• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Giuliani says Trump will not answer Mueller's obstruction questions

DiAnna said:
When there are already four Justices on record who would vote to overturn Roe, one Justice... this Justice... kinda-sorta does. But for Justice Kennedy, it would already be gone, and half the states in the nation would have already criminalized abortion for any reason.
Click to expand...

Kennedy kept Roe alive for Rehnquist, to keep it alive for Republican hysterical base politics.

He weakened abortion rights in 1992, creating more gray areas, which is why we see Red states doing what they’re doing now.

Roberts did the same thing with PPACA. Dilute it, but keep it alive as an election cudgel.

The Rehnquist Court gave us Bush-43, which gave us Roberts and Alito, which gave us Today.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I feel jr's unfair to paint this nominee as if he were a supporter of Trump, or anything even close to similar to Trump.

He has a completely different history, and entirely different education, an entirely different view of the world and of the country... and more importantly, he has read and understands the Constitution - all of which make him completely different than Trump.

If you dislike one of his rulings, then that's fair and fine and we can discuss it if you like. If you don't like the guy on a personal level, then that's fine and fair as well for you to have as an opinion. But equating him to Trump just because the guy just happened to be nominated by Trump is not just unfair, but is fundamentally wrong on all levels.
Click to expand...

Trump only chose him because of his view that a sitting president should be free from investigation.
I view I do not share, no one should be above the law...
 
Cardinal said:
Nobody said he would make a ruling by himself. But we have the first Trump appointee after the appointment of the special counsel, which means he was chosen for his views on whether a President could be subpoenaed (among typically conservative positions, of course). His ruling could, and is likely to be, a loyal vote for the side that Trump cannot be ordered to testify.

And the Supreme Court could make that ruling years before Democrats have the numbers to successfully impeach and remove them from their seats.
Click to expand...
I actually don't think it would fall on Trump's side. It probably wouldn't be close. Conservative justices typically defer to the executive, but a passage in U.S. v. Nixon suggests that a president's privilege does not extend to excluding him entirely from the judicial process if information vital to a pending case are at stake. Clinton was subpoenaed by Ken Starr, but Starr withdrew the subpoena after they were able to strike a deal with Clinton, who feared he'd suffer a high-profile loss (personally and for the presidency), agreed to testify under agreed-upon conditions.
 
Anthony60 said:
If this was Obama, I'd say he shouldn't answer the questions. Trump has an obligation to protect the office of President. No President should even consider it.
Click to expand...

How is not being willing to speak the truth "protecting the office of the president?"

Or better yet...why is anyone assuming that speaking the truth wont be "protecting the office of the president?"
 
Beaudreaux said:
That was before the other cases that reaffirmed Roe, which have put precedence upon precedence. JMPO, and also what he testified to today and yesterday, and what he stated in writing in a number of his rulings and legal opinions.

That doesn't mean that he could rule differently than he has in the past, but his past rulings (since the 2003 statement) go against thinking that he would overturn Roe.
Click to expand...

I heard that; again, it was just a bunch of meaningless drivel meant to deflect from the fact that he refused to answer the question that had been put to him, just as he wouldn't answer the question of whether he had discussed the Mueller investigation with anyone, or whether he would recuse himself if any results from Mueller's investigation was put before him as a Supreme Court Justice.

I've spent hours watching Kavanaugh, who has been meticulously prepped. However, when Trump declared to the American people that he would only put pro-life judges on the bench and SCOTUS, he was openly expressing his own litmus test; thus, I have no reason not to believe that Trump is quite confident that both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will vote to overturn Roe v Wade should they have that opportunity... and we both know that they will.
 
Cardinal said:
These guys aren't being chosen for their erudite views on the Constitution. Kavanaugh has Clarence Thomas written all over him. Thomas clocks in, reflexively votes against the more liberal sounding position, clocks out, drinks beer, goes to bed, rinse and repeat. No opinions, no dissensions, just a conservative hammer in the Culture Wars.
Click to expand...

Of course not, neither was Breyer after being United States Assistant Attorney General under President Lyndon Johnson and a star of the Democrats as assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in 1973, as was Sotomayor who although first being placed on the federal bench by G.H.W. Bush was raised to higher courts by Clinton and Obama after ruling so far to the left on numerous cases that she became a rising star of the Progressive movement, and of course as was Kagan, the former assistant White House Council for President Bill Clinton and the former US Solicitor General for President Obama's Administration, and we cannot leave out the former general council for the ACLU... the notorious RBG.

That's the way it's done. If the Democrats want it differently, as Senator Graham said today, win the election.
 
Cardinal said:
The lawyers could go through all his tweets and all his past statements, and what they'd immediately be faced with is an avalanche of contradicting statements that make any answer impossible. There is literally no conceivable way for a lawyer to craft an answer that doesn't put him in legal jeopardy. While Republicans have been bitching all this time about Mueller setting a "perjury trap," the truth is that trump walked into that trap a long time ago simply by opening his mouth over and over again.

Now, let's just say for the sake of being argumentative that they do somehow find a way to craft an answer that hasn't already been contradicted (yeah, right). What the lawyers know full well is that anything they put in writing now (which would be the same as testifying under oath) is likely to be contradicted mere weeks later by Trump, thus setting off his own self-created perjury trap.

Legally speaking, Trump can't say or write anything under oath, either by his own mouth or through his lawyers.
Click to expand...

I can imagine the lawyers spinning his deep state attacks as him being legally insane. He didn't know what he was doing. However, if they discuss that plan with him, which is pretty much their only out at this point. since he is too proud to resign, then what? Is that considered intent??? Can Mueller prove he did plan this all along?
 
Beaudreaux said:
Of course not, neither was Breyer after being United States Assistant Attorney General under President Lyndon Johnson and a star of the Democrats as assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force in 1973, as was Sotomayor who although first being placed on the federal bench by G.H.W. Bush was raised to higher courts by Clinton and Obama after ruling so far to the left on numerous cases that she became a rising star of the Progressive movement, and of course as was Kagan, the former assistant White House Council for President Bill Clinton and the former US Solicitor General for President Obama's Administration, and we cannot leave out the former general council for the ACLU... the notorious RBG.

That's the way it's done. If the Democrats want it differently, as Senator Graham said today, win the election.
Click to expand...
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is sticking with his party's Supreme Court strategy after meeting with nominee Merrick Garland.

"Just had a good meeting with Judge Garland. ... I told him that I believe that the [Justice Antonin] Scalia vacancy should be filled by the next president," Graham said in a video posted Wednesday after his meeting. "We're well into the nominating process. I think that's best for the court. I think that's best for the country."

The senator made the remarks after sitting down with Garland for a closed-door meeting Wednesday. Graham is the 10th Republican senator, and third GOP member of the Judiciary Committee, to meet with President Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

Although Graham said Garland is "honest and capable" and "his reputation is beyond reproach," he said he still believes the next president should appoint Scalia's successor.

"Let the voters have a say about who they would like to be the next Supreme Court justice. Judge Garland's a fine man, but this should be done by the next president," he added in the video.
Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...next-president-should-fill-supreme-court-seat

You were saying?
 
Xelor said:
What is "McConnellism?"
Click to expand...

If you have to ask that question, you don’t why we’re where we’re at today.

MM’s last 20 years will go down in history as Constitutional Blackmail and Constitutional Bastardization.

It’s just too bad that so many of these Republican Senators like Collins, Murkowski and many other ‘normals’ won’t live long enough to see what they have done to this Nation with their appeasement .
 
DiAnna said:
I heard that; again, it was just a bunch of meaningless drivel meant to deflect from the fact that he refused to answer the question that had been put to him, just as he wouldn't answer the question of whether he had discussed the Mueller investigation with anyone, or whether he would recuse himself if any results from Mueller's investigation was put before him as a Supreme Court Justice.

I've spent hours watching Kavanaugh, who has been meticulously prepped. However, when Trump declared to the American people that he would only put pro-life judges on the bench and SCOTUS, he was openly expressing his own litmus test; thus, I have no reason not to believe that Trump is quite confident that both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will vote to overturn Roe v Wade should they have that opportunity... and we both know that they will.
Click to expand...

I've watched most of it, when I was able to turn away from my computer and put the phone down that last three days.

I found it very insightful. I liked most of his answers, but I do have some questions that are unanswered - how I think he would rule on a Roe attack is not one of them. I support Roe, although I think it was based on the wrong part of the Constitution, in that enumerated rights found in the Liberty Clause (which isn't really a clause since it's just one word) is tenuous and dangerous. I would rather had seen the Secure in their Person Clause of the 4th Amendment, the 9th and 10th Amendments used, and then the Slaughter-House cases overturned and the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the of the 14th Amendment utilized to uphold Roe. I feel those would be more accurate than to find an "unenumerated" (unwritten and unreadable) right that's supposedly hiding behind one word - although that word, Liberty, does encompass a hell of a lot of rights as Senator Harris listed just a few late today. I'm not a fan of Harris at all, but she was dead on point with that line of questioning, and hers on that particular subject are a few of the questions I would like to heard an answer to, although I can understand why he didn't given that he actually shouldn't since they could come up in an actual case - I'd still like to know though.

Here's a VERY long article, but if you have time I think you would enjoy reading it about the unenumerated powers and the SCOTUS all the way back to Marbury v Madison starting with Judicial Review and working up through our history including Dred Scott, Brown v BOE, Roe v Wade, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, and so on. Don't drink before you start reading it or you'll fall asleep, but it's well written.
 
Last edited:
Linc said:
If you have to ask that question, you don’t why we’re where we’re at today.

MM’s last 20 years will go down in history as Constitutional Blackmail and Constitutional Bastardization.

It’s just too bad that so many of these Republican Senators like Collins, Murkowski and many other ‘normals’ won’t live long enough to see what they have done to this Nation with their appeasement .
Click to expand...

What I know is that I did ask and you have chosen to chide my having done so rather than simply answering the question or pointing me to a link that does.
 
Cardinal said:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...next-president-should-fill-supreme-court-seat

You were saying?
Click to expand...

There's no need to be snotty or insulting. My quoting Graham was not meant to be snotty or insulting, and if you took it as such, I apologize.

Today, he was referring to Senate elections, no the POTUS. As to what the Senate did to Garland, I disagreed then and I disagree now. Garland should have been given hearings, and then voted down by the GOP instead of the theatrical delay bull**** that was done instead. IMHO.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I've watched most of it, when I was able to turn away from my computer and put the phone down that last three days.

I found it very insightful. I liked most of his answers, but I do have some questions that re unanswered - how I think he would rule on a Roe attack is not one of them. I support Roe, although I think it was based on the wrong part of the Constitution, in that enumerated rights found in the Liberty Clause (which isn't really a clause since it's just one word) is tenuous and dangerous. I would rather had seen the Secure in their Person Clause of the 4th Amendment, the 9th and 10th Amendments used, and then the Slaughter-House cases overturned and the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the of the 14th Amendment utilized to uphold Roe. I feel those would be more accurate than to find an "unenumerated" (unwritten and unreadable) right that's supposedly hiding behind one word - although that word, Liberty, does encompass a hell of a lot of rights as Senator Harris listed just a few late today. I'm not a fan of Harris at all, but she was dead on point with that line of questioning, and hers on that particular subject are a few of the questions I would like to heard an answer to, although I can understand why he didn't given that he actually shouldn't since they could come up in an actual case - I'd still like to know though.

Here's a VERY long article, but if you have time I think you would enjoy reading it about the unenumerated powers and the SCOTUS all the way back to Marbury v Madison starting with Judicial Review and working up through our history including Dred Scott, Brown v BOE, Roe v Wade, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, and so on. Don't drink before you start reading it or you'll fall asleep, but it's well written.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for the in-depth insight into the legalese that I honestly and obviously couldn't follow (I don't speak the language, lol). Your take on that part of the hearing was quite interesting... it's clear Harris is smart as a whip, even though I'm not a fan... and I appreciate the time you took to share it. Thank you also for providing a link, for further insight. Always a pleasure, Beaudreaux! You are one of my favorite posters, and interesting responses like this is one of the reasons!
 
DiAnna said:
Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch.

In 2003, Kavanaugh himself wrote that Roe wasn't accepted law to the SCOTUS, because SCOTUS could overturn it at any time, and three current justices would vote for it. Trump just added the fourth; Gorsuch.

Kavanaugh would be the fifth, and final nail, in Roe v Wade's coffin.
Click to expand...

Other than Thomas I think you are speaking the truth about the other three.
 
GDViking said:
Trump only chose him because of his view that a sitting president should be free from investigation.
I view I do not share, no one should be above the law...
Click to expand...

No one is above the law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Constitution has a specific way to investigate, prosecute, and convict a sitting President. Kavanaugh has never said a sitting President cannot be Impeached. That, is the law.
 
GDViking said:
Trump only chose him because of his view that a sitting president should be free from investigation.
I view I do not share, no one should be above the law...
Click to expand...

Exactly — Kavanaugh’s ‘written’ views on investigating a sitting President ‘evolved’ after his time with K. Starr.
 
Cardinal said:
And what event is equivalent to the horse leaving the barn, exactly?
Click to expand...

Good question - That analogy refers to an action that has already begun and cannot be reversed. There are other similar sayings, such as "That train has left the station." and "There's no such thing as partly pregnant." The event I'm referring to is Mueller having enough irrefutable evidence that he no longer needs to interview Trump, which is what I said very plainly in that post - I thought. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
 
DiAnna said:
Thanks so much for the in-depth insight into the legalese that I honestly and obviously couldn't follow (I don't speak the language, lol). Your take on that part of the hearing was quite interesting... it's clear Harris is smart as a whip, even though I'm not a fan... and I appreciate the time you took to share it. Thank you also for providing a link, for further insight. Always a pleasure, Beaudreaux! You are one of my favorite posters, and interesting responses like this is one of the reasons!
Click to expand...

Thank you ma'am. You're high up on my list as well.
 
Winston said:
Also, is anyone going to note that the defense doesn't get to set the terms on what is allowed to be investigated?
Click to expand...
It does - too a point - when your The President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom