SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[The Evil Genius]

Um......

 

 

[twa]

Like Obama did with marriage law and in implementing DACA/DAPA?

[bearrock]

And he amplified that president can refuse to enforce the law that the president views as unconstitutional until and unless a court rules otherwise.  I don't like Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy, don't like his work for the W Bush White House, but liberals have to be accurate and fair in their criticism of the nominee.

[AsburySkinsFan]

 

[Kilmer17]

The cake is baked.

[AsburySkinsFan]

13 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

The cake is baked.

They'll wait as long as they can and then when they know their midterms are shot they'll shove him through with 51 votes and suffer the consequences at the voting booth. Then we'll have a SCOTUS justice sitting that believes that POTUS should be immune from prosecution who and was nominated by a POTUS who is currently under multiple investigations. 

And people wonder why I think Justice Kennedy is a useless piece of trash.

[visionary]

 

 

 

[Kilmer17]

17 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

They'll wait as long as they can and then when they know their midterms are shot they'll shove him through with 51 votes and suffer the consequences at the voting booth. Then we'll have a SCOTUS justice sitting that believes that POTUS should be immune from prosecution who and was nominated by a POTUS who is currently under multiple investigations. 

And people wonder why I think Justice Kennedy is a useless piece of trash.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/07/11/does-brett-kavanaugh-think-the-president-is-immune-from-criminal-charges/?utm_term=.c886329befa1

 

Does Brett Kavanaugh think the president is immune from criminal charges?

Two Pinocchios

[visionary]

 

[nonniey]

19 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/07/11/does-brett-kavanaugh-think-the-president-is-immune-from-criminal-charges/?utm_term=.c886329befa1

 

Does Brett Kavanaugh think the president is immune from criminal charges?

Two Pinocchios

Give it up this was pointed out when Kavanaugh was first nominated. Did it have any effect on on his opponents still making that claim over and over? Stating the  "we'll have a SCOTUS justice sitting that believes that POTUS should be immune from prosecution" is part of the messaging campaign and no amount of debunking that message will dissuade people like Asbury from repeating it (That is how propaganda works after all).  

Edited August 10, 2018 by nonniey

[The Evil Genius]

2 out of 5 pinnochios. I wouldn't hang my hat on that as a defense of him. Especially when 5 means it's an outright lie.

 

The problem is that he has made the claim, sort of, or at least alluded to it. Did he do so in plain language? Of course not, he's a lawyer. But how he actually feels (other than what's hes sort of said thru his writing) appears to allude to that the POTUS can't be indicted while in office

Edited August 9, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[Kilmer17]

He went as far as to say what he thought would have to happen to prevent the potus from being indicted.  Ergo, he believes he currently can be. 

[visionary]

Good thing he’s not being put in a position of power where he could change that....

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by visionary

[Popeman38]

13 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

2 out of 5 pinnochios. I wouldn't hang my hat on that as a defense of him. Especially when 5 means it's an outright lie.

 

The problem is that he has made the claim, sort of, or at least alluded to it. Did he do so in plain language? Of course not, he's a lawyer. But how he actually feels (other than what's hes sort of said thru his writing) appears to allude to that the POTUS can't be indicted while in office

If the WashPost puts out a Pinnochio rating on a claim, the claim is being repeated and is flimsy. Either the WashPost Pinnochio test is either reliable or not. It can't be used when it suits your opinion.

[Llevron]

I dont think you can look at this guy fairly and that's Trumps fault. Had Trump not been in office, there wouldn't be nearly as much to worry about. But he is, and there is. 

 

This is bad politics by the Republicans. You do things that make people distrust you and then complain about people distrusting you. 

[The Evil Genius]

Again, 2 out of 5.

 

I read the Post article and what I got was that the statements are possibly incorrect but there isn't enough actual information to determine so.

 

For example, from that Post article.

 

Quote

 

A representative for Maloney pointed out a footnote in Kavanaugh’s article, which says, “Even in the absence of congressionally conferred immunity, a serious constitutional question exists regarding whether a President can be criminally indicted and tried while in office.”

That’s a mainstream view. As we noted, the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel has written two memos (in 1973 and 2000) saying the president can’t be indicted — but the Supreme Court has never ruled on this question, so it’s up in the air.

In an earlier article published in the Georgetown Law Journal in 1998, Kavanaugh wrote, “The Constitution itself seems to dictate, in addition, that congressional investigation must take place in lieu of criminal investigation when the President is the subject of investigation, and that criminal prosecution can occur only after the President has left office.” In the same article, Kavanaugh wrote later on, “Whether the Constitution allows indictment of a sitting President is debatable.”
 

 

That someone thinks Kavanaugh sees the POTUS as someone above indictment while in office isn't that hard to fathom, right (mainstream legal position or not)?

Edited August 10, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[bearrock]

Kavanaugh's position on criminal indictment/investigation of a sitting president is unclear. 

 

In the 2009 law review article, he recommends that Congress pass a law to shield the President from criminal investigation and indictment.  One can guess from this position that he doesn't think such immunity is currently afforded by the Constitution.  This doesn't necessarily have to be true.  You could think (as many do) that this is currently an unclear area of the law and merely think that it would be beneficial for Congress to clarify and avoid having such matter be ruled on by the Supreme Court.  You could also think that the President is immune from prosecution but not investigation, but feel that POTUS should be immune from both.

 

His 1998 article seems more couched in what he thinks would be the appropriate course of action, that congressional investigation take place of a criminal investigation.  The earlier part of the quote from that article seems to suggest that congressional investigation in lieu is the mandated course of action, but the later quote saying whether criminal indictment is allowed is debatable kind of muddles the water.  I suppose his view could be that Congress must drive the investigation and whether criminal indictment can be brought based on those investigation is unclear.

 

His views expressed in the Georgetown panel (noted at the end of the article), is the clearest example of him expressing that a sitting president cannot be indicted.  The question and his raising of hand is unequivocal.  Now, could he have changed his view in the 20 years since or is there more nuance to the answer?  I don't know.

 

With that all said, the view that a sitting president cannot be subject to criminal indictment is hardly controversial.  Many scholars from diverse background share this view.  I would not say that a sitting president can be immune from criminal investigation (due to situations like partisan Congress not doing its job, concerns of preserving evidence, etc).  I assume Kavanaugh will simply answer that he can't comment on issues that may come before the court.  But even if he believes that a sitting president is immune from indictment, would that be disqualifying?  Investigation immunity?  Yes, I can see that going too far.  Indictment, I don't think so (I disagree with the view, but would not view it as disqualifying). 

1 hour ago, Popeman38 said:

If the WashPost puts out a Pinnochio rating on a claim, the claim is being repeated and is flimsy. Either the WashPost Pinnochio test is either reliable or not. It can't be used when it suits your opinion.

 

Wapo's specific definition of two Pinnochio is

 

Quote

Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people. (Similar to “half true.”)

 

It seems to go from True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, and Totally False.

Edited August 10, 2018 by bearrock

[Kilmer17]

46 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I dont think you can look at this guy fairly and that's Trumps fault. Had Trump not been in office, there wouldn't be nearly as much to worry about. But he is, and there is. 

 

This is bad politics by the Republicans. You do things that make people distrust you and then complain about people distrusting you. 

There isnt a single conservative judge that Trump could have named that wouldnt have faced the same kind of "scrutiny".  Kavanaugh is a boring white guy conservative jurist.  I agree with you that the backlash is a result of people's hatred for Trump.

[The Evil Genius]

35 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

There isnt a single conservative judge that Trump could have named that wouldnt have faced the same kind of "scrutiny".  Kavanaugh is a boring white guy conservative jurist.  I agree with you that the backlash is a result of people's hatred for Trump.

 

I'd also add that the way the GOP treated Garland plays into any and all Trump nominations but that shouldn't be a surprise. When you stoop that low, your opposition is now free to do so as well.

 

Edit..not that I condone that but it's the reality of politics. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[The Evil Genius]

 

As an aside..how do we know Kavanaugh is just a boring white guy judge when 90% (reportedly) of his records are being withheld?

 

[Kilmer17]

30 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

I'd also add that the way the GOP treated Garland plays into any and all Trump nominationsbut that shouldn't be a surprise. When do stoop that low, your opposition is now free to do so as well.

Yep.  Of course Bork....

11 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

As an aside..how do we know Kavanaugh is just a boring white guy judge when 90% (reportedly) of his records are being withheld?

 

Because the Heritage foundation wouldnt have allowed him if he was anything else.

[Bozo the kKklown]

13 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

As an aside..how do we know Kavanaugh is just a boring white guy judge when 90% (reportedly) of his records are being withheld?

 

Because the right does not care about consistency.

Edited August 10, 2018 by BenningRoadSkin

[DogofWar1]

9 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Yep.  Of course Bork....

Please don't defend Robert "Saturday Night Massacre" Bork.

[The Evil Genius]

8 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Yep.  Of course Bork....

 

Because the Heritage foundation wouldnt have allowed him if he was anything else.

 

Bork was voted on. Just. A. Slight. Difference.

 

And this is the same Heritage Foundation that has little to no problem with Trump's presidency so far? Yeah. No thanks. 

[Kilmer17]

10 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Bork was voted on. Just. A. Slight. Difference.

 

And this is the same Heritage Foundation that has little to no problem with Trump's presidency so far? Yeah. No thanks. 

It's always about the next level of chicanery.

 

And yes, that's why I am confident Kavanaugh is a typical conservative jurist.  The Heritage foundation wouldn't allow him otherwise.