
5
Trump didn’t make a deal with Kavanaugh.
Rather he picked someone who already agreed to not prosecute a Republican president.
Between pardons and his two justices on the court Trump is safe.
And when Roe is overturned he could even think of getting an amendment removing the 22nd amendment.
4
What on earth does it all mean? Absolutely nothing! We just don"t have a modern representative democracy, so the answer is no, the judiciary is not indépendant, there are no checks ans balances and we are not the best country - or the worst, in the world. We are just make belief, Hollywood.
2
In the Republican world when there is an opportunity to gain a political advantage by taking an action that may be technically legal but is nevertheless highly unethical the choice is always obvious...just do it. One look at the track record of judge Kavanaugh confirms that he is a highly partisan true believer. Of course, if confirmed he will lose no sleep over stretching the bounds of propriety to protect Trump. Same goes for Gorsuch.
6
Of course Trump isn't involved with collusion with the Russians or any other wrong doing, but he may have found his "get out of jail free" card - just in case.
The Kavanaugh confirmation process will be aprolonged Kabuki theater experience; at the end much will have been said and little will have been learned. The most accurate indication of Kavanaugh's positions on issues is the sum total of his past opinions and writings. Those need a thorough review but at the end of the day, we will find a strict constructionist that says the Constitution does not provide for many of the rights past SCOTUS decisions have conferred to the American people and that we presently take for granted (our bad). On the other hand, with Judge Kavanaugh's support, the Constitution will be found to promote corporate interests at the expense of the people because that is where the power lies. Karl Marx once predicted that unchecked capitalism would be anathema to democracy. Trump is doing his best to ensure Marx was right.
5
I detest Trump & his nominee, but I can't understand why such informed legal scholars insist on willfully misreading what Kavanaugh actually wrote, which was that he thought Congress should pass a law allowing a president to avoid prosecution while in office. He can easily wriggle out of this by maintaining that, while he may like such a law, as long as one doesn't exist, he'd be bound by the Constitution, which, in its language about impeachment, implicitly implies a president can be prosecuted & convicted of major crimes.
"... the Constitution, which, in its language about impeachment, implicitly implies a president can be prosecuted & convicted of major crimes."
Not exactly. Art. I, Sec. 3, says that "in Cases of Impeachment" "the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Based on the word order, the framers meant for "the Party" to be removed from office *first* and then prosecuted.
Full text here:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-secti...
2
In Federalist No. 51, James Madison wrote that, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” This is such a logical, downright intuitive bit of political philosophy, that I have used this quote to teach the constitution’s separation of powers to middle schoolers. And they get it.
That we would think it wise—at this precipitous moment in our political history, especially—to knowingly have the judicial branch, designed to be a separate and co-equal branch of government, cede power to the executive branch, defies constiutional logic and American political sensibility. And, moreover, that the judicial branch would be given the power to surrender its ambition to the executive branch—with the advice and consent of the upper chamber of the legislative branch (in an election year, no less!)—goes against everything our Founders hoped we would become.
If you’re going to strictly adhere to an originalist interpretation, then fine— but perhaps such adherents would also do well to consider the big ideas behind the brilliance of the constitution itself. Nothing is more unconstitutional than the unchecked executive.
4
Dear Judge Kavanaugh,
I enjoyed watching your fine performance the other night in which you assured the American people that you are a common, ordinary, decent American citizen, and not a part of the governing elite, with a loving wife, two loving daughters and that you look to hire as many women law clerks and blacks as you can and otherwise are a good guy.
The problem I have is that you are being appointed to the Court by a President who lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes and is now busily engaged in tearing the country apart.
I hope you will appreciate my quandary concerning your suitability for the Court and would appreciate receiving your answers to the following five questions to give me a better idea of the type of man you are.
I already have a pretty good idea of who you are, so simple yes or no answers will do.
1. Do you believe women possess the right to receive ordinary, well recognized medical treatments from their doctors without interference by the State?
2. Do you believe that Corporations and rich people have the right to purchase as much political advertising as their money can buy?
3. Do you believe that illegal migrants are human beings and possess the right to be treated as such?
4. Are Presidents entitled to shoot a person down on Fifth Avenue while still remaining President?
5. Do you believe that Judge Garland received a fair shake from the Republican Party?
With great thanks in advance for your quick response.
Stanton
10
"I ... would appreciate receiving your answers to the following five questions ..."
You would be more likely to get answers, if you sent your questions to your Senators. Since you are in TX, they would be Cornyn and Cruz:
congress.gov/members
On second thought, they are both Republicans, so you might need to rephrase some of your questions ... :-)
2
Please forward this to everyone you know:
https://www.alternet.org/history-hypocrisy-evangelicals-used-be-pro-choi...
Excerpts: Randall Balmer's book, "Thy Kingdom Come" - The Christian right was not originally animated by abortion, but by the defense of private, tax-exempt, racially segregated colleges and schools.”
From Jonathan Dudley: In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:
“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed….… Clearly, … in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”
From the magazine - “Christian Life” - “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” … The Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.
Paul Weyrich: "I was trying to get [evangelicals] interested in those issues and I utterly failed," What changed their mind was Jimmy Carter's intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation."
That’s when they suddenly got religion about politics — and got political about their religion
2
"The Southern Baptist Convention ..."
"I was trying to get [evangelicals] interested in those issues ..."
Kavanaugh is a Catholic, not a Baptist, and Catholics are not "evangelicals". Evangelicals are Protestants.
Further, Scalia, who was also a Catholic, rigorously separated his judgments about the law and his Catholicism:
"My religious faith can give me a personal view on the right or wrong of abortion; but it cannot make a text say yes where it in fact says no ..."
See "Faith and Judging" in "Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived" by Scalia, Scalia, and Whelan.
Aside from his sometimes troubling paper trail on the relevant topics, it is insufficient that “Judge Kavanaugh must agree that if he is confirmed he will recuse himself from any decisions concerning the special counsel investigation and the related exercise of presidential powers —or his confirmation must be delayed until after the investigations are resolved.” NO ONE should be nominated or confirmed until the whole Trump malfeasance mess is made public. It is simply unknowable (though with Trump it is likely) whether there is any quid pro quo involving the nomination which could result in the appearance of an incentive for the nominee. There is already alarming reporting that Justice Kennedy may have made his retirement conditional on Kavanaugh’s succession.
1
I agree that Kavanaugh should be grilled on those topics, but we are led to believe that he alone will decide an issue of indicting a president, or interpreting pardon power, etc.I
Although conservatives dominate the Supreme Court, will the other 4 fall in lockstep with Kavanaughs positions? 5 justices, regardless of their slant, would say that Trump is above the law?
2
With Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court, it is a very good time to take a close look at the role beliefs play in our lives. Most of the unnecessary suffering and deaths of humans can be traced back to beliefs of one form or another, and yet beliefs are still considered necessary and good. They are neither. With Kavanaugh on the court, we will have the opportunity to witness first hand the devastating effects of beliefs in our political system. When we finally program the human mind in a computer, we will have proof of the negative influence of beliefs on a brain programmed to survive and then tricked about what is supposed to survive.
See: RevolutionOfReason.com
2
Did you notice Brett Kavanaugh’s nonverbals with regard to his wife, during the presentation last night?
The family steps onto the platform. Brett Kavanaugh puts his arms on the shoulders of the two daughters as his wife (Ashley) is the last to step up. (Why was she placed last?) She looks down, sees his arm around the elder girl, and moves closer so her husband can put that arm around her (Ashley). Brett tightens his arm around his daughter, and Ashley looks uncomfortable for just an instant, then realizes cameras are on all of them, and assumes a plastic smile.
Then, as they’re leaving, Ashley tries to hold Brett’s hand -- but he moves his hand away and again reaches for the elder daughter's shoulder.
Those calculated moves spoke volumes about Brett Kavanaugh’s character.
Whatever their problem (perhaps it's chronic, perhaps recent; maybe Ashley wanted Brett to decline the nomination), Ashley Kavanaugh didn't deserve that nonverbal slap in the face.
The best gift a father can give his children is to truly love their mother, and to demonstrate that.
Also, when someone shows you their true self, believe them the first time.
2
"Those calculated moves ..."
Try to have some empathy. They were nervous.
Here is the fact that is so screamingly obvious I can't believe I'm going to the effort to state it: Trump only cares about Kavanaugh in the context of if he believes he will protect Donald Trump.
There is a reason the word sociopath was developed. Look it up.
2
"... if he [Trump] believes he [Kavanaugh] will protect Donald Trump."
That's an oversimplification:
1. Kavanaugh has to be confirmed by the Senate.
2. The President has no powers affecting the Supreme Court except for nominating Justices. In particular, the President has no power to remove a Justice. That power is reserved for Congress through the impeachment and trial process.
Both points which have nothing to do with the reason Trump selected Kavanaugh in the first place. My argument stands.
Picking Kavanaugh proved Trump is guilty for rigging the election, espionage, conspiracy against American, and aiding the Russians in attacking America. In addition for Obstruction, Money laundering to create a payola for Freedom Caucus and other GOP Senate and House individuals in covering up the espionage and conspiracy become a conspirator. When Russia interfere in the election it made the election Unconstitutional, creating a crisis in the Republic. Picking Kavanaugh proves that Trump knows he is guilty and he knows he is an illegitimate President. The reason for the constant reminder of the lie he won. Once Mueller shows the evidence, I am sure that the fools that are in a state of denial that the Presidency has been corrupt with a Russian Fascist in the progress of destroying America’s democracy and making it a satellite of Russia.
We will soon see who are our patriots are and when they start resisting against this Illegitimate government forming a Russian Fascist type of America.
4
In other words they are going to confirm Judge Kavanaugh immediately. Remember Mr. McConnell is the Leader of the Senate.
1
Hey, guess what fellow Dems? We didn't show up. We didn't vote (yeah, sure we did in BLUE BLUE States, but's that's simply not good enough). And, you know what else? ELECTIONS MATTER. I appreciate the spirit of this editorial and, of course, the Dems have to put on a good show, but the fact is, Kavanaugh is a legitimate pick for SCOTUS. I disagree with his views, I even hate some of his views, but he is a "qualified" conservative jurist. And, yes, OF COURSE he will provide cover for Trump. That's why he was chosen... I spent hours on the phone in 2016 with Dems in battleground states, pleading with them to show up because, even if they weren't fans of Hillary, the Court was in play. Everyone said they'd show up, but - well there's no other way to put it - they didn't. Unless some major revelation from the various ongoing investigations completely discombobulates congress and the confirmation process (please God, hear my prayer! I know it's wrong for me to hope for this but I'm desperate), he will be confirmed. I only hope that a conservative court will wake the potential Dem voter and focus progressives on the meaning of power and it's proper application. We cannot bring about the changes we hope for, the values we uphold, the dream of an equitable America, UNLESS WE ELECT DEMOCRATS locally, state-wide and nation-wide. Sure, fight the nomination (not at the expense of Red State Dem senators, please!), but the most constructive thing we can do is GET OUT THE VOTE.
2
Is Kavanaugh Trump's pick?
Or is he a chosen vessel to carry forward the agenda of McConnell and Bannon? Remember them?
Despite appearances, I have no uncertainty about who really runs the oval office.
Does anyone doubt this pick, no matter who it was, is fully bought and paid for, and under dire threat if he deviates in the smaller degree from the great plan to remake our democracy into a medieval fief of lords and divinely appointed emperor over serfs with no rights?
1
Litmus Test: President or King?
2
Just the question Thomas "Paine" would be demanding an answer to.
1
Is Judge Kavanaugh saying Trump CAN shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not be prosecuted?
2
Let me understand some of the main themes here. Is it to be seriously argued that if a president commits murder, for example (e.g. shoots the Speaker of the House), the only legal recourse is impeachment? Can we really entertain the view that such a heinous act by a President can simply be self-pardoned?
These are serious questions?
2
"... the only legal recourse [for murder by the President] is impeachment?"
No. After removal from office, the now-former President can be put on trial like anyone else.
"Can we really entertain the view that such a heinous act by a President can simply be self-pardoned?"
No, again. A former President has no pardon power. And the President cannot pardon himself "in Cases of Impeachment".
"These are serious questions?"
Read the US Constitution. The logic is impeccable.
See, in particular, Article I, Section 3, and Article II, Section 2. A text search for "impeach" is a good way to find the relevant passages:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
What options would the opposition have with the entire government controlled by one party? If Mueller finds evidence of treason will the Supreme Court shrug and say nothing can be done because Trump is president? Will the Republican Congress shrug its collective shoulders and declare boys will be boys? Will the Trumpist voters continue to ignore every action of Trump because they like his judicial picks. Irony of ironies. Of course they will claim it is a witch hunt, but evidence is evidence and we as a nation will lose our soul if we allow a scoundrel to ignore the truth and its consequences.
3
There is nothing legitimate about this nomination.
2
Some questions for Kavanaugh
1. Are we a nation of laws?
2. Is there anyone under US jurisdiction who can claim to be above the law?
3. Can a person be his own judge or act to determine the outcome of his own case under US law?
4. Is there any textual basis in the US Constitution or current US law for the position that a president should not be subject to investigation or not be required to testify to a grand jury?
5. Did you or did you not write in the Whitewater report that President Clinton should have been subject to impeachment for lying to the American public?
6. Do you have any opinion about the case of former Judge Walter L. Nixon Jr, a then sitting federal official who was indicted, tried, and convicted, and later impeached, convicted and removed? (In 1986, Nixon was convicted of lying to a federal grand jury. He refused to resign. He was impeached in 1989. The Supreme Court upheld his impeachment and conviction.)
7. With regard to impeachment, does the Constitution distinguish between the president and any other government official other that by the phrase “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside”?
8. Has Donald Trump asked your opinion about any of the questions I have asked?
9. Have you expressed an opinion about any of the questions I have asked to Donald Trump?
10. If confirmed, would you recuse yourself if any matter that involved Donald Trump in other than his ex officio capacity came before the Supreme Court?
4
A system’s integrity can only be truly tested by extremes. I fear we have reached that limit in our own republic.
Without credible checks and balances, our system can no longer boast it's based on the rule of law. The idea that a judge might be appointed to the Supreme Court who will rubber stamp executive power may be the last straw in our own demise.
Why anyone, especially a judge, would disregard an active criminal sitting in the Oval Office is beyond me. The impeachment as removal tool argument does not work when Congress itself is a rubber stamp. Are we painting ourselves into a corner of supreme presidential power that is above the law and beyond reproach?
Kavanaugh's hands-off solution seems simplistic to me. Aren't there other better answers? For one, rather than carte blanche for criminal presidents, why not keep the criminals out of the Oval Office in the first place? One thing I've never understood is the exhaustive vetting White House aides undergo, yet there is no background check for presidential candidates who might do the top job in that same office. There’s no requirement of tax returns. Yes, there's plenty of political jabbering back and forth, but where do the facts live anymore?
One might say presidential vetting is the press' job. But today, in this climate of (real) fake news and news overload, the truth seems to get buried in the lies.
2
*If* the President’s unlimited power can be drawn from Constitution through certain interpretations, the legal and moral assumptions would be such that in the democracy of America, no criminally minded person can be possibly elected as the President at anytime. ***** The aimed design in Constitution was that a figure capable of leading the country, chosen by the legitimate electoral system, ought to judge properly national and people’s interests as more important than his or her own, and be capable of acting accordingly. This is my understanding. I am *not* saying Mr. Trump is criminally minded, but trying to deploy simply a modest logic. ***** The political system here is not a direct democracy, which means there is a preventive measure in case a majority of the population/voters is, for example, misguided by demagogues, rumors, or lies. However, Constitution probably was not compiled or revised in assuming a possible situation such that the majority of public figures and voters decide to pursue their own interests only. I state this with exaggeration as an extreme example, but, if the three branches all are taken more or less unlawfully,(= non-ethically), is there any other constitutional check system in the country?
Trump + Kavanaugh = having armed robbers guard banks.
Trump + Kavanaugh = having the fox guard the hen house.
3
From this NYT article;
"In a 2009 law review article, Judge Kavanaugh argued that a sitting president should be able to defer civil suits and criminal prosecutions until after he leaves office and should be excused from having to answer depositions or questions during his term. He went so far as to advocate that Congress “consider a law exempting a president — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.”
Can there be any doubt that someone expressing these views might well share Rudy's stated view that Mueller's investigation isn't legitimate?
4
So Trump winds up winning a SCOTUS case exempting him from prosecution while in office. (4 OR 8 yrs). Then what? He is prosecuted for money laundering, campaign finance violations, treason, corruption, purjury, etc then dies in prison 10 years later.
Is that the path this country is on?
2
During the spectacle of a confirmation hearing Judge Kavanaugh agrees that, given his stated view of Presidential power, he would recuse himself from any case involving President Trump personally. Ha!!! Does anyone seriously think he would face impeachment or any other consequence if he fails to recuse himself and writes the opinion that hands Trump a crown?
1
Trump can fire anyone he wants in the Justice Department. Read Article II of the US Constitution. But he can't fire Supreme Court Justices. No matter who Trump appoints, once they are confirmed, they have lifetime tenure, so you can pretty much count on Kavanaugh deciding on what he believes are the merits of any case brought against Trump. He will not be beholden to Trump. That's just the way it works. Trump can no more predict how a Supreme Court Justice will rule than anyone else.
1
"... once they are confirmed, they have lifetime tenure ..."
Correct. The US Constitution says that "[Judges] shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" (Art. III, Sec. 1).
However, justices can be removed through the impeachment and trial process (Art. II, Sec. 4).
See "Nixon v. United States" (1993) for a Supreme Court case involving a Federal judge who had been impeached and tried.
1
There is no evidence that Kavanaugh is going to behave badly, sufficient to have him impeached.
CBH: "There is no evidence that Kavanaugh is going to behave badly, sufficient to have him impeached."
OK, but I was explaining that the US Constitution does not explicitly say that Justices "have lifetime tenure".
As for what will get a Federal judge impeached, I highly recommend reading about "Nixon v. United States" (1993):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States
I am well aware of Judge Kavanaughs views on how an overworked president shouldn't have to face criminal investigations and charges while in office. If he gets confirmed, I can only hope the other 8 justices on the Supreme Court look at Judge Kavanaugh like he's unhinged if the issue comes up. I tend to employ fantasy, too, when the dystopian future Mitch McConnell and the rest of the GOP have carefully planned for all but the top 1% has fully come to pass.
I read last night, in my AARP Bulletin, that Louisiana has plans to evict 17,000 nursing home residents because the state is cutting their Medicaid. As most people know, a nursing home is the last residence a person has before dying. So I wondered where Louisiana is planning to put these 17,000 completely dependent people? On the streets? In a hospital? A hotel?
I could call my Senator, but I already know that Elizabeth Warren will be doing her hardest to make Judge Kavenaugh accountable during his confirmation hearing. As an independent, I wish I could call upon a few Republican Senators and try to talk to them heart to heart, but I'm afraid that's another fantasy of mine, that many of these wealthy people have heart or empathy for their constituents. They keep hiding. They make deals in back rooms. And they play dirty.
2
"I could call my Senator, ..."
You have *two* Senators, Warren and Markey. See: congress.gov/members.
"As an independent, I wish I could call upon a few Republican Senators ..."
As a *constituent*, you can "call upon" your two Senators and your Representative. You are wasting everyone's time contacting any other members of Congress.
Several things worry me about Judge Kavanaugh. Does he support Citizens United and therefore believe that corporations are people and large amounts of dark money qualify as free speech? Does his tenure as a clerk under Justice Kennedy effect his thinking or are his views independent of Kennedy's? Will he uphold SCOTUS decisions that favor management over labor and will he continue the policy of crippling unions (that began under Ronald Reagan)?
The Republicans began loading the gun against the middle class workers since Reagan. It's further demonstrated by recent Court decisions that corporations are not people but plutocrats who want to have absolute power vested in management, leaving the hind parts to the workers.
My own experience (having been born in the 1930s) shows me that the powers that be today are no different than the robber barons in the 1920s. I saw WWII as the real savior of the middle class in a war against plutocrats, because wages went up for everyone after we were saved in the war by middle class worker soldiers. Maybe we are headed there again.
7
Republicans, Esp Runnin Congress, Already Have By Not Stoppin One Who's Still Under Ever Growing Investigation, Stones Keep Turnin Over, From Appointin A Justice, Not Just A Supreme Neither!!
Keeping My Oath: USN All Shore '67-'71 GMG3 - Gunner's Mate (Guns) - Vietnam In Country '70-'71 - Independent**
Assuming Kavanaugh is confirmed (a safe bet), there is one person left who could stand in the way of Trump declaring himself free of any criminal culpability: Chief Justice Roberts.
Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch will surely side with Kavanaugh if or when Mueller's probe reaches its conclusion and Trump (or everyone around Trump) are indicted. Just as surely, Kagan, Sotomayer, Ginsburg and Breyer would oppose the Kavanaugh position that the President is above the law. That leaves Roberts to decide the issue. Trump has clearly bet the ranch (and the Senate, not to mention the American people) that Roberts will side with the conservative radicals, creating a royal Presidency -- the exact opposite of the vision of the Founding Fathers. That would be (excuse the pun) the crowning achievement of those in our midst who have long preferred the "strong man" government. Constitutional? Of course not, but who really cares.
9
Any decision made by Trump is all about himself. It has been in the past and so will be in the future. What's different now?
I already see Trump telling Kavanaugh "I need loyalty, I expect loyalty" during a private dinner...
4
Of course Kavanaugh will provide cover. That's his job. That's why he was picked.
10
Like the outrageous, inflammatory lies created to cynically influence public opinion spewed from the mouth of Trump's legal house thug Giuliani, Kavanaugh's legal writings on presidential authority is a vitally important additional piece now set in place in the creation of the Fake President's "protection racket" from impeachment, removal from office, and indictment. The fix is in. Will the grand subversive scheme work?
1
Knowing Donnie, he probably had Brett take a loyalty oath.
4
Remember, Russia, Russia Russia You know that beyond a doubt, proven President Trump collision, Oh wait, maybe not.
What a waste of time and taxpayer money.
But hey, that's all the Democrats got.
Hear an idea, when he goes out to dinner, harass him and his family. That will work
2
When the public cannot get the executive branch to answer questions, I think it has every right to ask questions whenever an opportunity arises. And essentially, this executive branch issue orders and tweets, and refuses to hold even standard press conference to answer questions about its decisions - when those decisions have a profound effect on our lives.
( And the one being asked questions at a restaurant was the thief PRUITT. But the one causing the "collisions" is Trump).
1
Piling it higher and deeper. Partisan oppo research creates an absurd fabrication (including peeing Russian prostitutes) weaponized by the IC/FBI/DOJ abetted by Senator McCain to defeat, then impeach, Trump. And fails. Dunno which is worse. The lame, original fraud, or the total incompetence.
1
Serving popcorn with that?
"If the Senate confirms him without resolving these questions...." I agree with this last statement. However, we now have a Senate, under Mitch McConnell, that is self serving, places party over country, agrees that Putin helped get Trump elected, backs corporations and no gun control. The GOP Senate will spend time patting itself on the back and Judge Kavanaugh has to be forced to state his beliefs. None of the laissez faire Gorsuch questioning.
1
If the President can’t be investigated how could there ever be enough evidence for impeachment and conviction?
Ability for the President to control the Justice Department? Pardon himself for ANY Federal crime? Including treason or tax evasion?
Kavanaugh wouldn’t want to distract the president from his golf games and 2020 campaign rallies where he attacks the First Amendment.
If the President is a Democrat one lie warrants impeachment in Kavanaugh’s opinion. If a Republican, thousands of lies are no biggie.
Give America a break. Only if Kavanaugh promises in writing he will recuse himself from any case involving Presidential powers should he be confirmed.
Democrats, forget about Roe v Wade, guns, immigration, etc. They are issues for another day. The threatened abortion of democracy is the only issue that matters now.
Republicans- including both Senators and Justice Roberts a few months from now - history will judge you on this one. Don’t let America down.
4
Blame for the current state of affairs falls squarely on Democrat voters who did not bother to vote. Shame on them!
3
So if prosecutions have to be put off until a President leaves office, according to Kavanaugh; a President can willingly and maliciously violate the law. The President of the United States could suspend federal elections if their political party held power in both chambers of Congress. The President could lock up all political opponents under this 'legal' theory. The President could round up and jail all journalists under Mr. Kavanaugh's theory. The President could fire any and all members of the judiciary who threatened him/her in the future.
In other words, this 'legal theory' taken to the extreme could lead to the suspension of the Constitution itself, resulting in our country becoming something other than a Constitutional Republic.
That argument Mr. Kavanaugh cannot be permitted to extend to the Supreme Court. It is an argument any dictator-wanna-be would love the court to rule affirmatively for in an effort to render all institutions null-and-void in this nation.
This is a dangerous and threatening theory to our very Republic. It is, along with Mr. Kavanaugh's views on abortion which make him unacceptable to serve on any court, let alone the Supreme Court.
3
Will Kavanaugh Provide Cover for Trump?..."as it is written" and wash his hands.
2
So, a 'president' who lied his way into the White House, spewing hate, who is under investigation for campaign misdeeds, who won his office aided and abetted by Putin, gets to nominate two justices while a man who had a public mandate, twice, who was relatively scandal free and did not make a name for himself by lying and cheating others...unlike our current bogus potus..
You see where I'm going. I hope this is the biggest fight to come along in US history. If people don't vote, or if they throw away their votes on silly candidates who can only hope to get 2%... this travesty will continue. Is that what you want?
2
I don’t think the Founders had a dictatorship in mind.
5
If Trump comes before the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh (assuming he’s confirmed) and Gorsach must recuse themselves.
2
To me, this is Kavanaugh's stance: A president should be subject to tenacious, aggressive investigation, and potential impeachment and prosecution, if s/he is a Democrat, and above the law if s/he is a Republican.
2
Judge Kavanaugh's nomination threatens Mueller's investigation and the rule of law when it comes to the president. This column intelligently focuses on that issue. Our democracy lies in the balance.
3
"...But we have never had a nominee who was chosen by a president identified as the subject of a criminal inquiry..." [op cit]
You're right--there could be big trouble ahead.
4
Trump and his GOP have now managed to debase the presidency, the congress and the Supreme Court. They have corrupted them all with their seditious partisanship, personal ambitions, immorality and greed.
We are now under minority rule. The majority in this country need to wake up and start fighting for their right to fair representation in their government.
4
Look where taxation without representation brought us in the past. History repeats itself.
Mueller needs to get his report out before Kavanaugh is confirmed. That would strengthen the case for requiring recusal, because there would be some specifics to discuss.
2
We have a president whose middle name is “Transactional”. What are the odds that there was no “quo” promised the the “quid”? Zero?
3
Trump is incapable of making decisions that are not rooted in his paranoia and narcissism.
9
Of course he will. Providing cover for Trump is the reason he was picked over the other conservative candidates.
Kavanaugh could end up keeping Trump out of jail and therefore getting him re elected, leaving us stuck with his abominable presidency’s legacy for decades.
5
Despite seeming extreme, Giebel poses an excellent question. And maybe it's not so far fetched. Trump has repeatedly praised murderous dictators even as he attacks western democracies.
2
Judge Kavanaugh’s approach that a sitting president should be able to defer civil suits and criminal prosecutions until after he leaves office and should be excused from having to answer depositions or questions during his term, indicates that he stands for a very loose interpretation of the separation of powers. Should the president be in a position where he is unable to fully carry out his duties for whatever the reason, the 25th Amendment provides the list of succession. The government does not grind to a halt. Granted that nuisance suits can indeed be put aside, but the potential charges against President Trump can hardly be put in the nuisance category. The question for the Judge: does he consider the President to be above the law?
3
Well, according to Kavanaugh's "reasoning" you'd never get to impeachment by Congress because no president should be "bothered" with any investigation, civil or criminal. How can the House indict, Senate convict without first conducting a thorough investigation by, say, Robert Mueller.
Nobody is suggesting that the Supreme Court has the "power" to remove a sitting president: the issue is whether or not a sitting president can be investigated and required to submit to judicial process (eg. subpoenas, under oath testimony, cross-examination).
2
One of the foundations of our systems of laws is the requirement to not lie. So where does the good judge stand on the issue in re: the President that lies with impunity every day? And if one knows this to be true, which I'm sure all the judges throughout this land know to be true, how then can he argue to us that the executive should be shielded from any law action--suits or investigations--while in office?
4
"He went so far as to advocate that Congress “consider a law exempting a president — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.”
If Kavanaugh thought it necessary to say that Congress should pass a law to protect a president then isn't that an admission that the Constitution itself does not, in fact, protect a sitting president from civil/criminal investigations? That seems to be the angle to come from when questioning him on this "issue".
11
Until Congress enacts legislation requiring the Supreme Court Justices, like all other federal judges, to be fully subject to the Recusal Statute (28 U.S.C 455), the Senate cannot responsibly confirm any nominee for whom grave such grave conflict of interests appear inevitable.
3
The aura of the presidency may well excuse certain prosecutorial functionaries from fully executing their duty if the matters under review are "light and transient."
But when the issues at hand are at the very heart of the office, the conduct of the election and the compromises and abuses of power, then the public trust demands an instant remedy.
We cannot allow a venal or compromised executive escape the law if he holds his office by reason of his criminality.
If Judge Kavanaugh had hued a bit closer to Ken Starr, he'd be on the other side of the fence today.
5
It's interesting to actually read Kavanaugh's reasoning that led to his position that a sitting president should be allowed to postpone civil suits until after she or he has left office. He based his opinion largely on Clinton's experience of being harassed by the Republican Party based on civil suits by Jennifer Flowers, etc. Originally he was in support of the Starr investigation, but later, after much study and thought came around to the opinion that Clinton's ability to lead the nation was substantially damaged by the civil suits brought against him during his term of office. Kavanaugh believes that Clinton's time and energy would have been better spent focusing on the issues of the Middle East and the economy - that his primary responsibility was to do what was best for the nation. The civil suits could have been safely put aside until after he left office. In short, the president could have done a better job, and the nation would be better off had he not been subject to civil claims that had no bearing on his ability to perform the job he was elected to do. Ironically, Hillary Clinton might be in the White House today instead of Trump, had Bill not been subject to the suits by Flowers and Jones. Many people formed their bad (or nebulous) opinion of Clinton as the result of her slamming and maligning the women who made their claims against her husband. It left a lingering question about her fundamental honesty in some minds, and rendered her a weaker candidate.
4
Are we all in complete agreement? Rent-to-own judges
love to believe money is free speech. If God was smart, He would license and franchise His IP, (intellectual property).
Every high school graduate should be qualified to join society and kill or judge others. Graft is a great career path choice. Ask your Army recruiter.
1
The great cover up, & the beginning of our Dictatorship.This couldn't have been planed any better.Kennedy resigns before the mid term elections, allowing enough time to nominate & appoint the likes of Kavanaugh, which will protect Trump against being indicted & supeniond , and allow the suspension of Muiller& his investigation.Short of a coup there is nothing we can do.With a Supreme Court comprised of a majority of theocratic reactionaries, Trump can control the Court , our Government, & the way we live.
10
"If the president does it, it isn't illegal." We know this is true because we have it on the highest authority -- Richard Nixon.
6
Not really difficult to argue lack of power over the President does not lie within the Supreme Court. The Constitution provides the only method to charge and remove a President, Impeachment. Why is that so difficult to understand. The Powers of government are set by the Constitution - they are equal except where provided. The President is not a King but his removal is specifically provided for. The removal process is specifically set forth: The House Indicts; the Senate is the Jury; and the Chief Justice is the Judge. Where is there room for a Special Prosecutor to roam around? Why argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when the Constitution (which was drafted by practical men) provides the practical answer. Time to fish or cut bait: Trump is either Impeachable or he is not. Get it over with. Enough already.
1
Well, according to Kavanaugh's "reasoning" you'd never get to impeachment by Congress because no president should be "bothered" with any investigation, civil or criminal. How can the House indict, Senate convict without first conducting a thorough investigation by, say, Robert Mueller.
I've not heard anybody suggest that the Supreme Court has the "power" to remove a sitting president: the issue is whether or not a sitting president can be investigated and required to submit to judicial process (eg. subpoenas, under oath testimony, cross-examination).
4
The Constitution does not provide the only method for removing a president. The framers were well aware of one more remedy: revolution. With Congress failing to exercise their solemn duty to provide oversight and without hope from a special prosecutor, patriotic Americans would be left only with revolution as a direct recourse to a President who has committed criminal acts. A law created room for a special prosecutor to act where Congress turns a blind eye. No one, including the President, is above the law. Kavanaugh was right to observe that the judicial system was abused in the Clinton case. However the remedy for abuse already exists within the purview of the judicial system. Our republic is being tested in unprecedented ways and in unprecedented volume. This nightmare has a long way to go before it is over. Buckle up! The ride is only going to get bumpier from here.
How is the Congress to discover possible impeachable crimes committed by a sitting President, especially since someone who is committing a crime or has done so will actively try to conceal such crimes? Give the special prosecutor time to either clear our indict.
Well said. I doubt that Kavanaugh can afford to lose his prestige by entering into conflicts of interest, i.e. loyalty to Trump before country, and before justice. Trump's election of this judge has all to do with his own protection, as he is highly suspect of corruption, given he refuses to criticize Putin, known to interfere in U.S.'s internal affairs...and even handing Trump the presidency. Trump has been a shameless liar and a crook long before he became a candidate. Had we, the people, done our homework, and rid ourselves of bias, Trump would never have had a chance to assault the White House. So, perhaps we deserve this unscrupulous beast after all. And that's the truth.
6
Kavanaugh should be forced to recuse himself from ANY judgement involving Trump and the 2016 election.
3
If presidents are exempt from investigations and prosecutions while serving in office, senators should ask Judge Kavanaugh if such a law, rule or policy would apply if a president were suspected of committing or had openly committed murder while in office. Could a president self-pardon if found guilty of murder while in office?
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
7
I don't blame Republicans for the current state of affairs. I blame the Democrats among minority voters who did not bother to vote. I hope that the worst that this administration can inflict falls on you.
You deserve full credit for this mess and need to pay for your sins.
6
Well, the Democrats did not bother to offer good candidates.
"He went so far as to advocate that Congress “consider a law exempting a president — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.” - I think that sums it all up. No mystery here.
9
"But we have never had a nominee who was chosen by a president identified as the subject of a criminal inquiry — one that already has resulted in serious charges against top aides and could implicate the president himself. " This, in and of itself ought to disqualify Trump from appointing a justice to replace Kennedy. He has a vested interest in getting someone with Kavanaugh's views approved and that is counter to the interests of justice in America. If Mitch McConnell, in his zeal to make the Supreme Court as conservative as possible, doesn't see the irony in letting a president who is the subject of a criminal inquiry nominate someone whose views will keep him from answering questions, he ought to consider the larger hypocrisy here. Obama had nearly a year left in his term. He was not subject to any criminal inquiries. Yet McConnell and the GOP claimed that Obama couldn't appoint someone because it was an election year. Trump should not be allowed to appoint anyone because he's under investigation.
The GOP has been, in recent memory, the most hypocritical party of all. Family values for us, none for them. Government handouts for the rich, more taxes and fewer programs to help working Americans. Maybe the GOP is in league with Russia. They do the double speak act almost as well as the Russians did when they were the Soviet Union.
14
Excellent discussion of the perils of Judge Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court given the perils of office Trump faces. Yes, Kavanaugh gave a most excellent speech in the White House and has a lovely family beside him, in front of him, a great career all those in that audience applaud(ed), but as Fredrickson writes, we need to know Kavanaugh's views on issues facing Trump. Those serious legal ones. Not the moral ones. Not the tonal ones, or the ones that make viewers blanch to hear, see, etc. Tenuous times that require real working by our machinery of checks and balances.
10
I have no doubt that "loyalty" to the president was Trump's only criteria, that he used to choose from the pre-approved list of candidates that the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society and the Susan B. Anthony group provided to him. The other floated names had sterling hard right conservative credentials, but are weak or conspicuously silent on matters of executive privilege, while Kavanaugh has a highly visible track record in that area, which the other names really do not, making the decision for Kavanaugh an easy one for Trump.
Every move this president makes is wholly predictable, completely obvious, and transparently all about protecting himself. He needs his own Roy Cohn on the Court, to protect and fight for him, when the time comes.
12
I’ve seen a lot of demonstrations in the national capital area where I live, and I just can’t wait for the demonstrations that will happen if Trump ever decides to pardon himself. They will be EPIC! They’ll tie traffic up for months, at least. The tourists and the TV news will love it, lots of tourist dollars will be spent here by out-of-town demonstrators, and we’ll all go downtown to get in on the action.
Then we’ll see what happens to someone who goes against what 85 percent of the American public believes.
3
I reject the notion that Kavanaugh's views on whether the president should be subject to civil or criminal lawsuits while in office are "extreme." I am a democrat and no fan of Trump, but I know firsthand how much of a demand not only on one's time but on one's mental energy is demanded when dealing with litigation. It's not just a few hours sitting in a room answering questions. Although I can't prove it, I believe our nation suffered severely as a result of the impeachment investigation of Clinton. Remember that famous deposition where he said it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is? During breaks in that proceeding, Clinton was going back and forth to the room where they were planning those totally ineffectual raids on al queda that destroyed a few tents in the desert and helped convince bin laden we would never do anything serious to him. I want our president, whoever he may be and from whichever party, to be free to protect me and everyone else in this country, not spending his time preparing for depositions, and I respect that Kavanaugh had the wisdom both to change his mind and say so publicly.
2
The flaw with this argument is that Donald Trump is not concerned with protecting "me and everyone else in this country." He is only concerned with enriching himself and his family. Protecting the rest of us would require an attitude of empathy and generosity that is beyond him. Witness the impact of the tariff wars.
14
Kavanaugh's reasoning on this issue is interesting reading. I recommend reading his words directly, as you clearly have, instead of depending on memes and sound bites for information as so many of us seem to do. Originally in support of the Starr investigation, but later, after much study and thought Kavanaugh came around to the opinion that Clinton's ability to lead the nation was substantially damaged by the civil suits brought against him during his term of office. Kavanaugh believes that Clinton's time and energy would have been better spent focusing on the issues of the Middle East and the economy - that his primary responsibility was to do what was best for the nation. The civil suits could have been safely put aside until after he left office. In short, the president could have done a better job, and the nation would be better off had he not been subject to civil claims that had no bearing on his ability to perform the job he was elected to do. Ironically, Hillary Clinton might be in the White House today instead of Trump, had Bill not been subject to the suits by Flowers and Jones. Many people formed their bad (or nebulous) opinion of Clinton as the result of her slamming and maligning the women who made their claims against her husband. It left a lingering question about her fundamental honesty in some minds, and rendered her a weaker candidate.
1
what is your solution -- that we put all national security decisions to a popular vote? that we have an "america's most empathetic" competition and give the winner the nuclear briefcase? or that we just defer to you? we only have one president. once the election is over, that's it. like him or not, he is the commander in chief. the constitution does not have an "empathy" test nor does it give you or anyone else veto power. Harry Truman said the buck stops on the president's desk, and it still does.
"In our view, the idea that a president can grant himself a pardon is anathema to our constitutional structure. One need not be a judge to see how antithetical this is to our Constitution: 85 percent of Americans (including 75 percent of Republicans) say that it is unacceptable for a president to pardon himself of a crime."
What the American public says is irrelevant to "our constitutional structure". The authors need to argue from the *text* of the US Constitution, yet they never actually cite it.*
Instead, the authors commit the fallacy of appealing to the masses (argumentum ad populum).
* Specifically, they never use the words "article", "section", or "amendment".
3
One has to wonder if Trump has finally managed to learn something from the past. In this case, did he learn from Comey's refusal to pledge loyalty to Trump? And had Kavanaugh already pledged such loyalty? Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
13
Impeachment is the proper path in removing a president from office. The constitution is very clear on that. Presidents are voted into office by the people. Removal through impeachment is done by representatives of the people. I don’t think either party or a great majority of the people want to see a president facing indictments in several courts while in office. Imagine if that was the path during the Clinton era. Special prosecutors would not be able to do their job. Any other approach would cause a constitutional crisis thus placing our country in a virtual mess.
2
Presidents are not voted into office by people but by the Electoral College. If presidents were voted in by people we would not be discussing this nominee.
13
Or we would. If we elected Presidents by popular vote, which we never will, campaigns would be run in a completely different manner.
As it is now, both candidates know the rules. And the rules are quite clear. Popular vote is meaningless. 270 is all that matters.
When the President is rubber stamped by his own party, impeachment becomes highly problematical. Perhaps In the Nixon era there was a shred of honor in Congress, but any Congress that would blackball a sitting president the right to name a Justice such as they did with Obama's choice have forfeited any sense of justice or honor for politics. In this Congress even the maxim honor among thieves no longer applies except when your boss is the master thief.
5
I think the writers of this opinion answered their own questions. Kavanaugh was specifically chosen because of his views on prosecuting a sitting president. Given the hypocrisy of the present Republican leaders, do we really need another hypocrite (Kavanaugh worked with Starr to prosecute President Clinton but somehow has changed his mind now), involved in this government?
4
Of course he will--that's why he was chosen over other equally radical right-wing judges who would have satisfied Trump's base. Hypocritically he helped prosecute Bill Clinton and then magically changed his mind about presidential power and privilege. He's Trump's ace in hole for the Russia investigation or more aptly his get out of jail free card.
9
His unctuous praise for Trump in his opening remarks should themselves cause him to recuse himself from any decisions concerning Trump. He has already made up his mind.
18
Duh. That's the primary reason he was chosen, so that Trump can absolutely avoid any and all indictments. There will be no recusals, no grandstanding, just a stealthy " no " on any rulings for criminal charges against Trump. That's the entire point. Seriously.
11
Of all the things I have read about Judge Kavanaugh this is the most disturbing. That a president under investigation could choose a judge who has stated he would let that president off the hook is beyond reasoning. A president is a citizen like everyone else. if I were to flagrantly break the law then choose a judge to let me off I would be laughed out of the court. Trump has been in court thousands of times, sometimes suing and sometimes sued. Would Trump be allowed to sue others but not be allowed to be sued?
Trump has said that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it. Would Kavanaugh go along with this non judgment as that person has declared a presidential oath to protect the law and constitution? It is the height of insanity to let off a person who has made such a pledge from any legal consequences?
16
Impeachment is a trial by Congress. NOT a criminal proceeding. The House creates Articles of Impeachment, there is a trial, and depending on its outcome a vote for removal. (Impeachment is NOT automatic removal- Clinton was impeached and not removed from Office.)
Kavanaugh wrote about a CRIMINAL proceeding. Unfortunately, this distinction is missing from this article. His article states that Congress: “consider a law exempting a president — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.”
The "investigation" in this sentence refers to the criminal prosecution. Not just ANY investigation.
And after making this mistake, this article goes off on a series of "What Ifs" to get to its (il)logical conclusion.
Don't be so naive. The answer to whether or not Kavanaugh will provide "cover for Trump" is yes, that's precisely why he was selected.
12
This "expert" commentary is all well and good, but what is the remedy? (the answer - impeachment). That is the only remedy the constitution allows for Presidential "high crimes and misdemeanors". People (elected leaders and supreme court justices can accuse and find the President in the wrong for anything they want - to no remedy). Our problem in the US is that we have had the weakest most feckless Congress in our 240 year history for the past decades or more. It is Congress that is failing in it's oath to the constitution to be the strongest branch of the government. Instead they abdicate to the Court or President to do their jobs and just go on TV or tweet their whines.
2
It is good to see that a few conservatives have not drunk the Trump Kool-Aid, and are speaking out against the most outrageous assaults on the Constitution that have ever been made short of armed rebellion. Trump's views of executive power went out in the English-speaking world with the beheading of Charles I. Their attempted rersurrection by GOP thugs is proof of the failure of the American educational system to transmit both history and civics to the general population.
2
Given what we all know about Trump; his greed for power and money; his lack of intellect and foresight; his absence of goodwill to most of his fellow Americans; his ignorance and cruelty; his vanity: it's unlikely that he was interested in anything other than if Kavanaugh would let him off the hook if any of civil or criminal cases went to the top. It made me realize that Trump could REALLY kill some guy on 5th Avenue, and not only would his base cheer him on, they'd be comforted that nothing would happen to him if he did.
14
But may I assume in two more years, when, if there is a God (and a mobilized Democratic voting bloc), Trump is no longer president and no longer able to pardon himself or his cronies, the legal system can come down on him and his greedy family and his vicious stooges like a ton of bricks, no? Is there something I'm missing? I guess how things go with Scott Pruitt may be an indication--if he's allowed to slink off to Oklahoma to start his senatorial campaign with justice pursuing him, that will be a sorry outcome.
1
Uh, that's withOUT justice pursuing him...
Could it be that Kavanaugh’s past writings were designed to position himself for this moment? We can only hope that it’s Trump’s trap and not ours.
5
Paul--Of course! Republicans have been plotting and planning for 50 years, to dominate our country and turn it into an autocracy/plutocracy/dictatorship, with the aid of enemy foreign countries. I give them credit for their ability to keep their eye on their long-term goal, something the Dems have failed to do. Dems are as much to blame for our current fall, as Republicans, but at least Dems have never had the goal of intentionally destroying our democratic republic.
2
So the president is closer to the powers of God than the power of the people? The divine right of kings? Above the law as is Putin?
This does seem to be closer to Trump's world view. How could an originalist read this into the Constitution without great distortion of the founders' intent?
13
Would Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh be required to recuse themselves from any cases directly involving Mr. Trump?
3
If the issue arrives at the Court, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (if confirmed) will recuse, leaving the Court divided 4-3 in favor of bringing criminal charges against Trump.
Although I have no idea about rubber-stamps Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, I personally do not think John Roberts would want his legacy to read that he voted to let Trump out from an investigation. I mean, the man is a traitor, and these guys (all guys, naturally) do value their legacies, since their entire lives have been about burnishing their own credentials and fortunes.
5
This issue alone is reason enough that Judge Cavanaugh’s appointment should not be voted on until after the November elections.
5
With apologies to G & S's "disagreeable man"
My name is Donald Trump, I’m nominating Kavanaugh,
He’ll have my back according to the article I saw,
His other views are lagniappe, Conservative of course,,
In view of that I’d nominate him if he were a Horse,
Now Mueller has me sweating, I’m afraid of what he knows,
And I’ll be hit with perjury if I have to depose,
I know Brett will support me, I read just what he wrote
It’s made my nights much pleasanter, and on a happy note,
And I know just why!
11
To be fair, it does not really matter if Kavanaugh would vote for Trump's legal arguments if the issues ever reached the SCOTUS. What matters is if 5 justices can be convinced. I'm not so sure - even conservative justices like to guard the prerogatives of the court.
1
This is a case where Roberts might put his court's historical reputation first, and recognize that doing this will be a dangerous precedent to set. I'm just not sure it'd be his first instinct, or that the other conservative justices would go along.
1
Really? These justices are are clearly prepared to politicize the court as much as they can!
The writing is on the wall. If it was not, Conservatives would be screaming!
1
If it were to happen that Kavanaugh becomes the next Supreme Court judge (we certainly hope not), and if it would then happen that he'd support the president’s claim that he is immune from prosecution, the American people would rise up in civil rebellion.
11
Impeachment is the proper path as the president was elected by the people. Removal should be done by the representatives of the people, not the courts. Any other process would cause a constitutional crisis
Not as long as everyone's 401k is fine.
1
Hi Ray, agreed. That said, regarding Trump, I can't wait for the day our representatives remove the rogue.
A sitting president can be impeached for misdemeanors and high
crimes. If you're in favor of not allowing the president to be investigation for criminal activity, then how can you be in favor of
the possibility of impeachment?
Hopefully the thoroughness of the questioning will clarify whether Kavanaugh wants to protect Trump from wrong doing
regardless of what the evidence points to.
10
Try reading the article in question and understand the argument, which was political rather then legal. Impeachment was the mechanism suggested as appropriate to deal with the executive branch rather then civil or criminal proceedings. Once removed from office the individual could then face prosecution.
5
Why does anyone think they are trying to get him nominated so fast? It's not just the mid terms, they are also trying to beat any findings released by Mueller. Trump should likely be in prison, not appointing justices to the Supreme Court.
21
I find it odd that President Obama was an imperialist for circumventing Congress on DACA, but our sitting President can rewrite the ACA, immigration, and talk of being above the law in prosecution without any of the loud wailing and lamentations and rending of shirts from the conservative media.
Which is more imperialist? The one who lets productive people stay on the weak argument of underfunded enforcement, or the one who feels he can fire the prosecutor who gets too close?
Kavanaugh's views on power are important; but so are the rest of the Court's and Congress's too. When they all get together, they can easily sell out Democracy for a few short term policy gains.
20
That's like asking who is the bigger fascist. Any fascism is bad.
My problem is Schumer demanding Trump be an imperial president for the purposes of extending Obama's imperial edict. Congress should have wither granted those children a pathway to citizenship, subjected them to deportation, depending on one's viewpoint on the matter, or enacted a "third way." It should not have allowed the Presidency to accrue even more power.
When the leader of one party's Congressional membership encourages the Executive in usurping legislative prerogative, we seem to on the path of losing one of our co-equal branches of government.
If you read Kavanaugh's opinion on civil and criminal investigation, he actually agrees with Clinton v. Jones --"presidents are not constitutionally entitled to deferral of civil suits." Presumably this same logic applies to criminal investigations as well.
Kavanaugh's argument is not that a sitting president is constitutionally exempt. He argues a sitting president should be exempt. However, the responsibility for changing the law falls to congress. If congress wants to grant a civil or criminal deferral, they have the power to do so. The question is therefore not whether a president is above the law but whether he or she will ever face a penalty for breaking it.
This is the problem Kavanaugh fails to address. He seemingly passes the buck on his own legal determination. This is why questions regarding executive authority, including pardon power, are much more important. What if Nixon's investigation had not occurred until after he had left office?
First of all, you can see what a huge mess that would make for investigators trying to simultaneously investigate regular citizens while not investigating the president. However, the vast political consequences for Nixon and the legislature would have been muted and delayed. Nixon would have walked and probably still received a pardon from the next incoming president.
I prefer to risk inconveniencing the president in the service of real time accountability.
30
Very well put, and I agree fully with your last sentence.
6
Kavanaugh said that Congress should “consider a law exempting a president — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.”
Which confirms that he does not think it to be the current state of the law.
And it is his job to rule on the law as it is, not what he thinks it should be.
18
Precisely.
But that must be made explicit in his confirmation hearing.
Absent that, even the most partisan GOP Senator has an obligation to the Constitution to reject this nominee at this time.
1
I have not heard any of the "originalists" argue in support of Kavanaugh's extreme views that would immunize the president from being held accountable for criminal violations and obligated to respond to subpoenas. While the scope of presidential powers has expanded far beyond what the drafters of the constitution envisioned, they would be appalled by the argument that the president, or any public officer, is above the law.
13
We as a country are in uncharted territory with a president under a legal cloud and particularly suspected of colluding with a foreign government.Judge Kavanaugh must be aware of this and be prepared to assure senators that he understands the precarious position and answer candidly questions posed to him.Our country cannot accept a president under the influence of a foreign power and a judge who is oblivious to the consequences.
18
"In a 2009 law review article, Judge Kavanaugh argued that a sitting president should be able to defer civil suits and criminal prosecutions until after he leaves office and should be excused from having to answer depositions or questions during his term."
That one sentence sums up the overriding reason Trump nominated Kavanaugh. Trump is motivated primarliy by self interest and hubris, in this case to derail the Muller investigation and to enhance his Presidential powers. Kavanaugh is on record as in favor of Donald Trump's positions in both of those areas. Trump has no legislative 'philosophy' outside of enhancing his wealth and that of his family and the one percent. His stated 'passions' - Roe v Wade, ACA, immigration - are just red meat to throw to his base.
23
I knew Kavanaugh was going to be Trump's choice--for precisely the reasons mentioned.
The possibility of overturning Roe vs. Wade and deciding other cases in reactionary directions was a secondary reason--though it plays well with Trump's base--because, as others have mentioned, fundamentally, Trump is about Trump and only Trump, and that fact that this jurist has come down decisively on the side of Presidents being unprosecutable for actions taken in office, at least while in office, is what Trump was most concerned about, as Trump knows he's facing a lot of charge and subpoenas and wants somebody on the Court who will hold that he can ignore them, at least for now.
To repeat, Mr. Kavanaugh is Trump's trump card as regards staying away from the bar--and the iron bars.
29
It appears that Kavanaugh is literally Trump's get out jail card. I have to hand it Trump. He is the marketer de jour. He selects his criminal escape hatch, all wrapped up in a fine looking, church going family man with two adorable daughters. This guy is the consumate boy scout, dream neighbor and all American. Except he will transform the office of the presidency into a dictatorship beyond the reach of the law. That is Kavanaugh's repeatedly stated position, all out in the open for the world to see.
He bases his position on the phony concept of Originalism which is nothing but a made up excuse for judges to act like robots and abdicate their responsibility to judge. This allows them to install an ultra rigid conservatism based of the reasoning that the Constitution doesn't say you can't so you can. This totally throws out all practical affects of their rulings and allows for severe abuses of power over the rights of others.
Kavanaugh's position of presidential immunity is bankrupt. He is relying on the political process to rein in a bad president. But the political process is not a legal one. It is essentially extrajudicial. Politics are often corrupt and horribly so. Relying on politics alone effectively places the president above the law.
How can someone who is so well studied, so intelligent, fall into such a logical trap? Because his mind is mired in belief. He is a conservative and that's what they do. Belief rules, not results.
70
Make no mistake, Donald Trump has always put his needs first before ALL else. Why would this time be any different?
Donald Trump went judge shopping. And Kavanaugh has the clearest record which aligns with Trump's possible needs.
For 'No Collusion, No Collusion' Donald, he certainly is overly worried for a man who claims such innocence.
Trump found what he needed in Kavanaugh. And of course, any question and answers between these two men will never be revealed. Kavanaugh will answer with legalese platitudes which say nothing.
And as icing on the cake, Trump also gets the assurance of the pro-life vote. We do know how he would rule on Roe v Wade because his name was included on the list of the Federalist Society. His name would not be there if he had not already promised his future action. It is pure fiction to think otherwise.
Women solidified to second class status in America. The white male ascendant in power and privilege.
21
Our federal government is now literally a farce. Think about what it means when the nation with the most lethal military on the planet is governed by farce. Holy cow.
40
There is a long held tradition in Anglo-American jurisprudence that a defendant not be allowed to choose his own judge. I realize that Trump is not yet a defendant (barring any sealed indictments Mueller has filed), but that tradition should hold here, as he might very well be involved in a civil suit re: the power of subpoena. But then, we all know about the current Republican regime's respect for tradition.
He should also be grilled regarding his published opinion re: presidential susceptibility to the special prosecutor and not be allowed to hide using the usual "matters that might come before the Court" dodge. After all, they wouldn't be asking about a case that might come before him, they'd merely be asking for clarification on an already expressed opinion.
38
The cloud of criminality surrounding Donald Trump is why he shouldn't be allowed to have his nominee appointed to the Supreme Court. Trump is already involved in two criminal cases--a sexual harassment case by former Apprentice contestant, Summer Zervos, and a campaign finance case involving the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels. Then there is the Special Counsel investigation. No justice he appoints, and that should include Neil Gorsuch, should be permitted to participate in any court rulings pertaining to these matters, especially Judge Kavanaugh. The best way to ensure this is to prohibit any appointment until all charges have been litigated.
42
There is no mystery here. Trump picked Kavanaugh for two reasons. The first is he is a far right wing radical extremist. The second is he’s Trump’s get out of jail free card.
The second reason is what Trump really cares about.
67
What a bunch of hyperventilating. Here is the reality: anyone advanced by Trump would be seen as a leading edge of dictatorship by the readers here, no matter who it was. Trump Derangement Syndrome has taken hold of half the nation, and, honestly, that half’s mouths move, but I tend to ignore the noise coming out.
2
So to be clear: you are comfortable with seating a Supreme Court Justice who has advocated passage of an unconstitutional law -- one that would protect a sitting president from criminal prosecution?
Please see my earlier comment for more details.
2
You ignore the smoking gun.
Does he already own a kangaroo, or will one be provided for him in court?
48
Senators, Please ask Kavanaugh if a president shot someone on Fifth Avenue is he protected against criminal prosecution?
110
Will Kavanaugh provide cover for Trump? Considering that this president puts his own self-interest first, above all else - including country - ...
14
hadn't thought of it before reading this...... but all the fuss over the derailing of roe v. wade was just anther trump sideshow. obviously, as in all things, he is acting in narrow self interest... he's most concerned with saving his own skin.
74
Kavanaugh oews Trump, so he will do whatever Trump wants. That is the deal when you get something from The Don.
22
Wouldn't a recusal be in order?
11
If Trump's actions prove to be treasonous, can he still be immune from prosecution?
18
If Judge Kavanaugh refuses to share his views on a president pardoning himself, pardoning subordinates to avoid justice and firing Department of Justice investigators to dodge justice, then Judge Kavanaugh's refusal to answer should be seen as his answer - legitimizing those despotic abuses.
In that case Democrats and liberals should mount a full press public campaign to tell the American people who Judge Kavanugh is - a defender of tyranny.
Democrats must appeal to the best in America pointing out that our nation has striven to promote virtue, uphold law and order and create confidence in our justice system by ensuring all that no man is above the law.
If Republicans insist on confirming a judge who supports tyrannical powers then that must not just be pointed out, but enlarged and repeated so that it is a topic on the tongues of every citizen, every day to the November election.
23
Promise to recuse himself? Like that's going to happen or he's going to keep that promise?
Did Clarence Thomas recuse himself in Bush v. Gore when his wife, Virginia, was vetting appointment candidates for Bush?
Did Antonin Scalia recuse himself from the case on Vice-Presidential privilege when he'd been sport-shooting with Cheney?
Has ANY nominee promised to recuse themselves if confirmed? And has kept that promise? Remember, there is nothing that can be done if the promise is broken.
Assume, like every nominee, Kavanaugh will refuse to answer or out-and-out lie to get on the Court. He has been appointed SOLELY to "protect" Donald Trump from the justice he so richly deserves and our nation needs if it is to survive as a Democratic Republic.
104
He should be asked, "Will you resign your seat if you don't recuse yourself from deciding about Trump's legalities?"
Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." This fresh faced, fraternity sophomore wannabe, will lie his head off like all the rest of them. I can never understand the absurd deference paid to Supreme Court Judges, or for that matter any judge. They routinely make asinine decisions based on "the law," or, their personal whim of the moment. A Facebook algorithm would be far more effective. (We certainly would not have Citizens United.)
1
I may be just being cynical, but some of the good these people like Kavanaugh do, might be questionable.
That he volunteers at a soup kitchen, or that women who adopted 2 Haitian children, etc., that these people are extremely concerned about their public image.
Maybe they're thinking, "this is going to look great on my resume".
Anyone who associates themselves with Trump at this point in time, automatically creates a severe character flaw in themselves.
39
Why else would Trump have chosen him? Trump is, at his core, relentlessly self-consumed. There is only one person in the universe that truly matters to Donald Trump, and that is Donald Trump. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the "loyalty oath" Trump attempted to extract from Comey, he was able to get from Kavanaugh.
We are witnessing an executive branch awash in criminal investigation now seeking to install one of the very judges who may ultimately rule on their culpability. This is inexcusable. Trump must not be allowed to nominate any Justices until Muelller's investigation is completed and the full truth revealed- regardless of how long that may take.
193
With the appointment of Kavanaugh, republicans will have total control of the government with majorities in the House, Senate, the Supreme Court and, of course, they hold the presidency. What do you imagine will happen to the already compromised rule of law once Kavanaugh is seated? The only solution at this point is November 6.
50
and the Russians will do their best to hack that.
Sadly, the only way Kavanaugh would be chosen by Trump is if he as already pledged allegiance to him and promised to put Trump's welfare above the law. After all, that's what the GOP is doing.
23
“85 percent of Americans (including 75 percent of Republicans) say that it is unacceptable for a president to pardon himself of a crime.” The author forgot to add the word, today. 75 percent of Republicans used to believe in free trade, the sanctity of marriage, science and truth. Those days are long gone. Today republicans are willing to accept anything as long as they can have a court willing to destroy unions, limit voting rights, overturn Roe, limit the rights of LGBT, allow unlimited money in politics and now protect the man they see as responsible for those gifts.
92
Not to mention tax cuts for the wealthiest people and corporations in the country.
27
Kavanaugh should recuse himself at the very least from any actions in which Trump is a direct party in the individual sense. He probably will not as only the justices themselves determine recusals but if he fails to do so, he will certainly show the citizenry what kind of justice he is.
21
In current circumstances, for all the well-reasoned points this piece cites, Judge Kavanaugh's refusal to answer pertinent questions or refusal to recuse on Mueller's Russia Inquiry questions that come before the Court regarding the man who appointed him, would be grounds for a 'no' confirmation vote.
Anything else does indeed reject the foundations of 800 years of western law since the Magna Carta was signed.
If we do not have the law, all else crumbles into Banana Republicanism.
"The state of our union is lawless." - Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Ca) Jan. 30 2018
"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy." - David Frum, former Dubya speechwriter
166
When Judge Kavanaugh previously concluded that sitting presidents should not be distracted by civil suits or criminal proceedings, he was referring to presidents who actually work at the job and not a president who hardly works at all and already is constantly distracted by what happens to be on television or by what's trending on Twitter.
49
Per Jay Orchard, a President who spends nearly every weekend on the golf course is not distracted by his duties. Why would a lawsuit distract from performance?
15
There is an issue greater than Kavanaugh's conduct in the matter of Trump. The very nature of our government will change from single party domination to become a super monopoly Republican government that only represents half the nation's citizens. The founders recognized tyrannies of history and devised a representative government intended to vest power in all the people. As it is now, Republicans hold the Executive and Legislative branches, and once Kavanaugh ascends to the Court, the absolute single party control of the nation will be realized. This is the beginning of an unconstitutional government.
109
i would only quibble with the percentage of people being represented by republicans..... i would put it at maybe 20% of the eligible voting public but it's probably less. of all the citizens eligible to vote in tis country about half are actually registered. off that half perhaps as many as 60% will bother to go to the polls in a presidential election. even fewer in a midterm. we the people are bringing our own country down and allowing a desperate fringe to make the decisions for us.
55
So. Much. Ignorance.
The court is non partisan by definition, and if your contention is otherwise, you obviously have no problem with it being partisan in your favor.
Additionally, there is no constitutional basis for your statement.
Lastly, if you've really paid attention the government has been single party dominant 5 times in the last hundred years. Which of the laws that were created during your political bent are you willing to throw out?
Thank you for this excellent article. That this judge supports a strong executive with unchecked powers demonstrates his lack of balance as regards our branches of government. This is what is very concerning and must be raised during the confirmation process.
114
Makes one wonder if Kavanaugh skipped over the parts in the Constitution re: checks and balances. In this case he would get an F-.
1
This confirmation process will be yet another test for the GOP Senate. This may be their last chance to show they can put country's future ahead of their short term politics. Confirming a justice to the SCOTUS is a huge responsibility. We'll see if they are up to the task.
I'm sorry to say that I am pessimistic about their self control. November may be our last hope for this experiment in government.
55
And when they prove they are not up to the task, but are complicit yet again, then what? This is getting rather grim.
2
"But the logic employed in Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions could easily be extended to argue that the president should enjoy the power to control the course of all criminal investigations — including those into his own alleged misconduct."
This is, to put it bluntly, totally nuts. The last think this country needs under this president is an expansive view of executive power--Trump already has that in spades, without SCOTUS giving him even more.
Sometimes I feel like so much of this discussion is like debating how many angels dance on the head of a pin. It's easier to face that than to admit out loud that the president's presumed innocence could well be guilt in the end and if so, what then?
Having a man who feels a sitting president--however corrupted, however criminal--should be immune from prosecution goes against every grain of fairness left (admittedly, not many) in 21st century America.
If a president can control his own investigation, be spared subpoenas, and essentially wave a "get out of jail free" card, what's to stop him from declaring himself president for life like other dictators do?
154
Our Constitution provides for impeachment of a sitting president for high crimes and misdemeanors. But Judge Kavanaugh once wrote that Congress should pass a law that would, in effect, render this part of the Constitution moot. Kavanaugh has, as this NYT article states, advocated that Congress “consider a law exempting a president — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.”
If a sitting president were to be exempt from prosecution for a crime, how could he or she be impeached for committing a crime?
IMHO a law that would render any part of he Constitution moot or inoperable would be unconstitutional. Do we really want a Supreme Court Justice who has advocated passage of an unconstitutional law?
102
You are on the right track here, but you haven't got the details quite right:
The main thrust of Kavanaugh's argument is that the president should not be distracted from doing the nation's business by having to respond -- in the courts -- to a criminal complaint or a civil lawsuit, although the president would still be subject to those prosecutions or civil suits after leaving office.
And Kavanaugh argues that if the president abuses his/her office, the proper mechanism for dealing with that is impeachment -- which takes place in the House and Senate, rather than in the courts -- and which, rather than being a distraction, would be the government's primary responsibility, if it were needed.
Thus the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that a president can be impeached for are not the same as the "crimes" which are violations of the criminal and civil codes. The president MIGHT be impeached for committing a "crime" (e.g., obstruction of justice) -- for which he/she would also be subject to prosecution in the courts after removal from office. But his/her "high crimes and misdemeanors" -- which the House defines and the Senate judges -- are not necessarily violations of the criminal or civil codes.
Where I think Kavanaugh goes wrong -- and you are right -- is that he also says the president should not even be subject to investigations -- e.g. by a special prosecutor. But if the president can't even be investigated, how would the Congress know he/she needed to be impeached?
1
Let's assume for the moment that the "high crimes and misdemeanors" for which a president may be impeached are defined solely by the House. The difficulty I see there is that a highly partisan House, cowed by a president who heads the House majority party, might never be charged by the Representatives. For that reason, I would insist that state and federal prosecutors must retain their rights to prosecute sitting presidents. I know I'm not alone in believing that nobody, not even the president, should ever be above the law.
It’s pretty clear that Judge Kavanaugh was selected for the Supreme Court to run interference for Donald Trump should the inquiries into his campaign (and as president) reveal evidence of criminal activity by either himself, his surrogates or his family. The writings of the judge re: executive power are not reassuring.
Judge Kavanaugh, before his elevation, while serving on Kenneth Starr’s staff investigation about President Clinton’s falsehoods re: his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, wrote that a sitting president shouldn’t be bothered with ancillary matters that may impinge upon his duties. If that’s the case, then why was Richard Nixon, by a unanimous Supreme Court, told that he was not above the law and could not withhold evidence bearing upon any criminal activity?
Donald Trump reminds me of a trapped ferret, desperately looking for a way out. He sees a potential opening with Judge Kavanaugh to evade possible criminal prosecution. This may be a reach, but could a sitting Supreme Court Justice be complicit, a priori, in the dissolution of any and all checks and balances between the executive and the judiciary?
90
If we only at a second branch of government---Congress---that exercised its constitutional function---we would not be wringing our hands over every judicial appointment. With Congress enjoying it's endless breaks and do nothingness, the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch have stepped into the void. I agree with Justice Roberts that the Supreme Court is being dragged into the questions that should be resolved by our elected Representatives.
26
I think it is imperative that Kavanaugh be put on the record about his philosophy regarding the President being subject to the rule of law. Clearly his selection was , in part, based on his law review article in which he suggests that the President during his term of office should not be subject to civil or criminal proceedings. This view was adopted after his service on Ken Starr’s team pursuing impeachment against a sitting President. And this view , more importantly, conflicts with previous precedent that allows a President to be deposed or testify in a civil case.
The Senate should demand that he recuse himself from any matter involving Robert Mueller’s investigation , at a bare minimum. The public has a right to know that even the President will be dealt with objectively like any other litigant. Particularly where the issue is whether he or members of his campaign collaborated with a foreign power to change the course of an election.
53
Stating that a President cannot be prosecuted or even answer have to deal with civil suits while in office is wrong. Saying that a President can direct or end investigations into his own behavior is at odds with the Constitution.
Our founders set up three co-equal branches of government to, among other things, prevent abuse of power by the President. Voting for a judge who believes the President is above the law is a vote for tyranny.
96
Should Kavanaugh be confirmed he must recuse himself of the Trump investigations.
Kavanaugh WILL be confirmed, whether he answers questions or not. In fact, if he answers the questions as expected, based on his previous opinions, he would actually strengthen his position for confirmation by reaffirming those very qualities and positions that got him nominated in the first place.
Arguing that he must then recuse himself from decisions regarding executive power, or that the confirmation process must be delayed is ridiculous. Under what scenario does such a thing happen, except for Kavanaugh himself agreeing not to rule on cases in which he's previously written an opinion that the liberal wing doesn't like? This is nonsensical, and about as likely to happen as Mitch McConnell agreeing that, yes, based on Kavanaugh's answers to pressing questions from the Democrats, we must delay his confirmation until after the mid-terms.
The vast majority of cases brought before the court originate in the states. States dominated by Republican governors, legislators and AG's. If we want to keep this court from ruling on these matters we must re-take control of local and state politics and pass, at that level, laws that reflect who we are as a nation. Waiting for Congress to act is a waste of time and energy. Vote locally, bring the progressive agenda closer to home, and work to keep these cases from coming before the Republican Supreme Court. That is how we neutralize the Gorsuch-es and Kavanaugh-es, not by wishful thinking about recusal or confirmation delays.
13
"Given Judge Kavanaugh’s position on executive authority, it is unclear where he would stand."
In a constitutional republic, especially one like the United States that is built on the idea that no individual should hold too much power, the idea of a President who can pardon himself of any and all crimes should be anathema. Yet, that is precisely what Trump is claiming. His tweet is still there for all to read: he "absolutely has the right" to pardon himself.
For the sake of preserving American democracy, we shouldn't even afford the benefit of the doubt to a judicial candidate who is even slightly mealy-mouthed about being willing to act as a check and balance to the executive branch. And yet, many people who see what's wrong with the situation are not willing to just come out and take a stand on this. Instead we are still muddling about with "let's ask questions" and "let's insist on honest answers." If this is a lost cause, then let's at least be honest.
Historians might one day ponder how the Americans gave away its democracy. How, in one short-sighted act of self-destructive stupidity after another, we just bumbled our way into authoritarianism.
61
That would be the time to take to the streets by the millions. If we don't we are going to be killed. In fact I would bet a man like Trump would order the military to open fire on us. I am scared in my own neighborhood because of the Trump backers who are quite aggressive.
Another way to say: how did we become a Fascist country?
Judge Kavanaugh, do you think the Special Counsel investiation is a "witch hunt"?
19