His solution involved congress making a law. He was not appointed to make any laws.
Trump announces federal appeals court judge Brett Kavanaugh as nominee for Supreme Court
- Thread starter ZiggyPalffyLA
- Start date
He literally said congress should make a law to make it illegal to investigate the president.
Seriously, cut the bullshit.
They're not going to do that. If they find anything that's enough to sink Trump, that will be enough to make him ineffectual and lose the election in 2020.
You basically just posted words with nothing to back it up. Not only did he say that Supreme Court precedent must be followed, but -- again -- he suggested that abortion was a right.
And what are you even talking about with "a lower court can't overrule the Supreme Court." Who is disputing that?
Exactly!!!!! If we had used the popular vote system to elect a President, Clinton would be in the White House right now as our President.
That’s just a link to her bio? We need to better understand methodology.
Edit: just saw the link to her thesis. Thanks.
Interesting, thanks for posting.
So if I’m summarizing this right: he’s ideologically conservative, has flipped positions on whether or not a a president can be impeached to what could now be in Trump’s favor, but has to some extent defended RvW and the ACA.
He has no input on what laws congress makes. You're not understanding what I'm saying. His position on the Supreme Court doesn't allow him to make laws. He can think congress should make a law but that doesn't mean anything.
But isn't this how it has been since the beginning? Abortion in the United States has always come with the "undue burden" caveat.
His ability to make laws or not have no bearing on the fact his opinion on the matter is extremely far right and well into nazi terroritory.
Believing that the President is a defacto dictator reflects poorly on his ability to make sound and reasonable rulings as a Supreme Court justice, especially when you weigh in his solution he entertains to congress.
That’s a link to her research on JCS. Here’s the direct PDF link to the relevant paper: http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/JCS.pdf
If you read his statement it’s pretty clear that he still values the impeachment process.
An impeachment process that is neutured by not allowing criminal investigations. Yes, wonderful.
Well that is good, but it really isn't the point. POTUS should be able to be criminally charged and put on trial, it shouldn't only be about impeachment. If a sitting POTUS murders someone, I guess from his perspective are only recourse is impeachment. If so, that is pretty absurd.
I'd say that opinion is more pro-play stupid games, win stupid prizes. You don't work with Orcas and honestly think "This can never possibly go badly."
Brett Kavanaugh: "No president has ever consulted more widely or talked to more people from more backgrounds to seek input for a Supreme Court nomination."
Fact check: Trump chose names off a list given to him by an interest group, then he interviewed four candidates in under 2 hours last Monday
https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/1016518499269783554
Fact check: Trump chose names off a list given to him by an interest group, then he interviewed four candidates in under 2 hours last Monday
https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/1016518499269783554
I have long held the belief the NYT is a right wing trash organization.
His argument is that the impeachment should come first by way of congressional investigation. Then once removed criminal investigation can commence.
I’m not saying I agree; it’s just that this hot take that he changed stances is incorrect.
He has changed stances, he was all for independent investigation when Clinton was POTUS. When Bush was POTUS he changed and was no longer in favor of it, he has legit said his thinking on it was erroneous. He now feels they should be completely shielding from investigation, indictment, and prosecution.
That isn't a hot take, it is his own views on wide display and in his own words.
If we win this fight. This will ultimately be the reason why.
I feel this will dominate the news cycle regarding this pick. If he's just there to be a lackey and it becomes the story he doesn't think a President can't be indicted or investigated. WHILE Trump is being investigated I feel that's a good angle you can rope the media into.
I feel this will dominate the news cycle regarding this pick. If he's just there to be a lackey and it becomes the story he doesn't think a President can't be indicted or investigated. WHILE Trump is being investigated I feel that's a good angle you can rope the media into.
Dammit.... :( I'm quite sure, whatever special interest group gave Trump the list of names, it had a "strong recommendation" for Trump to choose Kavanaugh
Maybe Obama should have spent less time pandering to the insurance industry and more time fixing the problem obviously highlighted in 2000.
A President can't fix this problem, the Electoral College is in the U.S. Constitution: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html
It would require a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
A president that is under an investigation should not be picking the highest court positions in the country. Period.
Maybe you should learn what a President is Constitutionally allows to do.
And yet Republicans/GOP are allowing him to do it. It's sickening.
He could have welcomed DC and PR as states. PR voted to become a state during his presidency. He didnt even acknowledge it.
Additionally, he had a pretty damn strong mandate in 2008. A super-majority even. A constitutional amendment was not out of the question.
Remember, Obama derangement syndrome didn't hit until 2010 with the Tea Party and his own self-inflected healthcare crisis.
He had 2 years to get shit done.
He didn't.
Uh, pretty much nothing you've written here is true. Not even sure where to start.
Do you understand what a constitutional amendment entails?
It requires not just a Congressional vote, but votes from states, even without a Congressional vote, an amendment still needs votes from the states: https://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp
This is Kavanagh’s most recent full statement on impeachment:
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf
Basically he argues that criminal prosecution during a sitting presidency is unnecessary, because the constitution already has plenty of mechanisms to impeach and remove an underperforming president, and prosecution is still viable after impeachment. His view is that criminal prosecutions distract from the business of running the country.
Gotta say I think that’s a dangerous view, given how congressional majorities can and have behaved en-masse to protect their party leader.
He also concludes by arguing for the introduction of one six year presidential term instead of two four year terms, as constant election cycles also divert and distract energy. That one is more interesting,
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf
Basically he argues that criminal prosecution during a sitting presidency is unnecessary, because the constitution already has plenty of mechanisms to impeach and remove an underperforming president, and prosecution is still viable after impeachment. His view is that criminal prosecutions distract from the business of running the country.
Gotta say I think that’s a dangerous view, given how congressional majorities can and have behaved en-masse to protect their party leader.
He also concludes by arguing for the introduction of one six year presidential term instead of two four year terms, as constant election cycles also divert and distract energy. That one is more interesting,
That's not the same thing as a legal precedent, which is what was being discussed. This feels like you moving the goalposts.
I can see how indictment and trial when impeachment has to occur first is a case to make. Though if he argued that an investigation of any kind should not occur, that's ridiculous.
So...supreme Court judges can't be booted? I know in Canada the Governor general can boot a supreme Court justice if there's reason under the lead of the house and Senate. Also there's a mandatory retirement age
A 2/3 vote in House and Senate is required to boot a SC justice
A look at Brett Kavanaugh's opinions on guns, abortion and the environment: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...-court-kavanaugh-opinions-20180709-story.html
Well that won't be happening. Has that ever happened before? I assume they still need cause