With all due respect, Stoid, the “it distracts him from his job” argument is the lamest, dumbest argument you could possibly make. Of course it distracts him from his job. It would distract anyone from their jobs, but I don’t see you claiming that anyone who holds a job should be immune from lawsuits. The President should be subject to the same rules as anyone else and there’s no rational justification for making it otherwise in a democratic, egalitarian society governed by the rule of law, unless you’re planning to make the United States a monarchy.
No offense, but I find it truly amazing that anyone would make such an argument. Ohhh, it distracts him from his job. Boo hoo. So does having a family; should family men be ineligible for the Presidency? I admit that having read the Constitution of the United States, I must have missed the part that said the President shouldn’t be distracted.
If you’re going to run a society based on the rule of law and equality before the law, you are going to have to accept even the President being subject to the LAW, and unfortunately that means that the President, and the Supreme Court justices, and Cabinet members and Senators etc etc may have to be inconvenienced. Nothing’s more important than the rule of law; lose that and everything goes to shit. Place some above the law and everything unravels. The rule of law is far, far more important than the President’s convenience. Distracting the poor, poor President is a miniscule price to pay to ensure the rule of law and equality are upheld.
Point 2: Why Clinton should take a lot of blame for the Kosovo war
Anyway, I would point out a failing of Clinton’s that hasn’t been mentioned yet in the thread; the conduct of the USA and NATO during the Kosovo war was appalling. I SUPPORTED the notion of intervention, but to deliberately attack civilian targets of dubious military necessity, and delibereately kill Serbian civilians, for the express purpose of avoiding military casualties and pressuring a foreign government to bend to our will, was an act of terrible cowardice and was in direct contravention of international law. If you want to fight a war, send the soldiers in to fight other soldiers; that’s why we have professional soldiers. Clinton deserves to be blamed for that, as do the leaders of all the NATO countries.
Also, I agree with RickJay about the Kosovo war, and believe that Clinton and all the NATO leaders deserve to be put on trial (and possibly hung) for war crimes. However, I don’t see that you could single out Clinton for blame, as his thinking and actions seemed to enjoy near unanimous support.
I don’t know if they DESERVE to be hung, but Paula Jones could probably tell you if Clinton is hung or not.
As to whether or not they should be hanged, I don’t think the nature of the war and relevant precedence would justify a war crimes trial. But it was a deplorable act for which Clinton deserves ultimate blame. The buck stopped at his desk.
I disagree completely. The President of the United States is, arguably, the most important, impactful (is that a word? Works for me at the moment) and critically important job on Earth. The position, rightfully, carries special rights and special privileges. He is NOT Joe Shmo with his lunchpail, hittin’ the bricks every day. He is, trite but true: the Leader of the Free World.
Ms. Paula Jones’ need to get revenge on him for showing her his penis, if in fact he did so, doesn’t appear anywhere on the list of priorities for the country or the world. She waited many years before she filed the suit, she could have waited a few more.
And I find it truly amazing that you don’t see that.
You are also mistaken about the Rule of Law coming before everything else. Certain members of the armed forces are, in fact, protected from civil lawsuits while they are actively serving. (I will have to go surfing to find the details on this. I just recall it from the noise at the time the Supreme Court was considering the issue.) Precisely because what they do is so important to the country, they should not be distracted by personal bullshit. And you’re going to tell me that the man who commands them all shouldn’t be considered as important as Col. Jow Blow? Pardon me? This is logical because…?
_ I went to search for a reference to the military and lawsuits, and I found a great interview with Vincent Bugliosi, that includes this quote, which pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter: (I don’t believe there’s any real copyright infringement, this is about 10% of the material, and I’ve cut it even more, inserting *** wherever there is extraneous stuff that isnt’ necessary tot he point) - keep in mind that this was before Monica, which would * never * have come to light in the way that it did were it not for Paula and the Supremes:
Amen! The whole damn mess should NEVER have happened. It was wrong out the gate.
In addition to this, you’ve asserted several times that he shouldn’t be distracted from this important job by “personal bullshit.”
I suggest we back the bus the fuck up at look at why he was “distracted” from this the “most critically important job on Earth.” Simply put, it’s because the man did not have the good judgement to make a simple differentiation between proper and improper behavior. So, any “distractions” he experienced were of his own making. He chose an improper course of action. He paid the price for that. To avoid the “distraction” of the free press all he had simply to do is act properly. Taking the man to task for his repeated demonstration his lack of rational judgement is not “personal bullshit.” That lack of judgement is the root cause of his troubles and should necesssarily have disqualified him from the “most critically important job on Earth.”
And yet you venerate the man, and believe him to be a great leader. A guy who can’t judge between a simple right and wrong. And when shown the errors of his decisions, his ego would not let him admit those errors, even when under oath. The man deserves no respect or honor. In fact, he’s contemptible. Would you tolerate behavior like this from your fiancee? I should hope not, and frankly Stoid, your logic doesn’t impress me any more than Clinton’s decision making.
One more thing. You’ve made the claim that a president is accorded “special rights and privileges.” This is in absolute contradiction to the intents of the writers of the U.S. Constitution. They held, and made very clear, in the Federalist Papers that public officials were not to be accorded any special rights or privileges; special advantages for public officials were anathema and reprehensible to them. Your claims sounds more like something from the old U.S.S.R. Constitution, not the United States.
What does the free press have to do with anything? My argument is that Paula Jones’ lawsuit should have been put on hold until he left office. Then Monica would never have come up, or if she did, he would have denied it and we all would have gotten on with our lives, since the question of perjury would never have come up.
So it looks for all the world to me like yeah, it was sex, which is about as “personal bullshit” as it gets. Other presidents have been friggin’ billy goats, screwing anything that wasn’t nailed down. Lots of them. It tends to be a feature of power-seeking men that they also have powerful sex drives. We didn’t nail the others to the wall, nor should we. But this one got nailed for what has to be the most nothing sexcapade on presidential record. Why? Because the Supremes decided that Paula Jones’ need to sue him for showing her his penis, three years after the supposed “fact”, outweighed America’s need for a president focused on his job, not worrying about lawsuits over personal matters.
And I, along with lots of other people, many of them far more learned in these things than any of us, think so too.
stoid
PS: This all completely ignores the fact that Paula Jones was, in many opinions, a tool. The whole damn thing was crap and existed entirely to destroy him. But that’s a can of worms that will just give us all a headache. Let’s assume for the purpose of this argument that he did get her in a room and show her his wee-wee. Wake me when it gets interesting.
I think one look at the number of high-ranking staffers who jumped ship mid-term would give an unbiased person reason to wonder what they knew about the guy that we didn’t.
I mean, there were staffers who wrote unflattering books about him while he was still in office. Wow. I can only imagine what sort of book deals are being worked now.
No, the Supremes (BTW, I’m now picturing Diana Ross with Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg singing behind her, thank you very much) decided that there was no constitutional basis for a presidential immunity from civil litigation.
I know you liberals like it when judges and justices legislate from the bench and find new rights that the legislative branch never wrote into law, but that’s not their proper place in our government, and fortunately, the Supermes know that.
The President of the United States is a civilian not a military man. So he’s not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice…uh, at least I think that’s what it is called.
**
Actually the courts generally make decisions based on their interpretation of the law as well as past court decisions. There was no legal reason why the president should not have been sued.
Vincent Bugliosi and a large number of experts disagree. See this part of the quote:
“Here is what they did wrong. Whenever any court in the land – *** is confronted with two interests that are both valid but competing, the court must, unless it wants to flip a coin, balance the interests and decide which interest is entitled to the most protection, *** In this case, ***the court failed to balance the interest. If they had balanced the interest, what valid argument under the moon could be made for the proposition that Paula Jones’ individual interest is more important than the rights of 260 million Americans to have a full-time president be undistracted and undiverted from his duties?”
Bugliosi wrote a 70 page essay about the whole thing.
They error was the attorneys’. They argued the wrong thing. If they’d argued the above, the court could never have ruled as they did.
It was bogus.
stoid
PS: As for whether the President is subject to military code or is an actual member of the military, what a ridiculous technicality! We have to let the officers be free to do their jobs, but not the man who tells them what their job will be? What bizarre logic is that?
If we assume it’s true, then it was sexual harrasment and he did have State Troopers out scouting chicks for him, both of which are sooo far outside the lines of acceptable behaviour for anyone, let alone a public servant on our payroll. This wouldn’t interest you?
If Gov. Dubya Bush had government employees tell you that he wanted to see you and when you met him, the first thing he does is pull his wang out, I think you’d be a little more than interested. I think you’d be livid, furious, outraged, and wanting his head on a stake. And I think that would be an entirely appropriate reaction.
If we assume it’s true, the man belongs in a cell.
The Soldiers and Seaman Act is a specific statutory provision barring suit while the person is in service. It does not cover the president. The Supreme Court refused (properly) to write a statute. If Congress had intended to protect a sitting president from suit, they could have passed a law as they did for servicemembers.
No. The attorneys did argue that it would be good policy to protect the president from suit. Bugliosi obviously agrees. The Supreme Court rejected the argument for the reasons stated above.
It’s not a technicality. It’s called separation of powers. The Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the laws, not write them. They looked for a statute that protected the president. They found none. There is, however, one protecting servicemembers. Given the absence of a statute for the president, the Court came to the extremely reasonable conclusion that “If there is a statute for A, but not for B, it means Congress didn’t mean to protect B.”
I think the president should be open for suit. I don’t think this because it was Clinton. I think it is good policy. However, much of your anger at the decision seems to derive from the fact that it hurt Clinton and Paula Jones was a “tool”. That’s a bit ironic in a thread you opened about people basing decisions on emotion.
I just read this entire thread, and it seems that the only thing Clinton really did wrong was: Lie about the blowjob. (Which he wouldn’t have had to do if the right-wingers simply left his personal life personal). Many of the Clinton-bashers listed reasons why they don’t like him, and that’s fair enough, since that’s what the OP asked for. But I feel it should be pointed out that he really only made 1 mistake in 8 years. Everything else is either hearsay, conjecture, or simple disagreement with his decisions. Well, I’m certain that most of you wouldn’t have been happy with his decisions no matter what they were. It hurts when someone you prejudicially despise ends up succeeding. In fact, I’m pretty sure that you hate him a lot less now than you did 8 years ago, since the whole Monica Lewinsky incident allowed you to voice your “I told you so”'s.
But the facts are the facts. And these are that he helped revive an economy that was left for dead by his 2 predecessors. Right-wingers love to (erroneously) credit Greenspan for this. But Clinton actually had a lot more to do with it than Greenspan. Monetary policy won’t work if fiscal policy doesn’t complement it. Just ask Reagan and Bush (actually, they’d never understand). Clinton was one of the smartest presidents in history. His approval ratings were strong until the very end. He would have been re-elected in a landslide if he had been allowed to run for president again. Sorry for the slight hijack, but I believe that this needed to be stated. Now, on with the stoning (I mean bashing)…
Could you pass me the crack pipe please? I would like to hallucinate too.
Fact: Reagan revived an economy that was stagnant under Carter.
Fact: The Republican Congress balanced the budget.
Fact: We are currently in the Clinton recession this very moment.
Fact: The economy undergoes cycles.
If you want to weigh the success of any particular President on the economy alone, you are projecting more power and influence on that position than it really has. Sure, the President could do stuff to wreck the economy, but in general, he is at the whims of the market.
I think the decision was ridiculous, and I’ve explained why. I’m getting quite a bit of “no, it was a good decision and it’s good policy” in reply, without a thing to back it up.
Why would anyone think it is a good idea to leave the president of the Untied State open to civil lawsuits? in what way is this “good”? How does this enhance the functioning of our government, make it more effective, hmm? Has out single experience with the practice proven to be a positive thing? And ifyou think so, I’d be fascinated to know how.
It seems to me that the reason some folks think it’s a good policy is * exactly * because it was Clinton.
I think the policy is nuts no matter who is President.
Oh, and as for “sexual harassment” - I’m a woman, I’ve been sexually harassed, I’ve been raped, I’ve been sexually assaulted and I’ve been molested. Bill Clinton pulling out his penis, looking like a dope, then stuffing it back in, with no consequence to Jones for her rejection of him is just all in a day’s work in the battle of the sexes. And if she was so damn traumatized, why the hell did she wait three years? Also, unless I’m lacking some critical piece of information, there was nothing * criminal * about what Clinton did, so he hardly belongs in a cell. What he did was just very, very male. Stupid and unattractive, and she could have sued him when he left office for it.
There is no good reason on earth that any president should be vulnerable to civil lawsuits while in office.
First of all, you’ve assumed a lot about me without knowing anything about me. I am not a right winger, I don’t think presidents should get sued because it screwed Clinton, and I don’t know (or care) whether Clinton harrassed Jones. When a legal matter is debated, I look at the long-term consequences of both arguments and make a decision.
My previous post explained exactly why it was a good decision. You have posted it was “bizarre logic” and think it was stupid. Fine. But don’t ignore explanations and then say nobody has explanations. Your legal “analysis” is incredibly flawed.
Now, on to policy considerations. I think it is a good policy because the President is just a person. Yes, he has a lot of responsibility, but he’s still just a person under the law. It is unwise to give leaders too much protection from the consequences of their actions.
Another major reason why he should be open to suit is that waiting until he exits office could badly prejudice the other party. Say the president is in office for two terms. Meanwhile, the plaintiff has to (1) wait eight years to be made whole again; and (2) hope to god witnesses don’t die or forget, and other evidence isn’t lost or contaminated.
My final policy argument is just a rehash of my earlier post. Courts interpret laws, they don’t write them. If Congress wants to give the president immunity, that’s their prerogative. The fact that you, or me, think something would be a good law doesn’t mean the courts should write that law.
There are my arguments. Don’t ignore them with a “it’s a stupid ruling”. Answer them or move on.
Whoa! Slow down there. One of your “facts” was correct: The economy is certainly cyclical. As for Reagan, well, since he really had no idea what he was doing, its not even even fair to compare them. I mean, just read a Macro-economics book and you’ll see what increased (and unnecessary) spending combined with tax cuts can do to an economy. I mean, I plan to have children one day, and I don’t want them to have to work hard just to pay for the economic ignorance of a senile president and his staff.
And I didn’t say that you should weigh the success of the president on the success of the economy alone. Its just the one subject that I know enough to talk about (and at times even teach, although the few times that I’ve tried to teach it on these boards, I didn’t accomplish much. I guess some people just don’t want to learn). I’m sure that there are many others who can show how Clinton was superior to his predecessors in the other presidential disciplines (except in keeping his zipper up).
Well, there IS that little inconvenient confession last year by the ex-trooper who told the Paula Jones story in the first place that he made up the part about troopers “scouting chicks”. In short, he told a lie for money. You can go on believing in your heart that Clinton “did have State Troopers out scouting chicks” etc. if you like - there are a lot of people who’ll believe whatever they’re told about Clinton as long as it’s negative.
Now, what’s with this mis-spelling of “behavior” - do we have another Canadian infiltrator here?
Now, others have tried to explain the Supreme Court rationale behind the decision not to postpone the Jones suit. I’d like to suggest that the stated rationales be reconsidered in light of the Court conservatives’ demonstratably partisan rulings in {i]Bush*.
Why? You’re assuming that I like the ruling because I don’t like Clinton, or Democrats, or whatever. You’re wrong. I think the decision in the Jones case was a good one for the reasons I’ve already stated (twice).
Saying that the Court made a bad decision in X, so they must have made a bad decision in Y is incorrect. I know that a lot of these threads turn into Republicans and Democrats trying to subtly slam one another under a thin sheen of policy analysis. That’s not what I’m doing. You can believe me or not. I think the Jones decision was good on the merits. I’ve yet to hear a non-political analysis of why it wasn’t a good decision.
