General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn response to the trolls re Brett Kavanaugh not being so bad
This guy has proven himself to be politically active in all, ALL, his opinions. All of them, and hes been prolific in his decisions and written opinions. Just reading through them will guarantee the process of vetting him will take some time. He is clearly Trumps wet dream come true.
Kavanaugh worked with Ken Starr and wrote the final report on Bill Clinton so at one time he seems to have been all for going after the President, yet now he has written that it would be too horrible for the country to pursue any legal action against a President. That includes impeachment, or, as is suspected, any crime Mueller will find that Trump has committed. Trump would get off scott free. Is it a wonder Trump picked him? Trump doesnt do anything that doesnt benefit him personally.
He worked in the Bush Administration in a very powerful position as a Bush aid. He was virtually part of every single policy decision made during that administration, which includes the lies they told to go to war with Iraq. Remember those lies? Or maybe you think they werent so bad?
And then there is his far right views on the 2nd Amendment. In his perfect world there would be no constraints on any kind of weapon the NRA espouses. He approves of semi automatic weapons and his judicial reason is because they are not singled out in the constitution as being exceptions to the 2nd amendment.
He doesnt believe healthcare for everyone is Constitutionally mandated or that women have the right to choose. He denied a 17 year old illegal alien the choice to have an abortion and did his best to delay the court decision so the lawful period of having an abortion would pass. He was stopped in time and the court granted the girl her request.
There is plenty more which can also be found in the links below
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/brett-kavanaugh-trumps-supreme-court-pick-has-sided-with-broad-views-of-presidential-powers/2018/07/09/1618bec0-83a8-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2e10fdf7bed4
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/10/4-big-questions-about-brett-kavanaugh/?utm_term=.e3baf4c0c055
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/business/kavanaugh-supreme-court-business-regulation.html
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/judge-brett-kavanaughs-impeccable-record-of-constitutional-conservatism/
And there is so much more if trolls want to educate themselves.
hlthe2b
(102,379 posts)We need to all respond immediately and directly on every Pro-Kavanaugh thread. It is one thing to post seeking information or clarification on his views, but quite another to attempt to troll or manipulate.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Is there a way of alerting on suspicious posters?
hlthe2b
(102,379 posts)i.e., <100 posts (in which case one can DU message a MIRT member), but in general, no.
One could email an admin for others, I suppose.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)There might be a slim chance this person is sincere. In my opinion it is really slim.
Raster
(20,998 posts)...they don't want anyone else to educate themselves either.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)That includes impeachment. . . . . ." In fact, he said that under current law, a sitting Pres can be investigated, indicted, in addition to Impeachment. He wants Congress to exempt a Prez from indictment, but not Impeachment. But he believes a Prez can be indicted right now as the laws are written an interpreted. Sounds kind of like the diplomatic immunity offered foreign officials, but Impeachment would still apply under Kav's desires.
Now the other stuff is likely true, maybe even worse than mentioned above. I hope Democratic Senators and investigative reporters look deep into his opinions and writings. Don't think it will ultimately block his nomination, but we ought to know the truth.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)too awful for the country to even contemplate. He didnt seem to believe that when he worked with Ken Starr. So hes still young and evolving. He most likely would have the deciding vote to not indict the President.
rockfordfile
(8,704 posts)Nobody is above the law. Our country isn't run by a King.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I know trump and most GOPers have no problem with lying, but we should.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)It's an inference that can be made from the article, but he himself did not make that inference, and instead said that current law was beyond the scope of the article. He did make clear that he didn't think presidents should be subject to investigations in the first place. No court can pre-emptively block an investigation, only Congress can do that. But a court COULD decide after a subpoena or indictment that the case must be dropped. And it seems that's exactly what Kavanaugh would decide.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)There was a great discussion on Maddow last night by some liberal attorneys.
Here's another article/opinion that makes sense:
"Properly understood, Kavanaughs expressed views actually support the opposite conclusion: that the president can be investigated and maybe even indicted unless Congress passes a law saying he cant which Congress has not done."
"The key texts here Kavanaughs 2009 article in the Minnesota Law Review and his 1998 article in the Georgetown Law Journal. . . . . .
"Now comes the tricky part. In 2009 [during Obama's term surprisingly], Kavanaugh proposed that Congress might pass a law that would protect the president from investigation and indictment while in office. Thats the part that some Democrats are focusing on now because Kavanaugh was saying that he thought it was a bad idea to go after the president.
"But from a legal and constitutional perspective, Kavanaugh wasnt saying that the courts should find that the president shouldnt be investigated or indicted. To the contrary. He was saying that Congress should pass a law ensuring that result, because without it, the president was open to being investigated and maybe even indicted. . . . . . . ."
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-10/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-doesn-t-give-president-trump-cover
__________________________
To be sure, Kavanaugh could do a 180 if the case were presented to the Court, but he'd either have to dance or admit he's a liar, which probably wouldn't shame him.
I actually believe that sitting Presidents should be subject to Impeachment, and indictment for rape, murder, treason, assault, etc. However, I'm not sure they should be subject to civil and criminal cases of a lesser nature while in office. Their position is so important that some degree of diplomatic immunity makes sense. I'd love to see trump perp-walked for jaywalking or whatever, but it will trap a Democrat someday too.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Where he sidestepped what he thought the current law says. A glaring omission for a law review article, but perfectly in line with an ambitious new judge who wants to expand the powers of the President.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)believes Congress should protect a Prez from civil and criminal investigations/indictment by specifically enacting a law giving him some sort of diplomatic immunity like a foreign government official. Again, I kind of agree for some civil/criminal actions, but not treason, murder, assault, rape, and something of that nature.
dalton99a
(81,599 posts)Especially those from the Federalist Society.
They're full of shit
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Kavanaugh is one of the most extreme examples of the black/white choices in a world of shades of gray.
Freddie
(9,275 posts)Those who think Kavanaugh "may not be so bad" are the same folks
who think it's possible to pick up a turd "by the clean end".
That a good one!
There is no telling what the two cells rattling around in the space inside their skulls do when eventually they crash into each other. Does it form a thought, or just spark like a bad electrical connection?
Nitram
(22,892 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)His ultra conservative views are. He will not consider making any ruling that protects the neutrality or intent of the Constitution. He is the very definition of an activist judge. His OPINION trumps everything. Reading his writings show that.
To make it perfectly clear, in his opinion a womans right to choose is superseded by what he thinks is the right that should win. He is personally against abortion so his opinion is more important than the Constitution. So it doesnt matter that Roe v Wade settled the question that a womans rights means NO ONE gets to take her rights away. He thinks his opinion alone is more valid than her rights.
There is nothing objective or intellectually valid about his cave man thinking.
Nitram
(22,892 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)is quite likely to protect Trump against indictment and impeachment on the grounds that it is Unconstitutional because it would harm the country. Hes already written as much. And he would be the deciding vote.
Trump picked him because Trump would personally benefit. I think its the only reason Trump picked him.
Nitram
(22,892 posts)SCOTUS pick until the Mueller investigation is finished.
The Mouth
(3,164 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)He is what he is and its on us to remember that.
In the stages of grief this is the last one which many misunderstand - acceptance
This does not mean to be accepting. It means acknowledgement of the truth.
Once you accept the truth you can decide what to do with this truth in your life.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)He's definitely even worse than I expected, altho I already knew about that decision on the immigrant teen's request for abortion which IMO was pure misogyny.
Baclava
(12,047 posts)Odious justice
(197 posts)he is not a clear proponent of overturning Roe. Trump has no interest in keeping his promise of making abortion illegal with this pick, rather, it is self serving in case Trump is indicted at some point. His base isn't going to pick up on that nuance. Also, just because he has not explicitly said he would overturn Roe doesn't mean he won't. There really isn't any scenario where Trump makes a "good" pick.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)The issue boils down to one thing. What benefits Trump more. Period.
azureblue
(2,152 posts)how much money has he taken from the Russians?
elmac
(4,642 posts)which would also be breaking a precedence that the fascist set when Obama tried to fill a scotus position, should we get the DU boot if we give them hell for it?
lunatica
(53,410 posts)who have more than 100 posts. But I will fight them.
Vinca
(50,310 posts)airmid
(500 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)We have to be vigilant whether we want to be or not.
We cant give up. At least not yet since he doesnt have a dictators lock on everything for now.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The moment trump was elected, we should have expected someone just like Kavanaugh. I think he may get one, maybe two, more nominations before it's over. The best we can hope for from trump is someone who looks at the law and manages to ignore their personal beliefs as much as possible. No, I don't like it, but this was predictable in November 2016.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Very cleverly worded. "Strict constitutionalist" pops up...and it's supposedly a good thing.
The Mouth
(3,164 posts)However it's simply code for 'right wing Christofascist white power nationalist'.
I mean if any judge simply said 'I'll use the Constitution and ONLY the Constitution (and maybe Federalist papers which are the justifications the people proposing it used when trying to drum up support for it) then they'd at least be rational. But 'Strict Constitutionalist' seems to mean "I'll fill in from the Bible, Mein Kampf and 'None Dare Call It Conspiracy' when I want to.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Women's rights? Gone. Minorities? Gone. All amendments...gone.
If the Constitution doesn't literally SAY it, it does not exist.
And that is not a good thing. And that is not what most lawmakers and most people believe the Constitution is, which is a living document.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)I cant alert the admins or accuse them of being trolls but I can alert other DUers.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)They are carefully worded.
Cosmocat
(14,574 posts)This sum of his quote judicial beliefs unquote is whatever is favored by the current lunatic conservative movement is constitutional, whatever they are in opposition to is unconstitutional.
Hes a politican in a robe.
BigmanPigman
(51,632 posts)last night, I drew the same conclusion. This is bad, really bad.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)wryter2000
(46,082 posts)At least this one has left a paper trail. We can roast him in hearings