The #MeToo Kavanaugh Ambush

Watch Live: 6 Women Speak Out in Support of Kavanaugh at ‘#IStandWithBrett’ Conference
22468


21 Sep 20186,821
A group of six women who have known Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh personally or professionally dating back to his school days will speak at an “#IStandWithBrett” press conference at the JW Marriott hotel in Washington, DC, Friday.

The conference is held as Kavanaugh faces a sexual assault allegation never publicly revealed in the 35 or more years since the attack allegedly occurred. Accuser Christine Blasey Ford claims a 17-year-old Kavanaugh and another teenager forced her into a room and groped her in or around 1982 at a high school party.

The women of the #IStandWithBrett event will add to numerous people that have already made statements that the accusation does not match the character of the Brett Kavanaugh they have known for years. The six women met Kavanaugh at various stages of his life, including in high school days in which Ford claims he attacked her.

According to a release from organizers, the women include:

  • Sara Fagen, Longtime friend and former colleague
  • Maura Fitzgerald, Longtime friend since high school
  • Laura Cox Kaplan, Longtime friend and former colleague
  • Cathie Martin, Longtime friend and former colleague
  • Jenn Mascott, Former law clerk (2006 – 2007)
  • Meghan McCaleb, Longtime friend since high school
The conference is set to begin at 11 a.m. Eastern, with the livestream beginning shortly thereafter.
 
Optionpro007 said:
Should we just take her at her word? What is going to happen when someone comes at you and says you did something wrong in high school but they have no proof, witnesses, recollection of when and where? Should your career be over? Is that justice to you?
More...
This is a very important observation and question. This is why these kinds of accusations should not become press fodder, but unfortunately they do. Because of the special gravity attendant appointment for life to the supreme court, the accusation takes on additional significance, and it is doubtful Ford would have sent that letter to Feinstein, or anyone, had Kavanaugh not allowed his name to be put forward for such a high and public position.

In our society, the only way we have to settle these issues equitably is through thorough investigation followed by formal inquiry respecting protections afforded adversaries in court proceedings. Kavanaugh is not the only qualified person in the land, so the efficient way to handle this is to ask him to withdraw his name and let the parties reach some accommodation outside of the public spotlight.

Barring that, the Senate committee has the option of carrying out a formal investigation and inquiry, taking every precaution to see the interests of both parties protected according to law. That's an option in this case, but Chairman Grassley shows, so far, no interest in proceeding in that manner. The way Grassley is running the hearing, unaccountably as though he is racing the clock, is unfortunate. There is plenty of time, as has already been amply demonstrated recently by holding the position open for a year until a candidate suitable to the Senate majority could be confirmed. By rushing through the current conformation hearing without due process afforded both sides, Grassley is doing a disservice to the parties, the process, and to the American people who deserve much better from their lawmakers.
 
piezoe said:
This is a very important observation and question. This is why these kinds of accusations should not become press fodder, but unfortunately they do. Because of the special gravity attendant appointment for life to the supreme court, the accusation takes on additional significance, and it is doubtful Ford would have sent that letter to Feinstein, or anyone, had Kavanaugh not allowed his name to be put forward for such a high and public position.

In our society, the only way we have to settle these issues equitably is through thorough investigation followed by formal inquiry respecting protections afforded adversaries in court proceedings. Kavanaugh is not the only qualified person in the land, so the efficient way to handle this is to ask him to withdraw his name and let the parties reach some accommodation outside of the public spotlight.

Barring that, the Senate committee has the option of carrying out a formal investigation and inquiry, taking every precaution to see the interests of both parties protected according to law. That's an option in this case, but Chairman Grassley shows, so far, no interest in proceeding in that manner. The way Grassley is running the hearing, unaccountably as though he is racing the clock, is unfortunate. There is plenty of time, as has already been amply demonstrated recently by holding the position open for a year until a candidate suitable to the Senate majority could be confirmed. By rushing through the current conformation hearing without due process afforded both sides, Grassley is doing a disservice to the parties, the process, and to the American people who deserve much better from their lawmakers.
More...
Watch this video (linked above) in its entirety and tell me what you think.

 
gwb-trading said:
So you are just going to ignore that another person present at the party provided written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the incident did not occur. And then claim somehow this is not news.
More...
No of course not. All parties with direct knowledge need to be heard from. Just being present at the party is not a sufficient selector. There was one other person in the room. His exact words and cross examination are of critical importance. Not his words paraphrased or slightly altered. I don't know if he said an assault did not happen, or he did not see an assault, or he doesn't remember an assault. But be that as it may, it doesn't matter one wit what I know. What matters is that he is cross examined under oath and his exact words paid attention. He must be asked, under oath, what he did see, and he should give his opinion on what should be considered a sexual assault. Those are all matters for a formal hearing. These things cannot be settled in the media including social media, and least of all not on ET.
 
Optionpro007 said:
Watch this video (linked above) in its entirety and tell me what you think.

More...
I listened to it in its entirety. It confirms my general impression that Mr. Kavanaugh is well liked. The most important testimony was from the woman, then girl, he knew in high school. She confirmed that a sober Brett Kavanaugh was a well mannered and nice young man. More valuable would have been her observations of him as a drunk 17 year old. Probably she had no such observation. Perhaps their will be others who do have, such as some of those who signed his yearbook.

Now that I have watched the video, how about reading my post #67 (nearer the bottom) were I give my reasons why I don't think he should be confirmed? I would be very interested in your opinion of my reasoning. You will find my reasons only peripherally connected to this alleged high school incident. Its not the incident itself that disqualifies him in my view, it is his reaction to it. Keep in mind I am convinced, at this point, that he is lying. That problem would go away as far as I'm concerned if he were to stop lying and make amends for his stupid behavior as a seventeen-year-old. In fact, I would view that as a very positive endorsement of his character as an adult. But I still wouldn't want him to be confirmed because of his rather successfully obfuscated, radical opinions regarding presidential prerogatives that I see as having been motivated by personal opportunism rather than sound legal thinking. I find this kind of blatant opportunism undesirable in a Supreme Court Justice candidate.
 
piezoe said:
I listened to it in its entirety. It confirms my general impression that Mr. Kavanaugh is well liked. The most important testimony was from the woman, then girl, he knew in high school. She confirmed that a sober Brett Kavanaugh was a well mannered and nice young man. More valuable would have been her observations of him as a drunk 17 year old. Probably she had no such observation. Perhaps their will be others who do have, such as some of those who signed his yearbook.

Now that I have watched the video, how about reading my post #67 (nearer the bottom) were I give my reasons why I don't think he should be confirmed? I would be very interested in your opinion of my reasoning. You will find my reasons only peripherally connected to this alleged high school incident. Its not the incident itself that disqualifies him in my view, it is his reaction to it. Keep in mind I am convinced, at this point, that he is lying. That problem would go away as far as I'm concerned if he were to stop lying and make amends for his stupid behavior as a seventeen-year-old. In fact, I would view that as a very positive endorsement of his character as an adult. But I still wouldn't want him to be confirmed because of his rather successfully obfuscated, radical opinions regarding presidential prerogatives that I see as having been motivated by personal opportunism rather than sound legal thinking. I find this kind of blatant opportunism undesirable in a Supreme Court Justice candidate.
More...
OK at your request I did read post # 67 (to be frank with you I don't read all your posts because they are too lengthy). You are picking a very small part of what the nominee has done over the years. Here are other things he has done that according to many experts believe he is more than qualified for the job. Let me know what you think.

Deserving Nominee for the Supreme Court
LAW & JUSTICE


Issued on: September 4, 2018


ALL NEWS
QUOTE
Judge Kavanaugh has impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications, and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law. … There is no one in America more qualified for this position, and no one more deserving.

President Donald J. Trump

EXCEPTIONALLY QUALIFIED: Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive experience and credentials make him one of the most exceptionally qualified Supreme Court nominees in history.

  • On the night of his nomination, USA Today reported that “[o]n paper … Kavanaugh may be the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in generations.”
  • The American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest rating: well-qualified.
  • He has served on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often called the Nation’s “second highest court,” for more than 12 years.
    • He has written more than 300 opinions and heard more than 2,000 cases.
    • At least 13 of his opinions have been vindicated by the Supreme Court—an unparalleled record of influence and success across the ideological spectrum.
  • He is a co-author of a leading book on judicial precedent and has published nine articles in respected academic law journals.
  • He has taught for more than a decade at the Nation’s two top law schools, Yale and Harvard (where he was hired by then-Dean and now-Justice Elena Kagan).
    • The New York Times noted that his teaching evaluations reflect “glowing praise … [m]ore than a few students said he was the most impressive law school professor they had ever encountered.”
  • He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who became a mentor.
  • He has argued before the Supreme Court.
  • He served more than five years in the White House, including as White House Staff Secretary and as Associate White House Counsel.
  • He was a partner at a respected law firm, where he wrote several Supreme Court briefs and also provided pro bono legal services to a range of clients.
  • He is a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, where he was an editor on law review.
INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL: Judge Kavanaugh has a clear record as an independent and impartial arbiter of the law.

  • He bases his rulings on the law—not politics, policy, or the identities of the litigants.
  • He has ruled both for and against businesses, workers, environmentalists, landowners, civil-rights plaintiffs, political parties, and criminal defendants.
    • He ruled against the Republican National Committee in one campaign-finance case and in favor of Emily’s List (a liberal pro-choice group) in another campaign-finance case.
    • He ruled in favor of a pro se African-American plaintiff who had been called the “n-word” at work, concluding that he had endured a hostile work environment.
    • He has ruled in favor of convicted drug dealers and murderers who were denied fair trials.
    • He has ruled in favor of environmentalist plaintiffs and the Environmental Protection Agency in some cases, and in favor of Western landowners and coal miners in others.
  • He ruled at least 23 times against Bush Administration agencies from 2006 to 2008.
  • His opinions are as likely to be joined in full by his Democrat-appointed colleagues (88.67 percent) as by his Republican-appointed colleagues (88.94 percent).
    • On at least 10 occasions, he has sided with a Democrat-appointed colleague over the dissent of a Republican-appointed colleague.
  • Chief United States Circuit Judge Garland (appointed by President Clinton and nominated for the Supreme Court by President Obama) has joined Judge Kavanaugh’s majority opinions 96.43 percent of the time.
DEVOTED TO PRECEDENT: Judge Kavanaugh’s work demonstrates a strong devotion to precedent and stability in the law.

  • He co-wrote a leading book on judicial precedent with 10 other judges.
    • The book explains that precedent is critical to stability in the law and “allows individuals to plan their affairs and to safely judge their legal rights.”
  • He has written that it is “essential for courts to be as consistent as we possibly can.”
  • His decisions have invoked stare decisis (the need to follow precedent).
    • In one opinion, he described an earlier decision as “wrongly decided,” but said it was “water over the dam” because he was “bound to apply that precedent.”
MODEL OF CHARACTER: Throughout his career, Judge Kavanaugh has proven to be a model of character, integrity, and public service.

  • His mother, a trailblazing prosecutor and trial judge in Maryland, inspired him to pursue a career in law.
  • He has spent 25 of the 28 years of his career in public service.
  • He tutors low-income students, serves meals to the homeless, and is a lector at church.
  • He coaches his daughters’ basketball teams and serves as a mentor to his players.
    • The mother of one player described how Judge Kavanaugh has taken her daughter to the school’s father-daughter dance every year since her husband passed away.
  • He is a leader for gender equality and for supporting women in the workplace.
    • More than half of the law clerks he has hired (25 of 48) are women.
    • He was the first D.C. Circuit Judge ever to hire an all-female class of law clerks.
    • Eighty-four percent of his female law clerks have gone on to clerk at the Supreme Court.
    • In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, his female law clerks called him “one of the strongest advocates in the federal judiciary for women lawyers” and said the legal profession is “fairer and more equal” because of him.
  • He is a leader in promoting racial equality and advancing minorities in the workplace.
    • He wrote a law review article about ending racial discrimination in jury selection.
    • He regularly visits the Yale and Harvard Black Law Students Association and has taken an active role in helping minority students obtain judicial clerkships.
    • Twenty-seven percent of the law clerks he has hired (13 of 48) are racial/ethnic minorities.
    • More than 10 percent of the law clerks he has hired (5 of 48) are African American—much greater than the percentage of African Americans at top law schools.
 
Optionpro007 said:
OK at your request I did read post # 67 (to be frank with you I don't read all your posts because they are too lengthy). You are picking a very small part of what the nominee has done over the years. Here are other things he has done that according to many experts believe he is more than qualified for the job. Let me know what you think.

Deserving Nominee for the Supreme Court
LAW & JUSTICE


Issued on: September 4, 2018


ALL NEWS
QUOTE
Judge Kavanaugh has impeccable credentials, unsurpassed qualifications, and a proven commitment to equal justice under the law. … There is no one in America more qualified for this position, and no one more deserving.

President Donald J. Trump

EXCEPTIONALLY QUALIFIED: Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive experience and credentials make him one of the most exceptionally qualified Supreme Court nominees in history.

  • On the night of his nomination, USA Today reported that “[o]n paper … Kavanaugh may be the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in generations.”
  • The American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest rating: well-qualified.
  • He has served on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often called the Nation’s “second highest court,” for more than 12 years.
    • He has written more than 300 opinions and heard more than 2,000 cases.
    • At least 13 of his opinions have been vindicated by the Supreme Court—an unparalleled record of influence and success across the ideological spectrum.
  • He is a co-author of a leading book on judicial precedent and has published nine articles in respected academic law journals.
  • He has taught for more than a decade at the Nation’s two top law schools, Yale and Harvard (where he was hired by then-Dean and now-Justice Elena Kagan).
    • The New York Times noted that his teaching evaluations reflect “glowing praise … [m]ore than a few students said he was the most impressive law school professor they had ever encountered.”
  • He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who became a mentor.
  • He has argued before the Supreme Court.
  • He served more than five years in the White House, including as White House Staff Secretary and as Associate White House Counsel.
  • He was a partner at a respected law firm, where he wrote several Supreme Court briefs and also provided pro bono legal services to a range of clients.
  • He is a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, where he was an editor on law review.
INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL: Judge Kavanaugh has a clear record as an independent and impartial arbiter of the law.

  • He bases his rulings on the law—not politics, policy, or the identities of the litigants.
  • He has ruled both for and against businesses, workers, environmentalists, landowners, civil-rights plaintiffs, political parties, and criminal defendants.
    • He ruled against the Republican National Committee in one campaign-finance case and in favor of Emily’s List (a liberal pro-choice group) in another campaign-finance case.
    • He ruled in favor of a pro se African-American plaintiff who had been called the “n-word” at work, concluding that he had endured a hostile work environment.
    • He has ruled in favor of convicted drug dealers and murderers who were denied fair trials.
    • He has ruled in favor of environmentalist plaintiffs and the Environmental Protection Agency in some cases, and in favor of Western landowners and coal miners in others.
  • He ruled at least 23 times against Bush Administration agencies from 2006 to 2008.
  • His opinions are as likely to be joined in full by his Democrat-appointed colleagues (88.67 percent) as by his Republican-appointed colleagues (88.94 percent).
    • On at least 10 occasions, he has sided with a Democrat-appointed colleague over the dissent of a Republican-appointed colleague.
  • Chief United States Circuit Judge Garland (appointed by President Clinton and nominated for the Supreme Court by President Obama) has joined Judge Kavanaugh’s majority opinions 96.43 percent of the time.
DEVOTED TO PRECEDENT: Judge Kavanaugh’s work demonstrates a strong devotion to precedent and stability in the law.

  • He co-wrote a leading book on judicial precedent with 10 other judges.
    • The book explains that precedent is critical to stability in the law and “allows individuals to plan their affairs and to safely judge their legal rights.”
  • He has written that it is “essential for courts to be as consistent as we possibly can.”
  • His decisions have invoked stare decisis (the need to follow precedent).
    • In one opinion, he described an earlier decision as “wrongly decided,” but said it was “water over the dam” because he was “bound to apply that precedent.”
MODEL OF CHARACTER: Throughout his career, Judge Kavanaugh has proven to be a model of character, integrity, and public service.

  • His mother, a trailblazing prosecutor and trial judge in Maryland, inspired him to pursue a career in law.
  • He has spent 25 of the 28 years of his career in public service.
  • He tutors low-income students, serves meals to the homeless, and is a lector at church.
  • He coaches his daughters’ basketball teams and serves as a mentor to his players.
    • The mother of one player described how Judge Kavanaugh has taken her daughter to the school’s father-daughter dance every year since her husband passed away.
  • He is a leader for gender equality and for supporting women in the workplace.
    • More than half of the law clerks he has hired (25 of 48) are women.
    • He was the first D.C. Circuit Judge ever to hire an all-female class of law clerks.
    • Eighty-four percent of his female law clerks have gone on to clerk at the Supreme Court.
    • In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, his female law clerks called him “one of the strongest advocates in the federal judiciary for women lawyers” and said the legal profession is “fairer and more equal” because of him.
  • He is a leader in promoting racial equality and advancing minorities in the workplace.
    • He wrote a law review article about ending racial discrimination in jury selection.
    • He regularly visits the Yale and Harvard Black Law Students Association and has taken an active role in helping minority students obtain judicial clerkships.
    • Twenty-seven percent of the law clerks he has hired (13 of 48) are racial/ethnic minorities.
    • More than 10 percent of the law clerks he has hired (5 of 48) are African American—much greater than the percentage of African Americans at top law schools.
More...
Thanks for reading my post. I appreciate it! And now you know where I stand on Kavanaugh and why. He's earned all of those praises. On paper he is well qualified, no question there. It is that tiny little bit of his record, and his complete reversal of opinion when working with Starr, that made Starr happy, to his opinions when working with Bush II and Cheney, that made Bush and Cheney happy, that scares the living bejesus out of me. Especially that article he wrote for the Minnesota Law Review and his opinions developed in the Bush administration with regard to the imperial presidency that make me want anyone but Kavanaugh sitting on SCOTUS. I mean, what kind of person is so devoid of personal guideposts that they will adopt whatever will advance them in the eyes of the ones standing between them and the next level . And frankly, anything said to be coming from Trump is coming from who?, if you know what I mean. We all know why Trump wants him on the bench, but is that a good reason for the rest of us to want him there. Thomas became a rubber stamp for Scalia, whose rubber stamp will Kavanaugh become? I want a judge who will go their own way and I won't be able to guess which direction that will be. That's what I appreciated about Kennedy. Wouldn't it be nice if we had an entire supreme court that we couldn't easily handicap?.
 
piezoe said:
Thanks for reading my post. I appreciate it! And now you know where I stand on Kavanaugh and why. He's earned all of those praises. On paper he is well qualified, no question there. It is that tiny little bit of his record, and his complete reversal of opinion when working with Starr, that made Starr happy, to his opinions when working with Bush II and Cheney, that made Bush and Cheney happy, that scares the living bejesus out of me. Especially that article he wrote for the Minnesota Law Review and his opinions developed in the Bush administration with regard to the imperial presidency that make me want anyone but Kavanaugh sitting on SCOTUS. I mean, what kind of person is so devoid of personal guideposts that they will adopt whatever will advance them in the eyes of the ones standing between them and the next level . And frankly, anything said to be coming from Trump is coming from who?, if you know what I mean. We all know why Trump wants him on the bench, but is that a good reason for the rest of us to want him there. Thomas became a rubber stamp for Scalia, whose rubber stamp will Kavanaugh become? I want a judge who will go their own way and I won't be able to guess which direction that will be. That's what I appreciated about Kennedy. Wouldn't it be nice if we had an entire supreme court that we couldn't easily handicap?.
More...
You are welcome. I would gladly read anything that is short and concise. :)

For your reference:
"
kevin-russell.jpg

Kevin Russell Contributor

Posted Fri, July 13th, 2018 4:36 pm

Email Kevin
Bio & Post Archive »
Kavanaugh on presidential power: Law-review article on investigations of sitting presidents (UPDATED)
Senators considering President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court will undoubtedly be giving a close read to a law-review article the judge published in 2009, entitled “Separation of Powers During the Forty-Fourth Presidency and Beyond.” The article has already engendered substantial debate over whether it suggests that a Justice Kavanaugh would conclude that Trump is immune from criminal investigation or prosecution while in office. I will examine that question below, but the article also discusses several other separation of powers issues worth noting, many of which may shed some light on how Kavanaugh might address a number of issues that regularly arise in the Supreme Court.

Introduction

It’s important at the outset to describe what the article is, and is not, about. For the most part, the article presents a series of policy – not legal – arguments and recommendations for improving the functioning of the federal government (particularly the executive branch) in light of Kavanaugh’s extended experience in a number of different executive branch positions, including in the White House. Any predictions about how Kavanaugh would rule on similar questions as a matter of constitutional law are necessarily based on inferences. While some cynics may disagree, I think it is a serious mistake to simply assume that any judge’s policy recommendations will automatically be converted into constitutional holdings if he or she is elevated to the Supreme Court. At the same time, for those trying to gauge what kind of justice Brett Kavanaugh would be, ignoring the recommendations in the article, and the reasoning behind them, would be a mistake, too.

With that in mind, the basic project of the article is to set out five basic sets of recommendations for improving how the government functions. Below, I’ll describe the ones that seem most relevant to the Supreme Court nomination and offer some observations about what the recommendations might augur for Kavanaugh’s tenure on the Supreme Court, should he be confirmed.

Temporary deferral of civil suits and criminal prosecutions and investigations

The first recommendation is the one getting the most attention, and for good reason. Kavanaugh begins by recommending that while the president is in office, he should not be subject to civil lawsuits or to criminal investigation or prosecution. He explains that based on his first-hand experience in the White House, he has come to believe that “the job of the President is far more difficult than any other civil position in government.” And, he says, “I believe that it is vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible.” Having to respond to civil litigation, discovery requests, deposition demands, questioning by prosecutors or even sitting through a trial, Kavanaugh believes, imposes an intolerable diversion of attention and energy on any sitting president.

Kavanaugh acknowledges the irony in his saying that – after all, he began his career working for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, helping to impose those exact burdens on President Bill Clinton. But “in retrospect,” he writes, “that seems a mistake.” Looking back to those times, he says, “the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots.”

To be clear, Kavanaugh is not recommending that the president be completely immune from civil or criminal liability, only that the litigation be deferred until the president leaves office. If justice cannot be delayed that long, he writes, it should be up to Congress to step in and exercise its power of impeachment."

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/k...icle-on-investigations-of-sitting-presidents/
 
Optionpro007 said:
You are welcome. I would gladly read anything that is short and concise. :)

For your reference:
"
kevin-russell.jpg

Kevin Russell Contributor

Posted Fri, July 13th, 2018 4:36 pm

Email Kevin
Bio & Post Archive »
Kavanaugh on presidential power: Law-review article on investigations of sitting presidents (UPDATED)
Senators considering President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court will undoubtedly be giving a close read to a law-review article the judge published in 2009, entitled “Separation of Powers During the Forty-Fourth Presidency and Beyond.” The article has already engendered substantial debate over whether it suggests that a Justice Kavanaugh would conclude that Trump is immune from criminal investigation or prosecution while in office. I will examine that question below, but the article also discusses several other separation of powers issues worth noting, many of which may shed some light on how Kavanaugh might address a number of issues that regularly arise in the Supreme Court.

Introduction

It’s important at the outset to describe what the article is, and is not, about. For the most part, the article presents a series of policy – not legal – arguments and recommendations for improving the functioning of the federal government (particularly the executive branch) in light of Kavanaugh’s extended experience in a number of different executive branch positions, including in the White House. Any predictions about how Kavanaugh would rule on similar questions as a matter of constitutional law are necessarily based on inferences. While some cynics may disagree, I think it is a serious mistake to simply assume that any judge’s policy recommendations will automatically be converted into constitutional holdings if he or she is elevated to the Supreme Court. At the same time, for those trying to gauge what kind of justice Brett Kavanaugh would be, ignoring the recommendations in the article, and the reasoning behind them, would be a mistake, too.

With that in mind, the basic project of the article is to set out five basic sets of recommendations for improving how the government functions. Below, I’ll describe the ones that seem most relevant to the Supreme Court nomination and offer some observations about what the recommendations might augur for Kavanaugh’s tenure on the Supreme Court, should he be confirmed.

Temporary deferral of civil suits and criminal prosecutions and investigations

The first recommendation is the one getting the most attention, and for good reason. Kavanaugh begins by recommending that while the president is in office, he should not be subject to civil lawsuits or to criminal investigation or prosecution. He explains that based on his first-hand experience in the White House, he has come to believe that “the job of the President is far more difficult than any other civil position in government.” And, he says, “I believe that it is vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible.” Having to respond to civil litigation, discovery requests, deposition demands, questioning by prosecutors or even sitting through a trial, Kavanaugh believes, imposes an intolerable diversion of attention and energy on any sitting president.

Kavanaugh acknowledges the irony in his saying that – after all, he began his career working for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, helping to impose those exact burdens on President Bill Clinton. But “in retrospect,” he writes, “that seems a mistake.” Looking back to those times, he says, “the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots.”

To be clear, Kavanaugh is not recommending that the president be completely immune from civil or criminal liability, only that the litigation be deferred until the president leaves office. If justice cannot be delayed that long, he writes, it should be up to Congress to step in and exercise its power of impeachment."

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/k...icle-on-investigations-of-sitting-presidents/
More...
Thanks for turning this comment up. I haven't time at the moment, but I want to read it carefully. And also read again Kavanaugh's review article which I have read before. Rather than Kavanaughs opinion re indicting a president which is discussed in the Review Article, my primary concerns rest with some of his opinions rendered during his time in the Bush White House. The details of those opinions are harder to access and it's some of that material that the majority party tried to make off limits for the public hearing . They wanted to keep it out of the public eye even though it has leaked. I will see if I can turn some of the most concerning material up and post it here.

From the review article I can tell you right off what I thought was his weakest argument. It was that the President was too busy and to essential to the operation of the government to be bothered with responding to indictments. And if he took time out to do that, the operations of government would suffer. I don't agree but I haven't got time to make my case here. But I will. In the mean time, I invite you to think about all the times in the past when presidents have been incapacitated and the government rolled along just fine with hardly a hitch. I think Kavanaugh's argument is extremely weak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top