I will need a cite for that, please. I’m aware that several people have accused him of that, including Senators Schumer and Booker, but all I can find him actually saying or writing is that the President should not be subject to investigations regarding civil lawsuits.
In other worlds, he would support immunity from Stormy Daniels while in office, but not from Mueller.
ETA: and yes, that conflicts with what he said during the Clinton admin, but that doesn’t help your case.
See this ticket: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=858413
Particularly this post.
As I understand it, it was written while Dubya was President, but just wasn’t published until 2009.
(Trying to remember where I saw that. Hopefully I can get you a cite later.)
That was fast. Thank you very much, I stand corrected. And now I think Kavanaugh is an idiot, because as Chronos said, you can’t have an impeachment without an investigation (well, you can, but it would be silly), and impeachment is the only Constitutional remedy for a bad President.
So Kavanaugh will likely be a disaster on the Court, but there’s no help for it. Anybody Trump picks will be of the same opinion, and there are no grounds (other than wanting to be like McConnell — shudder) for refusing to vote on his nominees, and probably no way to delay the vote until there is a Dem majority in the Senate. This is a nightmare.
No need, it’s not that important to me, and if he allowed it to be published during Obama’s presidency, the effect is the same.
…no they weren’t “voting for something.” Because they had nothing. They had no plan. What was it exactly was it do you think they were advocating for? And why was it when they got into power they were unable to implement it?
This is quite odd. Look at his finances. This guy went into deep credit card debt to buy baseball tickets?
It may well be time to talk about ‘the lesser of evils’.
For those who oppose Kavanaugh, whom do you think would be a better pick that Trump would actually nominate.
Try earlier in this very thread (complete with citation):
The fact that they had nothing doesn’t mean they weren’t voting for something. They were voting to return to the status quo ante. If you think Obamacare was a bad law (and I don’t, although it could have been better), then that is voting for an improvement.
I doubt that anyone who opposes Trump and Trumpism has in mind some candidate they’d like to see Trump nominate.
It’s more that they would like to see the Congress recover its spine and rule that a President under investigation cannot nominate the person who will be judging him (when cases relating to the investigation go before the Supreme Court).
So it’s more a question of common sense prevailing and impeachment proceedings getting underway (on any of a number of grounds of improper conduct), and then the nomination of Kennedy’s replacement happening under Trump’s successor.
…don’t get emotional?
Are you fucking serious?
Do you understand why 94% of black women didn’t vote for Donald Trump?
*Because they were fighting for their lives.
*
They understood exactly what a Trump presidency would mean. And we are watching the slow-slide to authoritarianism happen while people still think that everything is normal. Count yourself luck that you have no skin in the game. That you can afford to dispassionately look at the entire clusterfuck that is happening right now and call for decorum.
Hell yeah you are wrong.
Democracy works.
Whatever the hell you have going over there in the United States is barely a democracy.
The electoral college is just fucking stupid.
Voter suppression tactics are rampant.
Social media allows you to curate the news you watch, allowing you to make your own personalized propaganda.
It isn’t just stupidity. Its people pushing a very specific agenda who have learnt to manipulate the channels which people get their information in a very effective way. Its Russia, who waged a massive disinformation campaign and succeeded. Its the fact there is a fuck-ton more racists and misogynists in America that people are comfortable admitting.
And there is a very strong possibility that sixty-three million people will vote for Trump again in a couple of years.
That isn’t the case.
No-one. Literally no-one is advocating for this. Pushing back, fighting for the lives of your constituents, is not “being dysfunctional.”
Or alternatively you could maybe actually give democracy a go?
…stop being so literal. They weren’t really voting for “something”. They were voting to obstruct.
Then explain to me why when they got power they haven’t voted to return to the status quo ante. They didn’t really want to return to the status quo ante. They said they had a better idea. They campaigned that they could repeal and replace Obamacare with bigger and better healthcare that would cover everyone and be affordable. That isn’t the status quo. And they were unable to do either.
And that has nothing at all to do with Smapti’s point. The point was fighting a “pointless fight” helped give the Republican’s an overwhelming victory.
Probably, but that’s not how it appeared to their voters, which is the point.
So your profound insight is that Republican congressmen are despicable liars. I agree. Guess what, they lied about fighting deficits, too. Still has nothing to do with the point, which is doing things that will help them win elections. Promising better health care and lower deficits got them votes. The election is over, so they’ve moved on. If history shows us anything, it’s that Republican voters have the attention span of a newt.
It’s not a pointless fight to vote against something. They showed whoever wanted Obamacare repealed (which, sadly, was mostly ignorant Fox News viewers) that they were fighting for them.
I hope and expect that the Dems will unanimously vote against Kavanaugh, especially since I’ve learned (a few posts ago) that he is an idiot. That would not be a pointless fight, even though they will lose.
But it’s a worse than pointless fight to blatantly, overtly create gridlock. They not only can’t win in the narrow context of preventing his confirmation, but they can’t win on the broader point of helping them win the next election. Instead, IMO they will alienate independents, and maybe many Dems, at least enough to suppress the vote, which always helps Republicans.
What we want is to energize the vote. Opposition does that, obstruction does not. Opposition is voting no, obstruction is delaying the vote long past any legitimate inquiry into his qualifications.
Apparently, he is really shitty with money.:
*"Supreme Court nominee Brett M. 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, according to a review of Kavanaugh’s financial disclosures and information provided by the White House.
White House spokesman Raj Shah told The Washington Post that Kavanaugh built up the debt by buying Washington Nationals season tickets and tickets for playoff games for himself and a “handful” of friends. Shah said some of the debts were also for home improvements.
In 2016, Kavanaugh reported having between $60,000 and $200,000 in debt accrued over three credit cards and a loan."*
That’s a lot of baseball tickets. Is it weird that I’m suspicious?
“Yo, Brett, man; come on over and we’ll watch the game tonight; don’t forget to bring the tickets, yo.”
This is weak. What’s next, criticism of his first name? :rolleyes:
If you want to convince voters that the Democrats are weaklings who won’t stand up for their constituents with every tool available to them, perhaps.
On the other hand, if you want Democrats to win elections, then they should be fighting this tooth and nail to the bitter end. Demand endless hearings. Delay votes. Deny quorums. Just pull a Huey Long and have someone read from the phone book for 12 hours. Show the people that Democrats will fight for them and that voting for them is worthwhile.
This is weak. What’s next, taking something a comedian said, adding in a tiny organization that said something similar and labeling it a “leftist trend”, while steadfastly ignoring that it was said humorously (by only two people) because it’s just too fucking ridiculously stupid for anyone to believe it’s a real complaint?
Is NARAL a tiny organization?