One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: acknowledgeurma
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 55 next>>
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:
https://thinkprogress.org/why-justice-ginsburg-can-officiate-all-the-legal-same-sex-weddings-she-wants-928c07ed2a47/
"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.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/can_a_sitting_president_be_indicted_the_constitution_doesnt_give_a_definiti

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2016/11/09/can-a-president-trump-be-prosecuted-based-upon-allegations-of-past-misconduct/#5556d3b7491b

https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download

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:
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2573&context=facpub

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:
http://cisl.edu/wordpress/lessons/coincidence-vs-irony-in-english.htm

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).
Sep 5, 2018 17:34:14   #
Super Dave wrote:
The Republicans did it within Senate rules, exactly as Democrats in power did under a GOP POTUS. It was sleasy, but within the rules.

Hey, if you don't like the rules, change them - if you can. It all depends on how the power lies. Might makes the rules.
 
Sep 5, 2018 17:31:28   #
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 hypot... (show quote)

What exactly are you unclear about, regarding these issues?
Perhaps, because all our previous presidents have not been as remarkable as President Trump, these question have not come up?
Sep 5, 2018 17:20:43   #
padremike wrote:
What precisely are those "mounting personal liabilities" Mr Trump is facing. How would the SCOTUS rule that someone is innocent until proven guilty. I suggest the framers would be offended by your presumption of guilt.

I would suggest that you have a misunderstanding of the role of "presumption of innocence" in our legal system.
Do the police arrest people because they presume they are innocent?
Do prosecutors prosecute because they presume the defendant is innocent?
We hope that judges and jurors will presume the defendant is innocent, until proven guilty beyond the amount of doubt required for the class of crime.

As a private citizen, I may presume anything I want. If I am assigned the public office of juror, I am required to suppress the effects of any of my presumptions (e.g. why bring to trial, one who is innocent).
I think, in our system, a juror is not even supposed to consider their own personal knowledge of the case, but rely only on information presented at trial.
Sep 5, 2018 17:05:11   #
Fit2BTied wrote:
It's not hard to determine how the Brookings Institute leans. The arguments in the article might have some merit if they weren't all based on politically motivated accusations that have not been substantiated legally. If absurdity can be used to halt our democratic process, and if the republicans commit to it the way democrats have, we might as well shut down DC and start over.

I'm not sure what argument you are making... Are you saying, that only people who see no bias, are allowed to ask for a judge to recuse?

And how is any decision made regarding government not political?
Sep 5, 2018 16:55:37   #
Fit2BTied wrote:
I've been trying to stay updated on the proceedings. It seems like Judge Kavanaugh was not "read into" much of what Sen Leahy and others are asking about. Let's be honest acknowledgeurma, as we've seen since the inauguration, democrats have show their mastery of delay tactics and slow-walking in an effort to hamstring President Trump's agenda and appointments. I tip my hat because republicans could never be as adept, and certainly never as unified as the democrats in this endeavor. Saul A. taught you all well.
I've been trying to stay updated on the proceeding... (show quote)

Regarding Democrats delaying tactics:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/06/14/are-trumps-judicial-nominees-really-being-confirmed-at-a-record-pace-the-answer-is-complicated/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.49605ea32689
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 55 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2018 IDF International Technologies, Inc.