WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Sun Oct 21, 2018 7:23 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:24 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17367
Location: By the phone
Judge Kavanaugh has expressed the opinion that a President can ignore a law (even one that he signed) if he believes it to be unconstitutional. According to Judge Kavanaugh, the President is entitled to do that until a final court order tell him that he's wrong.

So on the one hand, Kavanaugh thinks that a President can ignore the law until a court tells him he can't. On the other hand, the courts are more and more frequently concluding that disputes about laws (particularly involving separation of powers) are "political questions" that the courts cannot address. Put the two together, and you have Kavanaugh signing off on an imperial Presidency far beyond what we've ever seen before.

The correct rule is that the President must follow the law until and unless he gets a court to agree with him that the law is unconstitutional (or invalid for some other reason). Anything else drives a stake through the heart of Congress's role.

By the way, some of this stuff comes from Kavanaugh's time as Bush's staff secretary. That's the stuff Democrats have been demanding and Republicans don't want to wait for. Apparently they think it would be unfair to judge Kavanaugh on his entire record or to take enough time to be sure that his entire record is available for public scrutiny. Needless to say, any claim by Republicans that any delay in processing Judge Kavanaugh's nomination would be unfair (and I've already seen that claim made) should be met with a two-word answer: "Merrick Garland." --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Quote:
Judge Kavanaugh has expressed the opinion that a President can ignore a law (even one that he signed) if he believes it to be unconstitutional.

Gee, where was your outrage when Obama was using his phone and pen?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:53 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17367
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Quote:
Judge Kavanaugh has expressed the opinion that a President can ignore a law (even one that he signed) if he believes it to be unconstitutional.

Gee, where was your outrage when Obama was using his phone and pen?
President Obama didn't refuse to abide by laws on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. The Justice Department refused to defend prohibitions on same-sex marriage (just as the current Justice Department is refusing to defend the Affordable Care Act against a legal attack that is utterly frivolous) and President Obama construed laws in ways the courts later disagreed with, but that's very different from what Judge Kavanaugh would permit: a President who agrees that a law requires (or forbids) some action, but refuses to follow that command because he thinks it's unconstitutional.

It would be as though Congress passed a law requiring certain sanctions against Russia with a veto-proof majority, the law were enacted, but then the White House refused to impose the sanctions required by that law. According to Kavanaugh, that's perfectly okay until and unless someone can get all the way to a final court order saying that the law is valid. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 4211
Location: Merion, Pa.
If a law is plainly constitutional, it doesn't take long to find a judge who will order the government to obey it until the case is finally decided. OTOH, some laws really are unconstitutional. Congress ordered the State Dept. to put "Israel" on the passports of Americans born in the Israeli part of Jerusalem. The State Dept. said no, and lower courts and eventually the Supreme Court agreed.

Did Kavanaugh have this opinion as a judge, or as a lawyer for the Bush White House, when he may have been arguing for his client whether he personally agreed or not?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:18 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 17367
Location: By the phone
jarnon wrote:
If a law is plainly constitutional, it doesn't take long to find a judge who will order the government to obey it until the case is finally decided. OTOH, some laws really are unconstitutional. Congress ordered the State Dept. to put "Israel" on the passports of Americans born in the Israeli part of Jerusalem. The State Dept. said no, and lower courts and eventually the Supreme Court agreed.

Did Kavanaugh have this opinion as a judge, or as a lawyer for the Bush White House, when he may have been arguing for his client whether he personally agreed or not?
Two opinions while sitting on the D.C. Circuit. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 9928
Location: In Texas of course!
Bob78164 wrote:
President Obama didn't refuse to abide by laws on the grounds that they were unconstitutional.


So what you're saying is "President Obama refused to abide by laws regardless of their constitutionality".

I agree with you.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4298
Location: Olympia, Washington
Wow, this 'Kavanaugh thinks presidents can ignore law' is all over the place in the MSM. And in pretty much exactly the same words. Must be a DEFCON-1 alert.

I guess that's gonna be the Borking point. Not a real sexy one though. I don't think it's gonna work.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maƫl Soucaze.