Impeccable credentials. Kavanaugh clerked for Justice Kennedy. He’s taught law at Yale, Harvard and Georgetown. Kavanaugh comes from the DC Circuit to the Supreme Court as does Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The late Justice Antonin Scalia also came from that court.
A solid choice that even drew praise from Jeb Bush.
Imho There were far more conservative judges that could have been nominated. The President made the best choice available.
Thankfully, we know the President hates it when he thinks that a special prosecutor’s investigation into a president is leaking confidential information to the media, so that’s one thing we KNOW Brett Kavanaugh has CERTAINLY never done in his whole entire life, not even once.
This too - what were the specific instances where he violated the rule, and what is the evidence? I am reluctant to simply take the word of a partisan opinion writer for it.
This basis for the opinion is not really a high-minded dissection of separation of powers, but just simply, “A President can do a better job if we all just stop bothering him with questions about criminal wrongdoing.”
It may be against the rules to say this is a fabrication, but it certainly isn’t true.
Actually, in a sense it’s kind of encouraging - the left can’t make any true accusations against Kavanaugh, and fair-minded people will recognize what this says about their case.
What on earth are you talking about? He suggested that Congress pass a law “exempting” the President from criminal investigation and prosecution until he is out of office. Further, that such a bill would be wise to include a prohibition on even questioning the President.
That’s literally what Kavanaugh proposed. If there’s a quibble with DT’s phrasing, I would suggest two: first, that DT was too broad when he said that the President “in no circumstances” can be indicted, because he didn’t specifically call out how such a proposed law would apply to former Presidents; and second, DT was too narrow when he limited his comments to indictments, when Kavanaugh suggested that Presidents should not even be investigated when they are in office, much less indicted.
I’m fine with it. I am not a fan of Roe really, but at the same time I don’t want it struck down. I really don’t see that happening with this makeup. Barrett maybe, this guy, no. I’m simply tired of leftist meltdowns. I know they’re going to meltdown when this guy is confirmed anyway, but not nearly as much as if somebody like Barrett got in.
Obviously, there is no one Trump could have chosen that the Dems would be thrilled about. Isn’t this guy the one that saved the individual mandate on Obamacare without which I don’t know that Obamacare would’ve been viable. So, the Dems have that to smile about while the Republicans are most likely a bit annoyed.
Yeah. It’s been said that Kavanaugh gave Roberts the idea of ObamaCare being a tax. IF Kavanaugh doesn’t get through, I don’t think it will be because of the Collins types worried about Roe, I think it will be a few Republicans thinking he’s not “conservative enough.” There is no doubt in my mind that the desire is to get someone to the right of Kennedy. This guy may be it, but I don’t know. In any case, I don’t think there will be any problems getting this guy in. I mean, I think Democrats are going to try to obstruct ANY pick Trump makes whose name isn’t Merrick Garland, but I don’t think that will really work.
To be clearer, Kavanaugh was suggesting that Congress pass a law saying that the President cannot be indicted. If passed, this law would formalize the current Department of Justice guidelines.
Kavanaugh was not saying that he would find the Constitution forbids such an indictment - merely that he thinks it would be a good idea, which the DOJ Office of General Counsel has agreed with during both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations.
Your phrasing invites a certain ambiguous inference: that Kavanaugh ruled such a law or constitutional barrier already exists.
I think this is a more accurate read. Ironic since he was also on the team that investigated Clinton.
My take…he’s okay. I was hoping for someone non-ivy league, not a Washington insider. Diane Sykes would have been my pick. While Kavanaugh did write a dissent in Heller IIthat would have had favorable results, the approach he took in that dissent was weird. I dont think his interpretation of Heller is very good, and as a result I think he could be unpredictable. I’m glad he’s skeptical of Chevron though.
What he said was that the legislature should pass a law but it has not passed that law. I think it is great that he wants the law to be a certain way and yet recognizes that it isn’t and is still constraining. That is exactly what a judge needs to be, hypercognizant of the difference between his own opinion and the law.
So if Merrick Garland had written an Op-Ed suggesting that Congress write a law to provide free abortions to everyone up until the moments before birth, do you suppose that article would be generally taken as:
An indication of his extreme views on a controversial subject; or
A demonstration of his “hypercognizant” recognition of the distinction between his own opinion and the law?
I’m not interested in dismissing Kavanaugh over an issue that’s not likely to appear on the court docket any time soon. Indicting a president is something the nation can deal with when and if it ever happens.
I’m keeping an open mind until more is reported on Kavanaugh’s rulings and written opinions.
His respect for stare decisis and whether he’ll let Roe v Wade stand as established law.
The court docket is full of pending cases. I’ll watch the hearings to learn more about Kavanaugh.
Any Republican nominee will have conservative leanings. Kennedy has them. Kavanaugh will have a moderate view on some issues. I hope he can get past some of the right wing in the Senate.