Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss Trump's New SCJ and what you think at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by treedancer Looks like a Kennedy clone to me; except FOR ONE MINER DETAIL, he doesn’t think a ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2018, 10:55 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 75,907
Thanks: 53,890
Thanked 25,651 Times in 18,256 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Brett Kavanaugh is nominated by Trump to succeed Supreme Court Justice Anthony M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
Looks like a Kennedy clone to me; except FOR ONE MINER DETAIL, he doesn’t think a setting President CAN be indicted. Wonder why that one got the pick.

<President Trump on Monday nominated federal judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, elevating a conservative stalwart with deep ties to the Republican establishment to succeed retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and triggering a partisan war over the court’s future.>

<Kavanaugh, 53, who lives in the Maryland suburbs, serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and worked in George W. Bush’s White House before moving to the federal bench. He served as a clerk to Kennedy in the early 1990s alongside Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, whom Trump nominated for the Supreme Court last year.>

<“In keeping with President Reagan’s legacy, I do not ask about a nominee’s personal opinions,” Trump said in an announcement at the White House. “What matters is not a judge’s political views but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the Constitution require. I am pleased to say that I have found, without doubt, such a person. Tonight, it is my honor and privilege to announce that I will nominate Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court.”>

<Kavanaugh, who was joined by his wife, two daughters and parents, told Trump that he has “witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary.”>


https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.e52866c74871

That case was different. he was writing about white water I think. It did not involve high crimes etc. Like the law suit for defamation can wait till he's out of office is basically what he believes. My opinion of course
__________________

I'd like to thank my manager, my addiction, my dead dog Frank, and Jesus.
heard in passing
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2018, 10:56 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 52,956
Thanks: 2,043
Thanked 32,665 Times in 19,026 Posts
Default Re: Brett Kavanaugh is nominated by Trump to succeed Supreme Court Justice Anthony M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
Looks like a Kennedy clone to me; except FOR ONE MINER DETAIL, he doesn’t think a setting President CAN be indicted. Wonder why that one got the pick.
I read that Maddow is pushing this lie, too...

What Kavanaugh ACTUALLY wrote was that it shouldn't be a court's decision...It should be Congress'...

Justice Scalia's son, Chris,...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Scalia
If Kavanaugh is the nominee, the fever-swamp theory that Trump picked him because he'd protect the president from indictment will gain traction. It's nonsense, and here's why.

The theory implies that Kavanaugh said that *the courts* should protect a president from such situations. But in fact, it's clear that Kavanaugh says that only *Congress* has the authority to do so.

The reason many on the left interpret it to mean that Kav would protect Trump comes down to the familiar differences about a judge's job: they believe judges *should* make law; they would want their own favored nominees to do so, and they project that desire onto all judges.

But Kavanaugh and others recognize judicial limits imposed by the separation of powers. He may think the current state of legal affairs is bad, but changing it is up to Congress, not SCOTUS.
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2018, 10:58 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 52,956
Thanks: 2,043
Thanked 32,665 Times in 19,026 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Whenever we get to the nominee being approved and taking the oath, I wonder if they'll bring in Joe Biden for the ceremonial molestation of the pick's wife...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-09-2018, 11:18 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 75,907
Thanks: 53,890
Thanked 25,651 Times in 18,256 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Brett Kavanaugh is nominated by Trump to succeed Supreme Court Justice Anthony M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
I read that Maddow is pushing this lie, too...

What Kavanaugh ACTUALLY wrote was that it shouldn't be a court's decision...It should be Congress'...

Justice Scalia's son, Chris,...
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp...anaugh_MLR.pdf
Quote:
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.
Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly
would have been better off if President Clinton could have
focused on Osama bin Laden24 without being distracted by the
Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminalinvestigation
offshoots.25 To be sure, one can correctly say that
President Clinton brought that ordeal on himself, by his answers
during his deposition in the Jones case if nothing else.
And my point here is not to say that the relevant actors—the
Supreme Court in Jones, Judge Susan Webber Wright, and Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr—did anything other than
their proper duty under the law as it then existed.26 But the
law as it existed was itself the problem, particularly the extent
to which it allowed civil suits against presidents to proceed
while the President is in office.
With that in mind, it would be appropriate for Congress to
enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against
presidents, like certain members of the military, be deferred
while the President is in office. The result the Supreme Court
reached in Clinton v. Jones27—that presidents are not constitutionally
entitled to deferral of civil suits—may well have been
entirely correct; that is beyond the scope of this inquiry. But
the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a
temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office.28
Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain
members of the military.29 Deferral would allow the President
to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform.
goes on to include criminal.
and to state we have a process for dastardly acts and it is impeachment.
However the acts needing proof and part of that proof being Trump's testimony; and given the fact he will probably fight "all the way to the Supreme Court" to avoid testifying, I agree with tree this is a worry. And quite frankly uncharted waters.

BUT. Brett having believed that in 92 and still done his due diligence under the constitution leads me to believe he will interpret law not make it. Hope so anyway.
__________________

I'd like to thank my manager, my addiction, my dead dog Frank, and Jesus.
heard in passing
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2018, 09:29 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,852
Thanks: 8,759
Thanked 9,444 Times in 5,777 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

It doesn't appear likely Kavanaugh is disposed towards rushing in to reverse Roe v Wade so the attack to he's going to let Trump off assuming the Mueller witch hunt indicts him. Never mind Mueller would be hard pressed to justify even compelling President Trump to be interviewed based on his investigation, there has to be some conspiracy at work.

Rosenstein is fighting tooth and nail to avoid releasing the charter for Mueller's witch hunt claiming it would compromise the investigation. Kavanaugh rightly objects to this sort of secret investigation which looks more and more like a partisan crusade against the Trump administration as the indictments and the questionable coerced guilty pleas for unrelated offenses pile up.

Kavanaugh wrote the opinion before the Mueller witchhunt began but it's the exact sort of partisan political sabotage by lawsuit he warned about.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2018, 11:20 AM
Hairy Jello's Avatar
Deplorable
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,528
Thanks: 1,810
Thanked 11,202 Times in 6,980 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

All complaints by libs of Trump's pick are null and void. They were against the pick when they didn't even know who the pick was.

So yeah, their opinions on this matter are worthless since they had that opinion before they had all the facts. It's just partisan bs. They're sheep who do what their masters tell 'em instead of thinkin' for themselves and showin' signs of intelligence.
__________________

Not an accurate representation of a white person.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hairy Jello For This Useful Post:
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2018, 11:36 AM
Hairy Jello's Avatar
Deplorable
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,528
Thanks: 1,810
Thanked 11,202 Times in 6,980 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

"We hate the pick!"

"Who is the pick?"

"We don't know but we hate it!"

Morons.

Women’s March accidentally reveals group planned to oppose Trump’s nominee no matter who it was

Quote:
Immediately after President Donald Trump formally nominated U.S. Appeals Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to fill Anthony Kennedy’s seat on the Supreme Court, Democrats and progressive activists protested Trump’s decision.

But no protest was more embarrassing than an email blast sent by the liberal group known as “Women’s March.”

What happened?

Minutes after Trump announced his nominee, the group released a statement blasting Kavanaugh. However, there was a major problem with the email copy: the opening line didn’t cite Kavanaugh’s name. Instead, the first sentence had “XX” where Kavanaugh’s name should have been, an obvious sign the email was pre-written and that the group planned to oppose the nominee regardless of who it was.
__________________

Not an accurate representation of a white person.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Hairy Jello For This Useful Post:
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2018, 11:39 AM
lurch907's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alaska, the greatest place on earth.
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,571
Thanks: 1,036
Thanked 2,914 Times in 1,701 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
It doesn't appear likely Kavanaugh is disposed towards rushing in to reverse Roe v Wade so the attack to he's going to let Trump off assuming the Mueller witch hunt indicts him. Never mind Mueller would be hard pressed to justify even compelling President Trump to be interviewed based on his investigation, there has to be some conspiracy at work.
Many Dems don't need a real reason to oppose Kavanaugh, revenge for some imagined wrong done to b.o. is enough.

Quote:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., sent a strong message to supporters Monday in an email from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, saying she has plans to “avenge” former President Barack Obama “if it’s the last thing I do,” in the upcoming congressional battle over President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

The group sent out the email under Pelosi’s name with the subject line “Trump nominee BACKFIRES.” In the letter, Pelosi pleaded with supporters to contribute to her Supreme Court fund — money she wants to use to overcome the “$1.4 MILLION ad blitz” she said Republicans are looking to initiate following Monday’s Supreme Court announcement.

"I’m worried this will eviscerate our chance to make Republicans pay for the Supreme Court seat they STOLE from President Obama,” Pelosi wrote, adding that she will “personally triple-match” any gifts to the fund.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...eme-court-pick
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2018, 02:47 PM
treedancer's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St.Louis Mo.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Thanks: 907
Thanked 1,492 Times in 1,198 Posts
Default Re: Brett Kavanaugh is nominated by Trump to succeed Supreme Court Justice Anthony M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
I read that Maddow is pushing this lie, too...

What Kavanaugh ACTUALLY wrote was that it shouldn't be a court's decision...It should be Congress'...

Justice Scalia's son, Chris,...
"A serious constitutional question exists regarding whether a President can be

criminally indicted and tried while in office."

Quote:
Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. This Article is adapted from remarks I made at the University of
Minnesota Law School on October 17, 2008
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp...anaugh_MLR.pdf
__________________
“I Don’t Recall!” “I Don’t Recall!” “I Don’t Recall!”

Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions II
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2018, 03:17 PM
treedancer's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St.Louis Mo.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Thanks: 907
Thanked 1,492 Times in 1,198 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think



This is an image for those of us who are of the Political Persuasion Wonks might get used to viewing at least thru the mid-terms.
__________________
“I Don’t Recall!” “I Don’t Recall!” “I Don’t Recall!”

Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions II
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
and, anthony, brett, court, justice, kavanaugh, ken, new, nominated, scj, succeed, supreme, think, trump, what, you

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0