Toronta. What difference without kennedy . He was the most heterodox, has strong views on subjects but they dont always line up with the traditional liberal conservative, very much in favor of gay rights, free speech, whether liberal or conservative free speech and he was sometimes wild card. Most likely new justice will be line up with the other four republican. Paul that could be the case, dan, its interesting, if you look at First Amendment Juris Prudence, kennedy was very strong, wrote the Citizens United decision, for example, on Campaign Finance and free speech and theres no guaranty that his replacement even if socalled conservative is going to be as strong on First Amendment or even on state rights. Well, thats right. All of these nominees in Supreme Court, intelligent person have their own mind, they are able to identify whether they will vote most of the time with conservatives or the liberals but theres no real predicting and a lot of the issues have been in play, i think, t
Whitaker will take over as acting attorney general until a permanent replacement can be confirmed by the senate. Welcome, judge. Good to see you again. What do you make of the handling overall of the sessions resignation . I like Jeff Sessions, i consider myself a friend. Ii think that he was unfairly treated. I think he was fulfilling the president s mandate, and the criticism of him for having recused himself was unfair. There was a regulation that required him top recuse himself in a situation where there was a criminal investigation. He may have recused himself too soon and too broadly. He would have had to have the gift of prophecy to predict it before the event happened. Paul the president should have someone in the position he trusts. He should. And he asked for the resignation and didnt let him stay to the end of the week. Methe question becomes who can u appoint. He may very well have had Statutory Authority to appoint Matt Whitaker who was chief of staff to Jeff Sessions. He
Statement that this impeachment probe is constitutionally valid invalid and violates due process. I may not use those words but i would say its constitutionally very troubling. To elaborate, the framers were ambivalent about impeachment power, debating whether to create it at all and who should exercise it. They understood that tremendous potential for misuse given the british parliamentary practice and the difficulty in cabining it a bit. They moved it to high crimes and misdemeanors, mentioning treason and bribery. What they expected was the house to unfold things with a certain decorum, follow certain procedures many i wouldnt use the word due process. I wouldnt think that applies in a constitutional sense. Paul thats what i want to focus on, david. Seems to me, you look at the language of the constitution, what it says is the house has the power to impeach, high crimes and misdemeanors and so on but it doesnt say how it goes about it. The due process protections that we think about
More. There are going to be those who say the president lost deterrence, the iranians see they can continue to walk all over him and theyll continue to escalate tensions with some sense of comfort that perhaps the president doesnt have the stomach for conflict. There is another way of looking at this, however. And that is that the United States can use this to galvanize support from the europeans and perhaps from other places around the world to show the International Community that iran is still aggressive, that iran is deserving of the sanctions that we have on them right now, and these sanctions, lets go very clear, are still taking a bite out of the iranian economy, the political and economic isolation is working. So we still have a plan thats been in place by the Trump Administration and it looks right now as if were set to double down on that and perhaps even to recruit others to the cause. Paul there are two interpretations you offered us. Which one do you side with . I think th