Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Yet in the context of the Mueller investigation and the Trump presidency, a segment of Kavanaugh's speech -- the whole of which he later published as an article -- has become an exhibit in the early case for the grave danger that he poses to our republic. If Kavanaugh's writings on special counsel investigations really influenced Trump's decision to nominate him, then Trump is a bigger fool than I have imagined. Kavanaugh's writings on the subject don't clarify all of his views on the subject of the Mueller investigation. But they clarify certain big things, and those things are really not good for Donald Trump. Noah Feldman writes that "Properly understood, Kavanaugh's expressed views actually support the opposite conclusion" than the one to which many knees are jerking. Feldman is exactly right. In some respects, he actually understates the case.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

So, in a law review written in 1998 Kavanaugh proposed a special counsel legislation that looks substantially similar to the one Mueller currently works under. Then in another law review in 2009 he proposed legislation (as a matter of policy that temporarily exempts the Office of the President (then occupied by President Obama) from investigations.

Neither of those policy proposals have been enacted. Yet the idiot media thinks those policy proposals somehow trump Kavanaugh's fealty to the Constitution and precedent. Precedent that clearly states since Nixon that the Office of the President is not exempt from investigation and since Clinton can be drug into court.

Sounds like trumped up bovine fecal matter to me.

#1 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-10 11:03 PM | Reply

"Trump is a bigger fool than I have imagined."

How is that even possible for anyone with even a smidgen of imagination?

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2018-07-10 11:59 PM | Reply

Even without Kavanaugh the Catholic Republican contingent of the Supreme Court has a consistent track record of favoring Corporations over individual human beings and Republicans over Democrats, even religion over atheism, unless its Muslim. It is impossible to reconcile this behavior with the words in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Any literal interpretation of these founding documents preserves women and blacks as subservient citizens with no right to vote. The Scalia and Federalist Society only pretend to not want to legislate from the bench.

To the delight of the 1%, a 6-3 SCOTUS engaged in class warfare against all working people will remain a 6-3 majority. The fact that Obama never made a big public stink about this shows that he's really on the same side of this war, just like Trump and the Bush crime family.

Working hard to paralyze the Clinton administration (another advocate of cutting social security) during the Starr investigation, Kavanaugh seems to be inviting Congress to immunize the President against such investigations. That would be one step closer to King or Dictator.

#3 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-07-11 06:54 AM | Reply

To the delight of the 1%, a 6-3 SCOTUS...#3 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-07-11 06:54 AM
Where do you expect a 6-3 SCOTUS to come from? With Kennedy's departure, the SC will be 4-4 on most 'partisan' issues Kavanaugh would return it to 5-4. Which of those 4 liberal side judges do you expect to disappear, and when?

#4 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-07-11 07:54 AM | Reply

"Yet the idiot media thinks those policy proposals somehow trump Kavanaugh's fealty to the Constitution and precedent. Precedent that clearly states since Nixon that the Office of the President is not exempt from investigation and since Clinton can be drug into court."

YEah, the idiot media should ignore his written opinions. What a pile of crap.

"Which of those 4 liberal side judges do you expect to disappear, and when?"

Ginsburg, she's old and sick.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-11 12:06 PM | Reply

Trump obviously picked him for what he has written about previously about indicting a sitting President.

Did he write this or not?

"Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the President's focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President," Kavanaugh wrote.

He added: "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... The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility."

#6 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-07-11 12:47 PM | Reply

Did he write this or not?

Yes, as a policy proposal. Your clue on that is "Congress might consider a law." Since Congress has not considered such a law, his policy proposal is irrelevant.

#7 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-11 06:36 PM | Reply

"Congress might consider a law."

So basically he is saying he would favor such a law.

It not like the Federal Government hasn't been "crippled" before".

Shutting down the government also cripples the government. Think maybe they was pass a law preventing that?

Not likely.

And BTW-

The election of Trump also crippled the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility.

Donald Trump picked the judge who's most inclined to say the president can't be indicted.

That makes him look guilty.

#8 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-07-11 07:44 PM | Reply

So basically he is saying he would favor such a law.

Again, irrelevant.

#9 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-11 09:08 PM | Reply

slate.com

#10 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-07-11 11:20 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Guys, articles like this are ALL irrelevant. Once Hillary wins in 2020, Trump will become nothing but a distant nightmare, I promise....

But she is the only person that can defeat Trump. So do that.

#11 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-07-11 11:47 PM | Reply

slate.com
#10 | Posted by Alexandrite

Histrionics, typical Stern.

#12 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-12 12:02 AM | Reply

Myopia, typical et al.

#13 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-07-12 12:11 AM | Reply

Myopia? No. Realism, illuminated by the context and content of what Kavanaugh has actually said compared to the pundits on the same opinions. That analysis says the pundits are histrionic, hyperbolic and towing anti confirmation bumper sticker talking points. I've read Stern before, he's a "red light and siren" kind of guy, imo.

BTW, Alex, how many of Kavanaugh's actual judicial opinions have you read?

#14 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-12 12:29 AM | Reply

Here's a usatoday article. It's written at a third grade level, so you might actually understand it.

#15 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-07-12 12:40 AM | Reply

www.google.com

#16 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-07-12 12:40 AM | Reply

Pardon me but I'm not inclined to give credence to anonymously written articles from USA Today.

Can you answer the question?

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2018-07-12 01:06 AM | Reply

Ive read excerpts from a half dozen articles. Just like you.

#18 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2018-07-12 09:17 AM | Reply

"Yes, as a policy proposal. Your clue on that is "Congress might consider a law." Since Congress has not considered such a law, his policy proposal is irrelevant."

His belief that there ever should be a law exempting the President from obeying the law is why he should be but won't be rejected. His beliefs are relevant to his future decisions and it is just ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

#19 | Posted by danni at 2018-07-12 09:27 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort