Top Supreme Court prospect has argued presidents should not be distracted by investigations and laws

[DonViejo]

By Michael Kranish and Ann E. Marimow
June 29 at 6:37 PM

U.S. Circuit Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who is viewed as one of the leading contenders to replace him, has argued that presidents should not be distracted by civil lawsuits, criminal investigations or even questions from a prosecutor or defense attorney while in office.

Kavanaugh had direct personal experience that informed his 2009 article for the Minnesota Law Review: He helped investigate President Bill Clinton as part of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s team and then served for five years as a close aide to President George W. Bush.

Having observed the weighty issues that can consume a president, Kavanaugh wrote, the nation’s chief executive should be exempt from “time-consuming and distracting” lawsuits and investigations, which “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”

If a president were truly malevolent, Kavanaugh wrote, he could always be impeached.

Kavanaugh’s position that presidents should be free of such legal inquiries until after they leave office puts him on the record regarding a topic of intense interest to Trump — and could be a central focus of his confirmation hearing if Kavanaugh were nominated to succeed Kennedy, legal experts said.

more
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-supreme-court-prospect-has-argued-presidents-should-not-be-distracted-by-investigations-and-lawsuits/2018/06/29/2dd9c1cc-7baa-11e8-80be-6d32e182a3bc_story.html

[Raven123]

1. I read part of the article

I have trouble following the logic of an argument that Special Prosecutors are politically influenced and that we should rely on the power to impeach instead if there is concern about a crime.

I wonder if he feels the same way about a President who is being investigated for election fraud. His examples of Bush and Clinton are small potatoes. I think he assumes a Nixon like crime would be solved by Congress. Maybe in 2009, but not in 2018

[exboyfil]

2. This makes sense for the force Kennedy out scenario

Kennedy and Thomas both concurred on the Clinton v. Jones decision. It was 9-0. Ginsberg and Beyer are going to vote as before. The stakes of this case are so much greater than Whitewater (easily reaching Nixon levels). Any one who changes their mind on that decision is going to see incredible heat. Kennedy would not be willing to do it. Thomas on the other hand doesn't give a crap.