All Things SCOTUS

[Legacy]

Poll: Two-thirds of Americans Don’t Want the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade (KFF)

Equal Pay and Fair Employment Practices are Voters’ Top Concerns among Women’s Issues

 

[connor_in]

Poll: Two-thirds of Americans Don’t Want the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade (KFF)

Here's the thing, do they really not want Roe v Wade overturned or do they want to keep access to abortion? That is not how they asked the question here and it is usually put about this way. Many scholars believe that Roe v Wade is a bad decision, made up law. People think if Roe v Wade went away that abortion would go away too. However, based on the many polls like these, it is fairly obvious that many/most states would immediately put together an actual law instead of relying on essentially flawed case law.

 

[Legacy]

Here's the thing, do they really not want Roe v Wade overturned or do they want to keep access to abortion? That is not how they asked the question here and it is usually put about this way. Many scholars believe that Roe v Wade is a bad decision, made up law. People think if Roe v Wade went away that abortion would go away too. However, based on the many polls like these, it is fairly obvious that many/most states would immediately put together an actual law instead of relying on essentially flawed case law.

The nominees for the Court have said that they would follow the law vs their beliefs - or have refused to answer the question. Without delving into the morality issues, a couple of cases decided before SCOTUS are worth considering and noted without comment - Planned Parenthood v Casey (1993) and Stenberg vs Carhart (2000). Other decisions by SCOTUS since have failed to overturn Roe, which is based constitutionally on the 14th Amendment's right to privacy.

If Roe were to be deemed unconstitutional, that would leave abortion up to each state, who may or may not legislate that the fetus is a person. State ballot initiatives, which would reflect popular opinion, have been initiated or voted upon. Even if those ballot initiatives result in opposition to changes in abortion protection, they are not binding, of course.

States can pass legislation - or prepare to - that affirms personhood or a women's right to choose into their constitutions. They could also legislate that abortions are murders, those performing abortions are murderers and that abortion cannot be performed even if the safety and health of a woman is threatened. Florida has an initiative that abortion is murder in the first degree. Their legislature could pass such a law though 39% of Floridians oppose abortion and 56% approve of abortion. Idaho has a similar murder in the first degree initiative with 45% in favor of keeping abortions legal and 49% opposed. Your point about how the question is asked is very valid, though this watershed issue is something most people have decided in their minds.

Abortion on the ballot

Views about abortion by state

Depending on state laws, their constitutional amendments may or may not be difficult to overturn. With Roe and Casey overturned, any legal challenges may switch from SCOTUS to being decided by state supreme courts. How justices are chosen differs by state, but, in general, that usually involves elections.

As you say, abortions will not go away.

 

[Irish YJ]

Here's the thing, do they really not want Roe v Wade overturned or do they want to keep access to abortion? That is not how they asked the question here and it is usually put about this way. Many scholars believe that Roe v Wade is a bad decision, made up law. People think if Roe v Wade went away that abortion would go away too. However, based on the many polls like these, it is fairly obvious that many/most states would immediately put together an actual law instead of relying on essentially flawed case law.

I'd say most of the public doesn't fully understand Roe, except that it makes abortion legal. So I'd assume that most polled want to keep access to abortion.

I'm a pro-life guy as I've said before, but I think there is a bit of science to the whole "when does life start". Regardless, we are where we are as a culture, and conservatives need to be careful what they wish for. This is the one issue that could galvanize a lot of people and move a lot of people to the Left permanently, with no hope for return on this, and many other issues.

 

[EddytoNow]

The choice is "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice". One group wants to ban all abortions. One group wants to leave that choice up to the woman involved. No group wants to force abortions upon women.

Isn't it ironic that the Republican Party, the party that claims it wants to limit the federal government's over-reach, is the party that wants to take away an individual's free choice knowing full-well that some states will ban all abortions.

And the Democratic Party, the party that wants to protect an individual's rights, is the party that wants to deny those rights to a fetus knowing full-well that at some point that fetus could survive outside the womb.

Caught in the middle are the women faced with making the ultimate decision. Some will choose life. Some will choose an abortion. But it sure places both political parties in a quandary arguing for positions that are the opposite of what they claim to support.

It is also ironic that the decision will be made by groups dominated by men. (SCOTUS, etc.) Perhaps, men should recuse themselves from deciding this issue.

 

[ab2cmiller]

The choice is "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice". One group wants to ban all abortions. One group wants to leave that choice up to the woman involved. No group wants to force abortions upon women.

Isn't it ironic that the Republican Party, the party that claims it wants to limit the federal government's over-reach, is the party that wants to take away an individual's free choice knowing full-well that some states will ban all abortions.

And the Democratic Party, the party that wants to protect an individual's rights, is the party that wants to deny those rights to a fetus knowing full-well that at some point that fetus could survive outside the womb.

Caught in the middle are the women faced with making the ultimate decision. Some will choose life. Some will choose an abortion. But it sure places both political parties in a quandary arguing for positions that are the opposite of what they claim to support.

It is also ironic that the decision will be made by groups dominated by men. (SCOTUS, etc.) Perhaps, men should recuse themselves from deciding this issue.

Someone could then argue that female justices should recuse themselves from deciding the issue on grounds that they can't be impartial. Both arguments are ludicrous.

 

[wizards8507]

Isn't it ironic that the Republican Party, the party that claims it wants to limit the federal government's over-reach, is the party that wants to take away an individual's free choice knowing full-well that some states will ban all abortions.

No, it's not ironic at all. Unless you're a literal anarchist, every person believes that the police/state/government should, to the extent of their ability, prevent and punish murder. If you recognize that an unborn child is a human being, the desire to ban abortion is no more a government overreach than the desire to ban shooting a kindergartner in the face.

Someone could then argue that female justices should recuse themselves from deciding the issue on grounds that they can't be impartial. Both arguments are ludicrous.

Or that black people shouldn't be on juries for white defendants, or that only CPAs should be allowed to vote on tax policy, or that children should dictate school curricula, or...

 

[IrishLax]

The choice is "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice". One group wants to ban all abortions. One group wants to leave that choice up to the woman involved. No group wants to force abortions upon women.

Isn't it ironic that the Republican Party, the party that claims it wants to limit the federal government's over-reach, is the party that wants to take away an individual's free choice knowing full-well that some states will ban all abortions.

And the Democratic Party, the party that wants to protect an individual's rights, is the party that wants to deny those rights to a fetus knowing full-well that at some point that fetus could survive outside the womb.

Caught in the middle are the women faced with making the ultimate decision. Some will choose life. Some will choose an abortion. But it sure places both political parties in a quandary arguing for positions that are the opposite of what they claim to support.

It is also ironic that the decision will be made by groups dominated by men. (SCOTUS, etc.) Perhaps, men should recuse themselves from deciding this issue.

Can you figure out on your own why this is terrible logic or does someone have to walk you through it?

 

[Irish YJ]

The circus starts Sep4

Kavanaugh confirmation hearings set to start on Sept. 4 | Fox News

 

[Irish YJ]

so she does this lol....

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RiseUpForRoe?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RiseUpForRoe</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WeAreNotProperty?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WeAreNotProperty</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/StopKavanaugh?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#StopKavanaugh</a> <a href="https://t.co/dBvywg8ECm">pic.twitter.com/dBvywg8ECm</a></p>— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) <a href="https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/1031329025300414466?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 19, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

And then the internet does this lol..

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"> <a href="https://t.co/NGWbeRd3In">pic.twitter.com/NGWbeRd3In</a></p>— Khakis Richard from Boston (@Rossirwin11) <a href="https://twitter.com/Rossirwin11/status/1031381493174755328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"> <a href="https://t.co/fsOdKdXiVp">pic.twitter.com/fsOdKdXiVp</a></p>— Khakis Richard from Boston (@Rossirwin11) <a href="https://twitter.com/Rossirwin11/status/1031381598850174976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">&#55358;&#56611;&#55358;&#56611;&#55357;&#56834;&#55357;&#56834;&#55357;&#56834; the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/meme?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#meme</a> fun has begun. Gift that keeps on giving. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WalkAway?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WalkAway</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WalkAwayCampaign?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#WalkAwayCampaign</a> <a href="https://t.co/FY1hu1QQkh">pic.twitter.com/FY1hu1QQkh</a></p>— Dan76 (@VoteOutLibs76) <a href="https://twitter.com/VoteOutLibs76/status/1031647618131218433?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I was too sweaty to do this myself. <a href="https://t.co/UrDD1kcpCz">pic.twitter.com/UrDD1kcpCz</a></p>— Cupcake1004 (@Cupcake_1004) <a href="https://twitter.com/Cupcake_1004/status/1031408861545025536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">But......fuck <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Trump?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Trump</a>, right sweetheart? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Resist?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Resist</a> and all that shit? You don't even know how stupid you are. I suppose everyone has to do something during the day while not being paid to act or suck off <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Weinstein?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Weinstein</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JenniferLawrence?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JenniferLawrence</a> did it, too. Photos online... <a href="https://t.co/6DLeuww7fg">pic.twitter.com/6DLeuww7fg</a></p>— ❌ DassIt ❌ (@dassitmane) <a href="https://twitter.com/dassitmane/status/1031647159890796546?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="https://t.co/aFZyzVkBWX">pic.twitter.com/aFZyzVkBWX</a></p>— Drew McCoy (@_Drew_McCoy_) <a href="https://twitter.com/_Drew_McCoy_/status/1031346426687758336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Little known fact: under Article XLI’s “take backsies clause,” Democrats can undo the damage Harry Reid did by invoking the nuclear option on judicial nominees by crying and screaming.</p>— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1036976420868612097?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[IrishLax]

You guys want to see some people being impossibly stupid? There was a Mexican, Jewish American lady sitting behind Kavanagh... that shit you not is descended from Holocaust survivors... and a bunch of deranged blue check marks are claiming she's a "nazi" making "white supremacist" hand gestures --
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This neo-nazi is Zina Bash. She’s intentionally throwin up White Power signs at a Supreme Court Justice confirmation hearing. On national TV. She works for Kavanaugh & is also one of the writers for Trump’s immigration policy. This is their new Amerikkka. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/StopKavanaugh?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#StopKavanaugh</a> <a href="https://t.co/Dw3ZD2M5bk">https://t.co/Dw3ZD2M5bk</a></p>— Kelly Mantle (@thekellymantle) <a href="https://twitter.com/thekellymantle/status/1037060396589318144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The woman sitting behind Kavanaugh giving what appears to be a white supremacist "Pepe" salute has been identified as Zina Bash, member of Trump's transition, domestic policy, and now SCOTUS team <a href="https://t.co/1bJlzV3yLG">pic.twitter.com/1bJlzV3yLG</a></p>— Tommy Christopher (@tommyxtopher) <a href="https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/status/1037053649925627910?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Zina Bash, who worked for Kavanaugh was seated behind him making the "white power" symbol with her hand for the camera to catch, so every neo-Nazi knows this is their man.<a href="https://t.co/39RFUH6eIo">https://t.co/39RFUH6eIo</a></p>— Ellen Meister �� (@EllenMeister) <a href="https://twitter.com/EllenMeister/status/1037044572990464000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is just Zina Bash, one of the writers of Trump's immigration policy, flashing a White Supremacist hand signal. Nothing racist to see here. <a href="https://t.co/8OwGYj4kt7">pic.twitter.com/8OwGYj4kt7</a></p>— Machine Pun Kelly (@KellyScaletta) <a href="https://twitter.com/KellyScaletta/status/1037051326843285504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Donald Trump's day so far:<br><br>- Brett Kavanaugh snubs Parkland father Fred Guttenberg<br>- White House adviser Zina Bash flashes white power symbol<br>- Bob Woodward drops a house on Trump<br>- John Kelly says Trump is an "idiot"<br>- James Mattis says Trump is insane<br>- It's still only 5pm</p>— Palmer Report (@PalmerReport) <a href="https://twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/1037087383357931520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What a time to be alive.

 

[loomis41973]

The left has nothing left other than total stupidity, I would be ashamed to associate with any of these people.

 

[NorthDakota]

A Mexican-Jewish immigrant trolls with a meme and now she's a white supremacist? Also Jesus is she a dime piece.

Dems lost their collective minds today. What a big win for the GOP today. Much needed too.

 

[connor_in]

Such a circus today

The chair tries to open the hearing and was interupted 3 times welcoming people there.

The most documents ever presented for a scotus nominee. Even before the late release of tons of other non judicial decision documents on the guy.

Numerous democrats who are already on the record saying there is no way they will vote for him (before reading anything on him) claiming that they need to read more before they can make a decision.

Approximately 70 protesters arrested throughout the day.

Going into the break, Fred Guttenberg (father of a shooting victim from that FL school) rushes up from the opposite direction that Kavanaugh is already starting to head and sticks out his hand to shake, but security steps in between them and now Ds claim that Kavanaugh purposefully refused to shake his hand. Apparently he had tweeted he was going to be part of the story as a guest of Sen. Feinstein, you know they one with the Chinese spy as her driver for 20 yrs.

Then this thing with all these Ds and "journalists" claim the lady sitting behind him is throwing up white supremecist hand gestures. Only thing is the lady is Jewish on one side and from a Mexican immigrant mother on the other side.

Wild

EDIT... the idea that the ok hand sign is white supremecist is a hoax by a group of 4chan people but many people wont let it go

 

[ACamp1900]

Connor hit it. Of all the things they could focus on today.... yet they wonder why so many fail to take them very serious when they bring valid issues up... everyone is literally Hitler, always... I’m frankly sick to death of it.

 

[NorthDakota]

RBG - 96-3
Breyer - 87-9
Kagan(no previous time as a judge) - 63-37
Roberts - 78-22
Thomas - 52-48
Alito - 58-42
Sotomayor - 68-31
Gotsuch - 54-45

Is there any legit reason whatsoever Dems think this guy isn't fit? All I've seen is he's a devout Catholic who likes sports and beer... with what appears to be plenty of experience, the backing of the legal community, and was hired by Kagan to teach at Harvard. Who could hate this guy?

If RBG got 96, this dude deserves a clean 100.

 

[Legacy]

Does Brett Kavanaugh think that the President is above the law?

Does Brett Kavanaugh think that the President is above the law?

Unlike every other American, does the President enjoy immunity from civil and criminal prosecution while in office? Can he obstruct justice with only impeachment as an alternative?

Nixon clearly committed illegal acts that led Congress to say he had obstructed justice. The first line in the Articles of Impeachment brought against Nixon in 1974 says he “has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice.” Nixon had said:
“When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

Clinton's articles of impeachment based on the Starr report included both perjury and obstruction of justice.
Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:

-encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
-encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
-concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
-attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
-permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
-attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
-making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses

Brett Kavanaugh worked with Independent Counsel Ken Starr on his report to Congress and served in the Bush White House, describing Clinton as being involved in "a conspiracy to obstruct justice", having "disgraced his office" and "lied to the American people".

In 2000, the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration wrote a memo on this:
A Sitting Presidents Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
The indictment prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the
capacity o f the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions
October 16, 2000

In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution
of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive
branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked
to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and
to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to
reconsider and modify or disavow that determination. We believe that the conclusion
reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation
of the Constitution.

The Department’s consideration of this issue in 1973 arose in two distinct legal
contexts. First, the Office of Legal Counsel (“ OLC” ) prepared a comprehensive
memorandum in the fall of 1973 that analyzed whether all federal civil officers
are immune from indictment or criminal prosecution while in office, and, if not,
whether the President and Vice President in particular are immune from indictment
or criminal prosecution while in office.

That memo was composed by the OLC prior to Nixon's articles of impeachment.

Kavanaugh wrote in the Minnesota Law Review in 2009 an article - Separation of Powers During the FortyFourth Presidency and Beyond

I. PROVIDE SITTING PRESIDENTS WITH A TEMPORARY
DEFERRAL OF CIVIL SUITS AND OF CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS
First, my chief takeaway from working in the White House
for five-and-a-half years—and particularly from my nearly
three years of work as Staff Secretary, when I was fortunate to
travel the country and the world with President Bush—is that
the job of President is far more difficult than any other civilian
position in government. It frankly makes being a member of
Congress or the judiciary look rather easy by comparison. The
decisions a President must make are hard and often life-ordeath,
the pressure is relentless, the problems arise from all directions,
the criticism is unremitting and personal, and at the
end of the day only one person is responsible. There are not
eight other colleagues (as there are on the Supreme Court), or
ninety-nine other colleagues (as there are in the Senate), or 434
other colleagues (as there are in the House). There is no review
panel for presidential decisions and few opportunities for doovers.
The President alone makes the most important decisions.
It is true that presidents carve out occasional free time to
exercise or read or attend social events. But don’t be fooled. The
job and the pressure never stop. We exalt and revere the presidency
in this country—yet even so, I think we grossly underestimate how difficult the job is. At the end of the Clinton presidency,
John Harris wrote an excellent book about President
Clinton entitled The Survivor.23 I have come to think that the
book’s title is an accurate description for all presidents in the
modern era.
Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job
is, I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his
never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The
country wants the President to be “one of us” who bears the
same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe
that the President should be excused from some of the burdens
of ordinary citizenship while serving in office.
This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or
1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the
President should be required to shoulder the same obligations
that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake.
Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly
would have been better off if President Clinton could have
focused on Osama bin Laden24 without being distracted by the
Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminalinvestigation
offshoots.25 To be sure, one can correctly say that
President Clinton brought that ordeal on himself, by his answers
during his deposition in the Jones case if nothing else.
And my point here is not to say that the relevant actors—the
Supreme Court in Jones, Judge Susan Webber Wright, and Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr—did anything other than
their proper duty under the law as it then existed.26 But the
law as it existed was itself the problem, particularly the extent
to which it allowed civil suits against presidents to proceed
while the President is in office.
With that in mind, it would be appropriate for Congress to
enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against
presidents, like certain members of the military, be deferredwhile the President is in office. The result the Supreme Court
reached in Clinton v. Jones27—that presidents are not constitutionally
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 office.28
Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain
members of the military.29 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.30
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 by both
their supporters and critics. As I have written before, “no Attorney
General or special counsel will have the necessary credibility
to avoid the inevitable charges that he is politically motivated—whether
in favor of the President or against him,
depending on the individual leading the investigation and its
results.”31 The indictment and trial of a sitting President,
moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it
unable to function with credibility in either the international or
domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest,
especially in times of financial or national security crisis.

Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation—
including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators—
are time-consuming and distracting. Like civil suits, criminal
investigations take the President’s focus away from his or her
responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned
about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably
going to do a worse job as PresidentOne might raise at least two important critiques of these ideas. The first is that no one is above the law in our system of
government. I strongly agree with that principle. But it is not
ultimately a persuasive criticism of these suggestions. The
point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate
checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations
until the President is out of office.32
A second possible concern is that the country needs a check
against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the
Constitution already provides that check. If the President does
something dastardly, the impeachment process is available.33
No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish
what the Constitution assigns to the Congress.34 Moreover,
an impeached and removed President is still subject to
criminal prosecution afterwards. In short, the Constitution establishes
a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we
should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal
investigations, or criminal prosecutions.35 The President’s job is
difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the President’s
focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or
criminal investigation and possible prosecution.36

That opinion by Kavanaugh and the Nixon OLC would approach an Imperial Presidency that only seems to be asserted during Republican presidencies. The Supreme Court has never ruled the constitutionality of this question, but Kavanaugh's position is clear.

 

[connor_in]

 

[MJ12666]

Unlike every other American, does the President enjoy immunity from civil and criminal prosecution while in office? Can he obstruct justice with only impeachment as an alternative?

Nixon clearly committed illegal acts that led Congress to say he had obstructed justice. The first line in the Articles of Impeachment brought against Nixon in 1974 says he “has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice.” Nixon had said:
“When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

Clinton's articles of impeachment based on the Starr report included both perjury and obstruction of justice.
Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:



Brett Kavanaugh worked with Independent Counsel Ken Starr on his report to Congress and served in the Bush White House, describing Clinton as being involved in "a conspiracy to obstruct justice", having "disgraced his office" and "lied to the American people".

In 2000, the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration wrote a memo on this:
A Sitting Presidents Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
The indictment prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the
capacity o f the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions
October 16, 2000



That memo was composed by the OLC prior to Nixon's articles of impeachment.

Kavanaugh wrote in the Minnesota Law Review in 2009 an article - Separation of Powers During the FortyFourth Presidency and Beyond


That opinion by Kavanaugh and the Nixon OLC would approach an Imperial Presidency that only seems to be asserted during Republican presidencies. The Supreme Court has never ruled the constitutionality of this question, but Kavanaugh's position is clear.

I could not find any statement or inference that either Kavanaugh or the Nixon OLC to indicate that either believe that the president is not subject to impeachment; so I am not sure how you can conclude that their opinions, if correct and implemented, would lead to an "Imperial Presidency".

 

[Legacy]

I could not find any statement or inference that either Kavanaugh or the Nixon OLC to indicate that either believe that the president is not subject to impeachment; so I am not sure how you can conclude that their opinions, if correct and implemented, would lead to an "Imperial Presidency".

I encourage you to reread the post and attachments closer in that the positions of the WHs in the Nixon, Bush and Trump admins as well as Kavanaugh have taken the position that a sitting President "enjoy immunity from civil and criminal prosecution while in office" as stated in my initial question and that impeachment is the Constitution's only alternative until the President leaves office and that, in my words, "would approach an Imperial Presidency".

Trump's lawyers have asserted that:

“the President’s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired.”

This does not have anything to do with whether the President can be impeached but has everything to do with the legality and extent of his actions. Nixon too said he was above the law despite committing illegal acts. As Kavanaugh asserted and quoted above,

Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job
is, I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his
never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The
country wants the President to be “one of us” who bears the
same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe
that the President should be excused from some of the burdens
of ordinary citizenship while serving in office.
This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or
1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the
President should be required to shoulder the same obligations
that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake.
Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly
would have been better off if President Clinton could have
focused on Osama bin Laden24 without being distracted by the
Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation
offshoots.

He may be accurate when as Candidate Trump, and especially now that he is President, said:
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible."

The implication in Kavanaugh's position, resonating on current events, is that if Clinton had not testified before a Grand Jury and, as President, he could not obstruct justice, the articles of impeachment against him would have no grounds in constitutional law but merely be a reflection of a highly politicized process.

 

[RDU Irish]

That is sign language for "a-hole" - not to mention the punch game growing up. I never once have seen that equated to a white supremacy sign.

She now gets to punch every liberal - twice if they flinch which we all know they will do.

 

[MJ12666]

I encourage you to reread the post and attachments closer in that the positions of the WHs in the Nixon, Bush and Trump admins as well as Kavanaugh have taken the position that a sitting President "enjoy immunity from civil and criminal prosecution while in office" as stated in my initial question and that impeachment is the Constitution's only alternative until the President leaves office and that, in my words, "would approach an Imperial Presidency".

Trump's lawyers have asserted that:


This does not have anything to do with whether the President can be impeached but has everything to do with the legality and extent of his actions. Nixon too said he was above the law despite committing illegal acts. As Kavanaugh asserted and quoted above,



He may be accurate when as Candidate Trump, and especially now that he is President, said:
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? It's, like, incredible."

The implication in Kavanaugh's position, resonating on current events, is that if Clinton had not testified before a Grand Jury and, as President, he could not obstruct justice, the articles of impeachment against him would have no grounds in constitutional law but merely be a reflection of a highly politicized process.[/QUOTE]

First I believe that this is the majority view. Article 1, Sec 3, Par 7 reads:

7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

One can conclude from the wording of this provision that impeachment and removal from office precedes any other criminal proceedings. This is pretty much in line with what Kavanaugh believes.

Second, I disagree with your conclusion regarding Clinton in that if Clinton had not lied in giving testimony in the civil lawsuit, then I believe that Kavanaugh was correct in that there would have not been any evidence that he obstructed justice. Consequently he most likely would not have be impeached for doing so.

 

[Legacy]

First I believe that this is the majority view. Article 1, Sec 3, Par 7 reads:

7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

One can conclude from the wording of this provision that impeachment and removal from office precedes any other criminal proceedings. This is pretty much in line with what Kavanaugh believes.

(FIFY) Second, I agree with your conclusion regarding Clinton in that if Clinton had not lied in giving testimony in the civil lawsuit, then I believe that Kavanaugh was correct in that there would have not been any evidence that he obstructed justice. Consequently he most likely would not have be impeached for doing so.

Kavanaugh's opinion changed from when he worked with Starr on Clinton to what is his current opinion immunizing a President from civil or criminal proceedings until he leaves office. SCOTUS decided in the Jones civil case against Clinton that actions prior to his Presidency were not immune from prosecution while he was President. So he had to appear to testify, though he did not have to lie. Kavanaugh would seem to consider those civil or criminal procedures premature to impeachment.

We're left with the civil cases by Daniels' and McDougal's moving forward and Trump named an unindicted co-conspirator in Cohen's bank and wire fraud federal crimes. That occurred prior to his Presidency. We're pretty close to an Imperial Presidency if Kavanaugh is the deciding vote that overturns Jones v Clinton and prevents anyone from suing during or prosecuting someone afterwards for acts prior to his Presidency. If impeached and if Pence were to pardon Trump as Ford did Nixon, he may never be held accountable for his actions as a citizen.

As Nixon's lawyers argued, the President is above the law but which Kavanaugh would hold during his Presidency for any acts prior or during. We could see Trump firing Mueller and any Justice Department official who refused to do so, claim he cannot obstruct justice as the chief executive, get reelected and only face any potential accountability after 2024.

 

[MJ12666]

Kavanaugh's opinion changed from when he worked with Starr on Clinton to what is his current opinion immunizing a President from civil or criminal proceedings until he leaves office. SCOTUS decided in the Jones civil case against Clinton that actions prior to his Presidency were not immune from prosecution while he was President. So he had to appear to testify, though he did not have to lie. Kavanaugh would seem to consider those civil or criminal procedures premature to impeachment.

We're left with the civil cases by Daniels' and McDougal's moving forward and Trump named an unindicted co-conspirator in Cohen's bank and wire fraud federal crimes. That occurred prior to his Presidency. We're pretty close to an Imperial Presidency if Kavanaugh is the deciding vote that overturns Jones v Clinton and prevents anyone from suing during or prosecuting someone afterwards for acts prior to his Presidency. If impeached and if Pence were to pardon Trump as Ford did Nixon, he may never be held accountable for his actions as a citizen.

Finally, Kavanaugh, if confirmed, will only only get one vote out of nine. He will not be in control of the court.

As Nixon's lawyers argued, the President is above the law but which Kavanaugh would hold during his Presidency for any acts prior or during. We could see Trump firing Mueller and any Justice Department official who refused to do so, claim he cannot obstruct justice as the chief executive, get reelected and only face any potential accountability after 2024.

As Chief Executive it would be his right to fire Mueller. However, if he did, most likely he would be impeached and probably removed from office. I don't see this as even close to an imperial presidency. Additionally, if hypothetically he was impeached and removed from office, Pence would certainly have the constitutional authority to pardon him. The only way to prevent this from happening is the change the Constitution, which is not going to happen (at least not while Trump is president) so this is really not an issue.

 

[loomis41973]

Not sure how anyone could vote for someone who votes against Kavanaugh.

Good luck lefties.

 

[drayer54]

It does give me joy seeing the anti-2A Blumenthal and Feinstein have their panties in a wad with Kavanaugh.

I'm still waiting to see how people are going to die from this.

So far, I think he's a good pick.

 

[IrishLax]

Leaking a 30+ year old "allegation" at the 11th hour after you've had it for 2 months is so transparent and so sleazy.

 

[wizards8507]

Leaking a 30+ year old "allegation" at the 11th hour after you've had it for 2 months is so transparent and so sleazy.

From high school.

 

[SonofOahu]

Leaking a 30+ year old "allegation" at the 11th hour after you've had it for 2 months is so transparent and so sleazy.

Allegations and 11th-hour allegations took down Moore. All is fair in politics and war. The GOP chose to break the rules in their unethical effort to stack the court, fuck them.