Maybe the left should answer some questions instead of Kavanaugh

Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, Senator Chuck Schumer, and others on the left are trying to trash President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, in as many ways possible.  One of their many lines of attack is that Trump knows that Kavanaugh will let Trump off on any potential legal problems, presumably from Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

The first question that Sargent, Schumer, and other leftists of this state of mind should be asked is which law Trump broke.  What's more, how would some garden-variety stealing-or-lying charge, whatever it is, somehow make it to the Supreme Court?  More to the point, how would that cause any Supreme Court justice to let him off?  Supreme Court justices are independent.  They answer to no one.  It appears that these Democrats, including the media, are still pretending there was Russian collusion.

Here's how some typical opinionating from Sargent goes:

A big question about Trump that Democrats must insist Kavanaugh answer

Here's one important area in which they can do that: They must press Kavanaugh to clarify his thinking on the question of whether presidents are above the law, or more specifically, how much power presidents have with regard to investigations into themselves.

Many observers are pointing to a 2009 law review article by Kavanaugh that argues that "we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions," and instead that "impeachment" is the proper "mechanism" against a "bad-behaving or law-breaking president."  He suggests that "Congress might consider a law" exempting presidents in office "from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors."

I would then ask Schumer why Obama got off without being charged with any crimes, since we know he illegally spied on thousands and illegally communicated with Hillary Clinton on a non-secure personal computer.  Throughout Obama's eight years, I didn't see one ounce of concern about Obama getting off scot-free.  I would also ask Democrats why the Justice Department under Obama considered Hillary above the law.

I believe that Schumer, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and other Democrats should ask Kavanaugh if he believes that politicians from sanctuary cities and states should be held to account for refusing to abide by their oath of office to enforce the laws of the land.

I do have some questions I believe Kavanaugh should be required to answer.  Did he get his teaching gig at Harvard Law by pretending he was an Indian because of his grandma's high cheekbones?  Does he believe that it is OK for anyone to steal a high-paying job from qualified minorities?  Isn't it fraud to falsify an employment application?  Do you think anyone who knowingly falsified an application to get a job based on racial preference is qualified to be president?

Perhaps we will learn a thing or two about the sincerity of Democrats' so-called "concerns."

Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, Senator Chuck Schumer, and others on the left are trying to trash President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, in as many ways possible.  One of their many lines of attack is that Trump knows that Kavanaugh will let Trump off on any potential legal problems, presumably from Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

The first question that Sargent, Schumer, and other leftists of this state of mind should be asked is which law Trump broke.  What's more, how would some garden-variety stealing-or-lying charge, whatever it is, somehow make it to the Supreme Court?  More to the point, how would that cause any Supreme Court justice to let him off?  Supreme Court justices are independent.  They answer to no one.  It appears that these Democrats, including the media, are still pretending there was Russian collusion.

Here's how some typical opinionating from Sargent goes:

A big question about Trump that Democrats must insist Kavanaugh answer

Here's one important area in which they can do that: They must press Kavanaugh to clarify his thinking on the question of whether presidents are above the law, or more specifically, how much power presidents have with regard to investigations into themselves.

Many observers are pointing to a 2009 law review article by Kavanaugh that argues that "we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions," and instead that "impeachment" is the proper "mechanism" against a "bad-behaving or law-breaking president."  He suggests that "Congress might consider a law" exempting presidents in office "from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors."

I would then ask Schumer why Obama got off without being charged with any crimes, since we know he illegally spied on thousands and illegally communicated with Hillary Clinton on a non-secure personal computer.  Throughout Obama's eight years, I didn't see one ounce of concern about Obama getting off scot-free.  I would also ask Democrats why the Justice Department under Obama considered Hillary above the law.

I believe that Schumer, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and other Democrats should ask Kavanaugh if he believes that politicians from sanctuary cities and states should be held to account for refusing to abide by their oath of office to enforce the laws of the land.

I do have some questions I believe Kavanaugh should be required to answer.  Did he get his teaching gig at Harvard Law by pretending he was an Indian because of his grandma's high cheekbones?  Does he believe that it is OK for anyone to steal a high-paying job from qualified minorities?  Isn't it fraud to falsify an employment application?  Do you think anyone who knowingly falsified an application to get a job based on racial preference is qualified to be president?

Perhaps we will learn a thing or two about the sincerity of Democrats' so-called "concerns."