amendment. at the end, after he retired many justices after their retirement kind of go away from the public eye, not stevens. he wrote books, appeared, wrote op-eds. he did feel to the end that second amendment case and citizens united had been wrongly decided. here is what is a little bit interesting is, you are going to see all of the clerks line up. they become in many ways a justices greatest legacy. they start off at the courts knowing very little about the law and there they are at the highest echelons of power. they continue on. he served as a mentor. you ll see many of these clerks will write about citizens united, write about the second amendment in op-eds, in law review articles sort of carrying on stevens legacy. he stayed very close with them. he just finished a book last spring and had his last reunion. so these clerks who have become judges, businessmen, law. ers, professors, they wil
this job for a year. the number one problem is the mueller investigation. people who publish on the mueller investigation, par has written an unsolicited memo. to nonlawyers like me those things look disqualifying. it appears these people are auditioning for the role and a very narrow avenue. they are publishing. i suspect that donald trump is not reading law review articles or looking through the ak de ends up being the audition for the job. that may be how he discovered whitaker that said negative things about the mueller investigation. if that s how he wants to appoint folks the constitution does vest in him that power to appoint. it is the advice and consent that could create an obstacle.
impeachment should follow if the president fires the special counsel given he was nominated by trump? no. i don t think he does. here s the thing. i think people, when they re not in their nomination hearings, say what they think, not in the hearings. what he said in successive law review articles was he rethought his views about the special counsel and the power of the executive and that he thinks now, after going through the process with clinton, that the executive should have more leeway and generally the process should wait until you couldn t indict a sitting president and it should all wait until after the presidency is over, unless, of course, impeachment comes up. he had a very different view when he was with the star people and upon reflection. that s going to be his view. here s the thing, people say things when they re not in the nomination, when they re not trying desperately to be president, and we should listen to them. for example, the republican
brett kavanaugh, judge kavanaugh, did you find him credible? do you think he was truthful and forthright with the committee? there s a number of areas where i have concerns about his credibility. from specific issues around his stories about his drinking habits and it being just a few beers here and there, and him being someone who does not become aggressive when drunk. and has never forgotten the events of a previous evening. i think there s lots of evidence from his high school and college years that goes against that characterization. to my experience with him in the previous round of the confirmation hearings where i tried to get him to answer directly my questions based on his speeches, his writings, law review articles, descents, and i felt like he was evasive and frankly on some issues gave answers that were just not credible. i have real concerns with his credibility. his tone was remarkable in contrast. i want to ask you about an exchange that happened between
stories about his drinking habits and it being just a few beers here and there, and him being someone who does not become aggressive when drunk. and has never forgotten the events of a previous evening. i think there s lots of evidence from his high school and college years that goes against that characterization. to my experience with him in the previous round of the confirmation hearings where i tried to get him to answer directly my questions based on his speeches, his writings, law review articles, descents, and i felt like he was evasive and frankly on some issues gave answers that were just not credible. i have real concerns with his credibility. his tone was remarkable in contrast. i want to ask you about an exchange that happened between amy klobuchar, your colleague, and himself, a back and forth precisely on a topic that you asked many questions about, about his drinking, he said under oath that it was never the case that he drank so much he forgot events from the night