Presidents under active criminal investigation do not get to make lifetime court picks.

[Zoonart]

This is the arguement for Democrats:

Donald Trump is currently under investigation for attempting to cover up that fateful campaign meeting by issuing false statements about it—on Air Force One, after a one-on-one meeting with the Russian president, no less. He is under investigation for multiple other acts which appear to investigators to be evidence of an attempt to undermine the investigation into Russian acts. We are currently awaiting word from a special team of prosecutors as to whether the sitting president, either in office or while campaigning for that office, has committed acts of treason.

That's where the evidence is as of this moment. It may, and almost certainly will, given other evidence that has continued to come to light, get worse.

There may be some debate over how punctual the Senate needs to be in presidential advice and consent. There may be furious debate over the newly-invented rule that presidents may not make certain appointments during election years because reasons. But it should be a fairly standard-issue bit of bipartisan common sense that, say, presidents who are under active investigation for acts of potential treason should not be granted unilateral power to make lifetime federal appointments—not until they are cleared of wrongdoing.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/27/1776025/-Presidents-under-active-criminal-investigation-do-not-get-to-make-lifetime-court-picks#read-more

[Iliyah]

1. K & R

[True Dough]

2. That is EXACTLY

what the ReThugs would argue if the shoe was on the other foot. But they're not principled enough to say it now.

[BigmanPigman]

3. I agree 100%!

[malaise]

4. A man who has settled fraud cases with huge payouts ought not to be President

A man who refuses to release tax returns, lies non-stop, violates the emoluments clause, appoints criminals and is himself under criminal investigation should be in prison not the White House.

[MineralMan]

5. Nice idea, but there is no support for it in the Constitution.

There are lots of ideas floating around, most of which ignore the reality of Presidential authority to nominate SCOTUS justices. All such ideas are non-starters.

We really need to stop proposing solutions that have no chance of happening.

[Iliyah]

8. Maybe . . .

Putting this out there makes sense to a lot of people. Word by mouth, let it travel . . . .


t-rump is under investigation, it needs to be front and center.

[MineralMan]

9. That he is under investigation is irrelevant to the appointment.

As long as he is the sitting President, he can nominate Supreme Court justices. Nobody can stop him from doing that. The reality is that our only recourse is to work hard to convince Senators not to confirm that appointment. Time spent doing that is time spent well.

Time spent on useless ideas that cannot occur is time wasted. We have no time to waste, to be quite frank.

[Zoonart]

11. Of course this does no lead us anywhere constitutionally...

but as a talking point, it is valuable and should be broadcast loud and clear by every Democrat. A criminal is in the white house appointing judges.
The house is on fire.

How should we spend our time? We have very few legislative and constitutional tools to work with. Granted. Rhetoric is what we have to get the base up off their duffs and into the streets.

[Igel]

17. A president with a subpoena issued against him can and has made a nomination

and got his nominee confirmed.

It doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter. The investigation is not a conviction. It's like saying that anybody with a felony charge against them shouldn't be allowed to vote or do anything important because they might wind up in jail. Lots of claims are made; not all of them all proven.

(It goes to that whole "presumption of innocence" thing.)

BTW, the one instance I know of is that in May '94 a subpoena was issued against Bill Clinton over Whitewater pursuant to an investigation. The same month--I don't know if it was in the weeks before or after the subpoena--President Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer. Justice Breyer was confirmed in July '94. President Clinton was fully authorized by the Constitution to make the nomination; Congress was right to examine and avise; and President Clinton was fully authorized to make the appointment.

It would be interesting, though, to see if the "a president being investigated shouldn't be allowed to make judicial, or at least USSC, nomination" started life in the '90s as a (R) anti-Clinton screed. Need to get the ol' heart going with a nice sinus rhythm again, so I'm going to just go back to clicking the mouse every once in a while as my strenuous activity.

[radius777]

51. Trump could be impeached for stealing an election.

There is a big difference between the normal type of political scandal and treason.

Let Mueller's investigation conclude before Trump is allowed to appoint anyone.

[mr_lebowski]

52. I'd be willing to bet money Repubs brought that idea up back then, but too lazy today to check

[Mr.Bill]

25. Sad but true. n/t

[The Mouth]

26. "We really need to stop proposing solutions that have no chance of happening"

Needs to be said again. I'm getting discouraged by the delusional talk of impeachment, preventing the R's from getting their next SCOTUS through and all sorts of other ignorant and idiotic impossible bullshit.

I get that people want/need to 'vent', but expecting a Republican congress to impeach or remove Trump, or them to not shove their SCOTUS pick through is embarrassing, like watching a child stamp their feet and cry.

Anything that takes our focus off of the mid terms does nothing but harm.

[Trust Buster]

6. Nice talking point. Reality - He does have the legal right and he will exercise it.

[Arkansas Granny]

7. Many on the right didn't think that someone under investigation should even run for office.

Of course, they didn't know at the time that Trump was also being investigated. They just thought it was Hillary.

[Dem_4_Life]

10. Yes 100%!

[C_U_L8R]

12. I don't know why Dem leadership hasn't led with that strategy

The "McConnell Rule" argument is just lame and frankly makes Democrats look weak. And the truth that the corrupt Trump administration is under investigation is powerful stuff. But we're only at day two... there's lots more fight to do.

[TryLogic]

13. I agree. And, Democrats specialize in looking weak.

[Amishman]

14. Because Mueller said Trump is not a criminal target at this time

Mueller's slow approach and lack of communication makes it politically difficult to use the investigation as leverage. Until Mueller officially announces something directly on Trump himself, this is hard to use as a leading argument.

We know the truth but we don't officially have the evidence yet

[C_U_L8R]

16. Although his admin, campaign and family are.

I appreciate your point... that was my hunch too. I just want to see our reps out there leading and fighting... and even more than this nomination, helping win the midterms. Both houses!

[vi5]

20. Really? You think "Guys! But you said this before so now you gotta, right!?!?" is weak?

I'm surprised Schumer's tweet on this didn't literally end with "No take backs!!"

[Honeycombe8]

15. Presumed innocent?

In the U S, we're presumed innocent until convicted of something. But this argument may gain some traction. No legal effect, I think, though.

[Garrett78]

18. He's been under investigation since before taking office.

[infullview]

19. I am depressed.

We all know that the repugs have enough people in both houses to ram this nominee through with brute force. They've done it time and time again. The republicans are all complicit in this Russia deal and all took money from them. tRump has the goods on them - enough to blackmail them into acting against their better angels.

I see no hope.

[bucolic_frolic]

21. An election stolen by nefarious means is illegitimate

as is every action by the thief while in office.

Illegitimacy is the term that captures it. None of this would have happened if the thief had not assumed office.

[MineralMan]

43. Only philosophically. Really, it's not true at all.

Who is sitting in the White House? Who will be appointing a SCOTUS justice?

You can say something is illegitimate, but saying so means nothing in the real world. By whatever means Trump won the election, he won it, and is the office-holder. The only means of removing him is impeachment and conviction by Congress, and Congress is controlled by Republicans, so that's not going to happen.

Trump holds the office. He gets to nominate a Justice. You might believe that's illegitimate, but that has no effect on reality. We are stuck with the situation. We need to work on correcting the problem at the ballot box. Nothing else is going to work.

[bucolic_frolic]

45. Legitimacy is a fungible asset, and yes, it really is true, in a sense

Legitimacy allows an office holder to spend his political capital on policies which are unpopular with the masses without political consequences to himself. I would suggest to you that no such process is currently mitigating the incumbent's unpopular programs. Thus, we here at least, and more than half of Americans, are in an uproar over his policies. No legitimacy equates to no teflon. No incumbent can hold office forever without legitimacy. And legitimacy can destroy legacy long after the removal from office by whatever means, even if the judgments are made by the long arm of history.

Perhaps I misspeak. Thanks for your erudite reply!

[MineralMan]

47. The problem is an immediate thing, but there is no immediate solution.

Barring unforeseen events, Donald Trump will be President until January, 2020. During that time, he gets to do whatever Presidents are empowered to do. As long as Republicans control Congress, that's even more true. Our next opportunity to deny Trump in his attempts to ruin the country is in November of this year. That is a genuine opportunity. Until then, though, we are pretty much helpless when it comes to blocking his plans.

That's why our primary focus needs to be on that election. That's where our energy needs to go. It's the only thing we have available that has a chance of succeeding. Trump IS the President. He has powers. He has a Republican Congress. What he wants to do will probably happen. That's horrible, but that's reality.

We need to work on what we CAN do, not expend energy on things that can't happen.

[radius777]

55. Politics is about the court of public opinion,

much more than legalistic or parlimentary x's and o's

And in the eyes of many, for many reasons Trump is illegitimate and unqualified.

Pound that narrative and you create an uprising.. politicians are inherently fearful of public opinion.. flip the moderate Repubs and keep the conservative Dems in line.. and you stand a chance.

Just sitting back and shrugging our shoulders is not the proper response to this maniac, who should not be allowed to appoint anyone to anything, much less SCOTUS.

They stole the election, they stole Obama's pick, we can't allow them to reshape the court for a generation.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. No Judicial confirmations in this last year of tRump's Presidency. . . . nt

[Texin]

24. I'm just despondent today.

This is a death blow to anyone and everyone who is not one of the 1%. As a woman, I'm crushed by what this means for young women of reproducing age. And for every woman and girl who either must work or will be working in future because they will have no options otherwise, who will be forced to suffer with male domination in the workforce and whatever abuse they choose to dish out to their female co-workers.

I no longer have to worry about an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, but for all those women who are able to conceive, I would urge any and all of them who are, to be thinking and acting on any kind of plan or strategy that they can avail themselves to in the immediate future to be able to control their own bodies. Whatever it takes. That probably sounds pretty draconian, but it's something a woman needs to be honestly and dispassionately considering. If this SCOTUS appointee is made - and there is no logical reason to believe anything otherwise, it will mean an end forever of a woman being able to choose anything about her reproductive rights or her own body. It will mean that a woman's role will be defined as solely based on her ability to conceive a child. I don't know what that will mean for women who cannot become pregnant for whatever reason, but it will mean that a woman will never be allowed to have dominion over her own body: a woman will simply be an empty vessel in which men can use at their whim and fancy, and whatever the outcome of that use or abuse will be her own responsibility thereafter and she will not have the legal right to do anything but face any outcome, whether it be an unwanted pregnancy or an STD, it's all on her, as this guarantees a man's right legally to do anything to a woman he wants without consequence. It virtually eliminates rape and incest as illegal. The existing laws on the books will be meaningless as far as women will be concerned, because it will leave them with nothing that ensures their recourse in their circumstances. The man may be convicted and imprisoned, but a pregnancy from that rape or abuse will be a violation of the law for women to do anything about except bear the child (at their or their family's expense) and either raise or give up for adoption.

And what about women who cannot reproduce? Will they be subjected to medical examination to prove that they have not sought and obtained medical intervention to prevent a pregnancy? Probably so.

Dear god, what has this country allowed to happen?

[Zoonart]

27. I was heavily involved in the planning and organization of three national Choice rallies.

I am beyond sick that everything my sisters and brothers and I worked for will be likely wiped away and my granddayghters will face a future that does not include ownership of their own bodies.

Women seeking abortions will be prosecuted and all miscarrages will be investigated.

YES it is that bad, but the fight will continue.

[Progressive dog]

28. Innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone

and Trump has not even been charged. That is the kind of argument Trumplicans would love to have Democrats make.

[Zoonart]

29. The intelligence community has delivered it's verdict on the Russian Hacking

of the election. tRump is an illegitimate president. I believe that all of his appointments should be regarded as "fruit of the poison tree".

Unfortunately, our founding fathers could not foresee everything and we are constitutionally unprepared for this.

Paul Manafort has pleaded not guilty and is in jail.....he will get his day in court, but he is in jail right now. tRump should not be appointing justices that can
screw us for generations when he is under investigation for charges that can lead to TREASON.

This is truly a horse of a different color.

[nil desperandum]

40. Unfortunately

the intelligence community's verdict has zero enforcement teeth in it.

Most people in the US don't even care what the intelligence community has to say about anything. They've been taught the intelligence community isn't trustworthy and spends as much time spying on US citizens as it does searching for foreign threats to our security.

I wouldn't put much stock in that having a lot of weight. I would love to think you'll prove me wrong and it turns out people feel it matters, but I've seen zero evidence of it outside of like minded sites like this.

[Progressive dog]

41. The intelligence community is not a judge or jury and they have no Senators.

Since Democrats need at least one Republican vote to stop Trump's SCOTUS pick, the proposed solution of attacking the Republican Senate would be playing into Trump's hands.

[DetlefK]

31. Innocent until proven guilty is for court-proceedings. Not for governance.

Also, Hillary's emails.

[Zoonart]

35. Exactly.... remember?

Lock her up?

[Progressive dog]

44. That is just silly and not even true

The point is that you can't be punished before you've had your day in court.
We do have a way to stop Trump from appointing a member of SCOTUS, we can impeach and convict him. That takes even more Republican votes.

[DetlefK]

46. What if I beat somebody up and the police violently arrests me?

The police has punished me. I was beaten up. And that was before I even was arrested!

They put me in a jail-cell and deprive me of my freedom! Before I was even sent to court!

[Progressive dog]

50. Then the police would have committed a crime

unless you fought the police while being arrested. You have a right to reasonable bail, but bail is set by a court so you will be held for arraignment in a court.

[DetlefK]

56. And in the meantime I am hurt and behind bars. My point is:

My point is: If the police puts me in jail before I'm sent to court, that doesn't count as legal punishment, because it's a temporary security-measure.

That's also the reason why innocent-until-proven-guilty doesn't apply here: We wouldn't deny Trump the right to nominate someone for SCOTUS. We wouldn't punish him. We would take something temporarily away from him as a security-measure until we have investigated what to do next.

[Progressive dog]

57. That is only when you have actually

been charged with a crime. You were charged and Trump isn't. The US is not a banana republic yet.

[Iggo]

33. That's the argument they had locked and loaded for when Clinton won the election.

[Progressive dog]

42. No, they probably didn't

and there is no way of knowing.

[niyad]

30. one of the morning "news" blatherers, I heard in passing, said that Senate Dems have NO

power to do anything to stop the pubbies from doing whatever they want about scotus.

[Iggo]

32. Except, yes they do.

[rtracey]

34. lots of great candor

Lots of great talk about doing this, or doing that.... the truth is and we might as well except it, the old saying elections have consequences is true. This was a war cry during the 2016 election.... if trump is elected, he will get to pick SCOTUS nominees. This still did not stop the many who felt trump was going to be better then Clinton. Well, if any of your readers felt that Trump is better then Clinton, digest this.... face another fact.... this can happen at least one more time, perhaps more. I keep hearing how important it is to take the house.... SORRY, the Senate is much more important, if for any reason, its this one.

Kennedy is/was a conservative justice..... voted most of 95% with Rehnquist. He will be replaced with a conservative justice. The one saving grace is Chief Justice Roberts does feel the court is not a punching bag, but still is the ultimate in justice. He may just become the swing vote in some new cases.....

[Zoonart]

38. I would not bet my granddaughters'

reproductive futures on it.

[rtracey]

48. ok me either

My point is there is only 1 thing democrats can do to stop trump from loading the SCOTUS, and thats win the Senate in 2018 and 2020 the Executive branch.....

[BlueJac]

37. K&R

[Cha]

39. Head UP, susan collins! Fore!

Link to tweet

Oh and..

Link to tweet

[Garrett78]

49. That rule should have been applied before Trump took office.

He's been under investigation since well before being sworn in.

[Hekate]

53. We are about to find out, aren't we?

[Jakes Progress]

54. So what if it's a good argument.

Do you expect republicans to be swayed by logic, decency, patriotism, honesty?

They will do what they will do. Even is we get one republican or two (highly unlikely), they will have the usual democrats without conscience who will lay down for them in a pathetic effort to keep their butts in their padded office chairs.

The only good republican is an out of office republican.