Owner of an established book store in Waterville asks Sen. Snow if she will vote for Kavanaugh and she responds.The letter written by Robert Sezak:
I cannot in good conscience support, let alone consider, Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Kavanaugh has espoused a severely misguided belief that the president is essentially above the law.In his article in the 2009 Minnesota Law Review, Kavanaugh expresses the belief that a president should be immune from “civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions” during their time in office. And in 1998, Kavanaugh wrote, “Congress should give back to the President the full power to act when he believes that a particular independent counsel is ‘out to get him:The result the Supreme Court reached in Clinton v. Jones27 — that presidents are not constitutionally entitled to deferral of civil suits — may well have been entirely correct; that is beyond the scope of this inquiry. But the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office.28 Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain members of the military.29 Deferral would allow the President to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform.Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President.30 In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving around a President are inevitably politicized by both their supporters and critics. As I have written before, “no Attorney General or special counsel will have the necessary credibility to avoid the inevitable charges that he is politically motivated — whether in favor of the President or against him, depending on the individual leading the investigation and its results.”31 The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation— including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators— are time-consuming and distracting. Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the President’s focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President.This appeal may sound good and be well intentioned but is in fact more of an emotional appeal than one founded in law. "A President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President” states Kavanaugh. Yet to delay justice will surely increase any persons concern and cause one to do a worse job as the inevitable is put off and put off. The legal maxim "Justice delayed is justice denied” means that if legal redress is available for a party that has suffered some injury, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no redress at all. If there is to be a plaintiff and a defendant and the President is to be the defendant, does not denial of the right of trail to the plaintiff harm the plaintiff as much if not more than the defendant? Should the President bring suit upon another party than may that party have the right to postpone legal actions until such time as the President is out of office? This is not jurisprudence.That Kavanaugh has encouraged such an dire and hazardous opinion and such an alarming notion that the president is essentially above the law leads me to the conclusion that Kavanaugh has no place on the United States Supreme Court.To place any person above the law, for any reason, strikes at all laws to be null and void.Sincerely,Robert Sezak18 Bunker AveFairfield, ME 04937Sen. Collin's letter to Sezak:
Dear Mr. Sezak,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the United States Supreme Court. I appreciate your taking the time to do so.
Over the past thirty years, the handling of Supreme Court vacancies has become increasingly contentious, and this time is no exception. It is the constitutional duty of senators to give our advice and either give or withhold our consent for judicial nominations. As with all judicial nominees, but especially for a Supreme Court Justice, I will consider carefully Judge Kavanaugh’s intellect, integrity, qualifications, experience, temperament, and respect for precedent, the rule of law, and the Constitution. This is the approach I have taken with every judicial nominee who has come before me, including Supreme Court Justices nominated by Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump.
I do not, however, disqualify or approve judges because of their personal beliefs. As a result, the nominees I have voted to confirm span the ideological spectrum. For example, I supported the nominations of both Justice Sotomayor, the Court’s most liberal member, and Justice Alito, who is among the Court’s most conservative justices.
I look forward to Judge Kavanaugh’s public hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee and to questioning him in a meeting in my office.
Again, thank you for contacting me.
Susan M. Collins
United States Senator
P.S. If you would like to receive weekly updates about my work on behalf of Maine in the United States Senate, you can subscribe to my e-newsletter by clicking here.