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 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 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.