Typical of whom? Not me…I’ve been in here doing battle for days.
it is much easier and faster to thank people for their support than to wade back into the fray. Not to mention the fact that I don’t have a whole lot more to add. We’re on Page 3, and I’m starting to see a lot of repeating.
I think there was a few items I needed to respond to, I just haven’t gotten to them yet. ([sub] not to mentiont he fact that I’m kinda bored with it already, aren’t you?[/sub] And I’m hoping Elvis or someone else will answer them before I get around to it.
Yeah, since you aren’t going to pull your head out of the sand and this has been beaten to death, I’d much rather go back to the topic of the OP and continue heaping scorn on the worthless bastard.
Here’s a straightforward answer: A prosecutor has nothing to do with whether a lawsuit sees the light of day. Straight enough? You were not keeping civil and criminal clear when you asked whether a prosecutor’s decision about what lawsuit sees the light of day is political. Straight enough? You said, and I quote:“Are you actually saying that a ** prosecutor’s decision** about which allegations to investigate, or what lawsuits see the light of day…” All the mixing was in your post, friend.
I’ve explained legal equal protection. You, however, want some sort of political equal protection that, as I’ve explained over and over, violates any number of constitutional protections.
This is just plain unconstitutional. Period. I’m sorry the lawsuit pissed you off, but your solutions are damaging to the very framework of our country. Your not nibbling at the edges. Your talking about separation of powers. That’s a biggie. Yet all you have to support it are conclusory statements and a bunch of stuff that doesn’t have anything to do with civil lawsuits against the president.
And I can’t believe you’re actually saying there should be a presumption that a democrat should not be assured her rights simply because the president is republican. Quite frankly, I thought my example was absurd. Your system, blatant unconstitutionality aside, is completely unworkable. OK. There’s a presumption against Molly Ivins. What’s the threshold? A person who has voted straight party Democrat for 40 years? Somebody who has voted democrat in the last three elections? The last election? Gave money to Greenpeace? Thought Gore should have won? Will litigants have to fill out a questionnaire about their beliefs? What a logistical nightmare and what an intrusion into a person’s right to keep her beliefs to herself.
First of all, thanks for letting me know what my constitutional philosophy is. I’ll bookmark this debate if in case I ever forget.
Why don’t you actually address the constitutional issues instead of spouting the “living constitution” platitude? I do realize the Constitution can be amended. This is the first I’ve heard of it from you, though. You just want to change rules of civil procedure and abrogate separation of powers and the prohibition against judges deciding political issues because Larry Klayman sucks. I’ll grant you he sucks. Can we now move past Judicial Watch?
How is it “lawyerish” to point out that your link didn’t really support your argument? Given some of your arguments, I wasn’t sure you understood that a suit against the Justice Department didn’t cause Reno to get a lawyer.
The price of freedom. Would you not allow people to sue, or just not allow the one’s you don’t like? Do you want the government to decide which suits go forward? That’s a pretty dangerous precedent. A lot of lawsuits against the government are frivolous or annoying, but you can’t have a government in a free society deciding who can sue. That’s not fee and it would soon be corrupt.
No. There’s still been one such suit in history. Suing the Justice Department is not the same as suing the president. I don’t really know how else to say that. If your argument is that Judicial Watch is annoying, you might have a point. But that’s not what we’re discussing here. The issue isn’t whether Judicial Watch sucks, it’s whether a sitting president should be able to delay a suit. What the hell does any other Judicial Watch suit have to do with that? Nothing. You have argued collateral issue after collateral issue.
I’ve laid out a series of constitutional problems involving the very framework of our country. Your only reply is that the Constitution is a “living document”.
I’ve asked you to show me the damage done the country by the Jones lawsuit that would justify scrapping the system. You haven’t given me any explanation, but told me my approach was “too narrow”.
It boils down to one question: Do you believe that the Jones suit was so horrible that we should not have equal protection or separation of powers?
If you want a forum to rail against Judicial Watch, start a thread. This is an issue about the legal system and the constitution. It’s not a political debate. You’re frustrated about the Jones suit. A lot of people are, but don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
Well, I don’t know that having an opinion (shared by many legal experts) is having my head in the sand, but if you like looking at it that way, go right ahead.
Meanwhile, I encourage you to return to your scorn heaping. I have scorn of my own to heap upon the current “president”.
(Not to mention a party to prepare for… I’m having my annual Oscar Soiree…which I get way too involved in. New HDTV, new sofa, piles of marvelous food (fresh shrimp, wild-mushroom Romano polenta cakes, Spinach Leek quiche, Baby back ribs, thin rosemary-olive oil bread slces toasted with Parmesano reggiano til crisp, smoked oysters wrapped in applewood smoked bacon Chewy snack breads with fresh tomato or onion and Kalmata olives… then creme brulee, cheescake, Normandy apple tart and Cherry Brioche from La Brea Bakery. I think Zenster would approve. And this is all after we’ve had a long swim on an 85 degree Sunday in March with some margaritas. In honor of the Oscars, we bask in the California lifestyle)
Zoff, Step Number 1 in fixing a problem is to quit denying it exists. Sufficient facts are available to you to reach that conclusion on your own. I’m sorry to see you’re still fighting the obvious here - but this board is, after all, dedicated to the finding and interpretation of facts. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, that’s your problem, my friend.
Ok, ElvisL1ves, here’s the deal. I’ll stipulate that the Jones suit was frivolous, mean-spirited and political. Now answer all the questions I’ve raised. You’re dodging.