Who else is listening and what do you make of it, him? He sounds very intelligent and reasonable. (not counting his comment about self-pardoning of course

Dude, he thinks sitting presidents shouldn't be investigated, which basically would put presidents above the law. That alone should disqualify him imo. Plus, he's rabidly anti-abortion. We don't need more religious loonies on the court.laklak wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 8:28 pmNo question he's a smart dude, he's got massive judicial chops, and is widely respected by the legal community. His positions (the ones I've read) seem well thought out and fair. And he'll be confirmed, even if by a margin of 1. Cue Democratic Doomsday Derangement Syndrome in 3.....2.....1....
It is beyond me why they're allowing the protesters, it's the most transparent and ridiculous political theater I've ever seen and I was around for Watergate so that's saying something.
He is Federalist Society approved. That would not be the case unless he were anti-abortion.laklak wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:05 pmHe said that Roe is "settled law", and the only case you could even stretch to an anti-abortion stance was his dissenting opinion that an illegal immigrant minor in detention did not have a right to abortion. That's a pretty specific ruling and does not address Roe-v-Wade in any way.
He said Congress should pass a law:laklak wrote: ↑Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:05 pmHe didn't say sitting presidents "shouldn't be investigated", he said "Congress could consider a law exempting a President, while in office, from criminal prosecution and investigation". He also said impeachment would remain an option even if that law was passed.
vox wrote: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17551584/b ... estigation
Kavanaugh wrote in an article for the Minnesota Law Review from 2009 that Congress should pass a law “exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel.”
“I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” Kavanaugh wrote. “We should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.” Furthermore, Kavanaugh opined that the “indictment and trial of a sitting President” would “cripple the federal government.”
Now, this is in the context of calling for Congress to change existing law — not for the Supreme Court to interpret it differently. However, these beliefs and opinions could well influence how Kavanaugh would rule on the major topics related to civil or criminal investigations that do end up reaching the Supreme Court.
Yeaahh, I don't think so....
I don't necessarily buy into party politics or see Democrats as good guys and Republicans as bad guys. The way I see it, we have a cultural divide between secular liberalism and religious conservatism. Secular liberalism leads to western, and eventually northern Europe, while religious conservatism leads to third world misery, poverty, bigotry, tribalism, etc.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests