that didn t work by a 6-3 vote of the supreme court given the statutes continue has passed. so too, no president is above the law in the sense that a president remains subject to what the supreme court said in the clinton versus jones case, civil process. that s a precedent of the security. civil suits while in office. so to the criminal process, hamilton specifies this in federalist 69. a president is not above the law with respect to the criminal process. the only question that the justice department as i said to senator coons is opined on is the timing of the indictability question and the justice department through democratic and republican administrations for 45 years has said that should occur when the president leaves office because the term expired or can i interrupt? i ll come back and have you finish. you re building a list that has duration in time of the office
being able to participate in the public square as a part of american tradition as a religious person, religious speech, religious ideas, that s important. so too on the establishment clause. [protesters in the background]. some of those cases are particularly complicated. the supreme court precedent in the town of greece case and others has recognized that some religious traditions in governmental practices are rooted in history and tradition to be upheld. so in that case, the town of grease case, the supreme court upheld the practice of a prayer before a local legislative meeting. a local town meeting, march v.
independent counsel statute and the independent counsel statute doesn t exist anymore, that s why justice kagan felt free to comment about morrison as well. what i ve said repeated times here, on investigation and indictment of a sitting president, i have never taken a position on it and number,2 it s important to underscore the justice department for 45 years, this is the justice department, not me, the justice department for 45 years has taken the position in written opinions that a sitting president may not be indicted while in office but it has to be deferred, not immunity. and randy moss, head of president clinton s legal counsel, wrote an opinion on that. he s a president obama appointed judge in d.c. i m not saying i agree with that or disagree with that. i m saying that s the view for 45 years. so before a case like this would
that s what they would want. you know, britt is right. kavanaugh came so well prepared to talk about the nominee precedent, just quoting democratic nominee after democratic no me and how they conducted themselves in the chair, whether it s kagan, ginsberg, talking about the things he didn t have to answer because they didn t either. very effective. i ve never seen a nominee so well-prepared. alternately able to bore us and charm us and bore us and charm us. incredibly effective. i do think that amy klobuchar from minnesota is not running for president. she was roguely going from case to case trying to speed up through her list as it was a routine checklist of things she had to get through. what the best minds here on the democratic side want to do and senator coons up now might do this, senator cory booker was 16edding out fund-raising
special counsels, which i have distinguished multiple times over the years. so i m just concerned that i m having difficulty getting what i think is a clear and decisive answer from you on a number of things. would you overturn morrison, what is your view of executive theory. is it appropriate for a president to fire a special counsel investigating him. i m just going to come back to a decision that you rendered this year, this phh decision. i urge folks that are having any interest in this or trouble following it to read your decision in this case. because you lay out you embrace this theory of the executive that the executive has all the power of the executive branch, which is directly relevant to the question whether a special prosecutor should be fired at will be i the president or could be protected from being fired by the whims of the