it clear in speeches he s given, in decisions he s issued in the district circuit court that he follows a view of the president s powers they think doesn t really comply with the legal precedent or legal main screen thinking. and to fire at will a special prosecutor engaged in investigating the president. i didn t get satisfactory answers from judge kavanagh in his confirmation hearing. he wasn t willing to stand up and defend things he has said or he has written in law review articles or to explain his decision in a critical case earlier this year. i think that should be of concern to republicans and democrats given the current context. but the hearings concluded and you made those arguments, senator leahy made other arguments about whether or not he was telling the truth about mandy miranda and ore things.
out there about this, he did seem to say that that there was there were moments at which judicial power was much stronger than executive power and where the executive had to give in because the rule of law affects everybody even if you re president. yeah, judge kavanaugh has a lengthy record of court opinions, he also had, you know, law review articles where he specifically talks about the fact that there are going to be times in our country s history where independent counsel or special counsel is going to be needed. he recognizes that there s limits on all three branches of government and articulates it in a createy clear and well-spoken way. you mentioned the president, what about the power to indict a president? do you think that could be in the mix during his term of supreme court justices? well, certainly could be in the mix. at this point the president has been identified as subject, doesn t look like it s read hot that he s about to face
suspicion the democrats have put out there about this, he did seem to say that that there was there were moments at which judicial power was much stronger than executive power and where the executive had to give in because the rule of law affects everybody even if you re president. yeah, judge kavanaugh has a lengthy record of court opinions, he also had, you know, law review articles where he specifically talks about the fact that there are going to be times in our country s history where independent counsel or special counsel is going to be needed. he recognizes that there s limits on all three branches of government and articulates it in a createy clear and well-spoken way. you mentioned the president, what about the power to indict a president? do you think that could be in the mix during his term of supreme court justices? well, certainly could be in the mix. at this point the president has been identified as subject, doesn t look like it s read hot that he s about to fa
served with ken starr and they did get bill clinton before the grand jury. and since that time, he kind of wrote it wasn t a legal case, but he has opined that perhaps that wasn t the right decision, that presidents can be too busy and perhaps they shouldn t be able to be subpoenaed while they re still in office. and that may be, i think, what booker was trying to get at, that particular point, which could become relevant. judges are not supposed to live in hermetically sealed containers. i think it s good for judges to write law review articles. i m not disagreeing with you. it s good for them to be part of the world. right. not they can t talk to anybody, they can t express any opinions. so i don t see the fact that he wrote about this, particularly since this was something that he had expertise in since he worked on the starr investigation. i think this is an unprofitable
the house and the senate. let me move on. this is about actual opinions. really along the same lines. and i know senator coons is going to talk to you about the statute. i quote, this is you, under the constitution, the president may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the president deems a statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute unconstitutional. so then you told me when we had the talk in my office that you attempted to clarify your views two years later in the aiken county case. it seems inconsistent to me. so is it the case, your views, as expressed in actual opinions, not law review articles, that a president can just ignore a law and until a court upholds it or that a president can continue to