Posted on 09/06/2018 4:23:10 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
On Wednesday, we learned from Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, under questioning from Democratic senators:
He cannot say whether a president can promise a pardon in exchange for a witness’s silence.
He won’t say whether the president is subject to a subpoena to give live testimony in an ongoing criminal matter.
He cannot say whether firing a prosecutor looking into the president’s wrongdoing (akin to the Saturday Night Massacre) is acceptable, even though he opined on the subject in 1998.
He refuse to say whether a president can self-pardon.
He will not recuse himself from matters pertaining to the president’s status as, in effect, an alleged co-conspirator to defraud voters.
He would not answer a question from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) as to whether a president could, as President Trump did in deploring prosecution of Republican House members, use federal agencies to help friends and punish enemies.
This comes at a time when Bob Woodward’s book “Fear: Trump in the White House,” as well as an anonymous New York Times op-ed by a “senior official” portray the president as unhinged (especially over the Russia investigation), mentally unable to process and retain information, and driven by erratic, irrational instincts.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Kav is being made to run a tough gauntlet.
Never Trumper Jennfer Rubin doesn’t want a conservative SCOTUS Associate Justice.. if he’s nominated by President Trump.
So on that score, she sides with Democrats to get even. Oh well.
Jebbifer is a Cheap Labor Express propagandist.
The last thing she wants is an honest Supreme Court Justice that would uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.
The washington post arm of the democrat party doesn’t give a gnat’s ass about the constitution.
You can see those fake Republicans a mile away.
They smoke themselves out.
She’s a NeoCon who does not put America first.
You mean Republican turncoats.
Like the one who wrote that anonymous failing NYT op-ed blasting President Trump?
Jennifer Rubin is little better. It takes one to know one.
Trump's erratic irrational instincts explain how he got the air rights to Tiffany's so he could build Trump tower and how he got the best located Hotel in DC (the Old Post Office). Moon-barking mad the man is.
Severe Pearl Necklace strangulation on display here.
Yes, she’s in favor of constant US intervention overseas in countries where it makes no stinkin’ sense. If she considered herself or is considered by others a “conservative” because of this simple belief, I’ll be a socialist.
I am a neo-con. I just disagree with them about not backing our President.
Anyone who can’t... doesn’t belong in the conservative movement or on this forum.
So true.
Done in by her own hatred.
I hope she knows if she actually wrote like a real conservative journalist, the Washington Post would have no use for her and kick her to the curb tout de suite.
She’s a real pressitute.
So as Cruz pointed out, it’s all about the 2016 election and ousting Trump
The common factor in all of these terrible things listed by Ms. Rubin seems to be that Judge Kavanaugh won’t prejudge cases without hearing the facts and evidence in each particular case. The horror!
Liberals want an activist judge.
Kavanaugh doesn’t fit that bill so they will vote against him.
...all the right enemies.
Only time will tell if we’ll trade places with them.
I think he is a good man, and it’s fairly obvious by the idiotic grasping at straws measure they’re using.
It’s all they’ve got.
At first I thought that this grammatical train wreck of a sentence might be the fault of the original poster but when you go to the link it is actually in the WaPo.
What a sorry excuse for a fish wrap.
“He can’t say whether... he won’t say whether... he refuses to say whether...”
Let me say it again, these dimwits wouldn’t be able to tell you the difference between a search and a seizure, and they think they deserve an answer to hypothetical warrants and writs and charges that aren’t written yet.
Here’s one way that cases get to the Supreme Court:
- court rules for Party A. Party B appeals.
- appeals court rules for Party A again. Party B appeals again.
- appeals court rules for Party B, and sends it back down to the court that gave it to them.
- appeals court rules for Party A, Party B appeals.
etc, etc. Between remands and reversals and consecutive appeals and alternating appeals, you don’t know what the law is on a case from year to year or even month to month. Follow United States vs. Bullock if you like for an example. That’s back and forth five or six times over a three year period.
Hacks.
Lets get this over and get on to Ginsburg. That one will really make the lib’s lose it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.