If, as you report, Judge Kavanaugh wrote that Congress should pass a law precluding prosecutorial investigation of a President while in office, then, unless he is irrational, if a subpoena is requested in such an investigation and Congress has not passed such a law, he will rule that the subpoena should be upheld.
So, is Trump stacking the Supreme Court with people that will let him off when he’s subpoenaed? Isn’t that the ultimate obstruction of justice?
16
If the President can't be subpoenaed doesn't that make it harder to discover evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors (sp?). This would be good for Trump and bad for the U.S.
4
Here is a thought. How about presidents quit breaking the law so we don't need to investigate them?
In our last election we had the FBI investigating one candidate. Now, they are investigating the other candidate.
It is VERY easy to get through life without ever getting a knock on the door from the FBI.
When I was growing up, the FBI was banging on the doors of mobsters. Now, its politicians.
8
"Judge Kavanaugh wrote ... 'Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the president’s focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as president.' ” Judging by the time Mr. Trump spends with nasty tweets, campaign rallies, watching 'Fox and Friends', and golf, I don't think he can legitimately claim that he's too busy being president to answer questions from Mr. Mueller.
11
There ought to be a law that says, either a sitting president must respond to a subpoena duly issued under color of law or said issuing authority must immediately bring an indictment against the president to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mueller's is hurting the country by prolonging his witch hunt for no apparent reason.
1
Did the Founding Fathers, who had recently defeated a tyrant, really intend that the American president place himself above the law? What would Washington, Lincoln, and TR say about that?
9
I cannot envision Trump doing "a worse job as President" as Kavanaugh has stated, "because he would be distracted by preparing his defense"
Trump does not think preparing for anything is necessary because he is "the smartest guy in the room"
Hopefully his assumption that he is above the law will not prevail.
So far, he has shown no regard for law and order.
It is time to show Trump he cannot keep up his constant criminal behavior and get a way with it
Bring on the Subpeona and let the Supreme Court prove that they are worthy of wearing those robes. Show the Citizenry than no one is above the law, not even Trump
8
The principal function of the president is to uphold the constitution of the United States. The constitution says no one is above the law. It does not say, it applies only to those who are not busy. Sometimes, a country lawyer makes more sense than an Yale product who goes in circles and often doesn't even know what is 'is'.
9
If the nominee, Judge Kavanaugh ascends to the Supreme Court cementing a solid Republican controlled super monopoly government that no longer serves the need to have the three branches check on each others power, the intention of the founders, we will no longer have a constitutional government as written of in our Constitution. After that, the only possible remedy is the Mueller investigation. I believe the Executive is attempting to derail and end the Mueller investigation by challenging Trump's firings of investigators by appeals to the Republican majority appointed Supreme Court. Kavanaugh's confirmation will make it all happen and what will remain is an imperial executive and subservient Legislative and Judicial branch, an unconstitutional dictatorship.
6
correction; By appealing Trumps firings to affirm them in the Supreme Court, now dominated by Republican appointees, who mostly align with government power.
As for evidence being easier to get than testimony... how about those tax returns?
6
The only thing Trump wants is to be above the law. Brett Kavanaugh is his best bet to achieve the goal.
3
“I believe that the president should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship whileerving in office”...among those burdens [are] responding to...criminal charges.
Kavanaugh's writing suggest that a sitting president can effectively commit any crime and be excused from being answerable for that crime.
No wonder he is at the top of Trumps short list, this guy is Trump's dream: a legal get-out-of-jail-free card. This is the most politically aligned court in history. Should it come to that, there is no reason to expect anything from the Roberts court other than a strict party line vote. The rule of law in the US will effectively be a thing of the past if it is not already.
9
I address the issue of the pending nomination of Judge Kavanaugh and how it relates to the current makeup of the federal government. As it is now, America is controlled by a Republican monopoly government teetering on absolute Republican control and the absence of participation and democracy by half the nation, whose Democrat representatives are very close to migrating from a minority to an isolated non participant in governing.
With what is known now, and further will be learned, is that Judge Kavanaugh essentially believes in a near imperial power of the President over the rest of the government, even his own administration's departments, most glaringly, the Justice department. That gives me pause to think about whether the entire Mueller investigation would be scuttled by Trump if his fight over dominating the investigators goes to the Supreme Court that includes Judge Kavanaugh.
Looking at the big picture, this news of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination is very bad news for what Democracy remains in our nation as his ascension to the Supreme Court would assure absolute Republican success in cases presented to the court as the majority would be Republican appointees and the Republican policy strategy has moved from the Congress they abandoned, where there was non absolute agreement and debate on the issues. The Republican thirst for power is grossly evident as they seek to rule with a super-monopoly power over the nation.
5
“I have a hard time seeing any scenario in which Kavanaugh would be the decisive vote on a question like this,” he said.
that's textbook foreshadowing
1
So based on Kavanugh's theory on not subpoenaing a sitting President, let's skip the testimony part and move directly to impeachment as described in the Constitution "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The Constitution, Article I, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
2
Heard a soundbite of Kavanaugh claiming that Trump did more vetting for this position than any other president. Obviously, he's very good at brown-nosing. I can only imagine what kind of flattery went on during his interview with Trump.
5
The only way a Supreme Court justice can be removed, other than via resignation or death, is if Congress votes to impeach him/her. Evidently only one justice has ever been impeached & that was back in 1804. However, he was soon acquitted (evidently by the same Congress that initially voted to impeach him) & remained on the Court for the rest of his life. Interestingly enough, this man was impeached because of evidence that he was letting his partisan leanings prejudice his Supreme Court decisions(!)
So Supreme Court justices are already pretty much above the law. Soon Presidents will be too. Farewell democracy. What I still cannot figure out is, why are Republicans so hell-bent on making this happen?
7
And of course that explains the choice of nominee, from top to bottom. It had nothing primarily to do with judicial qualifications or even with ideology or where he stands on key issues. It's all about what he means to "me, Trump." Well that was obvious.
3
Suppose that the Special Counsel issues a subpoena for Trump's testimony BEFORE the confirmation process for Kavanaugh reaches the Senate floor?
Unless Trump actually testified before the confirmation vote, wouldn't the confirmation vote virtually have to be put off until after the subpoena issue reached the Supreme Court?
2
In a democratic society the meaning and value of each vote is the same irrespective whether one becomes a president or remain a simple citizen. If any one does wrong he should thus be equally processed by law and not immune to any exceptions.The judge was clearly wrong in his thought and logic process.
2
People keep saying that justices need to follow the law. I'm sorry to say that these are abstract debates, and while the justices that are nominated are suppose to answer Senate questions, they're responses are typically very, very vague and non-commital, i.e., they dance around the subject and rarely have any concrete answers. And since the republicans are in the majority, unless their is some obvious legal reasons for not allowing the nominee to move forward, it gets approved. Kavanaugh's past show's no doubt to me that he would be another pro-trump, conservative justice and this country would continue to suffer. Someone made a comment that people change opinions as they become "wiser" but having another trumprian justice would damage this country's democratic and social progress for at least a generation. Democrats and independents should figure out how to stop this nomination and get someone in there who would be a non-partisan US legal scholar who would not set the clock back on all the progress that has been made over the last 50 years.
2
"He said Congress should consider imposing limits on such proceedings."
Since Judge Kavanaugh believes that Congress should impose limits on the President's accountability to the US justice system to which all other citizens are answerable, he therefore admits that there presently are no limits to the President's accountability.
4
The threat posed by considering a president beyond the reach of the judicial system is even more dangerous than the threat posed by a president seeking to directly influence the outcome of an investigation by the judicial branch, particularly the special counsel. Any American who does not see the Constitutional cancer present in these scenarios does not see that pure partisanship is not a component of patriotism. Further, no amount of legal scholarship should
be able to find justification in either scenario.
1
Judge Kavanaugh's argument that responding to a criminal subpoena would undermine president's ability to be president is dealt with by the Constitution itself. The 25th Amendment provides the president an opportunity to step away voluntarily, turn responsibilities over to the VP until the president takes care of his legal issues. Then once he takes care of those issues he can then step back in. That would be a clear effective use of the amendment.
2
I presume Mr. Muellwe is compiling the number of tweets trump has issued against the Special Counsel and others involved in the Russia investigation. Also estimating the time it takes trump to issue all his statements. No one's accused trump of burdening himself with long hours or hard work, so one wonders how Mr. Kananaugh would apply his own legal theories towards his greatest benefactor.
Do it. Subpoena Trump's taxes and determine his financial relation to Russia. I'd like to know that, and to know why my elected representatives do not care about Russian efforts during the last election.
11
In the end, Trump's latest right wing, narrow minded religious zealot will be approved. Best for Democrats to concentrate on illuminating why it is crucial for a centrist to be nominated, a judge who will be entirely impartial. Garland was such a nominee and it is probable that a Republican centrist can also be found, but not amongst the ranks of the Federalist Society.
Trump, a man without moral compass and without care for anything except his image, continues to pander to his base and neglect his sworn oath (but so does the entire elected Trump support group).
4
While so called "social issues" over shaddow even the question of whether we will have a president or a king, the question remains: What would the highest individual and corporate tax rate be if all social issue conflict suddenly disappeared?
Most of the GOP big money donors don't give a darn about school prayer, ten commandment displays, gays, guns, or flag pins, and corporations have no objection to the cheap immigrant labor that they profit from; a divided American electorate and a packed court is the objective.
The last thing they want are Americans voting in their own economic interest above all other issues.
Division of the electorate serves to keep the powerful in power and the fearful GOP base can be relied upon to produce the light weight candidates that the American plutocracy needs. Candidates who claim divine inspiration, divine communication, and that they are "chosen". Good thing that at least half of America knows who really chose them.
4
As a strict constructionist, an originalist, would Mr. Kavanaugh please point out exactly where in the Constitution it says that a president is immune from civil or criminal law.
11
If Kavanaugh is worried about the imposition on time that a subpoena may create, he should just tell DJT to lay off the golf for a couple of weekends. This president works the least of any president in my lifetime (now 70 years). And to say that he may have written on other subjects is irrelevant. This is a case where the one putting him in the position to make a ruling is expecting that ruling to favor the one doing the nomination.
2
"New Supreme Court justice believes that whomever has the most money should win the case."
1
Kavanaugh did not consider the 25th Amendment, which can be used to put the President "on the sidelines" if necessary.
Consider the hypothetical example of a POTUS accused of committing a murder. Would Kavanaugh still say that a possible murderer should be allowed to quietly complete a term of office and only thereafter have to stand trial? Reason would say that for as serious an offense as murder, there is no reason to wait to try the accused. First, why would we allow a person who was guilty to remain in office? Second, delay for possibly years risks the possibility that evidence disappears and witnesses die.
The text of the 25th Amendment does not state any particular reason why a POTUS might be "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office."
Section 3 says that the president can temporarily remove himself from office by writing a letter.
Section 4 says that the vice president and a majority of the cabinet (or whatever body Congress designates by law) can send a letter temporarily putting the president "on the sidelines."
Neither section states any limitation on the basis for a declaration that the POTUS is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. The basis could be health, or it could be another reason, such as being indicted for a serious crime.
An indictment is not an "inconvenience" if the crime alleged is serious enough. IMHO, obstructing justice or conspiring with a foreign power to influence an election are such crimes.
3
Judge Kavanaugh may have had a change of heart regarding the depths to which a special counsel can badger a sitting President, but Clinton's dissembling over a sexual episode and Trump's dissembling (and lying) over relations with another country is the difference between adultery and treason.
Yes, a president's job is immeasurably difficult. So comeuppance for adultery? Yes, let's please wait.
Justice for treasonous, kleptocratic actions?
No, we don't have time to wait on this one.
4
Forget it, the guy will just stonewall and lie about everything he has said and written. This is how right wingers do things. They have no real ideas so must lie and stonewall to get by.
No one should be above the law.
Many of us have very difficult, demanding jobs and that certainly doesn't exempt us from having to keep our noses clean and out of trouble. Why should the president be exempted just because he has a 'demanding job'?
If anything, as leader of this country, the president should be held to a HIGHER standard of behavior, integrity and honesty, since they should set a good example, set the bar high!
Equal justice for all American people - isn't that what the Supreme Court should be all about?
Yeah well, that ended a long time ago, if ever it actually existed. And as for any 'presidential integrity', well. . . .
How silly of me!
3
It seems as if the "originalists" judges who are so beloved by the GOP seem to forget that the origins of our country were based in a fight against the tyranny of a king who did not need to answer to the laws of the land. Placing a president above the law is cronyism and corruption. Glorified, high-talking fakes willing to do anything for their liar king.
6
Trump could fight and win, with the help of his appointees, his lawyer's contention that a sitting president cannot be subpoenaed, nor indicted for that matter.
So be it. Let the process begin and let it play out to the full. If Trump refuses to testify, if he pardons the witnesses against him, if he pardons himself, all that's on him. He would still have to face Americans, through a representative Congress and at the polls.
And if New York State and California attorney generals would get off their rear ends and start issuing subpoenas and indictments against Trump's family members and campaign officials, at least, then nobody would have to worry about pardons.
Then there is always the unindicted co-conspirator thing. The Justice Department and FBI lawyers and agents would pay plenty for a lottery ticket to be the one to greet Trump upon the occasion of his term ending and hauling him off to the judge. If there is any karma left, that judge would from Indiana and of Mexican ancestry.
5
Kavanaugh's POTUS above the law theories are bogus to the core. Where was this theory when Kavanaugh was on the Ken Starr witch hunt of Clinton? Nowhere, that's where. Right wing extreme loves the guy. He will not be confirmed.
1
Pro-life? You mean anti-choice. I love how cons like you always try to paint yourself as "pro-life" when everything you say and do so very clearly shows you're anti-choice/freedom. Being pro-war, pro-death penalty, anti-social services, anti-globalized healthcare, is not being pro-life. Not even close. We're all hypocrites. However, conservatives never have any limits on theirs while ours only goes so far.
So you're anti-Trump, that does not, a good person make.
3
You forgot to mention that, for these people, their 'Pro-life' stance ends when the child is born.
When that mother needs assistance to feed and clothe that child, these 'Pro-lifers' are no where to be found.
2
This is not the Supreme Court of 1974, nor is it the Court of 1997.
This is not President Nixon.
This is not President Clinton.
This is not a person who deserves the title.
This is showman, real estate developer, narcissistic Donald Trump.
And Robert Mueller has the goods on him.
Kavanaugh should not even go through confirmation hearings. After hearing his brown-nosing, first public words to the country, we pretty much know how he will decide.
Save the SCOTUS for our children and grandchildren.
6
I wish Kavanaugh would be asked two questions.
One. Would he characterize leaving the White House virtually every weekend to play golf and tweeting throughout the day to be events that are "time consuming and distracting" from Presidential duties?
Two. Would he insist that one of his daughters carry to birth a pregnancy that was caused by rape or other unintended circumstance?
8
The perfectly obscene, multiple layers of speculation and chasing of insanely imagined phantoms defy all logic and reason in this latest hysterical rant from MSM.
But that's our American left for you - good thing for them they'll have a far better country with a far better court system and place in the world economy after President Trump's second term and the red sweep in November.
1
Now that is what I would call an obscene speculation.
1
to make waves:
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota) just went on the tube to say that the tariffs are killing the farmers in his state. That suggests that a LOT of farmers are going to be unhappy.
There are lots of manufacturers who use steel and aluminum who are getting pounded by the higher costs for those metals. Mid Continent Nail, in Missouri, the largest nail manufacturer in the US, has laid of 12% of its workers, and says they will go bankrupt by the fall at this rate.
Funny thing. The "very stable genius" is going to tank the economy for a lot of people in RED states.
All those successful trade agreement negotiations (only one with South Korea been completed) have improved things, right?
So much "winning" that my head is spinning.
MAGA! (Manufacturers Are Going Abroad)
3
I don't understand why there's any debate on ol' Brett at all. He's pure neocon. His morality is the classic 'Do as I say, and not as I do' variety. Laws and rules are for little people after all. Men such as himself and The Donald are far above such petty things and shouldn't be bothered by them.
Next we'll see The Donald finally come out truthfully - for once - that he should be dictator for life - probably even going so far as to demand that the title President be changed to Caesar. And all the neocons will support it gladly.
Way past time to start talking secession, folks. There's no way America can last at this rate. It would be far better off just go our separate ways with New America for the left and Jesusland for the right.
2
Once again, it seems, one set of rules that apply to Democrats, and a different set of rules for Republicans. Any true expression of what I feel about that would be censored from publication.
5
Here’s an easy way around this -neither Trump appointee can rule on anything Mueller investigation related. We’ve had seven justices in the past, that way there would be no tie.
4
Kavanaugh needs to recuse himself on ANYTHING related to Trump or Russians, or the environment, or Roe v. wade, where he is governed by his religion, not by law. He is basically a useless partisan, and any attempt to portray him as 'judicial' or to muddy the waters around his clearly stated anti- government anti-law perspectives is just false. Trumps swamp of swirling muddy waters should not cloud our clear sight of this hack.
6
All issues are crucial but what takes my sleep away is that Kavanaugh perceives Trump to be his boss. If he does not, that is like it looked like on TV. The basis of our republic lays of our separation of powers. Even NATO and trade can be fixed. Eventually. But highjacking the Supreme Court has no return.
9
Does Kavanaugh believe that IF the President of the USA shot Kavanaugh's entire family on 5th Avenue in NYC at high noon in front of a bevy of cameras, he would be OK waiting for the President to finish his term, as not to be distracted with the important work of the Presidency?
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW
14
Bush and Cheney should have been charged with war crimes. And Kavanaugh is just an extension of those WMD lies, for our 17 year war.
7
Am I a lawyer? No.
Do I have an opinion? Yes.
(Though no one agrees with me.)
I have never understood why a sitting president should be immune from any legal proceeding WHATSOEVER.
He is a citizen of the United States. He could hardly have reached that high office if he weren't.
I too am a U.S. citizen. So (I presume) are you ladies and gentlemen of The New York Times. We enjoy the privileges of citizenship. We incur the DUTIES of the citizenship.
But I gather most legal opinion is against me. Starting (but by no means ending) with my own son. A lawyer. In Washington. There seems to be a shadowy consensus: the burdens of an American presidency are so many, so arduous. . . ..
. .. that in common decency (to say nothing of the public good) a sitting president should not be PESTERED or HARRIED by civil suits or criminal prosecutions.
Especially if they're spiteful or frivolous. Okay. I get it.
But it troubles me.
Think back to the "trial" (and subsequent execution) of Britain's King Charles I. In 1649. "I would KNOW," began the monarch (when asked how he pleaded), "by what AUTHORITY I am called hither. . . . ."
From that position he never budged. Not one inch. The King is above the law.
I have never read a British historian who disagreed with that position. "Impeccable in law," said one writer.
BUT. . . .
. .he lost his head anyway.
AND. . ..
. . .the president of the United States is not a king.
Not yet anyway.
Not yet.
7
Ask ‘My Son the Lawyer’ if the burdens of being president are so hard how do they have time for criminal activities-even suspected ones. I’m with you-no one is above the law
Trump is a fraud and therefore anyone he chooses for any position especially a SCOTUS justice is a fraud. Delay and remove any appointments until Mueller finishes his investigations. Anything less will be considered a coup of our government. Trump obviously chooses people who take an oath to defend him.
9
We want to get rid of criminal presidents ASAP and don't want them doing any more damage to the country. Kavanaugh believes that a criminal president should have all the time they need to keep doing their criminal activity an risk destroying the country. He is not anyone we need in any government post, especially not the SC where his idiocy will affect all Americans for 30 years. No thanks. Next!
7
You got it right
3
very convenient that Kavanaugh also worked with the Russian band Alpha "to improve its image"...another Russian agent, this time in nomination for SCOTUS...Trump demands unconditional loyalty from everyone...just like the dictator-in-waiting he is.
6
Q: Mr. Kavanaugh, is a sitting president above the law?
A: "we don't need no stinking laws!"
4
An"originalist" is a supposed judge who is too lazy to actually interpret the Constitution and laws based on modern life. They don't want to do that so say "just read the law." Well, a 6th grader can "read the law" so why do we need judges?
Just a lazy, amateurish guy who doesn't want to work much or apply thought to any problem. Just like Gorsuch, Scalito, Thomas, etc. IOW, low-information right wingers.
3
Chances are Judge Brett Kavanaugh may not not be confirmed soon if there's a ghost of a chance that Special Mueller's special investigation could subpoena President Trump re the Russia Investigation. Bigly "gotcha" -- Adam Liptak-- for 'splaining the possible Kavanaugh monkey-wrench in the Supreme Court Trump nomination works.
2
"“Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation — including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators — are time-consuming and distracting,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote. “Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the president’s focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as president.”
If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.
Poor trump; he may have to give up weekend golf and fox news broadcasts to prepare for testimony.
Wait, he says he needs minimal preparation for foreign policy related tasks, and based on his recent performances, that is most evident.
I guess his legal team would be really worried about such testimony if he goes in as prepared as he is for waging tariff wars and disrupting the G7 and NATO.
So back to, if he can't spare the time for testimony, he should have thought long and hard about wanting to be president and colluding with Russia and/or obstruction of justice.
But thinking long and hard are not possible for trump.
As an aside, trump is frequently referred to as another Hitler. That's actually an insult to Hitler:
Hitler did serve in the German Army in WWI from October 1914, wounded twice and awarded the Iron Cross Second and First class. And he read a lot of books.
trump has done none of that.
4
It seems like Kavanaugh has already been confirmed. The nomination process is yet to come. Whatever Kavanaugh's position in the past, we know which way he will swing - with the Conservative Justices, precedents be damned. This guy will be the death-knell of the Supreme Court. 6-3. The three might as well retire. Save them writing dissents no matter how cutting. The absolute power of the majority will destroy our countryand our entire judicial system absolutely. As for McConnell, he is an abomination. He torpedoes Judge Garland's nomination by President Obama because of ONLY one year(!!!)left in his term. But he derides Democrats for even putting up a losing fight to this very partisan nomination. I'm just hoping that a sitting President being investigated for treason and criminality should be disallowed the right to nominate. A President is first a citizen. And the laws apply equally to all citizens, be it President of the student body or President of the United States of America. Otherwise we can only hope for a miracle where many decent, upright Republicans will put Country over Party and letting this dangerous President who sees our Justice System as pawns, who can be manipulated to set him free of all charges of criminal activity.
4
This lacky will kowtow to his boss Trump, rather than his country and Constitution.
2
Does the Yale Law educated Kavanaugh believe that if the president killed somebody on the steps of the White House he should not be prosecuted until his term his over? If so, then the president could take illegal actions to make himself a dictator, until his term is over, which he could extend indefinitely.
7
Republicans led by their Demagogue-in-Chief want a Constitutional crisis? So be it. Let US have at it.
As a lifelong Dem (JFK/'60) I am sick and tired of being sick and tired of Republicans. From Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, to now, the Grand Old Party has turned into a bunch of flunkies, having long worn out its claim as the party of Lincoln.
Old Honest Abe, were he resurrected, wouldn't recognize this group of clodhoppers, and I'm sure would not be a party to party of racists yokels and hood winkers.
Republicans today put down RINO's. But the irony is they're the RINO's. They wear the brand but have nothing in common with its origins. Why don't they relabel themselves? They're being controlled by the Right Wingnut Fringe, the Freedumb Caucus. Why not change the name to Freedumb Party? As in having nothing left to lose. That's the same sort of tripe Trump preached to a group of African-Americans. Seems it would be perfect for what's become a party of White Supremacist sympathizers.
The best thing about the GOP is: being a party of White hate mongers, it is not long for this World.
DD
Manhattan
11
Duh. Why do you think Trump picked Kavanaugh?
8
Very busy golfing, he is.
8
The very idea that Kavanaugh seems to think oral sex in the Oval Office is on the same legal par with treason via collusion with the Russian State Mob should be enough to disqualify him as Trumpolini's next chosen little lap dog for the SCOTUS. His Mayberry RFD performance and fawning for the head patting alone the other night was enough to make any rational person vomit. Fake President, Fake Justice. Fake Democracy.
14
Judge Kevanaugh's argument that submitting the President to normal legal processes would distract from his performance in office does not apply in Trump's case. His refusal to be questioned is based on the fact that he would certainly commit perjury. The real distraction from his duties lies in the fact that the Mueller investigation cannot be satisfactorily concluded without the President's testimony. Getting him back to doing his job requires him to cooperate, clear the air and stand down his lawyers.
14
GMB
That means he would have to curtail golfing.
No One is Above the Law. Not even the president.
A crime is a crime is a crime. Apologies Gertrude.
2
Asking Kavanaugh to recuse himself on the subpoena issue is the WRONG QUESTION. Instead, ask him the following question:
“DO YOU PROMISE/PLEDGE AT YOUR NOMINATION HEARING TO RECUSE YOURSELF FROM ANY SUPREME COURT CASE WHICH CHALLENGES ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS THE LEGALITY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FULL PRESIDENTIAL PARDON OF HIMSELF FOR PREVIOUS DEEDS?”
Regardless of any rationale made by Kavanaugh to refuse to make this promise/pledge including that the Constitution and precedent doesn’t require him to do so, I believe there is a reasonable chance that such a refusal will unleash enough public pressure on enough Republican and timid Democratic Senators to force his withdrawal. Many citizens would see voting for confirmation in the face of such a refusal to recuse is tantamount to that Senator clearly putting his personal interests above the Rule of Law and Constitutional government in our country and convey to their Senator that his approval of a confirmation would cost him their vote at his next and future elections.
The rationale for focusing on this particular issue for recusal is that it puts into stark relief that such an action by the President will be seen as obvious evidence of the President’s subversion of the Rule of Law and the Constitution.
If Kavanaugh does make the pledge, it could turn out to have been an important victory for our country.
I have not seen this idea articulated anywhere, so if you think it has merit, tell somebody about it.
10
This is why elected officials especially the POTUS should be beyond reproach. Donald Trump came into office with a more than checkered past.
As the notion that a sitting President should not be burdened with the weight of of dealing with personal litigation seems "reasonable," the idea of allowing a criminal to sit in that seat for the duration should be unacceptable to the American public.
Trump has undoubtedly committed serious crimes in his private life and possibly high crimes in office. There is no way that any citizen should be above the law, that is what the constitution was all about, the POTUS was never excluded from this fact.
8
From what I gathered reading a portion of the Minnesota Law Review article, Kavanaugh does not believe the President has immunity from criminal prosecution as a constitutional matter, however, believes the President should and could be granted immunity through congressional legislation.
4
Well, since the GOP is fully supportive of Trump & even meeting with Russians, how can we expect anything honest to come out of that?
2
This is about as close to pardoning himself as Trump can get without actually going down that particular road of white-hot controversy.
It would seem likely, given that this subject of Kavanaugh's position on a presidential subpoena is now under the confirmation microscope, also given that it's a giant burr under Trump's saddle, that the president had a private discussion with Kavanaugh on this very subject prior to nomination. Perhaps even as a carefully worded condition of nomination.
11
Does it matter what this man says in response to the Senators' questions? In the end, the question and answer period will come to a close and votes will be cast. Republicans, unlike Democrats, stick together, and they will all vote YES. Results: Mr. Kavanaugh will be voted in as the newest member of SCOTUS.
3
Any run-of-the-mill law school graduate who thinks a president should be above or beside the law is plainly unfit for a seat on the Supreme Court which is not traffic or TV court. The Supreme Court transcends courts of record. A person who deliberately reasons like a partisan, at the outset, is no conservative and cannot be trusted with matters of life and death. What sane American would volunteer a serious issue to matches-and-gasoline justice? The unethical travesty of keeping Judge Garland from the Supreme Court gets magnified. Will there be an end?
10
We have the President who expects "personal loyalty", appointing someone who is already fudging his past opinions on whether a President can be forced to testify.
The separation of powers does not include having the President's pet watchdog on the Supreme Court.
7
We have a president who may have collaborated with a foreign government and entities in order to win the election. This is a serious crime. If a sitting or potential sitting Supreme Court Justice actually thinks that a President should be above the law then what value does the Supreme Court hold for any of us. Our very democracy and basic tenets are at stake. We cannot afford to have a Supreme Court Justice who holds a view that would essentially allow the President to commit murder!
10
Where is the reasoning in this? So if in theory someone willfully rigged an election, had an opponent poisoned, committed serious campaign finance fraud - the whole thing is forgiven once they have been "crowned"? Because they now have "serious duties" which they may have gained outright unlawfully?
So according to Mr. Kavanaugh, the rules of the "Election Game" then become - "Just get there anyway you can, by hook or crook, because all is forgiven afterwards".
That is some serious critical thinking deficit right there. And very dangerous to our democracy.
11
The Supreme Court stole the election of Al Gore. So this is just another step to the Kangaroo Court that the Supreme Court has become.
15
The sleazy tactics of McConnell, the unapologetic toady of the president, will most likely result in the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. This conservative judge will fit nicely into Trump's goal to avoid prosecution for his crimes. No doubt, Putin will place many ads in America, extolling Kavanaugh's virtues for the Supreme Court. Everybody wins, except, of course, the American people.
6
Is not Kavanaugh a "so called judge"?
Looks like behind closed doors at the White House, your soul can be bought in exchange. Even so called Judges.
9
Dershowitz is also part of the conspiracy. He also thinks that it’s legally questionable whether a president can be charged. It’s all a conspiracy. Dershowitz voted for Hillary, but yea. It’s all a conspiracy. Zero legal basis. They are making it up as they go along. They know nothin about the law. But all those who criticize them know better. Me too and I’m not a lawyer. But whatever. Uh huh. Let’s just vilify then all. Maybe they are fascist too. Throw that in, too. Sigh. The hysteria about trump is breathtaking
1
Brett needs to go back to why this country was founded. By shielding Trump , or any President from the law, you are doing nothing more than making him, well a king. This position not only is wrong, but clearly disrespectful to the founding of this country and the founders themselves.
16
Don’t forget that Dershowitz is also part of the conspiracy to make trump a dictator.
1
I see nothing wrong with dedicating your life to kissing up to the powerful and assuring centralized authority, and this man is clearly an expert in this in all ways. But I think his true calling is holding the King's crown and polishing it. Mr. Kavanaugh: you're an intelligent toad.
7
When a president is not susceptible to the law, S/he is NOT a president. S/he is a dictator.
23
Way to go voters. We are getting closer and closer to a dictatorship every day.
14
I assume you support the right to bear arms to fight tyranny? Or do you plan to leave the country when martial law is placed? Or are you just making using hyperbole, like trump does every day unfortunately
Liberals are making things up, wishful thinking! There is NO talk of a Mueller subpoena, there is no evidence thus far of ANY crime committed by Trump. Your headline suggests something that has NO basis in fact. Shame on you.
3
Whoa....talk about wishful thinking
5
It's not over till it's over.
2
You do realize it's still an ongoing investigation, don't you?
1
A pick for the Supreme Court that doesn't believe the the rule of law when there is Republican in the Oval Office. Who'd a thunk it?
9
I assume you are a legal expert smarter than Dershowitz who is a liberal who votes for Hillary. Did you even listen to Dershowitz argument? Or you can’t be bothered with facts and opposing opinions?
re Robert's comment: You should always be wary of the 'opinions' of someone who does not even know how to spell the name of the town they live in.
1
One of the confirmation questions, which should become a confirmation requirement, is that he recuse himself from any question or action before the court on a Trump subpoena.
A second question at the confirmation hearing, under oath, should be 'Have you, or your family, been offered any sort of compensation, gift or special action by the President or any other person or entity in exchange for a favorable ruling or influence if a ruling on him or his family members is required?"
2
Is Brett Kavanaugh a political Supreme Court nominee? It seems Judge Kavanaugh is very aware of the partisan political consequences of his choices. Back to basics:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Is this how Judge Kavanaugh sees it?
3
National Review pointed out that “Kavanaugh has supported the proposition that a president may be subpoenaed. Specifically, he has supported, and indeed proposed that Congress codify, the legal rule that “the President may not maintain any executive privilege, other than a national security privilege, in response to a grand jury or criminal trial subpoena sought by the United States.” Such a rule, he says, “strikes the appropriate balance between the need of federal law enforcement to conduct a thorough investigation and the need of the President for confidential discussions and advice.” (See pp. 2137-2138 of his law-review article, ‘The President and the Independent Counsel.’)”
Kavanaugh has written that Congress should enact a law protecting president from subpoena, but in doing so he acknowledged no such law exists.
3
Trump wanted someone on the Supreme Court who is willing to overlook his multiple violations of the law. That Kavanaugh will also vote to overturn Roe v. Wade is just icing on Trump's double slice of chocolate cake.
3
If this President contests a subpoena to discuss his specific role and actions in a potential conspiracy with a foreign power conducting willful actions against the US electoral process, his judicial nominee should not be actioned until that matter is adjudicated by the presently seated members of the SC. The concerns for integrity and outright validity of the executive in office should "trump" the nomination process. This deferral should hold regardless of the SC candidate; the issue lies with the nominator, not the nominee.
2
Why should the President be allowed to be above the law? What kind of example is that for our citizens and for the world, when we tell everyone else that we represent truth and justice, and then do the opposite? How can we tell others to behave when we do not follow what we preach? If the President cannot present himself and speak in his own words what he is questioned on, then he should not hold public office. Its simple, all he has to do is tell the truth, that is if he is capable of doing such. If he cannot, that is another reason why he should not hold the office.
6
Kavanaugh, lawyer's lawyer that he is, will, of course, recuse himself if Trump is subpoenaed and the case hits SCOTUS when he is sitting.
Live from New York, it's Saturday Night Live!
You can bet that some Trump proxy had that recusal conversation with Kavanaugh before he was nominated. No way is Trump gonna let respect for the law fool him twice.
1
It's hard to believe that institutions such as Harvard and Yale back Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. I am not talking about Mr. Kavanaugh's legal/professional accomplishments. I am simply raising two serious and very troubling issues. The first is that Mr. Kavanaugh has no qualms in accepting the top position of our legal system when Mr. Garland, another accomplished professional and legal scholar was prevented from doing so by the political interests of such a disgraceful political party as the GOP has become and, worse, a party that it has ignored the Constitution of our country. The second issue, still much more upsetting than the first, is that Mr. Kavanaugh is accepting a nomination by a man who is investigated for having colluded with a foreign country. As such, there is a direct conflict of interest in Trump appointing a justice that may sit in judgment of his case some day. Until the second issue is not resolved, for the good of this country and the world, Mr. Kavanaugh should decline to even be considered a member of the highest legal system we have in the U.S.
10
I don't understand this peculiar idea that a President should not be distracted from his duties by criminal prosecutor's questions. Since when does it make sense to have someone who may be a criminal sitting in the White House? The only way to determine if he is a criminal is through due process: which requires questioning. This is a paradox supported by the Republicans that makes no sense. If this guy Kavanaugh believes this circular reasoning then he should be disqualified for not thinking clearly, if nothing else.
3
Uhh... there have been 70 charges, 20 indictments, five convictions and one already sentenced. This is in just over a year.
Of the ones convicted, this includes all Trump campaign officials, mostly dealing with foreign relations and dealings with Russian officials.
The Benghazi joke was 2 ½ years, and nothing came from it. Not one single indictment.
For example, to get into Cohen's home, hotel and places of business, the bar is very high to get a thorough search warrant. The gov't met that, and so they were able to get millions of records (incl. phone calls, emails, etc.), which are now "officially" not part of attorney-client privilege.
If the bar was very high for Cohen and Manafort, imagine how high it needs to be for the President.
Why not leave Mueller alone, and let him have at least the time the Benghazi investigation had? If Trump has nothing to hide, why doesn't he just testify to what he knows? If he wants this ended soon, that would be a surefire way.
5
Let's face it. There's nothing to test.
Brett Kavanaugh got his Supreme Court nomination, and now he's going to fall in line behind Trump just like the rest of them.
No further proof needed that 'Justice is Blind'.
7
Evidently, Mr. Kavanaugh doesn't want Trump to be distracted from all the tweeting, TV watching, and golfing that has taken up the majority of his time as president. In between, all the Trump lying must be protected.
4
While I don't disagree with the underlying proposition that a sitting president cannot perform his or her duties while also fighting against criminal prosecution, it seems like an argument that's kind of squishy coming from someone who is known as a constructionist. If the issue is, say, something like the Monica Lewinsky affair, then, in retrospect, he says he regrets distracting President Clinton from doing his job and that there's plenty of time after a president leaves office to pursue charges. Fair enough. What if a sitting president, pulls out a gun and shoots his/her vice-president in the first month of the presidency? Do we wait 4 or 8 years to investigate? What if the president starts to take portraits from the National Gallery and starts selling them? Do we step in then or is he to busy? It's either criminal or not criminal and if it requires investigation, then an investigation has to happen.
12
It really just boils down to this. If Trump has done nothing wrong then answer questions Mueller poses. The way trump and his lawyers are acting it is obvious he is hiding something
3
Brett Kavanaugh's take on whether or not a sitting president can be subpoenaed or indicted challenges whether or not the president, as a citizen, is above the same law that governs all citizens.
Nominee Kavanaugh seems to think that the United States should revert to monarchical rule. Our incumbent president would much appreciate the promotion, I'm sure.
3
SCOTUS (with Kavannaugh) may be able to prevent Trump from being interviewed by Muller. SCOTUS may NOT be able to prevent Trump from civil or State lawsuits (i.e. Clinton) & testimony.
2
The United States has a president, not a king.... We elect a citizen as a transient representative, not to declare him or her above the law or to be the law - not even temporarily.
2
I agree with Judge Kavanaugh that impeachment is the preferred way of dealing with the problems posed by an incompetent and dangerous president. Criminal wrongdoing is not required.
But if Congress does not act, the system is broke.
And what is wrong with demanding testimony from the president? The Mueller investigation is not about Trump, it is about Russian interference in the election.
2
Seems to me it's already quite evident from the record that Brett Kavanaugh will cause harm to people and the environment at every opportunity, just like Neil Gorsuch, only to benefit a handful of corporations owned by greedy billionaires without class or shame. His answers to Congress will of course be langue de bois, with Republican women subsequently and conveniently giving him the benefit of the doubt on Roe.
Why does the lifetime appointment fail to raise these judges above the political melee, as intended? Are these just small-minded people, is there bribery involved? Who knows.
4
If this question goes to the Supreme Court and Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, my advice to Judge Kavanaugh is to put aside his ideological "public policy" predilections and answer the real, substantive question that would be before the Court:
Is a sitting president above the law and the Constitution?
In my view, the President cannot use his Office as a sanctuary to escape criminal investigation or prosecution. The President's authority is defined and limited by the Constitution, not by the President. The Constitution does not grant the President the authority to exercise a constitutional power to nullify a constitutional duty. If it did, the President would be above the Constitution, not subject to it. The Constitution and the Laws of the United States are the Supreme Law of the Land (Const. Art. VI), not the President.
The Constitution bestows upon the President many powers. It also imposes upon the President a duty to "take Care to execute faithfully the Laws" (Art. II, Sec. 3). Obstructing justice is, by its nature, a perversion of our laws. If the President himself has engaged in or is engaged in the commission of a crime, and uses his Office to shield himself from investigation or prosecution, or seeks to shield others for helping him commit a crime, he breaches his duty to faithfully execute our laws and, in doing so, he acts ultra vires, that is, without lawful authority, making him subject to criminal investigation and prosecution.
2
A President who is above the Law is nothing more than a Monarchical Tyrant. Precisely what this country was set up to avoid.
If Kavanaugh gives Trump a "get out of jail free" card regarding Mueller's investigation - that will be a rude and ugly set-up beyond belief, and the end of ANY kind of Law and Order in America.
If Presidential Elections can be bought and manipulated, and if the Supreme Court can be stacked like a deck of marked cards, we are lost as a Nation.
Trump is not my President, nor is he "King" of my Country. He is a garden variety street corner bully. He doesn't even make it as a bad TV Host. I wouldn't buy a used car from him.
16
If this President can't be disturbed or distracted to answer charges of possible wrongdoing then the implication is that he is 'above the law'. Kavanaugh's writings and utterances show time and again that exempting a President from the law is a core value for him. None would seriously believe that in a Supreme Seat position he wouldn't play 'follow the leader' and use his core as justification.
1
Being investigated because of all the crimes they've committed can be distracting for a sitting President.
So true Mr. Kavanaugh! So true!
The law should never be allowed to "distract" criminals at the highest levels of government.
8
Any Trump appointed judge would need to recuse himself in any case brought forward against Trump. To do otherwise we only further degrade our institutions to the point of being laughable.
7
“Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the president’s focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as president.”
The moment a president is the focus of ANY criminal investigation while serving in that capacity, I tend to think/believe his or her actions are representative of someone already doing “a worse job as president”. If a president has not done any wrongdoing, then he or she would have nothing to be fearful of.
This is bad for a Supreme Court justice to already have a mindset that a president cannot or should not be “bothered” or have their focus taken away if allegations arise. Since when is a President ABOVE the law?
9
If Mueller is going to issue a subpoena, there's no time like the present to do it. The Supreme Court is in recess until Oct. 1. Kavanaugh likely would have to recuse himself from the case in the D.C. Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 455 where "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." It would be arguable that he also would have to recuse himself if he were to take a seat on the Court.
4
Trump is going to get away with the crime of the century while hobbling the global economy and lining the pockets of the 1%, creating a police deportation state, and privatizing the VA. I have lost any shred of faith I had in Congress or the Supreme Court.
10
As regards Chief Justice Roberts' concern for the public perception of the court as impartial arbiter, it seems to me he wastes his time. Not only has that horse left the barn. Some of it's already on shelves in cans, some is in bags labeled 'First Ingredient Real Meat,' and some was already fed to the dog.
And the Dog don't hunt either.
The issue been settled since the Court appointed little Bush as Special Master in the Oval Office.
1
"...And a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as president.” Exactly. This, among a multitude of other reasons, is why Trump is unfit for office.
15
To quote the guy from The Life of Brian who is about to be stoned when told he's only making it worse; "Worse? Worse? How could I make it worse??"
1
If it's a worry about distracting a sitting President and taking up too much of his time, wouldn't a slight reduction in golf time make up for the loss?
20
Kavanaugh's statements on this issue are troubling. Maybe more importantly, they seem to represent personal, rather than Constitutional, views. Thus highlights the "originalist" fallacy. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in the Constitution that discusses the President being "too busy" to be questioned and tried for potential crimes.
If Kavanagh joins the court, and the issue of Presidential response to a subpoena is on the docket, either he (and his fellow "originalists") gives a Constitutional opinion, which does not distinguish the President from any other citizen in this regard, or he simply re-states his personal opinion. If the latter transpires, this country is in profoundly deep trouble.
4
"Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has questioned the wisdom of forcing sitting presidents to answer questions from prosecutors."
Kavanaugh's argument is that presidents are so busy with so many involved details that they don't have time answer questions from prosecutors.
Maybe Kavanaugh can tell us who the presidents were in the last 60 years who did not take time off to golf, fish, take vacations, go up to Camp David, go down to the ranch, receive base ball, hockey or basket ball teams. Then there are all of the purely political trips and visits to support candidates and raise money for political elections.
I'd like to see or hear Kavanaugh discuss the point of: "No person is above the law in America and that includes presidents." If a president can not be questioned by prosecutors, it puts him or her above the law. Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had to sit for interrogations and Trump is no better than either of them.
13
"Kavanaugh's argument is that presidents are so busy with so many involved details that they don't have time answer questions from prosecutors." Maybe if Judge Kavanaugh told him to lay off of Twitter he'd have a substantial amount of free time to be supoenaed.
4
If a Supreme Court nominee refuses to answer questions about fundamental philosophical issues important to all Americans, can he or she be held in contempt of Congress for that refusal?
3
The founding fathers in their wisdom decided against a king who ruled by divine right and could do no wrong.
A President who had powers limited by law.
That is unarguably original intent.
6
Senate Democrats should use this hearing to articulate clearly and repeatedly what the Democratic Party represents and stands for and contrast that in stark terms with what the Republican Party stands for.
Senate Democrats must fervently "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Democrats must make the case how McConnell and the Republicans have repeatedly violated their oath of office to put their party before the country. Republicans refused to perform their Constitutionally prescribed duties to hold hearings on a nomination from the opposing party's president; they then changed Senate rules to confirm with a simple majority a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court by their own party's president who notably is under investigation; and, now presume to once again do the same with a candidate with highly questionable credentials.
If effectively and cogently done, we will learn which party supports and defends the Constitution, the rule of law, and the integrity of governance. It is time that American voters decide whether they are willing to subordinate their personal and political beliefs to preserve and protect the legitimacy of the Republic.
14
Yes, of course. I remember all the Democratic opposition on this point when Clinton was under investigation and put Breyer on the Court. Not...
1
"Republicans refused to perform their Constitutionally prescribed duties to hold hearings on a nomination from the opposing party's president"
I will donate $50 in your name to your favorite charity if you can find anything in the Constitution that requires the Senate to hold hearings on any SCOTUS nominee.
1
OldLiberal, you should run for office!
Why is this country allowing a person under investigation who happens to be president to pick a judge?
1.This president is under investigation into campaign fraud and possible treason. Many of the issues that are going to emanate from the Mueller investigation can make their way to the Supreme Court. This is the president who flirted with an idea of pardoning himself.
AND his nominee stands before the mic and the first words given all of this out of his mouth was something patently outrageous for the nominee to say: He opens his mouth and says that no other president has consulted more people, more widely from more backrounds than this president in trying to determine and get input on who the supreme court nominee would be. Why would you say such a thing? It was such a Trumpian statement, it was something clearly president wanted him to say it and he said it at precisely the time when he needs to demonstrate independence given the statements that he has made on whether presidents can be prosecuted, indicted and so forth.
The picture is much bigger though. This president has a 87% of republicans approval. It's exactly the number of Putin's approval rate. AND congressional republicans went to Moscow on July 4th! You can't make this up.
This president has been clearly doing Putin's bidding. Now the republicans have joined him full force.
Stunning!
8
"...And a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as president.”
I don't think it's possible for trump to do a worse job than he already is...
6
The discussion seems to hang on the enormous responsibilities and duties the president has, but not on the enormity and breadth the president has to act in a criminal way, while being protected by a loyal administration, and the veil of regality and gravitas we concede to presidents ( primarily Republican presidents).
Presidents are rarely paragons of virtue and character.Some are pathological liars, some instinctive scapegoaters, and one heartbeat away from the president we had Spiro Agnew, a plain old fashioned criminal (who never went to jail).
We hold teachers and nannies to higher standards than presidents. Life would be simpler if presidents were held to those standards. Who would hire a pathological liar to teach or take care of their kids.
14
“Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation — including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators — are time-consuming and distracting,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote.
Brett. Listen.
Have Don skip a year's worth of his 5 or 6 hours of resort golf and hanging out with donor buddies after the round and you'll probably pick up, what, maybe a year, year and a half of free time for those pesky criminal study periods?
Will that work for you?
Next flimsy excuse for this monster not being held accountable for his actions please.
12
Forget the math obfuscation, David. These nine people literally have the power of life or death in their hands. I think that gives ANY of us, as Americans, the right to ask them questions before we rubber-stamp a decision made by a despicable fraud with absolutely no scruples or sense of right or wrong. This isn't Russia. Yet.
1
When executive power goes unchecked we will be supporting a dictator. That is exactly what Trump wants to be.
9
Our nation deserves better than this sycophantic, regressive Trump lackey with a long record of ill-informed and very questionable decisions. Today a petition signed by Yale law students is circulating on Twitter denouncing him. Kavanaugh's first remarks after Trump introduced him had the unmistakable odor of the usual Trump hyperbole of lies and exaggerations.
6
Trump's installation of these previously positioned people, solidifies the 2016 coup.
Thief McConnell's accessory after the fact, "Gorsuch", and now Kavanaugh, will both represent Trump, Not America, Not our liberty.
8
There will be no further action needed after this nominee is sworn in because the court will rule that the president is above God, Constitution, & Laws of man. Therefore, he can do NO wrong. Once he declares president for life or dictator, he can never be investigated, prosecuted, or talked bad about again. Welcome to the new world order of trump.
3
I would like to remind Republicans that even, before the impeachment proceedings were to take place, President Nixon said, "The American people have the right to know whether their president is a crook."
Looking back, it seems to be a better choice to find that out before he left the presidency rather than after.
I hope Judge Kavanaugh would consider the fact that after he left the presidency it would have no meaning and would have left our democracy on hold until he left.
11
Bill Clinton lied under oath but that didn't seem to bother fellow Dems.
2
Yes, our busy President has spent about 1/3 of his time at his golf courses (at a cost of many millions to we taxpayers) and these nasty questions would ruin some of his golf time.
4
No one in this country is above the law and that includes the president, in this case Trump. Kavanaughs allegation that presidents should not be investigated or indicted seems to say that he approves of a dictator. This is not the person we want as a Supreme Court Judge. If you follow his theory it would mean that a president could commit a crime but could not be prosecuted that is ludicrous.
8
Trump Subpeona? What would be the basis for that at this point? Clearly Mueller has no evidence or he would have presented it by now. This entire investigation is a mere distraction, but a rather big joke.
3
Lisa Page is ignoring a subpoena. If she can, surely the POTUS can.
4
It's interesting how a congressional subpoena is viewed as political grandstanding, depending on one's bias. But in any event, your comment is premature. It remains to be seen whether Page's conduct results in her being held in contempt on congress.
1
How quickly the liberal intelligencia forgets Bill Clinton and all of the investigations into his conduct. Imagine if Hillary got elected and the investigations into her emails and the Clinton Foundation continued. I bet the liberal intelligencia would love Brett Kavanaugh if a Democrat like the Clintons ever got elected again.
3
I guess you didn't like the prosperity of the 8 years Clinton held office; the low interest rates, low unemployment, rising stock market, balanced budget; all bad, bad, terrible Democrat stuff. After numerous investigations into the Clintons, and millions of tax dollars spent, the best you've got is that he cheated on her, and she used a private email server.
2
Hopefully Mueller subpoenas Trump during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings. That should make for some interesting TV coverage.
7
Kavanaugh swore allegiance to Trump; that is how he got the nomination. It is obvious from his acceptance speech. He will vote the Trump line; just like the GOP. Vote out the GOP for any hope of saving Democracy. Ray Sipe
12
We can't subpoena for treason?
2
I think I can match Judge Kavanaugh’s pride in his Jesuit education with 14 years of my own Jesuitical education. It bewilders me to see good Catholics like Kavanugh willing to serve this vile President. I know his followers rationalize their willingness as a “willingness to serve the nation.” But what about the contamination of immorality, what about the urgings of one’s own conscience?
In case Trump’s followers and supporters have forgotten their Bible, I would remind them of these prescient lines :
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
AG, Calgary, Canada
4
Another Kangaroo for the Kangaroo court. While the Kangaroos claim impartiality we all know their every vote before it is cast. Shame on America. Shame on the Republicans.
im·par·ti·al·i·ty
imˌpärSHēˈalədē/
noun
equal treatment of all rivals or disputants; fairness.
2
For those who have forgotten Trump’s comments in the primaries he specifically stated” God will make me the best Ruler the US has ever had.” He didn’t say president he said ruler. Trump sees himself as the savior of the US. That is delusional and sociopathic.
13
A couple of thoughts.
The first is that there is a difference between investigations into crimes that significantly impact the national interest or national security and those that do not. An example of the former is interference by a hostile foreign power in our political processes. An example of the latter is an investigation into minor perjury or even past private corruption that do not affect ongoing Government operations or policy. So I would argue that Kavanaugh's arguments for presidential freedom from subpoenas and investigations are plausible as to the Starr investigation into Whitewater and Bill Clinton's testimony as to Monica Lewinsky (which Kavanaugh of course worked on), but are much weaker insofar as the much more important Mueller investigation.
My second point is that, although Kavanaugh's confirmation seems likely eifgt now, a subpoena from Mueller prior to the hearings would upend the process. An evasive answer by Kavanaugh on this issue would give Democratic senators from red states (and perhaps one or two Republicans) a clear-cut reason to vote against confirmation that's unrelated to abortion. Even if Kavanaugh is confirmed, the subpoena issue would be front and center in the news and in voters' consciousness right before the midterm elections. The visibility of the subpoena issue would also make it more difficult for the Supreme Court to rule for the president on the matter without damage to the Court as an institution.
1
This administration has concentrated its efforts on undermining the institutions that guaranteed American and global security, and is actively attempting to seize control of the nation's highest court. Partisanship aside, should Kavanaugh be true to his belief that a sitting president cannot be subpoenaed, then he is clearly stating that the president is above the law.
The justification that prepping for interviews and the anxiety of being found out compromises a president's ability to execute his duties is absolute nonsense, particularly for Trump. His duty is to pander to his cultist base, suck up to strongmen and sow as much division as possible within America and the western alliance. He is widely suspected of breaking all manner of emolument laws, has gone on record in his attempt to obstruct justice and continues to be a case-study in naked dishonesty. Were these issues not bad enough, he is openly abetting the billionaire dictator-president of the nation that interfered with America's democratic process, and that wishes the dismantling of NATO and the EU.
Both Nixon and Clinton attempted to obstruct justice and were rightly pursued by the Law to answer for their crimes. Neither attempted to destroy the post-war order or try their hand at treason, yet Nixon was forced out and Clinton barely survived. Both, however, were able to run the nation despite the pressure.
Today, America is being attacked from within, and Kavanaugh is willing to protect the aggressor?
No.
6
Such a self serving pick by Trump. Shocking that he would do that.
6
With this President it is hard to argue that he is too busy to prepare for an interview. A regular round of gold takes about 3 hours, so if he skipped a round a week he could do it easily.
5
Does anyone doubt Trump handpicked another corrupt sycophant who will do whatever he wants?? Just like his corrupt unqualified doctor to run the veteran's department, just like the unqualified judges he's out forth that don't know basic law. Trump wants a plant who will hold the president above the law, even for conspiracy against the United States. Trump is a criminal under investigation for impeachable offenses against this country. He should not be making lifetime appointments and per republican rules nothing should be decided till after the election.
5
The nominee, before he is voted on in the Senate, must state in no uncertain terms that he will recuse himself from any legal matter having to do with the Mueller investigation and any investigation that comes from what Mueller finds. If he does not do this, he should be voted down by the Senate. Come on Collins and Murkowski, be Americans, not Republicans!
5
How is it that there is no conflict of interest when the person he will possibly be ruling for or against is the same person who nominated him in the first place?
10
When all is said and done, Trump might just be out of office and be a citizen. Then if charges from Mueller are brought forth against him, he will hopefully get what is coming to him. Trump choosing Kavanaugh is another way of substantiating his own guilt, protecting himself. Trump clearly knows how to con others and has had a lot of practice. Unfortunately, and meanwhile Americans will have to continue to suffer under this White House administration. We have to use our right to vote and make change. Feels like our rights are being taken away from us for sure.
3
"Still, there is some reason to think he would not be inclined to force Mr. Trump to comply with a subpoena from Mr. Mueller."
What is the reason? I don't understand how this is stated and then not elaborated on.
Kavanaugh thinks that Congress should pass a law limiting the personal burden on the President of investigations. If anything, that position implies he thinks the Constitution does not limit that burden--hence necessitating statutory protections.
1
This is a court that was willing to put its will over that of the American people in deciding the 2000 presidential race.
Does anyone really believe that those who did that then would have any compunction of putting their desire to keep Trump president over the law and the desires of the American people?
6
Where is the wisdom in allowing a sitting president under criminal investigation to appoint Supreme Court Justices?
2
The president is a symbol of America. He has a moral and ethical responsibility to those people. Trump is failing in that responsibility. His business ventures, igborance of civics and history, and outright bad behavior are undermining the office. He needs to be held accountable for his poor performance. Kavanaugh is wrong. This isn’t what the founders intended. John Adams would be appealed.
4
I don't know enough about current law or the pertinent portions of the constitution to guess how judges would likely go on prevention of prosecution of a sitting president. But I wonder if it would make any difference if the issues were personal (as in sexual or financial wrongs) vs those that are related to national security and public safety. The former could be dealt with at the end of the presidency, but the latter need to be addressed as soon as possible.
2
In a 2009 article, Kavanaugh wrote that Congress should exempt the president from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. He wrote "Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation — including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators — are time-consuming and distracting." This clearly indicates he thinks no existing law protects presidents from subpoenas.
Adam Liptak's objection indicates he thinks Supreme Court justices are empowered to make laws as they see fit; Kavanaugh said at his nomination ceremony that judges should interpret laws, not make laws.
UNTIL the investigation that is underway by Mueller wraps up, the POTUS should not be allowed to put a justice on the court.
Imagine how this works - he will undoubtedly put one in he knows will help him if he is guilty of obstruction and helping the Russians help him get elected.
If he is not guilty then he can THEN go ahead and put a judge on the court, but while he is under investigation - no way.
6
Republicans tried mightily to elevate Bush junior to near kingly status as president. Among many prerogatives they wanted immunity for prosecuting wars of choice, wars where there was even a '1% chance' that our security was threatened. Brett Kavanaugh was a loyal foot soldier in that effort, using his fine legal mind to take the country down the path of potential national and even international tyranny.
For an originalist, it's jarring that he thinks the founders would have sanctioned elevating the president to a king ruling by divine right and impervious to criminal justice while in office. Unfortunately, all matter of criminality would be sanctioned so long as congress is supine.
But congressional abdication would never happen, right? House leadership would never become an arm of the President's legal team, right? They would never seek to reveal the identity of confidential FBI informants to save the president from investigation, right? They would never subpoena all the confidential information in an ongoing investigation under the guise of 'oversight,' right? They would never threaten to impeach a Republican Deputy Attorney General for not bending to their partisan will, right?
No, totally wrong.
Brett Kavanaugh can save himself and the country a lot of consternation by publicly announcing he was wrong to presume Congress would reliably hold a renegade president to account. That they would has proved patently wrong.
2
Why do you think Trump nominated him? No one is this country should be above the law especially the President.
5
Thanks to Bob Mueller and his team of investigators, Trump is getting squeezed into a legal corner (with very little wiggle room).
Now, thanks to his ill-advised decision to accept the president's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh, himself, is about to be squeezed into a legal corner (with very little wiggle room).
Mr. Kavanaugh, wouldn't want to be ya.
2
I wish it were so.
Republicans (not the ones I used to be friendly with, and respect) will do anything to keep and enhance the power and wealth of the toxic kleptocracy.
They really don't care. Do U?
6
Yes, Susan -- just like you (and fortunately a MAJORITY of Americans), I do care. That's why I can't wait till November 6: the day I pull the lever for Democrats.
Again, how is it at all possible that a president under investigation, be allowed to nominate Justices for the supreme court of law?
7
Of course Trump, who has bullied and mobbed and betrayed and stolen and postured his way into the presidency, wants absolute power. Of course he wants a judge who will give him a free pass for his crimes.
The rest of you, though, Republicans, what's your excuse? You betray Christian values (compassion, nonviolence, caring for the less fortunate "all you have, give to the poor" "casting the first stone" "moneychangers in the temple" the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7)) while following a bunch of pulpit profiteers who tell you money and power are god's gift and show you are righteous. You confuse your egos with god. Doesn't work for the rest of us, though.
Cruelty, racism, vote stealing and intimidation and suppression, money more human than people, every kind of help to those who don't need it, that's what they seem to prefer. Their donors require more for their money; the rest of us can go hang.
Trump, the bullying coward, the dumpster fire of vanity, Putin's puppet, wants a free pass.
Do the rest of us really think this is the United States, that it is what the founders envisioned when they set up our government?
Shameless, and then some!
8
there are two paths to removing a sitting president , the ballot or by impeachment , grand jury could subpoena the president , president could ignore the subpoena and court has no recourse , only Congress can impeach and remove , sorry McResistance you got nothing.
1
Trump is too busy handling weighty matters of state to sit down and answer questions from the Special Counsel?
Har de har har! He spends zero time reading briefings and listening to experts. He watches television, talks to Hannity on the phone, and tweets. He's on vacation golfing virtually every weekend. I think we can help him find a couple of free hours.
6
This headline needs to say “would” instead of “may”, at a minimum. This makes it sound like there is a subpoena. The Times is falling apart in its frothing apoplexy about Trump.
2
“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination...”
This is the "truth" that Brett Kaanaugh will say to the American people about Trump. Kavanaugh lied straight out to please Trump. Is there any doubt in the world he is not another minion who will pervert justice to protect a criminal President as long as the President is the favorite of the billionaires to whom Kavanaugh owes his allegiance?
7
Trump would have plenty of time to answer depositions and go to the grand jury. He might have to give up his 2 or 3 days of golf for a while, but he has time.
13
“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination...”
If Kavanaugh is willing to lie for Trump as one of his first actions, why would anyone trust him?
8
Brett Kavanaugh and Ken Starr used the illegal taping of Linda Tripp. Tripp took her tapes with recordings of Monica Lewinsky's sexual encounters to right wing attorney Victoria Toensing. After that meeting, Tripp stopped asking for details of sex and instead encouraged Monica to ask Clinton to get her a job. That was the excuse Starr's office used to get involved.
Representative Zoe Lofgren asked Ken Starr under oath when he first learned that a woman was recording President Clinton's mistress. Starr would not answer and tried desperately to deflect the question. Look it up in the transcript. But the Senators should have Kavanaugh answer this question before they confirm. And if Kavanaugh does what Ken Starr does and refuses to answer, he should be summarily impeached from his current judgeship.
5
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
- Abraham Lincoln
9
Years ago, when many countries were ruled by kings, the law was that kings could do no wrong, which meant that he could be an absolute tyrant and never be dethroned. If Judge Kavanaugh knows Roman history, he would remember that Julius Caesar was brutally murdered because he was thought to aspire to the role of emperor without restraints by the senate. Kavanaugh must realize we have a republic which has a president and not a king. President Trump, as delusional as he is, thinks he is a king, and is ruining our republic.
To say that he cannot be questioned about his actions that degrade and place our republic in jeopardy until he leaves office, is nonsensical. Remember, Judge Kavanaugh, that once the horse has escaped the barn, it's too late. To say that we can not question a president criminally, though he is a serial liar, makes no sense.
If your thinking had been applied in the Nixon case, Nixon would never have resigned, and our republic would have been the worse for it for not bringing him to task.
I doubt Nixon's tapes would have been produced after he left office.
9
No one is above the law. Period.
And especially this clown president who has “worked” the legal system his entire life.
14
Compliment Judge Kavanaugh on his judicial flexibility. When he was part of the "Starr Chamber" proceedings when Clinton was POTUS, he had no such reservations about deposing him for a federal grand jury.
The law is basically a conservative instrument in the sense that it is based on precedent - past decisions. The law itself is constructed by the rulers who then interpret it. Kavanaugh owes his career to conservative politicians, so what should one expect - another Hugo Black?
3
Trumps TV lawyer asserts he will not sit for an interview. Forget the subpoena. Send him a target letter.
1
Mr Kavanaugh's "legal theory" is why I do not want him. If any person is guilty, President or Garbage Man he should not be above the law. Richard Nixon proved that one. That plus Roe v. Wade and his very right philosophy. So guess I see nothing positive about him as a choice and furthermore when the process started supposedly Mr. Trump our Leader Misogynist was supposedly interested in choosing a woman. That quickly morphed to White Male. Hope he is crucified because of his record.
8
From a Republican point of view, it should be perfectly OK to have a criminal as a sitting president … as long as it's a Republican president. Trump, his crime family and his Kremlin cronies can rest easy, at least for a little while longer.
7
There is an anarchist (NOT Libertarian!) streak that runs through me that has problems with the concept of, "No man is above the law".
I like laws.
I like rules.
I'm the orderly sort and I respect humans as humans.
On the other hand, I won't tolerate an abstract placed above an actual. It's like biting down on tinfoil.
Abstract laws should never be placed above an actual human.
Well, until, that is, the "actual" has proved to be no respecter of laws, any laws, especially laws that I do approve of.
In that, trump lost me long ago.
"I could stand on Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and never lose a voter!" he chortled.
I'm sure Hitler would have agreed with that sentiment.
"Grab 'em in the ----!" he snickerers.
And then there is the withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Commission because the world was bullying one of his buddies. Who was bullying someone else.
Is trump ABOVE the law?
That's not the question.
The question is:
Does Donald Trump think the Law is BENEATH him?
That is why there are laws, for the occasional sociopath and psychopath that believes that no laws apply to them.
Kavanaugh is on thin ice here. I'm not sure he knows what he means.
Scalia at least had the foresight to make up an imaginary friend called "Originalism". Scalia's buddy said everything was written in stone and even slavery was allowed, right?
For sure, no woman was to be Federally Equal, right?
How about if we ask Kavanaugh if he thinks the law is "BENEATH" a person....? Yes?
2
If I could ask questions of Judge K, I would ask . . . you write that POTUS should not be investigated while in office because of possible harm to the nation. 20 years ago you investigated sexual harassment charges against President Clinton. Please tell us about the harm your investigation caused the nation, back in 1998. Also, tell us how your thinking has evolved to believe not investigating possible presidential crimes and misdemeanors will prevent such harm.
If a foreign adversary carries out a successful cyber attack on our election system so that a presidential candidate gains office by fraudulent means, what do you sees as legitimate legal remedies to this foreign attack. If a sitting POTUS gained office my means other than a free and fair democratic election, should that POTUS' possible role in election manipulation be investigated? Please explain why or why not.
Finally, if a POTUS appointed a SCOTUS judge, such that the judge's job was contingent on an implied promise to protect POTUS from a criminal investigation, do you believe the judge can be impartial? Do you see any ethical obligations for the judge to recuse himself from hearing cases involving his benefactor? Please explain you legal reasoning.
4
Perhaps, his experience brought him to these conclusions. He saw the dangers in it.
It was perfectly ok for Bill Clinton to sit through distracting legal procedures as President. In a far more serious case, Nixon too. It seems that sometimes that putting the President under legal scrutiny is in the best interests of the country, and only authoritarian regimes overstep these obligations.
6
Throughout the history of the United States, we have been unwavering in our commitment to the principles that we are a nation guided by the rule of law and that we will be a nation ruled by kings or dictators. Judge Kavanaugh has advocated that the president of the United States be provided with legal immunities that put him or her above the law, thereby accord to the president the prerogatives of kings and dictators. Judge Kavanaugh is only 53 years old. He could easily be a Supreme Court Justice for three decades. Even for those who strongly support Mr. Trump, should we have a Justice who supports the idea of a president who is above the law? Clearly, Judge Kavanaugh's published views disqualify him from serving on our nation’s highest court.
5
Perhaps Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, should he be confirmed, should be recused from rulings affecting this president. As they were appointed while Trump is being investigated for a variety of charges, their rulings would likely be biased in his favor. I think recusal is a good option.
2
Our laws should be applied equally for all citizens of this country. If we allow exceptions, as soon as they are noted by our citizens, the exception will apply to anyone who cares to try it out for themselves. I see exceptions as a great way to descend into lawlessness. Kind of like no limits to political campaigns and lobbying.....
4
According to the transcript, Kavanaugh said, " No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination." This is all I need to know. Lies and propaganda from a potential Supreme Court Justice? I hope he is questioned thoroughly about this statement.
6
Yes, truly laughable.
trump was handed a list by a man he didn't know - nor did he have a clue who the people on the list were.
Thanks for Nothing, Heritage and Federalist Society.
Good job, Kochs and Mercers and Greens.
I know you are all salivating to kill off any remaining union protections....... What? Women's rights? Oh, don't be silly, everyone knows you couldn't possibly care less about THAT - it's unions all R's are after. Unions=money, money, money....!
2
I am becoming a little afraid of myself because I am able to understand Trump so well. The second that I heard about Cavanaugh's views on presidential indictment I knew without a doubt that we would be the pick and the rest would be theatrics. It is actually easy to anticipate Trump - just choose the most self-interested, most confrontational, least objective course of action, and you can be assured that is the road he will take.
6
I have a question... Could Judge Kavanaugh be subpoenaed to testify if his opinion on presidential immunity was a topic of discussion during the vetting process? If so, would that be considered obstruction of justice if that influenced the president's decision to nominate the judge for the Supreme Court? (Oh. That's two questions...)
1
Trump did not show his taxes, did not divest his holdings, he and his family profit from his decisions while in office and he got elected with the help of Russia interfering in our elections. Now this new appointment to the Supreme Court says the president is above the law and should not be prosecuted while in office.
My fellow Americans, democracy is gasping it’s last breath.
7
I think it's fair to say that if Hillary won, the Republican congress would have held endless hearings on Bengazi and her emails. They would have demanded an independent counsel investigate her and that she be available for interview. Maybe immunizing the president isn't such a bad idea.
Alternatively, we could elect people with integrity like Obama and dare I say it, Bush 41 and 43.
1
Being president of the US is hardly "ordinary citizenship". If anything, responsibility and accountability are magnified. Giving the president a pass on answering questions related to a foreign government's meddling in American elections---and (probably) with collusion of this president's election team---is phenomenally irresponsible and injurious to what is basic to American commitment to the rule of law.
2
I would not like to see a POTUS be able to refuse to testify in criminal proceeding against him and I am uncomfortable about a POTUS being able to dodge a civil case. Suppose that a non-criminal event occurred prior to a person starting to run for office and that the lawsuit against the POTUS started after a person became POTUS. That carries too much risk for being primarily political and should be set aside. Suppose that a POTUS raped a person: a criminal offense that the POTUS should not be able to escape.
In the event of a Russian collusion investigation, if Mueller has evidence of illegal activity, it seems to me that the POTUS should be able to invoke the 5th amendment. If Mueller simply wants to ask questions, I think that should happen in writing, with the questions presented ahead of time, if Mueller wants to put the POTUS at risk for entrapment.
The worry about collusion seems more worry than fact. However, among the women who have alleged credibly that Trump sexually assaulted them, why did they not surface earlier? Perhaps, some of them simply did not know of enough of Trump’s crude reputation to be willing to suffer the Trumpian derision during litigating (think of the Bill Cosby case). However, clear to me is that some of the women are egged on by left wing persons whose clear intent is to dethrone Trump. I.e, these suits need to be looked af for whether they are primarily political or truly personal injury and criminal. Set the political aside.
The best the democrats are going to get is a promise of recusal from hearing any case involving president trump or his family or administration. It is abundantly clear there was election interference and conspiracy with a foreign power during an election campaign involving the one-time head of said campaign, the president's son and the president's personal "fixer". And that just what the public knows. It is foreseeable is not assured that any judge Trump appointed will be compromised by their personal oaths of loyalty and DNA's that are part of any bargain with Trump and tainted from the get-go. There needs to be an effort now to secure a fair tribunal- we know how Trump works. The Courts are all we have right now and a criminal cannot select his own judges. We're entering the proto-facist period of America if he gets away with it.
4
Nothing the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court would decide could surprise me. Five Republican justices decided to make George W. Bush president in Bush v. Gore. By 5 to 4 decisions, Republican appointees have been routinely overruling precedents made by unanimous Supreme Court decisions, most recently in the Janus case. Decide on constitutional grounds that President Trump is not required to comply with a subpoena? Why not?
3
Many of these comments are unfair to Kavanaugh. What he said was as follows.
“I believe that the president should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” .... Among those burdens, he said, were responding to civil lawsuits and criminal charges.......He said Congress should consider imposing limits on such proceedings............(he) said the proceedings could resume after a president left office and that impeachment remained an option before then"
Provided the limits imposed on proceedings are reasonable, it makes sense that there is some control over what the president must answer for during his term. This does not put the President "above the law".
1
Let's not forget that Judge Kavanaugh's position does not address the novel situation here, namely, whether the sitting President broke the law to obtain his office. What's the logical basis for protecting someone from the "burdens" of an investigation to determine whether he should have occupied the office in the first place?
4
The fact that he described this in terms of a recommendation for action by Congress to limit the president's exposure during a term of office suggests that he recognizes this is an area for clear legislative action, not judicial interpretation. Which makes it even more imperative to take back control of Congress from this renegade GOP.
Of course, given how the right seems to switch its "principled" positions and apply them differently to Democrats vs. Republicans, it's completely possible that he will just get with the White House agenda and use his position on the Court to protect Trump. I hope Senators ask many tough questions on this specific issue.
3
When did the 'burdens' of everyday citizenship include responding to criminal charges? Did we not use to think of those 'burdens' as jury duty or safe driving or serving in civic associations? Surely an exemption from such a response would be the very definition of autocracy? If one is indemnified against criminal charges by virtue of holding a political office how does that not violate the fundamental laws of this nation?
10
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
If the corporate/catholic/democracy-destroying justices on OUR U.S. Supreme Court dare to say The Con Don is above the law it will be time for every democracy-loving American to hit the streets and put every single Robber Baron who supports the idea under citizen arrest and imprison them for life.
This must not stand in OUR United States of America. Not now. Not ever.
8
If for example, the issue in question is the dalliance with an intern, then Kavanaugh's position might have some merit. If on the other hand the question deals with possible collusion with a hostile foreign government, a matter which would put the country's national security at risk, then Kavanaugh's position holds no credibility.
25
Before we all hyperventilate about what Kavanaugh's nomination means for the future of our democracy, read this. It provides a little needed balance: https://www.lawfareblog.com/brett-kavanaugh-and-mueller-investigation-wh...
The most telling point in this is that he advocated for Congressional action to immunize the President from questioning. The fact that he sees that legislative action is needed says that in his reading of constitutional law, such immunity does not exist today.
When he is questioned on this, I would pin him down to that point. And I would also argue that loudly when the actual case likely arises.
7
Bill Clinton and his lawyers also argued that a sitting President should not be required to answer questions in a criminal case. I guess Bill Clinton wishes Brett Kavanaugh was his judge.
I wonder how many Democrats are still happy that Senate Democrats eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees. The one right the minority had was eliminated by Democrats; now that the Democrats are in the minority, how nice would it be if the Democrats could filibuster Trump's nominee.
4
The filibuster rule change by the Democrats did not affect Supreme Court picks. The filibuster rule was still in place until McConnell used the "nuclear option" to vote in Gorsuch with a simple majority vote. The "nuclear option" basically means that we won't follow the parliamentary rule if we don't want to, and Trump/McConnell didn't want to.
2
I would like to remind staunch Mueller supporters of his past:
See: “Special Counsel Robert Mueller III and Whitey Bulger”
https://saraacarter.com/robert-mueller-andrew-weissmann-the-fbi-and-the-...
After reading this you must ask:
1. Why wasn’t Mueller disbarred?
2. How did Mueller became director of the FBI?
This cries out for a Special Prosecutor, one from outside the beltway, to dig into this apparent corruption. The special prosecutor should also investigate Mueller’s involvement with:
1. Uranium One https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One
2. Ted Stevens Prosecution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Stevens
1
Pretty sure Trump will have to respond to a subpoena. And the Court will state so. But like anyone else he can take the fifth. He does not have to testify against himself. It is the prosecutor's job to prove a criminal case.
6
The situation described in this article is exactly the reason Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh IMHO.
4
For me, any member of the Supreme Court who considers the president (ANY president) above the law, in some hermetic egg-shaped office has already disqualified himself.
that's way down the incontrovertible path to tyranny.
If conservatives want Putin, let them put him on the ballot.
22
"But there is one stance that sets Judge Kavanaugh apart, and it could not be more timely: his deep skepticism of the wisdom of forcing a sitting president to answer questions in criminal cases."
Aside from a pulse, this makes him THE right pick.....heck, who said a pulse was necessary?
3
Trump talked about a rigged system in contempt of the American people, well there he goes again, rigging the same system he whined about now that he's in a position to do the rigging.
As long as thousands of unarmed Americans are shot each year by the authorities, with hundreds killed, and with most getting off, indeed getting away with murder, without any reprimand, and with the SCOTUS backing these human rights violations, there is no real justice in the heavily armed and violent USA. It will remain a western low level war zone with tens of thousands of Anericans shooting their fellow Americans each year, as we have since WWII to the tune of millions.
America may have won the war but western Europe and Japan won the long term battle living in more peaceful and prosperous societies.
Wake up America Trump and the Clintons and all our self serving political clowns are dangerous bedfellows to our health, prosperity, rights and freedoms. Support people like young Ms. Cortez.
3
In my copy of the Constitution there is no mention of Presidential immunity from civil or criminal laws.
Seems like a strict constructionist would not be able to find it there either.
Of course they/he will as the constitution changes based on who the President is.
Also, The Times needs to get on the story of Kennedy and Trump collaborating to pick Kavanaugh. So, not only does Kennedy get to make a series of right wing decisions, he gets to appoint his successor. That is a giant problem and the stench of it is very high.
9
Maybe I am missing something, but it seems that Mr. Mueller has a simple remedy for this concern. Issue the subpoena ASAP. Next Monday sounds good to me. That would get the ball rolling and place Kavanaugh squarely in the hot seat where he belongs.
7
Kavanaugh, now that he did his thing decades ago impeaching Clinton, says "mea culpa" in time for him to excuse the actual treasonous betrayal of Donald Trump and his well-deserved subpoena by Mueller? How convenient. Do not allow this wishy-washy, Trump puppet onto the bench.
4
"Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has questioned the wisdom of not putting presidents above the law and the Constitution"
How many ways is this a purely political appointment (not a judicial one): Kavanaugh worked as counsel on the most horrendous SCOTUS decision of my lifetime: Bush v Gore. Then worked as White House counsel, then rewarded with an appointment as an appellate judge who apparently think the President is a dictator. Trump just appointed a Republican operative to the court, not an impartial judge.
4
Last we heard from Mueller-Trump is not under criminal investigation. Anything changed since then?
3
Kavanaugh helped investigate a president who had a consensual sexual relationship with an adult intern. Trump is being investigated for possible collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice. Big difference! It’s like comparing a misdemeanor to capital murder. If Kavanaugh is concerned that investigating a sitting president “would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas,” then there should be no concern because Trump is already following that agenda and systematically destroying our country on a daily basis. Taking Trump’s focus off our country might just save it.
8
Slowly but surely we are going back to the Monarchy which thousands people gave their life to get rid of.
Laws in our country are made by 9 people depending upon their own upbringing, beliefs and thinking.
America is now the least democratic country amongst all the western nations, Japan, India.
1
Protecting the president from criminal proceedings is an invitation to perform criminal acts to some people who sit or will sit in the oval office. The republic held together when Nixon was being a crook and afterwards. If you don't want prosecutors to ruin your presidency and your legacy, don't commit crimes while in office. Mr. Kavanaugh has this backwards.
6
How about answering questions from criminal investigators instead of playing one round of golf. The claim that Trump doesn't have time is laughable.
8
It is ironic that this trajectory leads to protecting any criminal who holds the office of president. Worse yet to consider, we have never had a man so in need of criminal protection.
5
The American constitution is over two hundred years old, and it shows. Written by a bunch of local politicians for a small, agrarian slave-holding country trying to create a new form of government and worried about England taking over again, it is a laudable effort nevertheless. Its main defect is that it defines the powers of the president like those of a King with nearly unlimited authority. Experience shows that those powers can be easily stretched by crooked advisers and political courts.
Your constitution needs urgently an overhaul. But, knowing how hidebound the populace is, there is little chance for this.
1
"I believe that the president should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office".
And, Kavanaugh considers civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution to be among those burdens.
Seriously? It's bad enough that the law allows convicted criminals to even run for the highest office, much less relieve any POTUS of the "burden" of criminal prosecution while in office. The standard should be set higher for the POTUS, and I don't mean higher as in "above the law".
The ONLY reason Trump settled the class action law suits against him and his Trump University (for $25 million), just days before the 2016 election was because he couldn't risk losing in court. Not for pecuniary reasons as he stated, but because of the optics and blow-back of a highly likely fraud verdict. Even though the settlement didn't include an admission of guilt, Trump is tacitly guilty of fraud. He's a a chauvinist, a bully, a swindler, a cheat, and a compulsive liar - not very presidential qualities, in my opinion. Time to Raise the Bar America!
5
So President (maybe soon For Life - a plausible next step) is by Kavanaugh pronounced Above the Law.
Our revulsion / contempt / despair at advance of current coup d'état deepens day by day, event by politically obscene event.
4
There won't be any surprises in the behavior of this "judge", he is being appointed precisely because he is expected to kowtow to Trump. He had better behave like the lackey he is supposed to be, or he will be dropped.
1
What's at stake here is the sound principle of, "Stare Decisis" - a longtime, strong guideline for both parties, until now.
"HONOR PRECEDENT!"
I don't think Kavanaugh has the integrity to uphold it. Trump knows that and is counting on it.
Where are the so-called "Originalists" when we need them?
"...a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as president." I don't know, Judge Kavanaugh. Maybe a little distraction might keep Benedict Donald from having the time to start inane trade wars and the insane dismantling of the NATO alliance.
Now, about the power to subpoena the president. If the issue reaches the Supreme Court, the consequences will be monumental. If the court rules a subpoena is unconstitutional--and the Democrats don't retake the House in the midterm elections--then that will be that. Mueller will present his findings to a "what, me worry?" Congress and Trump will serve out his term before fleeing to Russia in order to avoid a lifetime of incarceration once the Dems regain control.
But things get much dicier if a subpoena is ruled to be constitutional, because Trump has no intention of testifying. He'll be held in contempt. He'll ignore it. Agents will arrive at the White House to arrest him, and Trump will order the secret service to shoot them on sight. The national guard would then be brought in to restore the rule of law, but then Trump will call in the marines. After all, how many divisions does Robert Mueller command?
And here's a chilling thought. And don't laugh. What if Trump calls upon a million of his supporters to lock and load their AR-15's and march on Washington to prevent the "deep state" from illegally nullifying his presidency?
1
Kavanaugh was planted by Trump at the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of defending him against Mueller.
A two men battle for justice in America is now two against one, unless Congress and a few principled justices intervene.
If they don’t, it will be too late for the midterm election to make any difference.
2
I am uneasy about Justice Kavanaugh. I view him as a kind of radical. Maybe even a fanatic.
I didn’t care at all for his fulsome praise of President Trump the other day. I can understand a man desperately wanting to become a Supreme Court Justice, but laying the praise on with a trowel for a man as obviously unstable and demagogic as Trump is seems to me a bridge much too far.
Kavanaugh is a firm believer in the idea that government has an interest in “favoring fetal life,” a job I thought was already being relatively well handled by women without much assistance from government. That is his right. But to him I say, where have all the conservatives gone who want to keep government out-of-our lives, where they belong.
Then there are his guns. His previous writings reveal him to be a man who has never met up with a machine gun he didn’t like.
Moreover, I am not consoled by recent newspaper reports that Judge Kavanaugh will be going on the Court as one of the poorer Justices. Not “poor poor” mind you, but pretty darn poor.
I put more trust in decision-makers who have managed to put some mazuma away for a rainy day then I do in ones who haven’t. Someone like Judge Judy, for example. It seems to me an indication of getting your priorities-in-life right.
There is a judge now serving on the Federal Bench by the name of Garland who seems to suffer from none of Kavanaugh's disabilities. I suggest we slow the process down now for a couple of years and wait for him.
7
"Kavanaugh has expressed deep skepticism of the wisdom of forcing a sitting president to answer questions in criminal cases."
Obviously Judge Kavanaugh's judgement has to be questioned. Any rational used to justify why a sitting president cannot be questioned in criminal cases can equally apply to the vice president as well as to the House and Senate leadership, then to the next layer of the US government and so on. If Judge Kavanaugh is unable to recognize a "slippery slope" when he sees it, it is fair to suspect that his power of judgement is deeply flawed.
5
I do not think it wise to have anyone in government that believes the President - or any other person in our country - is exempt from the law, even if that law is changed to bring about that exemption.
That would put us in the position of having a traitor in the White House tearing apart social and political fabric, both domestic and international, with no manner in which to stop them. We are almost at that point today with Republicans in general bolstering the oligarchy to the point of national failure.
Come on, Mr. Mueller; at this point it can be treated. We need to see some action before we suffer from irreversible cancer.
5
If it comes to the Supreme Court permitting Trump to avoid testifying if subpoenaed, I would anticipate street demonstrations and riots the likes of which we have never seen before. How could it be otherwise? A president blatantly above the law is contrary to everything Americans believe, especially if his court appointments vote to protect him from testifying. In the view of the people, we will lock up five year old children for
3
What happened to all those cries from the right that nobody is above the law? Only applies when there is a Clinton on the other end? Trump is lining up people who will protect him (Kavanaugh and Brian Benczkowski) and senate is happily confirming them. And not making them recuse themselves from matters related to Trump and Russia.
4
It's worth pointing out--because I don't see where anyone else has--that the Clinton impeachment, on which KIavanaugh worked, went forward solely due to a false statement Clinton made at a deposition that would never have occurred had Clinton been granted the immunity Kavanaugh is advocating. No other charges came out of the Starr investigation.
Were Trump required to give a deposition, the probability he would lie seems very high, the behavior coming so naturally to him.
4
“I believe that the president should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote in 2009 in the Minnesota Law Review. Among those burdens, he said, were responding to civil lawsuits and criminal charges."
Wrong.
If you are President of the United States, you have to live to a higher standard than the rest of us. You are as subject to the same laws as the rest of us are - even more so.
If you can't were those shoes, you shouldn't even be in the shoe store trying them on.
2
The deferment of legal cases against magistrates was one of the factors ending the Roman Republic. With immunity from prosecution about to end, Julius Caesar decided instead to cross the Rubicon and march on Rome.
I suspect we're about to hear a call for the necessity of a president for life.
So why can't Mueller do some judge shopping, too:
He could subpoena Trump Aug. 1, the day after Kennedy's retirement. 9th Circuit judges would line up to uphold the subpoena and force Trump to testify. If it goes swiftly to SCOTUS, the court would undoubtedly split 4-4, letting the 9th Circuit decision stand.
Kavanaugh wouldn't be anywhere near the place.
8
Trump picked a man who he knows "owes him"...a friend not a foe. He believes he is KING so this gives him the ability to be one.
If anyone cares about our democracy they will not vote him in.
4
Mr. Liptak represents the norm in the national media, as it continues to struggle, and fail, to come to grips with who Trump is, and always has been, and with what that tells us about the current Republican party.
Trump is basically a mobster. There is no way in the world that he would pick Kavanaugh without an assurance that Kavanaugh would protect him from Mueller. The Republican leadership in Congress has spent the last two years covering themselves in disgrace in their efforts to do exactly the same thing.
If there is an R on the court who might be a wild card, it's probably Roberts.
4
I am not sure if those Presidential nominees can be hold accountable for the promises they make, lies they dish out and avoid almost any meaningful questions during Senate hearing. Many of the Trump and other Presidential nominees routinely deliberately make false promises, talk redundant issues to avoid important questions and they get away with it.
The same is true for Trump type dishonest President, who took oath promising protecting our constitution and the nation. But the same person openly denounced American constitution before he became President (and also before wanted to become one) and continue to undermine American constitution and security and prosperity of our nation with all sorts of lies and acts of corruption.
The fact that this highly educated and experienced judge "concerns partisans from both sides" should tell you something about the choice.
You should be more worried if there were no conservative "concerns" over the man.
1
Democrats should keep par with Republican tactics and use every means fair and foul to achieve their goals.
The question is: does the old leadership have the right skillset, and fire in the belly? Can old dogs be taught new tricks? So far it appears that the answer is no.
4
It is amazing to me that in our democracy, this is even debatable. If evidence is strong enough to support the subpoena, it should be served. Just because it's the president should have no bearing. Why do we elect a vice president? If the vice president cannot assume extra duties and assist so that the president can prepare then the vice president is useless. Does anyone want a potential criminal running the country??!! Especially if the alleged crime involves collusion with a foreign government. This is why so many people distrust lawyers - it's as if ethics and sound judgement go out the window when they pass the bar.
3
Exactly! and it is working in Hungary and Poland. Let's also remember that Trump likes Putin, the leader of a country with no bill of rights and laws written on fly paper. Trump, and future presidents, would be de facto and de jure dictators were they exempt from responding to a subpoena.
2
To We need help,
Has this President ever demonstrated concern regarding law? Even when the underlying issues are so fundamental: treason? rule of law/obstruction of justice? When has this Congress shown concern, sincere concern, that this nation based on the rule of law demands protection for the people? McConnell will do what he must to protect himself even at great cost to our country, and Paul Ryan has a reservation booked for his flight home. It's time we act. Unfortunately the average citizen has little knowledge to use the power of the vote wisely.
1
Mr. Kavanaugh would have to recuse himself. Not because he has written about the case. But because he was nominated by a party to the case. Now Kavanaugh claims to have changed his thinking, which is remarkably convenient. But has he ever publicly linked that change in thinking to President Clinton. Under Kavanaugh's new thinking, Clinton would not have been impeached and would not have been compelled to testify in any legal proceedings. My goodness. When he was working for Mr. Starr, Kavanaugh argued that a single misrepresentation was sufficient for impeachment. It would be a catastrophe were this court to split 5-4 in a result that protected this president with the assistance of this nominee. That is, however, what I expect would happen were he approved.
5
It all goes back to Hillary and the five hundred superdelegates that won her the nomination. It was one of those stupid blunders that changes history. Now Trump is on top. You’d better believe that Kavanaugh will be confirmed and any hope of toppling Trump will be quashed by a packed court of Trump’s own making. The Democrats will howl, but there will nothing they can do about it except to wonder why they made it all possible by nominating Hillary.
16
The blackly cynical and pessimistic "the sky is falling" club is out in full force these days. I have a confrere who sits around darkly muttering that we are all screwed due to climate change, while delighted to drive around aimlessly most of the day. If you feel the way you do, protest, organize and vote.
Why? We didn’t vote for Trump. By staying home or writing in Bernie or some third-party clown, you did.
1
I'm more concerned about the rumors that Trump bribed Kennedy to quit. he gave his son millions of dollars and promised to replace him with his former law clerk.
Dems should halt this until the investigation is concluded.
71
What is the evidence for this accusation?
Democrats don't have a majority.
So Kavanaugh believes that “the president should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office” like responding to criminal charges because “even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation — including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators — are time-consuming and distracting” and “a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as president.” Doesn’t impeachment of a sitting president have the same effect?
But never mind that, Kavanaugh gave inaccurate and misleading testimony give in May of 2006 to the Senate Judiciary Committee on the the topic of torture. That should be enough to torpedo his nomination ..... even for Republicans.
24
The problem with Kavanaugh is that he has an agenda. Such people do NOT belong in the judiciary, much less the Supreme Court.
2
Hypothetically, if a sitting president shot someone on Fifth Avenue, would Kavanaugh postpone his prosecution?
Certainly in a different era with more traditional Republicans, the false testimony would have been a no go, but these are not our grandparents' Republicans—they are a feckless lot who work only for themselves, country be damned.
If we can't investigate a president for his possible involvement in a conspiracy with another nation against the United States then we have announced to our enemies that we are defenseless. When that conspiracy calls the legitimacy of the president's election into question, no stone should be left unturned no inconvenience is too great in the search for truth. In this investigation the future of our democracy hangs in the balance. Attempted comparison to a president's sexual indiscretions or even to perjury in a related civil action are irresponsible and dangerous. Any judge or member of congress acting to thwart the search for truth in this situation is doing great harm to our nation. I find it fascinating to watch Republicans initial unqualified respect for Robert Mueller's integrity erode as he reveals politically damaging evidence. Party over country has become their creed.
67
Great Point!
If a suspected criminal in the Presidency cannot be prosecuted because doing so endangers the country, we need a mechanism to carry on the execution of the office absent the full attention of the President. Yet another gap in the Constitution.
12
This is a fairly easy thing to navigate for Mueller.
What Trump has already said or done does cry for an explanation. If there is no explanation, but only a full denial, from the horse's mouth, the prosecution will produce its evidence and rest his case, the judge will instruct the jury, in fact two judges Fox News and the responsible media, and let the jury decide. You will get at worst a hung jury and a re-trial followed by a conviction.
3
It is correct that Hitler was the instrument the big corporations used to try to preserve their power and destroy the working class movement. In the USA there is no working class movement and not a left worth of the name, unfortunately. Corporate power will be preserved by both parties. They will get rid of Trump in a few years and a more presentable representative of capital will take his place.
2
Which is the "responsible media"?
Your marxist view is probably too pessimistic.
As a former prosecutor, and later a public defender, the Kavanaugh selection produced this thought:
In one swoop, Mr. Trump has revolutionized America’s entire criminal justice system. Where, previously, the defendant’s counsel played a role in JURY selection; now, following Mr. Trump’s precedent-setting choice for the Supreme Court, the defendant’s counsel will also be able to select the JUDGE who’ll preside over the trial.
51
The contradiction in Kavanaugh's argument is impeachment is no longer an option if you grant a president immunity from investigation. How would you begin an impeachment process without grounds established by a criminal or civil investigation? There's no way to determine whether the president had committed an impeachable offense. Congress would have to order the president to submit testimony to Congress before moving to impeach. We're right back where we started with the subpoena question. If that's not a legal and political corkscrew, I don't know what qualifies.
Imagine the logistical problem for investigators too. There would be a gaping black hole surrounding the president where we should find evidence. This includes evidence pertaining to indictments against regular citizens other than the president. Are investigators just supposed to skip over Trump's role in Michael Cohen's civil and criminal charges? Cohen isn't the president. He doesn't have the right to delay his legal troubles until its convenient for Trump. What a mess.
In any event, everyone agrees current law does not grant immunity to a sitting president. Kavanaugh's opinion is therefore rendered moot. The darker question is whether a conservative Supreme Court will attempt to carve out an exception for Trump while still respecting existing precedent. Either through expanded powers or an attack on Mueller's investigative rigor. In this scenario, I'm not nearly as confident we'll see a positive outcome.
19
First, no subpoena has been issued, so the headline is misleading. Second, the article presupposes that Judge Kavanaugh would not recuse himself, which is certainly a question worth asking at his confirmation hearings.
Last, it also presupposes that the judge is less a dispassionate jurist than a shill for Trump. I don’t like many of Kavanaugh’s rulings nor his conservative bent, but there is no suggestion that he is corrupt, and his resume includes the Starr investigation. To find that a president cannot be subpoenaed would be to overturn US v Nixon, and to ignore the subpoena to Clinton, who then cooperated, obviating the need.
I’d be more worried about Gorsuch, who is proving to be a Trump puppet, precisely as planned.
8
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were selected by Trump during a period when there was much discussion regarding the bringing of criminal charges against the president. Obviously, these two men were selected in great part based upon how their vote would be cast in such a situation.
Though you are correct that anything other than recusals would be a total corruption of the judicial process/stain on the SC, how can we be expected to believe that these two men would recuse themselves in such a situation? Or would they refuse to do so, as Clarence Thomas has boldly done when obvious conflicts of interest have arisen?
It seems he had no trouble working for the Kenneth Starr investigation when it was a question of a Democratic president being subpoenaed…
25
Exactly. And this needs to be repeated. Often.
1
Interesting that even Hitler came to power with the support of the right wing conservative industrialists of Weimar Germany, the same people in power in the US. And using the Rule of Law, Hitler was able to take Germany from a democracy to dictatorship and ultimately to total destruction. History can and does repeat itself and if the US is not careful it will happen here has the warnings go out.
109
Trump went judge shopping for his future needs. Everyone is giving him way too much credit for decency and his role as POTUS.
It was a pure and simple calculated decision by Trump based upon self-interest. He is only concerned with HIMSELF. He does not serve the American people, he does what will benefit him.
Kavanaugh was picked for a future decision favorable to Trump and for future votes for Trump.
77
We let our politicians steal so much power from us while we played with our smart phones and X-Boxes. Now we're not sleeping so well in the bed we made.
21
Lots of interesting stuff here. One thing that makes this more interesting is for the first time in our history we have an unskilled total liar in the White House.
26
Revise that to an incompetent & highly skilled liar . . . ,
1
Bit off topic, but I'm still waiting for our somewhat spineless Democratic leaders to push for the impeachment of Justice Clarence Thomas. He clearly lied, under oath, before Congress, in regards to his sexual harassment of Professor Anita Hill. Come on Dems- do your duty!
13
What Trump Subpoena? There isn't one.
6
So when he answers no you will be satisfied then !!!
1
Kavanaugh thinks that the president should be a dictator and not have to answer to anything he says or does while in office. Hitler rose to power because of guys like this in his country. Hitler became "above the law," and look what happened there!
18
In criminal investigation, subpoena if sought for be it president or sany one, the power whatever it be ought to bow before the rule of law else what do we mean by equality in a vibrant democracy; no judge can allow any to avoid if he does he is no judge at all; and he is no judge material; he may have his own opinion, fact is he is bound by constitutional conditions if he is not he should be better not seek judgeship that too on USSC is my considered view; judiciary committee of senate is in a better position to shun such men to be judge on USSC and it can better not confirm such men who has such agenda. sorry i have nothing personally against Mr Trump as president , i just talk only on the office of president without any malice.
IF Americans are denied having the country's laws applied to everyone including the president, then they will be left with few alternatives in dealing with wrongdoing and expressing their displeasure at their elected and now out of control leaders.
In less civilized times, one of those time-honored alternatives was tar and feathers and being ridden out of town strapped to a pole.
I favor the somewhat less messy application of laws in the courts, with Lady Justice blind to who appears before her. The politics of those in position to judge should not come into play, or they too will be tossed out when the populace tires of their shenanigans.
6
Kavanaugh's exorbitant and inaccurate praise of Trump in accepting the nomination should raise a big red flag.
He is not a member of the president's Cabinet...or is he?
9
The lesson of US v. Nixon, Jones v. Clinton and the 25th Amendment is that the President of the United States is a person and citizen first who only temporarily occupies the Article II executive office of one branch of our divided limited power constitutional republic of united states.
Trump hss spent a third of his time office playing golf. And Trump "works" by watching Fox News while tweeting and speaking slurs is how Trump "fights ". Impeachment is in addition to civil and criminal process and prosecution. Impeachment is a political process to remove a President from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors " . Neither civil nor criminal process are empowered to do that.
8
In addition, Nixon resigned rather than face the process of impeachment.
While it sometimes feel as if it's too late and the right has truly won, it's important to take a longer view. This means that while it's possible that Kavanaugh will be confirmed and this Democratic congress will not vote to impeach Trump, it's imperative that the November election go against the Republicans, big time. There can be no sitting on the sidelines. Every single Democrat must get out and vote - particularly in purple districts - and every thinking Republican must do the same and vote Democratic. Anyone who does not get out and vote against this corrupt administration is aiding and abetting. If you are not part of the solution....
5
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has questioned the wisdom of forcing sitting presidents to answer questions from prosecutors?
The more power a public servant holds the more they should be held accountable to those they serve.
Accountability and holding a President to the law is the only wisdom.
23
“Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation — including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators — are time-consuming and distracting,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote. “Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the president’s focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as president.”
Let's follow that reasoning:
So, a President:
-Sells top secret information for money
-Clubs the Vice President with a baseball bat
-Commits insider trading for personal gain
-Takes bribes for steering government contracts
These criminal acts cannot be prosecuted because it will effect his or her job performance?
How absolutely absurd.
14
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh must recuse themselves from any case that involves criminal behavior of the president who appointed them. Anything else would be a total corruption of our judicial process and a stain on the Supreme Court.
13
Brace yourself...
Nothing to worry about here because of:
"He said Congress should consider imposing limits on such proceedings."
If it's necessary for Congress to pass legislation, then the Constitution does not impose limits. Also, he says "limits" vs "prohibition". This nomination is setting Trump up for a dis"appointment" of Nixonian and Clintonian dimensions unless Kavanaugh believes the "witch hunt" nonsense. If the Dems don't ask that question in conformation hearings they deserve to lose.
5
Mr. Kavanaugh's opinion is irrelevant: Presidents Jefferson, Nixon, and Clinton were all subpoenaed in the past and none of them was foolish enough to try to claim that they were above the law or above being questioned. Trump deserves no more privileges than they did during their presidencies.
6
There are many reasons Kavanaugh should not be confirmed other than his placing a president above the law. There is this remark in his acceptance speech....something I found offensively fawning and more than likely a lie....
“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination,” he said.
Loyalty oath on display so soon?
9
Fawning and more than a bit of self-adulation: 'Everyone said the president should pick me!'
The fact is that Kavanaugh's opinion regarding presidential immunity is what set him apart from the other top choices. As usual, above any other consideration, Trump wants a get out of jail free card. Our so-called president is looking awfully guilty.
7
Trump surrendered the privilege of being above the law long ago. He has consistently violated the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses from Day 1 of his presidency. He has surrounded himself with crooks and scheming associates. He has apparently obstructed justice with Comey’s firing. He lies to the American people daily. He puts our country in jeopardy by cozying up to malicious world leaders whose goal is our defeat. The law is our only refuge, given the cowardly behavior of Congress.
11
Since Kavanaugh changed his position since Clinton, this alone proves he is a partisan hack and a hypocrite. Bob Mueller should subpoena Trump before the confirmation hearings on this man begin.
6
He will be confirmed. The Democrats have no idea how bad they are looking with their hysteria, fake alarmist news, and propaganda. What a turnoff!
4
As opposed to the hysteria, corruption, incompetence, venal behavior, fake alarmist news and propaganda coming out of the White House?
I get your points and that's how Trumpanzees think.
Putin's gang of criminal kleptocrats don't believe that he should be accountable or questioned either.
4
So "no one is above the law" is a lie.
14
Without rule of law can there be a civilization you can use law to change the law what Charles Houston dean of Howard university said.
A Democracy has to be run by a rule of law called the constitution; We people means, people of America need to be law abiding; if you elect one as your president if he does not want to follow rule of law shows most Americans spurn their very constitution is the indication if you measure by the verdict on a man who never paid taxes as reported mean most do not want to pay taxes!
I believe this is the primary reason Trump chose Kavanaugh as his nominee for Justice. He wants a willing sycophant on the court, who will shield him from the Mueller investigation and its consequences.
Will no one point out how inexcusable and twisted it is that we have a sitting president- whose administration is under serious investigation, whose campaign manager sits in jail as I write this- choosing his own judge? This is unacceptable.
We are a nation governed and bound by the rule of law and no one - no one- is above that, whether they be a sitting president, or a would-be Supreme Court Justice.
18
Leonard Leo chose Kavanaugh; do you really think conservatives, the Koch brothers and the Heritage Foundation would let a buffoon represented by the likes of Guilliani near their true center of power?
This law article was written in 2009 and obviously did not have a Trump presidency in mind. Moreover, the legal position has a clear practical point of view--whether one agrees with it or not.
3
Personal point of view is one thing but to hold a siting president above the law is wrong.
4
A frequent argument of the originalist/textualist crowd to which he belongs is reference to the separation of powers in the Constitution. Justice Kavanaugh even titles the Minnesota Law Review with that reference (assuming the title had his influence, not just the editors). If a Presidential subpoena case comes before the Court he's on he'll be expected to honor his own claims there any exemption is the purview of Congress, not of the Court. Please no "judicial activism" Justice Kavanaugh.
3
Someone in the confirmation process needs to ask Judge Kavanaugh, when he is under oath:
Did you and President Trump discuss the Mueller investigation at any time? Did you discuss your position regarding whether the President is required to testify under subpoena or whether a sitting president may be indicted? Did President Trump state his positions to you on these issues at any time? Did you discuss these issues with anyone else in the administration or the Republican party?
If Judge Kavanaugh answers yes to any of these questions, it will at least raise the possibility that Judge Kavanaugh is a hired gun to protect Mr. Trump. We are already in deep trouble as a country, but that would take it over the top.
27
very articulate analysis
The republicans have no credibility at all left, and they don't care.......they control everything, including the voting apparatus needed to insure they keep all three branches of government. They didn't even keep it a secret that that's what they were trying to do, it was there in their party platform and speeches for the last 35 years, yet anyone who pointed out that single party rule in perpetuity is not a democracy was labeled an "extremist", "fringe leftist", "radical", etc. etc. by the press and people who were too complacent, fat and happy with the status quo. We have ended up, unfortunately, with the government we deserve.
18
I grasped that: The immunity of a sitting President is, when asserted, based on an idea that the President’s duties should be immune to and from all disruptions. If this is true, the idea is based on another idea that a President is fully capable of his or her duties in response to the promise of Constitution, everyday, while the President is in the presidential term. Those two consecutive ideas are based on the executive power as authentic, given by a legitimate electoral process, I understand. ***** When this legitimacy becomes a subject of the investigation, the immunity should shake. Whether or not prosecutors are required to present more evidences to pursue, would seem to be an escape door (= my expression) for the court, as indicated differently in the article. It would be an expedient exit, because the meaning of which is equivalent almost to that the not-yet-obtained results from the investigation is asked to present while the investigation tries to move on. For the Justices, sitting within until a unified decision can be reached beyond the parties’ interests, seems to be its supreme duty in this case.
We let our politicians steal so much power from us while we played with our smart phones and X-Boxes. Now we're not sleeping so well in the bed we made.
1
Brett Kavanaugh's views on Executive privilege are far from a "novel historical moment." It may spell then end of our Constitutional republic. Donald Trump is in immense legal jeopardy and his choice of Judge Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court is the equivalent of jury tampering--a criminal charge his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort stands accused of in federal court. In Judge Kavanuagh Mr. Trump would put the deciding vote on the Supreme Court that, as with Richard Nixon, will ultimately as a jury in ruling whether on not the cases now before the court brought by Summer Zervos and Stormy Daniels can proceed. More ominously, Judge Kavanaugh would have the decisive vote on whether or not Mr. Trump can fire the Special Counsel. This may, as some have opined, be a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for Donald Trump, but it would it would amount to a "Lock Up America in Jail" card by putting our democracy firmly in the hands of an autocrat. The very fate of our democracy as we've known it rests in the hands of the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate that has been ominously silent and complicit in "aiding and abetting" Donald Trump's autocratic overreach.
27
Our system of justice demands that no man be above the law. That includes presidents.
15
I hope some senator asks Kavanaugh about his claim that his nomination was the result of the most intensive and thorough search process in the history of the Court. That, of course, is a bald faced lie. In fact, his appointment was pre approved by the Federalist Society and apparently was a done deal from the outset, per an agreement with Anthony Kennedy. That he is so willing to lie to satisfy Trump's need for superlative praise speaks volumes about his lack of character.
63
Could it be that the 5 Republicans on the Court would vote to quash a subpoena of a President of the United States when the underlying issues are so fundamental: treason? rule of law/obstruction of justice? If they allow a President to run riot in the face of such charges, one can only say USA, R.I.P.
125
Well, if the president is a criminal, what other choice do we have?
16
Its all about Mueller not Roe versus Wade. Anything to neuter the investigation of his criminal and treasonous activities.
30
This president cannot be allowed to select a SCOTUS, period.
13
Trump already nominated Neil Gorsuch, now the holder of the first stolen Supreme Court seat. Kavanaugh's is the second stolen seat. Looking forward to electing a real President who will restore credibility to The SCOTUS by inviting both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to honorably resign.
5
"And a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as president.” - BM Kavanaugh
And a President concerned about his golf handicap is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as a president.
And a President concerned about his business interests is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as a president.
342
And a president concerned with doing Vladimir Putin's bidding is inevitably going to do a worse job as president.
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 more than 3 million votes and is now busily engaged in destroying the country.
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
350
Make it simpler - as an 'originalist' , does he believe the 14th amendment should stand, and segregation should remain outlawed in the US, or should we go back to times before 14th amendment protections - where does 'originalism' begin and end?
Surely Mr Mueller must realize that the scatterbrained prevaricator Giuliani is just skipping and spinning in delay mode—while the special counsel’s office has no comment.
Mr Mueller, remember you’re dealing with two individuals who can’t be trusted from sentence to sentence or from twit to tweet.
As the clock continues to run, it might be best to just subpoena Trump.
13
Judge Kavanaugh's view has the practical result of a president being above the law---absent an impeachment vote. This is not a desirable constitutional result. I'm sure Mr. Trump would love that outcome since the pusillanimous GOP won't go near any such vote---not because he isn't committing impeachable offenses, but because they're getting too much swag for themselves. Responding to lawsuits and criminal charges will,I admit, take time away from stuffing pockets and playing golf, but slowing that process down is something for which we could all give thanks.
9
There would be no need for this discussion if a sitting president (and her party) made certain that nothing in her life appeared criminal.
The obvious questions for Kavanaugh are:
Why was it OK to subpoena President Clinton but not OK to subpoena President Bush?
Why was it OK for a civil lawsuit to proceed against President Clinton but that President Bush should be immune until he is out of office?
Despite the hundreds of pages of legalese obfuscation, justifications and rationalizations it is blatantly obvious that it comes down to one thing, and one thing only:
Tribalism.
"Your team--Villains!!!"; "My team--Heroes!!!"
And that is why Bret Kavanaugh should not be on the SCOTUS, because he cannot be trusted to be even slightly unbiased toward the man who nominated him, a man who DEMANDS, even illegally, total personal loyalty of government employees. (And, Judge Kavanaugh, be warned: Trump demands personal loyalty, but gives none, ever)
30
This appointment is arguably another example of obstruction. Since this Congress won't impeach, the one recourse if Mueller builds a case for conspiracy or treason would be indictment. Only tradition stands in the way, but it could and should fall in a case where the sitting president can be shown to be the agent of a foreign power. Trump knows this, and he also knows what Flynn, Papadopoulos, Manafort and Cohen know. Thus the necessity of installing a judge who, when any lower court judgment is appealed, will rule he can't be indicted.
We already know Kavanaugh's a liar -- his lies in the course of his approval process for Court of Appeals were so egregious that senators wrote to the DOJ about him.
The glaring tell came with Kavanaugh's bizarre claim that this was the widest search ever conducted for a SCOTUS nominee. It was the exact opposite, of course. It was always going to be Kavanaugh. This is all about neutralizing Mueller and placing Trump and his illegitimacy and corruption forever beyond our reach.
27
Everything this president has done is pure self-serving, no matter how badly it affects the country's citizens: from conspiring with enemies for the purpose of swinging an election to diplomacy for the purpose of furthering business interests.
Why would we think the Supreme Court justice nominee would be any different? The sole reason for this pick is so blatantly obvious. The president now needs an insider on the court to protect him from the coming indictment.
The president's mind is very simple: he does what benefits him without any further thought to any consequences or consideration of long-term effects.
17
Kavanaugh's ascension to the SCOTUS will cement a conservative/reactionary series of decisions that will affect several generations to come. The impact will be felt in all of the areas that involve corporate power, women, minorities of any kind, and voting rights for everyone.
It's obvious that the POTUS chose him because of his decisions regarding the inability to subpoena or prosecute a sitting president, which is a clear negation of his position when working for Ken Starr during the Clinton investigation.
This is not the America that has dominated the globe because of its leadership in upholding humanitarian values in the world. Our country's sterling reputation is being diminished on a daily basis, and the principles on which America was founded in is being turned upside down. Heaven help us!
8
If there was ever any doubt that Kavanaugh wasn't totally biased "Judge," Now we know for sure he IS!
9
Really? He thought it was fine when creepy Ken Starr went after President Bill Clinton. But Trump? Oh no, he mustn't be questioned. I wonder why.
26
So exactly what is Kavanaugh saying? That a sitting President can ignore the law and do whatever they want and as long as they're not so blatant as to make their illegal actions too obvious they can get away with it because it "interferes with the job"? Ridiculous, absurd and dangerous. If this is actually true then any government official in a high office could do whatever they wanted and argue that the importance of the work they are doing precludes them from accountability. They could argue they're just following the President's example. Think of the things Kavanaugh himself could do as a SCOTUS Justice if he had a mind to. And think of the almost infinite possibilities of serious conflict of interest involving Trump as President and Trump as CEO of Trump Inc. NOBODY is above the law especially the President of the United States. Arguing that the President cannot be investigated and prosecuted is a convenient and self serving lie that sets the stage for felony. The President's power is not unlimited and the President must be held accountable to prove the strength of the rule of law. Trump is not the law and never will be. There always must be strict checks on Presidential power to avoid a situation like Russia or NK where one individual makes all the law by decree. That is not America and never will be no matter what Trump thinks. Trump is not America and never will be.
22
Do you think Donald Trump understands that once Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court, that his Evangelical supporters will no longer have a reason to support him? The court will have a guaranteed majority to dispose of Roe....good-bye, Donald!
A question for the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask:
"If a president were to, say, shoot someone on 5th Avenue, would you require him or her to comply with a resulting subpoena?"
Don't expect an answer.
11
Two days ago David Cole for the ACLU pointed out Kavanaugh's writing of the Ken Starr report specifies Clinton was and presidents should be impeached for lying and obstruction of justice, and in that way Kavanaugh's positions are against Trump's.
3
Mr. Mueller needs to finalize his investigation as soon as possible so that the discussion turns to whether a president accused of obstruction, criminality, etc. has the moral or legal authority to appoint a a Supreme Court Justice.
16
Kavanaugh should indeed recuse himself from any discussion/vote on the president appointing him, should he be confirmed. Ideally same should apply to Gorsuch as well. A president is, like us all, a citizen, and IS NOT above the law if they get involved with potentially illegal activity.
10
At least some theTrump lawsuits were initiated long before he became President--unpaid contractors, molested women, etc.--and those definitely should not be overlooked simply because he was unpopularly elected in an election that may well have been rigged. And that of course raises the fundamental reason: how can democracy be sustained if a President who gained the office through corruption is given a "get out of jail" card for the duration of his Presidency?
12
Like all of the issues of possible wrongdoing of the Trump administration and its nomination of cabinet officers and this 2 faced nominee named Kavanaugh, there is only one solution. And that is to vote for every Democrat running for any office in the land. What else can we do? Not a thing with the present R ruled Congress. We must change that. In this dire situation, the worst Democratic candidate for office is better than the best Republican candidate for office.
7
“a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as president.”
That opinion is why Brett Kavanaugh was nominated for the bench and why he’ll probably be the one person who will shield the president from any accountability for his involvement in foreign meddling in the 2016 campaign. This president, already protected by Congress, soon will have the Court to assure him that he is above the law.
8
That he carried water for the disgraced Ken Starr and GW Bush is reason enough to veto his nomination.
5
Believing that Kavanaugh thinks the president is above the law is about as reasonable as believing that Obama was not born in the USA.
It is simply not a serious question. The speaker will appear to be copying the most egregious of Trump's tactics.
9
Whatever the Supreme Court decides, President Trump might simply decline to do what they say. Then it's up to the House and Senate to decide if that behavior is worthy of impeachment and removal from office. My guess is that Trump would assert that he disagrees with the Supreme Court and leave it to the legislative branch to break the tie between the co-equal executive and judicial branches. Knowing that, the Special Prosecutor is unlikely to start down a path that could result in a constitutional crisis and a potentially horrible precedent unless the November elections dramatically change the balance of power in the House and Senate.
2
Such a display from Trump would likely earn him the opportunity to wear handcuffs again.
What law would Trump be breaking?
The "tell" came when Judge Kavanaugh said, "No President has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination". Really, and how would the Judge know that; because he was told to say something to that effect - from Trump himself, no doubt. Its hogwash. If a subpoena is issued for Trump to testify and it gets contested to the Supreme Court, maybe the result will be 8-1 in favor of the President testifying, with Kavanaugh as the lone dissent.
8
Judge Brett Kabanaugh may well help keep judiciary independent of meddling with the executive branch and let the president be the most powerful leader of the world for real not just name sake.
it is up to congress then to impeach a sitting president IF the president has committed any crimes while in office. Showdown on a Trump subpoena by the special counsel should have nothing to do with Kavananaugh's confirmation unless some senators want to obstruct the confirmation for obstruction sake.
1
""And a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as president.”'
Every time I hear this quote from Judge. Cavanaugh's writings, it makes me want to guffaw.
To think that the prospect of an encounter between Robert Mueller and Donald Trump would meet the acid test for "undue burden" on the president is a joke. That's because Donald Trump spends more time on the job tweeting about his obsessions and grievances than reading, studying policy issues, or doing the work of an engaged president.
But more to the point, the self-serving way he nominated Judge Kavanaugh should give everyone--not just Democrats--pause.
Of course he would appoint a justice in favor of more executive power. I fail to understand the judge's reasoning, because it belies reality to think that if a president is under serious investigation that he's fully engaged in his presidency.
Donald Trump is following in the footsteps of previous corrupt presidents from post-Civil War Johnson to Richard Nixon. Handing a corrupt president even more power by relieving him of obligation to follow the rule of law as demanded by a special counsel would be simply incredible.
If confirmed, Judge Cavanaugh should promise to recuse from any criminal matter regarding the president. Period.
Since when does a president under investigation get to pick his own judges?
12
In a different time or era, judges who took their oath seriously and were bound by ethical standards of ethics and morality would not hesitate to pledge recusal on any case where their benefactor was before them in a case with such dire consequences. McConnell and company care nothing about these things, and the Senate Democrats must nail the man who would be on the high court down on this issue.
He has been honed and polished by right wing groups, will adroitly give vague assurances to placate skeptics, but this should not be the assurances that satisfy opponents. The sham "originalists" interpretation of the Constitution is based on the belief that the Supreme Court can and should channel the Founding Fathers when applying justice to a controversy before them. Invoke if you will what would have been the view of this august body in Philadelphia so long ago regarding treason, perjury and money laundering? Giving a president a pass on such outrages would have been rejected then and should be now.
3
While it's clear that Judge Kavanaugh graduated from Yale Law School, they apparently never studied the Declaration of Independence where it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".
Kavanaugh like Trump believes that there are people that are above the law which makes him unfit to be a supreme court justice.
5
Just to clarify, the Constitution codifies our laws, but the Declaration of Independence was a declaration of war.
David, you apparently failed history, the document stated INDEPENDENCE, no where does it state that they are declaring war on anybody.
Sorry, BTO, sounds like you need a refresher course in American history. Alas, I don’t offer tutoring.
If a sitting President gets a pass and is not subject to the law of the land, then our democracy is truly just an illusion.
While I'm sure presidents and high profile public officials are subject to actions and allegations (frivolous or otherwise) that might wait until the term ends, his or his team's potential collusion with Russia to hijack our electoral system or otherwise influence the election is at the very heart of our democracy. THAT is neither irrelevant or a 'distraction' that should get a pass.
7
Deficits, high crimes and misdemeanors don't matter when Republicans are President.
Welcome to America's right-wing insane asylum.
52
....in which we are all captive inmates.....we need to break out of the “right-wing insane asylum”...by protest and voting out this dangerous,traitorous and unpatriotic Administration.
1
If confirmed, Mr. Kavanaugh must recuse himself on matters relating to Mr. Trump's testimony not because he has written on the matter previously but because he was nominated by Mr. Trump, which is a clear conflict of interest.
20
Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were appointed to the Court by Trump, so maybe both should recuse themselves when the Trump/Russia treason trial reaches the Court. That would leave a liberal-leaning Court in place, and everyone wins except Trump. That's how it should be.
4
Mr.Kavanaugh may be deeply skeptical about burdening a sitting president with a subpoena or other legal matters, but does it make a difference to him that the sitting president may be colluding with an enemy state which is trying to harm our democracy?Is our democracy more important than the occupant of the White House? These questions MUST be answered!
21
His argument is that preparing for testimony would take the president's time away from "focusing on the people's business." Perhaps in the case of other presidents....for Donald Trump, this argument is ludicrous. He watches Fox news and reads his own tweets. How much time could that take?
40
Yes, and Trump has famously ignored the advice of all the attorneys he has had for the past two years. Not prep is needed for him, he goes with his "gut", of course, that's after watching Fox news.
Take Trump's focus away from ... Twitter, watching Fox, playing golf, and his sole responsibility to himself. No way a subpoena could make him a worse president than he is.
And no way Kavanaugh could possibly argue the law to make his case. Which only highlights these "judgments" of Kavanaugh as coming more from opinion and partisan bias than from any reading of the law. Which makes a mockery of the entire process.
Allowing Trump to escape subpoena only serves to undermine the peoples' faith in the concept that we are a nation of law and that no one is above it.
Trump has already impeached himself in so many ways. Of course he will impeach himself should he have to testify. The law and those who enforce the law should not exempt him from doing what any other citizen would be forced to do.
41
Is it Kavanaugh's opinion that the Senate, should it choose to exercise its right to impeach a president under Article II, Section 4 of The Constitution, do so without an investigation?
47
House impeaches, Senate convicts.
Thankfully that doesn't invalidate the point!
Agreed!
It was clear from the beginning of this Supreme Court publicity stunt that Kavanaugh would be the despot's choice. He was never going to pick a woman-he is, after all, a misogynist-and he was never going to pick anyone who felt he should be held accountable for his questionable actions.
It's up to Democrats and any Republicans who have an ounce of integrity or courage to prevent Kavanaugh's confirmation. This is about what's right for our people, upholding the precious tenets of the Constitution and demanding that a clearly criminally-inclined, Putin-loving, deranged bully be brought to justice.
Every American has a duty here and it's to prevent the utter corruption and destruction of everything we hold dear. Obstruct, litigate, demonstrate, and vote. Make your voice and your opinion heard.
75
He will pick a woman. Barrett will replace Ginsburg. I'm guessing that will happen within a year or so.
It is nonsense that impeachment must take place before a president can be prosecuted by the legal system.
As Jerry Ford remarked when he was trying to have Justice Douglas impeached for marrying a much younger woman
'An impeachable offense is what ever the House says it is".
A corollary to this is that the House is free to ignore any presidential crime.
The GOP has a majority in the present House.
No matter what Trump does the House will not vote to impeach and even if impeached there will not be 67 Senate votes to convict.
Thus there is no restraint on Trump's behavior.
The GOP has made a corrupt bargain. Tax cuts for the rich, slash social programs and gut environmental and financial regulations in exchange for tolerating Trump's misbehavior.
The impeachment process is very slow.
A serious crime by a president demands much faster response.
81
This is why the midterm elections are so critical to the future of our nation. A Democratic House will not hesitate to call a Trump crime a crime and a traitor a traitor.
2
i agree a democratic house could impeach because impeachment only requires a simple majority.
but you need 67 senate votes to convict and you will not get that.
He didn't think so when he spent years trying to get Clinton impeached. So what he really means is that republican presidents are above the law.
378
Actually, looking at what he said, he was talking about civil cases, not criminal. Not sure what he thinks about criminal cases against the President. I am not nor ever have been a Trump supporter, to the contrary. But I also think Kavanaugh should be recused if this goes to the Supremes.
2
...a burden,time consuming, a distraction.....this is the excuse to be above the law.....really ? .....and how many rounds of G has DJT played sine Jan 17 ? Block this guys confirmation.
177
When "W" was elected with the help of his brother who was governing Florida and then SCOTUS' decision, I knew we were descending into a Banana Republic. Kavanaugh is just another banana to add to the GOP-Banana Republic.
Vote in every election from school board to POTUS!
Make this our darkest hour. Soon there will be no turning back.
115
“The justices must understand that it would be a disaster for the court, as an institution, to divide 5-4 on the question whether Trump can ignore a subpoena, with two Trump appointees in the majority,...[T]here will be enormous pressure on the chief justice — including, in fact especially, pressure from his own sense of his place in history — to deliver a unanimous court.”
I respectfully disagree. Chief Justice John Roberts, if one takes more than a cursory glance at the disastrous rulings that have dotted his tenure, is far less interested in presiding over a fair, impartial and just tribunal than he is in being the arm and tool of the Right.
President George W. Bush recognized this trait in him when he nominated Judge Roberts for the Court. Cementing W's reverence for ideology on the Court was his elevation of the least senior justice--John Roberts--to the Chief Justice post upon the death of William Rehnquist.
Justice Roberts, had he been following national events since 2016, would have seen in Donald Trump an erratic, populist ideologue whose jaw-dropping ignorance and racism were his only qualifications for the presidency.
Any Chief Justice that would hazard the nation's heretofore central anchor to law, to "stare decisis," in deciding favorably--especially in this president's case--in any case involving testimony about a crime--or presenting evidence of such--would be tantamount to giving this president unimpeachable carte blanche to avoid any criminal proceeding.
12
The article assumes that the GOP members of the court will “test” the theory, that is, inquire into its legal underpinning and analyze it in terms of the Constution and the most basic of the founding fathers’ intentions. They won’t. Testing is what judges interested in the law do. The GOP justices are result oriented...protect the president, protect the corporations, protect the churches.
The term “originalist” is nothing more that a smoke screen for radicle judicial activism that seeks to limit the rights of anyone with whom the GOP justices disagrees.
There will be no testing!
16
The idea of a Trump nominee - two, in fact - ruling on criminal matters involving Trump is absolutely outrageous. If it happens and they vote to his benefit I will have officially (and very sadly) lost all hope for our once-great nation.
34
SPLIT POSTPONABILITY OF SITTING PRESIDENT SUBPOENA
Clearly, sitting presidents should not be distracted by minor or frivolous lawsuits.
Clearly, sitting president SHOULD be "under the law", not "above the law" for serious suits regarding behavior impacting national security or their credibility as defenders of the Constitution.
Not all lawsuits are the same. Not all protections of the president are absolute.
33
The bottom line here is trump believes he is a absolute ruler who is above the law. That's why he so admires people like Putin, Kim Jong-un etc. His backers like Alan Dershowitz say the founding fathers wanted this and this is what the Constitution means are very wrong. If the supreme court should come to the same conclusion this country as we know it is over.
86
What is the base that Kavanaugh believes that the President is above the law? The problem with so-called judge like Kavanaugh is not how he interprets the law but how he makes the law to fit his personal desire. I bet Donald Trump got a promise from Kanavaugh that he will protect DT at all cost.
95
When a judge has the view that someone/anyone is above the law, he should be dismissed!!!!
473
Is there any law that constrains him?
If he, as he suggested, shot someone on 5th Avenue, would questioning and a trial have to wait until after he left office? That is completely and utterly ridiculous.
In civil cases, which in this litigious nation can be brought by every Tom, Dick and Harriet, even for reasons of the most absurd, the President as a matter of policy should be exempted from response until after his term of office.
For criminal charges, however, the President is not King, and those cases must be adjudicated in current time.
145
I am not a constitutional scholar. As president, I would never submit to any form of questioning. The pardon powers protect me and anyone I choose from prosecution. The only way for me to be removed is by Impeachment by the senate.
I am not the president!
Kavanaugh helped investigate a president for years and it seemed right then. What's changed?
He lied in his previous confirmation; how can he be trusted to tell the truth?
A president should never be above the law. No matter what party.
391
Kavanaugh helped investigate a president who had a consensual sexual relationship with an adult intern. Trump is being investigated for possible collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice. Big difference! It’s like comparing a misdemeanor to capital murder. If Kavanaugh is concerned that investigating a sitting president “would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas,” then there should be no concern because Trump is already following that agenda and systematically destroying our country on a daily basis. Taking Trump’s focus off our country might just save it.
2
What's changed is that the US has turned into an unabashed banana republic:
docile, indifferent legislature; obsequious, destructive cabinet; delirious, sociopathic executive; agitated, misinformed populace.
The decline & fall of the American Empire is happening before our very eyes. Lead pipes and Goths did in the Romans. We have Republicans to thank for this descent.
2
Come on people, it’s so obvious ... trump picked Kavanaugh because of the judge's view that a sitting president cannot be indicted, to wit "the country loses when the President’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution.”.
It’s a tacit assertion that the President is therefore above the law.
406
And trump would certainly view it as an invitation to remain in office for life...
2
Plus, the idea that trump would do a worse job if he had to prepare to answer questions is ludicrous. How could he possibly do a worse job?
8
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
If the corporate/catholic justices don't honor that it is time for some heads to roll.
The key phrase here is "Congress should consider imposing limits".
A close reading of Kavanaugh's paper shows that he believes that under current law the President is vulnerable to prosecution. He argued this should change and can only be done through an act of Congress.
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2018-07-10/supreme-court-bre...
9
The article is a good analysis of his position and should read before dismissing the guy out-of-hand. He will get confirmed, and the Democrats could do themselves huge favour by showing a very much less partisan approach; ask him the right questions, politely, and let him answer - then make a reasoned decision. Don't jump around hollering based on rumours and assumptions, and just "oppose everything from Trump".
1
So you're saying than that Democrats should be reproached when they behave like republicans, but of course such behavior is only called partisan when Democrats do it? Remember that it was McConnell who went against the letter of our constitution to deny a hearing to the very qualified nominee of a twice elected (by a majority of voters both times) president. That is the partisanship that has set us down this path where we now find ourselves truly divided, with no way out.
16
Is there any information that Brett Kavanaugh was a source of leaks during the Starr investigation? That is something I think we should know.
39
Suppositions: 1) the Justice Department is conducting an investigation into Russian interference in a presidential election; that investigation includes issues related to whether persons around a now sitting president had colluded with Russia, and issues related to whether the sitting president had sought to obstruct justice; 2) the sitting president has said and done things that cause a sizeable portion of the electorate to question his motives and integrity with regard to national interests of the country.
Question: in such a circumstance regarding such high stakes - higher I would argue than those surrounding Nixon and Clinton - is it reasonable to believe that the sitting president should not be disturbed in his daily duties in order to answer questions under oath?
The answer must be that it is not reasonable and the sitting president must be disturbed and obliged to answer the questions under oath. This is not some deep, imponderable philosophical issue; it's straight-forward common sense.
354
Remember Bush at the 9/11 “investigation” side by side with D. Cheney did not testify under oath. Some proceedings were interrupted by public observers demanding that people be sworn in and testify under oath! Remember?
6
I think you phrased and asked a good question here.
One item for consideration is that in an investigation of a president, all of his actions are put under intense scrutiny. Case-and-point is Mueller’s investigation: Trump has not been personally regarded as having conducted criminal activity, and yet every other NYT article on the subject implies that he has. This includes discussions on each and every action he has done within office - we are constantly expressing belief in some major conspiracy.
I’m not saying the conspiracy is wrong, but absolutely the investigation itself has diminished the effectiveness of the Trump administration (even if you doubt the effectiveness outside of the investigation).
No one should be above the law. No Justice should allow for that idea. trump must answer questions about Russian interference and possible obstruction of justice. No president should be allowed to sit in office with that cloud hanging over his head. trump should not be allowed to nominate a Justice to the highest Court while these questions go unanswered. We need to believe that our president is beholding only to us. In trump’s case that is very much in question.
154
These Senators will sit there and pick apart anyone from the other side who is nominated by the opposition, even slandering them. At least at the Supreme Court level, Ds have generally been worse than Rs. The most vicious fights since I've been politically aware (the early '80s) are over R nominees - like Bork and Thomas. Alito's wife cried at how he was treated. Of the 8 on the bench, the Rs were seated with an average of 60.5 yea votes (Roberts brings it up from 54 votes) and the Ds 78.5 yeas - meaning more Rs are voting for D nominees than vice versa. Of course, when you point out Garland, the math goes out the window. Perfectly legal manuever, but wrong.
I wouldn't mind if the Senators opposed would just make speeches - "We don't want you b/c of your politics!" rather than their picking apart everything ever said or wrote by the candidate in the hopes of finding something less than perfect or, if that fails, twisting it beyond recognition - hoping to find someone who doesn't like them.
And, b/c of the recent hysteria, it is getting worse. From statements by Ds already, you would think Trump nominated Tom Delay or David Duke.
Personally, as a moderate, I support almost all nominees, including Sotomayor, who seemed only borderline qualified to determine constitutional law (although the wise Latina speech she wisely threw under the bus was quite correct). But, none of them deserve the ridiculous process they go through and which almost requires them to obfuscate or lie.
11
Thomas lied about sexually harassing Anita Hill. Do you think that doesn't matter? And he has also turned out to be a woefully inadequate justice. Big mistake when he barely slipped by the questioning, which was more than fair - he managed to make it seem like a "high tech lynching" - which it was not.
1
Forget the math obfuscation, David. These nine people literally have the power of life or death in their hands. I think that gives ANY of us, as Americans, the right to ask them questions before we rubber-stamp a decision made by a despicable fraud with absolutely no scruples or sense of right or wrong. This isn't Russia. Yet.
You failed to mention the Republicans refusing to allow Merrick Garland to be heard,fearing the populace would actually SEE them scuttle the approval of a man who had previously been praised by the right as fair and impartial. It was all about reasonable people in both parties watching the hearings and coming away scratching their heads as to why the Repubs had an issue with this man who was so eminently qualified to serve ALL the people of this country. They just didn't have the guts to do it so all could see.
When Democrats are in power they try to figure out how to win. They are blocked at every turn by the norms of government and their respect for the institution. They appeal to the better natures of their opponents and ask them to join the project of progress that will benefit everyone and make the world better for their grandchildren.
When Republicans are in power they pack the government with loyal stooges who follow orders and use their positions to get rich. They respect no precedent or norm and employ lawyers to write memos explaining how their naked distortions of law are actually legal. They use the bully pulpit to appeal to the fear of the masses and confuse them with an avalanche of lies that the media has learned to respect as just another opinion. They subvert the meaning of settled law and impose a political will that distorts society.
Democrats find it hard to get anything done because the residue of past Republican administrations has tied their hands. Republicans find it easy to get things done because law enforcement and the judicial system bend themselves out of the way to allow Republican policies to actualize.
The Democrats never have enough money because the political system has been commoditized and their brand has been shunned by the corporate deep pockets. The Republicans have windfalls of cash that they don't know how to spend. The wealthy who are wealthy because of their policies keep the money spigot open.
Is this the way we want this to be?
150
How can any citizen of the United States want the president to be above the law? Exempting the president from answering a subpoena, whether in regards to a criminal or civil action, but particularly a criminal action, would place that individual above the law. This discussion should not be about partisan politics. The discussion needs to be about what you believe democracy should be. If the president were legally exempt from answering a subpoena, the system of checks and balances is thrown out. There is nothing that makes the president better, under the law, than any other citizen and there should not be any legal exemption for a president to be exempt from any United States law. Exempting the president from having to respond to a subpoena would create a de facto and de jure dictator. There is a big difference between using power strongly and being a strongman. Think long, think hard. These conservatives are not democracy's friend.
308
Mrs. Cat: indeed, how? If the president in question is Trump (or perhaps any Republican President), and, if the person in your question is Republican, then, it’s very likely that he/she would want that president above the law.
The Democrats aren’t free of culpability in this regard. I suspect that many would want their party fellow to be above the law. But, the Republicans would win this hands down.
I sometimes wonder whether the likes of McConnell don’t have a secret copy of the Constitution, with words like “country” and “nation” replaced by “party” or “Republican”.
"Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation — including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators — are time-consuming and distracting,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote. “Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the president’s focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as president.”
Trump himself is the Great Distractor, constantly throwing out red herrings to keep people from focussing on his illegitimate Presidency - - illegitimate in the sense that Putin won it for him.
Additionally, to argue that Trump would be distracted and his precious time would be consumed is disingenuous for a man who spends more time on his and other golf courses than he does reading briefings on issues involving the country he is supposed to be leading.
So, while Judge Kavanaugh may have a point in the abstract, in the specific case of US v Trump, the argument is sorely misplaced and inapposite. And this does not even address the ultimate point about "...inevitably going to do a worse job as president.” Aw, come on, Man!!!
168
I also suspect that trump spends a great deal of time running his private businesses out of the White House.
Perhaps Judge Kavanaugh’s 2009 Minnesota Law Review article is actually one-half correct. A president should not be burdened by time-consuming and distracting civil or criminal matters that have no conceivable bearing on his election, national security or matters of significant national interest -- such as, hypothetically speaking, a failed land deal prior to his presidency or even a consensual affair with an intern.
On the other hand, when the investigation involves an attack by a hostile foreign power on our elections and democratic system of governance, isn't that the very definition of a "burden" that should be at the very core, as Judge Kavanaugh wrote, "of the president's focus ... [and] responsibilities to the people."
238
Judge Kavanaugh may have expressed "deep skepticism of the wisdom of forcing a sitting president to answer questions in criminal cases," but Judge Kavanaugh also knows, as well as anyone, that a judge's job is not to do what is "wise," but to follow the law. Wisdom is the province of policy makers, under our Constitution the majoritarian branches: Congress and the President. Law is the province of the courts. The Supreme Court has said many times that it sits to determine the constitutionality and interpretation of laws, not their wisdom.
For judges to do what they individually think is "wise" is not proper; it is the most extreme manifestation of judicial activism, which conservatives purport to despise. Judge Kavanaugh is a conservative.
76
Exactly. Kavanaugh was discussing policy, not judging an existing law.
1
The Constitution was written to prevent a person who was elected to the presidency to profit from his position and commit crimes for which he/she can be prosecuted. It is as simple as that. If Kavanaugh thinks otherwise, he is in violation of his oath to defend the Constitution.
Mrs. Cat: the President is not above the law. He can be impeached, tried and removed from office. That is the law. And if Congress wants to do that over a refusal to comply with a subpoena, it can do so.
1
Frankly, this whole exercise of trying to guess which way Kavanaugh will fall on any given issue is a waste of time. While it is true that, for the most part, people don't change, people's opinions can, and do, change. For myself, I have evolved from a Rush Limbaugh listener who hated Bill Clinton, thought he had disgraced the office of President and wished for his impeachment, to being an NPR listener who voted both for Obama and for Hillary Clinton. Now I wish for Trump to be impeached. I am still pro-life, but am also pro-gay marriage, and pro-single payer healthcare.
As the years roll by life's experience shapes and molds one's opinions. It is very difficult to guess what Kavanaugh might do when faced with an actual judicial decision to make. A 10 year old law review article is but a weak indication of what will happen. For example, today I would say that Clinton should not have been forced to go forward defending a sexual harrassment lawsuit while still in office. That sort of thing can wait. But an investigation into campaign fraud and possible treason, especially the presidential campaign that got the person elected President? That needs to go forward with the utmost urgency. Individual facts and circumstances determine the judicial decision, not a generalized opinion.
270
Ditto Ann. Ditto.
From a “conservative” to what I hear myself saying now about republicans is hard for me to believe.
But I’ll say it again, “never trump.” Ever.
1
God bless you, Madam. You give me hope.
Before the modern court - before the Federalist Society’s strategy and recommendations and before the simple majority approval process implemented by McConnell - conservative Supreme Court Justices drifted liberal during their tenure, similar to the development of your views. These recent activities are specifically intended to place an unchanging kind on the bench.
1
"has expressed deep skepticism of the wisdom of forcing a sitting president to answer questions in criminal cases"
Ahh--so Mr. Trump is oh so busy (watching FOX news), that we musn't disturb him from his duties. Kavanaugh's views have undergone a slight alteration since the time when he was lead attack dog on the Starr commission.
This is how the GOP works...there are rules for behavior, rules for me and rules for thee. All depends on which side you're on. Merrick Garland was not even afforded consideration. Trump nominates Kavanaugh and three seconds later, McConnell is criticizing Democrats for obstruction.
Kavanaugh tell us that "there are no liberal or conservative judges", that he's just an "originalist". Partisanship? What partisanship? He was raised in the conservative hothouse, has spent his career forwarding the conservative agenda, and then would have us believe that there's no partisanship to be seen here.
260
So there is a whole class in the Kavanaugh world above the law.
You, sir are spot on, correct.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't understand why the "originalists" continue to ignore 2A when discussing gun regulations. Can someone explain?
Recent analysis says Cavanaugh will undo protections for the poor, the sick (with no insurance), LGBT folk (which includes me), women, the environment, and all the rest. Meanwhile, Antarctica is melting, algae blooms are taking over inland waters, wildfires rage, hate crimes are up, immigrants are in cages, and....well, I am going out to the woods while it's still there.
35