Brett’s DICTAHEAD DISSENT

 

Donald Trump v. Executive Privilege

Statement of JUSTICE KAVANAUGH respecting denial of “Privilege”.

The Court of Appeals suggested that a former President may not successfully invoke the Presidential communica­tions privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, at least if the current President does not sup­port the privilege claim. As this Court’s order today makes clear, those portions of the Court of Appeals’ opinion were DICTA and should not be considered binding precedent going forward.

Moreover, I respectfully disagree with the Court of Ap­peals on that point. A former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privi­lege for communications that occurred during his Presi­dency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim. Concluding otherwise would eviscerate the executive privilege for Presidential communications.

By protecting the confidentiality of those internal communications, the Presidential communications privi­lege facilitates candid advice and deliberations, and it leads to more informed and better Presidential decision making. If Presidents and their advisers thought that the privilege’s protections would terminate at the end of the Presidency and that their privileged communications could be disclosed when the President left office (or were subject to the absolute control of a subsequent President who could be a political opponent of a former President)[see accompanying Note of Disqualification this Dissent], the conse­quences for the Presidency would be severe. Without suffi­cient assurances of continuing confidentiality, Presidents and their advisers would be chilled from engaging in the full and frank deliberations upon which effective discharge of the President’s duties depends.

To be clear, to say that a former President can invoke the privilege for Presidential communications that occurred during his Presidency does not mean that the privilege is absolute or cannot be overcome.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the privilege claim at issue here would not succeed even under the Nixon and Senate Select Committee tests. Therefore, as this Court’s order today makes clear, the Court of Appeals’ broader statements questioning whether a former President may successfully invoke the Presidential communications privi­lege if the current President does not support the claim were DICTA and should not be considered binding precedent going forward.

Note of Disqualification: When “We the People” have a Supreme Court that violates the separation required between Constitutionality and the bipartisan political state, we have no such supreme jurisprudence and DEMOCRACY is doomed. Only a Jack Marler REVOLUTION will save “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” from such “Treason”, as it appears that Jester Baby Brett Kavanaugh was in support of allowing Donald John Trump unfretted “privilege”, a DICTAHEADSHIP. As well what was found in the dissent of Jester Clarence Thomas, as slated; “JUSTICE THOMAS would grant the application.” and in combination such dissents finds but for a single attribute, giving them aid and comfort…and the Founding Fathers held a definition of what that meant!

~~~~~

DICTA - A comment, suggestion, or observation made by a judge in an opinion that is not necessary to resolve the case, and as such, it is not legally binding on other courts but may still be cited as persuasive authority in future litigation. Also referred to as dictum, dicta, and judicial dicta.