sturg33
I
No...
that's the constitutional method.
But we already established you don't care about that
Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
No...
that's the constitutional method.
But we already established you don't care about that
57Brave
Well-known member
that is the method for removing a President from office. An indictment would not necessarily remove him from office.
This has been argued up one pole and down the other. Read up on Watergate --- Nixon's lawyers, like Trumps, stand on a President can't be indicted. But it has never gotten that far because well, it hasn't.
Remember when Trump first became POTUS and I was told to stop being hyperbolic for talking about constitutional crisis ?
That was/is the constitutional crisis we are staring at.
Should Mueller or SDNY press an indictment against Trump
Along the lines of Watergate which was where the notion of unindicted co conspirator originated because the prosecutors punted to the House for impeachment.
But in the constitution, no, I don't think so
..........................
which brings us back to Kavanaugh. His view / interpretation is a President via his office is above the law.
I disagree
This has been argued up one pole and down the other. Read up on Watergate --- Nixon's lawyers, like Trumps, stand on a President can't be indicted. But it has never gotten that far because well, it hasn't.
Remember when Trump first became POTUS and I was told to stop being hyperbolic for talking about constitutional crisis ?
That was/is the constitutional crisis we are staring at.
Should Mueller or SDNY press an indictment against Trump
Along the lines of Watergate which was where the notion of unindicted co conspirator originated because the prosecutors punted to the House for impeachment.
But in the constitution, no, I don't think so
..........................
which brings us back to Kavanaugh. His view / interpretation is a President via his office is above the law.
I disagree
Last edited:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
That we have a president in office who openly flaunts the constitution and the law. He is dangerously unstable and it would be a lot worse if not for the people around him mitigating the damage. I really worry about what he might do on the way down. The thing that really scares the **** out of me is if there is a major terrorist attack while he is in office. The Jihadists goal is to draw us into a ww3 with the middle east. Trump will happily oblige if we get hit.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
As these things go, I felt like Booker came off much better than Harris. He at least came off as defiant in a principled sort of way. She was transparently just trying for a "gotcha" moment with someone who wasn't stupid enough to give it to her. I think impartial people could like Booker more after seeing his clip. Nothing about Senator Harris' exchange made her look good.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I can't understand how this is being taken as his view.
Let me try.
I am not sure that all voters believe abortion is murder.
Who here believes that my statement indicates my personal view on abortion?
Anyone falling for this line of "reasoning" is either being dishonest or a sheep. Just stop.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Its just playing semantics. There are virtually no case that is agreed upon by all legal scholars. Roy Moore qualified as a legal scholar. The vast majority of legal scholars who disagree are the ones who cant seperate the bible from the constitution. I am pro-life but this is a fight that will tear the country apart.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
I didn't follow these hearings that closely. I caught most of the vital exchanges on replay and listened to the NPR live feed while driving to a meeting. I frankly don't know why they even have these hearings anymore. After Clarence Thomas, everything is so scripted; majority putting a kind, earnest, human, intellectually stellar face on the nominee while the minority plays "gotcha". Senator Sasse gets a lot of cred from the moderate intellectual set, but I listened to most of one of his half hour forays and the questions were getting so trite, I was expecting him to ask Kavanaugh who his favorite Beatle was or if he had any hair care suggestions. Grassley should seriously be in the old folks' home. As for Booker and Harris, I like both of them, but their postures were so readily transparent that it didn't add much to the whole proceedings. Much was made of Schumer's maneuver, and while rare, it's clearly within the rules of Senate. Funny how being a textualist--as Schumer was in this instance--is in the eye of the beholder. Everyone can question motives (and they are pretty clear in this instance), but the "without objection" means exactly that; when someone objects things come to a temporary halt.
Kavanaugh will get confirmed. I don't know what it means. I would guess we will see a vast expansion of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts throughout the country, which I don't find particularly helpful in an era when the fabric of the nation appears to be fraying. I doubt Roe is completely overturned, but access to abortion will likely be severely limited.
It used to be that the court was, while not an afterthought, clearly in a different role than it is today. If Congress would become serious and reclaim its role as the legislative body, we wouldn't have all of these Executive Orders and charges that the Supreme Court is making law.
My last thought would be that for all of the gripes from the right on this nomination, I still don't think McConnell and company have paid enough for their hijacking of the Garland nomination. If they didn't like Garland, hold hearings and then defeat his nomination. I don't think anyone is talking enough about that entire debacle and the Democratic response to both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been mild by comparison in terms of process.
Kavanaugh will get confirmed. I don't know what it means. I would guess we will see a vast expansion of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts throughout the country, which I don't find particularly helpful in an era when the fabric of the nation appears to be fraying. I doubt Roe is completely overturned, but access to abortion will likely be severely limited.
It used to be that the court was, while not an afterthought, clearly in a different role than it is today. If Congress would become serious and reclaim its role as the legislative body, we wouldn't have all of these Executive Orders and charges that the Supreme Court is making law.
My last thought would be that for all of the gripes from the right on this nomination, I still don't think McConnell and company have paid enough for their hijacking of the Garland nomination. If they didn't like Garland, hold hearings and then defeat his nomination. I don't think anyone is talking enough about that entire debacle and the Democratic response to both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been mild by comparison in terms of process.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
The supreme court has always been driven by the ideaology of the justices. The constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Completely agree. Other than the chance for a good sound bite to play in their next campaign, they accomplish nothing with these hearings.
Would you feel equally reticent about Free Speech Restoration Acts?
So true.
I would argue that the Democrats' response has been mild only because they have been completely powerless to do more. They have resorted to interrupting opening statements and bussing in protesters in an effort to slow the confirmation. What else could the Democrats have done?
striker42
Well-known member
Kavanaugh was, IIRC, White House counsel when he wrote that email. For those of you that don't know about what attorneys do, they are frequently asked to give advice as to what the law is. Note it's about what IS, not what SHOULD BE. A lawyer who advises based on their own policy opinions is not a good attorney.
Also Kavanaugh's statement was probably correct. It's hard to call any legal issue "well settled" when it's a legal battleground across the country, 3 members of the SCOTUS would be willing to radically change it, and the sitting president could add to that number.
In fact, considering the histrionics of the confirmation hearing, time is showing Kavanaugh was right. People are losing their mind over the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned (though Casey is actually the current law). Hard to say it's "well settled".
striker42
Well-known member
This is true to an extent. On a lot of hot button issues that are largely policy driven, the justices decide based on their own ideology and try to cover that with legal justifications. Sometimes you end up with absolutely ridiculous justifications (if you ever want to read a ridiculous opinion, read Roberts opinion on Obamacare, his attempt to uphold it without expanding the commerce clause is hilarious).
That being said, there are a lot of important cases that are driven by legal reasoning. You'll see a lot of cases with strange bedfellows (e.g. Ginsburg writing an opinion joined by Alito). It happens way more often than people think.
striker42
Well-known member
I don't think characterizing legal scholars who see Roe v. Wade and its progeny as incorrect as being unable to separate the Bible from the constitution is really accurate.
Abortion is a question about when various legal rights and interests attach. Does a fertilized egg constitute a person and so have all the same rights as anyone else? Does the legislature have an interest in protecting a fetus? When do due process rights attach?
These are questions that the Constitution gives little guidance on. These are questions of legal philosophy. When you answer them the rest of the logic flows naturally.
For example, if you consider a fetus a person, it's very easy to conclude that abortion is murder. If you consider legal rights not attaching until birth then abortion restrictions very much infringe upon the rights of women.
But people rarely argue over the philosophy of abortion as it's almost impossible to gain the high ground. It's easier to assume your philosophy is right and so gain the high ground that way.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
There is no such thing as unlimited free speech and even expanded free speech doesn't allow discrimination, which is what I view these Religious Freedom Restoration Acts being about at their heart. Don't want to start a conflagration, but I think the expansion of "rights of conscience" (for lack of a better term) could really put a crimp in the 14th amendment.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
No.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Kavanaugh’s fuzziness in past testimony (and that’s charitably put) is troubling, and that’s compounded by the lack of transparency about his time in the WH. That alone should be enough to preclude an automatic yes vote. Not gonna happen that way, though.
striker42
Well-known member
On the flip side, if he was totally above board and squeaky clean that should preclude automatic no votes but that would never happen either.
Senate confirmations are a joke. It's not about vetting people or checking the power of the executive. It's entirely a game of partisan oneupsmanship.