You’re the one throwing around personal abuse and skulking home. Ad hominem much counselor? Because your arguments are appeals ad populum and you’ve got nothing else.
The fact of the matter is that as the years wander by it looks more and more like a political hatchet job by a bunch of coordinated jerks.
People will line up and go out to see Clinton. We all know that people don’t line up to see are the brain children authored by the Republicans, sound and fury, signifying nothing. Men get blow jobs and don’t go around bragging about it. Only a Republican would try to make a federal case out of a consensual blow job.
The level of your self-delusion has convinced me that I was absolutely right in dismissing your opinion. Despite the findings of every single person involved in the case itself (which isn’t appeal ad populum, it’s actually an appeal to authority, and, in this case, not a fallacious one) you simply counter that with a big “Nuh Uh!” and “You’re an idiot!” I’ve now seen I was right thanks.
You really ought to look at all the ad hominems you’ve cast at me and others in this thread.
You now appeal to authority. The decision making body was the Senate. No high crime or misdemeanor. You refer to prosecutors who cast aspersions, but don’t bring cases. They could have gone strong or gone home. They went home. (I do love that phrase of yours.) They had no criminal case.
You are okay with a judge deciding a case against a former political opponent. I’m not. We disagree. But more than that, I disrespect the disagreement here. The whole point of a judge is being neutral. It undermines faith in the court system.
I don’t and never have claimed to be anything other than a partisan. Go ahead and do the Google search. I’m an advocate for my positions.
As disappointed as I was when I found out Clinton had lied to us, over time I have come more and more to appreciate the humanness of his response. He lied. So fucking what. When people abuse their authority to grind government to a halt, they really deserve the equivalent of a kick in the balls. That is what they got.
Starr never should have accepted the appointment, Wright never should have accepted the case. While Starr’s excesses were more than Wright’s, Wright’s abuse of judgment was worse than Clinton’s.
I don’t want a judge in any of my cases who knows any of the parties. As a citizen, I expect a judge who has to bend over backwards to look fair to recuse rather than bend over backwards. This isn’t baseball, the litigants lives and livelihoods are at stake. In this case the running of the whole nation was at stake. And she was a political hack working in campaigns for governor against Clinton. And his former student who administratively litigated (successfully) a case in law school against him.
I and every citizen has a right to a judiciary above reproach. You are awful quick to give that up. I don’t often agree with the Judicial Watch profiteers, but on this one, I do.
As if it were politically feasible for Clinton even to have suggested as much. :rolleyes:
You really have no fucking clue about context, do you? Nothing outside legal proceedings has any reality for you, does it? You really are taking the **Bricker **approach to argumentation here, aren’t you? Well, he doesn’t get quite as laughably childish about being called out as you have been here, not usually, anyway.
No, the decision maker was Judge Wright, and her decision was reviewed on appeal. That’s who decided Clinton lied under oath.
And, once again, Clinton himself, the Judge, the appellate court all agreed with me. And you have … well you have ElvisL!ives.
Of course you’re partisan. You’re also a hack. You’re someone who lets your partisan nature overcome your objectivity. I don’t have a problem with you having a viewpoint, but when you have to ignore all the findings of the interested parties, including Clinton himself, that the Judge didn’t need to recuse herself and you resort to calling a federal judge “scum” and “sleazy”, you lose any credibility on the issue with me.
He more than lied, he lied UNDER OATH. You may have issue with a person not standing up to their word, ignoring the oaths, and committing contempt and perjury (as long as you can pretend it’s against the Republicans that is), but as someone who worked for a long time in the courtroom, oaths mean something to me.
Bill Clinton did too. And he and his lawyers decided that Judge Wright didn’t have to recuse herself.
You should realize the Judicial Watch wanted Wright to recuse herself not because she was biased against Clinton, but because she was too biased FOR Clinton, not against him. But if it helps at all, I consider your opinion on this issue to be right on par with theirs.
You’re right. Anyone in government, no matter what level has it drummed into them that APPEARANCE MATTERS. There is no “I didn’t know”. If there is any chance or appearance that you might be partial - no matter how slightly - it is your DUTY to remove yourself from the issue or case. That holds for judges, contract administrators, buyers, everyone.
Dammit. Zombie thread. Dammit.
It’s been 24 hours, and I notified RickJay via private message. I’m forced to conclude that he is not a man of his word. Can’t really say I’m surprised.
:rolleyes: Could have done that without resurrecting this zombie. Were you trying to remind us of past immature Republican malfeasance before Election Day?
Oakminster, there will still be 8 Supreme Court Justices in 4 years. If there are 9, 4 years from now, I will say I was wrong.
Please put this message in your ‘SDMB hit list’ bookmark folder so we can all be reminded of MORE immature Republican malfeasance before the next election day.
Kindly crawl back under your bridge and wait for the Billy Goats Gruff. RickJay made a ridiculous claim equivalent to the birther nonsense, just from the other side. I called him on it, and he promised to admit he was wrong if Obama was not impeached by 2015. An honorable man would keep that promise. Obviously,** RickJay **is not an honorable man.
