• 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!

Constitution is being violated in plain sight

eohrnberger said:
"weighed in" does not equal "determines"
Click to expand...
Your post made no distinction between the two, and referred to the AG as a "knowledgeable voice." Oh, and no mention that it's up to the courts. Hmmmmm


Every president selects their AG, hand picked if you will, and is confirmed by the Senate. That's kinda how it works.
Click to expand...
Try again.

To start with, the current President doesn't always pick the AG. Trump did not pick Comey, and admitted that he fired Comey over the Russia inquiry.

Plus, not every AG is a toady to the President. E.g. John Ashcroft, of whom I am not a big fan, refused to reauthorize the domestic surveillance program because he thought it was illegal.

In fact, once upon a time, being too subservient and too political or partisan could get an AG fired. The obvious example is Gonzales, who resigned because he blatantly fired too many federal prosecutors for political reasons. One can only hope those days will return, sooner rather than later....
 
Visbek said:
Your post made no distinction between the two, and referred to the AG as a "knowledgeable voice." Oh, and no mention that it's up to the courts. Hmmmmm
Click to expand...

Words have meaning. "weighed in" still does not equal "determines"

Try again.

To start with, the current President doesn't always pick the AG. Trump did not pick Comey, and admitted that he fired Comey over the Russia inquiry.
Click to expand...

Comey was never AG. AG = Attorney General, and yes, ever president gets to pick their own, and yes, the Senate has to confirm this cabinet level position.

Plus, not every AG is a toady to the President. E.g. John Ashcroft, of whom I am not a big fan, refused to reauthorize the domestic surveillance program because he thought it was illegal.

In fact, once upon a time, being too subservient and too political or partisan could get an AG fired. The obvious example is Gonzales, who resigned because he blatantly fired too many federal prosecutors for political reasons. One can only hope those days will return, sooner rather than later....
Click to expand...

And I suspect that Barr will not be any different. He's been the attorney general before, and he knows the role.

You call him names because you don't like him. Fine. Don't like him. I don't care.

But that doesn't eliminate the vastly greater understanding of the constitution and the law, not to mention legal and AG experience, he bring to the role.
 
Irwin Corey said:
Do you actually read the articles you link to? The contract was for REPLACEMENT wall. tRump just took one step forward and two back; maybe waisting a billion bucks in the process. Winning another loss, biggly.:roll:
Click to expand...

sigh...

I really wish people would read the thread before spouting off at me.

You aren't the first to raise this "replacement" nonsense in this thread. I already responded.

Moving on...
 
Mycroft said:
sigh...

I really wish people would read the thread before spouting off at me.

You aren't the first to raise this "replacement" nonsense in this thread. I already responded.

Moving on...
Click to expand...

Yes your reply was “I’m sure they will build more wall “, and “tRump is doing what he said he would”.

I don’t think you can be so sure, first ‘this will be litigated, maybe to the SC, before any wall gets REPLACED. And I don’t remember tRump promising to steal money from the military for his “Fence”. :2rofll: :2wave:
 
Irwin Corey said:
Yes your reply was “I’m sure they will build more wall “, and “tRump is doing what he said he would”.

I don’t think you can be so sure, first ‘this will be litigated, maybe to the SC, before any wall gets REPLACED. And I don’t remember tRump promising to steal money from the military for his “Fence”. :2rofll: :2wave:
Click to expand...

???

I have no idea what your point is.

Looks to me like you are throwing stuff against your own wall...trying to find a point.
 
WillyPete said:
Waste of energy. Even if there is a smoking gun in the Mueller report, an impeachment at this point would be counterproductive.

It would serve mainly to feed the narrative that everyone's out to get Trump.

It is unlikely the result would be satisfactory, and once the effort fails Trump can rightly claim he was vindicated and the object of malicious attacks, etc, etc.

The time and energy would be much better used grooming a truly better nominee, that can communicate where Trump is wrong, legally, politically and morally, AND provide a improved alternative.

Based on the crop I'm seeing so far, we've still got a ways to go on that.
Click to expand...


That is true from a party first point of view, however if there is enough evidence (and I believe there already is) to prove trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, it is Congress's sworn duty to hold him accountable...
 
Mycroft said:
???

I have no idea what your point is.

Looks to me like you are throwing stuff against your own wall...trying to find a point.
Click to expand...

I thought you moved on? Looks to “me” like you don’t have an argument and it’s chapped your ass. LoL
 
eohrnberger said:
Words have meaning. "weighed in" still does not equal "determines"
Click to expand...
If words have meaning, then why do you still treat "weighed in" as though it was definitive?


Comey was never AG.
Click to expand...
My mistake. Still, and sorry for the repetition, but while the AG does follow the policy preferences of the President, they're not supposed to prioritize protection of the President over upholding the Constitution and rule of law.


And I suspect that Barr will not be any different. He's been the attorney general before, and he knows the role.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he also wrote a 19-page memo based on twisted legal reasoning to exonerate the President from obstruction of justice... while Barr was a private citizen.... and over a year before seeing any of the actual report.

Not to mention he's demolished his reputation for any sort of neutrality since releasing his 4-page "summary" of said report.


You call him names because you don't like him.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. I'm calling him a toady, because he apparently cares more about protecting Trump than he does about the rule of law. An AG who acts like a craven sycophant deserves to be called out.


But that doesn't eliminate the vastly greater understanding of the constitution and the law, not to mention legal and AG experience, he bring to the role.
Click to expand...
Yeah, thing is? Having that vast knowledge does not in any way exculpate him from being biased. E.g. there is no doubt in my mind that Antonin Scalia knew the law and much of the Constitution far better than I ever will, and that he held deep biases which led to distorted legal reasonings, awful rulings, and violations of his own proclaimed "originalist" interpretation methods.

I mean, really. Would it be all that difficult for us to find someone who is highly educated and perhaps occupies an important office in the justice system or judicial branch, with whom you disagree on matters of constitutional law? Can you side with both Scalia and Kennedy with Obergefell, on the basis that both of them have a greater understanding of the constitution and the law than you do? Do you really apply this subjugation to credentialed authorities across the board and to your own views?
 
JustHanging said:
But the base is frightened. It's understandable, haven't you seen what they're facing?

319516179.jpg



That kid in the yellow looks pretty tough. I bet he would bounce a ball off one of the trailers in the park, and maybe not even apologize!
Click to expand...

Actually, we're more frightened of these:

1z53gv5.jpg
 
Roadvirus said:
You sure do know how to deflect. Too bad you look foolish doing it.
Click to expand...

lol...why not just admit one group of prison scum is no different than another group of prison scum. It would be a good start to a new friendship. :)
 
Roadvirus said:
You sure do know how to deflect. Too bad you look foolish doing it.
Click to expand...

Whereas Repubs who bring up Hillery or Obama when Don is caught lying or investigating the investigators doesn't? Actually deflection starts at the top, but Don has looked foolish from the start...
 
calamity said:
I guess, if the Constitution is to be more than just toilet paper, people should act.
Click to expand...

Yeah...an OP-Ed from a leftists cabal creates New Constitutional Authority for the Dunce-o-crats.

They had the opportunity to OVERRIDE the VETO...they failed.


Please... by all means, tell the House Politburo to start IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS....I'll enjoy the massacre.
 
Visbek said:
If words have meaning, then why do you still treat "weighed in" as though it was definitive?
Click to expand...
Where in "weighed in" is there any connotation of being definitive?


My mistake. Still, and sorry for the repetition, but while the AG does follow the policy preferences of the President, they're not supposed to prioritize protection of the President over upholding the Constitution and rule of law.



Yeah, he also wrote a 19-page memo based on twisted legal reasoning to exonerate the President from obstruction of justice... while Barr was a private citizen.... and over a year before seeing any of the actual report.
Click to expand...

That would be a legal opinion with the weight of Barr's long legal experience. So probably more than yours, I'm willing to bet. You are free not to like it.

Not to mention he's demolished his reputation for any sort of neutrality since releasing his 4-page "summary" of said report.
Click to expand...

An interesting leap into confirmation bias.

Incorrect. I'm calling him a toady, because he apparently cares more about protecting Trump than he does about the rule of law. An AG who acts like a craven sycophant deserves to be called out.
Click to expand...

I don't think that this has been demonstrated by his actions. I think this is the result of listening to, and giving greater weight to, the already known leftist propagandists in the news media.

Yeah, thing is? Having that vast knowledge does not in any way exculpate him from being biased. E.g. there is no doubt in my mind that Antonin Scalia knew the law and much of the Constitution far better than I ever will, and that he held deep biases which led to distorted legal reasonings, awful rulings, and violations of his own proclaimed "originalist" interpretation methods.
Click to expand...

"held deep biases" you substantiate this how?
"distorted legal reasonings" based on your <ahem> expert legal knowledge and experience?

The impression you leave is one that 'anything that isn't left is wrong'. :shrug:

I mean, really. Would it be all that difficult for us to find someone who is highly educated and perhaps occupies an important office in the justice system or judicial branch, with whom you disagree on matters of constitutional law? Can you side with both Scalia and Kennedy with Obergefell, on the basis that both of them have a greater understanding of the constitution and the law than you do? Do you really apply this subjugation to credentialed authorities across the board and to your own views?
Click to expand...

Not being a constitutional scholar my agreeing or disagreeing with a SCOTUS or SCOTUS justice's legal opinion would be on the same footing as comments from the peanut gallery.

Meh. I prefer SCOTUS justices to be textualists rather than revisionists.
 
Irwin Corey said:
I thought you moved on? Looks to “me” like you don’t have an argument and it’s chapped your ass. LoL
Click to expand...

"Moving on" is the mantra of the surrender monkey. He's had to use it often of late.
 
The Constitution has been dead long before Dubya described it as a piece of paper.
 
Thoreau72 said:
The Constitution has been dead long before Dubya described it as a piece of paper.
Click to expand...

Andrew Jackson when he said SCOTUS can find a way to enforce their judgement, Re: giving the Cherokee people rights.
 
snakestretcher said:
218 miles? Fantastic, only 1700 to go then. Should be a snip.
Click to expand...

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Lao-tzu, The Way of Lao-tzu
Chinese philosopher (604 BC - 531 BC)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom