There are some issues where having an open mind tells us much of what you believe. If I ask you does the sun rise in the east an open mind allows for it to rise in the west. The answer should not up for debate. It is a “settled” law of nature. Can the President be subpoenaed is a “settled” law of the United States in as much as the President of the United States lives under the jurisdiction of its laws and procedures.
This was not a hypothetical question. It was a straight “give me an answer” question. The great majority of Americans believe no one, including a criminal President*, is above the law. The subpoena power is an integral part of the legal process.
It’s not hypothetical, although he might have said that the facts in a particular case might determine the outcome.
But what he needs to be asked is whether he agrees that it would present at least a serious impression of impropriety were he to take part in consideration of a case arising out of the investigation of the president that was underway when he was nominated. That goes to a central issue of this nomination. He should be asked about it after being boxed by a number of questions on his views of judicial ethics.
3 Likes
Irrelevant.
The courts are not subordinate to the Executive branch.
1 Like
The real issue is that is a valid logical construction. Rather than letting him brush that off, they should force him to invalidate his own argument. His documented view of the executive is the Unitary Executive which ignores the bureaucratic we have all come to understand. In his view, the constitution vests all power of the executive branch in the person of the President who then delegates that power to subordinates. “The buck stops here” isn’t just a metaphor, it is a colloquialism that explains that every action of every executive branch official is done in the name and with the power of the President.
This argument is also why the DOJ believes it cannot indict a sitting President. Constitutionally it would be the President indicting himself.
What’s more important that getting him to walk back this view is for him to invalidate this view. Under what legal construct does the President answer to the bureaucratic state? I think there is an argument to be made there but its a convoluted one that splits the Office from the Person of the President and requires the Office to treat the Person as a civilian and any deviation from that to be an invalid use of Presidential Authority that the Courts and their Marshals could enforce.
That’s what Kavanaugh needs to explain.
1 Like
Kinda OT: Lindsay Graham taking grand offense to kavanaugh’s children being exposed to Democracy yesterday made me want to puke.
Then don’t bring your kids. They were just props to make him look like a good daddy and “Coach” (I am getting really sick of hearing about his volunteerism.) Plus, the repubs KNEW there would be protests.
3 Likes
Huh! That leaves out our President.
1 Like
Lindsy is a very delicate flower and all these hurtful truths upset hem dearly.
2 Likes
This is just “show” politics, Kavanaugh is going to appointed. A much better use of than watching this dog and pony show would be to go buy some Nikes.
How is this hypothetical when we know that a president HAS been required to answer a subpoena and that a ruling n it exists?
1 Like