And the Winner is...

[JimL]

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.

Actually I was answering to rogues post and what it implies. What Kavanaughs actual stance is on this issue I'm not completely sure. But high crimes and misdemeaners Tea, seems to be whatever Congress determines them to be, so if that be his stance then i don't see how that would change in any way the way things are done presently.

[Teallaura]

Actually I was answering to rogues post and what it implies. What Kavanaughs actual stance is on this issue I'm not completely sure. But high crimes and misdemeaners Tea, seems to be whatever Congress determines them to be, so if that be his stance then i don't see how that would change in any way the way things are done presently.

Presumably, we wouldn't have the current investigation into the Russians and elections (unless demonstrable fraud were shown - that falls under election fraud - which isn't what that investigation is about) - it would be put on hold until Trump left office.

Ditto the various sex scandals (Hi Bill!), et al.

[JimL]

Presumably, we wouldn't have the current investigation into the Russians and elections (unless demonstrable fraud were shown - that falls under election fraud - which isn't what that investigation is about) - it would be put on hold until Trump left office.

Ditto the various sex scandals (Hi Bill!), et al.

Investigations are brought about by evidence, not by demonstrable proof, and this investigation was underway long before the special prosecutor entered the picture. When your intelligence agencies see evidence of a foreign adversary trying to undermine the democratic process they are obligated to investigate it. Trump doesn't like that I know, but that's what the Intel Agencies are there for!

[Cow Poke]

um, Jim, that's not at all what Kavanaugh argued -

Never let the truth get in the way of a good hatefest!

[Leonhard]

Anyone catch the irony that Republicans blocked an equally competent Merrick Garland since it was 11 months from election, and they felt the voters should have a say in it as well. But now that Trump is facing his mid-term, there's no outcry from them about any 'Biden rule'?

Rings a little hollow now.

[rogue06]

Anyone catch the irony that Republicans blocked an equally competent Merrick Garland since it was 11 months from election, and they felt the voters should have a say in it as well. But now that Trump is facing his mid-term, there's no outcry from them about any 'Biden rule'?

Rings a little hollow now.

The "Biden rule" wasn't about a president at mid-term but about a president at the end of his term.

Democrats have a habit of opening doors and then getting bit as a consequence.

[Leonhard]

The "Biden rule" wasn't about a president at mid-term but about a president at the end of his term.

Special pleading. In principle, another president could be running the country next year.

[One Bad Pig]

Special pleading. In principle, another president could be running the country next year.

I suspect we'd have to get fairly far down the list of replacements to find one who would withdraw the nomination in favor of someone else. The only quasi-plausible other president would be Pence.

You should've read the thread before jumping in with this; it's already been covered.

[Leonhard]

You should've read the thread before jumping in with this; it's already been covered.

I read back, but the arguments are the same. When Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a supreme court justice whom Kavanaugh had called 'supremely qualified'. The Republican Senate pretty much blocked by refusing to hear it over concerns that the next president might not be liberal, and so 'the people ought to have a say in it'.

Well we're at Trump's midterm. While I agree he stands the greater chance of winning, there's also a chance we might not have a Republican president. The situations are the same, one to one. If Hillary, or Bernie had been picked they would have called the Senate out on their bluff and Garland would be a supreme court justice today.

This whole talk of election rules, and delaying, 'people getting their say', seems to be a convenient thing, pulled out of the hat to block a nominee the Republicans didn't want. The excuse is dropped the moment it would mean someone like Kavanaugh couldn't be put into the Supreme Court.

[rogue06]

Special pleading. In principle, another president could be running the country next year.

Grasping at straws in order to rationalize.

[Leonhard]

Rogue06, what's the effective difference between an election where you might have a new liberal or a new conservative president after an election, or a new liberal, or the same old conservative president, after an election? I don't see a difference that justifies the Biden rule in the one situation, but excludes it in the other.

Though I also think the Biden rule is bunk.

[rogue06]

Rogue06, what's the effective difference between an election where you might have a new liberal or a new conservative president after an election, or a new liberal, or the same old conservative president, after an election? I don't see a difference that justifies the Biden rule in the one situation, but excludes it in the other.

Though I also think the Biden rule is bunk.

Look up the term "lame duck" as it applies to a president.

[Leonhard]

Look up the term "lame duck" as it applies to a president.

Was Trump president-elect by the time that Obama put forward Merrick Garland?

[rogue06]

Was Trump president-elect by the time that Obama put forward Merrick Garland?

You didn't look up lame duck did you?

[Leonhard]

You didn't look up lame duck did you?

I did, it referred to an official who continued to hold office after a successor had been elected. I googled lame duck and president, and found an article claiming that Trump was a lame duck at this moment since Congress was denying his requests for a wall. I found an article talking about 'lame-duck Obama' referring to Obama after Trump became president-elect.

I'm sure you're referring to a different meaning of lame-duck president then. Care to elaborate as the term seems a bit fungible.