One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Posts for: acknowledgeurma
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 55 next>>
Sep 7, 2018 01:48:24   #
JFlorio wrote:
Ridiculous. As partisan as this country has become that's all they would do. I guess my example went right over your head, purposefully I am sure.

While I appreciate that your toss was purposefully over my head (after all, who wants a in the head), but it seems you may need to throw a bit lower if you want me to catch it.
You wrote, "...that's all they would do." Think of all the trouble Presidents might stay out of if they spent all their time talking to the people and answering our questions.
I was kind of impressed by Sen. Sasse's opening remarks, where he excoriated Congress for relinquishing its law making authority to the executive and judicial branches.
Sep 6, 2018 23:02:13   #
Super Dave wrote:
Innocence is presumed, so no, a person that compliments an innocent person should not be treated the same as someone who insults an innocent person.

So, I guess you presume Hillary Clinton is an innocent person...?

As I recall Ginsburg did not accuse Trump of a crime, from:

"He is a faker," she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. "He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that."

Ginsburg's comments came in a previously scheduled interview related to my research for a book on Chief Justice John Roberts. I took a detour to raise the reverberations from her criticism of Trump to The Associated Press and The New York Times in recent interviews. "I can't imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be -- with Donald Trump as our president," she had said in the Times interview published Monday.

Here is an article that criticized her frankness:
It ends with:
"...Ginsburg's statements have set a precedent that the court as an institution will want to avoid.
Imagine if all nine justices announced their presidential preferences in the advance of each election. Imagine further that they took sides in primary battles, too. It's folly to pretend that judges and justices have no political views, or that their legal views are entirely separate from their judicial philosophies. But there is value in at least formal neutrality in these most partisan battles. Any smart lawyer -- or smart citizen -- can see that. So, in short order, will Ginsburg."

I once said to a lawyer, "Isn't our legal system supposed to bring justice?"
The lawyer replied, "Our legal system is not intended to bring justice, but only an end to conflict."
Sep 6, 2018 22:32:39   #
susanblange wrote:
My insanity was mainly caused by my parents. I was an abused and neglected child since I was born. I used to have what is called "foreign accent syndrome" and it's caused by severe child abuse. When Jews hear me, they always ask me where I am from. I had a deep, weird voice, but I've lost the accent. Other factors contributing to my insanity are creativity and intellect. I created the Universe and I have a near genius IQ. You have to be a nut to believe what I believe, even if you're right.
My insanity was mainly caused by my parents. I was... (show quote)

When you say, "I created the Universe...", do you mean this as an expression of solipsism, or something like what Nelson Goodman writes about in "Ways of Worldmaking".
For synopsis see:
Here is the complete work:
Sep 6, 2018 17:20:19   #
Fit2BTied wrote:
According to Title 28, Section 455, "...justices, judges, and magistrates should recuse themselves if they have a personal bias concerning anyone in the case, or independent knowledge of the facts in dispute; if they worked on the case as a private or government lawyer; or if they or close relatives have a financial interest in the case." I've been listening to Judge Kavanaugh and I don't believe I've heard anything that leads me to believe that he crosses any of those lines. You say the "honorable action" would be for him to recuse, but it would only be appropriate if he had personal bias. He's stated he does not. I suppose if you don't believe him, you vote not to confirm. But I expect he will be confirmed. I remember someone saying that judge Kavanaugh was answering these kinds of questions exactly like previous appointees before him have done. I believe if you could actually get him to agree to commit to a decision on an issue or promise to recuse on an issue before he is confirmed, you would have grounds to reject his confirmation.
According to Title 28, Section 455, "...justi... (show quote)

I'm sure anyone who was relying on his perceived biases would have grounds to reject his confirmation, were he to promise to recuse, just as those who reject his perceived biases have grounds to reject his confirmation.
Sep 6, 2018 17:11:34   #
Fit2BTied wrote:
Don't know how I missed that one, but I did. And it's a good article. Thank you for the coincidence-vs-irony article. In retrospect, I should have used coincidence. Any day you learn something is a good day. As for the last part, I wouldn't equate the way Google organizes search results as something coming from the deep state, because I don't consider Google part of the deep state. I believe the term deep state should be reserved for those involved in government (or who lobby or directly support them) who push for the US to become part of the NWO. I've seen enough instances of oddball Google search results that convince me that their aim is to push a liberal agenda. I lump them together with Facebook, Twitter, and a few others in their seemingly coordinated suppression of opposing voices.
Don't know how I missed that one, but I did. And ... (show quote)

Perhaps the "instances of oddball Google search results that convince [you] that their aim is to push a liberal agenda" is because as many "liberals" are fond of saying, "Reality has a liberal bias."
Sep 6, 2018 17:02:59   #
JFlorio wrote:
Justice Ginsberg publicly insulted Trump. She gave her opinion that Trump is unfit to lead. Should she have to recuse herself on any cases that may come before her involving Donald Trump? Most Justices believe a sitting President can't be indicted. He can be removed by impeachment and then indicted.Otherwise you would have presidents preparing to defend themselves in court all the time. On the tax payer dime I might add.

So, should any Justice who has publicly complimented Trump (are there any?) recuse [their selve] on any cases that may come involving Donald Trump?

I think presidents should defend themselves all the time, preferably in frequent public press conferences.
Sep 6, 2018 16:51:48   #
padremike wrote:
Least we forget, Ginsberg married two homosexuals before it was legal. She broke the law and later ruled on the changing of the same law. She obviously takes the progressive view of the SCOTUS as being a mini legislative branch when required.

Found in:
"The same-sex weddings Ginsburg has officiated were all conducted in Washington, DC, where it was legal for the couples to marry."

You may doubt this source, if so, please provide dates and places where Ginsburg performed illegal marriages.
Sep 6, 2018 16:33:04   #
Fit2BTied wrote:
Ok, you'll need to clarify how/when Kavanaugh stated he was for indictment of a sitting president. I do admit that when he worked with Ken Starr, he seemed to support the impeachment process - but I don't think he ever said anything about indictment or prosecution. And he seems to have changed his mind somewhat regarding impeachment, which as a free man is his prerogative.

As a "free man" his mind is free to wander where it will. But as a public servant (a SCOTUS judge) one should not act on personal bias or even have the appearance of such. That is why when Kavanaugh joins SCOTUS (is there any doubt), the honorable action for him would be to recuse himself on issues of indictment regarding President Trump.
Sep 6, 2018 16:20:43   #
Fit2BTied wrote:
I've looked at a number of sites and it is my opinion that the prevailing view of this issue is that a "sitting" president may not be indicted, however after his/her term in office they may be indicted and prosecuted for criminal activity.

What is ironic is that when you search for "can a sitting president be indicted" it is next to impossible to find an entry that addresses this question prior to Nov 2016. Try it. And plenty of those entries play with the idea that while in our history (again, prior to President Trump's term) even though it is not specifically addressed in the constitution - it is not something we do "...because it would impermissibly interfere with the President's ability to carry out his constitutionally assigned functions and thus would be inconsistent with the constitutional structure."

The first 2 URLS are post Trump, but the third one, the one I think should be given more weight, is the 1973 OLC memorandum from the Justice Department that specifically applies to the subject and tells why a sitting president should not be indicted.

Fun story about how I finally weeded through Google's cherry picked anti-Trump results. I had to search for "Can President Bill Clinton be indicted" in order to squeeze out a few results from earlier in our history. Even then, as you can see, they hit Trump, but the 1973 document slipped through the "algorithm" (see pic below).

Damn it must be nice when all you need to do is throw out a lazy query and Google serves up everything you need. I'm so tired of the playing field being slanted so hard your way. But like most folks here - that will NOT stop me from fighting for what I think is right. Oh and by the way, in case you didn't figure this out Google - you used to be a decent research tool, but now you just suck.
I've looked at a number of sites and it is my opin... (show quote)

I tried your suggested google search and the third result from 1997 is:

You write, "[it is ironic, for this google search, that] it is next to impossible to find an entry that addresses this question prior to Nov 2016".
At first I supposed that you made the common confused synonymization of ironic and coincident. See:

But then I realized that you were leaving a hint that we should look for the hidden workings of the deep state in google search results.
You want us to see that google results, give a preponderance of recent events over older events, NOT because people living in the present moment might find more recent events more relevant.
No you want us to realize that the deep state controls google searches and is plotting ways to foil President Trump's agenda.
Thank you.
Sep 5, 2018 23:54:32   #
Fit2BTied wrote:
Exactly! And what's with the obfuscation of hypothetical issues, like:

(from the article)
Whether a president can use the pardon power to shield himself from criminal liability;
Whether a president can be charged with obstructing justice;
Whether a president can defy a subpoena for testimony;
Whether a president can be criminally indicted;
Whether a president can unilaterally fire a special counsel without cause; and
Related civil matters involving a president’s personal interests.

It's amazing to me that we've been able to appoint 113 justices to the USSC without answering these questions, but now they matter??
Exactly! And what's with the obfuscation of hypoth... (show quote)

Fit2BTied wrote:
OK, so you can be sarcastic as well, but that still doesn't explain why that article isn't just another arrow from the left's quill used to prevent a constitutionally elected President from accomplishing his agenda.

Well, for most (all?) previous presidents these questions have not come up during SCOTUS judge confirmation proceedings.
Kavanaugh seems to have thought these "arrows" were OK to use against a Democratic president, but not a Republican president, and now a Republican wants him on SCOTUS.
Sep 5, 2018 23:23:36   #
Fit2BTied wrote:
OK, let's see if I can clarify. Of course anyone can "ask" a judge to recuse - but the argument put forward for the judge to consider has got to be more than a collection of accusations thrown at the wall to see if anything will stick. We're still waiting for Mueller to produce something concrete. And of course any decision regarding government is political...and?

I think the concern of some, is that President Trump appointed Kavanaugh because of his views about indicting a sitting president (he says it can't be done). Some may think it a bit sketchy for a president, who may be subject to indictment, to put someone in a position to rule otherwise. It seems reasonable that there might be at the least an appearance of conflict of interest, and hence a need to recuse.
Sep 5, 2018 23:03:57   #
Fit2BTied wrote:
I'm trying to figure out your point for offering up the article. I see that during the 1st 17 months, Obama only got 24 article 3 judges appointed and in that same time Trump got 39 (5th and 6th place since Reagan). Maybe you want to imply that Obama had it tougher to appoint judges? From what I've read Obama made a conscious decision not to make appointing judges one of his top priorities at the beginning of his 1st term. By the end of his 2nd term though, he'd appointed 329.

1st 17 months: 1.4 judges per month
Last 79 months: 3.9 judges per month

So I'd say he managed to catch things up.
I'm trying to figure out your point for offering u... (show quote)

The figures relevant to stalling are the number of days from nomination to confirmation for appellate judges:
Bush I - 83
Clinton - 109
Bush II - 108
Obama -203
Trump - 138
Sep 5, 2018 22:53:16   #
Super Dave wrote:
I was responding to your complaint that "Republicans did it too" and corrected your mistake.

What mistake did I make? Was my supposition (that Fit2BTied was as upset when Republicans stalled President Obama's appointments as when Democrats stall President Trump's) mistaken? You might be right. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Sep 5, 2018 18:00:38   #
padremike wrote:
Actually, you confirmed in your reply that you do not believe a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Given what you believe true this Wednesday, is President Trump guilty of any charges of which he is accused?

I am not aware of President Trump being charged with any crimes. And to my knowledge, President Trump has not been found guilty of any charges.

In our legal system, a person is not guilty until proven so through due process. Of course people like to use the word guilty to impugn the character of others all the time, but that generally has nothing to do with any determination under our laws.

With this common usage, I'm sure Donald John Trump is guilty of a lot of things, maybe even a few admirable.
Sep 5, 2018 17:44:11   #
JFlorio wrote:
McConnell said when asked by the news media about this quote that he was talking about Obama's stated policies and goals. Exactly what I thought when I heard him say it. Unlike some people I tried to vet Obama before I voted. He was a little known Senator with hardly any accomplishments. Before that, a community organizer. After listening to the faux president articulate what he stood for I wanted him to fail also. His stated goals: (Have to give him credit, he didn't lie) Universal healthcare, more government control, infringe upon 2nd amendment rights, redistribution of wealth, and lead the war on terror from behind while apologizing for the US all over the world. You may have been all for that. Many are. I am not. Neither was McConnell. So, it was no secret you're just being a typical arrogant liberal with your snide comments.
McConnell said when asked by the news media about ... (show quote)

How was President Obama a "faux president", did he not win the Electoral College vote, the same as President Trump?
And as far as secret motivations, I suspect we all have motivation that are secret (even to ourselves).
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 55 next>> - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.