I would no sooner trust the likes of Judge Kavanaugh with a seat on the Supreme court who was educated by the Jesuits than I would an ultra conservative Jew or a bible belt Protestant. Their attitudes and opinions are already cast in concrete regarding the female gender. There are several reasons to reject this man, not the least of which is, trump likes him.
As your article points out, Judge Kavanaugh reaffirms that his law journal articles proposed that Congress pass legislation shielding a president from criminal investigation while in office. Congress has not passed any such legislation. It follows that if called upon to rule on the validity of process issued to a president while in office as part of a criminal investigation, Judge Kavanaugh would be expected to reject an argument that the president is immune from criminal process while in office.
Why must the NYT describe Democrats' concerns about Kavanaugh's views on Presidential powers as a "strategy" which they hope will "fan fears" that the Supreme Court is becoming an arm of Republicans? It implies that Democrats are not genuinely concerned about our democracy and the neutrality of the courts, or about abortion or health care. I do believe that some of them are worried - and worried they should be. We should ALL be worried.
The point Judge Kavanaugh made in his Minnesota Law Review article, that civil suits “take the president’s focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people,” is a valid one. But his suggestion that, if need be, legal action be brought against president after he leaves office doesn’t make sense. If the legal action proves that he had resorted to illegal means to become president, everything he did in that capacity loses legitimacy. Irreparable damage will have been done to the country, and the world, by an illegitimate president.
That brings us to the present controversy over his nomination to the Supreme Court justiceship and the ongoing Russia investigation that could end up in the court, of which he could be a member. The investigation is into the alleged collusion between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia in the 2016 election.
Mr. Trump is very much concerned that the case could end up in the Supreme Court. Critics of Judge Kavanaugh argue that his earlier opinions holding presidency above the law was a factor in his being picked by Trump as the nominee. They have a point.
The least Mr. Kavanaugh can do to silence them – many more criticisms may arise in the future – is to give a promise that he would recuse himself from any case involving Donald Trump, if and when it comes up before the Supreme Court and he would be deliberating on it.
Whether or not he is going to keep the promise is a matter between him and his conscience.
Are we really worried that Trump could pardon himself from an indictment that may or may not occur? Nope. Are we really worried that Kavanaugh is not qualified or that he is too religious to separate himself from the civil law? Nope. Are we trying to stop any and all actions that Trump may take, be it jurist selection, change in existing laws, etc. ? I find it odd at best that so many are attacking this potential jurist because of presidential 'authority' when the only things that Trump has stopped or tried to stop so far are the Obama executive orders and memos he put in place in the last 6 months of his presidency; without support of Congress or the people. In other words, it's people like Kavanaugh that actually enabled Obama. Is that what we're worried about?
1
Surprise, surprise. Trump has based his nomination on who is most likely to protect him. Trump may be the Chaos President, but he is always consistent when it comes to his priority: himself. He is outrageously selfish.
Do Americans really want a SCOTUS justice who was nominated by a President primarily (solely?) to insulate himself?
2
The contamination of the Supreme Court continues. I can see a time when the Supreme Court will be nothing more than an ideological mouthpiece for the White House, that Supreme Sanctum of Glorious Moral Rectitude and Security.
Judge Kav thinks a president facing charges would do a worse job for the people due to the overwhelming distraction of it all.
bunk!
someone qualified, someone we entrust with running the executive branch, needs to be a person able to deal with multiple absorbing issues at once or is unqualified for office... not to mention the vast and costly staff of experts on the presidential team.
I know the judge wrote about this in 1998,long before Trump's election, but even so, it is unimaginable Trump could do a worse job for the country than he is doing now, no matter what the distraction.
so, on at least two points here, the nominee is not qualified to work as a check or balance on the Court, whike he woukd make a very fine lackey for Mr. Trump, or perhaps a caddy at one of his ritzy resorts. he sinks an old and tired Republican song and does not show the impartiality needed for a Supreme Court justice.
meanwhile, I'm pretty sure he has given Trump his personal loyalty and woukd be sure to let him off the hook if any of Trump's isues landed him before the Court.
next!
1
The whole gist of Kavanaugh's argument is a president under investigation for corruption is going to perform worse in his job.
Anyone swayed by this point should stop and consider one very important question:
Do we really want to enable bad presidents? Remove all checks on performing what THEY consider to be a good job?
Sometimes doing nothing is the best course of action.
In a Democracy (remember, no Kings in a democracy, @GOP) this is OFTEN the case.
You'd think these smart Yale men would be able to grasp this historical fact.
2
I have asked before and will ask again: if a president is caught in the act of committing a capital crime...say, murder with smoking gun...is he or she immune from arrest and prosecution?
Perhaps we should start with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I’m sure DJT wouldn’t mind yet another pick.
Why hasn't Kavanaugh just said that the president of the U.S. is above the law and can do anything he wants since that seems to be his point of view. Dictatorship is on the horizon and Democracy as we know it will sink to the bottom of the sea.
The focus of the opposition to Kavanaugh should be on his apparent belief that POTUS is above the law. Pre-election confirmation could be theTrump administration’s “final solution” and America’s final doomsday. Does anyone still seriously believe that it can’t happen here? At the very least, Kavanaugh should agree to recuse himself on matters related to the current Mueller investigation, but of course he won’t. This is beginning to seem a lot easier but more fraught than Caesar crossing the Rubicon.
There's an old saying: "__it or get off the pot."
Rosenstein just did the Country a HUGE favor by requesting federal prosecutors to help review Kavanaugh's writings and opinions to speed the confirmation process.
Notwithstanding Mueller's snail pace dithering, at this rate will he be done before the 2020 election?
The difference is that Trump is a madman.
1
Kavanaugh's personal massive credit card debt alone should raise huge red flags for being vulnerable to bribes.
1
What about his suddenly, mysteriously paid off personal debt??
2
"“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.”"
That is the thinking of an infant or a sycophant bought and paid for by a political party.
Still means "zero" for Senate Democrats when the votes are ultimately tallied.
Soon Democratic Senators in "red" states hoping for chance of being re-elected will grudgingly issue press releases reaffirming the President's right to select his choice for Kennedy's seat. Most of them will still probably lose but they will have done the only thing they could to give themselves a fighting chance.
And just like the Gorsuch nomination and confirmation, it will be over in a few weeks with Schumer and his leadership team looking as impotent as they truly are. Thanks, Harry, blowing up the process a few years ago is now coming back in spades.
The greater lesson, however, will be to those liberal voters and activists that nominally call themselves members of the Democratic Party that chose to desert Clinton for Gary Johnson & Jill Stein.
They were the ones that put ideological purity over pragmatism and still to this day fail to grasp the concept that you can't govern if you don't win.
When Roe and reproductive rights are "rolled back" - and they most certainly will - the only one's they'll have to look to for this tragedy is themselves.
The reason Trump picked him is the reason he should not be confirmed. We have a constitution that requires everyone to follow the law. Imagine how far a president like Trump will go advancing his criminal behavior when he realizes he is completely immune from prosecution. Mind boggling. Kavanaugh is the wrong man for this job.
Seems this pick of the litter will green light Putin's hand to get his lap dog a pass on Russian efforts to select our President.
The GOP promotes the ability to hijack our country by default when it's there stooge in the seat of power...sad scary and a sell out.
Judge Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed, of that you can be sure and certain. The Liberal's antics and objections are only going to re-highlight that as a political party you are yet again "The Loser". A smarter move for the Democrat Liberals would be to either jump on board or discontinue their vehement objections of this very fine judge. That way you can at least save a little face.
1
Just listening to Kavenaugh’s voice is enough of a turn-off. Yale grad and Washington insider or not, he comes across like one of Trump’s close-minded base.
1
This article needs a discussion by two jurists of opposite views as to whether or not his legal reasoning is valid. Absent that, it is a disservice to the readers.
1
after a carreer of strong opinions and intrgrity Mr. McConnell's LEGACY will be his HYPOCRISY.
he and others who screamed "unfair" from the mountaintops (not Dr. King's for sure) have lost all credibility for precious stances on multiple issues because they are so scared of this "stable" president.
sell outs all.
Next episode.
their bases realizes they too are being used and they'll blow them off just like their so called principles.
1
Yes. Hypocrisy will be McConnell's Legacy.
So fitting.
1
You know, Njglea, the people have spoken, they are sick and tired of giving our nation away to people that appear to hate it. While meanwhile, our veterans are not being taken care of as they were promised, the homeless problem is growing exponentially, and most of the rest of the world seems to use us as an ATM, while stating that they hate us, they hate our country, they hate what we stand for, they hate the President. Pretty much everything about us, except they really like our money.
A lot of what Trump does I feel is ridiculous. The grandstanding, showboating, appearing-to-be from Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, doing wheelies down the front straight before the finish line (some of you will get that) isn't particularly Presidential acting. But this past year, I received the largest Christmas bonus of my life and this current year, in June, we received a bonus that was double our Christmas bonus of last year, if we can keep that up, I won't gripe about the economy at all. And the owner of the company said we can thank Donald Trump for that (my wife and I both work in the Defense Industry, for the same company).
We'll see what happens. I'm not a Republican, some of their platform is stupid, and when they went after Obama care 48 times, that was particularly stupid. But fixing the border, stopping illegal immigration, getting rid if the illegals, that's what got him elected, I'll back him on that. Sucking up to religions, nope, can't allow that .
So, Kavanaugh thinks a president committing crimes should not be bothered with criminal investigations. Sounds like someone who wants a dictator to be in charge.
No Thanks. Dump this idiot.
2
Article 2 Guy setting up for Knee Cap Bash to Mueller---------Let's Call this What it is
I always took as an article of faith that when Nixon famously said "If a president does it, that means that it's not illegal", he was flat out wrong.
Maybe he was right, and it looks like we are finally going to find out for sure one way or another.
Is this country a monarchy or not?
I demand to know.
This is an odd battle for Democrats to choose. As for indicting a president, the DOJ has long agreed (i.e., well before Trump) that it is not proper, largely because of the potential misuse/abuse. The 2009 law review article suggested that legislation from Congress may be appropriate to temporarily shield a president from litigation while in office. That necessarily implies he doesn't believe a Constitutional proscription exists--why propose legislation if the Constitution already provides that relief? I understand that Democrats are preaching to their base to solidify support and enthusiasm for the midterms. Trump often makes wildly inaccurate statements to energize his base as well. It is disingenuous, however, to suggest that Kavanaugh's writings point to disqualification.
1
I'm not sure this tact would be the most honest approach to critiquing Kavanaugh. What really riles Dems is his extremist Republican partisanship before becoming a judge, determining his rulings as a judge. It would be supremely honest to oppose him on grounds that, in the current climate where SCOTUS judges are almost reliably identifiable as conservative or liberal, that he's incapable of being nonpartisan , or that he's off-the-rails in conforming to an ideology. Surely Dems can make the case that his decade-plus on the bench reflects such partisanship. They haven't yet, to my hearing.
Such a rule--that anyone who's an extremist on either end of the political spectrum is unfit for a high court nomination or approval--might be one that encourages lawmakers and law-interpreters to be less partisan, less conforming to ideology.
Shielding presidents is precisely why he is a nominee. And his function is not only to protect the current white house, but to extend a jurisprudential umbrella over all prior living presidents, especially Bush (to whom he owes his loyalty). His priorities were signaled loud and clear at the White House press announcement where he swore an effective pledge to shield the September 2001 team and the Global War on Terror program. The judge is a hand-picked and maneuvered GOP asset who took a blood oath to his benefactors (good and loyal Yale man that he is). This only further underscores why Supreme Court judges must be under strict term limits (to terminate extended and de facto prior-presidential influence and control), and moreover, why Yale, fine institution it is otherwise, needs to be de-leveraged from the insider ruling class, itself a liability.
Mr. Strzok is currently being grilled about his personal opinions influencing his professional role and actions. The thrust of the GOP questioning is that it is impossible to separate one from the other.
Yet, with at least ten-to-twenty years of published "opinions" none of that will be considered by the SAME GOP that is holding Mr. Strzok to a different standard and not expecting us to believe it is only true for a Democrat, but not for a Republican.
Facts speak louder than words!
1
Each time the Democrats nominate a Clinton for the presidency, the Democrats are counting on Brett Kavanaugh's view of investigations of sitting presidents. Kavanaugh's views were the arguments adopted by Democrats when Bill Clinton was President, and is precisely the view they would adopt if Hillary was elected.
Why is it that poor people are told to accept responsibility for their actions...and if they do the crime...they do the time; while people of wealth and power appear to be excluded from those admonishments? They hire a string of lawyers who get them off the hook. We have inequality of justice under the law. One set of interpretation for the powerless, another set for the powerful. Blind justice, equality under the laws are just sweet ideals, not meant to be taken seriously by the hoi polloi.
Judge Kavanagh's opinion is that civil suits and criminal investigations are a burdensome distraction for a president: “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 clarify what he really means. Judicial proceedings against a sitting president is a distraction that should not be legally allowed ONLY IF HE IS A REPUBLICAN. If the president is a DEMOCRAT, then of course it is okay to subject him to legal process, including all manner of investigations, criminal and civil liability, and of course, impeachment.
If Kavanaugh is concerned about the president's time to do the job, he should consider the relative importance of a golf game and important legal concerns.
Trump's time would be better spent answering questions concerning Russia's involvement in the election than perfecting his golf game.
I was listening to your Daily show yesterday when I overheard the points Kavanaugh had made regarding Presidential authority and protection from "distraction" while president.
Kavanaugh's ideas were little more than a rubber stamp for the republicans.
The main point was that Clinton was so distracted by republican investigations into his sex life that he could have prevented Bin Laden from hitting the US if he hadn't been. Only Bin Laden didn't cause catastrophic loss and damage during Clinton's term, Bin Laden caused that during Bush's term.
Was Clinton distracted? Probably, but Clinton tried to take out Bin Laden and he got chastised by republicans for doing so while Bush failed at everything he attempted except for tax cuts for the rich.
Bush could not have accomplished tax cuts for the rich without republican support.
And as we all know Bush was warned by the Clinton's to watch out for Bin Laden's attacks.
Kavanaugh will give Trump whatever he wants for any reason. That's what republicans have done and the losses to average US citizens have nothing to do with what rights and privileges we have or will lose, but what the extreme rich and the religious zealots will want and vote for.
If Kavanaugh is the best republicans can offer then the Supreme Court will have to be remade by Democrats a la FDR when there's a turn over in govt. Republicans have given us the precedent to do whatever is needed to restore worker's rights and the middle class. Thanks, Mitch.
Writing from the other side of the Atlantic, this man's views appear perilously close to the main issue over which we fought our Civil War: is the King above the law or not?
The editors and neo Marxist and hate everyone but their tribe Zionist writers stable of the NY Times should reconsider their present cheerful position on never-ending investigations of sitting presidents. Because unless this media inspired Inquisition for cheap-fill, this media CEO conspiracy to become America's dictator oligarchy is stopped the next Democrat president and everyone in his/her family, administration and political party is going to be investigated down to the atomic level! Every girl or boyfriend, classmate, team mate, co-worker, former and current employee is going to be sought out and offered cash and celebrity for rape or harassment, drug use or "intolerant statement" et al accusations. And logically who is next are hacks like Stolberg and the rest of the high up name recognizable media punditry. So Sheryl you'd better pray that everyone in your extended family and circle of friends is as pure as the driven snow morally and legally ... have paid all their taxes, not offshored their company's work to be done by no rights 3rd world slaves, is not hiring illegal immigrant nannies/cleaners and paying them a few bucks an hour under the table, sending their kids to private schools while 'welcoming' the same illegals who have no discipline uninspiring 3d grade equivalent parents into public schools. And better hope the male members of your tribe are not using teenage trafficked illegal immigrant prostitutes, because ultimately everything is discoverable.
I do not share many, perhaps most, of Judge Kavanaugh's views, and I shudder at the thought of the Court shifting further in the direction it has been going for the past 30+ years. But in fairness to Judge Kavanaugh, the members of the Judiciary Committee the difference between Judge Kavanaugh's judicial views and his views when acting as an advocate.
Lawyers often--and honorably--argue views of which they may disapprove. Our job is to represent our clients, not to be judges. To do that with appropriate attention and energy requires us to advance whatever non-frivolous arguments there are that support the client's position. Lawyers who cannot do that for a particular client should not represent that client; that is part of our ethical obligation.
Arguments for our clients do not necessarily represent our own opinions. We should remember that John Adams, whose zeal and patriotism have never been questions, represented the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. It was not that he favored the British killing colonists; it was his understanding and respect for how the law works and must work.
When Judge Kavanaugh worked with Kenneth Starr, he was representing a client, and his statements in that context may not be an accurate indication of what he thinks as a judge or would think if on the Supreme Court. What he has said as a judge, on the other hand, is fair game.
The point should at least be made that a self-respecting jurist would not accept a Trump appointment. For the rest of their lives they would carry the stigma of having been a Trump appointee. Long term, that could be a major liability for people who no doubt see themselves in the lenses of history. Of course, there remains the question of whether Trumpian Republicans can any longer be seen as self-respecting.
When WE THE PEOPLE take back OUR U.S. government this November and elect a Socially Conscious President to manage OUR country in 2020 we must DEMAND that OUR U.S. Supreme Court be increased by two or three justices and be packed with Socially Conscious Progressive/Liberal justices. Women.
WE must demand that the elected officials WE put in office protect OUR human/civil rights. No excuses. No trying to "work with" democracy-destroyers. WE want people with the passion and courage to preserve/restore true democracy in OUR United States of America - social and financial equity for ALL citizens.
9
So Trump has 2.5 years (or possibly 6.5 years) to pack the court. Be careful what you wish for.
njglea,
When you do “pigs will fly”!
If this board is any indication of what Democrats and other Trump opponents have on Kavanaugh, they have exactly nothing. But keep grasping at straws, folks.
The reality is that Kavanaugh is a decent and honorable man who will make a fine SCOTUS jurist no matter what your apocalyptic visions tells you.
With him on the SCOTUS, the Constitution and your civil liberties are secure. Well, at least until the Democrats get power again and lock themselves in power by creating more seats to pack the court.
4
It's not a democrat/republican issue; it's an issue of treason, corruption and allowing the president to get away with crimes against this country. Our democratic republic should mean to more than a couple of hundred grifters in office. Kavanaugh seems to think Trump is above the law because he is too busy and important to attend a questioning or trial. He says impeachment is the only recourse, but with a bunch of power hungry congressmen refusing to impeach him for his crimes, what then? King for life? Kavanaugh has a reputation for bowing down to political pressure and is not fit to be a judge in any court. He lied under oath in his last confirmation hearing and showed no remorse. He will lie again...and again...and again. We need people of impeccable integrity in the highest court in our land, not political windbags. We should all hold these justices to the highest standards and stop politicizing justice. Without integrity in the court, there can be no justice nor democracy. Is that the kind of country you want for your kids?
5
This is why trump picked him. Regardless, the McConnell Rule should be followed, and taken to court if necessary. After the coming election. Obama, treated imperially, not by Congress. I didn’t forget that “catcalling “ while President Obama addressed Congress, have you??
3
The judge wrote that POTUS should not face criminal charges while in office because he is tooooo busy.
2 questions:
1) What about statutes of limitations?
2) What about civil cases? For example, just suppose a First Lady learned her husband had been unfaithful or if he was abusive? Could she sue for divorce, custody, child support, and depending on circumstances, perhaps even to annual a prenuptial agreement?
6
This is why trump picked him. Regardless, the McConnell Rule should be followed, and taken to court if necessary. After the coming election.
5
Speaking of civil rights and oppressors, somehow you missed the part about how Democrat icon FDR put Japanese-Americans in internment camps for no other reason than their ethnicity.
6
You do realize that that happened over 70 years ago? And that it has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening today? And that we were in a world war at the time, which we are not experiencing today? And that this column is all about Kavanaugh, not FDR?
Yes, was that 70? years ago. Let's focus on now.
A shameful chapter in our nation's history that is almost as bad as what Trump and co. have done to children recently.
What in heck does that have to do with this news story?
It's a sad day for America when our Supreme Court is chosen on the basis of power politics.
7
FDR was far from flawless. His failure to get Truman briefed on the Manhattan projects as his blood pressure rose to fatality was a failure that has no rational explanation.
When has it ever been different?
If the Senate does not see fit to push back at President Trump's blatant attempt to undermine the separation of powers on which our government is based, then they will have disgraced themselves and the Constitution. He is no better than FDR with his court-packing scheme, but at least then, FDR was turned back by a legislative branch that took its duties seriously.
1
Democrats should hone in on Kavanaugh's problems with the truth; lying to the Judiciary Committee about his relationship with torture in the Bush White house; being a leaker of grand jury proceedings regarding Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky; and his relationship with Justice Kozinski.
2
Regardless of how Judge Kavanaugh might decide on any of these topics as a member of SCOTUS, anyone who believes that Mr. Trump did not take note of these writings and opinions when choosing his nominee is kidding themselves.
13
I hope the Senate doesn't overlook Kavanaugh's stated position advocating a greater consolidation of power in the executive branch (in addition to his feelings on lawsuits against sitting presidents). Any member of Congress - Democrat or Republican - with even half an understanding of separation of powers should recoil at the notion that the Executive branch deserves more power.
5
If you had referred to Jewish members of the SCOTUS in similarly derogatory ways, I doubt your post would be considered civil.
3
Senator Schumer: Try reading the U.S. Constitution and you might discover that Congress is the primary check and balance against the President. You have many powers if you and your colleagues could only summon enough courage to use them. For example, only Congress has the power to declare war. If you want to rein in the interminable GWOT, insist that the President obtain a declaration of war from Congress is he wants to continue it. If he refuses, use the power of the purse strings to shut down funding for the undeclared, extra-constitutional war. It's a dereliction of your congressional duties to pretend that the legislative branch is not, at the very least, co-equal with the executive branch. In fact, it's pretty clear the framers intended Congress to be first, the President second, and the Supreme Court a fairly distant third in terms of power.
5
The most powerful branch is SCOTUS, as the founders well knew. That’s why the appointments of federal judges are for life.
2
Please enumerate these vast powers. The Supreme Court can rule however they choose, but what force do they have to back up their rulings? Also, I might be convinced had you offered a quotation from Madison or Mason, but alas, all you have is a non sequitur about lifetime appointments. Specifically, why would the framers give the greatest power to people with lifetime appointments? Sounds a lot like a hereditary monarch, which they had just fought a revolutionary war to get free from.
It is not debatable as to whether the Constitution allows for the indictment of a sitting president. It says nothing about it. Consequently, when there is no language stating one way or the other as to the course of action which should be taken, then there is no debate, as all standing law would take precedence over the silence of the Constitution. Donald Trump can be indicted, and this would clearly fit into the category of high crimes and misdemeanors which allow for impeachment under the Constitution.
6
Brett Kavanaugh purchased $60,000 to $200,000 in baseball tickets, and in so doing exhausted his savings, and we're questioning his views of presidential power? For a man who has long known that he was on track to be considered for an appointment to the Supreme Court to have been so reckless demonstrates Judge Kavanaugh has serious judgment issues, that may allow him to be financially compromised in the future. How was this not disqualifying?
6
Maybe he just loves baseball
It is horrifying that the future of the US will be in the hands of the smirking bigot the picture shows. But if Democrats, especially women, who will be the first ones to lose their rights, had gone out and voted in 2016, this wouldn't be happening. If gays and lesbians, who will be next to lose their rights, had all voted, this wouldn't be happening. In the end, your the People have the government you deserve.
3
During his acceptance speech Monday evening, Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh injected a bit of wanton self-praise for coaching his elder daughter's basketball team.
That's neat, judge.
So do us all a favor: Spare us from having to tolerate you on the Court. Instead, devote the rest of your career to coaching basketball.
It will prove a happy decision for your daughter ... and a Merciful one for all the rest of us.
8
Without checks there are no balances, executive power included. No one is above the law, not even a president — who remains our highest public servant, not a monarch. Kavenaugh's previously expressed views that criminal investigations of a president are a "burdensome distraction" and that Congress adopt legislation stating a president "is not subject to indictment or information" while serving as president are a tremendous red flag. Allowing a president the potential to behave criminally without worry of indictment (while president) is outlandish and unacceptable — hardly what our founders had in mind when defining the separation of powers. It's painfully obvious why Trump nominated him. Fight this nomination.
7
Our president has repeatedly expressed admiration for dictators known for murdering citizens of their country. He has suggested that he himself is not only above the law -- he is the law.
If the president is deemed to not be subject to criminal process or investigation of criminal actions, we will cease to be a constitutional democracy. I recognize that in many circumstances a president should not be distracted by civil lawsuits that could be pursued after he or she leaves the presidency. But the threat of quashing criminal investigations such as Mueller's probe is grave.
Judge Kavanaugh's fawning display when he was on the podium Trump at the announcement of his nomination signals the danger. His injudicious behavior reflected intended subservience to the president. Given an inch, Trump will take miles.
If the check of the courts and criminal law is blocked, what will prevent a narcissist president from becoming a ruthless murderer? What will preserve the democracy for which so many Americans fought and died during World War II?
5
It's interesting to me that Kavanaugh had no problem investigating Bill Clinton when he worked for Ken Starr. So, is he truly against a President being investigated, or is it only when a Republican is in the chair?
12
Trump absolutely picked Kavanaugh to protect himself. It is always about Trump first. Trump will always decide in favor of himself. Look at all his actions; it is always trump first. Money and power motivates Trump. GOP always falls in line with Trump. Vote out GOP for any chance of saving Democracy in America.
9
This is a man that can allow the criminal Trump to stage a coup de tete with the backing of the court. He must NOT be confirmed. Hitler was legally elected ONCE in 1933. Remember that.
4
With the record of past democratic presidents and their candidates democrats should be giving Kavanaugh their 100% support.
How can it be acceptable for someone to be above the law?
10
This is a good line of attack. R's largely applaud restrictions of bodily rights of women so that is useless, they hate the environment so that is useless, they are fine with dark money so that is useless... but they do profess to not wanting a king so this may be the only way to sway a couple of them. Keep at it Dems!
3
The Democratic Leadership is about to build its own Wall (better yet, Barricade), and it will stand firmly against Kavanaugh.
4
Clearly this guy is qualified. The democrats are walking a fine line...appeasing their radical base...without pissing off independents who realize this guy is qualified to serve on the SCOTUS. He has a leg up on one of Obama's appointees...he is a judge.
4
Sure Kavanaugh is qualified...to serve Trump. He is not qualified to serve America.
6
And your reply is an example of the far left radicals...and what ultimately hurts democrats by turning off normal Americans.
What is hilarious is that his defense was of President Clinton of all people!!
2
Would his religion be considered as a factor by Democrats if he was a Muslim?
2
If he sought to insert his religion into public policy then yes, absolutely. Thanks for asking.
If the entire court were disproportionately staffed by Muslims, yes.
Are you saying that abortion is a religious issue? If so, there should be no laws against it, right? We have a separation of Church and State here.
Kavanaugh no longer matters. An Alfa Bank Putin cronie has just been installed as head of our DOJ Criminal Investigation dept. Game over. trump and the GOP have entirely corrupted and destroyed our Democracy. Wake from 4 to 6. Funeral tomorrow at 8 a.m.
3
I only want to know two things:
Did the president mention "loyalty" or Mueller to Judge Kavanaugh?
Did the president influence Justice Kennedy when he referred to the judge's son at Deutsche Bank?
4
Everyone that votes against the Republicans and Trump in 2018 and 2020 will do so knowing that they are not blindly following their leader's destructive path like the Germans in the 1930s.
6
When we ask how everything came to be seen through a partisan lens, this NYT article should be used an example of how the media created this environment. Instead of reporting what is actually happening and why people should be concerned that a president who is under investigation has nominated a justice for the Supreme Court who has written opinions about president's under investigation, the NYT writes that democrats see it as a "bright red ribbon". Maybe democrats are trying to protect the American people and democracy itself. Just maybe. But continue this cynical, horse race type of reporting, NYT. This is exactly what has created the environment we are currently in. This is the NYT style contribution. At least FOX news is more transparent about it.
4
A dangerous man...they always worry about spies who can be perverted because of sexual proclivity, etc., and then would choose a Judge who is hugely in debt for rather spurious reasons in my opinion. To me supporting such excessive presidential power without curtailment after our history is a dangerous direction to be avoided at all costs.
3
Of course Trump wants a justice who will assure him a get out of jail free card for his multiple crimes and treacheries, his cowardly bullying, his lies, his treachery.
Of course Republicans want a Supreme Court that will continue to give more power and wealth to powerful kleptocrats, while preenting as many of "those people" as possible from voting.
For-profit prisons with quotas and the school to prison pipeline (if black kids are bratty, to jail with 'em, ruin their lives and prevent them ever being able to vote). If they're killed, that's even better. Deporting them is good. Helping them die or become disabled, those can't vote either. And if they survive, then there's voter suppression and courts to favor landlords and punitive fines for the poor,
Criminalizing poverty, that's the ticket. Way to keep Republicans in power across the land, while they rule as a one-party system over the majority who got the minority in office.
49 senators? who cares. They can't vote.
Merrick Garland? Who's he. That was different.
10
Sorry, I meant Democratic Senators and other elected representatives' votes don't count, not they can't vote.
Your witness, for example: Nunes and Fox's kitchen cabinet.
3
Riiight. Just give them what they want. They already have all the power, and they want more. They already have most of the money and they. want more. Let's get rid of the final check and balance and tell Trump he can commit any crime.
Meanwhile, he'll pardon who he wants to.
The majority be damned!
They really don't care. Do U?
"For-profit prisons with quotas"
Brought to you by the Clintons.
If "a broad swath of voters worried about access to health care and abortion" actually exists, which I see as unlikely, maybe next time they'll be more responsible, rather than completely careless, when they vote. However, based on 2016 election results, as well as voters' repeated polling declarations that this "nation has been headed in the wrong direction," I'm not holding out much hope at all.
1
If it weren’t this it would be something else. Bret Stephens has it right: just confirm the guy – pull the bandage off with one yank and get it over with. The bandage is coming off whether you like it or not.
Nobody can seriously predict how a justice will rule who hasn’t yet compiled a record, and not on an appeals court where s(he)’s bound by Supreme Court precedent, but AS a U.S. Supreme Court associate justice. Beyond that, the most contentious issues on which he likely will rule are very complex, and you never know how they’ll turn out. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg is on record that in 1973 the issue of abortion was not yet “ripe”, and that she might not have joined the opinion that gave us Roe v. Wade had she been sitting then. It’s hardly likely that she’d vote to reverse it TODAY, but her measured response gives a sense of how unknowable these things are.
Same for presidential power. When has the Court NOT respected presidential power -- and congressional power for that matter, as well – unless the cause for curbing it was overwhelmingly evident? Such as Nixon’s departures and Obama’s arrogation of congressional power to impose environmental regulatory diktats that went far beyond clear congressional intent?
This news analysis piece positively drools at the thought that Democrats may have a new arrow in quivers they left back at camp that aren’t actually strapped to their backs. For Kavanaugh to be damaged by their questioning on ANY topic would require …
1
… his complete meltdown during the hearings. The chance of that happening is none-to-laughable.
Just confirm the guy. And this would be a good time for Democrats to approach Trump to set up a quid pro quo for their support of an eminently qualified jurist.
Unfortunately, the chance of such a politically intelligent move from Schumer’s crew ALSO is none-to-laughable. Pity.
1
Riiight. Just give them what they want. They already have all the power, and they want more. They already have most of the money and they. want more. Let's get rid of the final check and balance and tell Trump he can commit any crime.
Meanwhile, he'll pardon who he wants to.
The majority be damned!
They really don't care. Do U?
3
Susan:
It's not in your power to deny confirmation of Kavanaugh as it might have been with Amy Coney Barret.
So waste your time, and perhaps more relevant to November, be SEEN wasting your time (and everyone else's). I mean, this bootless "resistance" obviously is more important than actually moderating the excessively rightward nature of congressional legislation -- which you cannot affect by frontal assaults, but by trading favors.
The Democrats deciding to contend Kavanaugh's stand on Presidential Power, is a clear indicator that the Democrats have decided that there is NOTHING to contend.
The decision is also a clear indication that the Democrats have absolutely no leadership, no direction, and no goals, other than to be contentious.
5
if a president is guilty of crime or other misdeeds they should be subject to the same judicial proceedings as the rest of us. Our leaders should be held to a high standard. to think otherwise makes NO sense
11
This is a Constitutional crisis developing. My concern about the nominee's elevation to the Supreme Court centers on the outcome in general terms. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, there will exist, a super monopoly power Republican government led by a militant Trump inclined to dictatorship. Given that circumstance, he will become a dictator with Carte Blanche rubber stamp approval of all he desires from the compliant complicit Congress and a right leaning Supreme Court.
Democrats fear that the Supreme Court will decide whether a President can be called to testify, but I view this developing Republican strategy as far more sinister in that this may be an attempt to place a friendly Justice on the court to decide favorably in Trump's favor if Trump were to fire investigators to stop the investigations entirely.
An even bigger dilemma will exist in which there are no remaining checks and balances in the federal government between any of the branches. We will have a super monopoly single party government that operates independent of the needs and desires of fully half the nation represented by the Democrats. The founders did not intend such a powerful reality.
It seems the Republicans want smaller Government, but they also desire absolute control. That is a conflict.
4
Obstructing Justice is Unconstitutional, therefore the court must have a full bench of judicial leaders. Congress must not obstruct justice for political or personal reasons. Furthermore Trump's is legitimate despite personal and or political reasoning. Government must operate with limited and controlled emotion or democrats create further chaos into a well defined system of governance.
Will the real Democrats please stand up and fight this. When the going gets tough the tough get going.
7
That Kavanaugh is far out of step with the majority of American opinion, as well as perhaps the most politically active nominee to the court in decades should lead to one of two things in the near-term: either we have a constitutional amendment to reform the Supreme Court, eliminating life-time tenure and removing it from Presidential fiat, or we have a revolution. Increasingly, the high court is called to activism by special interests seeking to re-legislate anything they do not like. That was not the purpose envisioned by the Founders for the court, and it cannot be allowed.
5
Were I a member of the Senate and cared about the rule of law, a woman's right to choose, or that persons be permitted to love whoever they choose, I could not, in good conscience, support any nominee to the court made by Mr. Trump.
9
A president under criminal investigation should NOT be allowed to nominate a new Supreme Court appointment (one which is blatantly to circumvent forthcoming indictments), period.
The only possible way to be fair about this, given the GOP blocked Obama from rightfully appointing one during his own term, is to wait until after the midterms.
6
Hillary the only candidate on the planet that could lose to the worst candidate in history. She and the DNC is to blame for Trump. Along with the people still crying about Bernie and Jill Stein.
You do know that more Democrats voted for trump than stayed home and voted 3rd party put together right?
1
I always look for the weakest link in any chain of reasoning. To me, this entire farce lives on misinterpretation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which denies Congress the power to make any article of faith into a law for everyone. The Congress plainly does not even understand that the US Constitution protects the entire universe of powers reserved by the people by limiting the powers of the majority that can be expressed through Congress.
1
As per the commenters, the only strategy left for saving the country resembles the German retreat after Stalingrad, a slow painful realization that the war is over. The Republicans, (rich people) won majorities in the entire government after Obama left office and because of that, they are still winning. They will continue winning for at least two and half more years. So much winning, and yes, I'm tired of it. I also love how commenters blame Bernie Sanders for the Hillary defeat. Yes, Trump, lying his head off, stole many of his ideas, but the true revelation was how vulnerable she was. The DNC had to cheat her into the general election. My solution for the next Democrat President, (since the next President may well be Pence), is to simply increase the size of the Supreme Court to an even hundred. I want Roberts, Thomas, and Alito to really know what it's like to have a vote worth 1%. If McConnell wanted to make a joke out of the court,(and at the same time emasculate Obama), then let's make it the joke it is.
3
If the issue arose, Kavanaugh would rule presidents have no immunity to civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution. In his Minnesota Law Review article, Kavanaugh agreed presidents have no constitutional immunity to civil lawsuits or criminal investigations and prosecutions, but said he thins Congress should grant them immunity. He pointed out this would not place presidents above the law: “One might raise at least two important critiques of these ideas. The first is that no one is above the law in our system of government. I strongly agree with that principle. But it is not ultimately a persuasive criticism of these suggestions. The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office. A second possible concern is that the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the Constitution already provides that check. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available. No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress. Moreover, an impeached and removed President is still subject to criminal prosecution afterwards.”
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads
1
The problem with Kavanaugh is that he has bad judgement and has bounced from going all in on
the Clinton indictment, which was an obvious partisan mistake, to the idea that a sitting president can't be supoenaed or indicted. This is going from one extreme to another, neither of which is sensible.
4
The combination of a) Judge Kavanaugh's debt suddenly disappearing and b) Justice Kennedy's son's relationship with Trump is concerning.
9
I'm an atheist. America supposedly separates church from state. How can this be so, if America appoints openly religious supreme court judges?
10
There is no Constitutional language that asserts "separation of church and state". The reality, which has yet to be firmly established, is that the "establishment clause" of the first amendment bars Congress from enacting any legislation that treats any belief held without possibility of substantiation as a fact relevant to the public at large. The only other mention of religion is the bar to religious tests for public offices in the body of the document.
2
That's a misrepresentation of the establishment clause.
1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So government imposing laws on people that require them to act in accordance with dogma of a religious institution, e.g. the Catholic Church, would seem to be prohibited.
Kavanaugh's 1999 MLR article is clear to me. He thinks a President *should* be shielded from indictment while in office (a qualifier that he admits to) and that Congress *should* pass a law making it so. In other words, that immunity does not exist until Congress acts (it hasn't). And he came to that conclusion after reconsidering his earlier stance: i.e. it is a mature reflection.
But that doesn't matter. Like his Republican predecessors, he will vote the party line and make up a Constitutional argument post facto.
The funniest part of the whole discussion is that he bases his argument on the danger of distraction for a 24/7 President making crucial decisions "who can barely make time for exercise and social engagements" (paraphrase). This, on behalf of the laziest man in Washington.
17
I want to know much more about the alleged "deal" between Trump and Kennedy and the stipulation that Kavanaugh must be Kennedy's replacement. Was Kavanaugh aware of the "deal"? If so, when did he become aware of it? Who else was aware of the deal? Was there a quid pro quo discussed or implied?
18
Yet ANOTHER catholic for the Supreme Court??? Sorry. I believe in religious toleration...but this has finally gone too far. Talk about stacking the court!! If there ever was a "state religion"....its Roman Catholicism....ROME a state....Catholic...a religion. DO I hafta connect ALL the dots for you people? The main reason for the "true conservative values" cynical ruse pulled off by that horrible man, George W Bush....is Roman Catholicism and its hijacking of the so-called "silent majority"......thanks Falwell,,,(dufus). Evangelicalism has been all Catholic, ever since the days of burning protestants at the stake all over Europe!! NO. NO Kavanaugh. He's got three strikes.....DC Insider Elitist, Bush Minion....and....sadly.....mind controlled catholic freak of nature.
6
Serious readers, and Dem leaders, would do well to read Gordon Wood's book, Friends Divided, which nicely recaps the constitutional debates of Jefferson v Adams on the executive powers and political context. Obviously there are direct readings as well, but this historical work puts the Kavanaugh issue into proper context.
As for amending the constitution to provide for election of judges, that's a pipe dream. The GOP has mastered this game, and it would take a Roosevelt landslide for Dems to get the votes in Congress let alone take over enough state legislatures -- in which case they would be the last ones to give up the power of appointment. It doesn't take a game theory genius to figure that one out.
4
This is another wild goose chase by democrats. Kavanaugh didn't say a president shouldn't be impeached.
5
The march with Tiki torches and AR-15s in Charlottesville should have been a wake up call to smug pets of plutocrats like Kavanaugh that a Krystallnacht can definitely happen here. The whole US Congress appears to live in fear of the unregulated militia it has afflicted on the whole nation.
7
Yes, it is now crystal clear why DJT has chosen Kavanaugh as his choice to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court: because Kavanaugh believes in the inviolability and supremacy of the office of the president.
...Imagine that, Donald J. Trump, chosen by Russia to be our next president by way of their deliberate interference in our electoral process, deeply appreciates the beliefs and opinions of his Supreme Court nominee. That is to say, his nominee who gives the office of the president unlimited power to do as he (or she) pleases -- an infallibility insofar as the President should not be subject to the same rules and laws that apply to us all...that he is a deity of sorts (LOL)...Oh my, is this guy for real?!
IMHO, we should've done the presidential election over again once it was definitively determined that Russia did indeed play a pivotal role in planting THEIR choice in our Oval Office.
Trump is truly an illegitimate president if there ever was one, given the fraudulent nature of that election. He is nothing more than a Russian plant, a troll who has a lifelong history of lying to achieve his ends. He simply can't be trusted. He's a total fraud.
This particular presidency will go down in U.S. history as the absolute worst. His pathological tendency to lie about his thoughts, actions, and deeds....His peculiar deference to Putin and respect for all dictators around the world should also be of major concern to us all. These are very strange times. Impeach Trump!
25
This much seems clear:
-- Trump is indebted to Putin (blackmail re the treason, financial and other criminal activities on Trump, Kushner and family)
-- Putin got Trump elected
-- Trump is scared the truth will be discovered (and probably also of poison)
-- Trump wants to be dictator of America for life, after which Ivanka or Jared (his family) inherits
How does this relate to Kavanaugh? Let's look at what Kavanaugh believes:
1. a sitting president should not have to answer questions in a criminal case, much less face indictment.
2. a sitting president should not have to face civil suits and criminal investigations.
Kavanaugh all but assures Trump's (Putin's) hostile takeover of America.
Putin clearly loves watching the world turn under his control. McConnell clearly enjoys watching America being destroyed. Trump is a narcissistic fool who clearly loves the attention.
But I can't understand the others. Does Kavanaugh have children? I'm wondering why these people want their children growing up in a fascist state ruled by a dictator. If these people feel they are above the fray and safe simply because they are loyal to Trump, think again. A dictator always turns on those closest to him, even his own family.
15
The really sick joke here is that the least qualified president in the history of our nation gets to decide the makeup of the Supreme Court for generations to come.
14
Freedom from religion is the most urgent need in the US and, there isn't a single mouse stepping up to bell the senile cat of it.
6
Trump spends 1/4 of his time golfing on our dime. He could just take this time to deal with indictments, charges, preparing records.......(we all know he really doesn't prepare much for anything.) If any president has all the time he needs to fight charges of law-breaking.....Trump does.
13
Has Trump been accused of a crime? Nope.
Is there any evidence? Nope.
A pathetic straw=man argument by liberals.
6
not yet George, not yet. He certainly Its like a guilty man
1
It should be no surprise that Trump and his band of thugs are planning to put a judge in place who will shield him from a near-certain criminal investigation. This administration is a criminal mob and our government has been reduced to nothing less than an organized crime ring.
Much darker days are coming if Kavanough's nomination (and any nomination by this administration) is not blocked. Democrats still seem to be struggling with how to attack this in a powerful way. They need to resonate with the 67% of non-Trumpf supporters but we have Schumer and Pelosi who are past their fighting years and cannot seem to find their footing.
We need 100% voter turnout in November AND in 2020 to stop this takeover of our nation. And in between the elections, we need to never tire of resisting.
For anyone who is curious what Germany looked like as Hitler amassed power, you are witnessing it now. Let us not witness what happened in Germany and Europe afterwards.
10
Flat-out unfit and wrong for a SCOTUS seat. Send this conservative trash packing. 3/4 of the nation do not share his views or his dogmatic judgement.
3
Kavanaugh perjured himself. For normal times and normal people an automatic disqualifier.
http://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/lying-oath-brett-kavanaugh-supreme/...
4
Chuck Schumer is the Democrat from Wall Street, Tel Aviv and the military /prison-industrial complexes who did not protect and push Merrick Garland.
Ever since sinking Robert Bork Democrats have been a big zero in opposing Repugnant Party SCOTUS nominations. Clarence Thomas was not even the most qualified black Republican Party conservative. While his despicable depraved history of sexual harassment was excused by Thomas playing the lynching card on a black woman.
6
Maybe it is time changes be made in the constitution and how a Supreme Court Judge is nominated. The system is flawed when we have a two party political system and Presidents of each respective party gets to select one individual in favor of the party’s agendas, whether to the right or left. We already have division in politics, that division transcends to the highest court and never the twain shall meet
The selection process should be filtered and approved on a bi-partisan basis through congress which needs to include multiple candidates. When confirmation hearings are completed, have a special election for Supreme Court justice and put the selections to a vote by the American people. While we’re at it, get rid of the lifetime tenure as well and develop term limits. We have Presidents that can serve up to 2 terms and that’s it yet their Supreme Court Justices have lifetime tenure if confirmed…..so much for the checks and balances.
5
Here's the first question about presidential power that needs to be posed to Kavanaugh at his hearing rather than focusing on Trump’s financial dealings or the Russia investigation.
“Mr. Kavanaugh, do you promise/pledge, here at your nomination hearing, to recuse yourself from any case which comes before the Supreme Court while you are a member which challenges on constitutional grounds the legality of a full presidential pardon of himself by himself for any or all previous criminal deeds?”
I believe this question rather than one about cases involving financial dealings or subpoenas can best galvanize the public if Kavanaugh refuses to recuse himself on it.. Many citizens (a Times article yesterday suggested 85%) would see voting for confirmation in the face of such a refusal to recuse to be an abandonment of support for the Rule of Law and Constitutional government and be sufficient reason to oppose his sitting Senator in any future election.
The rationale for focusing on this particular issue for recusal is that a Presidential pardon of himself will put into stark relief obvious evidence of the President’s subversion of the Rule of Law and the Constitution, if not his guilt. All but the know-nothings will immediately understand the danger a Supreme Court decision in favor of the President pardoning himself would pose.
If he agrees to recuse himself on this case, go on to the other demands to prolong the fight past the elections.
1
I always look for the weakest link in any chain of reasoning. To me, this entire farce lives on misinterpretation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which denies Congress the power to make any article of faith into a law for everyone.
1
The supreme court should have term limits, and individual justices should be impeached if they are deemed to be biased or unable to perform their duties do to ill health.
3
How many Republicans voted for Gorsuch?
The Republican Party refused to give Obama's nominee a vote. Democrats that vote for a Republican nominee are rewarding Republicans for their base behavior.
Democrats that vote with Republicans are worse than Republicans because they give Republicans "bipartisan" cover for bad legislation and bad nominees.
It is time to win this way for the soul of America, not compromise with the "greater evil."
4
Looking back at Kavanaugh's writings, he objected to much of the Starr investigation of President Clinton.
Judge Starr writes that Kavanaugh formed his opinion about the distractions from the duties of the President during the Clinton investigation. Kavanaugh believed that the investigation of Bill Clinton for personal should have been postponed until Clinton left office. Makes sense, right?
4
Right, except the Starr was not investigating a foreign power's involvement and interference in our national presidential election, possibly effecting the actual legitimacy of the election outcome. Nor was President Clinton ever considered deranged, unstable, or lacking in mental capacities.
(And since Clinton wasn't playing golf 1/4 of the time while running the country -- on OUR dime -- but actually working on behalf of the people, he would not have had the 'free time' to deal with "distractions". Trump just has to give up a few rounds!)
1
While I can appreciate the concept that the President shouldn't be pestered with civil litigation while he is in office, the idea that he shouldn't have to answer questions in a criminal probe or face indictment is laughable.
4
Kavanaugh worked on the impeachment (attempted) of Bill Clinton a Democrat. He clearly had no compunction about this expensive and failed endeavor. But when a Republican is the target, it is just too upsetting for a President to have to deal with while serving in office. Give me a break. Trump spends so much time golfing surely he has some time to defend himself against criminal and civil charges. I was amazed to read the profile of Avenetti which states that even the idea of the Apprentice was stolen from someone who pitched the idea of a show called CEO. Avenetti won the civil suit against Trump. Is there no bottom to this empty vessel named Donald Trump?
5
.Does anyone doubt that these papers are not the sole reason Trump nominated this jurist?
5
You state "Mr. Kavanaugh was keenly interested in the salacious aspects of President Clinton's dalliances......."
Ken Starr disagrees with your opinion.
In Judge Starr's 7/10/18 article in the Washington Post, he writes: "Kavanaugh urged restraint in our office’s referral to Congress resulting in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Regarding details of the president’s sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Kavanaugh counseled offering less description, rather than more. In his view, the dignity of the historic process soon to unfold on Capitol Hill would inevitably be eroded by including explicit details of the president’s trysts. His advice was thoughtfully reasoned and carefully measured, but he understood when our office chose not to follow it."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kavanaugh-worked-for-me-on-the-w...
3
Democratic leadership has been outsmarted, outplayed and out maneuvered by Republicans for more than a decade. 1000 seats lost at the state level. A dozen governorships. The House ,the Senate and the presidency.
They want Corporate America to run the show. There is no way the leadership could be this inept. It is done intentionally to take power away from the people to feed money to their donors.
You have been played. You have no party and no power .
3
Because republicans have no ethical anchor they let go with whatever their nasty little minds can conger.
1
Yes, best comment all day , the one party system pretending he be two and most of these idiots think they matter.
I watched a recent documentary on FDR. It occurred to me as I watched the documentary, how hard it was for average folks to obtain any fairness in wages, civil rights in a country run by ruthless ,white greedy men. The Republican Hoover represented the oppressors of that time. In one scene it described how Hoover unleashed the National Guard on military veterans who protested in Washington D C, because they wanted money owed to them by the government. Many died. The latest Supreme Court picks affirms that we are headed to those dark times again. Trump is Hoover on steroids. Do you think for a moment that a man who rips babies from their mothers, stiffs his minimum wage workers, gropes females, would not unleash the National Guard on protesting Americans ? He cares about the American people about as much as his minimum wage roofers. I get tired of hearing that he is doing something because of his “base”, like he cares what they think.
6
Joe, check former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and what he called 'the nuclear option'. Leading Senate Democrats decided to use 'the nuclear option' and it's said that Sen. Reid really didn't want it....but couldn't overcome the group wanting to use it.
So it became harder and harder to filibuster.
This is always a good rule: Be careful what you ask for.......you might get it.
5
He's a partisan hack...nothing more. He had no problem going after Bill Clinton but now he's saying a President is too busy to get distracted by criminal investigations, etc. He should take note of how many golf excursions Trump has taken since being in office....not to mention the time Trump spends tweeting and watching Fox "News."
5
Justice Kavanaugh has the best credentials of any Supreme Court nominee in over a generation.
Democrats are merely putting on a drama show for their base.
Kavanugh will be confirmed.
Get used to it.
4
I realize that this may be very inconvenient for the many of you who are feverishly trying to justify your predetermined position about Kavanaugh while the facts keep getting in the way.
But just in case you do have any objectivity and integrity remaining, you might want to actually read the fact-based portions of the article that you apparently skipped over.
So, for your convenience, here they are again:
1) - (In a fact-checking article published Wednesday, The Washington Post gave Democrats “two Pinocchios” for some of their claims about Judge Kavanaugh, and concluded that there was “no smoking-gun evidence that he would vote to dismiss an indictment against Trump, should one ever be filed.”)
2) - ‘If you read the law review article, this basically makes clear that this is a decision for Congress to make, not the courts,’
Sorry that those pesky facts so clearly refute your claims and those of Democrats, such as Blumenthal, who are so actively trying to patch together any possible justification for defeating Kavanaugh, even if that requires outright distortion of his words and views. (Then again, truth has always been unfamiliar territory for Blumenthal.)
And my admiration to those of you who were honest enough to recognize that this entire situation of Kavanaugh being confirmed with a simple majority is the inevitable extension of Harry Reid’s decision that a filibuster should not be allowed to stand in the way of the majority appointing judges as it sees fit.
6
"The summer of what could be possible is jogging steadily away, the rabble are sated daily with reality show fare..."
Is that modern Shakespeare? :-)
Another problem with Kavanaugh is that he is a corporate lackey. Always ruling in favor of corporations and against workers. Is that what you Trumpers expected?
6
How about when Democratic elected officials give sweet deals with large wage /pension increases to unions and in return for voter blocks .......They bribe union members with their own tax money .....that a Sweet deal !!
1
And Democratic Party leadership chooses the wrong argument to focus on, yet again. To paraphrase Aaron Sorkin, "if democrats are so smart why do they lose so much?" Because they bring academic, nuanced, balance of power, checks and balances arguments to a political knife fight.
Let's take a step back. The Republican Party is the party that coins terms like the "death tax" to get the average Republican voter to believe that the inheritance tax should be repealed. Let that sink in, the Republican Party was able to make the payment of inheritance tax a mainstream. populist issue that all voters should be concerned about. They were able to rally their base behind an issue that the greater majority will never have to worry about, they just American dream they will.
And now the Democratic party wants to make the argument that this is the new litmus test? They think they can sway Republican members of the Senate that, notwithstanding the fact that they will not fulsomely investigate the President and his ties to Russia, what they should do now is not confirm a Supreme Court justice that wrote an article that posited that because the job is so hard a sitting president should not be indicted or subpoenaed while in office.
How does the Democratic Party win? to paraphrase Jim Malone, "They pull a (political) knife, you pull a (political) gun (or hand grenade). They send one of yours to the (metaphorical) hospital, you send one of theirs to the (metaphorical) morgue!"
4
This makes me wonder if the deeper story is that retiring Justice Kennedy's son at Deutchbank did some illegal deals with Trump and now they're all going to be pardoned and if there is any trouble about it they've got the SCOTUS to fall back on for a "Get Out Of Jail" card.
6
Kavanaugh is the most dreamily disconnected from the real world judicial nominee I've seen yet.
3
"Donald Trump is an autocrat who believes that he should have unlimited power."
Obama had 44 unanimous losses in front of the Supreme Court. A record.
The Obama administration in its final year in office spent a record $36.2 million on legal costs defending its refusal to turn over federal records under the Freedom of Information Act.
Now, let's put our thinking caps on...who is the autocrat?
6
Kavanaugh is the most dreamily disconnected from the real world judicial nominee I've seen yet.
2
Republicans didn't even give Obama's pick a vote. Even if Jeb were president, Denigrates should not be voting for Republican nominations.
4
Kavanaugh's argument is mistaken, whatever else. A president under an ongoing criminal investigation ought to behave better, just like a restaurant owner under an ongoing health inspection.
5
Even when the President has violated laws and the Constitution, Congress shields him, unless they have a political agenda, as Henry Hyde did with Clinton. The Supreme Court only provides a rubber stamp if the Congress has the political will. That's how they work, not on the basis of principle, but as the deliberate selection of which principle to abandon and get away with. This is not a cynical view, but a historical one.
3
PS. A culture of victims looks to the Judiciary for their "day in court." A culture that sees itself as victors, takes a proactive approach by getting the Legislature to get laws passed. Laws, not court cases, establish the cultural context. Supreme rulings are temporary short cuts. The sooner the nation sees itself as a nation of victors who can use creative legislation to meet the standards of the kind of society that respects individuals and disallows them the incentive that they can, with a different Supreme Court, inflict harm and take freedom away, back and forth.
2
Senator Cornyn says “It was a law review article. Lawyers think about these issues and come up with proposed ideas, but it doesn’t really bear on his fitness to be on the Supreme Court.” That seems to mean that a judge's opinions about the law do not matter. If they don't matter, what does?
3
“That seems to mean that a judge's opinions about the law do not matter. If they don't matter, what does?”
Let me clarify. Kavanaugh was reflecting upon what he had learned based upon his own first-hand experience investigating a sitting president (ie Starr investigation of Clinton) as well as his first-hand experience working in a presidential administration (Bush). From this, he formed the opinion that the harm to the nation resulting from the distraction of such a lawsuit, outweighed the downside of a temporary deferral until the end of that presidency. I acknowledge that this position differs from where he began some 20 years earlier, but unlike many who disparage any change as “waffling” or “political hypocrisy”, I respect and admire the personal strength to learn and grow throughout life.
In any case, the critical fact that you missed or chose to ignore is that Kauffman very clearly stated that it was entirely up to Congress to make such a change in law to provide for deferral (if it saw fit) and specifically NOT for the Court to legislate from the bench. So the contrived hysteria that Kaufman would support Court interference in this appropriately legislative responsibility (as a liberal Court did in the original Roe decision) seems baseless and meritless.
4
This nomination by a President whose very Administration could be the result of foreign power intervention is unacceptable. The Judges pre-conceived notion that a sitting President should not be held liable for treasonous actions disqualifies him. Period.
6
OK, I have a question. Shouldn’t judge Kavanaugh promise to recuse himself if any case should come before the Supreme Court In connection with the Mueller probe especially as he has publicly stated his opinion that there should not be any investigation at all?
7
If the People can't figure out that the Constitution is the basis of our country and that the separation of powers is its key idea, all is lost.
Figure out how to explain it in clear language.
4
Given Congress's inability to play its role in governance, the power of the President to issue Executive Orders effectively serving as laws, and the modus operandi of filling Supreme Court seats, it appears George Washington's army actually lost the concepts fought for in our Revolution.
3
I was watching CNN with Alison Camerota questioning Ken Starr, head of the investigation of Bill Clinton in the 1990's. Starr knows more about the major distractions such an investigation brings to the President, other than the Bill Clinton who was distracted daily from his job.
When Ms. Camerota asked Starr about Kavanaugh's opinion that a sitting president should not be investigated in such a manner, that Congress had the impeachment tool to use, Mr. Starr smiled and replied, "Those are my words".
Read Ken Starr's opinion about Kavanaugh's legal skills, including his opinion about Vince "Foster’s death — suicide at the site where his body was found".
Kavanaugh's opinion about Clinton: "Kavanaugh urged restraint in our office’s referral to Congress resulting in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Regarding details of the president’s sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Kavanaugh counseled offering less description, rather than more. In his view, the dignity of the historic process soon to unfold on Capitol Hill would inevitably be eroded by including explicit details of the president’s trysts. His advice was thoughtfully reasoned and carefully measured, but he understood when our office chose not to follow it."
Kavanaugh is moderate, and not the person, not the judge, that some of the chattering class would have us believe. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kavanaugh-worked-for-me-on-the-w...
3
Exactly. Does anyone doubt that these papers are not the sole reason Trump nominated this jurist?
This nomination, like all of Trump's other actions on and assertions about the court are obviously aimed at weakening the rule of law and its application to presidential power.
5
I'm actually concerned about Kavanaugh's financial situation. As recently as a year ago he had $200K in credit card debt and was making about $300K a year from his salary and his wife's. No appreciable assets aside from his home with a mortgage of $865K and he's sending his kids to private school for $11K each pre annum.
His credit card debt mysteriously disappeared. yeah right his friends paid him back for buying baseball tickets for them? He clearly has problems with financial responsibility. Do we want someone on the Supreme Court who potentially has significant financial strains that could make him vulnerable to influence?
I worked for a financial institution and we would not have hired someone with this kind of questionable financial situation.
42
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters"....or Supreme Court loyalists....or Russian-Republican anarchists.
The Republican Party has left the surly bonds of truth, decency and American greatness to touch the face of lawless fraud and fascism....and they're all fine with it.
November 6 2018.
Vote in record numbers, America.
93
"Vote in record numbers, America."
Agree! Purge the RINOs and dump the Democrats!
2
Has Trump been accused of a crime? Nope.
Is there any evidence? Nope.
A pathetic straw=man argument by liberals.
4
S,
“With the hate expressed here! Conservatives will vote in record numbers to keep from being sent to “re-education camps” if you and your hate for all things Christian and Conservative regain control!
Thank you for your honesty it will help turn out the voters!
The Democrats' goal should be to drag this out until after November. I don't know whether there's a procedural path to that long a delay. There's a real danger in torpedoing Kavanaugh and not winning the Senate: the next nominee will be punitively worse. Of the final four, Kavanaugh seemed like the one most likely on occasion to follow the law, to be a conservative but not necessarily a mindless Trumpist (along the lines of, gee, given an either/or choice, the Bushes are preferable to the Trumps). Choosing Kavanaugh was a good chess move, because it's obvious that such an "establishment" candidate only got in because Trump was persuaded by K's views on executive power, which won't necessarily extend to the scope of Trump's crimes. Unless something actually scandalous turns up, apart from ideology Kavanaugh seems like a sound-enough judicial nominee. And you are not going to get a non-ideological nominee out of the Great Orange Baby wearing presidential diapers.
If Dems delay till after the election and Congress stays the same, we get Kavanaugh and not a crazier person. If Dems delay and win both the House and the Senate, then they have some real power over nominees. The worst scenario is that Dems manage to torpedo Kavanaugh but don't win sufficient power in November, and we end up with a grotesque Supreme like Amy Coney Barrett.
10
The argument that "a president who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as president”, rather clumsily invites the obvious counter-argument: a president who is so concerned about criminal investigations that he cannot do his job is almost inevitably an unsuitable presidential candidate in the first place.
99
Trump did not win the popular vote, and it is not clear he would have won the Electoral College absent Russian meddling in the US election. Until Mueller concludes his investigation, Trump’s legitimacy is in question. Until Trump’s legitimacy is established, Senate Democrats have not only the right, but the obligation, to refuse to consent to his Supreme Court nominations.
56
Dems stand up and defend illegal immigrants, side with Europe over Trump, promote harassment against its own citizens that disagree with them, supports discrimination in the form of affirmative action, and generally does not have anything nice to say about the country always saying how horrible this country is. And here we have a very qualified American citizen for the Supreme Court and they are rabidly against him. The appearance of being anti-American is front and center will be used against them. What's the Dems plan for the American people? At this point, they definitely don't have my vote come November.
2
The march with Tiki torches and AR-15s in Charlottesville should have been a wake up call that to smug pets of plutocrats like Kavanaugh that a Krystallnacht can definitely happen here.
3
The US I would like to see would lead the world to harmonize a stable coexistence of fruitful diversity.
Congress needs to be curbed of defiance of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It really is the worst scofflaw in this farcical barrel of lies denying how the Constitution protects minority rights by limiting the powers of the majority.
4
Congress needs to be curbed from defiance of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
2
I care about gun laws. Kavanaugh has declared the AR-15 and assault rifles like it to be guns in common use, therefore not subject to regulation. By his logic, the more mass murders this country has at the barrel of an assault rifle, the less this country is allowed to regulate access to it!
45
Judge Kavanaugh may or may not be be an otherwise qualified jurist, but his 2009 opinion that a president under criminal investigation will invariably do a worse job shows him to be a terrible fortune teller.
Yes, Trump is distracted by the Mueller investigation, but does anyone really believe he would gave been a better president if the special prosecutor cloud was lifted and he was left free to his own devices? For those who think it couldn't get worse, if we've learned anything in the past 28 months... stick around.
31
This is a guy who participated in Newt Gingrich's preposterously hypocritical impeachment of Clinton for telling sex lies. He's a bloody stooge.
2
This person must not become a Supreme Court Justice, especially during the Trump Administration, this would be tantamount of giving Trump Dictatorial powers, Trump would be immune to our Judicial system.He would not be indicted or brought to court to answer for his crime of Collusion & obstruction of Justice.
13
Which is exactly why DT picked him.
1
It's a certainty that the president discussed Mr. Kavanaugh's opinion with him about burdening a president with distracting civil suits and criminal investigations during the interview with the judge before deciding to nominate him to the Court. The problem here is that this president does not want checks and balances on his power.
Also, Mr. Kavanaugh was keenly interested in the salacious aspects of President Clinton's dalliances with his intern as much as the issue of presidential power. Very strange.
16
Has this man only studied law, with no knowledge of the science of our government? Does he not realize that there are three bodies of equal power, and that elevating one - especially one as unhinged as this presidency - would kill our democratic system (with a small "d")? We have checks and balances, and there's no reason to trust him to not destroy them.
14
Donald Trump is an autocrat who believes that he should have unlimited power. And his Republican-controlled Congress has readily and willing acceded to his executive overreach whether it's his inhumane immigration policy, setting tariffs falsely claiming "national security," participating in attacks on his own Justice Department and FBI, or his and his family's blatant self-enrichment in violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause. Donald Trump is already involved in two legal cases--one for sexual harassment by Summer Zervos, the other for campaign violations involving hush money paid to Stormy Daniels. And, of course, there's that annoying "witch hunt" called the Russia investigation that may lead to impeachable charges. So, if you were Donald Trump and could pick the jury member who would cast the deciding vote on whether or not the two cases can proceed and whether or not you can ignore a,subpoena from the Special Counsel or even fire him, who would you pick? We have a name for this; it's called jury tampering.
10
"Donald Trump is an autocrat who believes that he should have unlimited power."
Obama had 44 unanimous losses in front of the Supreme Court. A record.
The Obama administration in its final year in office spent a record $36.2 million on legal costs defending its refusal to turn over federal records under the Freedom of Information Act.
Now, let's put our thinking caps on...who is the autocrat?
2
So at least new have identified another traitor of the US, one who would allow the criminal elements in society free reign to destroy democracy.
6
When you or I write or give our opinion about almost anything, it’s just that! An opinion. When I think back in time about the things I once believed or said, I shudder. However, I’m not ever going to be held accountable for that as a citizen. Why? Because I just wasn’t very informed. As a judge, that’s a different story. Your decision could change not only someone’s life, but a countries. The fact that Kavanaugh even thought of these things, let alone actually wrote about them in a professional law journal leaves him with only one recourse; HE MUST RECUSE HIMSELF if ever confronted with this issue as a member of The Supreme Court. That’s the only way I could ever support him:Period!!!
13
Seems like a logical progression. Donald Trump in the White House. Chuck Grassley in the Senate. Devin Nunes in the House. Brett Kavanaugh in the Supreme Court. Putin's Plan is working Comrades!
28
Read the actual law review article people.
He says that Congress should consider passing a law to shield from liability in some circumstances and consider impeachment alone. Reasoning is similar to the Nixon pardoning. He isn't suggesting personally stepping in and ending the investigation. Obviously that would and could never happen
I'm not saying I dislike the guy, but when the reporting and comments are completely wrong or seriously misleading, we need to correct it to keep our credibility.
17
Yes, Lawrence O'donnell pointed out that his suggestion that Congress pass legislation to shield a sitting President from prosecution strongly implies that the Constitution does not.
8
If the Democrats think that an argument seeped in detail and nuance is going to resonate with a nation that can’t focus beyond sound bites and reality TV, they are badly miscalculating. At least people understand and care about abortion and healthcare. A “separation of powers” tactic will just show how far away the Democrats are from connecting with anyone but the small number of their base voters (most of whom are probably reading this article)! If the Democrats intend to win in the Mid-Terms, they need to find some leaders who can connect with the younger voters. Chuck Schumer comes off as an out of touch relic from the 1980s. I interned for him in 1985 when he was as an idealistic, smart, ambitious Congressman. With this argument he is “grasping at straws” and turning a potential (though long-shot) winnable fight into “no contest.” The Dems will get played once more by a President with no political experience.
3
You have any other suggestions? The Democrats cards are extremely limited right now.
2
Yes, concentrate their efforts on the Midterms. Pick party leaders who can resonate and excite the people who are not just nasty, DC insider obstructionists as Schumer (and Pelosi) appear to be. Let their party know that the reason they are not able to stop the Trump agenda is because they don’t control Congress. Then use these losses; energized leadership as well as fear of further losses as a way to get out the vote.
Why is Rod Rosenstein ordering federal prosecutors to look at Kavanaugh's papers? Rod Rosenstein is not the attorney general, Jeff Sessions is. It's like Sessions doesn't exist. What is going on?
14
A president, under investigation as well as being a respondent in lawsuits, attacks and smears anyone and everyone from the pope to the press to politicians to government agencies, and now nominates a judge who holds the president immune.
This really is banana-republic stuff.
73
Dearie me, what to do ...
All the problems in our nation, and the Schumer Pelosi gang is casting, far and wide, in their abysmal lily-livered efforts to "excite their base by fanning fears that the highest court in the land could turn into a bulwark to protect the man appointing its members."
That says it all; this self-serving cabal is always, every day, casting about for whatever, so they may rabble-rouse over and over again, hoping this tactic alone, will get them control in the midterms.
The summer of what could be possible is jogging steadily away, the rabble are sated daily with reality show fare, Trump is steadily sinking his fascist totalitarian style foundations, deeper into our psyche, our very core, and the pretenders of belief in Liberty, Equality, and Justice, for everyman, the Schumer Pelosi cabal, are lapping it up, luxuriating in the new wealth their conservative partners are showing them, waiting, shimmering, just steps through the wider open doors that subjugation of the masses, will bring.
Ah, 'tis great to be King, to be members of his retinue; how lovely the pomp and circumstance feels, and to think that if it wasn't for our Hillary gambit, certainly our greatest pretense of all time, and how artfully we dealt with, and diffused the Bernie Sanders nuclear weapon in our midst, our dreams and aspirations would be dust in the winds of the Social Democracy Movement, which would now be the new American foundation of Liberty, Equality, and Justice, for All.
6
It is moot for the Democrats to do anything now. Republicans, though didn’t like Trump, but they rallied behind him against Hillary, Russian interference and Comey notwithstanding, focusing the Court. But, Democrats divided on their multifaceted problems lost the focus and have to pay the price.
In the movie I Claudius, the character says, “ Let all the mud rise above”. Echoing that, I say, let the Republicans do whatever they want, turn right to far end.
Mitch won handily in his gamble and in the winner take it all system, his will will prevail. American will have a chance either to reaffirm or refute. Let us see how it goes. We get the government that we collectively deserve. So be it.
1
Blow up the Electoral College. Count each citizen’s vote equally. THAT is the democracy we deserve and want.
8
The constitution would have to be amended - not an easy task. So the candidates must focus on the collection of electoral votes in the "swing " states - something one of the candidates in the 2016 election couldn't be bothered with.
If a President breaks the law and refuses to talk a subpoena is necessary. How does Congress conduct discovery for impeachment? Kavanaugh has a flawed view of executive authority that places the executive above the law. No one is above the law in the USA.
19
Kavanaugh has to be cornered on this. It is an easy point to understand, it is just like Trump and it reinforces the Mueller investigation.
3
What they need to point out is the statement from the Declaration of Independence that says "all men are created equal" and if Kavanaugh doesn't agree with that then he needs to be ousted.
There is nobody above the law, especially Trump.
9
If the role of The Supreme Court is to act as a shield for a sitting president, and its internal law is to protect him for being above our justice system, it might see its power diminished. Some of the People in The Land of the Free might acknowledge that we are in possession of an emperor. We might consider whether America is at its best under the governance of a monarchy.
4
Filibuster Kavanaugh's appointment
3
A filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee can now be ended with 50 votes. It's worth considering.
Dems "Kavanaugh should recurse himself from any case where has a legal opinion that differs from mist liberal Dems".
3
How about where he differs from 3/4 of the populace, and claims to have a strict reading of the law, while allowing his religiously dogmatic views to sway his judgement?
5
I'd like to know where Kavanaugh stands on impeaching judges!
5
The Democrats are behaving as though Trump nominated Steve Bannon to be Supreme Court Justice. This is nonsense. They may not like Kavanaugh's views on particular issues, but he is clearly a creature of the law and the courts and respects our system, and may be relied upon to uphold it even if his view of the content of particular laws differs from Chuck Schumer's. The hard fact is that Democrats are in the minority and are not in a position to choose. Do they really think that if they derail Kavanugh's nomination, Trump will pick someone more liberal?
Worse, this futile and misdirected war against Kavanaugh distracts from the multiple outrages Trump commits every day -- attacking NATO, for god's sake, which seems to me to be something like actual treason. The focus on Kavanaugh is the wrong fight and a losing fight, and makes the Democrats look completely foolish.
3
The minority has derailed nominees before, based on answers to questions.
3
Don't zero, don't analyze, just block & obfuscate until after the midterms.
Anything or persons that Trump will nominate, is just prima facie terrible. No need to attempt rationalization.
4
I think this is a valid issue, and should, along with healthcare and women's health privacy, be explored deeply.
The concluding lines of this analysis piece point out that justices appointed by Nixon joined the "unanimous" verdict of the Court in compelling the president to comply with the subpoena.
Anyone who thinks that this court would do the same in 2018 has to have their head examined. We have passed the point of no return when it comes to partisanship.
In fact, Kavanaugh's acceptance speech for this nomination was full of over the top language regarding the president, whom he described as having great "deference and respect for the judiciary."
That statement alone just tells me this man is going to remain indebted to the president. For all we know, Donald Trump has already posed the "loyalty" test, or the "who did you vote for?" test during his presidential interview.
Methinks this man, of all the 4 finalists, is the most political, and as such, won't be much of an independent thinker on the court unless it comes down to his highly expansive view of presidential power.
32
Contact not only your local representatives but those of other states opposing any nomination before Jan. 1, 2019
3
The real question should be: why are we allowing a Donald, whose administration is under investigation for colluding with the Russians to steal the election--and many other financial crimes--be allowed to choose a Supreme Court Justice?
39
"Judicial Crisis Network" is an extreme right wing organization that does not represent the views of the majority of Americans. Please vote for the moderate or progressive candidate in ALL local, state and national elections. We do not need these religious extremists on the bench or in office.
Move forward, not back to the "bad old days."
6
While it's almost certain Kavanaugh will be confirmed, the Senators opposing him have a golden opportunity to frame the investigation of Donald Trump, specifically on the Judge's views about any immunity from subpoena, being compelled to produce documents and being deposed and cross-examined under oath. Now is the time for the more articulate Senators to begin educating the public and TV news reporters about these areas. They will soon become very important.
15
Shorter view: Presidents he politically agrees with should be above the law, while those he does not should be hounded and impeached for lying about sex.
43
Lying "under oath" (which is against the law) about sex.
3
Mr. Slater, it really isn’t very nice of you to point out those pesky facts when someone is so busy trying to distort things so as to support their preferred conclusion!
We live in a world where people begin with with their emotional reactions and then attempt to backfill in any facts that might make their position seem reasonable and justifiable.
Sadly, long gone is the time where people began with actual facts, made observations, and drew logical conclusions drawn from those facts.
1
The judge's Georgetown Law Review article quote says sitting presidents should not be subject to criminal indictment. So the President could actually intentionally and with malice shoot and kill someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue during his elected term of office and not be arrested and indicted for murder while acting as president? Really? That's absurd. No man is above the law in our Constitutional democracy, no man.
88
Have you read what he wrote ? It was a Minnesota ( not Georgetown ) law review article. He didn’t say sitting presidents should not be subject to criminal indictment but that perhaps the hearing of charges should be deferred until after the presidential term. He also suggested it was an issue for congress to discuss & decide. He also referenced Paula Jones lawsuit against Bill Clinton. By all means oppose the man if you feel he is not qualified but first do some research and be sure of your information.
6
Nancy: In response to your comment to my comment, please read the following quote, directly from the article: “Whether the Constitution allows indictment of a sitting president is debatable,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote in the Georgetown Law Journal in 1998. He proposed that Congress adopt legislation specifying that the president “is not subject to indictment or information under the laws of the United States while he serves as president.” I think that pretty much constitutes what I said and accurately commented upon. Seems quite clear to me that Kavanaugh does not believe sitting presidents can be indicted ... now consider my fact pattern in light of your defense of Judge Kavanaugh: the President intentionally murders a person on Fifth Avenue his first year in office and we have to wait to indict him, say, for three years until his term is up? And he continues to be the president of the United States until then? And we need Congress to debate the legitimacy of that? Let me repeat my comment: that's absurd and violates every idea we hold dear about the rule of law. Perhaps it is not I who need to do some additional research before commenting....
Unfortunately, you are wasting your time trying to engage with someone who is on an ideological mission and refuses to be inhibited by the actual facts.
1
Terrific--another Trump toady. The so-called "Supreme Court" become less so by the day.
4
The dems may very well be right but (1) do people care? (2) can they bring more on board for the midterm in 2018 and the general election in 2020? and (3) what purpose they can achieve?
Perhaps this may fire up a small segment of their base but it is doubtful the average jack and jill give a hoot.
They have bungled so many times before, Al Gore, John Kerry, Charlie Crist, it was a miracle that Barrack Obama could manage to be a 2 termer in spite of them. And they screwed up President Obama's legacy as well. Their strategists need to resign and they need to give the new blood a more visible role
2
The President is the unitary executive. Mr. Trump is the executive branch. Full stop. Read the constitution. The only check and balance for the congress is to impeach him. He cannot be subpoenaed. He cannot be indicted. The law, the supreme law, is the constitution. A rogue prosecutor or judge cannot usurp the power of the unitary executive. Look it up.
2
The Constitution does not say that the president cannot be indicted.
It grants Congress the power to impeach him, but it does not limit his liability to that alone.
10
That's an insane reading of the Constitution that imbues the president with all the powers of a king. You sure that what the Founders had in mind?
4
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. This unprecedented judicial positioning actually taking seed in the nation's highest court is not only insidiously ominous but frankly a current and present danger to democracy worldwide.
60
Donald Trump's campaign manager is in jail, and 5 members of his campaign have plead guilty to charges brought by the Mueller probe. And many in the press are acting like it's perfectly normal to have confirmation hearing so Trump can name the
Supreme Court judge in his own case.
No vote while Mueller is investigating!
81
Absolutely - any president under not only criminal, but counterintelligence, and national security investigation can not pick lifetime judges until he is completely exonerated. The NYT especially needs to do a better job covering the unprecedented nature of this threat, rather than treat it as nothing to see here move along. Looking at you, Maggie Duranty.
1
Not to be a religious inspired citizen, but is it ok to say we senior citizens “pray” we live to see the day Donald Trump is no longer president, that in 2021 we have a Democratic President, and that in the meanwhile no more Supreme Court justices retire?
It’s sort of useless to hope or “pray” that Kavanaugh will not be confirmed. He will.
So maybe more useful to “pray” for the more feasible.
5
Ginsburg will be out by November.
1
All senators must put our country's interests ahead of your party's interest during the senate confirmation process.
To this end senators should insist that the senate process should not be rushed and, in particular, should focus on the likelihood that a sitting president will be judged by two of his supreme court nominees once confirmed.
The facts are that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that the Russians have interfered with our election in 2016 and favored President Trump. We also know that President Trump values loyalty in his nominations and berates those whom he has chosen but are not loyal in his eyes and continues to deny the interference.
It will be impossible for the Senate in hearings to determine whether Judge Kavanaugh has pledged his loyalty to President Trump, either openly or in hints, or through intermediaries during the selection process. One hint is Judge Kavanaugh's presidential praise at the announcement. "No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination." Do these discussions involve a Trump loyalty pledge or assurance?
Given that questions along this line will not be answered during the hearings, every senator should strive to delay the nomination until the Muller investigation speaks publicly on President Trump's personal involvement in the Russian interference with our 2016.
6
Brett Kavanaugh used a private email server while he worked in the Bush White House, and it was his job to manage communication and records. Every single republican is on record saying that the use of a private server demonstrates poor judgement.
48
Daniel
“Lock him up” - right?
Republicans never think anything applies to them. And they get away with it. How is that?
3
Senator Collins made a very cogent point in mentioning the timeline. In 1998, Democrats were howling about the distractions the Starr investigation and subsequent impeachment proceeding caused Mr. Clinton. The rumblings by Republicans against Mr. Obama’s use of executive orders was already starting in 2009. Protection from politically motivated lawsuits and criminal investigations against sitting Presidents protects both Republican and Democratic Presidents.
Impeachment proceedings, although much harder to bring, are actually broader than requiring legal grounds, but can conceivably extend into character issues. And, of course, once a President is out of office, as far as I know, they become fair game like the rest of us.
The Democrats might be barking up a wrong tree with this issue, allowing the GOP to bring up old issues to distract the hearings and the public from the present and the future. And just because one party wants something for themselves, they had better be willing to give it to the other. The GOP has engaged in this sort of hypocrisy with judicial appointments, for example, in the Garland appointment, to its shame. I would like to think our leaders are capable of acting with more wisdom and integrity than that. But I am very worried that the toxic political climate of the day will prevail and wisdom, already in short supply, will not be part of the equation.
3
The difference is that the proceedings against Clinton were baseless, solely motivated by right-wing politics, and addressed nothing that had any effect on the American people.
The opposite is true for Trump, on all three factors.
9
“his protective views of the presidency could prove to be a bright red ribbon.”
Only those with zero strategy and short attention spans get excited about a bright red ribbon. Go figure..
5
it’s too late, all republican senators will vote to confirm him, and so will a few democrats.
thanks to all the bernie supporters in swing states who didn’t bother to vote, or voted for jill stein. and thanks to bernie himself too —his relentless trashing of hillary during the primaries owns a piece of this too.
trump or hillary didn’t matter? we’ll have gorsuch and kavanaugh for the next 30 years now. that’s how it mattered. and myriad other reasons why it mattered, but if the supreme court debacle is not enough to convince you guys, something is really off with you. hopefully you will use your votes more wisely in the future.
and let’s hope there’s no more supreme court vacancies in the next 2 years.
124
We are paying hugely for that false equivalency. I wonder if they realize their protest vote cemented in a right wing Supreme Court for decades to come.
1
Sanders was the better and more popular candidate. He spoke to what working people need.
Actually, had the Democrats not adopted some of Sanders' progressive policies in the campaign, Clinton probably would have received even fewer votes.
Scolding voters is not the way to win them over. You've got to have a candidate who knows how to convince them and is willing to do the necessary work. Clinton was not that candidate.
4
Establishment "lifelong Democrats" never learn, do they?
Under your centrist hero, Barack Obama, you lost both houses of Congress and 1000 state and local seats. Boy, was that man an inspiration!
Then you insisted on running a candidate unpopular even among the Democratic base and hated beyond it, because it was "her turn!"
And what did this brilliant "her turn" candidate do?
She ran a vacuous, strategically idiotic campaign, even losing prior Obama voters --- those dastardly racists! -- in the process.
So how about this? Instead of blaming the public for not voting for a despised candidate or staying home, *you* compromise your principles, and for once support a candidate who's actually well liked even if you hate his or her progressive agenda.
3
No one is above the law and no one should be able to pick their judge.
Judge Kavanaugh has essentially said that Presidents are above the law.
I'm sorry, next man or woman up, Mr. Trump.
This one doesn't pass the smell test.
In other words, he stinks.
107
"Democrats now see an opportunity to excite their base by fanning fears..."
Yup, that about sums it up, Senate Democrats fanning fear to keep their base happy and them in office.
10
With all due respect, anyone claiming that Democrats are "fanning fear" as a tactic that is somehow beneath the GOP has absolutely zero credibility. And that is the real point, not fear mongering, though the GOP is quite adept at it, but credibility. The GOP has none and Kavanaugh is no exception.
8
A direct quote from the middle of the article:
“In a fact-checking article published Wednesday, The Washington Post gave Democrats “two Pinocchios” for some of their claims about Judge Kavanaugh, and concluded that there was ‘no smoking-gun evidence that he would vote to dismiss an indictment against Trump, should one ever be filed.’”)
An important point to consider.
11
The Post was wrong.
The smoking gun was cited directly in the current Times article: Kavanugh's own previous writing against the indicting of a sitting president.
3
Unfortunately for you, facts still matter. He was giving his opinion about the intrusiveness that such actions have on the functioning of the presidency (learned in part from observing Clinton) and suggesting that CONGRESS should pass a law allowing the deferral of such actions. But he specifically recognized that this was a matter for CONGRESS to decide, not the courts to decree.
1
Thanks to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, we don't care what the Democrats think. They gave us the Nuclear option. Thanks Harry and Nancy.
Remember abrasive Axelrod's comments "elections have consequences."
Divisive abrasive belligerent Democrats are now regretting their old words and actions. Doesn't pay to be mean does it?
11
Well, now we know why Trump picked Kavanaugh.
130
It was never I doubt. It was going to be Trump’s only criterion. I can’t believe the Dems could possibly have thought otherwise.
And “made the rounds” visiting the Republicans!!! Not even the slightest attempt to hide his politics which frankly should be checked at the door if the judges are to be seen as impartial.
2
Yes Lawrence to protect himself from illegal political attacks by democrats using the justice department.
1
Just make it "legal." The perfect path to fascism. History may not repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
68
Nothing distracts Trump from being president nearly as much as his 24/7 task of just maintaining the facade of Donald Trump.
78
That's no facade, unfortunately.
Nobody is a good enough actor to act as naturally stupid, ignorant and malevolent as he does every second.
The Dems need to ask these questions of this nominee even if the process is stacked against them. The public needs to know this judge's philosophy pertaining to the powers of a president. The initial take is that Kavanaugh hints that a president is above the law and shouldn't be distracted by criminal lawsuits. The distraction argument is specious - we have an administration that should function as a group, not a president that is a singular ruler. If needed the VP could actually do some work.
The unfortunate reality is that the movement conservatives have done a thorough job of establishing their foundation and have the backing of a network of groups whose goal was and is to control the various branches of government. They appear to be close to attaining their goal.
59
Democrats loved the imperial presidency of Barack Obama. Now they hate the imperial presidency of Donald Trump. Republicans? Why vice versa of course.
Both imperial presidencies are the result of Congress loving re-election more than legislative decision-making, and that has been enabled by the vast federal administrative state that has grown up since WWII.
If Congress couldn’t get away with “leaving it to the bureaucrats to sort out” then the president would be checked more often.
Thankfully Kavanagh is focused on the contradictions and illegalities of the administrative state. In that that focus is what will result in re-leashing the presidency.
This article, and the hang-wringing over a law review article that says Congress should make this change, gets things backwards.
17
You must have been living in a different dimension from the rest of us as I don't recall Obama behaving in any fashion that could be regarded as "imperial" in sharp contrast to King Trump and his cronies.
14
Imperial presidency of Barack Obama? He was elected twice by a majority of Americans. Donald Trump was not. Trumps executive orders tops Barack Obama by a long shot. Mr. Obama was a professor of constitutional law, while our Dear President disrespects it on a daily basis (as demonstrated by locking up immigrants seeking asylum, conveniently changing rules to send them back to likely death). Not sure how you define “imperial”.
13
Really?! The champion of issuing issuing Executive Orders so as to bypass Congress when he couldn’t convince them of the merits of his positions! Or when he unilaterally enters into a treaty with another nation (Iran) but instead calls it an Agreement so that he doesn’t have to get Senate approval, as required under the Constitution. (And if you doubt that Democrats viewed it as having the weight/validity of a treaty, just read their comments when Trump cancelled it!)
Doesn’t get much more Imperial than that!
3
The president is the most powerful individual in our country.
This makes him the most dangerous.
If the president's actions are motivated by the wrong reasons, or if there is something intrinsically wrong with his mind, or if he is not loyal to the USA above all else, or if all the brakes on perilous behavior that normally apply in our government are offline, the impartiality of our Supreme Court, and the ability to ignore their personal views by every individual serving, is of critical importance.
We're in a state where all of the above apply. If Trump wants Kavanaugh, that's reason enough to reject him.
84
This president, elected under a cloud of foreign meddling, should not be allowed to select a replacement SCOTUS until this investigation either leads to his impeachment or his exoneration. In fact, Gorsuch should also be expected to recuse himself from any decision regarding Trump wrongdoing, or asked to resign if evidence is found involving illegal activities.
107
Kavanaugh is not going to answer any probing questions directly. He will deflect and evade them, just as did Gorsuch.
And two or three Democrats, the usual suspects, will break ranks again, concerned selfishly for their own jobs over the welfare of working Americans and the rights of minorities.
The remaining Democrats should certainly put up a fight and refuse to confirm Kavanaugh, with an eye to the midterms. Voters prefer political candidates who walk the walk.
But here it is July, only five months before a most crucial November. Yet the Democrats have yet to develop a winning strategy to proclaim loudly in every corner of the country, on all available media.
They aren't even talking, much less walking.
42
Jerry, you hit the nail squarely on the head.
The Democratic leadership, such as it is, fritters away days and weeks while the country desperately needs to hear an alternate vision of our country's future. The Dems must engage now with a strong message of championing working Americans and the rule of law.
I've written my senators and congresswoman urging them to get their leadership off the dime or replace them. Have you?
I disagree that “red state” voters are particularly concerned about an independent judiciary in place to guarantee “a check” against a presidential lunge for a power (or powers) not proscribed under the Constitution.
Donald Trump is the “red state” exemplar of the states’ push-back of the federal government in the eternal tension between states’ rights—a euphemism for a lawful denial of minority rights and their enforcement by an intrusive (and unwelcome) federal government.
If this seems contradictory, it is explained by Trump’s authoritarian leanings—but always and forever in the service of any state wishing to circumvent lawful protections for citizens not in the majority.
Brett Kavanaugh is on the record as favoring a Congressional stipulation that presidents not be encumbered by small items such as subpoenas and the general observations of lawful compliance. By himself, a Justice Kavanaugh could probably not cast the deciding vote to free a president from appearing before the law’s bar. It is, however, more than a little unsettling that he interprets a president’s duties to be more important than his (or her) culpability for a crime—misdemeanor or felony—because of a mere title. No Senator or House member is immune to the law’s reach; why should a president?
Red States—by their very definition—seek the diminution of minority rights, particularly if the sitting president is ideologically attuned to their less than generous applications as they apply to “others.”
34
"red state" voters would appear to fall under your definition of "others" when viewed from the sanctity of "blue states". Paradoxically, all of the progressives, liberals, Democrats and Independents in "red states" get branded with your "others" stereotype and red necks in your "blue states" get a pass.
Sox,
And then there is California! Not only a champion of “State’s Rights” and Secession, but the right for a State to ignore Federal Law when it disagrees with it. California is not a “Red State” though it is trying hard to become a “People’s Republic” and doing a good job of trampling on the rights of its minority Conservatives!
By the way, where did you stand on WJC’s “little crimes”?
Judge Kavanaugh's position would create an imperial presidency and naturally leads to the question that Trump raised that maybe he could pardon himself.
But it seems that the founder's views, which conservatives claim to follow, leads in a different direction.
We have a vice-president who would not only succeed the president but comes from the same party and went through the same electoral process. So a president could be indicted without there being a disruption in government.
If the president was indicted, he could resign and the vice president would take over. If the president could neither perform his duties nor decide to step down, the 25th Amendment provides for that.
During the Nixon Watergate crime, many in Congress believed that Nixon had become "unstable" and were openly talking about the 25th Amendment option.
39
There is no Constitutional language that asserts "separation of church and state". The reality, which has yet to be firmly established, is that the "establishment clause" of the first amendment bars Congress from enacting any legislation that treats any belief held without possibility of substantiation as a fact relevant to the public at large.
2
Trump makes Nixon look like a paragon of objective virtue.
3
But the scenarios that you present will never happen so worrying about this is much ado about nothing. Let’s focus on the fact that he’s an outstanding legal mind and will interpret the constitution as in intended and not the activist approach like Sotofriojes, Karen and Ginnyburg.
Brett is an ok judge for a Yale graduate,
but his unique views on any president being above the law,
disqualifies him from being running for the Supreme court, particularly when the president who picks him is under investigation.
Our nation's existence depends on normal Americans trusting our Judicial system. After the atrocities committed against the FBI, or the Department of Justice officials, or the appalling acts of Jeffrey Sessions, most sane Americans are deeply concerned that President Trump and his Republicans have permanently dragged America into the toilet in the Oval Office.
6
We cannot assume that a 5-4 court will not give Trump a free pass on everything - include nullification of the 2018 elections if he provides an excuse to do so (e.g., "massive voter fraud"), however flimsy, and enlists McConnell and Ryan. People who say that Roberts won't let it happen are leaning on a very frail reed - much frailer even than the "moderate" Senate Republican reed that has so dramatically...I would not even say crumpled - it did not resist long enough to crumple - it folded before any weight was put on it. The best thing would for the court to stand 4-4 until Trump comes calling for his free pass, as he eventually will.
5