The rising red star of the Democratic party is a dim-witted demagogue.
The fact that
#ScotusPick
Kavanuaugh believes that a President cannot be indicted is an automatic disqualification from Supreme Court consideration.
Plain and simple.
5K
13K
48K
78
304
704
Replies
If Kavanaugh is the nominee, the fever-swamp theory that Trump picked him because he'd protect the president from indictment will gain traction. It's nonsense, and here's why. /1
Trump SCOTUS team has looked at Kavanaugh's past comments on indicting a sitting president, we've confirmed. In 2009, Kavanaugh wrote: "The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government..."
2K
5K
6K
90
490
1K
The theory implies that Kavanaugh said that *the courts* should protect a president from such situations. But in fact, it's clear that Kavanaugh says that only *Congress* has the authority to do so. See the excerpts below. /2
28
180
427
The reason many on the left interpret it to mean that Kav would protect Trump comes down to the familiar differences about a judge's job: they believe judges *should* make law; they would want their own favored nominees to do so, and they project that desire onto all judges. /3
24
95
351
But Kavanaugh and others recognize judicial limits imposed by the separation of powers. He may think the current state of legal affairs is bad, but changing it is up to Congress, not SCOTUS. [and...scene]
21
76
362
Stop it.
Brett Kavanaugh was the only nominee on Trump’s shortlist who has written that a sitting president should not be indicted. It’s not a coincidence that he was selected.
#SCOTUSpick
#WhatsAtStake
278
3K
7K
5
31
150
Sorry, no—but we have some lovely parting gifts waiting for you backstage.
The fact that Kavanaugh believes that a President should not be subject to civil litigation or criminal investigation while in office means that Trump just nominated a justice who has already reached conclusions on these serious questions. That should raise enormous red flags.
2K
22K
64K
15
58
251
@cjscalia
Even if you feel she is wrong, why attack her intelligence instead of her position on the issue?
4
0
3
@richardcole11
I did both. Her position on the issue shows she doesn’t know what she’s talking about—or that she’s comfortable lying.
4
5
54
@cjscalia
But, but, but... she’s got a degree in economics! So she keeps telling everyone anyway.
1
0
2
@cjscalia
Vote for me Ocasio-Cortez says...it's all FREE..😂
#WalkAwayFromSocialism
#WalkAwayFromDemocrats
1
1
5
@RyanMcCoyEsq
I was meaner to her because she was more misleading and less accurate than the others.
2
2
42
@cjscalia
You weakened your valid argument with name calling. What a surprise, a conservative man denigrates yet another female.
Just like the rest....
3
3
2
@cjscalia
Looks like she’s already getting a memo of all the talking points. Right on script here!
0
0
0
@cjscalia
The alarming thing about this point of view is. It is based on the theory that Trump has done something criminal. For which they have tried and convicted him of. With no evidence. For no other reason than they disagree with his politics.
0
0
2
@cjscalia
#bebest
. Wow, you are a horrible human.... especially considering you have zero evidence to back up what you've said at the top. No knowledge of how judge was picked, no knowledge of democrats beliefs.
0
0
0
@cjscalia
good try, idiot. Maybe the
#MAGAts
will feed on your weak bs spin. That's what they do. BTW, on your best day ever, you're still at Alexandria's ankle level on wit and human value, you little shit.
0
0
0
@cjscalia
The idea that any one man should be above the law attacks the very system the law arises from and by attacking that system (democratic Republic), you are attacking the rule of law. This isn’t a monarchy. The idea that a POTUS could murder someone but shouldn’t be
3
0
0