Yes. Ad-hoc application of standards would likely violate due process guarantees.
I am just really shocked that some people want to make adultery grounds for refusing a license. At least, I’m surprised it’s someone not from the religious Right.
I’m just reminded that Dems claim how a person behaves in private like committing adultery then lying to the American public and committing perjury in court should not be used to reflect on them as President. The issues you brought up about Trump are exactly the same the Clinton had to deal with.
To be fair, Clinton only cheated on one wife.
So you think that denying Trump a liquor license, or attempting to do so (this isn’t going anywhere), will suddenly cause the scales to fall from the eyes of the public and they will rise up in revulsion at things they already have known for years and vote the GOP out of Congress?
Look, I get it. Trump is a petty asshole. How does this group of people acting like petty assholes communicate anything new or significant? Other than “this is the best we could come up with”.
Regards,
Shodan
Interesting how nobody actually claims Trump is a person of good character. Even his stalwart defenders in this thread!
Instead, we see a lot of Clinton-esque wordplay about how “good character” doesn’t actually mean “good character,” just like questioning what the definitions are of “sex” and “is.”
What exactly do you expect this petitioning group to achieve? If the liquor license is not renewed, do you agree that every other adulterous bar owner in DC needs to have his liquor license taken away? If not, can you explain why the law should be applied in this way to one man and not to anyone else?
If the liquor license is renewed, will you then agree that Trump has “good character”?
What is the end game here?
Regards,
Shodan
You could change that by telling us exactly what it’s supposed to mean. And do you not think that phrase is vague in a way that the word “is” is not?
I think Ravenman just thinks it’s so obvious that it’s up to everyone else to prove he’s wrong. “Would you want this guy dating your sister? No? No liquor license for him then. It’s the law.”
First, your first paragraph is a straw man. I did not say adulterers should be denied liquor licenses. I said someone whose many, many, many, character flaws has one that include adultery is a person of poor character. It’s like you might say, “Oh, just because someone has a gun, they should go to jail?!?!?!?” I would say no, that in this case, the person had a gun, it was illegally purchased, he tried to rob a bank, and he kicked a dog on his way to the getaway car.
I cannot conceive of a definition of “good character” that would shed favorable light on the personality and actions of Donald Trump. Do you think he is of good character, in any particular definition of the term?
Besides which, if someone is suggesting that “good character” is not a reasonable criteria for issuing a liquor license, because of its vagueness or whatever, I can see some reasonableness of that position. However, in that case, I would suggest that the proper course would be to have the DC city council amend the law to do away with the provision, rather than have an administrative body render it meaningless.
On this point, I was sure I would find common ground with the various textualists on this board. I guess that is not the case when a Republican President stands to have his pocketbook at risk, however.
That you cast all disagreements with this stunt as partisan speaks volumes as to the strength of of your position. The fact that plenty of scummy people run bars matters not. It’s only about Trump.
Yes, all those Dems who claimed those things. So many Dems. Claiming those things you said.
Remind me what the sentence Clinton got for his perjury conviction was?
Exactly the same. No significant differences whatsoever.
I mean, Clinton didn’t lie with anywhere near the frequency or scale of Trump, unlike Trump there’s no evidence of actual fraud in the Clinton Foundation (despite repeated right-wing smears), Clinton’s administration wasn’t fraught with infighting and he didn’t publicly insult his own appointees on a regular basis, and he hadn’t been sued literally thousands of times for screwing over people (including a settled - but still unpaid - $25million fraud case). And even Clinton didn’t come near Trump’s degree of infidelity and (alleged) sexual assault. But if you squint real hard, they look exactly the same.
You want an admission that Bill was a lying horndog who Hillary should have kicked in the groin on a regular basis? You got it. You want an admission that Trump and Clinton are even close on the scale of “poor character”? Nope, sorry.
And remember that I already said this liquor license thing was a stupid avenue to follow.
Textualists are not afraid of terms like “good moral character.” This is because we understand them to be terms of art, and rely on extant common law to have defined them with precision.
My rebuttal to your notions here is just to point out the necessity of applying the law to all applicants in like manner. Nothing I have said here runs contrary to textualist principles.
He doesn’t care. If they have to close down half the bars in DC that’s fine as long as Trump’s hotel is temporarily inconvenienced.
Like I said before, I’d be perfectly fine with Mike Isabella falling afoul of this rule.
I’d like to hear someone describe how they believe Donald Trump meets the bar of being of good character, under whatever definition they care to use. I’ve described how I believe he does not a few times so far already.
Kind of moving those goalposts, aren’t you? I would certainly agree that people convicted of bank robbery and illegal possession and animal abuse should be denied liquor licenses. Is that the definition of “good character” you think should apply?
We aren’t talking about what sheds a favorable light on him. We are talking about whether or not he should have his liquor license renewed. What definition of “good character” do you think should be applied to Trump, and should that definition be applied to everyone who holds a liquor license in DC? Please be specific. You seem already to have ruled out adultery. Your bank robber example is of someone convicted of a crime. Is that your definition? Is it “anyone who has ever been sued”?
And again, what do you want this group to achieve? Are you trying to revise the liquor licensing laws in DC, or is this just petty partisanship and trolling on the part of the petitioners?
Regards,
Shodan
I’m opposed to any law that makes reference to “good character”. It’s a stupid standard that should be struck down at every instance.
Could you explain why anyone would give a shit that you’re willing to let Mike Isabella go down? You’ve brought it up a couple of times now.
No, it’s not the best we can come up with. I’ve already said that. Trump should be facing Congressional hearings. But the Republicans in Congress refuse to act on the evidence before them.
This isn’t about denying Trump a liquor license. It’s about having a public hearing where the evidence can be presented and put on record. If Trump can defend himself, he’ll have an opportunity to do so.
Personally, I don’t think it will work. Right now, conservatives are fighting the idea of a hearing. But if it gains any traction and the hearing appears likely to happen, I imagine Trump will simply surrender his license rather than appear before a hearing. And whine about it.
But who knows? Avoiding a public hearing would be the smart thing to do. So there’s a good chance Trump won’t do it.
You do know that there is no way Trump is showing up for a liquor license approval hearing and whoever represents his corporation at it is just going to argue about whether marriage fidelity is something for the government to base decisions on, right?