Ha, racist Trump supporters are losing their minds over Trump calling Islam “one of the great faiths”:
Guess the rumors of Bannon’s influence being greatly diminished are more or less true.
I’m fairly certain that saying that I’m sorry he didn’t lose is fairly close to saying I’m sorry that he won.
Ah! “Enabler”! I can admit to that. It’s entirely passive, and you’ve pretty much indicated that I’m not “carrying water” for this guy. Thanks for being honest, now. I’m still not sure which of my “motivations” I’ve you’ve inferred, though.
What’s weird about this presidency (if we could indeed limit it to one thing) is that it’s like a throwback to a monarchy three hundred years ago. “The Duke of Weaselton has the King’s ear now; the Earl of Buttmunch has lost influence at court and so I expect to see trade taxes in the east diminish.”
Caution, sir, caution…Buttmunch has ears everywhere and is a fire eater of considerable note.
It really is like that, isn’t it. If he’s finally stopped listening to Bannon, that’s a good thing. But I don’t trust the other scumbags either… Manafort the crook, Pence the fake dominionist, Tillerson the Russian oil man (for all practical purposes anyway), Gorka the nazi, Flynn the foreign agent, etc etc etc. They ALL stink.
The Trump White House resembles nothing so much as the crew of a pirate ship.
Fiveyearlurker:
Not at all.
I’m saying that the word “crime” has a meaning (let’s leave out the qualifier “high” for now), and that it’s POSSIBLE that, if pressed into service, the Supreme Court might find that the particular clause of the Constitution does not allow impeachment if the acts in question are not, by any prior definition, crimes.
And I’m saying that both “advise” and “consent” have meanings, and Congress clearly did neither in the Garland. Congress didn’t define advise and consent. They withheld their advice and their consent. Hence, Merrick Garland is not a Justice of the Supreme Court.
No. The man is just wholly without principles. He’ll say whatever he thinks he needs to say to make the people in front of him give him money.
The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court any part in the impeachment process. Even if there was some ambiguity, impeachment/removal are pretty much the quintessential political questions that courts duck.
As I’ve said before, that clearly applies to the process, once legitimately initiated. I feel that it’s at least arguable that the “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors” clause limits the situations in which an impeachment process can legitimately be applied in the first place and is (until a court definitively rules otherwise) open to such challenge.
I’m not saying that you’re wrong, that the court wouldn’t duck it if it got thrown their way. It’s certainly an option that they have. But I think that an impeachee could certainly try to force them to make that clear in writing.
More like the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. They all have their special way of being evil, and most will likely end up in jail by the end of the storyline.
Or the Bizarro First family.
Impeachment/removal appears to firmly on the grounds of a political question because it is a political and not legal process. No court is going to decide a case involving it, including the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” as it pertains to impeachments. If a court won’t hear a case, there is no way an official who has been impeached and removed could attempt to force clarification on the issue.
Here is what the Senate’s website states regarding impeachment:
I addressed the Nixon case in posts above, after Bricker brought it up. And, as your second cite says, the matter is not closed, but is one of continuing debate. It won’t be closed until and unless someone impeached for a non-crime brings the issue to the court. The court can certainly refuse to hear the case on the grounds that even the grounds for impeachment are not within its jurisdiction, but it has not yet done so, and only in doing so (or in taking on and adjudicating the case one way or another) will the matter be definitively clarified.
They’ve never been to Boston in the fall?
They’re doing plenty.
However you want to twist words that lets you sleep at night.
You say that you prefer Trump to Hillary. That’s an opinion that was apparently shared by a bit less than the majority of voters, so it’s not like you don’t have company. It’s poor company that you keep, mind you, but at least you aren’t lonely.
Before you so happily take up the title of enabler, you should look up what it really means, and how being an enabler is almost always worse than someone who is actually proud of what their actions accomplish.
Every time that you beat on hillary, you are in fact, defending trump. Normalizing him and his actions. You are enabling the white supremacists who see his victory as a time to come out of the woodwork. You are enabling the plutocrats who see this gullible businessman followed by gullible voters as a chance to rob our country blind.
I am sure your motivations are noble and pure. Your motivations are to live in a world ruled by gary johnson, and I am sure you can see no moral issue with that.
The reality of the impact of your actions is a bit different. And your shortsighted devotion to a losing cause, even if you believe it is a perfect cause, only does harm to the good.
I disagree completely with this argument.
Political discourse must remain available for voters to identify and speak about flaws in Candidate A without being fearful of being labeled as defending opposing Candidate B.
There are pointing out flaws. I will agree that Hilary is a flawed human being, like the rest of us.
He was not pointing out her flaws, he was just calling her “the evil bitch hillary”