RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:41 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:59 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 8699
Kavanaugh - who doesn't believe a sitting president should be investigated or indicted - a guy that Trump thinks will help protect him.

Pretty obvious Trump would do this. Trump is not above the law. Kavanaugh must recuse himself if Trumps case ends up before the Supreme Court. Which it will.

_________________
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”. — John Kenneth Galbraith
Image


Last edited by Drak on Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:00 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 8699
Confirmation

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... rt-n889921

_________________
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”. — John Kenneth Galbraith
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:02 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 8699
This is nothing more than an admission of Trump's guilt. He selected a man that doesn't believe a sitting president can be indicted.

_________________
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”. — John Kenneth Galbraith
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:03 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:45 am
Posts: 7716
Brett Michael Kavanaugh (born February 12, 1965) is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was Staff Secretary in the Executive Office of the President of the United States under President George W. Bush.

A protégé of Kenneth Starr, Kavanaugh played a lead role in drafting the Starr report, which urged the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Kavanaugh led the investigation into the suicide of Clinton aide Vincent Foster. After the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, in which Kavanaugh worked for the George W. Bush campaign in the Florida recount, Kavanaugh joined Bush's staff, where he led the Administration's effort to identify and confirm judicial nominees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:14 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 8699
Kavanaugh's beliefs:

Image


Image


Image

Trump faces all these things, mounting and in spades.

Trump is guilty as fuck.

_________________
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”. — John Kenneth Galbraith
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:33 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10897
Kavanaugh - who doesn't believe a sitting president should be investigated or indicted - a guy that Trump thinks will help protect him.

Pretty obvious Trump would do this. Trump is not above the law. Kavanaugh must recuse himself if Trumps case ends up before the Supreme Court. Which it will.


I don't like Kavanaugh. :(

About a sitting president being investigated, I disagree with Kavanaugh if that is his view.?. Congress has the right under the Constitution to investigate a ham sandwich if they choose. They also have the right to do it themselves or to delegate it to others as they choose. Some of it they can do themselves, and some of it they can and have delegated to the DOJ under statute law. The current Mueller investigation is covered under the Constitution through legislated legal statute in my view.

About a sitting president being indicted, I go with the views on the subject by the liberal people at Lawfare who are about 50% of the liberal views who think a sitting president being cannot be indicted by a grand jury, Congress must do it. I think the Constitution is really pretty clear on that.

Just about all Conservatives and about half of Liberal lawyers agree that a sitting president being cannot be indicted by a grand jury, Congress must do it, Congress must impeach. Impeachment by Congress is basically the same thing as a criminal indictment with more leeway not less. Congress can impeach a ham sandwich if they choose. There is no mechanism to quash an Impeachment like there is for a grand jury.

It they impeach, he goes to trial in the Senate. :|




A sitting President can be sued in civil court. That's a different matter.



This is not likely to come before the Supreme Court because Mueller seems to have the same view on the matter I do, and most of the lawyers at Lawfare have. Lawfare is a Brookings Institution outfit, good Liberal minded folks.



I don't like Kavanaugh. Did I say that? I don't like him at all. :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:34 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 8699
Quote:
Kavanaugh wrote that POTUS should have “absolute discretion” to determine whether and when to appoint or fire a special counsel. And that a president should not be criminally indicted, no matter what evidence of wrongdoing is uncovered.

_________________
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”. — John Kenneth Galbraith
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:38 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 179
I'm a bit shocked, I thought it would be the woman....she must've brushed off his advances....

_________________
If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON, 1960


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:46 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:34 pm
Posts: 4893
This is nothing more than an admission of Trump's guilt. He selected a man that doesn't believe a sitting president can be indicted.


This is all about 45 covering his loathsome ass.

_________________
Glenfs posted about the Left's War On Women. Glenfs posted this after the Cosby Verdict "Gloria Allred is a media hound and an asshole. The most dangerous place to be is inbetween her and a microphone or camera". 04/27/2018.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:54 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:53 pm
Posts: 63
Location: Northwest Indiana

This is all about 45 covering his loathsome ass.


It is and I suspect that a lot of questions will be raised on his position. I would also ask if he would rule on a subpoena of the President who nominated him for the position. However, he could make a statement and do something else ... as John Roberts did in a number of cases.

_________________
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?" - Hillel


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:55 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:39 am
Posts: 2070
I hope it goes both ways for another Democrat will get elected President and its almost
certain Republicans will seek to indict that President for perceived crimes and this
Supreme court justice will have to say why a Democratic President can be indicted
but not a Republican.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:00 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:53 pm
Posts: 63
Location: Northwest Indiana
I hope it goes both ways for another Democrat will get elected President and its almost
certain Republicans will seek to indict that President for perceived crimes and this
Supreme court justice will have to say why a Democratic President can be indicted
but not a Republican.


If we become that fractious as a nation, one might question why we even have a nation in the first place.

In the case of Trump, five people have pleaded guilty to crimes and there are some 17 outstanding indictments.

President Clinton had negotiated to testify under the threat of a subpoena. That was for a less serious matter than possible cooperation with a foreign power.

_________________
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?" - Hillel


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:08 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:39 am
Posts: 2070

If we become that fractious as a nation, one might question why we even have a nation in the first place.

In the case of Trump, five people have pleaded guilty to crimes and there are some 17 outstanding indictments.

President Clinton had negotiated to testify under the threat of a subpoena. That was for a less serious matter than possible cooperation with a foreign power.


Under the McConnell rule precedent, there is no incentive to cooperate with the opposition party unless there is a national
emergency.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:44 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:36 pm
Posts: 250

I don't like Kavanaugh. :(

About a sitting president being investigated, I disagree with Kavanaugh if that is his view.?. Congress has the right under the Constitution to investigate a ham sandwich if they choose. They also have the right to do it themselves or to delegate it to others as they choose. Some of it they can do themselves, and some of it they can and have delegated to the DOJ under statute law. The current Mueller investigation is covered under the Constitution through legislated legal statute in my view.

About a sitting president being indicted, I go with the views on the subject by the liberal people at Lawfare who are about 50% of the liberal views who think a sitting president being cannot be indicted by a grand jury, Congress must do it. I think the Constitution is really pretty clear on that.

Just about all Conservatives and about half of Liberal lawyers agree that a sitting president being cannot be indicted by a grand jury, Congress must do it, Congress must impeach. Impeachment by Congress is basically the same thing as a criminal indictment with more leeway not less. Congress can impeach a ham sandwich if they choose. There is no mechanism to quash an Impeachment like there is for a grand jury.

It they impeach, he goes to trial in the Senate. :|




A sitting President can be sued in civil court. That's a different matter.



This is not likely to come before the Supreme Court because Mueller seems to have the same view on the matter I do, and most of the lawyers at Lawfare have. Lawfare is a Brookings Institution outfit, good Liberal minded folks.



I don't like Kavanaugh. Did I say that? I don't like him at all. :(


People are leaving out this qualifier from Kavanaugh:

“PROVIDE SITTING PRESIDENTS WITH A TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF CIVIL SUITS AND OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS.”


If it can't wait then there's always impeachment.

And get ready for the "Ginsburg Rule". I believe that might have been another of Joe Biden's creations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:45 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:36 pm
Posts: 250

It is and I suspect that a lot of questions will be raised on his position. I would also ask if he would rule on a subpoena of the President who nominated him for the position. However, he could make a statement and do something else ... as John Roberts did in a number of cases.


"Ginsburg Rule"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:07 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12241
Location: Sunny South Florida
Answer the Senate’s questions, Judge Kavanaugh
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... f28ecc3352

Today, this constitutional power is under threat. Trump’s first nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, had little to say when he faced the Senate Judiciary Committee. In fact, he was the least responsive nominee in decades, refusing to clearly answer questions about even canonical cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education. Despite vocal objections from the senators, it appears that recent lower-court nominees are following his lead.

At the heart of this dispute is the so-called Ginsburg Rule, a term used in confirmation hearings to argue that when answering questions from the senators, nominees must avoid offering “hints,” “forecasts” or “previews” — as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it in her confirmation hearing — into how they might rule on the bench.

But as our work demonstrates, “Ginsburg Rule” is a misnomer. Ginsburg did avoid responding to some questions in her hearing, but she also, in fact, answered others substantively. Judicial nominees have done this for decades, but it’s only recently that nominees have abused this “rule” to avoid answering questions in any meaningful way.

[snip]

Until recently, nominees of both parties have understood this. They have combined their privilege to avoid some questions with the recognition that they have a corresponding duty to answer others. Senators — and the American public — should insist that this Supreme Court nominee does so as well.

[snip][end]

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:22 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12241
Location: Sunny South Florida
Trump’s Supreme Court Frontrunner Is the “Forrest Gump of Republican Politics”
Brett Kavanaugh is a reliable conservative and the consummate Washington insider.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -politics/

[snip]

Kavanaugh was born and raised in the Beltway—in Washington, DC, and the tony suburb of Bethesda, Maryland, respectively. He would be the fourth sitting justice to have graduated from Yale Law School and the sixth Catholic on the current bench. A former Kennedy clerk, he is a longtime active member of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal outfit that has played a key role in Trump’s judicial appointments.

Kavanaugh first emerged as a rising GOP star in 1994, when he joined the legal team of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, a former solicitor general for whom he’d worked during the George H. W. Bush administration. Starr’s investigation into an Arkansas real estate deal by Bill and Hillary Clinton morphed into a prurient examination of the former president’s affair with intern Monica Lewinsky. Kavanaugh led the investigation into the suicide of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, which gave birth to conspiracy theories that the Clintons killed him. Kavanaugh was later a primary author of the Starr Report, which read like a steamy romance novel with lines like, “On all nine of those occasions, the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts.”

In those heady days, Kavanaugh traveled in a circle of budding GOP legal eagles, including Fox News host Laura Ingraham, current Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, and clerks for conservative Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Kavanaugh’s presence in right-wing political circles landed him a cameo in Blinded by the Right, a book by conservative operative turned Democratic fundraiser David Brock. Brock wrote that during the Whitewater investigation into the Clinton Arkansas real estate deal, he once attended an event at Ingraham’s house to watch one of Clinton’s State of the Union addresses. When the cameras panned to first lady Hillary Clinton during the speech, Brock said he witnessed Kavanaugh mouth the word “bitch.”

In an interview, Brock says Kavanaugh in those days “was a very recognizable type in Washington: a young Federalist Society lawyer on the make in the conservative movement. He thought his ticket was helping bring down the Clintons.”

Kavanaugh so frequently inserted himself into high-profile political battles that during his confirmation hearing for his DC Circuit seat, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) called him the “Forrest Gump of Republican politics.”

In 1999, Kavanaugh represented two members of Congress who filed a brief in a Supreme Court case supporting a New Mexico school district’s effort to maintain student-led prayers at football games. (The court found the prayers unconstitutional.) The following year, he got involved in the case of Elián González, the young Cuban boy who came to the United States after his mother drowned trying to bring him to the country, prompting an epic custody fight between his father in Cuba and his relatives in Miami. Kavanaugh worked pro bono for González’s Miami relatives in their vain appeals to keep the boy in the United States.

That same year, Kavanaugh represented former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in his fight to overcome constitutional hurdles to his controversial school voucher program that would direct public money to private religious schools. And when the 2000 election came down to some hanging chads in Florida and a contentious recount, Kavanaugh was there, too, working on George W. Bush’s legal team.

After the Supreme Court ruled in Bush’s favor, essentially awarding him the presidency, Kavanaugh landed a coveted spot in the White House counsel’s office, where he helped Bush select judicial nominees. Eventually, he became one of them. In 2003, Bush nominated Kavanaugh to a seat on the influential DC Circuit, often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Three current justices have served there, as does Merrick Garland, former President Barack Obama’s nominee for the high court whose confirmation was blocked by Senate Republicans.

Democrats aggressively opposed Kavanaugh’s nomination, in part because of his political résumé, but also because he had never tried a case and had very little experience with criminal law. Durbin observed during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing that he was nominated with “less legal experience than virtually any Republican or Democratic nominee in more than 30 years. Of the 54 judges appointed to this court in 111 years, only one—Kenneth Starr—had less legal experience. That is a fact.”

The American Bar Association, which initially rated Kavanaugh “well qualified,” downgraded that assessment to “qualified” after interviewing people who had worked with him. In its report, the ABA noted, “One judge who witnessed the nominee’s oral presentation in court commented that the nominee was ‘less than adequate’ before the court, had been ‘sanctimonious,’ and demonstrated ‘experience on the level of an associate.’” His nomination stalled for three years before he was finally confirmed in 2006.

Lawyer and court watcher Adam Feldman recently wrote on his blog Empirical SCOTUS that in his 12 years on the DC Circuit, Kavanaugh has penned opinions “almost entirely in favor of big businesses, employers in employment disputes, and against defendants in criminal cases.” Kavanaugh made a name for himself as a staunch opponent of the Obama administration’s environmental agenda. His dissents in cases involving the Environmental Protection Agency often seemed to sway the Supreme Court.

He has supported the Trump administration’s efforts to prevent a pregnant immigrant girl from obtaining an abortion, supported the use of military commissions to keep Guantanamo Bay prisoners out of federal courts, and attacked Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s pet project, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In 2016, he wrote a 101-page majority opinion for a three-judge panel decrying the agency’s “massive, unchecked” power and predicting that the Supreme Court would ultimately find its existence unconstitutional. The decision struck down the part of the law requiring that the president have cause before removing the agency’s director and that would have allowed the president to fire the director at will. But the decision was overturned a year later by the full DC Circuit. In a dissent in that case, Kavanaugh made an impassioned argument for protecting the rights of financial services providers, an argument dismissed by the majority as an “unmoored liberty analysis” that failed to take into account the individual liberty of the victims of those financial services corporations.

[snip][end]

I agree with Sam. He sucks.

For more than one reason. Not just his views on presidential immunity.

His rulings suck. His experience sucks.

Plus, and you'll love this, Roger Stone thinks he covered up Vince Foster's death. Oh, it is such a weird, fucking, upside down world.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches ... ter-death/

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:25 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12241
Location: Sunny South Florida
I believe that might have been another of Joe Biden's creations.


I believe you're talking out of your rectum again.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:46 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:36 pm
Posts: 250

I believe you're talking out of your rectum again.



I believe you are wrong. And you, an instructor, not smart enough check before making such stupid statement.


"When President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993, former Vice President Joe Biden, then a Democratic senator, chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee with a Democrat Senate majority.
Mindful that Ginsburg could be perceived as out of the mainstream of American law – she had once argued for legalizing prostitution, against separate prisons for men and women and raised the possibility of a right to polygamy – Biden prescribed certain rules for questioning nominees.

Biden’s most significant rule, which has since come to be known as the “Ginsburg Rule,” stipulated that nominees are under no obligation to answer questions regarding their personal views or about any issue that might conceivably come before the court.
Naturally, Republican members of the Judiciary Committee wanted to know whether Ginsburg still held such radical views. But Ginsburg religiously adhered to Biden’s Rule, refusing to answer questions on important matters such as funding for school vouchers, the religion clause of the First Amendment and homosexual rights. The senators were stymied in their efforts to obtain even a hint of her position on these and similar public issues because she said that doing so might compromise her impartiality in cases likely to come before the court."


https://www.pressherald.com/2018/07/08/ ... questions/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:13 am 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 18465


I believe you are wrong. And you, an instructor, not smart enough check before making such stupid statement.


"When President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993, former Vice President Joe Biden, then a Democratic senator, chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee with a Democrat Senate majority.
Mindful that Ginsburg could be perceived as out of the mainstream of American law – she had once argued for legalizing prostitution, against separate prisons for men and women and raised the possibility of a right to polygamy – Biden prescribed certain rules for questioning nominees.

Biden’s most significant rule, which has since come to be known as the “Ginsburg Rule,” stipulated that nominees are under no obligation to answer questions regarding their personal views or about any issue that might conceivably come before the court.
Naturally, Republican members of the Judiciary Committee wanted to know whether Ginsburg still held such radical views. But Ginsburg religiously adhered to Biden’s Rule, refusing to answer questions on important matters such as funding for school vouchers, the religion clause of the First Amendment and homosexual rights. The senators were stymied in their efforts to obtain even a hint of her position on these and similar public issues because she said that doing so might compromise her impartiality in cases likely to come before the court."


https://www.pressherald.com/2018/07/08/ ... questions/


Quote:
Walter J. Eno is a resident of Scarborough.


Well thats swell. I am a resident of West Yay Area.

:problem:

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:49 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:13 am
Posts: 325
Location: Huber Heights, Ohio
Kavanaugh - who doesn't believe a sitting president should be investigated or indicted - a guy that Trump thinks will help protect him.

Pretty obvious Trump would do this. Trump is not above the law. Kavanaugh must recuse himself if Trumps case ends up before the Supreme Court. Which it will.










Not only that but also in a paper he wrote, gave congress a blueprint how to put 666 above the law. He in essence says that a president is not above the law and can be questioned or subpoenaed unless congress passes a law saying they can't. This from a man who worked with Kenneth Starr to attempt to impeach Bill Clinton, but suddenly now is worried about the effect this will have on the federal government. My guess is that if congress passes a law that no sitting president can be sued or charged with ANY crime, is that 666 will NEVER STEP DOWN AS PRESIDENT, no matter what!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:48 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:45 am
Posts: 7716
Conservative legal group celebrates Kavanaugh nomination with $1.4 million ad buy targeting red state Democrats

Conservative legal groups quickly celebrated President Trump's nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, spoke to CBSN's Elaine Quijano about why she's happy Kavanaugh is the nominee.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/c/conse ... vp-AAzOXYk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:13 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10897

People are leaving out this qualifier from Kavanaugh:

“PROVIDE SITTING PRESIDENTS WITH A TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF CIVIL SUITS AND OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS.”


If it can't wait then there's always impeachment.

And get ready for the "Ginsburg Rule". I believe that might have been another of Joe Biden's creations.


I don't bother concerning myself about extraneous stuff like "Ginsburg Rules" in scare quotes or Joe Biden slights and smears, that kind of stuff is just background noise.


Temporary would not be all that temporary if it was to last for the length of a Presidents term and I think that's implied.


At 538 I found out that Kavanaugh has suggested that Congress enact a law giving Presidents this protection from investigations, and criminal indictments. Perhaps that's the context of that quote, the leading word "provide" suggests that.

If he has suggest that Congress take this up and enact such a law then he thinks its an issue open for legislation insofar as the Constitution is concerned. And that might imply he doesn't think Presidents already have protection from criminal indictment under the Constitution.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:57 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12241
Location: Sunny South Florida
I believe you're wrong.


No, I believe I'm right.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/opin ... -wade.html

Justice Gorsuch and his senatorial enablers based the claim that it would somehow be unethical for him to discuss his own views about the Constitution on something he and others referred to as the “Ginsburg rule.” Supposedly, during her 1993 confirmation hearing, then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to give meaningful answers to the senators’ questions. That is a myth. As the current documentary film “RBG” reminds us, she fully embraced the constitutional right to abortion. She was confirmed by a vote of 96 to 3.

Not only is there no “Ginsburg rule,” but the two Republican nominees who came after her, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito, were both more forthcoming than Justice Gorsuch. While both fenced with the senators about Roe v. Wade and refused to be pinned down, they each accepted the holding in Griswold v. Connecticut, the crucial pre-Roe decision recognizing a right to privacy that gave married couples the constitutional right to contraception. “I feel comfortable commenting on Griswold and the result in Griswold,” then-Judge Roberts told Senator Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat, during his 2005 hearing, “because that does not appear to me to be an area that is going to come before the court again.” (Let’s hope that’s still the case.)

[snip][end]

https://ballotpedia.org/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

Among others, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) publicly contested the idea of the "Ginsburg Precedent." He said that "over 300 opinions over 13 years as a federal judge" allowed Ginsburg to share her opinions through her body of work. The "precedent" was highly contested, with both sides having strong arguments as to why the precedent did or did not exist. The Federalist Society issued a paper on the Ginsburg confirmations concluding that the justice's general answers and avoidance of other questions were based on valid reasoning, and her 96-3 confirmation vote supported that the Senate understood these reasons.

[snip][end]

Yes, you are arguing - shockingly enough - the Republican/conservative position.

I am doing my dutiful duty in pointing out why it might be erroneous to call this a 'rule'. There's also the matter of whether you think Joe Biden had mind control over Ginsburg and made her do this, or if it were her own decision. You make it seem like Biden made her do it.

We can keep going.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SC Pick - Kavanaugh
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:19 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12241
Location: Sunny South Florida
I think I will.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... myths.html

Myth five: Well, at least nominees used to answer questions at the hearings. Now they all follow the “Ginsburg rule” and refuse to say anything.

Listen, we understand that Justice Ginsburg seems to many to have near-superhero powers, but unless she was advising Supreme Court nominees from her cradle, she shouldn’t be held responsible for a practice that started almost 80 years ago. Supreme Court nominees have always answered some questions and avoided others. But two large, empirical studies have both shown that the nominee responsiveness rate has not changed much over time, including after the Bork hearings.

[snip][end]

Stop promoting myths. I would think a librarian would care about that. Of course, I also would think a librarian would not want to support intentional deception and deceit, as well.

But I do get surprised.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group