|
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 June 09 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:48 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2017 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:43 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2017 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:40 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2017 02:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:
So basically abuse of power isn't a settled area of law at this point? Trump is within his authority, which means he did not expressly break the law. And no case has been brought for abuse of that authority. So we have no base line if it will prevail. This may be correct. And I can see the Supreme Court handling this a lot of different ways. They may treat impeachment and the underlying act as purely political questions. I can also see them looking at the impeachment process on the merits and finding that, because Trump's acts were within his constitutional authority, that it is inappropriate, thereby enjoining Congress from acting. that seems highly implausible; near impossible I'd say (for the supreme court to enjoin congress from impeaching) The Supreme court routinely punts cases of far less political consequences on technical grounds to avoid having to make hard decisions. There's no way they want any part of this mess and the fallout; and they have grounds enough to punt it all back on Congress, they'll take it. You may want to revisit Bush v. Gore or any number of other seminal cases. they do it if they REALLY have to and there's no good basis on which to punt; or if it's a case they really want to set law on. This is not a case to set interesting law on; and there IS a good basis to punt. And it's a horribly toxic case they'll want as little involvement in as possible. Bush v Gore there wasn't enough of a good basis on which to punt. Especially on something as exceptional as an impeachment. Are you kidding? If you really think that, then you know nothing about Constitutional law. I know enough; and enough about the politics of the supreme court. You don't know enough abotu law either if you think the supreme court would seroiusly get in the mdidle of impeachment (excepting things so clear they can get an 8-1 or 9-0 ruling). The single biggest issues that the Supreme Court gets to rule on concern the separation of powers and the relative authority of the three branches of government. This is a case that would immediately be on par with Marbury v. Madison and be mandatory reading in law schools. You're completely clueless to argue that this case would not set "interesting law." It doesn't get bigger than this.
not that interesting and horribly toxic; so no, they won't take part in it.
taking part in it would be self-defeating unless they can come up with a REALLY clever ruling.
authority changes; and protecting trump is asking for the supreme court itself as an institution to be damaged/weakened. they ain't gonna do that.
being mandatory reading isn't good if you get lumped in with Korematsu.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Thanks, and... wow. That's definitely something.
|
McCain reminded me of my grandmother when she's been bad about taking her oxygen. I mean that in all seriousness. My grandmother is one of those sweet old ladies who will never stop talking, but she hates being on oxygen and when she's been avoiding it you can tell. She still talks constantly, but topics, ideas, people, dates, etc. all start getting confused and conflated.
|
On June 09 2017 03:03 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:48 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2017 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:43 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2017 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:40 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2017 02:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:
So basically abuse of power isn't a settled area of law at this point? Trump is within his authority, which means he did not expressly break the law. And no case has been brought for abuse of that authority. So we have no base line if it will prevail. This may be correct. And I can see the Supreme Court handling this a lot of different ways. They may treat impeachment and the underlying act as purely political questions. I can also see them looking at the impeachment process on the merits and finding that, because Trump's acts were within his constitutional authority, that it is inappropriate, thereby enjoining Congress from acting. that seems highly implausible; near impossible I'd say (for the supreme court to enjoin congress from impeaching) The Supreme court routinely punts cases of far less political consequences on technical grounds to avoid having to make hard decisions. There's no way they want any part of this mess and the fallout; and they have grounds enough to punt it all back on Congress, they'll take it. You may want to revisit Bush v. Gore or any number of other seminal cases. they do it if they REALLY have to and there's no good basis on which to punt; or if it's a case they really want to set law on. This is not a case to set interesting law on; and there IS a good basis to punt. And it's a horribly toxic case they'll want as little involvement in as possible. Bush v Gore there wasn't enough of a good basis on which to punt. Especially on something as exceptional as an impeachment. Are you kidding? If you really think that, then you know nothing about Constitutional law. I know enough; and enough about the politics of the supreme court. You don't know enough abotu law either if you think the supreme court would seroiusly get in the mdidle of impeachment (excepting things so clear they can get an 8-1 or 9-0 ruling). The single biggest issues that the Supreme Court gets to rule on concern the separation of powers and the relative authority of the three branches of government. This is a case that would immediately be on par with Marbury v. Madison and be mandatory reading in law schools. You're completely clueless to argue that this case would not set "interesting law." It doesn't get bigger than this. not that interesting and horribly toxic; so no, they won't take part in it. taking part in it would be self-defeating unless they can come up with a REALLY clever ruling. authority changes; and protecting trump is asking for the supreme court itself as an institution to be damaged/weakened. they ain't gonna do that. being mandatory reading isn't good if you get lumped in with Korematsu.
Y'all heard it from zlefin first! Marbury v. Madison --- not that interesting. Time for him to rewrite law curricula nationally.
|
https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/international/us-elections/
2017 is starting to look attractive.
If he leaves office before the election then I think it will be either 2017 or 2018. If he manages to survive these 2 years then he will probably last till the end.
I put a small amount on 2017 for fun and giggles.
I am no lawyer so I have nothing else to add to the previous few pages unfortunatly.
|
Comey just left the closed session with Senators.
|
A fine defense.
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) suggested on Thursday that President Trump's alleged pressuring of former FBI Director James Comey to stop investigating ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn may stem from a lack of government experience.
...
"The president's new at this. He's new to government. So he probably wasn't steeped in the long-running protocols that establish the relationships between DOJ, the FBI and White Houses. He's just new to this."
www.msn.com
|
On June 09 2017 03:20 Doodsmack wrote:A fine defense. Show nested quote +Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) suggested on Thursday that President Trump's alleged pressuring of former FBI Director James Comey to stop investigating ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn may stem from a lack of government experience.
...
"The president's new at this. He's new to government. So he probably wasn't steeped in the long-running protocols that establish the relationships between DOJ, the FBI and White Houses. He's just new to this." www.msn.com
Right, which is why he asked all staff to leave the room, including the AG for example?
He knew what he was asking was wrong.
|
On June 09 2017 03:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 03:20 Doodsmack wrote:A fine defense. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) suggested on Thursday that President Trump's alleged pressuring of former FBI Director James Comey to stop investigating ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn may stem from a lack of government experience.
...
"The president's new at this. He's new to government. So he probably wasn't steeped in the long-running protocols that establish the relationships between DOJ, the FBI and White Houses. He's just new to this." www.msn.com Right, which is why he asked all staff to leave the room, including the AG for example? He knew what he was asking was wrong.
I think it's fairer to say he knew some of those people in the room might disapprove, or knew from experience that requests are more impactful in 1 on 1 settings. I doubt he sat down and thought to himself, "I am about to do something wrong" before he did that.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On June 09 2017 03:24 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 03:21 Gorsameth wrote:On June 09 2017 03:20 Doodsmack wrote:A fine defense. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) suggested on Thursday that President Trump's alleged pressuring of former FBI Director James Comey to stop investigating ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn may stem from a lack of government experience.
...
"The president's new at this. He's new to government. So he probably wasn't steeped in the long-running protocols that establish the relationships between DOJ, the FBI and White Houses. He's just new to this." www.msn.com Right, which is why he asked all staff to leave the room, including the AG for example? He knew what he was asking was wrong. I think it's fairer to say he knew some of those people in the room might disapprove, or knew from experience that requests are more impactful in 1 on 1 settings. I doubt he sat down and thought to himself, "I am about to do something wrong" before he did that.
ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
|
On June 09 2017 03:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:48 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2017 02:45 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 09 2017 02:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 09 2017 02:31 Plansix wrote:
So basically abuse of power isn't a settled area of law at this point? Trump is within his authority, which means he did not expressly break the law. And no case has been brought for abuse of that authority. So we have no base line if it will prevail. This may be correct. And I can see the Supreme Court handling this a lot of different ways. They may treat impeachment and the underlying act as purely political questions. I can also see them looking at the impeachment process on the merits and finding that, because Trump's acts were within his constitutional authority, that it is inappropriate, thereby enjoining Congress from acting. If that's the case, though, Trump would have been perfectly within his powers even if he said to Comey "Stop the Russia investigation or I'll fire you" and then fired him. And then did so for every other person he could fire. Is that really the kind of world SCOTUS thinks makes sense given the Constitution? We have a saying in the legal world that "bad facts make for bad law." If Trump did something that was just so egregiously bad, even if it was constitutional, I can see the Supreme Court looking for an excuse to give Congress a political means to deal with it. I tend to think that they wouldn't. Remember Roberts' remarks in the Obamacare case: if you don't like what your politicians are doing, then the remedy is to vote them out of office when their terms are up. But they never get to rule on if, when and why politicians can remove other politicians from office. I think they might punt that one back to congress and let the voters deal with the fall out at election. Why not? Impeachment is a constitutional process, and we know from Marbury v. Madison that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution.
Mostly because the constitution is clear that the trial is in the senate and voted on by the senate. It is managed by the House. The supreme court would then be injected into that equation by somehow providing “jury instructions” to senators. I can’t see them wanting the role or feeling it would be good for the court.
|
Wait, I read somewhere that there's ads on TV attacking Comey? How the hell is this legal in your country?
|
|
|
Grammar nachos, deploy deploy deploy!
|
On June 09 2017 02:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 02:41 biology]major wrote:
Missed Mccain. Did he actually have some sort of meltdown or did he just ask really partisan questions? He just seemed out of it. Either age or he was just sick.
Still better grammar and cohesion of speech than the President
|
Close quote. Close quote.
|
I love how absurdly obsessed Trump is with not being under personal investigation. Saying it in the letter firing Comey, now making his lawyer say it. Does he really think that matters at all?
I really hope this guy is his lawyer if this becomes an impeachment, because he seems like a great fit as a total buffoon.
|
On June 09 2017 03:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I love how absurdly obsessed Trump is with not being under personal investigation. Does he really think that matters at all?
Trump's obsession with not being personally investigated will get him personally investigated.
|
On June 09 2017 03:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I love how absurdly obsessed Trump is with not being under personal investigation. Saying it in the letter firing Comey, now making his lawyer say it. Does he really think that matters at all?
It's about him. It's ALL that matters [to him].
|
On June 09 2017 03:27 a_flayer wrote:
Wait, I read somewhere that there's ads on TV attacking Comey? How the hell is this legal in your country?
Thank the Supreme Court, citizens united and nearly 30 years of efforts by the conservatives to erode the power of the FCC. Free speech forever, even it is all lies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
