HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » It Will Not Take 67 Senat...

Fri Sep 7, 2018, 11:27 PM

It Will Not Take 67 Senators to Take Down Kavanaugh. Here Is Why

Everyone seems to assume that Supreme Court Justices have the same immunity from criminal prosecution that the POTUS has. And that they keep that immunity for life. And therefore, the only way they can be punished for their crimes is if 67 members of the US Senate agree that they should be punished for their crimes.

However, a Supreme Court Justice is not exempt from criminal prosecution. And it is a crime to lie to Congress--a crime that can get one jail time. Kavanaugh has lied to Congress. That much is fairly certain. The moment that the DOJ is no longer controlled by the Russian Mob, the attorney general can prosecute him. For perjury. For conspiracy to hack and distribute stolen e-mails. Hell, for all we know Mueller has dirt on him and is waiting for him to land in a position of power before making his first move--the more a potential defendant has to lose the more willing he will be to rat out his co-conspirators.

The GOP is taking a huge chance trying to force someone as dirty as Kavanaugh down America's throat. They would be smarter to look for some squeaky clean conservative jurist with no political ties. And Kavanaugh is a fool if he thinks that once he gets on the Court his life will be easy. On the contrary, he will have a great big "Prosecute me" sign on his back.

Once the senate confirms him, the real fun will begin.


27 replies, 3684 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply It Will Not Take 67 Senators to Take Down Kavanaugh. Here Is Why (Original post)
McCamy Taylor Sep 2018 OP
john657 Sep 2018 #1
dchill Sep 2018 #3
ooky Sep 2018 #13
sandensea Sep 2018 #14
Kablooie Sep 2018 #18
Hortensis Sep 2018 #24
SCantiGOP Sep 2018 #2
WillowTree Sep 2018 #4
Hortensis Sep 2018 #25
jalan48 Sep 2018 #5
Hoyt Sep 2018 #6
Takket Sep 2018 #7
McCamy Taylor Sep 2018 #12
Hortensis Sep 2018 #23
aikoaiko Sep 2018 #8
LandOfHopeAndDreams Sep 2018 #9
pnwmom Sep 2018 #10
Mopar151 Sep 2018 #11
PoliticAverse Sep 2018 #15
DeminPennswoods Sep 2018 #22
blue-wave Sep 2018 #16
maltzmax Sep 2018 #17
orleans Sep 2018 #19
lastlib Sep 2018 #20
Captain Stern Sep 2018 #21
Hermit-The-Prog Sep 2018 #26
we can do it Sep 2018 #27

Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Fri Sep 7, 2018, 11:34 PM

1. Yeah, good luck with that.

 

I don't believe any SC Justice has ever been criminally charged, it's usually left up to the Congress to take care of the SCJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to john657 (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 7, 2018, 11:40 PM

3. How many of them have been actual criminals?

Provably criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to john657 (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 01:00 AM

13. No, but if we control the House we can investigate him.

Hillary didn't commit any crimes, never charged, but that didn't stop the Republicans from coming after her with their made up conspiracy theories.

If this guy lied to Congress it should be investigated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to john657 (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 01:02 AM

14. The closest we came, I believe, was with Abe Fortas in 1969

Fortas, you'll recall, was forced to resign after it was revealed he was receiving a retainer from Wall Street banker Louis Wolfson (who, by the way, financed Larry King's rise to fame).

Wolfson was under federal investigation at the time, and would later serve two years in prison (this was when Wall Street bankers actually had to worry about such things, wither the thought).

Though it was never proven that Fortas allowed his relationship with Wolfson to influence his job (unlike, say, Thomas and Scalito), Nixon seized on the controversy to pressure him to resign - which he did.

Luckily, his successor, Harry Blackmun, turned out to be relatively progressive - to Nixon's shock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to john657 (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 01:47 AM

18. But they have been murdered.

But only in a John Grisham novel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to john657 (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 08:12 AM

24. So? We've never had a justice this dirty, not in the

last century anyway. He's very unpopular already. Just imagine how unpopular he'd be when the first young women started being sentenced to years in prison because abortion had been criminalized.

How about little things like the actions of the EPA being determined to be unconstitutional? Mechanisms critical to a national healthcare system unconstitutional, including coverage of preexisting conditions? These two in the setting of what is already seen as a national epidemic of childhood asthma, just for instance?

Consumer protection regulation unconstitutional? Regulation of greenhouse gasses unconstitutional? Regulations protecting employee rights unconstitutional? Net neutrality unconstitutional? Bills headed to SCOTUS to make Social Security unconstitutional?

Only assuming he hadn't been forced to resign before, and I'm definitely not making that assumption, an angry populace would have a ready mechanism for removing him.

We've never been here before. If nothing could happen that hadn't already, there'd be no Trump, no Kavanaugh, no very real threat of authoritarian takeover of our government.

Right now, btw, our party is making an all-out effort to get so much of his record out that our citizenry becomes angry before he's confirmed. Their other big prong is revealing to the populace that elevating him will mean criminalizing abortion -- right now Murkowski and Collins are clinging to plausible deniability of his intentions (Trump says right out that Kavanaugh is "pro life" ) to allow them to approve him while pretending to protect women's rights. Shine a light on him and them, and they won't dare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Fri Sep 7, 2018, 11:39 PM

2. McCamy:

They warned you not to take the brown acid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Fri Sep 7, 2018, 11:41 PM

4. I wouldn't recommend holding your breath on that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 08:35 AM

25. Our Democratic senators intend to roll out various

documents that the public needs to know about. Btw, check out just this little bit grabbed from among so much, from Senator Durbin, during the hearing:

That brings us to a major problem. I will not retread the ground about all the documents that are being withheld. But I will show you a little calendar here that’s interesting. There is a thirty-five month black hole in your White House career where we have been denied access to any and all documents. Thirty-five months in the White House. And I asked you in my office, during that period of time, President Bush was considering same-sex marriage, an amendment to ban it, abortion, executive power, detainees, torture, Supreme Court nominees, warrantless wiretapping. ...

You dissented in the Seven Sky case when the D.C. circuit that upheld the Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality. You criticized the law—the law which this President has said many times he wants to ignore and abolish—and you said, quote, “the President may decline to enforce a statue that regulates private individuals when the President deems—when the President deems---that statute unconstitutional even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.”

This statement by you flies in the face of Marbury v. Madison, our North Star of the separation of powers. It gives license to this President, Donald John Trump, or any president who chooses to ignore the Constitution, to assert authority far beyond that envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-to-judge-kavanaugh-trust-the-american-people-and-they-will-trust-you-show-us-that-your-record-matches-your-word

Maybe ask yourself what'll happen if enough voters realize this man would be a good fit for Russia's or Iran's supreme court -- and right from their armchairs decide they really don't like this man, scary even. Right before the midterms also. Our people are working big time to make that happen, although you'll notice most MSM spin is effectively telling people to just sit back and "don't hold your breath." Villainous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Fri Sep 7, 2018, 11:48 PM

5. This has about as much chance as Hillary being appointed Speaker of the House and then becoming

President after Trump and Pence are kicked out of office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Fri Sep 7, 2018, 11:50 PM

6. Another great post. I'm for anything to bring Kav down. Here's the "But."

Kav is joined at the hip, maybe ass, with trump. An objective jury would be tough to impanel, there will always be a juror or two willing to “stand up” for their boy trump and those tied to him. Choir Boy Kavanaugh, who considers birth control meds an abortion, is probably safer in that respect than trump’s loser kids.

A really serious crime might get a conviction, although trump probably could shoot a Democrat on 5th Avenue, and get away with it.

Plus, lying to Congress in this case/context is going to be viewed as a relatively minor crime. I’d vote to convict him for his smirk or his too perfect coiffure, but it’s going to take more than he lied during a Congressional hearing to get a conviction. Not saying that’s how it ought to be, but that’s the way it is, at least as I see it.

On the other hand, prosecution would impede him, and might cause him to recuse himself in some critical cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Fri Sep 7, 2018, 11:54 PM

7. Mueller isn't investigating Kavanaugh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 12:59 AM

12. Are you sure? After what Sessions did, Trump probably demanded that Kavanaugh

make promises--like a promise not to recuse himself from cases pertaining to Trump and Russia and Mueller's investigation--before he would nominate him. Because everything Trump does is for Trump. If Trump made a loyalty demand from Kavanaugh and anyone else witnessed it, that is a witness for the prosecution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 07:59 AM

23. Experts agree Kavanaugh is prosecutable, both

for probable perjury during this hearing and documented perjury -- which is now coming to national light -- during his appellate court hearing. Being on SCOTUS would not prevent prosecution.

However, Mueller's mandate is to investigate Russian interference in the election. If in that process he came upon evidence of unrelated malfeasance committed by Kavanaugh, that'd need to be handled by the appropriate jurisdiction. As has happened to others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 12:06 AM

8. Chances are better that he'll get hit by lightning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 12:20 AM

9. Before Or After Shrub, Cheney & Rove? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 12:44 AM

10. Except there's that thing called the Statute of Limitations.

It probably has already run out for some of his crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 12:52 AM

11. His last little fib was a little gassy...

Lying to Congress in a huge way while he was a Bush staffer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 01:08 AM

15. "Everyone seems to assume that Supreme Court Justices have the same immunity

from criminal prosecution that the POTUS has.".

I'm not aware of anyone that assumes that Supreme Court Justices have legal immunity.. And the courts have not established any POTUS immunity from criminal prosecution.

What makes you think a Democratic administration would prosecute Kavanaugh when Clarence Thomas wasn't
prosecuted over the financial disclosure form issue?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-criminal-behavior-on-financial-disclosure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 07:52 AM

22. Clarence Thomas' time might be coming

In the snippet of John Dean's testimony I heard yesterday, he mentioned, but did not name, one of MA Dems (Pressley?) who talked about removing Thomas from the supreme court because he lied about his relationship with Anita Hill while testifying under oath.

I'm not sure Kavanaugh would be prosecuted, but he'd more likely be given a chance to resign if the evidence against him is strong enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 01:41 AM

16. Nice to know it will not necessarily take 67 Senators

but I would still prefer to see him never seated in the SC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 01:45 AM

17. Even if

 

Democrats gain control, I would be shocked if they actually pursued such a route. They would need to act much more aggressively than they have I'm the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 02:40 AM

19. nope.

maybe a strongly worded letter and that's as far as we'll go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 07:34 AM

20. Meanwhile, he's f&ucking us over as a sitting S.Ct. Justice.........

fronting and pulling the strings for the billionaire boys' club......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 07:43 AM

21. I appreciate your zeal, but you lost me in the first paragraph.

In my opinion, your first sentence is just plain wrong:

Everyone seems to assume that Supreme Court Justices have the same immunity from criminal prosecution that the POTUS has.

Huh? I haven't seen, or heard, anyone say that..much less everyone.

After that:

And that they keep that immunity for life. And therefore, the only way they can be punished for their crimes is if 67 members of the US Senate agree that they should be punished for their crimes.


Again, huh? I definitely could be missing something..it wouldn't be the first time. But I haven't heard anyone say that at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 08:41 AM

26. LOCK HIM UP

Sorry, couldn't *resist* that, since nobody seems to have yelled it yet.

Only thing I disagree with in your OP is that POTUS is immune from prosecution. This could be one of the goals of the GOP in pushing Kavanaugh (besides threatening Roe v. Wade), but it is not established fact at this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2018, 09:38 PM

27. Who are all the Debbi downers responding?

No one I can recall posting here previously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread