• Democrat releases confidential emails showing Kavanaugh's racial profiling.
    97 replies, posted
This one? This view is not a rare view. The view is that the sitting president should be impeached first, because of what being the president entails. He can still be investigated and prosecuted after he is out of the position. This isn't some wacky weird view that only he holds. And now we're down to "b-b-b-b-but he's a conservative!". Thanks for playing.
Can - but won't - because he'll just be pardoned. That's the whole problem. That's also why they're pressing him damn hard on 'Can a president self-pardon'. If the President can self-pardon then no: He can't be investigated and prosecuted.
You have to be convicted to be pardoned. Following Kavanaugh's views on this, there is no problem, because he can only be charged and convicted AFTER he's impeached and can't pardon anyone. The only time this becomes an issue is if the president can be charged and convicted while he is president.
No, you don't. You can pardon any crimes, present or future. That's exactly what happened to Nixon. He was never convicted or even indicted but nonetheless he received and accepted a pardon for any and all crimes he committed while being in office.
I don't like Cory Booker at all and this is very clear 2020 political posturing but I'm glad he released these.
Did not know that. Thanks for the info.
That's why people are losing their damn minds over it. Because a President that can self-pardon has been given literally a license to break any federal laws he chooses without consequence. He is being his own judge and jury and finding himself guilty but unprosecutable as the State committed the crime and, now, the State has forgiven itself for committing the crime. That's also why they're hopping mad about Kavanuagh being picked out to more or less state 'the President has that power'.
A lot of people think peaceful protests should be illegal. I'm not saying his viewpoint that Trump should rule as a monarch is weird or unusual, I'm saying it's bad for the country. I don't even know what this means, and I'm not sure why you are trying to use dumb snipes like "gotcha" and "thanks for playing" as if you have convinced anyone in this thread that Kavanaugh wouldn't vote to overturn Roe vs Wade if he gets the opportunity.
I don't ever see the supreme court, no matter how conservative or liberal, saying that the president can pardon himself.
You never know with originalist justices like Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
If this is your theoretical, then the practical choice would be to oppose the appointment of a judge who believes that.
I'm gonna hold onto this post indefinitely. I don't want to. But I'll remember this, and your history of posts and which sides you chose since the nomination of Donald Trump. Just as a keepsake, Silence.
It's not possible to convince anyone in threads here. Especially when their logic is not based on actual rulings they have done or things they have said, but on "he's a conservative, so he's going to vote this way". At that point, it's not possible to convince someone because their issue isn't with a stance the person actually has, but on how they perceive the person's beliefs.
You're seeing Kavanaugh stating he has that power implicitly - he's stating directly that the President not only shouldn't be investigated but can't be convicted during his term in office and feels that the President's executive powers are absolute executive powers. Kavanaugh was chosen directly by Kennedy as his successor. That would mean Kennedy would likely agree with what Kavanaugh is going for here. Furthermore, Trump already has another loyalist on the bench. That's 2 of the 9 right out of the gate. All they need is a 5/4 decision and it's legal -- and Alito is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican who, former military, has a high opinion of the Executive's powers. If he votes in line to that it makes it already a 3/6 vote. Furthermore, nothing stops Congress from impeaching Justices who refuse to ratify the President's self-pardons beyond requiring a 3/4s majority -- and they're absolutely trying to get Justices to step down from the court as much as possible to get 'the fix in'.
Personally I see US v. Trump going 5/4 against Trump with Roberts joining the liberal justices, as chief justice he cares about the integrity, of the court.
I wouldn't put it against the GOP/RNC to effectively blackmail him into support by threatening his businesses and investments.
It's plenty possible to convince people in threads on Facepunch. It's just that the ones who actually need convincing are also the ones most likely to resist it no matter what. And because they keep resisting it they make up a disproportionate part of the posts in the section because, obviously, those that can be convinced are dealt with fairly quickly and thus make up a far smaller proportion of the section's posts.
I personally see it going 9/0 against Trump, 7/2 at the most. No way in hell he wins. Go ahead. I don't like Trump. There's your first one.
You don't have inalienable rights to air travel without being stopped and searched. All I'm saying is regional profiling immediately following 9/11 seems like a reasonable interim solution so long as they're working to implement a more sophisticated policy as a replacement.
lol, kavanaugh himself made the argument that conservative justices could vote to overturn Roe v Wade. This isn't my liberal bias it's the fucking truth. Even then my argument wasn't that he would do it because he is conservative, which is self-apparent, but because he drafted an op-ed expressing the opinion that it's not settled law.
Please justify why in the nine hells Kavanaugh, who has stated he is for exactly this sort of thing, would not at the very least dissent.
Who are the two in the 7/2?
Thomas and Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Alito are less conservative them them, and Roberts will be the new swing vote with Kennedy retired. Roberts is still pretty damn conservative most of the time so that's not great.
He very well states that he believes that it is settled law. You think he's lying, I don't think so. We've already established this. Where has he stated that he is for the president pardoning himself?
You have inalienable rights towards discrimination: Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations Articles 2, 7, 9, 13. Unless the US doesnt follow the UN's bill of rights, which is an even bigger issue.
Specifically I don't think it is settled law because he wrote an op-ed supporting the idea that it's not settled law. Before that I assumed he was being honest.
In all the places where he stated that he feels the Executive's powers are more or less unlimited and sacred.
Also please explain why it's wrong for me to assume he doesn't believe Roe vs Wade is settled law while also explaining why it's okay to assume he would rule against Trump.
UDHR is nonbinding. Sort of. It's complex. The US is a party to the ICCPR which has 2(1). We're bound in name by the ICCPR, but the US is highly averse to supranational legislation affecting its domestic law. It's submitted tons of RUDs on it. (reservations, understandings, and declarations, which, under Article 19 of the Vienna Convention, are permissible alterations of a state's obligations under the legislation. The US has a bunch regarding free speech, because our legal history surrounding free speech is quite different - in that we tend to protect much more offensive speech).
“But conservative” oh please enough of this absolute fucking trite Silence. Row vs Wade and reproductive rights are way more than “but conservatives!” And making it that simple is so intellectually dishonest no one should really need to lay out the a-b logic here.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.