Brett Kavanaugh's remarks on Nixon case open new front in confirmation fight - Polidicks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-picks-remarks-on-nixon-case-open-new-front-in-confirmation-fight/2018/07/23/2ecd2a9a-8e99-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.83f312be74a9 Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh’s years-old remarks questioning the landmark ruling that forced President Richard M. Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes opened a new front in the battle over his confirmation, ensuring his views on executive power will square prominently in Senate hearings. Included in the thousands of pages turned over to the Senate Judiciary Committee this past weekend is a 1999 transcript of a panel discussion in which the future Supreme Court nominee opined whether the “tensions of the time led to an erroneous decision” in the case United States v. Nixon. Although Kavanaugh has defended the 1974 ruling in other remarks, Democrats have seized on his skepticism from nearly two decades ago to build a key argument against the nominee: That he won’t be a sufficient check on the president who appointed him. “If Kavanaugh would’ve let Nixon off the hook, what is he willing to do for President Trump?” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked Monday. Democrats have also focused on Kavanaugh’s rulings in favor of broad presidential power and his criticism of the independent counsel law to suggest that he would protect Trump from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe. The judge has been outspoken in saying, for instance, that he would “put the final nail in” the now-defunct independent counsel law. On the Nixon decision, Kavanaugh’s allies rallied to his defense. They pointed out that he had praised the unanimous ruling in the case — which forced Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes and ultimately led to his resignation — in other venues, such as a law review article in 1998 and a speech in 2016. The White House did not respond to questions about the views Kavanaugh expressed in the discussion. His supporters and former clerks have noted he has called United States v. Nixon one of the three “most significant cases in which the judiciary stood up to the president.” In addition to his comments on the Nixon ruling, Democrats also say Kavanaugh’s past interviews, writings and judicial opinions reveal a philosophy greatly deferential to the chief executive — a view that Schumer has called “almost monarchical.” “It is revelatory of his beliefs, and they fit a pattern that is deeply disturbing,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Monday.

Under no circumstances whatsoever should this, or any other, nominee be appointed to the Supreme Court while Donald Trump remains under federal investigation for crimes against the United States -- with the only exception being a sworn and binding agreement that any confirmation to the court will recuse themselves from ruling on any issues pertaining to this investigation. This will ultimately end up before the Supreme Court. Trump cannot be allowed to pack the court with loyalists before it does.

I'd hope United States v. Trump would be unanimous like Nixon, with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh recusing since they were appointed by him. Here's what Nixon's attorney had to say, will Giuliani top this The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.

Kavanaugh has stated that he believes that unanimous Nixon ruling was wrong, btw, which really just underscores how ridiculous this situation is lol "Hey, Congress, confirm this Supreme Court nominee who thinks that Presidents are immune from investigation and prosecution. It has nothing to do with Mueller's WITCH HUNT, I swear."

Donald J Trump has committed acts of treason against the United States, under absolutely no circumstances should any nomination made by him be even considered for confirmation, let alone a nominee who has openly stated that he intends to aid and abett his treason.

Though I don't trust him, the article says he's been positive about US v. Nixon in other statements, though he shouldn't be confirmed for even questioning it once. Brett's definitely getting confirmed, too good of an opportunity for the turtle. What's more interesting is if he becomes the first ever justice to be impeached for helping Trump.