# Three More and I'll Impeach **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 22, 2007, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744 "2007-07-22T13:19:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/121 "2007-07-25T13:34:19Z")
I’m not **John Mace** , but it may have something to do with interpreting a response to one thing as if it were in response to something else. Or it might be that the [Padilla case](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_v._Padilla) has not been found to be “obviously illegal” by the Supreme Court, yet you would like it to be taken for granted that it is. Hamdi, as mentioned, was captured on the battlefield, fighting against US and allied forces, and was connected to a prison riot > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court decision in Hamdi did not say that the government cannot detain enemy combatants: it can detain enemy combatants for the length of hostilities. [Cite.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi) You seem to be arguing that any President on the wrong side of any court decision deserves to be impeached. [Are you sure you want to go there?](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=95-1853) Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/122 "2007-07-25T13:59:55Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] I’m sorry, this is a little too meta and/or sarcastic for me to understand. Will you break it down for me? Are you satirizing those who post about impeachment? Are you poking fun at yourself? [/QUOTE] I am both satirizing those who post so hopefully about impeachment, and ruefully acknowledging that I deserve to be painted with the same brush. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/123 "2007-07-25T14:02:01Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] I’m not **John Mace** , but it may have something to do with interpreting a response to one thing as if it were in response to something else. Or it might be that the [Padilla case](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_v._Padilla) has not been found to be “obviously illegal” by the Supreme Court, yet you would like it to be taken for granted that it is. Hamdi, as mentioned, was captured on the battlefield, fighting against US and allied forces, and was connected to a prison riot [Cite.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi) You seem to be arguing that any President on the wrong side of any court decision deserves to be impeached. [Are you sure you want to go there?](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=95-1853) Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] The problem is that I haven’t called the Padilla case, or any other case, obviously illegal. Nor have I argued for the impeachment of any President. You’re reading all of that into what I’ve said. If you made fewer assumptions about my position or agenda, you might have an easier time properly comprehending my posts. I was making a good faith effort to discover John’s standard. I’m sorry that in the context of a heated thread my words were misinterpreted. In the last post with which John disagreed, I was offering what I thought was a reasonable standard, indeed one I might even share. I don’t understand at all what was so offensive about it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/124 "2007-07-25T18:55:57Z")
> [@Richard Parker](#): > > The problem is that I haven’t called the Padilla case, or any other case, obviously illegal. > [@Richard Parker](#): > > So supposing in both cases the President’s action was illegal, it is a question of just how obviously illegal it was? One of the “both cases” was the Hamdi case. > [@Richard Parker](#): > > Nor have I argued for the impeachment of any President. Perhaps, in a thread about impeachment, if by “finding the President culpable” you mean something other than impeachment, it might help if you made that clear. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/125 "2007-07-25T19:06:28Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] One of the “both cases” was the Hamdi case.Perhaps, in a thread about impeachment, if by “finding the President culpable” you mean something other than impeachment, it might help if you made that clear. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] I see that even on re-reading you can’t help but read your own assumptions into my text. The word suppose means “stipulating it to be so.” But even if that weren’t true, Bush’s treatment of Hamdi \*was \*found to be illegal in that case. I am NOT saying that this was a matter of obvious constitutional law. In fact, I have specifically implied otherwise. Additionally, nowhere have I said _I_ find the President culpable for any particular action. Now, I don’t expect an apology out of you. But the least you could do is try a little harder to interpret people’s posts with a little charity and humility next time, **Shodan**. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/126 "2007-07-25T19:10:53Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] The curious thing is that this kind of hyperbolic (and inaccurate) statement would (and probably will, excepting my comment here) go without comment and be given a pass. Curious for a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, ehe? -XT [/QUOTE] I’m not sure how hyperbolic it is. Wasn’t it Jackson who said, after the Supreme Court invalidated the Removal Act, “Justice Marshall has issued his ruling. Now let him inforce it.” IIRC, the Indians were, in fact, removed from their tribal lands (even though it was Martiv Van Buren who actually did it). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/127 "2007-07-25T20:32:37Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Additionally, nowhere have I said _I_ find the President culpable for any particular action. [/quote] And where exactly did I say that you were a member of Congress with the power of impeachment? We aren’t talking - or at least, I wasn’t talking - about you saying that **you** were finding the President culpable. I told you that if you did not mean to use the phrase “finding the President culpable” as a synonym for “impeachment” in a thread about impeachment, then you needed to be a little clearer about your intent. It’s like your nonsense where I said that not everyone who disagreed with me was fanatically stupid, and you then changed the juxtaposition of my line to make it appear that it should be applied to my assertion that only the fanatically stupid would deny that those pressing for Bush’s impeachment in Congress were acting out of partisanship. This shortly after I had demonstrated that all three of the examples you mentioned, were either not pressing for Bush’s impeachment, or were acting out of partisanship (which the MSM reluctantly allowed might be true), or were, in fact, fanatically stupid. > [@](#): > > Now, I don’t expect an apology out of you. Well, that’s good. > [@](#): > > But the least you could do is try a little harder to interpret people’s posts with a little charity and humility next time, **Shodan**. Sure, I could try that. You perhaps could make it a little easier. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2007, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744/128 "2007-07-25T20:57:56Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] And where exactly did I say that you were a member of Congress with the power of impeachment? We aren’t talking - or at least, I wasn’t talking - about you saying that **you** were finding the President culpable. I told you that if you did not mean to use the phrase “finding the President culpable” as a synonym for “impeachment” in a thread about impeachment, then you needed to be a little clearer about your intent. It’s like your nonsense where I said that not everyone who disagreed with me was fanatically stupid, and you then changed the juxtaposition of my line to make it appear that it should be applied to my assertion that only the fanatically stupid would deny that those pressing for Bush’s impeachment in Congress were acting out of partisanship. This shortly after I had demonstrated that all three of the examples you mentioned, were either not pressing for Bush’s impeachment, or were acting out of partisanship (which the MSM reluctantly allowed might be true), or were, in fact, fanatically stupid. Well, that’s good. Sure, I could try that. You perhaps could make it a little easier. Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] I’m done with you **Shodan**. It’s not worth my time to demonstrate the errors in comprehension and basic chronology you’ve just made since you will not own up to them even if I do. Even when you have a legitimate point you couch it in the most provocative, intentionally annoying rhetoric possible. I’m not interested in that kind of “debate.” Consider this the last reply you’ll ever get from me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/three-more-and-ill-impeach/412744.md?page=6)