What will last of Trump?

[GMDino]

NEWS: Kavanaugh bluntly said he wanted to overturn SCOTUS ruling upholding constitutionality of independent counsel. There’s difference bw independent counsel and special counsel (like Mueller) - but it’s bound to spark questions about how he views Mueller https://t.co/HWlcOiQVGP

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) July 18, 2018

Quote:Speaking to a conservative group in 2016, Kavanaugh bluntly said he wanted to "put the final nail" in a 1988 Supreme Court ruling. That decision, known as Morrison v. Olson, upheld the constitutionality of provisions creating an independent counsel under the 1978 Ethics in Government Act -- the same statute under which Ken Starr, for whom Kavanaugh worked, investigated President Bill Clinton. The law expired in 1999, when it was replaced by the more modest Justice Department regulation that governs special counsels like Robert Mueller.


The comments are certain to get new attention amid his confirmation proceedings given that President Donald Trump and his campaign remain under investigation by Mueller -- and alongside the skepticism Kavanaugh previously expressed over whether a sitting president can be indicted.

Whether that means Kavanaugh views Mueller's appointment and investigation itself as unconstitutional is unclear, given the special counsel works directly for the Justice Department under a different set of rules that governed the independent counsel.

Yet the 2016 remarks, which have not been previously reported, are consistent with Kavanaugh's judicial record expressing disdain for the Morrison ruling.

Asked at an American Enterprise Institute event in March 2016 if he could think of a case that deserved to be overturned, Kavanaugh said: "Yes." Asked if he could specify a case, Kavanaugh first responded: "No," prompting laughter from the audience.

He then volunteered this: "Actually, I'm going to say one. Morrison v. Olson. It's been effectively overruled, but I would put the final nail in," according to a video of the event.

There are important differences between the regulation governing Mueller and the independent counsel law. Unlike the independent counsel, Mueller reports directly to the Justice Department, and has less independence. But the special counsel cannot be removed without "good cause" under regulations that may withstand legal scrutiny because of the Morrison decision.

At the core of the 1988 ruling is the idea that Congress can create an independent investigative mechanism within the executive branch and insulate that investigation from direct control by the President -- by preventing the removal of the independent counsel except for good cause. Although a court of appeals panel had struck down the independent counsel law, the Supreme Court upheld it, concluding that it was not inconsistent with the separation of powers for Congress to create such a check on the President.

But conservatives like Kavanaugh have long celebrated the solo dissent of the late Justice Antonin Scalia from that ruling -- and the "unitary executive" theory it embraces, under which it is argued that it is unconstitutional for any executive branch officer to be insulated from presidential control.

If Kavanaugh provided a fifth vote for overturning the Morrison case, it could have implications for the Mueller probe, according to legal experts. While the independent counsel law expired in 1999, the regulations governing Mueller's appointment as a special counsel, like the independent counsel law itself, prohibit Mueller from being fired without good cause.

It's uncertain whether Kavanaugh's hostility to the Morrison case means that he would view Mueller's appointment itself as unconstitutional -- or if he simply believes that Mueller could be fired for any or no reason.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-19-2018, 01:55 PM)Dill Wrote: Each side wants the other side to nominate a Souter, neither wants to nominate one.

Determining judicial philosophy isn't so far from predicting how someone will vote. And NO ONE is going to nominate someone or vote for him/her without considering both philosophy and past rulings by that person--even if no one can really predict/control what an individual will do once nominated.

My concern here is that the Federalist Society has put together a list of nominees with the goal of, among other things, undoing R v Wade. So a special interest group will be assuming a responsibility for nomination which the president has abdicated.  It is probably in his power to so abdicate the responsibility, but again that is the problem with giving this type of person that kind of power.

Also, the reference to "settled law" is not about picking cases to be off limits. It is about respect for precedent and resisting special interests.

Let's just say that a 5-4 liberal lean would not bother me. And yes, quite a lot could go wrong with a 7-2 liberal court. I have lots of great ideas about what should be law, but some would produce great resistance and problems if enacted, and so, great as they are, are unrealistic. Resistance and accountability are important to crafting workable laws. It's not clear a 7-2 court would have that. Further, a court which appears to represent a party de-legitimizes a branch of government. I take checks and balances seriously.

I agree that precedent is very important, if for no other reason than you can't just keep going over the same thing time and again.  I don't think Roe gets touched.  In the end I just don't think they want to deal with what would come after.  I don't think abortion should be legal and yet when I am honest with myself I cringe at the thought of Roe being overturned.  Which pretty much makes me a monster and or a hypocrite.  It's one thing to think it should be legal, and quite another to think it should be illegal but you don't want what will result.    

And of course I take you 100% on your belief of a balanced court.  I've never  understood people who argue against someone when they say what they believe.

[Griever]

his love for that sweet piece of ass, ivanka

[Dill]

(07-19-2018, 02:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps the confusion comes from the knee-jerk reaction to label him in a derogatory as soon as he completes each act instead of looking at the overall picture. You didn't answer the question. Which is he:

Nationalist?
Traitor?
Nazi?
Bigot?

LOL no, you are trying to gaslight the wrong person. The confusion comes from a guy who contradicts his own state department almost weekly, and has a staff of people explaining today what he meant by yesterday's tweet, denying he said what he said, crying fake news when the facts are reported.   "Looking at the overall picture" shows a pattern of unforced errors on the international stage and a daily ration of vicious tweets, lies, and special access for one news organization, not a guy who makes an occasional mistake. That is who you have CHOSEN to defend in this forum, as you, along with the rest of the Trump surrogates, continue to blame the messenger.

It is you who wants to separate each act from the overall picture, in hopes some one thing will look good if we only frame out the chaos (lol the Singapore "success"?)

You ask "which" is he? Either/or. As if there is great confusion and no more than subjective valuation swirling around the media if one journalist calls Trump a "nationalist" one day and another calls him  "bigot" the next. As if that were like calling him a John Bircher one day and a Communist the next. But none of your terms is mutually exclusive, contrary or contradictory if applied to one person. E.g., one could hardly be a Nazi without being both a bigot and a nationalist.  And when nationalists put ideology before country, then they can be nazitraitornationalistbigots all at once (as many Germans now think Hitler was).

There were only two options in your original question. But to answer anyway, having rejected your either/or frame: in my view Trump, despite wanting the military parades his dictator friends enjoy, is too undisciplined to be a Nazi. He is certainly a nationalist and a bigot--and a misogynist.  It remains to be seen if he is a traitor.  In his position, his bad judgment can certainly harm the country, but that alone would not make him a traitor. Collusion with Russia--before and after the election--might. I haven't called him a traitor yet, though, have I? If someone else has let's take a look, agree on the definitional criteria and then apply them to the case.

In any case, Trump's actions in Helsinki and before do warrant a national discussion regarding his fitness to be in charge of national security. That is, increasingly, becoming a bipartisan view.

Most telling are the options you left out--incompetent, grifter, narcissistic, way out of his depth, pathological liar who lives a lie with his supporters as he does with Melania. Inside the bubble, where no one reads the fake news, this is only made up labeling and name calling motivated by some mysterious, inexplicable Trump hatred. And even if it's not made up--"We don't care"--as Trump supporters scream at his rallies. But outside the bubble, Trump's actions ground every one of these labels. They aren't the result of "knee-jerk reaction" but Trump's real actions--in his tweets, his speeches, his unforced errors recorded for all to see.  If a reporter here or a Congressman there goes hyperbole, that doesn't cancel out the record.

[Dill]

(07-19-2018, 02:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I agree that precedent is very important, if for no other reason than you can't just keep going over the same thing time and again.  I don't think Roe gets touched.  In the end I just don't think they want to deal with what would come after.  I don't think abortion should be legal and yet when I am honest with myself I cringe at the thought of Roe being overturned.  Which pretty much makes me a monster and or a hypocrite.  It's one thing to think it should be legal, and quite another to think it should be illegal but you don't want what will result.    

And of course I take you 100% on your belief of a balanced court.  I've never  understood people who argue against someone when they say what they believe.

Definitely a MONSTER! LOL. No seriously, Mike. It sounds like we share the same dilemma. We'd like the law to be one way but understand how unjust and counter productive that might be if achieved in total disregard to others input and rights. That is my "Madisonian" conservative streak coming out, I guess.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(07-18-2018, 12:26 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: If RBG or Breyer or both retire, his presidency will have a PROFOUND impact on the country.

Those who hate Trump will say he is damaging the country and those who love Trump will say he's making the country great again.

Anything Trump does can and will be fixed. As long as Trump keeps nominating Right leaning Justices, I'm good.

I voted(write in vote) for the Constitutionalist Darrel Castle and will vote for the Constitutionalist in 2020 whoever it is. They bring too much religion into their politics for my taste but I like pretty much everything else they bring to the table.

You may think an Independant Fundamental Baptist wants more religion in politics but I don't and pretty much everyone in my Independant Fundamental Baptist church is like me. We believe in the separation of church and state and we know religion must stay out of politics.

Oh and you are not going to change my mind although I'm sure some will try, lol.

I voted for Castle as well......but I find myself looking more into the American Solidarity Party these days myself.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(07-18-2018, 12:40 PM)Benton Wrote: I think it matters. It was a reflection of a growing chunk of the population that's not in mainstream America. They don't go to Disneyland, can't afford a car and they're tired of having to take off early from one of their two jobs to go apply for food stamps. And thanks to the mudslinging and impotence of the two major parties, they'll latch on to anyone who says they can fix it.

Which is incredibly dangerous.

This guy gets it......