Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

[ShadowRun]

I don’t spend my entire life trying to find things to be offended by so I wouldn’t have been in that convo or cared to read it

Being a professional victim is the hip thing to do these days bro!

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Something led to the claim that Kennedy received assurance. I would like to know exactly what that was before taking a view on this.

I believe all retiring judges give recommendations. Why would he tarnish his career and do something that would be illega/wrong, with Trump as the co conspirator?

I'm sure he knew that he needed to retire now in order to ensure his replacement is another conservative.

 

[Pessimystic]

Seems pretty moderate.

 

[Fawlty]

I believe all retiring judges give recommendations. Why would he tarnish his career and do something that would be illega/wrong, with Trump as the co conspirator?

I'm sure he knew that he needed to retire now in order to ensure his replacement is another conservative.

The recommendations are normal I think, and I don't see Kennedy as a dirty guy - like you say there's no way it makes sense for him to scuttle his reputation. I'm still curious what piece of information led the writer to claim that somebody from the Trump camp assured Kennedy of the replacement. Kennedy wouldn't have necessarily wanted that or asked for it, but it could have happened anyway, as ethics are just not a part of this administration. If the writer invented it, she should be blacklisted. If she misunderstood something, she should be reprimanded. If she was lied to or if somebody told her the truth, then we have a right to know.

 

[squeezewax]

I don't understand why this is such a massive thing? It's been on the American news channels for days. It's another reminder just how different the political system is in America compared to countries such as mine.[Australia.]

Obviously we have supreme court judges, but when one is appointed it's just not this huge thing that dominates the news in the same way.
So now the guy Trump has chosen has to be 'interrogated' by a group of other people and i daresay the Democrats will be searching for some dirt on him.
I don't understand the interrogation? [for want of a better word.] Again, i don't think that happens here?

Rather naively i thought a President would just appoint someone and it would be accepted because the President chose that person.
Over the last few years i've begun to realize that despite a President being referred to as the most powerful man in the world, he isn't really as powerful as the rest of the world believes he is.
A President doesn't seem to be the top dog with complete power.

 

[sub_thug]

Washington Times, you mean the left wing paper that Bezos owns? LOL!

Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, not the Washington Times.

 

[Quequeg]

Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, not the Washington Times.

No kidding, see post 375.

 

[sub_thug]

No kidding, see post 375.

Didn't read back that far or from another thread, so I didn't get the joking reference

 

[Arkain2K]

Official statements from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer:

 

[Arkain2K]

Official statements from Senator Elizabeth Warren:

 

[Arkain2K]

Official statements from Senator Nancy Pelosi:

 

[bushman505]

I think Kavanaugh was the right choice.

 

[Arkain2K]

Kavanaugh's support for shielding sitting presidents from prosecution riles Dems
By Andrew O'Reilly | July 10, 2018http://www.foxnews.com/person/o/andrew-oreilly.html

​

While Brett Kavanaugh’s stances on issues like abortion and gun rights could dominate his confirmation hearing, the Supreme Court nominee’s decade-old call to shield presidents from criminal investigation has grabbed his critics' attention right out of the gate.

Kavanaugh, a judge for the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., tackled the issue in a 2009 article in the Minnesota Law Review.

At the time, he wrote it is “vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible” and suggested Congress enact a law deferring all civil and criminal suits against a president while in office.

“Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel,” Kavanaugh wrote in the journal. “The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas.”

These words have gained new relevance amid the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with President Trump's 2016 campaign. While the president has denied wrongdoing and blasted the probe all along as a "witch hunt," Democrats seized on the article as another reason to oppose Trump's nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“He has said the president shouldn’t be investigated,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said of Kavanaugh on MSNBC. “How is he going to react if [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller needs a subpoena, if Mueller needs some other action?”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., also voiced concern about Kavanaugh’s writing in a tweet Monday night, saying the judge “thinks Presidents like Trump are above the law.”

In the article, Kavanaugh did hedge a little by saying that no one in the U.S. is above the law, but added that the Constitution already provides a solution for dealing with a president who breaks the law.

“If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available,” he wrote. “In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.”

Earlier in his career in Washington, Kavanaugh joined independent counsel Kenneth Starr's team in investigating President Bill Clinton and co-wrote the report that served as the basis for Clinton’s impeachment. But he later suggested the criminal investigations Clinton faced were bad for the country.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...g-presidents-from-prosecution-riles-dems.html

 

[jonharrison]

I don't understand why this is such a massive thing? It's been on the American news channels for days. It's another reminder just how different the political system is in America compared to countries such as mine.[Australia.]

Obviously we have supreme court judges, but when one is appointed it's just not this huge thing that dominates the news in the same way.
So now the guy Trump has chosen has to be 'interrogated' by a group of other people and i daresay the Democrats will be searching for some dirt on him.
I don't understand the interrogation? [for want of a better word.] Again, i don't think that happens here?

Rather naively i thought a President would just appoint someone and it would be accepted because the President chose that person.
Over the last few years i've begun to realize that despite a President being referred to as the most powerful man in the world, he isn't really as powerful as the rest of the world believes he is.
A President doesn't seem to be the top dog with complete power.

Well it’s a big deal because our system is a framework of checks and balances. Essentially you’re right, the President doesn’t have nearly as much power as people generally believe. The Founders, and Americans to this day, are incredibly wary of authority. We tend to be more individualistic, and the idea that others can make decisions that impact us without any capability for that decision to be overturned, doesn’t sit too well. So the Supreme Court is a big deal because it’s a check on other forms of authority. The truth is, Americans will bitch and moan about how the government doesn’t actually accomplish anything, but that’s by design, and it’s to keep power from concentrating in the hands of a few individuals.

 

[Quequeg]

Being a professional victim is the hip thing to do these days bro!

Yep, just look at Trump, the man whines more than I thought possible.

 

[dontsnitch]

I asked if you were able to articulate why someone would be a single issue voter in regards to the Second Amendment without insults or impugning the motives or characters of those who think differently from you.

You've shown that you're either unable or unwilling to do so.

I'll give you one last chance to try and make this a productive conversation for the both of us:

Without impugning their motives or character, or insulting them, can you articulate why Millions upon millions of Voters are single issue voters in regards to the Second Amendment.

I'm capable of articulating my political oppositions position without insulting them.

Is that true? Are there really millions of single issue voters? It sounds like they're just dyed in the wool repubs.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Is that true? Are there really millions of single issue voters? It sounds like they're just dyed in the wool repubs.

https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/

I know several primary voters who will change their vote based upon the NRA scorecard grading system alone.

It's the first issue I research on a candidate before I'll consider voting for them.

If this candidate isn't going to respect my personal liberty in this area, what other areas of the human experience are they willing to over-regulate?

The Second Amendment is a sort of "canary in the coal mine" for Liberty minded individuals.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

A President doesn't seem to be the top dog with complete power.

Correct. The president is usually the most powerful individual within the US system, but the entire premise of the US system is separation of powers.

 

[Quipling]

@Arkain2K I can't read any of those tweets.

 

[HomerThompson]

Kavanaugh's support for shielding sitting presidents from prosecution riles Dems
By Andrew O'Reilly | July 10, 2018

​

While Brett Kavanaugh’s stances on issues like abortion and gun rights could dominate his confirmation hearing, the Supreme Court nominee’s decade-old call to shield presidents from criminal investigation has grabbed his critics' attention right out of the gate.

Kavanaugh, a judge for the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., tackled the issue in a 2009 article in the Minnesota Law Review.

At the time, he wrote it is “vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible” and suggested Congress enact a law deferring all civil and criminal suits against a president while in office.

“Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel,” Kavanaugh wrote in the journal. “The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas.”

These words have gained new relevance amid the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with President Trump's 2016 campaign. While the president has denied wrongdoing and blasted the probe all along as a "witch hunt," Democrats seized on the article as another reason to oppose Trump's nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“He has said the president shouldn’t be investigated,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said of Kavanaugh on MSNBC. “How is he going to react if [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller needs a subpoena, if Mueller needs some other action?”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., also voiced concern about Kavanaugh’s writing in a tweet Monday night, saying the judge “thinks Presidents like Trump are above the law.”

In the article, Kavanaugh did hedge a little by saying that no one in the U.S. is above the law, but added that the Constitution already provides a solution for dealing with a president who breaks the law.

“If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available,” he wrote. “In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.”

Earlier in his career in Washington, Kavanaugh joined independent counsel Kenneth Starr's team in investigating President Bill Clinton and co-wrote the report that served as the basis for Clinton’s impeachment. But he later suggested the criminal investigations Clinton faced were bad for the country.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...g-presidents-from-prosecution-riles-dems.html

Such horse shit, especially after how integral he was in Ken Starr's investigation. He also led the Vince Foster prosecution, iirc.