One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Judge Brett Kavanaugh's view of the power of the presidency
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Jul 10, 2018 19:03:12   #
markinny
 
slatten49 wrote:
In a striking passage from an academic article, Kavanaugh once suggested a president does not have to follow the law if he or she finds it unconstitutional until ordered by a court to do so. And, as you may have heard, Kavanaugh believes that the American president should be immune from criminal investigation and prosecution while in office, and should be able to fire any special counsel he feels is “out to get him.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump has chosen a man for the Supreme Court who has sterling academic credentials; a long record of public service; a trove of almost 300 judicial opinions, many highly regarded; an appealing personal story; a lovely family—and a radically expansive view of the power of the presidency.

Judge Kavanaugh has long been seen as a conservative legal superstar. From an early age, he was g***med for a top position in the legal firmament, mentored by prominent conservatives, steered into nationwide networks of contacts and opportunities, hired for plum jobs, and promoted ever upwards.

By the way, conservatives do this sort of thing much better than liberals.

The Federalist Society, which for decades has spearheaded the campaign to take back the courts in the name of an approach to legal thinking that is focused on the original meaning of the Constitution and laws, is the de facto gatekeeper for Republican judicial nominations.

It is also a rich source of academic research and debate advancing conservative legal ideas.

And it’s a kind of club whose members are bound for life in a great mission: undoing the liberal legal revolution of the 1960s and 1970s.

If Judge Kavanaugh becomes Justice Kavanaugh, it will be the greatest triumph of the Federalist Society. And it’s one of the most significant accomplishments in recent American political history.

Kavanaugh’s nomination has sparked a great deal of concern on the left about issues like a******n, affirmative action, gay rights, and other social issues. There’s another issue, however, where Kavanaugh has staked out strikingly hard-right positions: executive power.

Before becoming a judge, Kavanaugh spent most of his career working for the executive branch of the federal government—in the Justice Department under President George H. W. Bush; in Ken Starr’s Office of the Independent Counsel investigating President Bill Clinton; in the White House counsel’s office under President George W. Bush; and finally as President Bush’s White House staff secretary.

These increasingly powerful (and yet professionally narrow) positions seem to have given Kavanaugh a sweeping, even unbalanced view of how powerful presidents should be under the law.

For instance, on the federal appeals court in Washington, Kavanaugh has argued for expansive p**********l authority in what used to be called “the global war on terror,” especially when it comes to the incarceration and treatment of accused enemy combatants.

He has also called for overturning a landmark 1935 New Deal-era Supreme Court opinion that for 83 years has been one of the foundations of modern American governance. It’s called Humprey’s Executor vs. United States, and in it, a unanimous Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal E******n Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and many dozens more. Kavanaugh views the very independence of these agencies as an unconstitutional infringement on the power of the president.

There’s more. In a striking passage in an academic article, Kavanaugh once suggested a president does not have to follow the law if he or she finds it unconstitutional until ordered by a court to do so.

"To be sure, the President has the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," he wrote. "That certainly means that the Executive has to follow and comply with laws regulating the executive branch - at least unless the President deems the law unconstitutional in which event the President can decline to follow the statute until a final court order says otherwise."

And, as you may have heard, Kavanaugh believes that the American president should be immune from criminal investigation and prosecution while in office, and should be able to fire any special counsel he feels is “out to get him.”

He called on Congress to protect presidents from the exact same kind of wide-ranging probe he enthusiastically participated in when he worked as a key aide to Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton.

“Congress should give back to the President the full power to act when he believes that a particular independent counsel is 'out to get him.' Such a step not only would make the special counsel accountable, but it also would force the President and his surrogates to put up or shut up.”

And he also wrote, “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."

Read that first sentence again. It almost sounds like the kind of thing President Trump might tweet when he rails against what he calls the “witch hunt” of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

When precisely Kavanaugh changed his mind about the wisdom of partisan-tinged investigations of presidents is unclear. But you can bet senators will want to know the answer to that question, and to many more as they come to a decision about whether this advocate of such expansive p**********l powers is the right choice at this historical moment to take the place of Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.
In a striking passage from an academic article, Ka... (show quote)


Bottom line, he gets confirmed.the losses mount since e******n day. OH HAPPY DAYS!

Reply
Jul 10, 2018 19:07:24   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
slatten49 wrote:
Nah, L-J, all I am aware of with regard to that "academic article" is the vague reference to it in this article pulled from the internet. This all seems another example of "politics as usual." I still think Merrick Garland is as good as any to be picked. But, he had his day in the limelight, and was victimized, again, by "politics as usual." The following quote attributed to Mark Twain sums up politics...."The political and commercial morals of the United States (Congress) are not merely food for laughter, they are an entire banquet."

I added (Congress).
Nah, L-J, all I am aware of with regard to that &q... (show quote)


Wowww, you got that right!!! Love Twains summation with your addition!!!

Ok, Thanks on the article issue, couldn’t find anything, yet, anyway..If I do I’ll share it with you...

Reply
Jul 10, 2018 19:08:06   #
Carol Kelly
 
bahmer wrote:
Well should the democrat party not be reeling in the Maxine Water's and the Nancy Pelosi's and the Chuck Schumer's and start having cooler heads reign in their party and try to control this vitriol that is tearing this country apart. This is not doing themany good and it certainly isn't doing the country any good. My god man we are almost on the brink of another civil war with this rhetoric. I don't know how long we can go before someone looses it and pulls a gun and then we are all going to start to pay. The e******n is over and now it is time to be big boys and girls and realize what has happened and go from there. We aren't going to push Trump out of the White House and even if you could and did that would be an even greater threat to war than where we are at now. My not so humble opinion.
Well should the democrat party not be reeling in t... (show quote)


Very well stated. A good opinion. I agree.

Reply
 
 
Jul 10, 2018 19:10:04   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
bahmer wrote:
Did you get my comment about your beer tastes.


No, sorry I just got home a bit ago.. But I’ll go look.. Lord only knows what YOU said~~~lolol

Reply
Jul 10, 2018 19:27:06   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
lindajoy wrote:
No, sorry I just got home a bit ago.. But I’ll go look.. Lord only knows what YOU said~~~lolol

Is B stalking you, L-J You should file for an order of protection.

Reply
Jul 10, 2018 20:06:57   #
Radiance3
 
slatten49 wrote:
In a striking passage from an academic article, Kavanaugh once suggested a president does not have to follow the law if he or she finds it unconstitutional until ordered by a court to do so. And, as you may have heard, Kavanaugh believes that the American president should be immune from criminal investigation and prosecution while in office, and should be able to fire any special counsel he feels is “out to get him.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump has chosen a man for the Supreme Court who has sterling academic credentials; a long record of public service; a trove of almost 300 judicial opinions, many highly regarded; an appealing personal story; a lovely family—and a radically expansive view of the power of the presidency.

Judge Kavanaugh has long been seen as a conservative legal superstar. From an early age, he was g***med for a top position in the legal firmament, mentored by prominent conservatives, steered into nationwide networks of contacts and opportunities, hired for plum jobs, and promoted ever upwards.

By the way, conservatives do this sort of thing much better than liberals.

The Federalist Society, which for decades has spearheaded the campaign to take back the courts in the name of an approach to legal thinking that is focused on the original meaning of the Constitution and laws, is the de facto gatekeeper for Republican judicial nominations.

It is also a rich source of academic research and debate advancing conservative legal ideas.

And it’s a kind of club whose members are bound for life in a great mission: undoing the liberal legal revolution of the 1960s and 1970s.

If Judge Kavanaugh becomes Justice Kavanaugh, it will be the greatest triumph of the Federalist Society. And it’s one of the most significant accomplishments in recent American political history.

Kavanaugh’s nomination has sparked a great deal of concern on the left about issues like a******n, affirmative action, gay rights, and other social issues. There’s another issue, however, where Kavanaugh has staked out strikingly hard-right positions: executive power.

Before becoming a judge, Kavanaugh spent most of his career working for the executive branch of the federal government—in the Justice Department under President George H. W. Bush; in Ken Starr’s Office of the Independent Counsel investigating President Bill Clinton; in the White House counsel’s office under President George W. Bush; and finally as President Bush’s White House staff secretary.

These increasingly powerful (and yet professionally narrow) positions seem to have given Kavanaugh a sweeping, even unbalanced view of how powerful presidents should be under the law.

For instance, on the federal appeals court in Washington, Kavanaugh has argued for expansive p**********l authority in what used to be called “the global war on terror,” especially when it comes to the incarceration and treatment of accused enemy combatants.

He has also called for overturning a landmark 1935 New Deal-era Supreme Court opinion that for 83 years has been one of the foundations of modern American governance. It’s called Humprey’s Executor vs. United States, and in it, a unanimous Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal E******n Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and many dozens more. Kavanaugh views the very independence of these agencies as an unconstitutional infringement on the power of the president.

There’s more. In a striking passage in an academic article, Kavanaugh once suggested a president does not have to follow the law if he or she finds it unconstitutional until ordered by a court to do so.

"To be sure, the President has the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," he wrote. "That certainly means that the Executive has to follow and comply with laws regulating the executive branch - at least unless the President deems the law unconstitutional in which event the President can decline to follow the statute until a final court order says otherwise."

And, as you may have heard, Kavanaugh believes that the American president should be immune from criminal investigation and prosecution while in office, and should be able to fire any special counsel he feels is “out to get him.”

He called on Congress to protect presidents from the exact same kind of wide-ranging probe he enthusiastically participated in when he worked as a key aide to Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton.

“Congress should give back to the President the full power to act when he believes that a particular independent counsel is 'out to get him.' Such a step not only would make the special counsel accountable, but it also would force the President and his surrogates to put up or shut up.”

And he also wrote, “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."

Read that first sentence again. It almost sounds like the kind of thing President Trump might tweet when he rails against what he calls the “witch hunt” of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

When precisely Kavanaugh changed his mind about the wisdom of partisan-tinged investigations of presidents is unclear. But you can bet senators will want to know the answer to that question, and to many more as they come to a decision about whether this advocate of such expansive p**********l powers is the right choice at this historical moment to take the place of Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.
In a striking passage from an academic article, Ka... (show quote)

================
All liberals and democrats support that theory you've posted. The democrat party wants the president out at all costs. Therefore Mueller continues his job fishing securing more manufactured crimes by the left, and the MSM.

Everything that president Trump does endangers the democrat/liberal species to extinction. The planned destructions of Obama have been reversed, the Obamacare, the EPA, the i*****l i*********n, the Muslim refugees situation, the border wall, decimating the US military power, and all activities that will halt the planned destructions of this country, by Mr. Obama.

Thus his Deep State Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller continue to do more fishing expeditions, hoping to dissect the president's life, searching for mistakes, even several years before Trump contemplated of being a president of the United States.

I agree with Judge Kavanaugh the power of the president must be exercised to the fullest. That is a constitutional mandate.

Reply
Jul 10, 2018 20:12:14   #
old marine Loc: America home of the brave
 
lindajoy wrote:
Do you have anything more on the acedemic article referenced in your article..???

I’d love to read that along with now having more to vet..... Thanks ..😢

Too early for me to make more comments I’ve got to finish my own vetting on him..

Interesting how all those accomplishments he’s achieved are viewed in the negative vs the positive showing of a go getter all through his career, whom has had excellent schooling of Constitutional law..

Candidly slatt I don’t care who is put up the dems are not going to approve anyone forcing the nucleur option.. Heck it could be you or I and there will not be agreement achieved.. Not because the person is not qualified but rather because its an appointment by Trump..

We can all argue our points until we’re blue in the face and you know as well as I the only thing that will happen is the nuclear option.. The travesty of Reid putting that forward really deminished our system then to now..
What a shame it really was even when warned it will come back to bite him/them later..
Do you have anything more on the acedemic article ... (show quote)

My thoughts exactly.

Reply
 
 
Jul 10, 2018 20:31:02   #
no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
 
lindajoy wrote:
Do you have anything more on the acedemic article referenced in your article..???

I’d love to read that along with now having more to vet..... Thanks ..😢

Too early for me to make more comments I’ve got to finish my own vetting on him..

Interesting how all those accomplishments he’s achieved are viewed in the negative vs the positive showing of a go getter all through his career, whom has had excellent schooling of Constitutional law..

Candidly slatt I don’t care who is put up the dems are not going to approve anyone forcing the nucleur option.. Heck it could be you or I and there will not be agreement achieved.. Not because the person is not qualified but rather because its an appointment by Trump..

We can all argue our points until we’re blue in the face and you know as well as I the only thing that will happen is the nuclear option.. The travesty of Reid putting that forward really deminished our system then to now..
What a shame it really was even when warned it will come back to bite him/them later..
Do you have anything more on the acedemic article ... (show quote)


I think that the only person that the Democrats would approve of for the Supreme Court is Obama, and that thought is frightening beyond measure.

Reply
Jul 10, 2018 21:32:20   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Richard Rowland wrote:
https://www.newsmax.com/patrickbuchanan/court-trump-justices-warren/2018/07/09/id/870790/


Richard, Thank You for an enjoyable time line of Presidents and whom they choose for SC Justices along with how those justices panned out...

It seems potential prospects say one thing and once in do what they think best..(nothing different there) Seems the elitism of a Supreme Court that once took pain staking measures to remain neutrel or at least gave the appearance of such has eroded away to party partisanship rather than what is Constitutionally right.. Horrific, really... Term limits even for them say 20 years max and then finished...The integrity of the Court has been pierced and must now be changed......

Yes, another placement by Trump will surely be in the history books later with full control of all three branches of government.. History in the making no doubt...

Cautiously welcomed so we can rid our nation of those progressive g*******ts that look to infiltrate their ideology of complete socialism..
With Hills telling the Iowans the dems are the socialist party and the admitted socialist win in NY along with the admitted Nazy running in Illinois it has arrived!!!!’ Lord help us all.!!!

Reply
Jul 10, 2018 21:50:17   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Carol Kelly wrote:
Very well stated. A good opinion. I agree.


Agreed...

Reply
Jul 10, 2018 22:10:00   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
old marine wrote:
My thoughts exactly.


Nice to know, old marine~~~

Reply
 
 
Jul 10, 2018 22:11:07   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
no propaganda please wrote:
I think that the only person that the Democrats would approve of for the Supreme Court is Obama, and that thought is frightening beyond measure.


Hush your fingers’, lolololololl

Reply
Jul 10, 2018 22:12:07   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
emarine wrote:
Looks like Democrats were on to it long ago... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

And kept it a secret.

Yeah...Right...

Reply
Jul 10, 2018 23:32:44   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
slatten49 wrote:
In a striking passage from an academic article, Kavanaugh once suggested a president does not have to follow the law if he or she finds it unconstitutional until ordered by a court to do so. And, as you may have heard, Kavanaugh believes that the American president should be immune from criminal investigation and prosecution while in office, and should be able to fire any special counsel he feels is “out to get him.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump has chosen a man for the Supreme Court who has sterling academic credentials; a long record of public service; a trove of almost 300 judicial opinions, many highly regarded; an appealing personal story; a lovely family—and a radically expansive view of the power of the presidency.

Judge Kavanaugh has long been seen as a conservative legal superstar. From an early age, he was g***med for a top position in the legal firmament, mentored by prominent conservatives, steered into nationwide networks of contacts and opportunities, hired for plum jobs, and promoted ever upwards.

By the way, conservatives do this sort of thing much better than liberals.

The Federalist Society, which for decades has spearheaded the campaign to take back the courts in the name of an approach to legal thinking that is focused on the original meaning of the Constitution and laws, is the de facto gatekeeper for Republican judicial nominations.

It is also a rich source of academic research and debate advancing conservative legal ideas.

And it’s a kind of club whose members are bound for life in a great mission: undoing the liberal legal revolution of the 1960s and 1970s.

If Judge Kavanaugh becomes Justice Kavanaugh, it will be the greatest triumph of the Federalist Society. And it’s one of the most significant accomplishments in recent American political history.

Kavanaugh’s nomination has sparked a great deal of concern on the left about issues like a******n, affirmative action, gay rights, and other social issues. There’s another issue, however, where Kavanaugh has staked out strikingly hard-right positions: executive power.

Before becoming a judge, Kavanaugh spent most of his career working for the executive branch of the federal government—in the Justice Department under President George H. W. Bush; in Ken Starr’s Office of the Independent Counsel investigating President Bill Clinton; in the White House counsel’s office under President George W. Bush; and finally as President Bush’s White House staff secretary.

These increasingly powerful (and yet professionally narrow) positions seem to have given Kavanaugh a sweeping, even unbalanced view of how powerful presidents should be under the law.

For instance, on the federal appeals court in Washington, Kavanaugh has argued for expansive p**********l authority in what used to be called “the global war on terror,” especially when it comes to the incarceration and treatment of accused enemy combatants.

He has also called for overturning a landmark 1935 New Deal-era Supreme Court opinion that for 83 years has been one of the foundations of modern American governance. It’s called Humprey’s Executor vs. United States, and in it, a unanimous Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal E******n Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and many dozens more. Kavanaugh views the very independence of these agencies as an unconstitutional infringement on the power of the president.

There’s more. In a striking passage in an academic article, Kavanaugh once suggested a president does not have to follow the law if he or she finds it unconstitutional until ordered by a court to do so.

"To be sure, the President has the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," he wrote. "That certainly means that the Executive has to follow and comply with laws regulating the executive branch - at least unless the President deems the law unconstitutional in which event the President can decline to follow the statute until a final court order says otherwise."

And, as you may have heard, Kavanaugh believes that the American president should be immune from criminal investigation and prosecution while in office, and should be able to fire any special counsel he feels is “out to get him.”

He called on Congress to protect presidents from the exact same kind of wide-ranging probe he enthusiastically participated in when he worked as a key aide to Ken Starr’s investigation of Bill Clinton.

“Congress should give back to the President the full power to act when he believes that a particular independent counsel is 'out to get him.' Such a step not only would make the special counsel accountable, but it also would force the President and his surrogates to put up or shut up.”

And he also wrote, “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."

Read that first sentence again. It almost sounds like the kind of thing President Trump might tweet when he rails against what he calls the “witch hunt” of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

When precisely Kavanaugh changed his mind about the wisdom of partisan-tinged investigations of presidents is unclear. But you can bet senators will want to know the answer to that question, and to many more as they come to a decision about whether this advocate of such expansive p**********l powers is the right choice at this historical moment to take the place of Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.
In a striking passage from an academic article, Ka... (show quote)


It is quite clear the he means that a REPUBLICAN President need not follow a law that he deems unconstitutional, and may usurp justice when it becomes inconvenient. I often wonder how a person who claims to study and follow the Constitution, can be unaware of the terms set forth in that document, on the separation of powers.

It is the provenance of the Congress to write law, being the Legislative branch, the obligation of the President to administer the law as set forth BY the Congress, being the Administrative branch and the unenviable responsibility of the Judicial branch to ensure that both of the other branches follow the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the President to usurp the obligations, authority or responsibilities of the other branches of Government, or to direct the discharge of the duties of the other branches. What is also painfully clear, the whole equation is viewed differently when a Democrat is President with a Republican controlled Congress - and visa versa.

Politicizing the Judiciary is Unconstitutional.......................yet neither party will have it any other way......................because 85% of all lawmakers..................are Attorney's at law. The solution is right in front of our noses, the problem is, if we the people applied it.................we'd have the s**t sued out of us by those we dispossessed.

Reply
Jul 11, 2018 05:22:38   #
old marine Loc: America home of the brave
 
lpnmajor wrote:
It is quite clear the he means that a REPUBLICAN President need not follow a law that he deems unconstitutional, and may usurp justice when it becomes inconvenient. I often wonder how a person who claims to study and follow the Constitution, can be unaware of the terms set forth in that document, on the separation of powers.

It is the provenance of the Congress to write law, being the Legislative branch, the obligation of the President to administer the law as set forth BY the Congress, being the Administrative branch and the unenviable responsibility of the Judicial branch to ensure that both of the other branches follow the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the President to usurp the obligations, authority or responsibilities of the other branches of Government, or to direct the discharge of the duties of the other branches. What is also painfully clear, the whole equation is viewed differently when a Democrat is President with a Republican controlled Congress - and visa versa.o

Politicizing the Judiciary is Unconstitutional.......................yet neither party will have it any other way......................because 85% of all lawmakers..................are Attorney's at law. The solution is right in front of our noses, the problem is, if we the people applied it.................we'd have the s**t sued out of us by those we dispossessed.
It is quite clear the he means that a REPUBLICAN P... (show quote)

I asked that same question when Obama and his attorney General Eric holder, both lawyers ignored the laws and refused to inforce those they didn't agree with.

Now Obamas party now flip flops and demands President Trump to follow the same laws they refused to inforce.

Different strokes for different folks?

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.