And the Winner is...

[Teallaura]

His election is four years away - that's no where near long enough. He does not have a strong base at all - he isn't likely to win nomination if he mucks this up.

[Terraceth]

His election is four years away - that's no where near long enough. He does not have a strong base at all - he isn't likely to win nomination if he mucks this up.

I probably should have clarified what I meant. I meant that due to his election being several years off, however he votes in this is likely to be forgotten by then in favor of more recent votes.

[Teallaura]

I probably should have clarified what I meant. I meant that due to his election being several years off, however he votes in this is likely to be forgotten by then in favor of more recent votes.

That's what I assumed you meant - Jones only got in because of the hit job done on Moore - that will not translate to actual support. He's got to perform in order to have a chance in four years - and costing the conservatives a Justice is not going to be forgotten, not in two years and not in four. The media will be plastered with 'Jones votes for abortion' the year before his re-election bid - which does NOT play well in Alabama at all.

His chances of retaining the seat are poor no matter what he does - but voting against, ESPECIALLY if the confirmation is then lost? he might as well not bother to run for re-election - he'd have a hard time even with Alabama democrats (slightly different reason but related) and no chance at all come November that year.

[psstein]

His election is four years away - that's no where near long enough. He does not have a strong base at all - he isn't likely to win nomination if he mucks this up.

No, Jones is up for re-election in 2020. He replaced Jeff Sessions, who was re-elected in 2014.

[Tassman]

I can't comment on the investigation part,

It's been frequently reported upon, e.g.: "President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court once wrote that sitting presidents should be immune from criminal investigation because their job is too important and prosecution would be a burdensome distraction." Given Trump's woes re the Mueller investigation and that it may well end up in the Supreme Court, one could see how this would be an attractive quality in a justice.

http://www.newsweek.com/brett-kavana...immune-1015521

but as for the first half, frankly it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

Certainly, given Trump's oft stated opinion of women and the accusations against him by many aggrieved women. .

[Teallaura]

No, Jones is up for re-election in 2020. He replaced Jeff Sessions, who was re-elected in 2014.

Okay.

[rogue06]

It's been frequently reported upon, e.g.: "President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court once wrote that sitting presidents should be immune from criminal investigation because their job is too important and prosecution would be a burdensome distraction." Given Trump's woes re the Mueller investigation and that it may well end up in the Supreme Court, one could see how this would be an attractive quality in a justice.

http://www.newsweek.com/brett-kavana...immune-1015521



Certainly, given Trump's oft stated opinion of women and the accusations against him by many aggrieved women. .

Interesting that you choose to go with an interpretation of what he said rather than quoting what he actually said. The solution is simple. Impeach (remove from office) and then you can do all the rest.

ETA: Further, in reality Kavanaugh’s expressed views actually support the opposite of what you claim. He said that a president can be investigated and maybe even indicted unless Congress passes a law saying he can’t -- which Congress has not done. In 2009, Kavanaugh proposed that Congress could pass a law that would protect the president from investigation and indictment while in office. That’s the part that liberals are focusing on now since Kavanaugh was saying that he thought it was a bad idea to go after the president and called doing so debatable.

[Cow Poke]

Interesting that you choose to go with an interpretation of what he said rather than quoting what he actually said. The solution is simple. Impeach (remove from office) and then you can do all the rest.

Interesting, but not the least bit surprising.

[NorrinRadd]

Interesting that you choose to go with an interpretation of what he said rather than quoting what he actually said. The solution is simple. Impeach (remove from office) and then you can do all the rest.

ETA: Further, in reality Kavanaugh’s expressed views actually support the opposite of what you claim. He said that a president can be investigated and maybe even indicted unless Congress passes a law saying he can’t -- which Congress has not done. In 2009, Kavanaugh proposed that Congress could pass a law that would protect the president from investigation and indictment while in office. That’s the part that liberals are focusing on now since Kavanaugh was saying that he thought it was a bad idea to go after the president and called doing so debatable.

And the "while in office" part is important. As I understood Kavanaugh's writing, he believes Congress should craft a law *deferring* such investigations, not *eliminating* them.

[Terraceth]

And the "while in office" part is important. As I understood Kavanaugh's writing, he believes Congress should craft a law *deferring* such investigations, not *eliminating* them.

And also said that, should it be of such an immediate need that the president msut be removed from office, congress can impeach. It sounds good in theory, but it does have an issue, namely that it's awfully hard to impeach a president without an investigation to give a reason for it.

Of course, this was him recommending a policy decision, which is different from it being something he would insist on as a judge. I also wonder, even if he would try to enforce that as a Supreme Court justice, under what circumstances he would actually have any opportunity to.

[Teallaura]

Um, I think that a Congressional investigation is not what he has in mind. He's probably talking about Special Prosecutors.

[Cow Poke]

Chucky Schumer is SO cute....

A) We WILL NOT REST until Javanaugh is DEFEATED!!!!
2) We need to see ALL the records so we can make up our mind!

Ready - FIRE..... um... oh yeah, aim.

chuck.jpg

[Teallaura]

Javanaugh?

[JimL]

Interesting that you choose to go with an interpretation of what he said rather than quoting what he actually said. The solution is simple. Impeach (remove from office) and then you can do all the rest.

ETA: Further, in reality Kavanaugh’s expressed views actually support the opposite of what you claim. He said that a president can be investigated and maybe even indicted unless Congress passes a law saying he can’t -- which Congress has not done. In 2009, Kavanaugh proposed that Congress could pass a law that would protect the president from investigation and indictment while in office. That’s the part that liberals are focusing on now since Kavanaugh was saying that he thought it was a bad idea to go after the president and called doing so debatable.

Which would put a president above the law which is both stupid and dangerous. How would you like it if a treasonous autocratic scoundrel like Trump were above the law?

[Teallaura]

Which would put a president above the law which is both stupid and dangerous. How would you like it if a treasonous autocratic scoundrel like Trump were above the law?

um, Jim, that's not at all what Kavanaugh argued - he argued that if it wasn't basically a high crime/misdemeanor (worth pursuing impeachment) that prosecution should wait until the president is out of office.

The pro-side is you don't waste a lot of the public's time on things like Whitewater. The con side is it leaves a big question mark over an administration.

I actually prefer the idea - but I don't think we should implement it. I think the cons outweigh the pros even if I do like it conceptually.