Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Justice Kennedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice Kennedy. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Once Again, Democrats Are Purposely Misleading Us!

Fact Check: Did Brett Kavanaugh Really Say the President is Above the Law?

Fact Check: Did Brett Kavanaugh Really Say the President is Above the Law?
 
 Print
Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, are promulgating an argument that President Donald Trump chose Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh to shield himself from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
Schumer, Warren and some left-leaning media outlets including The NationThe Washington Post and NPR point to a 2009 Minnesota law review article in which Kavanaugh advocated for Congress to pass legislation that allows presidents to postpone civil lawsuits and facing criminal prosecution until after they leave or are removed from office.
Kavanaugh — who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia — contended that the president’s job is so all-encompassing it is not fair to him (or her) or the country to allow the chief executive to be subject to civil litigation or prosecution while in office.
“It would be appropriate for Congress to enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against presidents, like certain members of the military, be deferred while the President is in office,” Kavanaugh wrote.
He added with regards to criminal investigations that they are so fraught with becoming political in nature, it is also best to postpone them.
TRENDING: Mexico Creates ‘Police Force’ to Stop Illegals from Crossing Its Southern Border
“Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving around a President are inevitably politicized by both their supporters and critics,” Kavanaugh explained. “As I have written before, ‘no Attorney General or special counsel will have the necessary credibility to avoid the inevitable charges that he is politically motivated — whether in favor of the President or against him, depending on the individual leading the investigation and its results.’”
The judge argued that allowing a sitting president to be criminally prosecuted, would “cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function,” both internationally and domestically.
Kavanaugh pointed out that the Constitution provides the proper remedy for a president believed to be guilty of wrongdoing: impeachment.
“If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available,” he wrote. “In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions.”

Do you think Trump chose Kavanaugh to try to protect himself?

   
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
In his article, Kavanaugh recounted his advocacy for Congress to pass legislation shielding the president is based on his experience as a member Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s legal team in the 1990s, as well as serving on George W. Bush’s White House staff the following decade.
Starr was commissioned by Congress to investigate White Water allegations against then President Bill Clinton. The investigation later expanded to include charges of perjury against Clinton in relation to a sexual harassment civil suit brought by Paula Jones.
Clinton was ultimately impeached by the House of Representatives, but the Senate voted not to convict.
Kavanaugh wrote that, looking back, it would have been better for the country if Clinton was not subject to the independent counsel investigation.
At a media availability on Tuesday, Schumer accused Trump of choosing Kavanaugh in order to “protect (himself) from the Mueller investigation.”
RELATED: Melania Steals the Show with Incredible Outfit at SCOTUS Announcement
The minority leader continued, “Not only did Mr. Kavanaugh say the president should not be subpoenaed, he said a president should not be investigated. Mr. Kavanaugh, is the president above the law?”
In an interview on MSNBC, Schumer further stated, “He has said the president shouldn’t be investigated. How is he going to react if Mueller needs a subpoena, if Mueller needs some other action?”
Similarly, Warren tweeted on Tuesday that Kavanaugh is there to “protect (Trump’s) back if he gets into serious criminal trouble. Not on my watch.”
But is this true? Did Kavanaugh really say that the president is above the law?
Not quite.
In fact, here’s what he did say in the same article:
“One might raise at least two important critiques of these ideas. The first is that no one is above the law in our system of government. I strongly agree with that principle. But it is not ultimately a persuasive criticism of these suggestions. The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.”
Here, in his own words, Kavanaugh specifically says that the president is not above the law.
Schumer and Warren apparently are looking to the hypothetical scenario in which Mueller would either subpoena or even criminally indict Trump, and the president would refuse to comply.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the matter of whether a sitting president can be criminally prosecuted, but the Justice Department has issued legal opinion memos(during the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton) determining the chief executive cannot.
In May, Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani told CNN that Mueller’s team acknowledged it “can’t indict” the president.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein acknowledged that same month that the “Department of Justice has in the past, when the issue arose, has opined that a sitting president cannot be indicted.”
If the matter ever came before the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh would be one of nine justices ruling on it.
Since he was advocating for Congress to change the law, it is not clear how he would rule on the matter based on current law, or if his would be the deciding vote, or if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who Kavanaugh would replace, would have ruled differently.
Therefore, it seems Schumer and Warren’s argument that Trump is trying to protect himself and be “above the law” by choosing Kavanaugh is tenuous at best.
Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

Thursday, July 5, 2018

Courts Interpret The Law And Make Sure It Is Constitutional. They Don't Make (Or Should Not) Law!

What The Courts Are For

Ben Shapiro
|
Posted: Jul 04, 2018 12:01 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
What The Courts Are For
  
Democrats are in a state of sheer panic.
They're panicking because last week, Justice Anthony Kennedy -- a reliable vote in favor of certain leftist priorities including abortion and same-sex marriage -- announced that he will step down from the Supreme Court, leaving President Trump a second selection. This apparently will lead to the end of a free America. According to Jeffrey Toobin of CNN, the remade Supreme Court will spell doom: "Abortion illegal, doctors prosecuted, gay people barred from restaurants, hotels,  stores; African-Americans out of elite schools, gun control banned in 50 states, the end of regulatory state."
None of this is true, of course. It simply demonstrates the wild overreach to which the left has subjected the judicial branch to date.
The judicial branch was never meant to act as a superlegislature, using the verbiage of the Constitution in order to implement preferred policy prescriptions. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton expressed the idea well: "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." Substituting will for judgment would make the case for utterly dissolving the judicial branch.
Yet, according to the Democrats, the Supreme Court should exercise will instead of judgment. The role of the court, according to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is to help expedite change in our society: "Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions." Justice Elena Kagan believes the same thing, which is why she constantly describes the Constitution as "abstract," leaving her room to interpret it as poetry rather than statute.
This is why Democrats celebrate obviously superlegal decisions like Roe v. Wade: There is no right to abortion in the Constitution, but they would prefer not to battle that issue out at the electoral level. The Supreme Court allows them to hand down their policy from the mountaintop without having to subject those policies to public scrutiny.
And  that means that any reversal of such policy by a Supreme Court that actually reads the Constitution as it was written, is a threat to Democratic hegemony. Were President Trump to appoint an originalist to the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade would surely die, but that wouldn't make abortion illegal -- the issue would have to be put before the American public. Affirmative action from state schools would end, but African-Americans wouldn't be barred from attending elite institutions -- such a bar would remain illegal. Gays across the country would not suddenly find themselves barred from public restaurants -- it's unlikely the Supreme Court would rule such action legal, and even if it were to do so, virtually no establishments across the country would start asking about sexual orientation at the door.


In the end, the Democrats' obsession with the Supreme Court says more about them than about the role of the court. It says that they don't believe their policies are popular enough to win the country over at the electoral level. If the judiciary should be returned to its role of ruling by judgment rather than will, the will of the people might be heard once again -- and it wouldn't be friendly to Democrats. Democrats know it. Hence the panic.

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

The Swords/Insults/Insinuations Coming Out Against Barrett




Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee Sept. 6, 2017 (C-SPAN screenshot)
Judge Amy Coney Barrett testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee Sept. 6, 2017 (C-SPAN screenshot)
Among the four U.S. Supreme Court candidates interviewed at the White House, a former law clerk to Antonin Scalia known as a devout, pro-life Catholic appears to be drawing the most fire from Democrats, who clearly are worried about a generational shift of the court to the right in the wake of Anthony Kennedy’s retirement.
An MSNBC analyst is among many who have tried to paint U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett as an extremist, charging in an appearance on “Hardball” that she is associated with a “hate group.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. (Photo: Screenshot/MSNBC)
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. (Photo: Screenshot/MSNBC)
However, political analyst Zerlina Maxwell was basing her characterization of the non-profit legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom on a designation by the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center, which affixes its hate label on groups that support traditional marriage.
Maxwell, calling Barrett “very Catholic,” said Monday the departure of Kennedy, the swing vote in many landmark cases between the court’s evenly divided right and left, puts “voting rights, women’s rights, workers’ rights, affirmative action” and other issues on the line.
She said Democrats should make every effort to prevent Republicans from confirming “a very extreme or conservative person” such as Barrett.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., already has voiced his opposition to Barrett, who was famously derided for her Catholic faith by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., during a 2017 confirmation hearing for her nomination to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Schumer pointed to Barrett’s pro-life views and her disagreement with the court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act.
“The bottom line: Judge Barrett has given every indication that she will be an activist judge on the Court,” Schumer wrote. “If chosen as the nominee, she will be the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and to strike down pre-existing conditions protections in the ACA.”
In a contentious hearing for her nomination to the 7th Circuit Court eight months ago, Feinstein, D-Calif., told Barrett “the dogma lives loudly within you,” contending her writings indicated her religious beliefs would prevail over the law.
Barrett and her husband are the parents of seven children and belong to a charismatic Catholic group called People of Praise. The Catholic League challenged critics who describe the group as a cult, pointing out that, among other things, it “operates interracial schools and camps, and provides for many family outings; members often travel together.”
“Is it a Catholic fringe group? No, for if it were, Pope Francis would not have welcomed it in June: he celebrated with them, and others, the 50th anniversary of the Catholic charismatic renewal; the event drew over 30,000 people from 128 countries.”
‘Fight of our lives’
On Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., dispatched a video via Twitter in which she declared Democrats are in “the fight of our lives.”
“Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement means that women’s health, equal marriage, and civil rights are all at risk. This is the fight of our lives. If you want to be in this fight, now is the time — join us.”

The other judges the president is reported to have interviewed Monday were Brett Kavanaugh, 53, of the District of Columbia Circuit and 6th Circuit judges Raymond Kethledge, 51, and Amul Thapar, 49.
National Review columnist David French came to Barrett’s defense Tuesday, tweeting that Barrett’s “religious life is similar to lives lived by millions of American Christians.”
“Any religious test imposed against her would betray the Constitution and break trust with America’s Christian citizens,” he wrote.
Andrew Stoltmann, a Chicago-based attorney and an adjunct securities law professor at Northwestern University’s School of Law in Chicago, argued in a FoxNews.com column that while Barrett’s nomination “would likely cause the most vicious confirmation hearing since that for Justice Clarence Thomas, it would be well worth it for conservative members of Congress who provide President Trump his legislative base.”
Barrett’s “conservative credentials are impeccable, he wrote, and she was already confirmed by the Senate by a 55-43 vote for her seat on the 7th Circuit, securing the votes of moderate Democrats such as Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana.
With a slim 51-49 margin in the Senate and the absence of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who is battling brain cancer, Trump may need the help of Democratic senators in states he won in 2016.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said in an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that a “candidate for this important position who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me, because that would indicate an activist agenda that I don’t want to see a judge have.”
And Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has been a supporter of abortion rights.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2018/07/dems-slap-splc-hate-smear-on-trump-court-finalist/#tIckhQqWbz7hLc5s.99