Jump to content

For Leftwinger, RR, Merill and "the boyz"


Recommended Posts

The Supreme Court has already given Trump a huge win in his fight against investigators

We don’t know how the Supreme Court will finally rule in three cases it recently agreed to hear, which all center on President Donald Trump’s efforts to prevent oversight and investigation of him personally from both Congress and prosecutors in New York state.

 

But there’s a key way in which — just by taking the case, and however they end up ruling — the court has already given Trump a win.

 

In all three cases, Trump’s lawyers have said that his status as president should protect him from subpoenas of his taxes and financial records that any other citizens would be expected to have no immunity from. And yet, as legal scholar Lawrence Tribe pointed out, none of the cases seem to implicate presidential powers themselves because none “involves any official conduct or demands that any Executive Branch official DO anything.”

 

Legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance noted: “Every lower court to consider these issues ruled against Trump. The law is clear.”

 

So if the law is clear, and there’s no disagreement among the lower courts, why is the Supreme Court even taking up the case?

 

Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow for the Cato Institute, pointed out that just by taking the case, the Supreme Court is giving Trump a win. The cases will be heard in March. A ruling is then likely to be announced in June. That means any revelations that might arise from the materials Congress and prosecutors are seeking won’t emerge until long after impeachment is likely wrapped up. And if the evidence reflected any more impeachable activity, it would almost certainly be too late by summer for Democrats to effectively push another impeachment effort before the election.

 

“If they’re going to drag this out after every lower court has rejected the administration’s frivolous objections, I wish they’d schedule a special session & get it done fast,” Sanchez said on Twitter. “The delay is itself giving one side a win.”

 

The court’s actions would be more reasonable if there were legitimately tough constitutional issues that needed to be resolved. But the court already has ruling precedents from decisions made about President Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton that undermine Trump’s arguments in these cases. Though there are some differences from the previous cases, there’s little reason to believe the differences should lead the court to a ruling that overturns what the lower courts have unanimously concluded: the subpoenas should stand.

 

Since there seems to be no plausible legal rationale for the court to take the case, many observers are assuming that the conservative justices are preparing to provide Trump unwarranted cover on a partisan basis. But there may be other explanations. It’s possible the justices simply want to be involved in some of the highest-profile cases in the federal system. Or they may feel that, though Trump’s cases are similar to the failed arguments of Nixon and Clinton, it’s worth establishing clear precedent knocking down his new claims.

 

Their intentions won’t be clear until the ruling comes down. But it seems they’re giving Trump what he wants, at least for now: more time, and more delay.

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Impeachment polls have flipped...3 polls are now against impeachment...50%, 51%, and 51%.

"Impeachment Approval Is Officially Underwater in Average of Polls"

 

"One week ago, according to the RealClearPolitics poll of polls, 48 percent of those polled supported the impeachment and removal of Trump, while 45 percent were opposed. As of today, though, those numbers have flipped around: 46.7 percent support impeachment, while a plurality of 47.3 percent are opposed."

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump is president today because the DNC foisted a lousy candidate on the voters.  I told everyone here that I would not vote for Hillary.  Guess what?  I didn't vote for Hillary.   Now benson, SpyBot, and DemoMan chase me around the forum calling me a "liar" constantly, rehashing ancient history.  It's been three years.  Nothings changed.  I still don't regret not voting for her. 

 

We had two terrible candidates on the ballot and I didn't vote for either.   If the Democrats can bring a good candidate on board, I will vote for them.  Hell, I'll donate to them and volunteer for their campaign, too.  But someone who takes hundreds of millions from big insurance and big pharma?  No thanks.

 

I will never vote for Hillary, so don't bother forcing her onto the ballot again.  You just might as well nominate Goldman Sachs or Pfizer.  It would be the same thing, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

Trump is president today because the DNC foisted a lousy candidate on the voters. 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/video/2016/07/obama-says-clinton-is-the-most-qualified-presidential-candidate-ever-059832

 

Obama says Clinton is the most qualified presidential candidate ever

Obama hailed his former secretary of state as they stood beside each other at their first joint campaign event in 2016, calling Clinton the most qualified man or woman to ever seek the White House.

 

Obama-says-Hillary-most-qualified-presid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now what, benson?  Do you repeat the same b/s you've been puking onto the forum about the 2016 election?  That everyone, everywhere needs to blindly vote for a candidate they can't stand?  Everyone should feel "bad" because they didn't vote for her?

 

Well, I don't.  I'd do it again.  Don't bring her back in 2020 or it WILL be a re-run of the same.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

Now what, benson?  Do you repeat the same b/s you've been puking onto the forum about the 2016 election?  That everyone, everywhere needs to blindly vote for a candidate they can't stand?  Everyone should feel "bad" because they didn't vote for her?

 

Well, I don't.  I'd do it again.  Don't bring her back in 2020 or it WILL be a re-run of the same.

 

RR:---  We usually see eye-to-eye but on this matter, I have to respectfully disagree.  Trump will, most likely, not be ousted from office by impeachment.  So removing him through the electoral process should be the number one mission for Democrats, even if we have to sacrifice, to get it done. 

 

In more normal times, striving for economic equality by support non-corporate democrats would come first.  But the Trump era has moved us so far away from accomplishing any worthwhile progressive goals, that we need to reassess how to proceed.  If we can't get Sanders or Warren on the democratic ticket,  I submit that any one of the corporate democrats, including Hillary would be infinitely better for America and the world, than a second term for Trump.

 

Should the erosion of representative government in Washington, driven by Trump, continue for another four years, it could easily mark the end of checks and balances and the beginning of dictatorship for the US.   I see the hypothetical reelection of Trump, as similar to the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the emperors. 

 

The stakes in the upcoming election are enormous and so too should be our resolve to preserve the Republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bludog said:

RR:---  We usually see eye-to-eye but on this matter, I have to respectfully disagree.  Trump will, most likely, not be ousted from office by impeachment.  So removing him through the electoral process should be the number one mission for Democrats, even if we have to sacrifice, to get it done. 

I agree and I'm willing to sacrifice to a certain degree.  I'm willing to sacrifice and vote for any of the 15-16 candidates who are currently on the campaign trail.  For my views, anyone other than Sanders or Warren (and possibly Booker) is a compromise.  But I'll cast my vote in November for Biden, Buttigieg, Klubuchar, etc.  But I'll never vote for Hillary.     

 

13 minutes ago, bludog said:

 I submit that any one of the corporate democrats, including Hillary would be infinitely better for America and the world, than a second term for Trump.

Any of them are fine, but not Hillary.  I simply won't vote for her under any circumstances especially after the flat-out harassment I've receive here about her.

 

13 minutes ago, bludog said:

Should the erosion of representative government in Washington, driven by Trump, continue for another four years, it could easily mark the end of checks and balances and the beginning of dictatorship for the US.   I see the hypothetical reelection of Trump, as similar to the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the emperors. 

 

The stakes in the upcoming election are enormous and so too should be our resolve to preserve the Republic.

I agree, which is exactly why the DNC needs to listen to their constituency rather than force through someone who many simply do not like.  We need a candidate we can get excited about.  We need someone who will change America, not bring back the same 'ole, same 'ole.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RollingRock said:

I agree and I'm willing to sacrifice to a certain degree.  I'm willing to sacrifice and vote for any of the 15-16 candidates who are currently on the campaign trail.  For my views, anyone other than Sanders or Warren (and possibly Booker) is a compromise.  But I'll cast my vote in November for Biden, Buttigieg, Klubuchar, etc.  But I'll never vote for Hillary.     

 

Any of them are fine, but not Hillary.  I simply won't vote for her under any circumstances especially after the flat-out harassment I've receive here about her.

 

I agree, which is exactly why the DNC needs to listen to their constituency rather than force through someone who many simply do not like.  We need a candidate we can get excited about.  We need someone who will change America, not bring back the same 'ole, same 'ole.    

Did you hear the dems gave Trump money for the wall?   😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RollingRock said:

Wrong.  Nobody with a brain or a heart believes in the stupid wall.

 

Dems gave Trump money to reinforce EXISTING fencing, not for building anything new.

To reinforce the dems' vanity wall that they use to want before Trump was elected?

 

You really should try to keep up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RollingRock said:

Trump is president today because the DNC foisted a lousy candidate on the voters.  I told everyone here that I would not vote for Hillary.  Guess what?  I didn't vote for Hillary.   Now benson, SpyBot, and DemoMan chase me around the forum calling me a "liar" constantly, rehashing ancient history.  It's been three years.  Nothings changed.  I still don't regret not voting for her. 

 

We had two terrible candidates on the ballot and I didn't vote for either.   If the Democrats can bring a good candidate on board, I will vote for them.  Hell, I'll donate to them and volunteer for their campaign, too.  But someone who takes hundreds of millions from big insurance and big pharma?  No thanks.

 

I will never vote for Hillary, so don't bother forcing her onto the ballot again.  You just might as well nominate Goldman Sachs or Pfizer.  It would be the same thing, really.

They all knew it....that's why they came up with an "INSURANCE PLAN""....said Strzok to Page....yikes!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...