Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Jennifer Rubin: confirming him as things currently stand would be constitutional malpractice.
Yes, Jennifer Rubin.
RogueAltGov Retweeted:
He can give more definitive answers. He can recuse himself. But confirming him as things currently stand would be constitutional malpractice.
Link to tweet
Opinions
Kavanaugh stumbled over two critical tripwires
By Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
September 5 at 1:39 PM
More than abortion or gun control or health care, what is at stake in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh is the security of our constitutional system and the rule of law. Weve not had such a Supreme Court battle in my lifetime because we have not had a president, even Richard Nixon, so dismissive of basic constitutional principles, coupled with a docile majority party in the Senate and a nominee who is another in the line of sure thing nominees wholl support the views of the president nominating him or her (this goes for both sides). We have a president who may be allowed to pick a Supreme Court justice that will facilitate his evisceration of constitutional boundaries. That is why the Kavanaugh situation is unique and why we cannot treat it like just another court fight.
Kavanaugh made the problem much worse by his refusal to answer two critical questions whether a president can self-pardon and whether a president must respond to a subpoena. ... There was this exchange:
And then Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked if a president could self-pardon. Again Kavanaugh demurred: The question of self-pardons is something Ive never analyzed. It is a question that Ive not written about. It is a question therefore that is a hypothetical question that I cant begin to answer, in this context as a sitting judge and as a nominee to the Supreme Court. Why not? Hes not being asked about a specific case. He would not even say whether the president in effect could give a bribe promising immunity if a witness wouldnt testify against him.
It is mind-boggling, in one sense, that a federal judge doesnt have a concrete answer as to whether the president can shred the Constitution in this way. Can a president bribe someone? is not a hard question. Does our constitutional system permit the president to go on a crime spree and pardon himself? shouldnt be up for debate. And yet Kavanaugh ducks answering.
There are two possibilities here he doesnt want to answer and alienate one side or the other, or he really could facilitate a constitutional crisis. No senator, Democrat or Republican, should gamble that he really in his heart doesnt believe these things are permissible. You can gamble with many things, but the future integrity of the Supreme Court should not be one of them.
....
Jennifer Rubin writes reported opinion from a center-right perspective for The Washington Post. Follow https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger
Kavanaugh stumbled over two critical tripwires
By Jennifer Rubin
Opinion writer
September 5 at 1:39 PM
More than abortion or gun control or health care, what is at stake in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh is the security of our constitutional system and the rule of law. Weve not had such a Supreme Court battle in my lifetime because we have not had a president, even Richard Nixon, so dismissive of basic constitutional principles, coupled with a docile majority party in the Senate and a nominee who is another in the line of sure thing nominees wholl support the views of the president nominating him or her (this goes for both sides). We have a president who may be allowed to pick a Supreme Court justice that will facilitate his evisceration of constitutional boundaries. That is why the Kavanaugh situation is unique and why we cannot treat it like just another court fight.
Kavanaugh made the problem much worse by his refusal to answer two critical questions whether a president can self-pardon and whether a president must respond to a subpoena. ... There was this exchange:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: So you cant give me an answer on whether a president has to respond to a subpoena from a court of law?
Kavanaugh: My understanding is that youre asking me to give my view on a potential hypothetical, and that is something that each of the eight justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court, when they were sitting in my seat, declined to decide potential hypothetical cases.
And then Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked if a president could self-pardon. Again Kavanaugh demurred: The question of self-pardons is something Ive never analyzed. It is a question that Ive not written about. It is a question therefore that is a hypothetical question that I cant begin to answer, in this context as a sitting judge and as a nominee to the Supreme Court. Why not? Hes not being asked about a specific case. He would not even say whether the president in effect could give a bribe promising immunity if a witness wouldnt testify against him.
It is mind-boggling, in one sense, that a federal judge doesnt have a concrete answer as to whether the president can shred the Constitution in this way. Can a president bribe someone? is not a hard question. Does our constitutional system permit the president to go on a crime spree and pardon himself? shouldnt be up for debate. And yet Kavanaugh ducks answering.
There are two possibilities here he doesnt want to answer and alienate one side or the other, or he really could facilitate a constitutional crisis. No senator, Democrat or Republican, should gamble that he really in his heart doesnt believe these things are permissible. You can gamble with many things, but the future integrity of the Supreme Court should not be one of them.
....
Jennifer Rubin writes reported opinion from a center-right perspective for The Washington Post. Follow https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1552 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (14)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jennifer Rubin: confirming him as things currently stand would be constitutional malpractice. (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
Sep 2018
OP
SamKnause
(13,108 posts)1. The republicans don't give a fuck about the constitution.
They will protect their party at all costs.
They will protect their corporate donors at all costs.
They worship money, power, and control over others.
They won't stop until the U.S. is turned into a Prosperity Gospel Theocracy run by corporations.
They are the greatest threat this country has ever faced !!!
They would not care if Trump ordered a nuclear attack on one of our allies.
They will support anything he does to stay in power.
They are EVIL LIARS !!!!!!!!!
Solly Mack
(90,778 posts)2. Republicans are snickering themselves to sleep
Fuckers. They don't care.
They don't give a fuck about the majority of Americans.