Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP News)   Trump's SCOTUS pick thinks that U.S. v. Nixon was wrongly decided. Fark: It went 8-0 the first time   ( apnews.com) divider line
    More: Fail, President of the United States, Supreme Court of the United States, Kavanaugh, nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Kavanaugh allies  
•       •       •

2503 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2018 at 6:29 AM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-07-22 02:55:29 AM  
F*ck Donald Trump.
 
2018-07-22 06:30:37 AM  
We noticed that he's brown-nosing tyranny, so that's not surprising.
 
2018-07-22 06:38:25 AM  
Yeah, that's why he was picked.
 
2018-07-22 06:38:53 AM  
It's important to remember that the government is divided into three components.  The House, the Senate, and the Judicial Branch.  Their job is to worship the almighty God Emperor.
 
2018-07-22 06:39:37 AM  
He's basically arguing a case against forcing the executive branch to police itself, which seems silly at first, because someone has to police a crooked prez.  On the other hand, it's better if Congress polices the executive branch.  Congress maybe should use independent counsels for all investigations that may concern the prez.

Or to put it a different way, we trust Mueller, but what if Trump got his stooge to run that investigation?
 
2018-07-22 06:39:44 AM  
And there we have it; why TwoScopes picked this guy. He wants someone who'll side with him when things go down.
 
2018-07-22 06:40:18 AM  

Wyalt Derp: Yeah, that's why he was picked.


To go along with the whole "Presidents are too important and busy to be bothered with subpoenas/indictments" thing.

He'll be confirmed along party lines, perhaps with a couple disappointed-sounding remarks from Republicans who like to think about having a spine but fall in line when it matters.
 
2018-07-22 06:40:26 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

/not mine
 
2018-07-22 06:40:55 AM  

Sid_6.7: F*ck Donald Trump.


Like I want to say to people at work who tell me to do improbable things........"sorry I don't understand, please show me how.......
 
2018-07-22 06:43:17 AM  
"That was a huge step with implications to this day that most people do not appreciate sufficiently."

He is correct. He most definitely does not appreciate the implications sufficiently.
 
2018-07-22 06:48:44 AM  
I'd like to know what Gorsuch thinks of the same question.
 
2018-07-22 06:48:45 AM  
This is one of the main reasons Trump likes Kavanaugh. He's consistently argued in favor of fewer checks on and more power for POTUS.
 
2018-07-22 06:49:47 AM  
The cynical side in me wonders if this was bait put out 20 years ago, "if you nominate me to SCOTUS I will back you no matter what you do."
 
2018-07-22 06:51:41 AM  
He might move the court left...all the right wingers on the SCOTUS might say, "I'm NOT THAT farking stupid." and vote against that guy.
 
2018-07-22 06:53:37 AM  

Nemosomen: It's important to remember that the government is divided into three components.  The House, the Senate, and the Judicial Branch.  Their job is to worship the almighty God Emperor.


Does that rule still apply if the God Emperor is a black man?
 
2018-07-22 06:55:23 AM  
2009: "Nixon took away the power of the president to control information in the executive branch by holding that the courts had power and jurisdiction to order the president to disclose information in response to a subpoena sought by a subordinate executive branch official."

So you don't understand 8th grade civics level concepts. Cool. 

2016: "Whether it was Marbury, or Youngstown, or Brown, or Nixon, some of the greatest moments in American judicial history have been when judges stood up to the other branches, were not cowed, and enforced the law. That takes backbone, or what some call judicial engagement," Kavanaugh wrote in a 2016 law review article in which he referred to several landmark Supreme Court cases.

It appears that he has learned over time. That's actually a good quality in a SCOTUS nominee. 

/He still scares me.
 
2018-07-22 06:55:44 AM  
Bork bork bork
 
2018-07-22 07:05:53 AM  
What he really means is while in office, he is immune.
He means you have to impeach first.
 
2018-07-22 07:06:02 AM  
The pile of derp just keeps getting bigger.
 
2018-07-22 07:07:38 AM  

ModernLuddite: It appears that he has learned over time. That's actually a good quality in a SCOTUS nominee.


I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh also said that he didn't think sitting Presidents should be subject to investigations.
 
2018-07-22 07:13:39 AM  

theteacher: He might move the court left...all the right wingers on the SCOTUS might say, "I'm NOT THAT farking stupid." and vote against that guy.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-07-22 07:16:52 AM  

Cpl.D: ModernLuddite: It appears that he has learned over time. That's actually a good quality in a SCOTUS nominee.

I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh also said that he didn't think sitting Presidents should be subject to investigations.


Kavanaugh thinks the only lever usable against a sitting president is impeachment.  Nifty arraignment if the legislature is complicit.  Hey, that sounds familiar...
 
2018-07-22 07:17:15 AM  

vudukungfu: What he really means is while in office, he is immune.
He means you have to impeach first.


And that would have shielded Nixon. Granting a corrupt asshole immunity to break the law is a terrible precedent. Once he is out of office, his party plays the, "It's time to move on, don't focus on the past, let's face the future." The other party has a strongly diminished incentive to go after yesterday's mashed potatoes.

If there is any single principle we should strive to uphold, it is that nobody is above the law. There should be no asterisk for, "Unless you're the president, then it has to wait until nobody wants to bother with your crimes any longer."

IANAL but this seems self-evident to me.
 
2018-07-22 07:17:52 AM  

Sid_6.7: F*ck Donald Trump.


May your unique insights be rewarded with many "smart" votes.
 
2018-07-22 07:18:33 AM  
"But maybe Nixon was wrongly decided - heresy though it is to say so. Nixon took away the power of the president to control information in the executive branch by holding that the courts had power and jurisdiction to order the president to disclose information in response to a subpoena sought by a subordinate executive branch official. That was a huge step with implications to this day that most people do not appreciate sufficiently...Maybe the tension of the time led to an erroneous decision," Kavanaugh said in a transcript of the discussion that was published in the January-February 1999 issue of the Washington Lawyer.

He's a President, not a King. Nixon wasn't above the law just because the prosecution was "subordinate" to him.
 
2018-07-22 07:20:01 AM  

Animatronik: He's basically arguing a case against forcing the executive branch to police itself, which seems silly at first, because someone has to police a crooked prez.  On the other hand, it's better if Congress polices the executive branch.  Congress maybe should use independent counsels for all investigations that may concern the prez.

Or to put it a different way, we trust Mueller, but what if Trump got his stooge to run that investigation?


I for one would not trust any special/independent counsel appointed by Senator Turtle or Speaker LiftBro. Not necessarily because of party affiliation, but because they have both shown time and time again that they put Party over Country every time.
 
2018-07-22 07:21:44 AM  
These days it seems like they wouldn't even have to subpoena Dotard. Everyone has dirt on Trump, except him probably. Trump is so convinced of his own righteousness that he doesn't even know what stuff out there would incriminate him.
 
2018-07-22 07:26:03 AM  
And the real story is that he was on a panel discussing the case and he said that being an intra-agency dispute in which a subordinate section of the Executive was ordering its superior to turn over the tapes, it MAY be that it was wrongly decided, not WAS. As for the 8-0, the long-term validity of a decision isn't a product of the weight of the vote. Plessy v Ferguson ('separate but equal') was decided 7-1.

In later years Kavanaugh cited the Nixon case favorably as an example of judicial backbone.
 
2018-07-22 07:26:35 AM  
That alone should kill his nomination.

You know...if things still mattered.
 
2018-07-22 07:39:11 AM  
Could SCOTUS rule itself out of existence?
 
2018-07-22 07:39:46 AM  

SteveIrwin69: These days it seems like they wouldn't even have to subpoena Dotard. Everyone has dirt on Trump, except him probably. Trump is so convinced of his own righteousness that he doesn't even know what stuff out there would incriminate him.


I wouldn't even include the "except him probably." When he said, "I can't believe Michael would do that to me" when he learned about Cohen's recordings, it made me think, I'll be he has all kinds of recordings he himself has made over the years, imagining himself to be cunning and clever, gathering up blackmail and intimidation material, or hell, just stuff to pull out to humiliate somebody later on for shiats and giggles. And he has told himself, "It's my personal property, and if there is anything I'm really strong on, it's property rights, I mean, my property rights, so nobody can ever look at this stuff unless I say so."

And being the lazy Donnie Dotard that he is, it is not as if he himself bought and installed the recording devices, archived the recordings, and so on; no, he had flunkies do that. Cocksure that those flunkies would never turn on him. Even if he orders Flunkie 1 to pull out a recording he can use to humiliate Flunkie 2 at a party, come on, it's not like Flunkie 2 would dare to retaliate some time in the future, nobody retaliates against him, he's Donald J. Shiathole!He gets the best ratings, the best broads, the best golf courses, he is the Most Important Man in the World.

Besides, if they do, he'll sue.
 
2018-07-22 07:42:15 AM  

I want that sauce Morty!: Nemosomen: It's important to remember that the government is divided into three components.  The House, the Senate, and the Judicial Branch.  Their job is to worship the almighty God Emperor.

Does that rule still apply if the God Emperor is a black man?


The job of the Legislative and Judicial branches is to act as a check on black Executive power.
 
2018-07-22 07:43:11 AM  

Aquapope: Kavanaugh thinks the only lever usable against a sitting president is impeachment.  Nifty arraignment if the legislature is complicit.  Hey, that sounds familiar...

Kavanaugh thinks the only lever usable against a sitting president is impeachment.  Nifty arraignment if the legislature is complicit.  Hey, that sounds familiar...

i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size

 
2018-07-22 07:44:41 AM  

Unobtanium: Aquapope: Kavanaugh thinks the only lever usable against a sitting president is impeachment.  Nifty arraignment if the legislature is complicit.  Hey, that sounds familiar...

Kavanaugh thinks the only lever usable against a sitting president is impeachment.  Nifty arraignment if the legislature is complicit.  Hey, that sounds familiar...

[i.kym-cdn.com image 500x447]


Spell-check is a better joke writer than I am, I guess.
 
2018-07-22 07:48:59 AM  

vudukungfu: What he really means is while in office, he is immune.
He means you have to impeach first.


And how do you get to impeachment if nobody can force the release of proof of wrongdoing?
 
2018-07-22 07:50:19 AM  

Animatronik: He's basically arguing a case against forcing the executive branch to police itself, which seems silly at first, because someone has to police a crooked prez.  On the other hand, it's better if Congress polices the executive branch.  Congress maybe should use independent counsels for all investigations that may concern the prez.

Or to put it a different way, we trust Mueller, but what if Trump got his stooge to run that investigation?


The Supreme Court and Congress don't have police and military forces to compel the Executive Branch to do its job, as noted 195 years ago by Andrew Jackson on the eve of his committing genocide on the Cherokee.
 
2018-07-22 07:57:42 AM  
Hey Trump:

img.fark.netView Full Size


You and your judge can go fark yourselves sideways with a chainsaw.
 
2018-07-22 08:02:09 AM  
That is one heck of a Flowbee-style haircut.  Does he have a "Mother" as well?
 
2018-07-22 08:04:09 AM  

Arumat: And how do you get to impeachment if nobody can force the release of proof of wrongdoing?


Congress can impeach at any time for any reason.
 
2018-07-22 08:09:13 AM  
This is a fairly simple matter...

Donald Trump has proven time and time again that the powers of the President are already so broad that it's fairly easy to take advantage of them.  He is trying to appoint a Justice that would make those powers even MORE robust?

Pfftt...  He should be disqualified on that one principle alone.

Any judge who believes executive powers need to be broaden and expanded essentially believes in a dictatorship.
 
2018-07-22 08:09:17 AM  

BMFPitt: Arumat: And how do you get to impeachment if nobody can force the release of proof of wrongdoing?

Congress can impeach at any time for any reason.


The impeachment process involves a trial. Trials necessitate evidence.
 
2018-07-22 08:15:40 AM  
 Lol Trump supporters - you thought he was nominated because maybe he could help overturn Roe and represent your other 'values' when in reality he's nominated just cover Trump's ass. Damn you people are so easy to dupe.
 
2018-07-22 08:19:34 AM  

theteacher: He might move the court left...all the right wingers on the SCOTUS might say, "I'm NOT THAT farking stupid." and vote against that guy.


Just like he moved Congress to the left....
 
2018-07-22 08:22:36 AM  
Oh, good, Scalia Jr.
 
2018-07-22 08:24:55 AM  

fastibartslart: The impeachment process involves a trial. Trials necessitate evidence.


And if evidence was withheld from the impeachment trial, that by itself should warrant a vote to remove.
 
2018-07-22 08:24:58 AM  

dickfreckle: Lol Trump supporters - you thought he was nominated because maybe he could help overturn Roe and represent your other 'values' when in reality he's nominated just cover Trump's ass. Damn you people are so easy to dupe.


So you're saying that Trump put him in because, 19 years ago, he said that the Nixon case MIGHT have been wrongly decided - but that his more recent writing in 2016 where he went the other way doesn't count because reasons.

You guys have gone past clutching at straws and are now clutching at memories of straws...
 
2018-07-22 08:41:43 AM  
I'm sure that Kavanaugh has been thoroughly vetted and has given party approved answers to all relevant questions. This is going to be a reverse Robert Bork situations. Bork was the hatchet man that was put up for a SC seat later on, Kavanaugh is going to get he seat first, and have to perform later.
 
2018-07-22 08:46:57 AM  

cirby: dickfreckle: Lol Trump supporters - you thought he was nominated because maybe he could help overturn Roe and represent your other 'values' when in reality he's nominated just cover Trump's ass. Damn you people are so easy to dupe.

So you're saying that Trump put him in because, 19 years ago, he said that the Nixon case MIGHT have been wrongly decided - but that his more recent writing in 2016 where he went the other way doesn't count because reasons.

You guys have gone past clutching at straws and are now clutching at memories of straws...


So then what is your position on Yertle saying, "No we're not going to waste time releasing a lot of documents for review, we want a vote very soon, or else I will shove the vote all the way back to a few days before the election"? Does that sound like straw-clutching to you, because it sounds like straw-clutching to me.
 
2018-07-22 08:51:15 AM  
There you have it. The Supreme Court should be a protector of the Executive Branch.

It's fine for the president to go shoot someone on 5th avenue, too.
 
2018-07-22 09:21:45 AM  

BMFPitt: fastibartslart: The impeachment process involves a trial. Trials necessitate evidence.

And if evidence was withheld from the impeachment trial, that by itself should warrant a vote to remove.


You have some kind of idea that impeachment and the trial have to conform to normal trail rules.  All it takes is for 50+% to vote to impeach.  No evidence or discussion or anything is required, they could just vote if they wanted, it's up to the Speaker.  Then, 2/3 of the Senate convicts.  They don't have to have any evidence or discussion or anything, they could just vote if they wanted, it's up to the Majority Leader.  It doesn't have to be fair, and there's nobody to appeal to if it isn't.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report