What this jus­tice would do

Tampa Bay Times - - From The Front Page -

Like Florida At­tor­ney Gen­eral Pam Bondi, I am a lawyer. Un­like her, I do not know Brett Ka­vanaugh per­son­ally, but I do know that know­ing him per­son­ally

is ir­rel­e­vant to the po­si­tion of jus­tice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Know­ing that he is well-qual­i­fied to serve is also ir­rel­e­vant. Scores of judges are equally qual­i­fied. It is enough to know and un­der­stand his work as a lawyer and as a judge to see that his nom­i­na­tion to the court is wholly pred­i­cated on a be­lief that his work will serve the po­lit­i­cal agenda of the Repub­li­cans and, if nec­es­sary, will pro­tect Don­ald Trump from the le­gal con­se­quences of his ev­i­dent cor­rup­tion. Ka­vanaugh has been open in stat­ing that, as a mat­ter of law, a pres­i­dent should not face the de­mands of the le­gal process while in of­fice. How con­ve­nient for the pow­ers be­hind

Trump to have a Supreme Court Jus­tice who can — and has stated he should — shield the pres­i­dent from com­ply­ing with all le­gal process, ex­empt­ing him from tes­ti­fy­ing in de­po­si­tions in the pend­ing cases brought by adult en­ter­tain­ers, and ven­dors to his busi­nesses, and from sub­poe­nas and tes­ti­mony in the Mueller Rus­sia in­ves­ti­ga­tion and in all the re­lated cases against Manafort, Flynn and others cur­rently pend­ing. Any­one who be­lieves Ka­vanaugh’s nom­i­na­tion is any­thing but an at­tempt to wrap Trump in a Kevlar-coated le­gal opin­ion is disin­gen­u­ous, blind or ig­no­rant. So, no, Sen. Bill Nel­son shouldn’t vote against Ka­vanaugh be­cause of a

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.