![]() ![]() Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.” ![]() He explained, “The indictment and trial of a sitting president … would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Kavanaugh had previously written in a 2009 law review article that Congress should consider enacting a law that would protect a sitting president from criminal investigation, indictment, or prosecution while in office. Chris Coons, D-Del., asked about the president’s ability to fire a special prosecutor, but Kavanaugh declined to answer Feinstein’s and Coons’ questions about hypothetical cases that could come before him. Kavanaugh called the Nixon case one of the “four greatest moments in Supreme Court history” because the justices stood up for judicial independence “in a moment of crisis.” Nixon (1974), mandating President Richard Nixon to turn over potentially incriminating tapes related to the Watergate scandal, and asked whether this means a sitting president could be required to respond to a subpoena. Kavanaugh declared, “No one is above the law in our constitutional system.”įeinstein brought up the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. ![]() ![]() Several senators asked Kavanaugh about his views of executive power and limits on the president. Wade), she said the decision “is settled law” because it “is a precedent of the Court.” Later in the hearing, Sotomayor said all “precedent of the Court is entitled to the respect of the doctrine of stare decisis.” She said that, as a Supreme Court justice, she would give Kelo “the deference that the doctrine of stare decisis would suggest.” In 2009, for example, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was asked about the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. Kavanaugh’s answer echoes the language of previous Supreme Court nominees. Court of Appeals judges who co-authored a legal treatise titled “The Law of Judicial Precedent.” He explained some of the “principles of stare decisis” that the Supreme Court considers when evaluating its own past decisions: the age of the decision, how much people have come to rely on it, and whether it has been reaffirmed over the years, among others. Wade, Kavanaugh said, is “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court and entitled to respect under the principles of stare decisis.” Wade.”įeinstein pressed Kavanaugh to explain his recent statements that the Roe v. I live in the real world … I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v. Kavanaugh responded, “I don’t live in a bubble. Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked Kavanaugh about his view on a woman’s “right to control her reproductive life.” In addition to this “nominee precedent,” Kavanaugh explained that the hearing itself is “a moment of judicial independence,” in which he had to preserve his own independence as both a sitting appeals court judge and, possibly, a future Supreme Court Justice. Madison -which established the concept of “judicial review” -was right or wrong. In fact, during his confirmation hearing in 1986, Justice Antonin Scalia refused to say whether Marbury v. Roosevelt, appeared before the Judiciary Committee in 1939. He found a consistent pattern of declining to give what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg described in her 1993 hearing as offering “ no forecasts, no hints … no previews.” Nominees have taken that position since Felix Frankfurter, nominated by President Franklin D. Kavanaugh declined to provide those views, explaining that he had to be an “independent nominee” as well as an “independent judge.” To that end, he looked to what he called “nominee precedent.” That is, he had examined previous Supreme Court confirmation hearings to consider how nominees had approached requests of this kind in the past. The Ginsburg Standard and the Precedent of Judicial NomineesĪs questions for Kavanaugh got underway, Democrats started pressing for his views on issues that could come before him in the future on the Supreme Court.Obstruction and absurdity were hallmarks of the first day-with Democrats demanding a delay, more than 60 protesters being arrested, conspiracy theories that a White House staffer and former law clerk sitting behind Kavanaugh was flashing a “white power” sign, and the left attacking liberal Supreme Court litigator Lisa Blatt for introducing Kavanaugh.īy comparison, Day Two was relatively calm. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing continued Wednesday, with senators posing questions to the nominee. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |