New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[Diablo]

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

It's quite outrageous.

So someone elected president can freely commit any crime they want without recourse except through the legislature?

 

[Brainster]

Oh the hell it's not controversial.

I meant not some crazy, out of the mainstream opinion. You're right that it's controversial.

It's also been mostly shut down by the Courts. See both Clinton v Jones and Nixon v United States both UNANIMOUS decisions against POTUS. Both of whom fighting the power of subpoena.

Clinton's battle was against civil litigation, not against a criminal indictment. Nixon's case was more about limits to executive privilege.

No president has been indicted mostly because the courts have feared a constitutional crises where their order is ignored. Note that in dozens of Watergate prosecutions, they named an unindicted co-conspirator.

So the fact that Nixon was un-indicted proves that he could have been indicted?

Finally when it comes to the idea of a President pardoning himself, it has been a legal maxim going back 400 years that no man may sit in judgment of himself. Only a small fraction of legal and historical scholars believe that the President has that right.

The argument that the President can pardon himself is weak.

Here's an interesting article that points out that during the original debate about the presidential pardon powers at the Constitutional Convention, the concern about him pardoning himself was raised:

Some of the concerns regarding pardons for treason, as set forth in the records of the convention, included circumstances in which the president himself or his associates could be involved.

The President may himself be guilty. The Traytors [sic] may be his own instruments,” some argued.

The response to that argument: “If he be himself a party to the guilt he can be impeached and prosecuted.” That became the guiding principle of the pardon power: The constitutional convention’s only real exception to the president’s power to pardon federal offenses is that pardons do not extend to “cases of impeachment.”

 

[acbytesla]

"Republican appointee" is not the same as rabid right-winger. Earl Warren was a Republican appointee. Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy were Reagan appointees. Kav is in a different league.

I agree. But that doesn't instantly make Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas or even Kavanaugh overturn 220 years of precedence. I'm not saying it's beyond them, I think they would certainly pause long and hard before doing that. The only one of the five that I have heard express they would consider putting POTUS above the law is Kavanaugh.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't see how it could hurt to accuse Kavanaugh of being an activist religious fanatic.
It might make him think twice before turning the US into the Handmaiden's Tale.

 

[Paul2]

Joe Manchin is the one I'm the most upset with. He showed his true colors: re-election over country. He may as well lose to a Republican. I don't see much difference.

One important difference is which party controls the Senate.

 

[acbytesla]

I meant not some crazy, out of the mainstream opinion. You're right that it's controversial.

Clinton's battle was against civil litigation, not against a criminal indictment. Nixon's case was more about limits to executive privilege..

So? Are you saying that POTUS can be subpoenaed in a court case involving a private citizen, or a special prosecutor, but not by the State of New York involving civil prosecution?

Isn't this all about executive privilege as in the President shouldn't be answerable?

And BTW, the precedence of POTUS doesn't begin with Nixon, it begins with Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

The more the angry mob of Democrats interrupt voting for a Supreme Court Justice the more seats we will win in November.

They are the party of the mob. Their leaders stay silent as their base attacks decent people.

Never. Let. Them. Take. Power.

-- Charlie Kirk (Oct 6, 2018)

After listening to Cryin Chuck Schumer plead his weak and pathetic case, it makes this event all the more enjoyable.

 

[Stacyhs]

One important difference is which party controls the Senate.

As long as the R's have the majority in the Senate and the VP is Republican (in a tight majority), I suspect Manchin will continue to do what he just did.

 

[Stacyhs]

After listening to Cryin Chuck Schumer plead his weak and pathetic case, it makes this event all the more enjoyable.

Do you ever have anything to say other than quoting others,gloating and parroting Trump?

 

[The Big Dog]

Brett Kavanaugh is officially confirmed!

Great day for America.

 

[Cain]

Muhahaha. Garland didn't even get a hearing. Clinton got more votes. You Democrats are such losers.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

The Dimms lose again!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

In other good news, after Senator Collins stood up to the democrat party bullies...

Leave Susan alone!

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Now it's time to look into Christine and Monica's polygraph gathering and the pressure on their friend Leeland to "clarify" her story. Grassley is on board, so more good times ahead.

 

[Stacyhs]

Keyser said she felt pressured/urged* to "clarify" her statement. No one forced her to say she believed Ford.

*In some reports, the word "urged" is used instead of "pressured". I haven't been able to find an actual quote of which word Keyser used.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't see how it could hurt to accuse Kavanaugh of being an activist religious fanatic.

 

[Bob001]

Keyser said she felt pressured/urged* to "clarify" her statement. No one forced her to say she believed Ford.

*In some reports, the word "urged" is used instead of "pressured". I haven't been able to find an actual quote of which word Keyser used.

She hasn't said anything about it publicly. These reports are based on a Wall Street Journal story quoting unnamed friends about what she purportedly told them.

A person close to the former classmates said it was her understanding that mutual friends of Dr. Ford and Ms. Keyser, including Ms. McLean, had contacted Ms. Keyser after her initial statement to warn her that her statement was being used by Republicans to rebut the allegation against Judge Kavanaugh. The friends told Ms. Keyser that if she had intended to say she didn’t remember the party—not that it had never happened—that she should clarify her statement, the person said, adding that the friends hadn’t “pressured” Ms. Keyser.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152

What Keyser has said is that she believes Ford.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Keyser said she felt pressured/urged* to "clarify" her statement. No one forced her to say she believed Ford.

*In some reports, the word "urged" is used instead of "pressured". I haven't been able to find an actual quote of which word Keyser used.

I think it is a distinction without a real difference. If old friends urge you to change what amounts to a sworn statement, you will certainly feel some pressure when making a decision, or just dealing with it, because it puts you in a very awkward position. In this case that would have been amplified due to the importance of Leeland's statement. It was and is the single most important piece of evidence, the one that got Kavanaugh confirmed, IMO.

 

[smartcooky]

Brett Kavanaugh is officially confirmed!

Dark day for America.

FTFY

The GOP senate consists of 51 people. One, and only one, has courage and integrity; the other 50 are rank cowards

If I were a believer in a magical sky deity, I would say "God help the American people"

 

[smartcooky]

I think it is a distinction without a real difference. If old friends urge you to change what amounts to a sworn statement

Which "sworn statement" would that be?