US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8559

On August 26 2017 11:59 Wulfey_LA wrote:


Here's a hint why someone would think this is a good idea:

On August 26 2017 11:33 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Anti-anti-Trumpers: when you spin for Trump, this is what you spin for:



EDIT: next time you spin for Trump and put up some feeble 'b-b-b-b-but Antifa/Lynch/Lewinski" nonsense, ask yourself what you think about state violence in violation of the constitution.

On August 26 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote:

Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad. "This is what you spin for." Maybe you need to wake up to what it means to rarely support Trump and then sometimes find his attackers are just as idiotic and blind as he is.

+ Show Spoiler [pardon power] +

On August 26 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote:

Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad. "This is what you spin for." Maybe you need to wake up to what it means to rarely support Trump and then sometimes find his attackers are just as idiotic and blind as he is.

+ Show Spoiler [pardon power] +

On August 26 2017 12:09 Danglars wrote:

Clueless left wingers: Stop circling back to arguments like it's okay to punch a nazi or nazis don't get free speech. It makes you look bad. "This is what you spin for." Maybe you need to wake up to what it means to rarely support Trump and then sometimes find his attackers are just as idiotic and blind as he is.

+ Show Spoiler [pardon power] +

On August 26 2017 12:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:


So you are cool with sanctioning state violence in violation of the Constitution because it sticks it to the libs? Just make the pro-Trump argument here. Don't hide behind b-b-b-b-b-but Antifa exactly as I predicted.

Also, I read Dan McLaughlin's thread. His first premise is "ignore the substance of the pardon", and then he proceeds to make a faulty procedural argument. First, I reject his premise entirely. The substance matters as shown in the thread you just quoted that I linked.

Second, accepting his ludicrous "ignore the substance because Republicans are okay with this because it sticks it to the libs", he is wrong there too. In his entire thread he misses three key facts about this pardon:

(1) This was pre-sentencing, and shortcircuited due process of law
(2) This cut the legs out from judicial power over law enforcement. Contempt is how judges keep people who ignored their orders in line.
(3) Arpio showed zero remorse about flouting the orders of a judge and used his friendship with DJT to defeat a judicial order.

And No, Dan McLaughlin's "but Dems would be okay with pardons to defeat a Republican judge" line does not hold water. He cited no actual Democrats for that. And his b-b-b-b-but imaginary Democrats whataboutism does not excuse DJT here.

EDIT: if you seriously want to engage in a debate about the procedural questions about this pardon, please read this piece by Noah Feldman. B-b-b-b-but Antifa will not make DJT crippling the Judicial branch's power over law enforcement okay.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-23/arpaio-pardon-would-show-contempt-for-constitution

On August 26 2017 12:18 Wulfey_LA wrote:


So you are cool with sanctioning state violence in violation of the Constitution because it sticks it to the libs? Just make the pro-Trump argument here. Don't hide behind b-b-b-b-b-but Antifa exactly as I predicted.

Also, I read Dan McLaughlin's thread. His first premise is "ignore the substance of the pardon", and then he proceeds to make a faulty procedural argument. First, I reject his premise entirely. The substance matters as shown in the thread you just quoted that I linked.

Second, accepting his ludicrous "ignore the substance because Republicans are okay with this because it sticks it to the libs", he is wrong there too. In his entire thread he misses three key facts about this pardon:

(1) This was pre-sentencing, and shortcircuited due process of law
(2) This cut the legs out from judicial power over law enforcement. Contempt is how judges keep people who ignored their orders in line.
(3) Arpio showed zero remorse about flouting the orders of a judge and used his friendship with DJT to defeat a judicial order.

And No, Dan McLaughlin's "but Dems would be okay with pardons to defeat a Republican judge" line does not hold water. He cited no actual Democrats for that. And his b-b-b-b-but imaginary Democrats whataboutism does not excuse DJT here.

EDIT: if you seriously want to engage in a debate about the procedural questions about this pardon, please read this piece by Noah Feldman. B-b-b-b-but Antifa will not make DJT crippling the Judicial branch's power over law enforcement okay.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-23/arpaio-pardon-would-show-contempt-for-constitution

If President Donald Trump pardons Joe Arpaio, as he broadly hinted at during a rally Tuesday in Arizona, it would not be an ordinary exercise of the power -- it would be an impeachable offense. Arpaio, the former sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, was convicted of criminal contempt of court for ignoring the federal judge’s order that he follow the U.S. Constitution in doing his job. For Trump to pardon him would be an assault on the federal judiciary, the Constitution and the rule of law itself.

On August 26 2017 12:33 xDaunt wrote:

That Bloomberg editorial is terrible. This opening paragraph is hyperbolic garbage:



No where in his polemic rant does the author even come close to making the case that parson amounts to an impeachable offense. And his attempts at distinguishing the pardon of Arpaio on this point from other presidential pardons are utterly specious.

In particular, Mason objected that “he may frequently pardon crimes that were advised by himself.” He complained, “If he has the power of granting pardons before indictment, or conviction, may he not stop inquiry and prevent detection?”

That seems like a formidable objection, but, as usual, James Madison, his fellow Virginian and the closest thing to the Constitution’s father, was one step ahead of him.

Gently, Madison pointed to “one security in this case to which gentlemen may not have adverted.” The security was that “if the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; (and) they can remove him if found guilty.” In Madison’s view, “This is a great security.”

Mason was focused on cases in which a president pardoned people for committing crimes that he himself “advised” (apparently in the sense of personally suggesting and helping to plan). More broadly, Madison urged that if the president was merely “connected, in any suspicious manner,” with someone who was engaged in wrongdoing, and if he decided to “shelter” (meaning pardon) him, then the president could be impeached.

On August 26 2017 12:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:


Here, have it from Madison's mouth as to the importance of impeachment as a check on pardons. Madison's words put Apraio's birtherism spinning back in 2012 in a more sinister light. If DJT is going to use the pardon power to interrupt prosecutions of friends, yes, that is a real assault on Article III.



http://cjonline.com/opinion/columns/2017-08-09/cass-sunstein-simple-answer-trump-pardon-question

On August 26 2017 12:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:


Here, have it from Madison's mouth as to the importance of impeachment as a check on pardons. Madison's words put Apraio's birtherism spinning back in 2012 in a more sinister light. If DJT is going to use the pardon power to interrupt prosecutions of friends, yes, that is a real assault on Article III.



http://cjonline.com/opinion/columns/2017-08-09/cass-sunstein-simple-answer-trump-pardon-question

On August 26 2017 12:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump, probably: "Well in the past two weeks, I've hated on blacks and Jews and the transgender community, so who else can I- oh yeah, fuck you, Latinos."

On August 26 2017 12:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump, probably: "Well in the past two weeks, I've hated on blacks and Jews and the transgender community, so who else can I- oh yeah, fuck you, Latinos."