— —
File these quotes under the category of “lying during the Job Interview” ...
No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law, and no person in this country is beneath the law.
— Samuel Alito, Jan 9–13, 2006, pg 56
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION
OF SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR. TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GPO-CHRG-ALITO.pdf
— —
Senator, I believe that no one is above the law under our system, and that includes the President. The President is fully bound by the law, the Constitution and statutes.
— John Roberts, Sept 12–15, 2005, pg 152
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION
OF JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. TO BE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GPO-CHRG-ROBERTS.pdf
— —
Senator, no man is above the law. [...] No man is above the law, Senator. [...] every law that this body passes I take seriously. I respect this body [Congress], and nobody is above the law in this country, and that includes the President of the United States.
— Neil Gorsuch, Mar 20–23, 2017
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF
HON. NEIL M. GORSUCH TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
https://www.congress.gov/115/chrg/shrg28638/CHRG-115shrg28638.htm
— —
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To begin with, you are correct. No one is above the law in our constitutional system. Federalist 69, Hamilton makes clear all the ways that the executive branch, as designed by the Framers of the Constitution, was different from the monarchy. Under our system of Government, the executive branch is subject to the law, subject to the court system, and that is an important part of Federalist 69. It is an important part of the constitutional structure.
In general, so, too, we, as judges, are separate from the Congress. We are not supposed to be influenced by political pressure from the Executive or from the Congress. We are independent. We make decisions based on law, not based on policy, not based on political pressure, not based on the identity of the parties.
— Brett Kavanaugh, pg 119, Sept 2018
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION
OF HON. BRETT M. KAVANAUGH TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg32765/pdf/CHRG-115shrg32765.pdf
—
Senator, the President under Article II of the Constitution has the constitutional responsibility to follow the Constitution and the laws passed by the Congress of the United States. That is part of his responsibility, including -- [cross-talk ...] Including the laws against torture reflected in 18 U.S.C. 2340 and related provisions, including other statutes passed by this body. That is part of his Article II responsibility.
— Brett Kavanaugh, May 9, 2006
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION
OF BRETT KAVANAUGH TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
https://www.congress.gov/109/chrg/shrg27916/CHRG-109shrg27916.htm
— —
Ms Barrett danced around the questions of Presidential powers ...
Cory Booker: (02:23:18)
Thank you, your honor. Do you think that the president has the power to pardon himself for any past or future crimes he may have committed against the United States of America?
Amy Coney Barrett: (02:23:29)
Well, Senator Booker, that would be a legal question, that would be a constitutional question. And so in keeping with my obligation not to give hints, previews or forecasts of how to resolve the case, that’s not one that I can answer.
[...]
Cory Booker: (02:23:55)
If a president is personally responsible for several hundred million dollars in debt while he’s in office potentially to foreign entities, do you think he has a responsibility to disclose who his lenders are, especially given the Emoluments Clause?
Amy Coney Barrett: (02:24:12)
Well, Senator there’s litigation about the Emoluments Clause, I think it was in the Fourth Circuit. I don’t know where it stands, but that clearly is an issue that’s being litigated. And one present in court is not one on which I can offer an opinion.
[...]
But she also affirmed her allegiance to Justice Scalia, and to “Textualism” as her guiding principle for interpreting statutes:
Chairman Lindsey Graham: (07:34)
People say that you’re a female Scalia. What would you say?
Amy Coney Barrett: (07:38)
I would say that justice Scalia was obviously a mentor, and as I said when I accepted the President’s nomination, that his philosophy is mine too. He was a very eloquent defender of originalism, And that was also true of textualism, which is the way that I approach statutes and their interpretation. And similarly to what I just said about originalism, for textualism, the judge approaches the text as it was written with the meaning it had at the time and doesn’t infuse our own meaning into it. But I want to be careful to say that if I’m confirmed, you would not be getting Justice Scalia. You would be getting Justice Barrett. And that’s so because originalists don’t always agree and neither do textualist. [...]
Amy Coney Barrett Senate Confirmation Hearing Day 2 Transcript -- Oct 13, 2020
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/amy-coney-barrett-senate-confirmation-hearing-day-2-transcript
— —
The Confirmation Hearings of Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court — for a variety of reasons — were quite difficult to locate and search. Therefore his prior views and beliefs about the extent of Presidential powers will have to documented by others more skilled than myself.
However, I did find this rather illuminating exchange:
Thomas Confirmation Hearing Day 1, Part 2
Sept 10, 1991, www.c-span.org
[...]
01:20:55 Clarence Thomas
Senator, first of all, let me look at that in the context other than with natural law principles.
01:21:02 — Joe Biden, D-DE
Let's forget about natural law for a minute.
01:21:06 — Clarence Thomas
My view is that there is a right to privacy in the 14th amendment.
01:21:11 — Joe Biden, D-DE
Well, Judge, does that right to privacy in the liberty clause of the 14th amendment protect the right of a woman to decide for herself in certain instances whether or not to terminate a pregnancy?
01:21:27 — Clarence Thomas
Senator, I think that the Supreme Court has made clear that the issue of marital privacy is protected, that the State cannot infringe on that without a compelling interest, and the Supreme Court, of course, in the case of Roe v. Wade has found an interest in the woman's right to — as a fundamental interest a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. I do not think that at this time that I could maintain my impartiality as a member of the judiciary and comment on that specific case.
Add that to their “holier than thou” self-righteous list of qualifications disqualifications.
Their pretense of “Judicial Impartiality” has been exposed for all Americans to plainly see.
Say whatever it takes to get the Job. Do whatever it takes to throw “Judicial Precedence” out the window — and then write brand new law “for the Ages,” as Niel Gorsuch so brashly put it:
It is perhaps the blockbuster case of the latest U.S. Supreme Court term. The immunity case for former President Donald Trump that Justice Neil Gorsuch predicted would be “a decision for the ages.” The question for the justices was under what circumstances — if any — a former president has immunity from criminal prosecution.
In a 6-3 ruling, the justices said that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for official acts but do not have immunity for unofficial acts.
[...]
www.news4jax.com — July 1, 2024
—
One very disgraced Richard Milhous Nixon certainly could have benefited from the “Textualist” interpretations of these King-makers, eh? [See: UNITED STATES v. Richard M. NIXON.]
It puts his “White House Plumbers” task force — into an entirely different light now, doesn’t it. To say nothing about that secret “Nixon’s Enemies list” … (fast forward to Project 2025.)
That is what America’s imperial presidency looks like now. All thanks to these out-right liars recklessly steam-rolling “stare decisis,” from the untouchable seats (?), on the highest court of the land.
Democracy is truly on the ballot, this fall. Vote for Democrats — like our Democracy depends on it.
Because it certainly does. Just ask those voters at RVAT.org.
— —