There is a court case that can determine what happens in how the Constitution is in play

[turbinetree]

when it comes to presidential pardons and the case is called Gamble vs. United States.

Kavanaugh if confirmed on the bench will and could determine that case, and this is why in my opinion McConnell is pushing for a vote this Friday, to get this liar on the bench, it is just a theory, but it will have huge ramifications.
This is how libertarians undermine the Constitution with the help of the Federalist Society, which he is a member.
All one has to do is look at who are the donors, and Charles Koch has been a major player of this organization since its inception....................

The Money Behind Conservative Legal Movement

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/19/us/politics/document-ConservativeDonors-DocCloud.html

and also from the book by Nancy MaClean and this short synopsis posted below when the tab is opened....

Democracy in Chains
THE DEEP HISTORY OF THE RADICAL RIGHT’S STEALTH PLAN FOR AMERICA

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/533763/democracy-in-chains-by-nancy-maclean/9781101980972/


Hatch who is a big buddy of McConnell before he leaves to his spacious home in Utah, filed an amicus brief, that has huge ramifications, concerning the double jeopardy clause between federal and state jurisdictions:

A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/trump-pardon-orrin-hatch-supreme-court/571285/



November 2018 cannot get here fast enough.....................vote

[BigmanPigman]

1. It didn't take Putin to kill the US, it took the GOP with

McConnell as well as Putin to destroy our democracy.

[turbinetree]

2. Yepper, spot on.................

and when the links or dots are put together it is frightening to think, that when men stormed the beaches of Normandy, they were fighting to defend the Constitution, today the country has , let's say, jerks, that think the Constitution should never should have been written in the way it it was.....................

And what is happening in the Kavanaugh debacle shows exactly at how one party thinks it is just fine and dandy to undermine the deaths of those men and to also besmirch the rule of law for woman like Dr. Ford and others when it comes to assault when they come forward, they do not want woman to come forward to seek the rule of law................it is about power, nothing more nothing less

[Wellstone ruled]

7. So agree,

this is the real game that is being played.

[WhiteTara]

3. Here's my column on that subject

Free Parking
http://eureka.news/free-parking-50/

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

4. Kavanaugh wasn't on Trump's list of SCOTUS candidates during the campaign.

He was added to the short list (which was a farce -- there really were no other candidates, only Kavanaugh) when his Nixonian "the president is above the law" attitude was revealed. We all knew once his name appeared that he'd be the one Mushroom Dick would choose. It wasn't even close.

As discussed in the OP, Gamble v. U.S. is a challenge to the long established principle that the Federal and state court systems are separate. That's why Trump can pardon Don Jr. for federal crimes but not for state ones brought by the New York A.G. Gamble wants that principle reversed, arguing that if a defendant if found not guilty in Federal court they should not be eligible to be tried in state court. His argument is based on a reading of the Fifth Amendment that prohibits double jeopardy.

If Kavanaugh can persuade the other conservative justices to reverse the District and Court of Appeals decision -- and overturn centuries of established law -- then it opens the door to Donnie Two Scoops being able to pardon people at both the state and federal levels. Between Gamble and Kavanaugh's expansive approach to presidential power, the entire complexion of the U.S. governing system would be transformed. The president would become all-powerful over both state and federal criminal actions.

There's another case which is slowly winding its way through the legal system. It involves Andrew Miller, a close associate of Roger Stone. When subpoenaed by Mueller, he refused it, and is appealing on the theory that the Mueller investigation is unconstitutional. Guess who might be on the SCOTUS when that case is to be decided?

Stay tuned, kiddos -- this is about to get interesting.

[onenote]

5. As been explained here on DU a dozen times, Kavanaugh's vote won't decide this case.

The two justices that pushed for this case to be brought and heard -- and who have strongly expressed the view that the dual sovereignty exception to the double jeopardy rule should be overruled, are Justice Ginsburg and Justice Thomas.

So that's two votes. Out of the remaining six justices: Alito, Gorsuch, Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, which four are going to vote the other way -- that is, which four will disagree with Thomas and Ginsburg. And unless there are four of those six that will view this differently than those two, the ruling goes in Gamble's favor with or without Kavanaugh. (By the way, we know that at least two of the other six are aligned with Ginsburg and Thomas (since it takes four votes for cert to be granted to hear the case).

And if Gamble wins his case (and I think he should) it doesn't answer the question of when the double jeopardy rule applies. It just answers the question of whether it should apply in a case that otherwise falls clearly under the double jeopardy rule -- a case in which Gamble was charged and convicted under a state law making it unlawful for someone with a prior felony conviction to possess a firearm -- a crime for which he was sentenced to one year in prison by the state and then was charged and convicted under an identical federal law and sentenced to four years, meaning that the federal conviction is resulting his being held in prison for three additional years on top of the time he was imprisoned for the same crime under state law.

[Nevilledog]

6. Thank you.

I am so tired of rehashing this argument over and over again. There is zero about Gamble that expands presidential pardon power. If people would actually read the briefs.....ALL of them including the amicus briefs maybe they would actually understand what Gamble is about.