- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Brett Kavanaugh needs to clarify his opinion on this
Posted on 7/10/18 at 10:02 am to Placebeaux
Posted on 7/10/18 at 10:02 am to Placebeaux
My suggestion to everyone, especially those that are going to have to discuss this with those on the left, GO READ THE ACTUAL ARTICLE:
Minnesota Law Review Article
The media is pulling one line out of a 33-page article and drawing illegitimate conclusions about Kavanaugh's position. It's irresponsible yet not all unexpected.
Two major points that immediately tears down the left's position:
(1) Kavanaugh explicitly states that he believes Congress should make a law that defers civil or criminal investigation of a President until after his Presidency. He states that under or current laws THIS IS NOT THE CASE. He is not trying to interpret Constitutional authority, or lack there of, he is making a Congressional suggestion.
(2) Kavanaugh clearly states that the Constitution already provides an avenue for Presidential investigation in matters of criminal misconduct through the Impeachment Process so that any new statutory law created by Congress that defers criminal and civil investigation would not affected matters deemed a threat to the nation.
Minnesota Law Review Article
The media is pulling one line out of a 33-page article and drawing illegitimate conclusions about Kavanaugh's position. It's irresponsible yet not all unexpected.
Two major points that immediately tears down the left's position:
(1) Kavanaugh explicitly states that he believes Congress should make a law that defers civil or criminal investigation of a President until after his Presidency. He states that under or current laws THIS IS NOT THE CASE. He is not trying to interpret Constitutional authority, or lack there of, he is making a Congressional suggestion.
(2) Kavanaugh clearly states that the Constitution already provides an avenue for Presidential investigation in matters of criminal misconduct through the Impeachment Process so that any new statutory law created by Congress that defers criminal and civil investigation would not affected matters deemed a threat to the nation.
1
Posted on 7/10/18 at 12:02 pm to Antonio Moss
Yep
This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or
1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the
President should be required to shoulder the same obligations
that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake.
Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly
would have been better off if President Clinton could have
focused on Osama bin Laden24 without being distracted by the
Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminalinvestigation
offshoots.25 To be sure, one can correctly say that
President Clinton brought that ordeal on himself, by his answers
during his deposition in the Jones case if nothing else.
And my point here is not to say that the relevant actors—the
Supreme Court in Jones, Judge Susan Webber Wright, and Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr—did anything other than
their proper duty under the law as it then existed.26 But the
law as it existed was itself the problem, particularly the extent
to which it allowed civil suits against presidents to proceed
while the President is in office.
This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or
1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the
President should be required to shoulder the same obligations
that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake.
Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly
would have been better off if President Clinton could have
focused on Osama bin Laden24 without being distracted by the
Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminalinvestigation
offshoots.25 To be sure, one can correctly say that
President Clinton brought that ordeal on himself, by his answers
during his deposition in the Jones case if nothing else.
And my point here is not to say that the relevant actors—the
Supreme Court in Jones, Judge Susan Webber Wright, and Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr—did anything other than
their proper duty under the law as it then existed.26 But the
law as it existed was itself the problem, particularly the extent
to which it allowed civil suits against presidents to proceed
while the President is in office.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News