He'll NEVER get the nomination!
2
this guy seems pretty milquetoast compared to Coney Barrett, haven't heard that he's anti Roe. niether would be good but it's not like Republicans are gonna play by their own rules and let the voters decide in november.
2
I appreciate the questions posed by “Curious” below in the comments, and wonder as well what the nominees perspective is, broadly, on privacy rights. Whether it’s private medical decisions, privacy of one’s own body, privacy of one’s personal information, privacy (and ownership) of one’s cells and DNA and parts thereof, privacy of one’s whereabouts, privacy from a neighbor’s or ex’s camera-enabled drone, privacy from AI robots and televisions and foreign election meddlers.... All these are critically important issues, the resolutions of which, at least in terms of the laws of our land, will reverberate through the coming decades and centuries — if our technologies and fouling of the natural environment don’t do us in first.
4
The candidates for the Supreme Court are going to perfect the art of turning themselves into pretzels in not answering any question whatsoever with any definitive conclusion. Every single thing will be left open to interpretation, giving the option to the questioner of political cover.
THAT is where the rubber hits the road - whether any republican Senator can parse enough of these bland responses and decide to vote down any candidate that is going to ''upturn precedent and settled law, to not be an activist judge.''
I am not going to hold my breath that any one of them will be anything more than a hypocrite.
2
So what? The President once supported a different political party and different policies. The point is to recognize where personal advantage lies and to be flexible enough to do whatever it takes to gain that advantage.
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh...once argued that President Bill Clinton could be impeached for lying to his staff and misleading the public, a broad definition of obstruction of justice..."
"Well, er, you see, that particular definition applies to Democrats only. In the very unlikely event that a Republican might be impeached, we would need a much more focused, nuanced definition.
I hope this clears away any confusion, Senator."
Taken from the transcript of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing.
8
Why not just save time and just dismantle this whole democracy idea? Why not just install him Napoleon-style as Emperor? Trump alone can fix things. Emperors get to do the concubine thing without questions asked. They get to talk to other emperors without consulting anybody. That Miller bloke was right-his authority will not be questioned. Emperors have sycophantic court-intriguing sycophants. Emperors don't pay taxes; they receive them so why would you-know-who have to submit tax returns for mere commoners to peruse? It used to be "off with his head" for anyone questioning his majesty... now its "you're fired".
Ad hoc royal pronouncements can be made by twitter. Donald 1 of the USA is above the law. It has really come to this in a modern western democracy. The USA does not have citizens... it has subjects.
8
Social conservatives see a nominee who clerked for Justice Kennedy as a red flag issue. Dems are not only ones peering into Kavanaugh's past. Republican factions debate who fits the description of "most reliably conservative." For some a Catholic mom with seven children seems all too perfect. For others Ivy leaguers seasoned by years on the bench a prescription for past success. Luckily we have a stable genius to sort this all out.
I’m certain Judge Kavenaugh’s standard for what constitutes obstruction is about to change.
5
There is certainly not enough time before the 2018 elections especially given Mitch McConnell’s refusal to allow a vote on the eminently qualified Merreck Garland becaus it was an election year. It’s obvious that the current POTUS will pick Kavanaugh because of Kavanaugh’s apparent view that the POTUS is above the law.
Trump seems to have a very peculiar relationship with Putin to say the least. Picking a potential Supreme Court nominee should also wait until the Mueller investigation is over.
5
Sure what Clinton did was impeachable, because Clinton was a Democrat. Like running deficits and engaging in unethical conduct, it's okay if you are a Republican. (IOKIYAR!)
4
Lying is an impeachable offense?
Best laugh in a long time.
5
That was impeaching a Democrat President.
Not an intellectually fair comparison to impeaching a Republican President
Fake news.
4
Stop giving this stuff away. Trump will never appoint him now.
2
Will Trump-appointed justices recuse themselves if matters regarding the president come before the court? Recusal by Roberts, Gorsuch and the justice-to-be would create a court with only 2 "conservative" members and 4 justices of another sort. Recusal seems extremely unlikely by these upholders of the law.
4
All together, now: "It's OK, He's A Republican".
2
Big deal. Trump was once a Democrat and supportive of reproductive and gay rights. Obviously for him history (except when it comes to Hillary Clinton) lasts less than a minute.
2
Brett Kavanaugh should be grilled -- under oath -- about the Starr investigators' knowledge of Linda Tripp and her illegal taping of Monica Lewinsky.
Let's not forget that Linda Tripp was recording Monica Lewinsky giving details of her sexual encounters with the President. And only that. Until Tripp made a visit to federalist society lawyers and consulted with them.
Immediately after, Linda Tripp started egging Monica on -- non-stop! -- about asking the President for a job. It just happened to be exactly what Ken Starr's lawyers like Brett Kavanaugh - also a federalist society regular -- needed as their excuse for getting involved. After all, if the President offered to help her get a job in exchange for silence, then Starr's office could claim he was "obstructing justice".
Let me repeat -- Monica had no interest in asking the President for a job until Linda Tripp kept egging her on about doing so. And Linda Tripp had no interest in egging on Monica until she met with lawyers from the same federalist society that Kavanaugh came from.
And let's all recall Ken Starr's hemming and hawing when he was asked a simple question during his sworn testimony: "When did your office first learn that a woman was recording Monica Lewinsky?" Starr couldn't answer that simple question under oath. Will Brett Kavanaugh? or will he conveniently "forget"? And if Kavanaugh was willing to have Tripp break the law to "get" the President, he has no business on the Supreme Court. Ever.
8
To assume that Judge Kavanaugh will always toe the Trump line is to ignore historical cases of justices following their own consciences once on the bench. Eisenhower famously said his nomination of Earl Warren as chief justice to be “the biggest damn fool thing I ever did, and that his two biggest mistakes were both sitting on the Supreme Court.
When the Court gets so out of whack in one direction, individuals of conscience sometimes stand up and try to right the boat. That is why the framers of the Constitution made Supreme Court justice a lifetime job. Once on the bench, Trump won’t have any power to influence a sitting justice. It’s a slim ray of hope, but I’ll take it.
1
Don't worry, President Trump, Brett Kavanaugh is only outraged if a President claims not having intercourse (and only having oral sex) allows you to say that you didn't have sexual relations.
But if a President fires an FBI Director for not obeying his "suggestion" that he stop the Russia investigation, and if the President writes a letter for his son that lies about why Russians were invited to meet with his top campaign officials (they weren't offering dirt on Hillary, it was about adoption!), then Brett Kavanaugh is behind that President 100%.
Lying about sex = impeachment. Lying about using the Presidency to sell out this country is perfectly fine.
No one associated with Ken Starr should ever be near a federal judgeship let alone the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh is the one who should be impeached for his actions in condoning encouraging illegal actions (taping Monica Lewinsky) and lying to the American people about it.
5
If Kavanaugh gets a hearing, it will be the quintessential illustration of the "It's Okay If You're A Republican" double standard. Kavanaugh will say he has "reconsidered", and the views he had about Clinton's impeachment are not at all applicable to Trump. Because IOKIYAR.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander, so the saying goes.
Unless the gander is Republican (it appears) , in which case what is good for the goose does not apply to the gander.
What hypocrisy!
1
Such reservations strike me as a PR ploy to make him appear a possible check on Trump. Sorry, not buying it. Anyone Trump chooses has been vetted by the Federalist Society, and surely as the sun rises and sets has been approved by Pence.
1
No Supreme Court Justice should be confirmed until all of the investigations have been completed.
Trump should not have any opportunity to select a justice who will be required to rule on any trump and his criminal activities.
7
If Kavanaugh still believes in those broad terms for impeachment, or doesn't convince Trump that he has put that behind him, he is toast.
Trump needs a judge who believes a president can pardon himself and his family and he knows it.
2
Brett Kavanaughs change of heart just shows he is not interested in justice . As a Roman Catholic,any nominee by Trump should be opposed on moral grounds. One even considers herself to be a "handmaiden". A handmaiden as a Supreme Court Justice? Enough
3
Prediction: Trump won't nominate this guy. It won't be because of Kavanaugh's views, though. Rather, it will because of how Trump views articles like this one, as linking Kavanaugh with support for the view that POTUS is beholden to anything. Trump's goal is unfettered personal power on par with that of Putin and Xi Jinping. But to say he wants such power is unfair, in a sense. More accurately, such power is all he can conceive of as his personal, manly right. For Trump, anything less than unfettered personal power is not his personal, manly right.
1
Wow. Apparently, one should be careful about what one signs. I had been worried about what Judge Kavenaugh had written previously, but with this revelation, I am reassured. If it was good enough to impeach Clinton, it will be good enough to impeach Trump. Congressional behavior will impeach itself, and all will be well.
...and of course, tepid questioning from Democrats will go something like this:
"Sir- with all-do-respect[sic], your previous position on Impeachment was.....; do you still hold that position?"
Answer: "Blah, blah blah.... Senator."
Democratic Senator: "Thank you for your candor."
I am surprised that a president can access private interviews with potential appointees. The potential for deal-making and collusion are present and unknowable to the press and public. The confirmation hearings should not have private side meetings either and I expect that they don't. Has the validity of pre-appointment confidentiality in the selection process ever been tested?
1
I can see Trump working night after night, reading and thinking, studying the candidates past decisions, checking and rechecking, wanting to be sure. I know the lights are on in his office all night. I'm thinking it will be Barron.
3
"... wanting to be sure."
Sure of what?
1
What difference does it make? The ultra conservatives on the Court have made it clear that their adherence to legal principles is a fiction that vanishes as soon as a ruling favors the Republicans -- in the recent abortion case, actually ignoring their own prior ruling so that both rulings favored the opponents of abortion.
Just watch Kavanaugh's fondness for impeachment disappear, now that Bill Clinton's presidency is no longer at risk, but Donald Trump's is.
17
“If the president does something dastardly,” he wrote, “the impeachment process is available.”
Mr Kavanaugh has plenty of dastardly deeds to choose from in the unlikely event he would be consistent.
Why did Kennedy resign at such a convenient time for His Majesty? I don't like conspiracy theories but imagine if that happened under Obama.
4
This should make all Dems very happy if he is the nominee. Since he is only one low level judge on the court his views are not that important.
Why is there so much concern about the possibility that investigations may interfere with the ability of a president to do the job? I do not mean to imply that the job is easy. But with every other job it is expected that the person doing the job will perform both their duties and their personal life in manners which are legal and will withstand investigation if need be. Whether the person is a general in control of nuclear weapons, a brain surgeon, or a senior corporate officer in control of billions of dollars through a bank or investment firm, being busy is never an excuse for committing high crimes and misdemeanors.
I guess the argument would run that a major mistake by a president could be a disaster for the country. If that is so, how can it be that illegal conduct by the same official will not be a disaster for the country if allowed to continue for up to four years?
The argument that the proper recourse for action against a president is the impeachment process in the House and Senate begs the question how such a process can go forward without the same sort of investigation currently being done by Mueller.
The basis for such an argument is actually a very simple one. It is politically inconvenient for a criminal president to be investigated while in office, in part because it might lead to impeachment. To some extent that argument itself undermines the legal basis under which presidents conduct the national business.
11
I do not understand why prime time evening TV needs to be interrupted for the SCOTUS pick. Americans are concerned that Bachelorrette Becca does not make the same mistake twice. It's riveting reality. Unlike Trump which is too fake news for me.
5
Perhaps they could ask him how he would remedy the kind of Constitutional theft his party regularly engages in?
7
I am sure he changed his mind as soon as a Republican was in office, and would be willing to change it again once a Democrat is elected.
33
That is exactly right.
1
I'm still all in for Amy Barrett
3
We’ve seen so many Republicans rail about the “untenable” acts of Pres. Clinton or Pres. Obama, then give Trump a pass for so much (like, unbelievably) worse this really means nothing.
22
"... then give Trump a pass for so much (like, unbelievably) worse ..."
Outside of political matters, what has Trump done while in office that is "worse" than Clinton's adulterous receipt of oral sex in the White House?
Trump is so bored with the job, he lies, cheats, colludes, insults and grifts on a daily basis just to see how much he can get away with. Taken to its extreme, Trump is baiting Congress to begin impeachment proceedings to feed his perverse need for more public exposure, even if negative. He'll ride that media frenzy through to just before a Senate vote, understand that he's doomed, and commit the biggest outrage of all, pardoning himself to create even more controversy. Like the "Monster of the ID' in "Forbidden Planet," this ultimate infamy will feed his massive ego, perversely making him the most famous president ever. And isn't that the real goal?
7
Infamous president
1
"impeached for lying to his staff and misleading the public, a broad definition of obstruction of justice that would be damaging if applied to President Trump in the Russia investigation."
Is this guy serious? There is nothing to obstruct in the so-called Russia investigation."
1
Really wish the NYT would stop using “falsehoods” or “misled” and just call them lies. Why do they have to sugarcoat his dishonesty.
21
So many commenters are so very cynical as to think a Trump appointee would treat a Republican president differently from a Democratic president when it comes to impeachment. I'm shocked. . . shocked!
7
Funny the big sticking point is where the nominee stands on impeachment. If our president is so tainted that this is what causes anxiety with the republicans, then maybe we ought to wait until the Mueller investigation is complete before allowing him to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. It’s as if the republican know that there is a very real chance that an impeachment is imminent will likely be successful. If Trump is so innocent there is no need to worry.
7
His confirmation gift from Mueller - a lovely IMPEACH 45 t-shirt from Walmart - ooops! Amazon!!!
3
Indicting a sitting president, he said, “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national-security crisis.”
*********
How exactly does ignoring criminal wrong doing by a sitting president serve the public?
36
"But Judge Kavanaugh has reconsidered some of his views since then,..."
Right. Can't possibly impeach a "republican" president who is a proven lair 3,000 times over.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
34
Times: "Mr. Trump also personally dictated a misleading statement to The New York Times ..."
That is in a *news* article, and the "source" is apparently the Times. Since when did the Times's news division decide it could prosecute and try alleged crimes?
1
@PEB: I think you need to reread the article - the point is that if the Starr reasoning was applied to Trump, any president’s lying to the public would be impeachable. As you are aware, this president lied to the public through the false information supplied to the public via the Times. The fact that it was through the Times is not relevant to the conclusion. Hope this is clear now.
10
Lying about having consensual sex with an intern = impeachment
Lying about having consensual sex with porn stars, taking election assistance from a foreign power, money on trademarks, your tax filing, and nearly everything under the sun = no problem.
38
Consensual sex between the Boss and the intern = violation of Sexual Harassment and Anti-Discrimination Policy
1
Don’t worry. He’ll treat a GOP president differently than a Dem. Just like the rest of the Fascists on the right. Great pick for the Roberts court.
12
If there was ever a litmus test for the next Supreme Court nominee it is clearly you must be a hypocrite.
Seems Brett Kavanaugh might just be the Republican choice.
11
Little Brett was involved with Starr. Pontificating hypocrite!
4
Kavanaugh argued Clinton could be impeached for lying to his staff, so that ought to be a real problem for Trump who's been documented as lying to the American people something like three thousand times since his inauguration and his staff are Americans. Unless they're Russians, in which case Trump could be in the clear.
11
" . . . a broad definition of obstruction of justice that would be damaging if applied to President Trump in the Russia investigation."
That's a big "if."
1
It would be very wise for President Trump to choose a woman to the Supreme Court. The liberals are always saying that women must be elevated to positions of power and what greater role for a women then to be a justice of the Supreme Court. This would disprove to his critics and detractors that he does value women and that they are as capable of men to be on the bench. They are just as qualified as any man to decide the important outcomes of any cases that are brought before them.
He should nominate Amy Coney Barrett who could fit this role beautifully. She is bright, has excellent credentials and is a woman. She is as qualified as any of the men who Mr. Trump has up for consideration.
1
It makes no difference who gets appointed, Roe v Wade will be overturned, LGGT rights will be overturned. etc. etc. Anyone who believes otherwise lives in Fairyland.
7
Is there an archive available somewhere (Pepperdine University?) containing documents detailing the inner workings of the Starr Investigative Committee, particular any views expressed therein by then-member Kavanaugh? If so, hopefully these would be available to reporters via an F.O.I. request. Start digging NYT!
6
Judge Kavanaugh's argument that Bubba should have been impeached for lying to his staff and misleading the public will be dismisses as a "youthful indiscretion" by the Republicans and he will be confirmed in record time.
3
I am certain that use of High Office to issue Lies under color of authority as "presidential statements" -- as he has declared his social media blebs to be --- is a High Crime/Misdemeanour and impeachable when the Lies serve no national interest but only serve the personal, emotional, political satisfaction of one man, the man in the High Office using its status and resources to issue Lies to take revenge on, retaliate against or hit his opponents for having said something unflattering, making accusations without proof, claiming or implying he has "proof" that his Lie is the truth, all with reckless or malicious or depraved disregard for the consequences to the people, the nation and our standing among our allies in the world.
The Lies serve no national purpose and like most lies, are harmful or meant to cause harm-- thus the stricture in most religions and laws against false testimony.
These lies sully America before the world while having no purpose in upholding the integrity of the High Office and form no conceivable part of High Office duties.
Call your reps and senators, no matter the party, and demand they speak out, saying, "He must be called before Congress to account for himself and explain his words. If he will not do so freely, he must be impeached."
If we, the people, do not demand it, we, the people, have decided it is OK to let our Congress decide that lies are a legitimate form of rule.
7
"if the president did something dastardly....""
This whole article makes it abundantly clear that this is no time for the president to be nominating someone for a SCOTUS vacancy.
His main concern seems less about Kavanaugh's credentials than his views on impeachment.
Donald Trump is under a serious investigation, not for sex with an intern but for conspiracy to commit treason by colluding with a foreign government to win the election.
So picking how his candidate will rule about him on all this, is a conflict of interest as large as Mr. Everest.
6
Since Republicans weren't willing to confirm Obama's choice for the Supreme Court in March 2016 because it was an election year, it would make sense that Democrats should raise this point given that it's now mid-July and there is another election coming up. Perhaps Senators Collins and Murkowski and/or some of the many, many Republicans not running for re-election could see their way to upholding a precedent they themselves put forward.
5
"... it would make sense that Democrats should raise this point given that it's now mid-July and there is another election coming up."
The McConnell "rule" only applies in *presidential* election years.
1
Also only when a Democrat is president.
There is no reason for this rule not to apply for this election. If the people speak and give the Democrats control of the Senate, that could drastically change the type of judge Trump could get confirmed.
of course it does
"lying to his staff and misleading the public, a broad definition of obstruction of justice would be damaging if applied to President Trump" in pretty much anything he says...
4
Wouldn't be a kick in the head to Mr. Trump, if Judge Kavanaugh were to replace Justice Kennedy, and something out of the Russian Investigation goes to the Supreme Court. Then Kavanaugh votes against Trumps favor.
1
What’s his likely stance on allowing abortion, or for refusing to make or sell wedding cakes for Republicans and others complicit with Trump’s morally offensive actions? On religious freedom or free speech grounds, of course?
2
Trump put out the list.
He has reduced Progressives to comparing and discussing them.
If they can't say all are unqualified, they can't say any one is unqualified.
Trump is one sharp cookie.
3
I bet your readers didn't know this:
Obama had 44 unanimous losses in front of the Supreme Court. A record.
So maybe the justices, know what they are doing regardless of who appointed them.
2
This says much more about the Supreme Court than it does about Obama.
2
44 unanimous losses?
That certainly would be news. You should list them.
1
I’m sure that during the 8 years that Obama was president, the Supreme Court voted unanimously in many cases but every time the court votes it is not a referendum on the president. Most cases come to the court on appeal (the court “original jurisdiction” in a very limited set of circumstances) and may have absolutely no relevance to presidential politics or initiatives. Why don’t you tell us the 44 cases (or a relevant subset) so that we can understand your claim?
Ah but ... he argued for impeachment of a Democrat. Obviously he thinks the law is different for a Republican.
6
Professor Amar is right, I think, and I don't understand why Judge Kavanaugh's correct understanding of impeachment would give Democrats a cause to oppose him. We have to admit that President Clinton made mistakes (truthfully denying having had sex in the narrow sense with an employee, hoping it would stick as a denial of having sex in the broad sense with her).Trump's general incompetence and sleaze are far more consequential, so Kavanaugh would presumably be on the right side if Congress decides to impeach and the Supreme Court had to weigh in.
2
It appears from the people quoted in this article and from past 20th Century impeachment proceedings that an impeachable offense is whatever the House of Representatives at the time decides. There are no constitutional guidelines for what constitutes an "impeachable offense".
After confessing his son and staff met Russian agents to request Russia covertly / illegally aid his campaign it is hard to understand why how the GOP continues to protect Trump. Even the GOP run Senate Intel committee confirmed the FBI's findings. Russia illegally helped Trump win the election - and Trump asked them to.
1
Just a few: (i) "In 2009, Kavanaugh wrote an article for the Minnesota Law Review where he argued that U.S. Presidents should be exempt from “time-consuming and distracting” lawsuits and investigations, which “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis”; (ii) "After Kavanaugh wrote for a divided panel striking down a Clean Air Act regulation, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed 6-2 in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. (2014). Kavanaugh dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc of a unanimous panel opinion upholding the agency's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions; (iii) In 2015, Kavanaugh found that those directly regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) could challenge the constitutionality of its design. In October 2016, Kavanaugh wrote for a divided panel finding that the CFPB's design was unconstitutional, and made the CFPB Director removable by the President of the United States; (iv) In October 2017, Kavanaugh joined an unsigned divided panel opinion which found that the Office of Refugee Resettlement could prevent an unaccompanied minor in its custody from obtaining an abortion." A real winner, this one.
3
Whatever standards for impeachment were used, there is a cavernous space between Clinton's and Trump's depth and frequency of lying to citizens and everyone else. And that's not a lie.
4
Confirmed! It is awfully difficult to overturn one's own paper trail!
4
WE THE PEOPLE, once we take back OUR U.S. government at all levels by electing Socially Conscious Women and men to manage OUR country, must DEMAND that they increase OUR U.S. Supreme Court by two or three justices and pack the court with progressive and liberal justices appointed by OUR Socially Conscious president.
WE must also demand that retroactive term limits apply to OUR U.S. Supreme Court and federal justices so the Robber Barons can never get unfettered control again.
10
Kavanaugh worked as a counsel to George W. Bush.
Wondering what both Kavanaugh and Bush think about Donald Trump today after his disgusting ridicule of Senior George Bush and the “thousand points of light” statements Trump resounded for applause in Montana last night.
It is hardly possible to fathom such disrespect coming from a president such as this. It even minimizes perhaps an honorable nomination of a Supreme Court Justice coming from the lips of such a despicable man. Who would want to be associated with a nomination coming from such a person as Donald Trump for the rest of their life and profession? A lot to think about, a lot to swallow on the eve of a most important position in United States history.
Kavanaugh has his moral hands full with the likes of Donald Trump.
7
If nominated to SCOTUS, Kavanaugh will disavow absolutely everything he ever said about impeachment. That is a certainty.
14
Let me guess: Brett M. Kavanaugh is all in favor of impeachment on ANY grounds for DEMOCRATIC Presidents. But where was he when George W. Bush was lying to Congress, the people, and the UN about why we needed to violate international law to go to war with Iraq for no reason other than Darth Cheney and Rummy wanted a war?
Where was he when Bush was lying to Congress about what Medicare Part D would cost, complying with their $400 billion cap until it was passed then days later it was "Oop! We bad! It's really $550 billion!"
Where was he when Bush was rolling out the unConstitutional Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and arresting and locking up natural-born American citizens without a trial, proper counsel and all of their rights denied?
Where was he when Bush was rolling up annual deficits of $1.4 trillion, while helping buddies at Enron, AIG, and Goldman?
And where is Kavanaugh now on impeachment, now that we have THE most corrupt, most criminal, most Constitution-violating "President" in our history, who colluded with a hostile foreign power to win election on a technicality, and now thinks he is a king?
I hate to be cynical, but I'd bet 100 to 1 he's against impeaching Trump on similar but far, FAR more serious grounds than Clinton. Were Trump a Democrat, the House would already have 100 or more Articles of Impeachment sent to the Senate, and McConnell would be twisting every arm he could for conviction.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.
39
Ha ha ha. He believed in impeachment for A Democrat for any possible reason they could come up with. THere is nothing Trump can do, even treasonous that will cause him to be impeached. He is getting ready to sell the USA to the Russians for peanuts. He believes he owns the whole country now that he is president. When he began as president, he thought people would stop him from doing the most stupid and damaging things, but since has found out, that, no, no one will stop him. The Republicans in congress are just as cowardly as he is.
13
I just love the situational ethics of Republicans. Of course they have strict standards and draw firmly logical conclusions, but things are highly dependent on whose ox is being gored. It always seems any argument that advances a conservative agenda or somehow faults a Democrat is sanctified.
Clinton obstructed justice by lying to his cabinet? Only once upon a time. Then Bush junior was appointed president in a one-off decision that ruled the Florida recount was somehow unconstitutional. Bush adds Roberts and Alito to the Supremes and we get money is speech and corporations are people. And 'swing vote' Kennedy was fine with free speech for religious bigots and legitimate grounds for public union busting, but somehow he was silent on political gerrymandering. And blind deference to presidential prerogative justified repealing the Korematsu decision and replacing it with a Muslim ban.
Flexible ethics are a failing common to people in general, but conservatives like to project their sense of righteousness and infallibility to the public. It's mostly cover for achieving hard core conservative goals.
So Kavanaugh should fit right in as a conservative who will shape his reasoning as needed to deliver reliably conservative rulings.
It's jarring that we're headed for an archly conservative court built on a foundation of stolen elections, a stolen SCOTUS seat, and supercharged by a president who admitted obstructing justice and may have committed treason to help get elected.
64
Of course he no longer believes that because Repubs' one fixed principle is that no principle is fixed.
10
How about lying over 3000 times while in office to congress, the press and to the American people? How's this for law breaking? Not to mention kidnapping over 3000 children and taking them across state lines. This guy better be consistent if chosen.
25
It’s not against the law to lie to the press nor is it against the law for the press to lie and mislead us.
Well, there's a difference between a Democratic president lying about consensual sex and a Republican president lying about his campaign staff meeting with Russians to listen to offers to interfere in a US election, about blackmail paid to at least one stripper, about reasons for firing the head of the FBI, about conflicts of interest, and about the Justice Department investigators. And dangling pardons to those under investigation.
52
Any democrat and independent who votes to accept ANY Supreme Court or federal judge must be booted out of OUR government in the next election.
As Bob Dylan sang, "The times they are a changin" and
WE THE PEOPLE will not allow the further destruction of OUR democratic governance and all the social goods that Teddy and FDR/Elanor Roosevelt fought so hard to create.
Not now. Not ever.
28
“But Judge Kavanaugh has reconsidered some of his views since then”
You mean now that the president in question is a Republican? This guy misleads the American people every single day.
46
He published the article in 2009, when Obama was president.
6
It is not easy to assess a judge's independence on the basis of the lawyer's opinions.
Trump is very superficial to say the least. He will go for looks and sycophancy. Kavanagh seems quite malleable.
In any event, he would have that much power on the proceedings against Trump. Mueller seems to be quite risk averse insofar as courts are concerned.
3
not that much power...
You assume facts not in evidence: That a Trumpublican court candidate would be consistent in (his) views regardless of the party affiliation of the sitting president. As Republican and Trumpublican (Gorsuch) jurists have made quite clear, principles are just convenient rhetorical devices meant to serve whatever twisted argument they wish to make on any given Monday under a full moon.
10
More Republican hypocrisy & cynicism at its finest. Kavanagh is a GOP political operative who never deserved to be appointed to the Federal bench in the first place. He has made a point of kissing up to all the GOP power brokers at every opportunity. Now he is about to be rewarded for his loyalty with a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS?
Republicans consistently display a double standard regarding personal & political misconduct. Basically, in their world, a Republican can do no wrong & a Democrat can do nothing right. Therefore, any action by a Democrat will be subject to an artificially high standard, & any misdeed will deserve the most severe punishment possible. Conversely, any action by a Republican will be rationalized away as benign & undeserving of any punishment whatsoever.
Does anyone for one second believe that Kavanagh would not try to protect Trump if he ascends to the SCOTUS? Does any GOP senator have the courage to oppose such an obviously political nomination?
Mitch McConnell decided in Feb. 2016 that we should not consider a SCOTUS nominee 9 months before an election, despite the fact that the nomination was made by a President who was elected twice by resounding popular vote margins & was untainted by any personal or political scandals. By that standard, there is ample reason to have the Senate refuse to consider this nomination, less than 4 months before an election, made by a POTUS with the worst personal & political misconduct in modern history.
11
Would someone on the Judiciary Committee please ask him and other nominees the following questions:
Someone has deeply-held religious beliefs that prohibit failure to protect the natural environment; cruelty to widows and children (for example, by forcibly separating them for weeks or months without guaranteed regular communication between them); harassing or otherwise harming immigrants; bearing false witness; and the like. This person owns or works in a business that is open to and serves the public. Someone know. to create, advocate for, enact, and/or defend such religiously immoral behavior requests service there. May the owner or worker legally refuse to serve that person? What if they own or work at the only such business in the area?
Similarly, a pregnant woman’s strongly-held religious beliefs dictate that she must not place her own life or limb in the way of grave harm in order to carry a life- or limb-threatening pregnancy to term. The same is true of her doctor. Their centuries-old religion says full human life does not begin until birth. They live and work in a state that prohibits abortion under all circumstances. The doctor states the practice of medicine is both a science and an art. May the doctor lawfully perform and the endangered woman receive, an abortion? Does the Constitution of the United States, perhaps in its First Amendment, protect their actions since they are informed and motivated by sincerely and strongly held religious belief?
10
"Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, the front-runner to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court, once argued that President Bill Clinton could be impeached for lying to his staff and misleading the public, a broad definition of obstruction of justice that would be damaging if applied to President Trump in the Russia investigation."
Why would this be a controversial proposition amongst the GOP? Conservatives have taken this position not just on Clinton, but on Nixon as well. The had actually ADOPTED articles of impeachment against Nixon (who resigned to avoid it all) and they laid out reasons extending far beyond just raiding the DNC. The GOP spoke very specifically about the falsehoods and misleading statements Nixon "made or caused to be made" to the American PUBLIC.
Take note that this is not about broken campaign promises or nitpicky semantics. The Republican Party once believed it to be an impeachable offense for a president to tell continuous, non-trivial, unapologetic lies to the public at large every day of the week. The sheer scope of Trump's lies dwarf Nixon by a wide margin, but the current GOP position seems to be that only FBI investigators, courts and Congress are entitled to factual information about any matter whatsoever. If not for the leaks the public would have almost nothing BUT lies.
13
those were other republicans, not the ones in office now, beholden to corporate masters and their trumpista Tea Party enablers
1
Kavanaugh has made double speak statements already. When you say you won't vote your mind but only the law,you are defining exactly the opposite of what the other judges are doing. The liberals vote liberal and vice versa in many matters. President Trump has already chosen the wrong persons who use double speak or do not convey or realize their actual intentions.Placing a political imposter in this position as with Roberts cannot be redone.
3
He's going to pick Kavanagh because Kavanagh has written law review articles to the effect that the President is, or should be, essentially immune from civil suit and criminal prosecution. That's all Trump cares about. NYT, would you please research Kavanagh on the power of the pardon? You can be sure that the Republicans have done so. My guess, if he is the front-runner, is that he is in favor of an absolutist, unlimited power of the pardon, possibly extending to the President himself. How about if your reporters test that hypothesis?
24
Kavanagh wrote that Congress should pass a law to make presidents immune from civil suit and criminal prosecution. Supreme Court justices can't propose or enact laws.
4
William Case, SCOTUS may not technically enact laws, but its interpretation of existing law sometimes amounts to that.
1
If it requires a new statue that implies no current immunity for president.
Lawyers are advocates. Judge Kavanaugh was an advocate on Starrr's staff, not a judge.
8
So in other words, this guy believes in creating laws to take down presidents he doesn't like and ignoring existing ones to remove impeach those he likes.
Sounds like the perfect man for King Trump.
56
"In rethinking his views, Judge Kavanaugh wrote in 2009 in the Minnesota Law Review that Congress should pass laws that would protect a president from civil and criminal law suits until they are out of office. In any event, he said, there was always a way to remove a “bad-behaving or lawbreaking President. If the president does something dastardly,” he wrote, “the impeachment process is available.”
In other words: Bill Clinton's lying in an attempt to hide an affair was "dastardly" enough to warrant impeachment; but Trump's lying/denials about Russia's interference in our election won't be "dastardly" enough? Trump's destruction of trust in our law-enforcement agencies won't be dastardly enough? Trump's denigration of a free and unbiased media won't be dastardly enough? Trump's flagrant harassment and abuse of women won't be dastardly enough? Trump's personal attacks on individual citizens and against specific companies won't be dastardly enough?
And Trump's bragging that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and "get away with it" won't be "dastardly" enough?
How much more hypocrisy can we bear from Kavanaugh, Justices like Scalia and Thomas, McConnell/Ryan and the rest of the congressional RepugniCants, the Rightwing Media Cabal, and all of their putatively Christian supporters?
27
Ha....and what makes anyone think GOP style conservatives actually live up to their rhetoric?
7
“...intentional and calculated falsehood to deceive the Congress and the American people.”
And now Judge Brett Kavanaugh wishes to “walk back” that harsh, glaring spotlight that the Starr prosecutors shone on (the Democratic president) Bill Clinton. What has changed your mind, Judge Kavanaugh, and why?
We’ve not been given any recent updates on the progress of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s investigation. But it cannot be out of the realm of the possible that Donald Trump’s conduct as both a candidate and as a president could come within the purview of an impartial Congressional inquiry that might result in bills of impeachment being levied against him.
This president and the majority-Republican sitting justices have demonstrated a much looser reading—of not only the Constitution in particular but also of the law in general—that do not inspire anything like widespread public confidence in their ability—or inclination—to interpret points of settled law with no one but the wealthy or private corporations in mind.
Judge Kavanaugh would present the latest grave threat to “We, the People” by joining this once-respected tribunal. The president’s people, surely fearing a Mueller report that might recommend the impeachment of this president, will steer him far away from the possibilities that his latest nominee since he is on the record of clearing the way for his ultimate removal from office.
Words have consequences.
God said, “my word shall not return to me void.”
2
This article is far too limited - it describes the Democrat-Republican flip flop, but says nothing about Kavanaugh's other salient verdicts and opinions.
There has also been no coverage of Ray Kethledge - and that's a journalistic oversight that should be remedied quickly. His advocacy for preferential treatment of tea party organizations by the IRS, expansion of Citizens United, and credit checks on job applicants (which pose an formidable employment barrier for low income workers) are concerning, to say the least (though credit checks would have been EXTREMELY helpful disqualifying our 6-times bankrupt president!)
28
All that stuff about following the law and impeaching Presidents who fail to do so only applies to DEMOCRATIC presidents. Republicans are free to do as they will with no consequences.
38
Remember: deficits, ethics, morality, right & wrong and the separation of powers ONLY matter for Democrats.
For Republicans, the only principle is Grand Old Power.....democracy, Constitution and the rule of law be damned.
116
I have a beef with the Times's journalistic practices concerning the president. Why do you continue to quote verbatim his reality-show babble word for word? It's clear he's taking us all for a ride on his television-honed ego train, and the only game he knows is the tease and lie. This is not The Apprentice; this is people's lives. Stop cooperating with him!
You're complicit; you could just summarize his position, instead of inserting his smarmy, illiterate voice into my head every day. I'm very close to avoiding all news outlets that thrive and prosper on outrage.
100
It's important that Americans, and people worldwide, hear the president's words. Summarizing his position is not even possible since he changes his mind so much.
I have to agree with Pantheist. We need to know exactly how this president thinks. His illiterate Twitter rants, his rally rants, his press conference gibberish are all grist for the mill. Trump's legacy needs to revolve around the nonsense that he articulates as well as the policies put into effect by his minions.
When you ask a Trump supporter what they'd change about Trump, they always say that they'd like him to stop Tweeting. If they're against it and it makes them cringe, then it must be right.
What a bunch of sellouts. For shame, America.
8
I guess we can expect a gaggle of extremely desperate articles about the next SCOTUS candidate between now and the day he/she is confirmed. Time to break out the popcorn and watch the inevitable unfold while the left kicks and screams like children (as usual).
3
No. Actually it is much more fun watching so-called Conservatives and HipoChristians make excuses for this clown.
14
“I have it down to four people, and I think of the four people, I have it down to three or two.."
So Trump had a total of two white people on his list, and of course he's leaning toward the white-male. Given Trump's other picks, we should at least be relieved that Mr. Kavanaugh is a judge and has a background in law as opposed to Trump appointing his personal barber, tailor, pilot, doctor, etc.
17
"Judge Kavanaugh has reconsidered some of his views...."
This may not be helpful should he become part of SCOUTS and decide death penalty appeals.
2
Here's a news flash. Trump will only nominate a partisan tool. At most, the nominee will make false statements about respect for precedent. Mostly, s/he will refuse to answer questions. The Democrats will mostly go along with the Republicans in pretending that the insulting charade is democratic process.
17
Because Kavanaugh soured on the Starr investigation, he has a built-in excuse to give Trump a pass. Before taking it easy on Trump I only ask that he compare Clinton's sins to Trump's. In the case of Trump, I believe the behavior is dastardly and he should be exposed to the process.
17
It sounds as if Kavanaugh will be the perfect candidate. He will protect Trump from prosecution at least while Trump is in office. That will add to the Travesty that is Trump and what he has wrought on this country.
We will have to depend on the Attorneys General in other States to prove how Trump's actions have endangered our Nation's security and how he is raping our Treasury and enriching himself at the Public troth.
13
This fact may be a deal breaker for Kavanaugh. But I would wager that if he is chosen by Trump, it will come on the heels of a private tete-a-tete in which he assures the man in the Oval Office that he has "evolved" on all things impeachment. This is what this country has come to...the risk of having the Solomon's of the highest court in the land sell their souls for the final power over our rights. I truly hope that I am wrong. But I have lost all trust in our three branches of a now tainted government.
73
I believe the SCOTUS lost its soul when it gave corporations legal rights previously reserved for US citizens, and gave PACs protections from campaign shenanigans that stink of collusion with political campaigns.
7
Nice story, but the Rules are different, when it's a Republican. There ARE no Rules. Just saying.
36
Hmm. If Kavanaugh is Trump's designated nominee, and most likely attempts to disingenuously distance himself from positions taken as an important member on the Starr Investigation, this could serve as a reason for Senators Collins and Murkowski to vote against his confirmation, aligning themselves with Republicans wary of a "closet Souter".
6
In Nixon v United States (1993), the Supreme Court ruled it could not resolve issues arising from impeachments because such issues are political issues that cannot be resolved in the courts.
8
That was the decision of the Supreme Court then, this is now. And there doesn't seem to be much respect for precedent or settled law, especially with regard to Roe.
"In Nixon v United States (1993), ..."
For the record, the case involved a Federal judge, and it was decided unanimously.
Judge Kavanaugh noted that If the president does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available.
I believe the most dastardly thing Mr. Trump's administration had done is the cruelty they have inflicted on migrant children and their parents, separating them at the border and then housing them in unspeakable conditions. However perhaps the most dangerous thing to our nation is that the most powerful person heading our government was not vetted with a FBI background check such as people who are hired instead of elected must be vetted. With Mr. Trump's full access to top classified material and his contempt for our constitution and our legal system, we may find that Mr. Putin now has hand delivered access to any of the classified material that Mr. Trump is willing to give him. What can be done to protect our country?
18
Whoa!! Let's not be too hasty about deciding this man is too conservative.
Could he be Trump's poison pill?
1
We already know Kavanaugh's thoughts on "when" to impeach a president: When that president is a Democrat. GOP presidents are above the law.
156
You said it, JB!
1
The fact that kavenaugh argued that a president can be impeached for lying and obstruction should not deter Trump from nominating him, because Republicans are liars and hypocrites and kavenaugh will just turn around now and defend trump against impeachment. That is why trump will have to be overthrown through rebellion
13
Once the president reads this piece, or has it read to him by an aide, Brett Kavanaugh’s Court nomination prospects will vanish immediately. The issue of impeachment will be a major of topic during a Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, something that would be the elephant in the room and draw immense media speculation and attention during that proceeding.
18
I wouldn’t worry about this if I were Trump or a Republican senator. As all of them have amply demonstrated, the various things they have purported to believe with respect to the Democrats are not applicable to Republicans. I expect Kavanaugh is no different. He said Clinton might be impeachable, but such rules and statements only apply if a Democrat is the one against whom they are directed. Republicans are above the law.
177
We need Murkowski, Collins, Flake, and Corker to vote against Trump this time. And McCain, if he's able. Nothing prettier than seeing a Trump nomination go down in flames.
7
Did they really understand Judge Kavanaugh correctly?
What he probably meant was that the obstruction issue only applies to non-right-wing, radical, Republicans, otherwise it would not be an impeachable defense.
If, the President coming before the Supreme Court were of the right-wing, radical, Republican persuasion he would then, just be required to go through the legal ("pretzel-like") contortions, to show why it doesn't apply to Trump. In other words, a similar vein to their recent decision to allow Trump to discriminate on any grounds, as long as he invokes security as his reason, whether shown on its face to be absurd rationale or not (immigration, trade, etc.).
13
I'm beginning to get really worried that we know nothing about the third top contender Ray Kethledge. From what I can glean, he doesn't believe in personal privacy, and believes that the Chevron deference is wrong, but I can't find much else. The press in its entirety elides when they come to him amongst the three choices. He's obviously a stealth candidate, but that doesn't mean the press should be lazy about him.
15
Anyone who thinks Trump hasn't asked the Supreme Court candidates directly what their positions are on key cases is not facing reality.
If what Trump asked them during interviews wasn't inappropriate, they should have no problem sharing that information with citizens voters. We deserve to know whether he ever used the word 'loyalty' for one, and certainly impeachment and abortion.
64
Um, the flip side of that argument is that anyone who thinks a Supreme Court nominee isn't going to tell Trump exactly what Trump wants to hear is not facing reality.
After all, once the nominee gets the job, he or she has no obligation to be loyal to anyone, much less Trump.
1
Why does everyone think that the nominee will come from these three? Trump is the PT Barnum of our time he lives for the show. When Monday comes don't be surprised if the name isn't one of these three. It is pretty clear that the nominee will be ultra conservative, a person who wants to over turn Roe and who wants to dictate to women what they can and can't do with their bodies. The nominee will be one who has no interest in protecting the LGBTQ community, one who thinks voter rights laws, affirmative action and equal protection laws are no longer necessary. In other words someone not on this list.
78
Amy Barrett is on the list and she seems to fit your description. I think Trump wants to nominate Barrett. However, I think he's more concerned about his own legal implications. Hence, Kavanaugh is the front-runner.
Lest anyone get too excited about any prior stances of this potential nominee, please recall that the conservative mind is demonstrably, gymnastically flexible - to the point of judicial contortionism.
Just show them the money, and consistency becomes the stuff of foolish hobgoblins. If his overall record demonstrates that he's a duck, kindly don't be fooled into thinking he might really be an eagle.
130
Rest assured that any judge Trump nominates will be privately vetted on their "loyalty" to Trump, off the record, quietly, long before any hearing or public announcement of a name is made. It will not be done in public, so do not even bother looking for it. But the next Justice will be loyal to Trump and agreeable to defending him at all costs, from Mueller and other attacks, or else their name will not be put forward.
Anyone who thinks there will be any transparency or public discussion of this key question of "loyalty" to Trump over everything else, imply doesn't know how Trump has operated in the past. See his dinner with Comey for just one example, and there are many others.
144
All you have to do is swear to be loyal, then blindside him at the next tribal council. It happens every Tuesday evening right around 10 p.m on Survivor.
Don't allow any Trump candidate to be even considered.
They did it to Obama, we should do the same. They should be made to wait until the elections in November.
If you think this is a silly "tit for tat" behavior, you are just naive and will keep loosing. If you haven't got it yet, let me make this clear: right now, USA politic is war. All hits are allowed. There is no Geneva Convention. That's what we should have learned from the Republicans by now.
We let them get away with too much and look what it got us. This country is now either laughed at or despised by other nations. We are antagonizing our allies, cozying with dicators, removing all protection of the environment and our health care, and starting trade wars.
We need to fight back just the same way they fight, no hold barred.
17