New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[Paul2]

At this point literally no one cares. The Democrats reached deep into their sleazy bag to break the man and failed. Their disgraceful tactics have been revealed in their failure.

Even if the Dems did everything to claim they did, that article by the former Yale law school dean would still make sense.

 

[The Big Dog]

Even if the Dems did everything to claim they did, that article by the former Yale law school dean would still make sense.

Well it does not make sense and was originally published I a blog for never trump fanatics, so...

 

[Paul2]

And in truth, to be expected. We elected Obama, and bigots flew into a rage.

Just as they did when slavery ended.

Just as they did when civil rights were passed.

Slavery and racial bigotry is truly this country's original sin, and we just can't seem to shake it, despite the progress we've seen. I suppose that arc of progress will eventually cure it, but waiting that long is excruciating.

 

[Paul2]

Well it does not make sense and was originally published I a blog for never trump fanatics, so...

Which part of it doesn't make sense and thus invalidates its overall conclusion?

 

[KDLarsen]

Robert Post, former dean of Yale Law School:

Each and every Republican who votes for Kavanaugh, therefore, effectively announces that they care more about controlling the Supreme Court than they do about the legitimacy of the court itself. There will be hell to pay.

Brett Kavanaugh Cannot Have it Both Ways

And that's what so baffling, they already control the Supreme Court. They have the votes to pass any other nominee off the Federalist Society list (and as the head of said organisation says, anyone on that list is as good as the next one as far as solid conservative credentials are concerned). And yet they purposely choose to stick with Kavanaugh.

It's either down to them wanting to send a middle finger at the Democrats, or the specter of Bork's failed nomination is still haunting them, in the same way Nixon's resignation does, as something that must never be allowed to happen again.

 

[Bob001]

"Big day for America!"

Is it too soon to pop open the champagne? Let's get this celebration party underway!

Winning never gets old. I'm lovin' it!

Liberals and progressives see America as belonging to all Americans equally. We expect government to serve all Americans equally, and we see government as generally being a force for good in the lives of ordinary Americans going back at least to the late 1800s: pure food and drug laws, anti-monopoly laws, workplace safety laws, legal protection for unions, progressive income tax rates, the New Deal, the GI Bill, Social Security, Medicare, civil rights laws, voting rights laws, pollution restrictions, etc., etc.

Who is your America for?

 

[Bob001]

And that's what so baffling, they already control the Supreme Court. They have the votes to pass any other nominee off the Federalist Society list (and as the head of said organisation says, anyone on that list is as good as the next one as far as solid conservative credentials are concerned). And yet they purposely choose to stick with Kavanaugh.

It's either down to them wanting to send a middle finger at the Democrats, or the specter of Bork's failed nomination is still haunting them, in the same way Nixon's resignation does, as something that must never be allowed to happen again.

The difference is that Kavanaugh has a long history as a committed Republican operative, unlike the career judges and legal scholars who might have been nominated, and Kavanaugh has explicitly supported a view that the powers of the President -- that would be Dear Leader -- are essentially unlimited, not subject to judicial or Congressional review. Kav is an insurance policy for Trump.

 

[Diablo]

I was just watching CNN and they mentioned that Kav might vote that the President can't be indicted while in office. What does that mean? If Trump took a gun and shot someone for no good reason surely he'd be arrested?

 

[kellyb]

I was just watching CNN and they mentioned that Kav might vote that the President can't be indicted while in office. What does that mean? If Trump took a gun and shot someone for no good reason surely he'd be arrested?

Basically, yeah.

 

[The Big Dog]

In other good news, after Senator Collins stood up to the democrat party bullies, literal fraudster SuSan Rice said she was considering run against Collins.

I am not saying Collins would get 100 percent of the votes in that race, but...

And I thought Trump winning broke the democrat party, hoo boy...

 

[Trebuchet]

I was just watching CNN and they mentioned that Kav might vote that the President can't be indicted while in office. What does that mean? If Trump took a gun and shot someone for no good reason surely he'd be arrested?

It's not just "might". He has explicitly stated that the President is immune to any sort of prosecution. It's been suggested that it's why Trump picked him.

(Citation needed, I'll see if I can find something.)

 

[kellyb]

It's not just "might". He has explicitly stated that the President is immune to any sort of prosecution. It's been suggested that it's why Trump picked him.

(Citation needed, I'll see if I can find something.)

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17551584/brett-kavanaugh-president-criminal-investigation

 

[Bob001]

I was just watching CNN and they mentioned that Kav might vote that the President can't be indicted while in office. What does that mean? If Trump took a gun and shot someone for no good reason surely he'd be arrested?

Who would arrest him? You think the Secret Service would turn him over to local cops somewhere? Kav has in fact argued that the president should largely be above criminal and civil prosecution.

“I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” Kavanaugh wrote in 2009, three years after Bush appointed him to the D.C. Circuit. “This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or 1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the President should be required to shoulder the same obligations that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...from-criminal-charges/?utm_term=.9e1f787ec5d0

 

[acbytesla]

Slavery and racial bigotry is truly this country's original sin, and we just can't seem to shake it, despite the progress we've seen. I suppose that arc of progress will eventually cure it, but waiting that long is excruciating.

While Obama's quote of Dr King's that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” sounds optimistic and great, it is in fact nonsense. Dr King never meant it the way that Obama used it as a sort of historical determinism on earth, but an appeal to the morale of his flock. It is more along the Christian idea that justice is not to be found on earth but in their imaginary heaven.

Dr. King went on to say that 'Evil may so shape events that Caesar will occupy a palace and Christ a cross,” . In other words, the good guys don't always win. Not today, not tomorrow, not maybe ever. History does not promise a future. Our loss today does not necessarily mean we will lose tomorrow. But it doesn't look promising.

 

[Paul2]

Who would arrest him? You think the Secret Service would turn him over to local cops somewhere? Kav has in fact argued that the president should largely be above criminal and civil prosecution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...from-criminal-charges/?utm_term=.9e1f787ec5d0

Rather than assuming that a criminal or civil prosecution would cripple the presidency, we can only legitimately say that it might.

And even if it did, the remedy would be the 25th Amendment, it's right there in the Constitution. No constitutional crisis at all.

 

[Brainster]

I was just watching CNN and they mentioned that Kav might vote that the President can't be indicted while in office. What does that mean? If Trump took a gun and shot someone for no good reason surely he'd be arrested?

Arrested? Probably. Indicted or formally charged? That's where it gets problematic. For starters the president has unlimited powers when it comes to pardoning people for crimes; there is a strong argument he could pardon himself. So the procedure most constitutional scholars support is removal from office via impeachment and conviction in the Senate, and then indictment.

This is not very controversial; I note that Bill Clinton's lawyers made this very argument some 20 years ago.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not just "might". He has explicitly stated that the President is immune to any sort of prosecution. It's been suggested that it's why Trump picked him.

(Citation needed, I'll see if I can find something.)

No, he did not say that. Read kellyb's source and you'll see that he wanted legislation to make it that way. But that's pretty explicitly because he doesn't think that it is that way right now. Absent such legislation, Kavanaugh thinks the president is not immune to prosecution while in office. And under the current environment, such legislation isn't going to happen.

 

[Bob001]

Arrested? Probably. Indicted or formally charged? That's where it gets problematic. For starters the president has unlimited powers when it comes to pardoning people for crimes; there is a strong argument he could pardon himself. So the procedure most constitutional scholars support is removal from office via impeachment and conviction in the Senate, and then indictment.
....

Not quite true. The President issues pardons for federal crimes. He can't do it for state crimes. You can be sure Trump is very concerned about the state authorities in New York, New Jersey and elsewhere looking into his taxes and finances.

 

[smartcooky]

There are plenty of people, including me and Phiwum, and most of the rest of the country, that finds Travis' scenario so incredibly unthinkable that as soon as we took steps in that direction, there would be uproar.

Only if you noticed the steps.

Was there an uproar when Trump began separating families and locking children in cages? Did the objections make any difference? Nope, in fact, Trump's moronic base cheered them on..... "Lock them up, lock them up......"

Putting Kavanaugh on SCOTUS is a step towards taking away a women's right to choose what happens with her own body? Have the objections made any difference? Nope, the minority Senate did it anyway, cheered on by Trump's morons again.

Putting Kavanaugh on SCOTUS is a step towards placing POTUS above the Law. Have the objections made any difference? Nope, the minority Senate did it anyway, again cheered on by Trump's morons.

Small steps, that is how its works. Small, hardly noticeable steps, supported by the noisy minority base. Just ask any European Jews after the fall of the Weimar Republic in 1933. Small, hardly noticeable steps is how a Democracy turns into a Dictatorship - we've seen it before and anyone who has studied history will understand how it happens.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”
- Wendell Phillips et al.

 

[Bob001]

No, he did not say that. Read kellyb's source and you'll see that he wanted legislation to make it that way. But that's pretty explicitly because he doesn't think that it is that way right now. Absent such legislation, Kavanaugh thinks the president is not immune to prosecution while in office. And under the current environment, such legislation isn't going to happen.

He has called for legislation that would explicitly support his view that the President cannot be indicted or prosecuted. As a justice, he can interpret the Constitution his way, to say that it already protects the President from such action. And that's clearly what he thinks.