Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Really, the courts have little choice but to hear the case, otherwise there is a stalemate.
    And here is a classic example of how wrong you can be. The discussion wasn't about "the courts" but about SCOTUS --- and they do NOT have to hear the case. Simply by declining to hear the case would send a signal that they're not going to overrule a lower court's ruling.

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Alan Dershowitz points out that the second article of impeachment -- "obstruction of Congress" -- is DOA:

    Dershowitz: Look, the most important development happened today. The Supreme Court of the United States absolutely pulled the rug out of part two of the impeachment referral by granting certiorari, by granting review in a case where Trump challenged a congressional subpoena, and the Supreme Court said, we are going to hear this case.

    Hannity: All three cases, by the way.

    Dershowitz: One of them is a state case — but think of what that message is. It’s “Trump was right.” you don’t have to comply with a subpoena of Congress unless the court tells you you have to comply. we don’t know how the court is going to come out, but they made it clear that is a viable issue. So that charge, that ground of impeachment should be immediately removed by the House and not sent to the Senate. There is nothing to it anymore after the Supreme Court today said they were going to review on an issue when the president challenges the subpoena power of Congress. All done, it’s over!

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...f-impeachment/

    You really are profoundly ignorant about how these things work.

    And, yeah, I know --- by exposing your ignorance of jurisprudence, I'm 'defending Trump at every turn'.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      And here is a classic example of how wrong you can be. The discussion wasn't about "the courts" but about SCOTUS --- and they do NOT have to hear the case. Simply by declining to hear the case would send a signal that they're not going to overrule a lower court's ruling.



      You really are profoundly ignorant about how these things work.

      And, yeah, I know --- by exposing your ignorance of jurisprudence, I'm 'defending Trump at every turn'.
      They're not hearing an appeal on a lower court ruling, CP. The hearing is on whether or not Trump can defy a Congressional subpoena.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        They're not hearing an appeal on a lower court ruling, CP. The hearing is on whether or not Trump can defy a Congressional subpoena.
        You said "the courts" have little choice...
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Really, the courts have little choice but to hear the case, otherwise there is a stalemate.

        It wasn't "the courts" - it's SCOTUS, and they are not obligated in any way to hear any case. The very fact that they're willing to hear it says a lot. You're simply wrong that they "have little choice".
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          They're not hearing an appeal on a lower court ruling, CP. The hearing is on whether or not Trump can defy a Congressional subpoena.
          And, actually, in the text MM cited, it refers to one of the cases being from the State of New York -- which would certainly suggest "a lower court's ruling".

          The high court is the president’s last hope to stop House investigators and New York state prosecutors from probing his financial dealings dating back nearly a decade, and potentially longer. Lower courts upheld the subpoenas, which were served not on Mr. Trump himself but an accounting firm and two banks that hold the records.

          Had the court refused to hear the cases, the accounting firm and two banks would have had to turn over Mr. Trump’s financial records promptly.

          “We are pleased that the Supreme Court granted review of the president’s three pending cases,” said Jay Sekulow, an attorney for Mr. Trump. “These cases raise significant constitutional issues. We look forward to presenting our written and oral arguments.”


          (This would be where you usually simply disappear, or get frustrated and claim "It doesn't matter!")
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            You said "the courts" have little choice...
            It wasn't "the courts" - it's SCOTUS,
            We were talking about the Supreme Court, so it should of been clear to you what court I was talking about.

            and they are not obligated in any way to hear any case. The very fact that they're willing to hear it says a lot. You're simply wrong that they "have little choice".
            Really. And what happens then if they refuse to hear the case? Does Trump then have to comply with Congressional subpoenas? And what happens then if he doesn't comply?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              We were talking about the Supreme Court, so it should of been clear to you what court I was talking about.
              You said "the courts". SCOTUS is not "the courts".

              Really. And what happens then if they refuse to hear the case?
              Then the lower court ruling stands.

              Does Trump then have to comply with Congressional subpoenas? And what happens then if he doesn't comply?
              Impeachment is the remedy for that. Unfortunately, the Democrats can't organize a two car funeral procession.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                Really. And what happens then if they refuse to hear the case? Does Trump then have to comply with Congressional subpoenas? And what happens then if he doesn't comply?
                Are you really so ignorant? If the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, then the ruling of the lower court stands.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  They're not hearing an appeal on a lower court ruling, ....
                  What? The High Court is rarely trier of fact. Are you sure about that?
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Your anti-Christian bigot colleagues are very proud of you.
                    So, to oppose Trump and the current GOP members in Washington is to be an “anti-Christian bigot”. Figures, given that it is you white evangelicals that put him there.

                    Personally, I never heard of Greta before last week.
                    That's hardly surprising. You Evangelicals are not known for your understanding and knowledge of the real world.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      So, to oppose Trump and the current GOP members in Washington is to be an “anti-Christian bigot”.
                      You're even dumber than I thought. No, THAT is not what makes you an anti-Christian bigot. The rest of your post, therefore, is typical TassiCrap.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Senate Repubs are doing their best to match or exceed Trump’s lawlessness.

                        The world is watching the once greatly admired USofA descend with alarming speed into unabashed Banana Republicism.
                        “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                        “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                        “not all there” - you know who you are

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                          Senate Repubs are doing their best to match or exceed Trump’s lawlessness.
                          Your best example, please.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Your best example, please.
                            There are so many examples of Republican lawlessness that it is difficult to choose. Here’s an example of what I have been reading today, from WaPo.
                            GOP senators defended their right to work for Trump’s acquittal. But McConnell’s statement, according to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), was akin to “the foreman of the jury saying he’s going to work hand in glove with the defense attorney.”
“That’s in violation of the oath that they’re about to take, and it’s a complete subversion of the constitutional scheme,” Nadler said on ABC’s “This Week.”


                            Senators take an oath to “do impartial justice” at the start of any impeachment trial — but several Republican senators argued that impartiality doesn’t cover politics.
“I am clearly made up my mind. I’m not trying to hide the fact that I have disdain for the accusations in the process,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday on CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”
                            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                            “not all there” - you know who you are

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                              There are so many examples of Republican lawlessness that it is difficult to choose. Here’s an example of what I have been reading today, from WaPo.
                              If there are so many examples, why did you pick such a bogus one?

                              Here's the problem --- you're trusting the word of Nadler - the incredibly partisan hypocrite who decried the abuse of impeachment before, but is pressing forward against every pronouncement he's made in the past. Nadler is a liar, and he sleeps through impeachment hearings, and he drools when he dozes.

                              There is absolutely nothing illegal in what McConnel said -- in order for something to be "lawless", they have to actually be breaking some laws.

                              Now, find a REAL example.

                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by dirtfloor View Post
                                There are so many examples of Republican lawlessness that it is difficult to choose. Here’s an example of what I have been reading today, from WaPo.
                                GOP senators defended their right to work for Trump’s acquittal. But McConnell’s statement, according to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), was akin to “the foreman of the jury saying he’s going to work hand in glove with the defense attorney.”
“That’s in violation of the oath that they’re about to take, and it’s a complete subversion of the constitutional scheme,” Nadler said on ABC’s “This Week.”


                                Senators take an oath to “do impartial justice” at the start of any impeachment trial — but several Republican senators argued that impartiality doesn’t cover politics.
“I am clearly made up my mind. I’m not trying to hide the fact that I have disdain for the accusations in the process,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday on CBS News’s “Face the Nation.”
                                I don't buy this narrative that the Senate is supposed to enter into an impeachment trial blind when the Democrat case against Trump is a matter of public record. Given the almost criminal weakness of the Democrat case, working with the President to clear his good name is the only just thing to do.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                399 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X