Kavanaugh is daring the Senate to gamble with the Constitution

The Washington Compost ^ | September 6 at 9:15 AM | Jennifer Rubin

[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.

[fatman6502002]

This guy Rubin, is a real dummy.

[taxcontrol]

The Constitution provides the enumerated and exclusive power of the pardon to the President. There are only TWO limitations.

1) it must be a federal crime
2) can not pardon impeachments

Personally, I would like to see the power limited to CONVICTION of federal crimes. That would prevent the use of a "pre" crime pardon. It would also work against a self pardon as the President (most likely) would be impeached before being tried and convicted of a federal crime.

[preferred changes in bold]

"shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for conviction of offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment".

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Hey Jenny, do you know how Thomas, or Roberts, or Alito, or Gorsuch would rule on any of those exact same issues? I suspect not, because none of them have been asked about or opined on those issues previously. Just like Kavanaugh....

By her twisted logic, no Justices should ever be confirmed because we're "gambling with the Constitution" by not nailing them down on every issue before they get confirmed.

What a shallow-thinking twit.

[lastchance]

The article is a piece of fiction that deserves to be binned.

[goldstategop]

Democrats are in favor of state decis - as long as they like it.

If they don’t, they battle to overturn it to ge a decision they like.

No, I don’t regard Roe and Obergefell as “settled law” just because liberals their preferred reading of the Constitution is holy writ.

[NutsOnYew]

Surely, based on these basic constitutional principles, he should be able to give the Senate some comfort that he would not allow the president who nominated him to bribe cronies with promised pardons, evade a lawful subpoena, fire prosecutors, instruct the Justice Department to prosecute only Democrats, shut down an investigation into his own criminality, and pardon himself (as well as his family and associates, I presume).

This is great. You can tell he wrote this rant all in one breath and felt great when he re-read it. What a clown.

[amihow]

Yes, he is acting like a true jurist.

Opinions written or spoken as a citizen or as an advocate attorney are not going to necessarily be opinions issued as a judge, who has examined facts and law. Duh.

[rollo tomasi]

Kavanaugh at worst is a Kennedy clone that worships "precedence" (Which has no meaning/fundamentals, just opinions out of infallible asses).

If I was a Democrat, he would be the best of Trump's lot to choose from as far as keeping their sacred sacraments/stare decisis. Dems have to put on a show for their ignorant base though. Trump could of chosen more hardcore proponents of Natural Law as the way Christ intended.

[familyop]

Jennifer Rubin should shut up.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Bowers v. Hardwick was the law from 1986 to 2003. That’s longer than either Lawrence v. Texas or Obergefell has been in effect. If it was okay for the Court to toss Bowers because it changed its mind, the same should apply to Lawrence or Obergefell.

[Clutch Martin]

If you think about it, activist judges from SCOTUS on down, are unconstitutional.

[rollo tomasi]

Thomas was a known entity due to Senator Danforth while Alito publically expressed his disgust about the opinions from the Warren Court and other progressive Courts.

Gorsuch is somewhat "wiggly" still. Fact is, Dem Presidents' batting average of late is 1.00. Repubs in the last 60 years or so have an average around .350.

Look at the mess Eisenhower (Brennan, Potter Stewart), Nixon (Burger, Blackmun, and Powell), Ford (Stevens), Reagan (O'Connor and Kennedy), and Bush I (Souter) made. Bush II (Roberts ????) and Trump's appointments are still up in the air. Why in hades are democrats ideologically "perfect" with their Supreme Court picks?

[Robert DeLong]

I’m beginning to think Jennfer Rubin is a Democrat, as she shows animus to anything Republican.

[vigilence]

Ms. Rubin’s passion for the Senate to reject Kavanaugh has exposed her for what she is, a partisan hack posing as a journalist. She knows full well that Kavanaugh, as other nominees before him going back to Ginsburg, will not answer suppositions or become embroiled in politics. To do so would be friends for rejection. And as of now they have none.

[jetson]

Seeing these idiot Liberals asking the questions that were prewritten for them was embarrassing. They could not follow a word Kavanagh was answering. Mouths open like Prozac zombies.

[jimfree]

She is profoundly ignorant for her age.

[Jack Hammer]

Crock of sh*t from the Post.

[trebb]

Pathetic how they turn, "I cannot positively answer such a hypothetical..." into, "Can't tell uss..."

The WaaaaaaaPo is trying to out-CNN CNN