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 AZRWinger It doesn't appear likely Kavanaugh is disposed towards rushing in to reverse Roe v Wade so ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2018, 06:52 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 75,823
Thanks: 53,856
Thanked 25,642 Times in 18,248 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
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.

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.
except it is not. whitewater was a matter that had nothing to do with the presidency other than the fact one of the defendants was the president. Mueller's investigation has to do with the united states being attacked at its core (that part is settled), and whether or not the president obstructed justice in that investigation.
__________________

Water Gate II
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 07-10-2018, 06:55 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 75,823
Thanks: 53,856
Thanked 25,642 Times in 18,248 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by treedancer View Post


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.
well if he gets bought off like the guy that died at the hunting lodge, we'll know by the fruits of his labor.
I hope God will bless him with non partisan and unfettered discernment.
__________________

Water Gate II
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 07:13 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,258
Thanks: 2,923
Thanked 1,930 Times in 1,127 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
well if he gets bought off like the guy that died at the hunting lodge, we'll know by the fruits of his labor.
I hope God will bless him with non partisan and unfettered discernment.
You are claiming that Scalia was "bought off"? I hope you have something that you can post to back up your ignorant accusation of a highly dignified and honored former justice. I hope you realize that just because a judge rules according to the Constitution and that ruling is in conflict with your opinion, does not mean that they were "bought off".
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 09:10 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,839
Thanks: 8,734
Thanked 9,435 Times in 5,769 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Brett Kavanaugh is nominated by Trump to succeed Supreme Court Justice Anthony M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
"A serious constitutional question exists regarding whether a President can be

criminally indicted and tried while in office."



http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp...anaugh_MLR.pdf
Once again it appears you haven't bothered to read the article you quote just recite the excerpt spoon fed to you by rabid partisans. Here is the relevant quote.

Quote:
The result the Supreme Court
reached in Clinton v. Jones27—that presidents are not constitu-
tionally 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 of-
fice.28 Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for cer-
tain members of the military.29 Deferral would allow the Presi-
dent to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform.
Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with
respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the Pres-
ident.30 In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting
a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and in-
vestigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors
or defense counsel. Criminal investigations targeted at or re-
volving around a President are inevitably politicized
After noting that the courts may have been legally correct in allowing civil lawsuits against President Clinton to proceed while he was in office, Kavanaugh suggests CONGRESS may wish to defer civil lawsuits and criminal proceedings while the President is in office by passing new LAWS.

Of course the suggestion that the law be changed by Congress instead of by judicial decree immediately Progressives and Resistance zealots to howling. SCOTUS justices are supposed to write new laws from the bench not to suggest Congress change the law.

Remember how we were told the whole cabal of senior FBI and DOJ officials could do their jobs impartially despite their open personal hatred for Trump expressed in what they thought was confidential communications? My, the standard is certainly different for Kavanaugh's public suggestion.
__________________
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
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 12:57 PM
treedancer's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St.Louis Mo.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,738
Thanks: 906
Thanked 1,489 Times in 1,195 Posts
Default Re: Brett Kavanaugh is nominated by Trump to succeed Supreme Court Justice Anthony M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Once again it appears you haven't bothered to read the article you quote just recite the excerpt spoon fed to you by rabid partisans. Here is the relevant quote.



After noting that the courts may have been legally correct in allowing civil lawsuits against President Clinton to proceed while he was in office, Kavanaugh suggests CONGRESS may wish to defer civil lawsuits and criminal proceedings while the President is in office by passing new LAWS.

Of course the suggestion that the law be changed by Congress instead of by judicial decree immediately Progressives and Resistance zealots to howling. SCOTUS justices are supposed to write new laws from the bench not to suggest Congress change the law.

Remember how we were told the whole cabal of senior FBI and DOJ officials could do their jobs impartially despite their open personal hatred for Trump expressed in what they thought was confidential communications? My, the standard is certainly different for Kavanaugh's public suggestion.
Where does yer post refute what I posted? Here’s what I posted.
Quote:
“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.“
Here’s what you posted.


Quote:
But the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office. Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain members of the military.

Deferral would allow the President to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform. Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President.

In particular, 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. Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving around a President are inevitably politicized.
Note the bolded parts.
__________________
“I Don’t Recall!” “I Don’t Recall!” “I Don’t Recall!”

Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions II
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 04:17 PM
lurch907's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alaska, the greatest place on earth.
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,568
Thanks: 1,036
Thanked 2,913 Times in 1,700 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Many prominent d's seem to be putting forth the lie that President Trump picked Judge Kavanaugh because he will protect the President from investigation or prosecution in some activist type way.
The text below is an opinion piece, but it does a good job of summing up why that is so much bravo sierra.

Quote:
Senate Democrats – obsessed with opposing everything President Trump does – are making the absurd claim that the president nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court to protect himself from the Russia probe being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said that the president believes Kavanaugh can provide him with a “barrier to preventing that investigation” by Mueller of Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election and possible obstruction of justice or other misconduct by Trump and people working for him.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. agrees with Schumer. Booker said that President Trump “picked the one guy who has specifically written that a president should not be the subject of a criminal investigation, which the president is right now.”

The anti-Trump media have picked up the theme. Vox’s Ezra Klein writes: “Kavanaugh was the right pick if Trump’s top priority was protecting himself from criminal investigation.”

This accusation has no factual basis. In fact, it is an outright lie.

Schumer and Booker are deliberately misrepresenting and distorting an article that Kavanaugh – currently serving on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia – wrote in the Minnesota Law Review in 2009. The article by the judge says the exact opposite of what Schumer and Booker falsely claim it says.

Writing in his law review article with no perceptible political bias or agenda, Kavanaugh reviewed several important challenges to the country’s governmental institutions that had arisen in the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Kavanaugh wrote that he had observed the truly extraordinary difficulty of the presidency first-hand from years of service in the George W. Bush White House. The burdens of the presidency were, he found, far more daunting than he had expected in the 1980s and 1990s.

Yet sitting presidents were also expected to assume the risks and burdens of being entangled in litigation, both civil and criminal. And those risks and burdens were substantial – so much so, that they could prevent the president from focusing on problems of far greater importance for the country as a whole, Kavanaugh wrote.

“Looking back into the late 1990s,” Kavanaugh wrote in his Minnesota Law Review article, “the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots.”

Coming from a former member of the legal team that had investigated President Clinton, this was a startling statement. It was also clearly true. And most Democrats, both at the time of that investigation and in 2009, would surely have agreed with Kavanaugh. Surely, Bill and Hillary Clinton would have agreed.

Kavanaugh clearly did not – repeat, not –argue in his law review article that the president has a constitutional immunity from being investigated or sued. Nor did he claim that misdeeds by a president should never subject the president to an accounting before the law. Kavanaugh explicitly affirmed that all of us – including the president – are equal in the eyes of the law.

Kavanaugh clearly did not argue in his law review article that the president has a constitutional immunity from being investigated or sued.

Kavanaugh merely proposed that Congress should enact a law temporarily barring civil and criminal suits against a president while in office.

Lawsuits against a president, Kavanaugh advised in his article, should be deferred – much as Congress has deferred lawsuits against certain members of the military.

You don’t have to be legal scholar to understand this. Just think logically: If Congress can reasonably find that the duties of a military officer require protection for that officer from being sued while in the military, surely it would be reasonable to extend the same kind of protection to the president.

The president, after all, has vastly greater responsibilities than any military officer – including being commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces.

And here’s the most important thing to understand about Kavanaugh law review article: His proposal would make absolutely no sense if he believed that the Constitution already made the president immune from lawsuits. There would be no reason to pass a law giving the president protection already provided by the Constitution.

In fact, Kavanaugh specifically noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in Clinton v. Jones – which held that President Clinton was not constitutionally entitled to the deferral of Paula Jones’ civil lawsuit while he was in office – “may well have been entirely correct.”

Kavanaugh did not question – let alone recommend reversing – the Clinton v. Jones ruling. He recommended working within its parameters, which allow Congress to legislate a temporary immunity, valid only for the president’s term.

Kavanaugh’s recommendation regarding civil actions was squarely in the mainstream of informed opinion. Cass Sunstein, one of the nation’s leading liberal legal scholars, argued in 1999 that although the Clinton v. Jones decision was legally correct, it was also “disastrous and obtuse.”

And Sunstein recommended a remedy identical to the one Kavanaugh would propose a decade later: “Congress should, it seems to me, pass a law saying that while the President is in office, he or she cannot be subject to civil actions, but the statute of limitations is not going to bar suits that are brought the day after he or she leaves. That is not to protect the President. That is not our concern. It is to protect the country.”

But what about criminal – as opposed to civil – actions?

Kavanaugh would have been on solid ground if he had taken the more aggressive position for presidential immunity in this area. In Federalist 69, written to persuade Americans to ratify the draft Constitution, Alexander Hamilton observed that Congress, unlike the British Parliament, had tools to control a wayward chief executive.

“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office,” he wrote, “and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

Hamilton was clear: impeachment first, prosecution second.

The Constitution’s structure only reinforces Hamilton’s argument. The Constitution vests in the president alone the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

The framers understood this language to give the president supervisory control over all federal investigations and prosecutions. If a president wishes to prevent his own prosecution while in office, he need only order it.

Under the Constitution, the president can fire subordinates who refuse to carry out presidential orders. But the Constitution effectively requires the removal of a president, through impeachment, if he blocks his own prosecution without sufficient cause.

In short, the framers clearly established impeachment as the primary method to punish a president who commits misdeeds while in office.

If President Trump really has conspired with the Russians to violate federal law or has engaged in obstruction of justice, impeachment allows his removal by Congress for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Senate Democrats today support the approach of prosecuting first because they lack the personal courage, political will and popular support to press for impeachment, as the Constitution requires.

In his law review article, Kavanaugh made a moderate proposal to solve the problem of criminal investigation of a president, itself created by Congress’s unwillingness to use the ample constitutional powers at its disposal.

It is a measure of the Democrats’ desperation that they should so badly falsify Kavanaugh’s actual ideas.

Like any other Supreme Court nominees, Kavanaugh’s record should be scrutinized closely and carefully. But it should not be distorted by willful lies.
John Yoo, Robert Delahunty: Schumer, Booker, others are lying about Kavanaugh to keep him off the Court | Fox News
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to lurch907 For This Useful Post:
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 04:39 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 75,823
Thanks: 53,856
Thanked 25,642 Times in 18,248 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by GetAClue View Post
You are claiming that Scalia was "bought off"? ...
only cause nobody could go through law school and remain that stupid...oh wait...Cohen...oh wait he was bought off too.
__________________

Water Gate II
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 10:53 PM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,839
Thanks: 8,734
Thanked 9,435 Times in 5,769 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Brett Kavanaugh is nominated by Trump to succeed Supreme Court Justice Anthony M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by treedancer View Post
Where does yer post refute what I posted? Here’s what I posted.


Here’s what you posted.




Note the bolded parts.
The difference is Democrats conveniently omit that Kavanaugh advocates a legislative solution not a judicial one. This renders the claims Kavanaugh will automatically shield Trump from prosecution as a SCOTUS justice null and void. The allegations reveal the assumption by Democrats that Kavanaugh will routinely issue rulings according to partisan politics just as the Democrat pet justices do now.
__________________
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
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 07-12-2018, 06:52 AM
GetAClue's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern Ohio
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,258
Thanks: 2,923
Thanked 1,930 Times in 1,127 Posts
Default Re: Trump's New SCJ and what you think

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
only cause nobody could go through law school and remain that stupid...oh wait...Cohen...oh wait he was bought off too.
I would imagine that if Scalia were alive today, he would wear your condemnation of him as a badge of honor considering the source, as would I.
__________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead - Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GetAClue For This Useful Post:
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 07-12-2018, 12:25 PM
treedancer's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: St.Louis Mo.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,738
Thanks: 906
Thanked 1,489 Times in 1,195 Posts
Default Re: Brett Kavanaugh is nominated by Trump to succeed Supreme Court Justice Anthony M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The difference is Democrats conveniently omit that Kavanaugh advocates a legislative solution not a judicial one. This renders the claims Kavanaugh will automatically shield Trump from prosecution as a SCOTUS justice null and void. The allegations reveal the assumption by Democrats that Kavanaugh will routinely issue rulings according to partisan politics just as the Democrat pet justices do now.
"The difference is" is that you gazed into yer crystal ball and found nothing then you pulled something outta yer *** and posted it. Got it.
__________________
“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 05:09 PM.


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

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0