|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 10 2017 07:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. On May 10 2017 07:33 Adreme wrote:On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. Clinton is not stupid enough to have her name mentioned alongside Nixon as people who have fired FBI directors. Trump already has a lot of Nixon like tendencies and he is not a president you want to be compared to. The president appointing a new FBI director is very normal. Obama is the exception here. Maybe firing him the first day would be strange, but the FBI director being replaced during the first year is completely normal. Is is normal to fire them when they are investigating your previous National Security adviser's connections to Russia, which you were previously warned about by your predecessor and the AG you also fired? I am waiting for Mattis to get canned.
You should not fire the person investigating you, but this is why congress should have appointed a special prosecutor for this in the first place. It's bad optics certainly, but I don't think Corney should be kept around as director regardless of who got elected.
|
On May 10 2017 07:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Woah this is huge. What reason did they give for firing him? He fired Yates when she found out about Flynn so I wonder if Comey found something too. Also how does Sessions recuse himself from the investigation for lying under oath but then later fire the head of the investigation party  To be fair he fired Yates when she refused to defend his first immigration stop EO.
The garbage order she found out about on the news, rather than reviewing a draft of it.
|
On May 10 2017 07:45 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:38 Plansix wrote:On May 10 2017 07:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. On May 10 2017 07:33 Adreme wrote:On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. Clinton is not stupid enough to have her name mentioned alongside Nixon as people who have fired FBI directors. Trump already has a lot of Nixon like tendencies and he is not a president you want to be compared to. The president appointing a new FBI director is very normal. Obama is the exception here. Maybe firing him the first day would be strange, but the FBI director being replaced during the first year is completely normal. Is is normal to fire them when they are investigating your previous National Security adviser's connections to Russia, which you were previously warned about by your predecessor and the AG you also fired? I am waiting for Mattis to get canned. You should not fire the person investigating you, but this is why congress should have appointed a special prosecutor for this in the first place.
Whoa there, don't talk crazy. This is a Republican congress and that would be an over reach. It isn't the job of goverment to police goverment. The free market should handle that.
|
On May 10 2017 07:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:33 Adreme wrote:On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. Clinton is not stupid enough to have her name mentioned alongside Nixon as people who have fired FBI directors. Trump already has a lot of Nixon like tendencies and he is not a president you want to be compared to. The president appointing a new FBI director is normal as Obama is the exception. Firing him the first day would be strange, but the FBI director being replaced during the first year is completely normal.
Um that actually untrue. In fact I just went and looked up every single FBI director since Nixon in order to confirm that you are wrong and you are wrong. It is not common for a president to replace them. In fact it has not happened a single time since Nixon or before that going back to 1935 (though J Edgar Hoover was head of the FBI for almost 37 years of that). He is literally doing what Nixon did and seemingly for the exact same reasons.
|
On May 10 2017 07:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:42 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:55 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:34 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:25 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 05:38 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, might I ask you to respond to my earlier query? If I understand your point correctly you want only the language of a law to be considered and don't think the intent, as stated by the person drafting the law, matters. In the case of a racially neutral law that the framer intended to be combined with racist institutions to deprive African Americans of their constitutional rights would you not agree that the broader context matters? No, I think a judge's interpretation of statements made on the campaign trail shouldn't be considered a sufficient indicator of intent in a law otherwise constitutional and non-discriminatory. Drafting statements, a presidential televised/radio address, congressional subcommittees and congressional debate are routine and well-established means of gathering intent for such things as seeing if a law is being correctly interpreted. What you stated is not my point understood correctly. Okay so your opinion on the example I asked about? I was busy editing my post on that matter while you posted, and you can find it there. I'm confused by your response. On May 10 2017 02:35 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:If we're striking down laws for being unconstitutional by using the stated intent of the authors then there's a good number of anti felon voting laws in the American South which need to be looked at. The President of the constitutional convention in Alabama that disenfranchised felons stated that the objective of the amendment to the state constitution was to establish white supremacy in this state. I wager you've seen the fourteenth amendment, which has been used in these cases in the past: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. The question is this. Is the constitutionality of Alabama's racially neutral felon disenfranchisement law impacted by the fact that the author of it explicitly intended it to be used with the racist control of the legal system to selectively disenfranchise African American voters? If you could answer in a yes or no that'd be great. If it's constitutional to deprive felons of the vote, in this case absolutely written in by amendment, it doesn't matter if Alabama had bad motives for enforcing it. It's inherently constitutional. Now, if that's the only reason for the law to be on the books, to deprive blacks of the vote, absolutely Alabama's citizens should agitate for its removal. If the only reason for that section of the 14th amendment was for white supremacist motives, then the country's citizens should organize to amend the constitution again. I don't see why any one author has rights to its intent if it was voted on by a people's assembly, but you'd have to produce the debate in their legislature. I can think of other reasons to prohibit felons from voting that were unintended by one representative, but absolutely figured into the vote of another ... not to throw the baby out with the racist bath water. Again I'm going to play "if I understand you correctly". You're saying that a law that the author said was intended to "establish white supremacy in this state" (and incidentally was and still is used for exactly that) isn't unconstitutional because although they specified that it was to apply only to black people when talking about it they left that part out when they wrote it down. And that you want the people of the state that has just established white supremacy as their constitutional foundation to end that themselves in the ballot box which they have just deprived to the African American population? We're only a little bit short of asking the slaves to vote against slavery at this point. And it wasn't one author, it was the president of the constitutional convention who said that it was to establish white supremacy. Following the end of slavery they feared losing political control so while they enshrined felon disenfranchisement in order to use their control of the legal system to systematically disenfranchise African Americans. It's a historical fact. How are you not able to condemn this as unconstitutional? Honestly I set the Alabama example up as an easy situation for you to go "yeah, sure, obviously some things aren't constitutional but campaign speeches are a different case". I wasn't expecting you to go full "white supremacy is a state's rights issue and the white supremacist state should decide for itself whether it needs to allow black people to vote". You've disappointed me. You're opening this up into a whole can of worms that I don't have the time nor inclination to address. You have a lot of debatable points couched in "if I understand you correctly." It would take nothing short of a history exploration on the civil war and reconstruction. We fought a giant war on the issue. I'm not expecting current conflicts in the law and representatives to be resolved in the same way. When I pointed out that the fourteenth amendment expressly says voting rights may be restricted, that's the constitution. You want it unconstitutional, amend the constitution. So restricting voting rights of African Americans as part of a deliberate effort to create a white supremacist state is constitutional and legal until such a time as that white supremacist state decides to stop. Got it.
it's prima facie valid no matter what the state legislator said. you would have to prove that it's application was discriminatory in a more detailed way than simply proving that "poor black men get arrested more frequently than white people."
|
On May 10 2017 07:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2017 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 07:04 Introvert wrote:
The flip flopping we are doing on Comey is hilarious.
Now he's a martyr, formerly the living reason Clinton was not elected. I think Comey handled badly. And if Trump fired him a week after taking office I would not have complained. But for god stakes you cannot ignore the timing of this. There never was going to be a good time for Comey to go. It was always going to look bad. Regardless of the timing, the need for getting rid of him is pretty obvious, which the Deputy AG laid out well. I know a good time. How about January the 24th. The day Trump told Comey he wants to keep him on as head of the FBI? How about any day in which Comey is not publicly heading up an investigation into the very man firing him. FFS you claim to be a lawyer. Do you not see the issue here? Ofcourse you do, you just can't accept that Trump fucked up massively.
What specifically is wrong with the timing now?
My guess is that Comey gave Trump assurances in January that he'd shut up and stop making so many public announcements politicizing the bureau's work.
|
|
|
United States42887 Posts
On May 10 2017 07:44 IgnE wrote:
i agree w danglars that the Alabama white supremacist law is constitutional so long as its not only applied to black people. there are white felons you know.
The problem being that they said that they wrote it so that they could turn black voters into felons using their control of the legal system. And then they did exactly that.
The situation wasn't that the black population just happened to be felons already and just happened to get disenfranchised. The white majority said that anyone convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude" would be ineligible to vote and then deliberately set out to maximize the number of black people who met that description.
You can't say that a law is racially neutral and that it impacts anyone who meets the description regardless of race when the guy controlling the description is currently wearing a Klan hood and the guy who wrote the racially neutral law said he intended it to establish white supremacy through the exploitation of their control of the legal system.
Well, I mean Danglars can, but he shouldn't.
|
Xdaunt was a die hard Nixon supporter in a previous life.
|
On May 10 2017 07:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Woah this is huge. What reason did they give for firing him? He fired Yates when she found out about Flynn so I wonder if Comey found something too. Also how does Sessions recuse himself from the investigation for lying under oath but then later fire the head of the investigation party To be fair he fired Yates when she refused to defend his first immigration stop EO.
That is not even in the same realm of magnitude as what just happened.
|
On May 10 2017 07:47 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. On May 10 2017 07:33 Adreme wrote:On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. Clinton is not stupid enough to have her name mentioned alongside Nixon as people who have fired FBI directors. Trump already has a lot of Nixon like tendencies and he is not a president you want to be compared to. The president appointing a new FBI director is normal as Obama is the exception. Firing him the first day would be strange, but the FBI director being replaced during the first year is completely normal. Um that actually untrue. In fact I just went and looked up every single FBI director since Nixon in order to confirm that you are wrong and you are wrong. It is not common for a president to replace them. In fact it has not happened a single time since Nixon or before that going back to 1935 (though J Edgar Hoover was head of the FBI for almost 37 years of that). He is literally doing what Nixon did and seemingly for the exact same reasons.
Clinton was previously the only president to fire an FBI director, FWIW.
|
On May 10 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:44 IgnE wrote:
i agree w danglars that the Alabama white supremacist law is constitutional so long as its not only applied to black people. there are white felons you know. The problem being that they said that they wrote it so that they could turn black voters into felons using their control of the legal system. And then they did exactly that. The situation wasn't that the black population just happened to be felons already and just happened to get disenfranchised. The white majority said that anyone convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude" would be ineligible to vote and then deliberately set out to maximize the number of black people who met that description. You can't say that a law is racially neutral and that it impacts anyone who meets the description regardless of race when the guy controlling the description is currently wearing a Klan hood and the guy who wrote the racially neutral law said he intended it to establish white supremacy through the exploitation of their control of the legal system. Well, I mean Danglars can, but he shouldn't.
ok well you havent made your case. which crimes are crimes of moral turpitude? are they applied discriminatorily? how much leeway do the prosecutors/judges use in deciding charges against blacks vs whites?
look i dont disagree its racist. but you still have to make the case its unconstitutional and thats long and involved
|
well duh, that much is obvious to everyone lol
|
Of course it is. Expect leaks for days upon days from the FBI who doesn't trust Trump or goons.
|
On May 10 2017 07:50 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:47 Adreme wrote:On May 10 2017 07:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. On May 10 2017 07:33 Adreme wrote:On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. Clinton is not stupid enough to have her name mentioned alongside Nixon as people who have fired FBI directors. Trump already has a lot of Nixon like tendencies and he is not a president you want to be compared to. The president appointing a new FBI director is normal as Obama is the exception. Firing him the first day would be strange, but the FBI director being replaced during the first year is completely normal. Um that actually untrue. In fact I just went and looked up every single FBI director since Nixon in order to confirm that you are wrong and you are wrong. It is not common for a president to replace them. In fact it has not happened a single time since Nixon or before that going back to 1935 (though J Edgar Hoover was head of the FBI for almost 37 years of that). He is literally doing what Nixon did and seemingly for the exact same reasons. Clinton was previously the only president to fire an FBI director, FWIW.
Oh right I forgot about Sessions ethics scandal.
|
United States42887 Posts
On May 10 2017 07:47 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:45 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 07:42 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:55 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:48 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:34 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:25 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 05:38 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, might I ask you to respond to my earlier query? If I understand your point correctly you want only the language of a law to be considered and don't think the intent, as stated by the person drafting the law, matters. In the case of a racially neutral law that the framer intended to be combined with racist institutions to deprive African Americans of their constitutional rights would you not agree that the broader context matters? No, I think a judge's interpretation of statements made on the campaign trail shouldn't be considered a sufficient indicator of intent in a law otherwise constitutional and non-discriminatory. Drafting statements, a presidential televised/radio address, congressional subcommittees and congressional debate are routine and well-established means of gathering intent for such things as seeing if a law is being correctly interpreted. What you stated is not my point understood correctly. Okay so your opinion on the example I asked about? I was busy editing my post on that matter while you posted, and you can find it there. I'm confused by your response. On May 10 2017 02:35 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:If we're striking down laws for being unconstitutional by using the stated intent of the authors then there's a good number of anti felon voting laws in the American South which need to be looked at. The President of the constitutional convention in Alabama that disenfranchised felons stated that the objective of the amendment to the state constitution was to establish white supremacy in this state. I wager you've seen the fourteenth amendment, which has been used in these cases in the past: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. The question is this. Is the constitutionality of Alabama's racially neutral felon disenfranchisement law impacted by the fact that the author of it explicitly intended it to be used with the racist control of the legal system to selectively disenfranchise African American voters? If you could answer in a yes or no that'd be great. If it's constitutional to deprive felons of the vote, in this case absolutely written in by amendment, it doesn't matter if Alabama had bad motives for enforcing it. It's inherently constitutional. Now, if that's the only reason for the law to be on the books, to deprive blacks of the vote, absolutely Alabama's citizens should agitate for its removal. If the only reason for that section of the 14th amendment was for white supremacist motives, then the country's citizens should organize to amend the constitution again. I don't see why any one author has rights to its intent if it was voted on by a people's assembly, but you'd have to produce the debate in their legislature. I can think of other reasons to prohibit felons from voting that were unintended by one representative, but absolutely figured into the vote of another ... not to throw the baby out with the racist bath water. Again I'm going to play "if I understand you correctly". You're saying that a law that the author said was intended to "establish white supremacy in this state" (and incidentally was and still is used for exactly that) isn't unconstitutional because although they specified that it was to apply only to black people when talking about it they left that part out when they wrote it down. And that you want the people of the state that has just established white supremacy as their constitutional foundation to end that themselves in the ballot box which they have just deprived to the African American population? We're only a little bit short of asking the slaves to vote against slavery at this point. And it wasn't one author, it was the president of the constitutional convention who said that it was to establish white supremacy. Following the end of slavery they feared losing political control so while they enshrined felon disenfranchisement in order to use their control of the legal system to systematically disenfranchise African Americans. It's a historical fact. How are you not able to condemn this as unconstitutional? Honestly I set the Alabama example up as an easy situation for you to go "yeah, sure, obviously some things aren't constitutional but campaign speeches are a different case". I wasn't expecting you to go full "white supremacy is a state's rights issue and the white supremacist state should decide for itself whether it needs to allow black people to vote". You've disappointed me. You're opening this up into a whole can of worms that I don't have the time nor inclination to address. You have a lot of debatable points couched in "if I understand you correctly." It would take nothing short of a history exploration on the civil war and reconstruction. We fought a giant war on the issue. I'm not expecting current conflicts in the law and representatives to be resolved in the same way. When I pointed out that the fourteenth amendment expressly says voting rights may be restricted, that's the constitution. You want it unconstitutional, amend the constitution. So restricting voting rights of African Americans as part of a deliberate effort to create a white supremacist state is constitutional and legal until such a time as that white supremacist state decides to stop. Got it. it's prima facie valid no matter what the state legislator said. you would have to prove that it's application was discriminatory in a more detailed way than simply proving that "poor black men get arrested more frequently than white people."
But the application was discriminatory. They stood up and said "let's pass this law so niggers can't vote" and then they passed the law and then they used the law to stop black people from voting. This happened 116 years ago. We can check. The whole purpose of the law was to return control of the franchise to the discriminatory institutions run by white supremacists. They literally said that's what they were doing. Of course the application was discriminatory, the whole point was to be a way to target non-whites.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Oh what the shit, this is one hell of a news story to stumble upon.
Comey is a great FBI director and the organization is going to be worse off for his removal. I've been a huge fan of his well before the entire election matter and I haven't seen enough reason to change my mind on that as of yet. In the context of how it happened I can't help but suspect that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
|
Trump's rationale makes no sense. This isn't about Hillary's emails. It's a Trumpian red herring.
The Saturday Night Massacre is the term used by political commentators[1] to refer to U.S. President Richard Nixon's dismissal of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and as a result the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus on October 20, 1973, during the Watergate scandal.
...
Congress was infuriated by the act, which was seen as a gross abuse of presidential power. The public sent in an unusually large number of telegrams to both the White House and Congress.[9][10] Less than a week after the Saturday Night Massacre, an Oliver Quayle poll for NBC News showed that for the first time, a plurality of U.S. citizens now supported impeachment of Nixon, with 44% in favor, 43% opposed, and 13% undecided, with a sampling error of 2 to 3 percent.[11] In the days that followed, numerous resolutions of impeachment against the president were introduced in Congress.
en.wikipedia.org
|
while I have been concerned about Comey, and there is some reasonable grounds for him having been fired at some point; if it was to be done it shoudl've been done awhile ago; by this point he should be kept on. and at any rate, the timing and cited grounds seem inadequate.
While I dislike some decisions Comey made, he was still a darn sight better than most of the politicians.
at least maybe this can be the impetus to lower trump's ratings enough for Pence to coup.
|
United States42887 Posts
On May 10 2017 07:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 07:44 IgnE wrote:
i agree w danglars that the Alabama white supremacist law is constitutional so long as its not only applied to black people. there are white felons you know. The problem being that they said that they wrote it so that they could turn black voters into felons using their control of the legal system. And then they did exactly that. The situation wasn't that the black population just happened to be felons already and just happened to get disenfranchised. The white majority said that anyone convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude" would be ineligible to vote and then deliberately set out to maximize the number of black people who met that description. You can't say that a law is racially neutral and that it impacts anyone who meets the description regardless of race when the guy controlling the description is currently wearing a Klan hood and the guy who wrote the racially neutral law said he intended it to establish white supremacy through the exploitation of their control of the legal system. Well, I mean Danglars can, but he shouldn't. ok well you havent made your case. which crimes are crimes of moral turpitude?
That's the best fucking part man. They never actually defined which crimes are crimes of moral turpitude. It's up to the local registrars in the voting districts of Alabama to decide on a case by case basis which felons are allowed to vote and which aren't. White guy has a DUI, not moral turpitude, he can vote. Black guy has a DUI, moral turpitude, he can never vote again, no appeal. Hasn't been defined for the entire 116 years of this rule being in effect. But they did research on it and you'll never guess what they found. Turns out if you're black, you're not voting. Which is exactly how the President of the Alabama constitutional convention in 1901 said it was meant to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
