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

[AsburySkinsFan]

From Kavanaugh

But the top recommendation is for Congress to pass legislation that defers civil lawsuits and criminal charges and investigations until after the president leaves office. Kavanaugh wrote that this would require an extension of the statute of limitations, to ensure the president can face any pending legal proceedings after leaving office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/07/11/does-brett-kavanaugh-think-the-president-is-immune-from-criminal-charges/?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.bd61dd0a33ce

 

A brief google search shows that the answer to whether a sitting President can be indicted has not been answered, but Kavanaugh’s own opinion is that the President should be shielded until tbe term is complete, and thus relying upon impeachment during the term. 

Now that the GOP has been all too willing to concede its role as a direct balance and accountability to the Executive this would then mean that Trump could literally commit war crimes and be immune from prosecution for up to six years. And like we’ve seen time and again, the appetite for prosecuting a former POTUS is petite especially considering that the only time it was close to happening the following POTUS offered an unconditional pardon. 

[DogofWar1]

He seemed to write that a serious question exists constitutionally as to whether a sitting President can he indicted in 1998 and reiterated that in 2009.

 

The rub is that Brett's opinion, is that they should not be.

 

Yes, he said Congress could/should make a law answering the standing Constitutional question, but that is far from saying that absent Congressional action the President can he indicted, unless he is saying the question isn't judiciable, which does not appear to be what he is saying (though I could see that as an out for SCOTUS, that the issue of prosecution while in office is political in nature).

 

The rub here is that his opinion has the ability to become a SCOTUS ruling.  The question exists, has not been previously addressed, and the Constitution doesn't answer it directly.

 

If he legitimately believes the President should not be subject to prosecution while sitting and feels the question is open as to Constitutionality, and suddenly finds himself as the vote deciding it, logic dictates that he will more than likely side with the President not being able to be indicted.

 

After all, he clearly already buys the argument that the President is impacted in his ability to perform his duties due to litigation and prosecution, and that keeping a President from being impacted in those duties is important.

 

With that foundation, and an ambiguous constitution, it paves the way for him to vote for temporary immunity while in office.

[Kilmer17]

Good grief the pretzels you folks twist yourselves into to save a meaningless point is amazing.

 

He's called for CONGRESS to pass a law.  Which means he believes that the ability to shield a POTUS belongs to CONGRESS.  You know, what the FF believed should happen to create law.  Which I realize flies in the face of the left wing Judicial Agenda of the past few decades, but only acceptable when RBG does it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

Good grief the pretzels you folks twist yourselves into to save a meaningless point is amazing.

 

He's called for CONGRESS to pass a law.  Which means he believes that the ability to shield a POTUS belongs to CONGRESS.  You know, what the FF believed should happen to create law.  Which I realize flies in the face of the left wing Judicial Agenda of the past few decades, but only acceptable when RBG does it.

Translated: “I read what you wrote and I recognize that what he said certainly gives strong indication of where he would decide, but since he never spelled it out exactly then you’re all stupid.”

“Meaningless point” ??????

[nonniey]

25 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

From Kavanaugh

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/07/11/does-brett-kavanaugh-think-the-president-is-immune-from-criminal-charges/?sw_bypass=true&utm_term=.bd61dd0a33ce

 

A brief google search shows that the answer to whether a sitting President can be indicted has not been answered, but Kavanaugh’s own opinion is that the President should be shielded until tbe term is complete, and thus relying upon impeachment during the term. 

Now that the GOP has been all too willing to concede its role as a direct balance and accountability to the Executive this would then mean that Trump could literally commit war crimes and be immune from prosecution for up to six years. And like we’ve seen time and again, the appetite for prosecuting a former POTUS is petite especially considering that the only time it was close to happening the following POTUS offered an unconditional pardon. 

Nope he wrote that he thinks Congress should pass a law that protects the President from indictment during his term in office. You know what that indicates???? It indicates that he thinks a President can be indicted under current law.

Edited July 11, 2018 by nonniey

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Nope he wrote that he thinks Congress should pass a law that protects the President from indictment during his term in office. You know what that indicates???? He thinks a President can be indicted under current law.

Why would he think that should be necessary?

Could it possibly be that it is his opinion that POTUS needs that shielding, if he believes that protection is necessary and Congress has NOT acted and he is asked to rule on it, which way do YOU think he leans?

Oh, and your conclusion is NOT what his statement reveals, only that the law is ambiguous on this topic, but that he feels POTUS should be shielded.

Too bad we won’t know until he’s forced to decide on a Presidential indictment of Trump. Because god knows he will NEVER answer this question in his Senate hearing.

Edited July 11, 2018 by AsburySkinsFan

[Kilmer17]

You guys are right.  He obviously thinks that the POTUS can’t be indicted.  It’s obvious because he wrote an article where he stated what he thought was needed to prevent it.  And also, he clearly doesn’t think Congress should be part of that because he wrote in that same article that Congress was the entity that had to do it. 

 

Hes is brilliant that way. 

Ah.  I see we e now adjusted that claim that he states the potus can’t be indicted to the claim he states the potus “shouldn’t “ be indicted. 

 

Thats clear too because he actually DIDNT say that either, so he obviously thinks that way.  

[JCB]

Interesting piece by one of our best constitutional scholars.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html

[DogofWar1]

24 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Good grief the pretzels you folks twist yourselves into to save a meaningless point is amazing.

 

He's called for CONGRESS to pass a law.  Which means he believes that the ability to shield a POTUS belongs to CONGRESS.  You know, what the FF believed should happen to create law.  Which I realize flies in the face of the left wing Judicial Agenda of the past few decades, but only acceptable when RBG does it.

 

14 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Nope he wrote that he thinks Congress should pass a law that protects the President from indictment during his term in office. You know what that indicates???? He thinks a President can be indicted under current law.

 

You're both missing the fact he said on several occasions that its an open question.

 

Congress makes law, but their law is subservient to the Constitution.

Judiciary/SCOTUS interprets both.

 

If it is an open question then it cannot he settled either way.

 

Him saying Congress should make a law is thus NOT him saying its the opposite right now, because he himself says the question is OPEN. 

 

Congress could presumably close the question but if it is open based on the Constitution then in the absence of a new law SCOTUS would interpret existing law.

 

He himself flatly states existing law hasn't answered the question directly.

 

"The President can be indicted unless Congress changes the law" and "it's an open question constitutionally" are mutually exclusive statements.  One statement is closed (they can) the other leaves it open.  Brett says the latter directly himself.  So logically...*waves hand in little bounce motions*

 

 

Indeed, the best question to ask at this stage is, is the question of whether a President can be indicted/tried/etc. even judiciable in the first place, or is it a political question?

[AsburySkinsFan]

14 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

You guys are right.  He obviously thinks that the POTUS shouldn’t be indicted.  

HTMFTFY

[PeterMP]

22 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

You guys are right.  He obviously thinks that the POTUS can’t be indicted.  It’s obvious because he wrote an article where he stated what he thought was needed to prevent it.  And also, he clearly doesn’t think Congress should be part of that because he wrote in that same article that Congress was the entity that had to do it. 

 

Hes is brilliant that way. 

Ah.  I see we e now adjusted that claim that he states the potus can’t be indicted to the claim he states the potus “shouldn’t “ be indicted. 

 

Thats clear too because he actually DIDNT say that either, so he obviously thinks that way.  

 

If you don't think he believes the President SHOULDN'T be subject to normal legal processes (e.g. indictments) without impeachment first, do you care to explain what he does believe?

 

Instead of simply attacking others, why don't you actually try explaining.

 

(Also, there is a suggestion here that since he thinks Congress should pass a law that he believes it would currently be legal.  That doesn't seem the case as he also states it is open question.)

 

(I guess, I'd generally agree that it isn't clear if currently a President is immune from indictment, but it certainly seems as if he thinks that would be the best.)

11 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

 

You're both missing the fact he said on several occasions that its an open question.

 

Congress makes law, but their law is subservient to the Constitution.

Judiciary/SCOTUS interprets both.

 

If it is an open question then it cannot he settled either way.

 

Him saying Congress should make a law is thus NOT him saying its the opposite right now, because he himself says the question is OPEN. 

 

Congress could presumably close the question but if it is open based on the Constitution then in the absence of a new law SCOTUS would interpret existing law.

 

He himself flatly states existing law hasn't answered the question directly.

 

"The President can be indicted unless Congress changes the law" and "it's an open question constitutionally" are mutually exclusive statements.  One statement is closed (they can) the other leaves it open.  Brett says the latter directly himself.  So logically...*waves hand in little bounce motions*

 

 

Indeed, the best question to ask at this stage is, is the question of whether a President can be indicted/tried/etc. even judiciable in the first place, or is it a political question?

 

This would seem to be an important point, especially with respect to somebody that believes in a strict interpretation.  If the Constitution does protect the President from being indicted (though I don't see how you can be with a strict interpretation and believe that's the case), then whether Congress passes a law saying that isn't the case, does not matter. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by PeterMP

[The Evil Genius]

I have a lot more problems with Kavanaugh than whether he thinks POTUS can be indicted/investigated, etc.

 

His views on the environment and civil rights causes are horrifying. But the again, he's a deregulation champion so it's not surprising the Mango Mussolini would select him.

 

We're ****ed.

Edited July 11, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[visionary]

 

[DogofWar1]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

This would seem to be an important point, especially with respect to somebody that believes in a strict interpretation.  If the Constitution does protect the President from being indicted (though I don't see how you can be with a strict interpretation and believe that's the case), then whether Congress passes a law saying that isn't the case, does not matter. 

 

Right, it seems that his two statements are in some conflict, unless it's a political question.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong (paging @Predicto, and other lawyers and Constitutional scholars; @PleaseBlitz aren't you a lawyer?), but the Constitution technically can't be silent on an issue.  Usually where Congress makes no law and the Constitution is ambiguous, if its a non-solely-federal issue they just leave the power to the states.

 

Obviously that can't happen here.  So if the Constitution can't be silent then presumably it can be interpreted by the courts.  But that would mean Congress can't mess with that via news law.

 

The way around this is if its a political question.  That would allow Congress to act on it whereas it is silent now.  In which case, then the short answer is likely "yes" the President can be prosecuted in court for crimes because Congress has been silent.  But Brett hasn't said he thinks its a political question yet.

 

And its seems there is just too much writing out there assuming it's not a political question for SCOTUS to suddenly be like "nope, political." #gavelslam

 

Then again, the writing seems to run the spectrum from "yes they can" to "no they can't" and in between.  So it might be an easy out to say "you're all wrong, it's political."

 

 

 

One possibility is that its a mixed result.  As I was saying earlier in the thread, prosecution isn't one step.  There's investigation, indictment, trial, conviction, sentencing, and punishment, and various things along the way like subpoenas and bond.

 

I could see SCOTUS saying something like "the President can be indicted but not tried" or "can be everything up to punishment."

 

After all, Presidents are subject to subpoenas and investigation, as well as civil trials.  Presumably they require similar resources from the President as criminal prosecution would, UP UNTIL the point of sentencing/punishment.

[The Evil Genius]

Didn't US v Nixon settle a lot of this already? 

[DogofWar1]

11 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Didn't US v Nixon settle a lot of this already? 

I feel like that decision simply dealt with whether impeachment is a political question, which presumably is separate from prosecution.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by visionary

[visionary]

Interesting thread.  Not sure whether to put it here or in the Gun Control thread.

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[nonniey]

"Brett Kavanaugh incurred tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt buying baseball tickets over the past decade and at times reported liabilities that could have exceeded the value of his cash accounts and investment assets, WaPo reports."

 

Ok this is just getting silly. (And this is just could have????). Do any of you regular posters have liabilities that exceed the value of cash and investment assets?   A shorter list would be to ask for who doesn't have liabilities that exceed their cash and investment assets.

 

(Ok I guess if one counts the home which I wasn't thinking of as an investment - and I should have it change the equation - wonder if the Post did that?).

Edited July 11, 2018 by nonniey

[tshile]

4 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

You're both missing the fact he said on several occasions that its an open question.

You mean he said that thing tons of legal scholars have been saying?

 

well he should be disqualified then. 

[Kilmer17]

Good lord the left has completely jumped the shark.  

[Captain Wiggles]

2 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Good lord the left has completely jumped the shark.  

 

If ya say so. Meanwhile the right has gone completely bat **** crazy.

[visionary]

18 minutes ago, nonniey said:

"Brett Kavanaugh incurred tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt buying baseball tickets over the past decade and at times reported liabilities that could have exceeded the value of his cash accounts and investment assets, WaPo reports."

 

Ok this is just getting silly. (And this is just could have????). Do any of you regular posters have liabilities that exceed the value of cash and investment assets?   A shorter list would be to ask for who doesn't have liabilities that exceed their cash and investment assets.

 

(Ok I guess if one counts the home which I wasn't thinking of as an investment - and I should have it change the equation - wonder if the Post did that?).

Not sure it's a big deal in this case, but debt is used in intelligence gathering to gain leverage on people.  Could also be an issue if there's conflicts of interest later.  Not necessarily disqualifying.

Edited July 11, 2018 by visionary

[Cooked Crack]

17 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Ok this is just getting silly. (And this is just could have????). Do any of you regular posters have liabilities that exceed the value of cash and investment assets?   A shorter list would be to ask for who doesn't have liabilities that exceed their cash and investment assets.

Thought it was interesting so posted it. It's not going to change anything unless we find some legally questionable debts. This feels the same as companies running a credit check before hiring.