Should sitting presidents be subject to subpoenas? Kavanaugh still won't say.
Even without protesters and senators rocking the floor, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's ongoing confirmation hearing was sure to be complicated. On Wednesday, the second day of Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked the nominee whether "a sitting president [would] be required to respond to a subpoena." Kavanaugh's views on the issue have been hotly debated as legal troubles swirl around President Trump.
Kavanaugh, pleading the "Justice Ginsburg principle," said he couldn't answer Feinstein's "hypothetical question." But he did discuss the U.S. v Nixon ruling, saying the Supreme Court — including former President Richard Nixon's own nominee to the bench — unanimously mandated that Nixon release his secret recordings specifically "in response to a criminal trial subpoena." It's "an important precedent of the Supreme Court," Kavanaugh said, but as a "sitting judge and a nominee," he couldn't say how it would apply in the future.
With Special Counsel Robert Mueller currently investigating the Trump campaign and some top Trump associates, several legal experts have questioned whether a sitting president could be subjected to a subpoena. In the past, at least, Kavanaugh has opined that Nixon "may have been wrongly decided," but while working on former President Bill Clinton's investigation in 1995, Kavanaugh wrote it would be "weak" to protect a president from testifying to a grand jury. He seemingly reversed his opinion again in 2009, writing in a Minnesota Law Review article that "the president should be excused" from "burdens" like criminal investigations.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
-
‘The economics of WhatsApp have been mysterious for years’Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Will Democrats impeach Kristi Noem?Today’s Big Question Centrists, lefty activists also debate abolishing ICE
-
Is a social media ban for teens the answer?Talking Point Australia is leading the charge in banning social media for people under 16 — but there is lingering doubt as to the efficacy of such laws
-
The billionaires’ wealth tax: a catastrophe for California?Talking Point Peter Thiel and Larry Page preparing to change state residency
-
Hegseth moves to demote Sen. Kelly over videospeed read Retired Navy fighter pilot Mark Kelly appeared in a video reminding military service members that they can ‘refuse illegal orders’
-
Trump says US ‘in charge’ of Venezuela after Maduro grabSpeed Read The American president claims the US will ‘run’ Venezuela for an unspecified amount of time, contradicting a statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio
-
Bari Weiss’ ‘60 Minutes’ scandal is about more than one reportIN THE SPOTLIGHT By blocking an approved segment on a controversial prison holding US deportees in El Salvador, the editor-in-chief of CBS News has become the main story
-
CBS pulls ‘60 Minutes’ report on Trump deporteesSpeed Read An investigation into the deportations of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador’s notorious prison was scrapped
-
Trump administration posts sliver of Epstein filesSpeed Read Many of the Justice Department documents were heavily redacted, though new photos of both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton emerged
-
Trump HHS moves to end care for trans youthSpeed Read The administration is making sweeping proposals that would eliminate gender-affirming care for Americans under age 18
-
Jack Smith tells House of ‘proof’ of Trump’s crimesSpeed Read President Donald Trump ‘engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election,’ hoarded classified documents and ‘repeatedly tried to obstruct justice’
