Not at all. That poll asks generically about all bishops, and all time frames. Hell, I’d answer that question “Yes,” if yes and no were the only options.
But in this thread, we’re discussing a specific bishop, a specific state, and a specific time frame. And in those specifics there’s unfortunately no applicable criminal law available.
So I agree with the 8 out of 10 Americans that, as a general principle, bishops that failed to act on abuse allegations should be prosecuted criminally – that is, of course, assuming that an available and applicable criminal statute exists for a given specific bishop.
Sure. But that’s your choice in a foreign (to me) choice of policies.
When I call you a liberal, I mean to categorize where you fit on the American policy spectrum. I freely concede that in other political systems you fit differently.
By a similar token, I don’t mean you’re a classical liberal (aka libertarian) either.
So far as I can tell, Boehner in that example is talking about violating specific laws, laws that existed at the time Lerner’s conduct occurred.
Can you explain why you feel that’s analogous to talking about sending someone to jail in the absence of any applicable criminal laws?
From your cite:
And there are in fact such laws: 2 USC § 192 provides for jail time and fines for appearing but refusing to answer questions; § 194 provides for referral of such prosecutions to the US Attorney.
It was my understanding that he wanted to know who was going to jail NOT for putative violations of that law, but for the activities that those questions were aimed at eliciting information about. I mean, he KNEW who was potentially jeopardizing her freedom wrt 2 USC § 192; why would he be asking who would be going to jail for that?
The snippet of the article you quoted strikes me as a bit of misdirection.
If this is the hill you want to die on, then go ahead. I’ll just sit over here feeling embarrassed for you. When I’m caught in these kind of situations I admit error and move on, but then I consider myself to be a moral person.
And just so there’s no ambiguity, let’s just make sure everyone understand the hill you’re proposing to die on. You want to judge millions of liberals based on the posts of one person, which in fairness is better than the alternative which you are so opposed to admitting to, of judging all liberals based on no evidence whatsoever. You lose even if you win this argument (which you’re not winning, by the way, just in case you were fooling yourself).
I don’t get why that was your understanding, when he explicitly says that Lerner is a target of this analysis. He certainly makes clear that he’s not limiting his commentary to Lerner, but rather is expecting an investigation to reveal if anyone besides Lerner should be the subject of criminal charges.
Millions of liberals? I’ve clearly said not all liberals share this flaw, but that everyone who is willing to say or imply their desire to disregard the rule of law and criminally prosecute Law is a liberal.
So, your entire argument is that **Uzi **is a liberal, and that he is the only person in the world “willing to say or imply [his] desire to disregard the rule of law and criminally prosecute Law”? Because that’s the evidence you came to the table with.
Or maybe the hole isn’t deep enough for your liking yet?
Unless that sentence was quoting a source that pre-dated the Massachusetts Attorney General report that concluded there were no applicable criminal law charges that could be brought. After all, I don’t expect people to know the specifics of criminal law – for people in 2014, in this thread, to want Law prosecuted was evidence of their disregard for the rule of law.
But if that “new” Boston Globe poll was actually over ten years old at this point, then it simply proves that most Boston-area Catholics thought there was an applicable law, and subsequently learned otherwise…at which point they of course realized that prosecuting him was a bad idea.
My ire has been reserved for the people that have been told, and shown, that there’s no applicable law, and still want to jail Law. I’m not perturbed at someone who hears what Law did and wants to see the criminal justice system involved; I’m perturbed at someone who learns there’s no criminal law that can be invoked and STILL says or implies Law should be jailed.
So… just clear up this last little mystery. Did you by chance quote some story from, say, 2003? And not link to it in order to conceal the story’s age? And offer the story up as evidence for your claims, knowing that it wasn’t because it preceded the AG report?
It’s true that he’s the only person I’ve identified by name so far.
But it seemed cleaner to get his case handled before moving on to the next poster that implied Law should be jailed regardless of whether the law permits it.
Yes, let’s talk timing. That poll occurred *after *Law resigned and *after *“State Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly indicated he did not believe Law violated any state laws.” Speaking of forgetting to mention things, you forgot to mention that.
Yeah, the only person you’ve identified by name so far. The same person who told you that he isn’t a liberal, told you he voted conservative, and apparently agreed with you on the voter ID issue. An overwhelming torrent of evidence so far, those posts from that one guy who isn’t a liberal.
Look, the whole problem here is people discussing how Law should be jailed, and when I ask, “For violation of what law?” they either cannot answer, or answer with laws that are not applicable to his conduct, or laws that didn’t exist when his conduct happened.
You try to draw an analogy to Lois Lerner, but in her case I have provided a law that specifically applies to her conduct and existed at the time she completed the acts in question.
So I’d say if your goal is to show me a conservative doing the same thing, those are the goal posts. I’m perfectly willing to admit error – find me a conservative who genuinely contends that someone should be jailed, even when there’s no applicable law that could be used to do so.