Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)
Options
Comments
-
Manic Moran wrote: »The idiocy of all this is that none of the above has anything to do with the law, his past application of the law, his qualifications to judtge, or his likely future intent to intepret the laws as fairly and to the best of his ability.
He dropped his kids off to school. Whoop-dee-do.
Kid had to pull body parts out of hair. Is there anything in the Constitution about that? I'm not seeing it.
He's a great guy. Fantastic. That should be the default position for anyone who's currently a senior judge. If not, why is he a judge in the first place?
As the Chicago Tribune observed, "Time was when a "well qualified" endorsement by the American Bar Association, which Judge Kavanaugh received, was enough for most senators to vote in favor of a nominee. Not in a day when politics has invaded even funerals."
Or, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-supreme-court-trump-20180709-story.html
"All of us should evaluate Kavanaugh not on how he is likely to vote on abortion rights, the Second Amendment or affirmative action, but on more fundamental characteristics. Predicting how a judge will rule on any particular question is a fool’s errand: Ask conservatives who were shocked when Chief Justice John Roberts provided the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare.
More important is weighing whether Kavanaugh will do the job in a careful, conscientious way, with a deep respect for the text of the Constitution, the language of statutes and the different responsibilities of the three branches of government. A justice who acts mainly to advance some political agenda will be wrong even if he or she votes in the way we would prefer.
Kavanaugh’s record suggests that by these standards, he’s highly qualified. In 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which deals with especially complex regulatory cases, he’s authored some 300 decisions. Taken as a body of work, they reflect a great allegiance to the words of the Constitution. By the time he faces a confirmation hearing, backers and foes of his nomination will have scrutinized his every word."
Out of over 300 opinions written, only one has been partially reversed by the Supreme Court. This seems to indicate, together with his qualifications, and the endorsement of the US legal system's professional organisation, that he's a good judge. Scalia was nominated, what, 98-0? Ginsburg, on the other side of the spectrum, 96-3, only a couple of years later. What was important was that the judge was well qualified.
Nowadays, confirmation hearings are a political theater designed not to evaluate a judge's ability or suitability for the post, but instead to appeal to voters for the next election cycle. It's an embarassment as much as a lot of other US government issues.
The constitution was written in 1798.
To pretend that it's like the gospel today is ridiculous.
It's that type of rethoric that holds up the gun lobby. It's that type of rethoric which seeks to subvert progressive thinking .
It's fine to have a constitution they are vitally important and a lynchpin in the base of constitutional law .
But it's incumbent on the judiciary to reference it but rule in the time which they live.
If and only if a candidate is proven to to that then yes they should be a shoe in. But if they are using the 1798 constitution as a beacon of how to make decisions in 2018 then that is wrong.0 -
mcmoustache wrote: »There's a bit of a difference here. This is the first time since Clinton that a president has been threatened by a subpoena from a special/independent counsel.
Kavanaugh has opinions on that that are obviously helpful to a president who doesn't want to comply with one. It's also helpful to a president who might do illegal things. He seems to believe that impeachment is the only way to sanction a president.
As John Dean testified, Kavanaugh's views suggest that if a President murders someone, law enforcement cand do anything about it until he's impeached or out of office.
This leads to some rather absurd scenarios where a president could theoritically shoot all of the opposition in the head and not be guilty of a crime.
Nobody really knows whether a president can be convicted of a crime while in office. The jury’s out which is why there’s such a kerfuffle about kavanaugh. Who by the way was probably referring to the Clinton circus when he opposed criminal proceedings against sitting presidents and special prosecutors. He was writing this opinion in 2009.
Ken Starr believes the opposite, but he would. My gut feeling is the belief here is partisan. If a Democrat were under investigation by a zealous special prosecutor opinions would be 180 degrees diametrically opposed.0 -
listermint wrote: »The constitution was written in 1798.
To pretend that it's like the gospel today is ridiculous.
It's that type of rethoric that holds up the gun lobby. It's that type of rethoric which seeks to subvert progressive thinking .
It's fine to have a constitution they are vitally important and a lynchpin in the base of constitutional law .
But it's incumbent on the judiciary to reference it but rule in the time which they live.
If and only if a candidate is proven to to that then yes they should be a shoe in. But if they are using the 1798 constitution as a beacon of how to make decisions in 2018 then that is wrong.
The constitution can be changed. Until it is then it says what it says. Reading anything other into it is a fools game.
If the yanks don’t like the 1798 constitution they have the mechanism to change it, and in fact they have changed it before.
One of the problems about the judicial interpretation form of constitutional change is it makes these kind of hearings much too important.
We don’t really care here because mostly the constitution is interpreted as written and we change it as needed.0 -
But if they are using the 1798 constitution as a beacon of how to make decisions in 2018 then that is wrong.
In your opinion.
There is a countervailing opinion which states "If it is believed that what was written in 1798 is no longer appropriate in today's world, there is a process in the Constitution to amend it; do that, then pass new legislation to bind the courts. Until that is done, the law states what it states". This seems to be the guiding philosophy in Ireland. There are routine amendments to both the Irish Constitution, and to statute, to update and reflect current opinion. But the Irish judges still rule on what is written down and in force.
I remember back when I was in law school in UCD in 1993, one of the first essays I had to write was on this topic, just how to interpret old laws in today's world. This is a very long-standing debate, not unique to the US, and not the purview of solely one side.
Further, it is a stretch to assume that what was originally written is not still appropriate today. The last State to have a Constitutional Amendment on this subject was Wisconsin, in 1998. Hardly "Redneck Country", and their opinion was very clear: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." For all you may argue that the opinions of 1798 are out of touch, are 1998 morals that far from today's, or 1994's when Alaskans voted for a Constitutional Amendment to say "The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State"?0 -
mcmoustache wrote: »I think he's a good orator but not necessarily a great one. It's just that the current idiot is a blithering buffoon who loses his train of thought after four words. I'm watching the speech now and it is pretty good so far. I hope he takes the gloves off more as the yanks get closer to the election.
The contrast between Trump and Obama is stark but I'd definitely call Obama a great orator. You could argue that be never reaches high levels of emotion of other orators, such as Martin Luther King, but his speaking style is still a class act.
Now that he is unburdened by the decorum of the presidency (or at least of HIS presidency), I do think his campaign speeches for Democratic candidates in the mid-terms will be much more pointed at Trump and the GOP than we've seen before, even in the 2016 election.0 -
Advertisement
-
SimonTemplar wrote: »The contrast between Trump and Obama is stark but I'd definitely call Obama a great orator. You could argue that be never reaches high levels of emotion of other orators, such as Martin Luther King, but he his speaking style is still a class act.
Now that he is unburdened by the decorum of the presidency (or at least of HIS presidency), I do think his campaign speeches for Democratic candidates in the mid-terms will be much more pointed at Trump and the GOP than we've seen before, even in the 2016 election.
He’s fairly stilted. Clinton was an amazing orator at his best. And didn’t need notes or promoters (not that he didn’t use them but they weren’t always needed).0 -
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »Nobody really knows whether a president can be convicted of a crime while in office. The jury’s out which is why there’s such a kerfuffle about kavanaugh. Who by the way was probably referring to the Clinton circus when he opposed criminal proceedings against sitting presidents and special prosecutors. He was writing this opinion in 2009.
Ken Starr believes the opposite, but he would. My gut feeling is the belief here is partisan. If a Democrat were under investigation by a zealous special prosecutor opinions would be 180 degrees diametrically opposed.
I'm not so sure that it's that partisan. If I raise the absurd scenario that I mentioned earlier whereby Bill Clinton pulls out a gun and shoots Starr in the head, would it make sense that you can't subpoena or indict Clinton? I know that it's undecided but one decision would be plainly absurd.
Regarding your 180 degrees comment, I also disagree with you.Well, according to a new ABC/Washington Post survey, support levels for an Obama strike in 2013 and Trump’s strike last week were indeed relatively even among Democrats:37 percent of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama’s plan. That is well within the margin of error.How about Republicans? Well, that’s a wildly different picture:In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post–ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians.A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed.
There's a big difference between the two sides over there. One side falls in line while the other is more than happy to turn on its own.0 -
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »He’s fairly stilted. Clinton was an amazing orator at his best. And didn’t need notes or promoters (not that he didn’t use them but they weren’t always needed).
I agree. Clinton, whatever about his rapey nature, could speak well unprompted. Obama comes across as a guy who delivers one sentence at a time. It lacks a natural flow. I like the content but the delivery isn't great. That being said, oratory isn't the most important feature in a leader - a leader only needs to be competent at it and Obama is, even if he's not great.0 -
StringerBell wrote: »Im sorry, but this is nonsense and even a cursory glance at what happens when there is a scandal concerning a Rep and one concerning a Dem would tell you this.
There certainly does appear to be a difference in standards applied but it isn't the way you think. Look into it a bit more I'd urge you.
Start with searching about paying off mistresses, Roy Moore, Al franken, Anthony Weiner, Donald Trump.
That will get you started
I have said Trump is an abomination numerous times here, that doesn't mean I am not allowed to criticise Booker.
Is he as bad as Trump or some of the other alleged perverts you named?
of course not, but his grand standing and the absurd over reaction to it from people who live in a bubble was infuriating.
I don't really want to continue the debate on this as ultimately its going around in circles and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter whatsoever.:)0 -
Can you imagine how ridiculous it would be for Senator Booker to face consequences for his act when you look at the lengthy list of blatant ethics breaches committed in the White House.
I think Trump being elected could turn out to be a great thing for the US. He could ensure Democrat victories for the next decade.0 -
Advertisement
-
14 days for Papadopoulos..
Guess he was just the tea boy after all
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45455050
Edit: though he was arguably Johnny Appleseed of the whole Russia thingAmerican authorities were alerted in mid-2016 after Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat during a drinking session in a London pub about his meetings with Professor Mifsud. The envoy alerted US investigators.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »In your opinion.
There is a countervailing opinion which states "If it is believed that what was written in 1798 is no longer appropriate in today's world, there is a process in the Constitution to amend it; do that, then pass new legislation to bind the courts. Until that is done, the law states what it states". This seems to be the guiding philosophy in Ireland. There are routine amendments to both the Irish Constitution, and to statute, to update and reflect current opinion. But the Irish judges still rule on what is written down and in force.
I remember back when I was in law school in UCD in 1993, one of the first essays I had to write was on this topic, just how to interpret old laws in today's world. This is a very long-standing debate, not unique to the US, and not the purview of solely one side.
Further, it is a stretch to assume that what was originally written is not still appropriate today. The last State to have a Constitutional Amendment on this subject was Wisconsin, in 1998. Hardly "Redneck Country", and their opinion was very clear: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose." For all you may argue that the opinions of 1798 are out of touch, are 1998 morals that far from today's, or 1994's when Alaskans voted for a Constitutional Amendment to say "The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State"?
The people who. As demonstrated in this thread successfully by you already. Simply voting by volume of people doesn't mean that vote is carried through.
Amendments to constitutional change are successfully challenged by minority groups with the biggest backers in the us. Forgive me if I have little faith in the examples you have given.
It's very much minority rules0 -
Papadopoulos did very well. At this stage, Flynn might avoid any jail time.0
-
UsedToWait wrote: »14 days for Papadopoulos..
Guess he was just the tea boy after all
Say it ain't so.
Still waiting for the Russian collusion.0 -
I have said Trump is an abomination numerous times here, that doesn't mean I am not allowed to criticise Booker.
Is he as bad as Trump or some of the other alleged perverts you named?
of course not, but his grand standing and the absurd over reaction to it from people who live in a bubble was infuriating.
I don't really want to continue the debate on this as ultimately its going around in circles and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter whatsoever.:)
It's got nothing to do with your own opinion on Trump. It's to do with the claim you make that the Democrats are somehow held to a lower standard. That Booker gets a pass by virtue of being left wing (he is certainly not left wing) when it is clearly not the case that being a democrat gets you an easier ride.
By all means criticise whoever you see fit, if you can do it even handedly that's all the better but your claim was nonsense."People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."
0 -
UsedToWait wrote: »14 days for Papadopoulos..
Guess he was just the tea boy after all
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45455050
Edit: though he was arguably Johnny Appleseed of the whole Russia thing
Spill the beans and they'll go easy on you could be the message. Orher conspirators take note.0 -
Spill the beans and they'll go easy on you could be the message. Orher conspirators take note.
Meh, first time offence with some cooperation. Some prison, a year probation, a fine and some community service when the maximum is like 5 years or whatever isn't completely out of whack I'd say.
Ensuring prison time at all was probably because they were not 100% happy with his level of cooperation. The prosecution asked for 6 months iirc but obviously the defence made a good argument about the lies not being to impede the investigation but rather a sense of misguide loyalty."People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."
0 -
Papadopoulos now and forever: convicted felon. Good. Sentence time is not important, a day's enough. Can't vote, own a firearm in some states and must check Yes on job applications that ask about convictions.0
-
listermint wrote: »The people who. As demonstrated in this thread successfully by you already. Simply voting by volume of people doesn't mean that vote is carried through.
Amendments to constitutional change are successfully challenged by minority groups with the biggest backers in the us. Forgive me if I have little faith in the examples you have given.
It's very much minority rules
Where is your evidence to support that assertion here? I did a quick tally. In my lifetime so far, there have been 13 States to amend their Constitutions on the right to bear arms. In 12 of them, they reinforced the right of the individual, and they include reliably blue states like Delaware and Maine. The 13th, Florida, was the only one to place a restriction: Florida voters in 1990 kept their verbiage for the individual, but added a three day waiting period for some handguns. Not one of the 31 other states with a right to arms in their constitutions added any form of restricting at all. The 1998 Wisconsin vote wasn't even close, 74% in favor.
44 of 50 States have a right to arms in their constitutions. The demonstrated trend is to increase or maintain that right. Yet you claim this is the minority position. It's incongruous.0 -
UsedToWait wrote: »14 days for Papadopoulos..
Guess he was just the tea boy after all
Say it ain't so.
Still waiting for the Russian collusion.
Em, you just got the first conviction of it.
A person hired and working on Trumps campaign is now a convicted felon.
The only defence Trump has is he didn't know. Which of course begs the question how he can be sure that there are not othets.
One would think Trump should be welcoming this and thanking Mueller for his continued efforts.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
everlast75 wrote: »Low hanging fruit first my dear....
He might as well have said But! But! Hillary! Emails! and something something MAGA.
What was that again about standards? Had a single person in the Obama administration been convicted and locked up, there would have been a tsunami of outrage and puffed up indignation from the right.
But nearly 10 people in the Trump admin and all you hear is Hillary, Emails, MAGA, No Collusion, Butthurt Liberals and LALALALALAAAAAAA!!!!! I'M NOT LISTENING!!! With fingers jammed in their ears.
It has become more than clear that his supporters very much support an administration that is nothing but a bunch of liars, criminals, thieves, conmen and, at best, rats and cowards just running along.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Where is your evidence to support that assertion here? I did a quick tally. In my lifetime so far, there have been 13 States to amend their Constitutions on the right to bear arms. In 12 of them, they reinforced the right of the individual, and they include reliably blue states like Delaware and Maine. The 13th, Florida, was the only one to place a restriction: Florida voters in 1990 kept their verbiage for the individual, but added a three day waiting period for some handguns. Not one of the 31 other states with a right to arms in their constitutions added any form of restricting at all. The 1998 Wisconsin vote wasn't even close, 74% in favor.
44 of 50 States have a right to arms in their constitutions. The demonstrated trend is to increase or maintain that right. Yet you claim this is the minority position. It's incongruous.
I suppose the whole gun ownership thing where it's in the minority and the whole NRA membership minority thing and the whole massive lobbying arm of the same groups pushing republican agendas with money.
It is a minority position people would hardly vote to keep fire arms if they don't own or are interested in them. The firearms groups force the position.
Next you'll be telling me it isn't a shady multi billion dollar industry there that wants to protect itself and will do anything and fight tooth and nail to insure their minority gets out to vote . Hard.0 -
listermint wrote: »Manic Moran wrote: »The idiocy of all this is that none of the above has anything to do with the law, his past application of the law, his qualifications to judtge, or his likely future intent to intepret the laws as fairly and to the best of his ability.
He dropped his kids off to school. Whoop-dee-do.
Kid had to pull body parts out of hair. Is there anything in the Constitution about that? I'm not seeing it.
He's a great guy. Fantastic. That should be the default position for anyone who's currently a senior judge. If not, why is he a judge in the first place?
As the Chicago Tribune observed, "Time was when a "well qualified" endorsement by the American Bar Association, which Judge Kavanaugh received, was enough for most senators to vote in favor of a nominee. Not in a day when politics has invaded even funerals."
Or, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-supreme-court-trump-20180709-story.html
"All of us should evaluate Kavanaugh not on how he is likely to vote on abortion rights, the Second Amendment or affirmative action, but on more fundamental characteristics. Predicting how a judge will rule on any particular question is a fool’s errand: Ask conservatives who were shocked when Chief Justice John Roberts provided the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare.
More important is weighing whether Kavanaugh will do the job in a careful, conscientious way, with a deep respect for the text of the Constitution, the language of statutes and the different responsibilities of the three branches of government. A justice who acts mainly to advance some political agenda will be wrong even if he or she votes in the way we would prefer.
Kavanaugh’s record suggests that by these standards, he’s highly qualified. In 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which deals with especially complex regulatory cases, he’s authored some 300 decisions. Taken as a body of work, they reflect a great allegiance to the words of the Constitution. By the time he faces a confirmation hearing, backers and foes of his nomination will have scrutinized his every word."
Out of over 300 opinions written, only one has been partially reversed by the Supreme Court. This seems to indicate, together with his qualifications, and the endorsement of the US legal system's professional organisation, that he's a good judge. Scalia was nominated, what, 98-0? Ginsburg, on the other side of the spectrum, 96-3, only a couple of years later. What was important was that the judge was well qualified.
Nowadays, confirmation hearings are a political theater designed not to evaluate a judge's ability or suitability for the post, but instead to appeal to voters for the next election cycle. It's an embarassment as much as a lot of other US government issues.
The constitution was written in 1798.
To pretend that it's like the gospel today is ridiculous.
It's that type of rethoric that holds up the gun lobby. It's that type of rethoric which seeks to subvert progressive thinking .
It's fine to have a constitution they are vitally important and a lynchpin in the base of constitutional law .
But it's incumbent on the judiciary to reference it but rule in the time which they live.
If and only if a candidate is proven to to that then yes they should be a shoe in. But if they are using the 1798 constitution as a beacon of how to make decisions in 2018 then that is wrong.
Like I said anti-Trump posters on here have a fundamental lack of knowledge how the United States of America works. And they continue to demonstrate it, daily.
In this they demonstrate a common trait with the anti-Trump left in America, some of the main stream media, sjws and even some Democratic senator , they too have a lack of understanding of how the American system functions and what are its bedrocks.
Kavanaugh hearings were superb, Democrats couldnt lay a glove on him. Kavanaugh batted them away , well worth the 4 days and to think people waste time on GOT boxsets when they could have been watching this.
Precendent on precedent, nominee precedent, Humphreys executor, ginsberg/Kagan rule, presidential records act, independant versus special counsel, thourughly entertaining and edifying.
Booker provide the comedy, 'I am spartacus', there goes his 2020 bid. The older Dems showed more respect for the process and the young Dems trying to showboat showed all thats wrong with the left these days, with their virtue signaling and picking points for the sake of it rather than doing anything substantive.
At one point they were telling the citizens of the US they should look to Zimbabwe and South Africa as examples of jurisprudence.. seriously.
As for the demonstrators, wow, a holy show embarassment for the left.
The Democratic party expose all their cracks over the four days, cracks that are deep and wide.
Grassley and the senior Republicans gave a masterclass, one can see how that party is evolving and the next crop coming through are learning from the masters.0 -
Nothing to worry about so, you'd wonder why so many in the GOP seem scared ****less of what's coming down the line...
"People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."
0 -
I don't like Don Trump as a person, believe he is not trustworthy and not a person fit to hold the office of POTUS. The non-personable vibes I got, and get, from him are off the scale. Having said that, either his handlers and speechmakers got a grip on him yesterday or a flash of the genius he claims to be came through the clouds with his response to President Obama's speech - that it made him sleepy - was some political put down.0
-
aloyisious wrote: »I don't like Don Trump as a person, believe he is not trustworthy and not a person fit to hold the office of POTUS. The non-personable vibes I got, and get, from him are off the scale. Having said that, either his handlers and speechmakers got a grip on him yesterday or a flash of the genius he claims to be came through the clouds with his response to President Obama's speech - that it made him sleepy - was some political put down.
Really?
It was a four years old response. Makes it look like he can't handle anything longer than a tv ad.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
UsedToWait wrote: »14 days for Papadopoulos..
Guess he was just the tea boy after all
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45455050
Edit: though he was arguably Johnny Appleseed of the whole Russia thing
It's a heavy enough sentence for that particular crime.Say it ain't so.
Still waiting for the Russian collusion.
You're a little behind. Collusions has been proven. The party line has moved on to "Collusion is not a crime."0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement