âIf the President has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the President may decline to follow the law unless and until a final Court order dictates otherwise,â Kavanaugh said in an opinion the same year.
This is absurd. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, but according to Kavanaugh, everything they pass is basically discretionary, depending upon the whims of the President. And SCOTUS will have to be called in -potentially on every bill - to referee. Seems a bit too close to a monarch for comfort. Especially when the king is insane.
How does this comport with the Presidentâs oath and obligation to âfaithfully enforce the laws?â
This position alone should disqualify Kavanaugh. It is the courtsâ job, and particularly the Supreme Courtâs job to determine the constitutionality of any law passed by Congress, it is not the Presidentâs job! The President may sign or veto a bill passed by Congress, his is not to pull it apart on allegedly Constitutional grounds.
Iâve learned just enough about ConLaw â just enough-- to know this fucker is crazy.
âUnderstanding the nature of his involvement in those actions is absolutely critical to evaluating the type of justice he would be on the bench,â Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told CNN. âIf Republicans continue to stonewall, the American people will wonder what they are hiding.â
LOLOLOL
The American people know exactly what the Republicans are hiding. And that which is being hidden is exactly what the Republican (legislative) majority want on the bench at every level. And the Republicans have no shame to be called upon to make them behave any differently.
Oh please, If the president has a constitutional objection, he vetoes the damn bill. Or he enforces it (or not, even) until a challenge comes up through the courts. This I learned in 8th grade Civics class. See, this Supreme Courting thing isnât that hard. Until the stupid kicks in.
I had actually been fairly ho-hum about Kavanaugh as a nominee, other than a baseline assumption that heâs a Trump appointee so heâs probably shit. But this is do-not-pass-go-do-not-collect-$200 stuff.
It would be disqualifying for anybody who wanted to serve in government at any level, but most of all it would be disqualifying for someone who would serve on the body which actually decides what is and is not Constitutional.
Dereliction of duty and concentration of power in the figurehead is how a spineless GOP Congress got us this far. To have this (not just general conservative-ness, but elevation of the President to some sort of king) ooze into the Judicial would be beyond the pale.
Unfortunately, weâve been beyond the pale in this department since Merrick Garland. McConnell will get this man confirmed, come hell or high water. Theyâll hold 30-second confirmation hearings if necessary. Are there rules for time allowed for hearings?
When Trump is found to be an illegitimate president, perhaps we can actually do something about these judges.
Some recent presidents have declined to enforce certain laws as described in your excerpt above. Any idea which presidents?
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has said in the past that Presidents have the right not to enforce laws they believe are unconstitutional.
I need read no further.
Someone please bitch-slap a hold on this guy. The dipshit does not even understand that itâs up to the courts to determine the constitutionality of laws yet he wants to be a Supreme?
Anything
Is
OK
If
Youâre
Repugnican
Agree. Best case, Kavanaughâs statement appears to be a reasoned block of an out-of-control Congress (all 550 or so of them), but in reality, this is a dictatorâs dream. Nowhere in the Constitution is this âHugelyâ ridiculous Presidential power specified. This is a game changer, if it gets the light of day.
This asshole does not belong on the S.Ct.
Period.
He was one of Starrâs merry band eagerly pursuing Clintonâs impeachment. As a nominee for the Big Enchilada however itâs obviously become less important to follow the trail of criminality when the criminal is a R
Except all government power is derived from the consent of the governed.
The power isnât a prize for winning an election. Itâs an historic legacy of public responsibility for the officeholder to continue. Trumpâs use of âpowerâ in destroying the ACA isnât traditional or right or just in any sense.
I think heâd make a fine addition to the Supreme Court.
Of the Russian Federation.
As noted above, presidents have declined to enforce certain laws because (according to them) those laws were unconstitutional. This is simply a fact.
In the case of one particular statute, Trumpâs two immediate predecessors both ignored it â and incidentally, the courts eventually agreed that the two presidents were right about its unconstitutionality.
Exactly. Maybe heâs trying to talk himself out of a job.
Seems counterproductive.
(grumble, grumble, where do they come up with these jerksâŚ)