visionary Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Edited July 10, 2018 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, visionary said: Come on. This has been a serious concern since his name first came up. His own opinion on the matter though is perhaps secondary to the Trump team's factoring it into their picking him. I think I've seen a couple reports say that it was the deciding factor. The most interesting/worrisome thing though is if Trump or his people have questioned him on it and either revealed something useful or implicated him as well. Come on yourself. Ive been listening to people argue this issue for months. With no firm conclusion anywhere on the matter. Ive read predicto’s posts on the matter, which agree with the nominee. Or at least that the nominees argument is one that is likely to win out. Reports? Good on your reports. I though one report you posted was about how he wanted someone from yale? Good old twitter reports. If you’re going to make that argument a deciding factor you’re going to preclude 1/2 the potential people. you all sounded more realistic when you were concerned about arbortion. The idea of indicting a sitting president has been argued a lot ove the last year. Catch up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, tshile said: Come on yourself. Ive been listening to people argue this issue for months. With no firm conclusion anywhere on the matter. Ive read predicto’s posts on the matter, which agree with the nominee. Or at least that the nominees argument is one that is likely to win out. Reports? Good on your reports. I though one report you posted was about how he wanted someone from yale? Good old twitter reports. If you’re going to make that argument a deciding factor you’re going to preclude 1/2 the potential people. you all sounded more realistic when you were concerned about arbortion. The idea of indicting a sitting president has been argued a lot ove the last year. Catch up. Yeah, ok. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Honestly no one would care on the issue if we had a GOP congress willing to impeach Trump or even at the least were willing to tell the public what a definite red line for impeachment is. The way things stand now the GOP will likely just stonewall until the matter goes to the Supreme Court, and well....we now know how that is going to turn out. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 19 minutes ago, tshile said: If having an opinion that a sitting president can not be indicted precludes you from sitting on Scotus then half, of not more, of the best legal minds out there would be precluded. Including people on the left, and people that hate trump admire the everlasting ability to manufacture controversy though. Feel like you are ignoring more than a few things. Intentionally. Par for the course sure but I never tire of pointing it out. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, Llevron said: Feel like you are ignoring more than a few things. Intentionally. Par for the course sure but I never tire of pointing it out. I intentionally ignore twitter reporters and bad arguments/ers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 24 minutes ago, tshile said: If having an opinion that a sitting president can not be indicted precludes you from sitting on Scotus then half, of not more, of the best legal minds out there would be precluded. Including people on the left, and people that hate trump admire the everlasting ability to manufacture controversy though. Nonsense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Congrats, guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, tshile said: I intentionally ignore twitter reporters and bad arguments/ers Ah I see. Totally legit then. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Edited July 10, 2018 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, visionary said: Congrats, guys. Fool sounds just like his supports. The closet ones too. This is governing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Don Jr. and the rest of conservative America like..... Edited July 10, 2018 by clietas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 9 minutes ago, visionary said: see now there’s something to care about. Anti regulation. I suppose that should be expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 24 minutes ago, tshile said: If having an opinion that a sitting president can not be indicted precludes you from sitting on Scotus then half, of not more, of the best legal minds out there would be precluded. Including people on the left, and people that hate trump admire the everlasting ability to manufacture controversy though. It doesn't preclude anybody. Brett can sit on the bench but he ought to recuse. Judges recuse themselves all the time. President should not be able to choose his own judge. Standard legal concept. Ultimately, if Trump can get 5 justices to agree that the Pres cannot be indicted/tried/sentenced/etc criminally WITHOUT Brett, then sure, go nuts. That being said the argument that a sitting President can't be criminally tried, under any circumstances, is really, really, stupid. I can get behind not allowing a President to be subject to prosecution for misdemeanors from any point in life while POTUS, and same for non-election related felonies prior to being POTUS. But impeachment is a political tool. It is not a judiciary, and it doesn't concern itself for criminal standards (beyond all reasonable doubt, etc.). To say that the criminal justice system must wait until after POTUS is out, whether by impeachment or by any other method is to make the President above the law. "But ooooh," says Brett, "it will interfere with the President's ability's to do his jeeeeerrrrbbbbb." Yeah, you know what else interferes with POTUS' ability to do their job? Being an active unrepentant criminal and major player in a massive conspiracy against the United States, BRETT! I feel like the people saying, "but he can't because it interferes with the job" forget what the President's job ****ing is. It is to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. If you are actively committing criminal acts or engaging in a criminal conspiracy with a hostile foreign power, I'd say one's ability to faithfully execute the laws of the United States may have already been compromised. Just a teenie bit. Yes, the power to prosecute the President should have limitations to it for practical purposes. But to make that unlimited is dumb. Really dumb. For real. There needs to be an actual LEGAL enforcement mechanism that can step in at some point once the POLITICAL process of impeachment and conviction fails to act. Honestly, what is the difference between civil cases, which Presidents ARE subject to (I mean, ffs, his old driver just sued him), and criminal cases? Serving a sentence? Okay, cool, then there should be, at a minimum, no debate as to whether a President can be tried and guilt determined, and really we need only decide if they can be sentenced and have the imposition of punishment delayed (e.g. get 10 years jail but delayed confinement until January 20th, 20XX at 12:01pm), whether they can be sentenced at all (guilt phases and sentencing are often bifurcated anyway, so basically sentencing would just be delayed until after POTUS is out), or whether sentencing and punishment can both go ahead. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 I don't mind too much that he's conservative (though as a moderate Republican I probably disagree with him on a number of issues), he seems to want to expand presidential power though and that makes me very nervous, especially considering Trump constantly exploits what power he has and complains about not having enough all the time. If it were Hardiman or the others except for Barett due to her lack of time as a judge, I would be ok with them, though probably unhappy with the future of the court. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Edited July 10, 2018 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Eh, I’ve seen worse picks. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Edited July 10, 2018 by visionary 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 48 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: Eh, I’ve seen worse picks. Yup. At least its not Devin Thomas or Kwame Brown. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) Edited July 10, 2018 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 hour ago, clietas said: Yup. At least its not Devin Thomas or Kwame Brown. You stole my punchline you sonofa**** ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 10, 2018 Author Share Posted July 10, 2018 Quote Brett Kavanaugh: "No president has ever consulted more widely or talked to more people from more backgrounds to seek input for a Supreme Court nomination." The very first and best quality in a prospective Supreme Court Justice must be ass kissing. What we really need is a boot licking ideologue! Woo hoo who wants to maximize Presidential power and give free reign regardless of the degree of corruption. If I'm being fair, every nominee ever has thanked the President who selected them and heaped some praise, but Kavanaugh likely got the nod because he told Trump both personally and in the public record that he would protect him regardless of any criminal or abusive action he's been accused of. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 58 minutes ago, Burgold said: The very first and best quality in a prospective Supreme Court Justice must be ass kissing. What we really need is a boot licking ideologue! Woo hoo who wants to maximize Presidential power and give free reign regardless of the degree of corruption. If I'm being fair, every nominee ever has thanked the President who selected them and heaped some praise, but Kavanaugh likely got the nod because he told Trump both personally and in the public record that he would protect him regardless of any criminal or abusive action he's been accused of. When I read the statement you quoted, (just a few minutes ago), I almost lost a mouthful of coffee. ? "Let The Lying Begin: SCOTUS Version" ...Dick Wolf needs to get his giddy-up on. ? And I can't admire Preet more, his tweet about Merrick Garland is pure ****ing GOLD. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 I have no idea if Laufer has any real insight into the court and Roberts' actions, but I haven't heard this nugget before (specifically the part about Roberts' forcing recusal) so I thought it was an interesting thing to think about (less to take as actual news, since there's no way to verify). It would 100% be the right thing to do, to force recusal of these two in any case involving the present President's conduct, but we'll have to see if it actually happens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now