Will the Republican party stand for the rule of law or for Trump?

Giordano said:
It's nice to start off the day with an easy question: No, the Republicans will not stand up for the rule of law. Not a chance. In fact I don't know if in general they can "stand" the rule of law either; they are repeatedly attempting to sleaze around it in many ways.

How far down the Republican party has come since Nixon's troubles. At that time the Republicans were certainly trying to support their president and party and to give Nixon the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. But when it became clear that he had indeed attempted to obstruct justice, most of the Republicans in Congress put patriotism and the rule of law first, and partisan politics second.

I vaguely remember a quote, probably in a book, from a person in early Imperial Rome, lamenting that there were no more lions in the Senate, only in the Coliseum...
Click to expand...

You think that back in old Rome that everybody leapt to conclusions long before there was even a chance for the rule of law to take place?

I mean I get that it is far easier to light up the torches and leap to fanciful conclusions and then toss them to the lions, but I think that most people who believe in the rule of law think that it is advanced by silly things like the presumption of innocence and due process.

I vaguely remember a quote from a person in Reconstruction South saying "string em up!" I hope it won't come to that, don't you.
 
Bob Klase said:
Guess you should have been a Nixon advisor so he could have finished his 2nd term.

There are also valid opinions that don't agree with yours:
Click to expand...

That article is a bit dumb.

I agree with it 109% that judges should consider ignoring a pardon. Departmentalism is my jam.

But it doesn't amount to much. A judge cant compel a prosecutor to prosecute, they would be holding a trial to get a guilty verdict that the person already admits to by accepting a pardon, and the judge can't enforce the punishment they issue.
 
The Big Dog said:
You think that back in old Rome that everybody leapt to conclusions long before there was even a chance for the rule of law to take place?

I mean I get that it is far easier to light up the torches and leap to fanciful conclusions and then toss them to the lions, but I think that most people who believe in the rule of law think that it is advanced by silly things like the presumption of innocence and due process.

I vaguely remember a quote from a person in Reconstruction South saying "string em up!" I hope it won't come to that, don't you.
Click to expand...

You think that back in old Rome that if a public official under criminal investigation were to shut down said investigation, everyone would simply shrug their shoulders and say that I guess that settles it, he must be Innocent?

Because, you know, that's the real issue here. Not your deflection.
 
Cabbage said:
You think that back in old Rome that if a public official under criminal investigation were to shut down said investigation, everyone would simply shrug their shoulders and say that I guess that settles it, he must be Innocent?

Because, you know, that's the real issue here. Not your deflection.
Click to expand...

Well in old Rome, I think most people would, you know, wait until he does it?

Ya follow?
 
BobTheCoward said:
What is the dodge? I don't consider prosecutorial discretion as being above the law.
Click to expand...

If the person directing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion is directing said discretion to stop himself from being prosecuted we have a clear case of obstruction of justice.
 
They stand for power..and they don't care how they get it.
I now consider every Republicand as a neo fascist until proven otherwise.
 
The Big Dog said:
You think that back in old Rome that everybody leapt to conclusions long before there was even a chance for the rule of law to take place?
I mean I get that it is far easier to light up the torches and leap to fanciful conclusions and then toss them to the lions, but I think that most people who believe in the rule of law think that it is advanced by silly things like the presumption of innocence and due process.

I vaguely remember a quote from a person in Reconstruction South saying "string em up!" I hope it won't come to that, don't you.
Click to expand...

First, I think you have a very poor understanding of ancient Rome. Back in old Roman people absolutely and frequently leapt to conclusions long before there was a chance for the rule of law to take place, leading to frequent riots based on perceived political injustices. You can google it if you wish to learn more.

Of course I am not suggesting that burning down one's own city is a great way to express one's political views- only correcting your misguided attempt to invoke the citizens of ancient Rome as models of wisdom, devotion to due process, and patience.

Second- are you really attempting to conflate speculation in an Internet forum as to what the Republicans in Congress might do in response to a plausible scenario with a lynching?!? Is merely discussing the implications of the positions already expressed by the Republican leadership "an unwillingness to wait for the rule of law to take place"?!?! A bit of hyperbole before lunch, huh? I fear you may have been taken in by the Republican strategy of using melodramatic over-reaction as a means of discrediting opponents and shutting down legitimate discussion.
 
lomiller said:
All Republicans care about at this point is staying in power.

I guess I’m pessimist but IMO too many key checks/balances have been broken. 300 years of democracy in the US is teetering on the edge, all it takes is the right person to come along and make themselves Dictator. I’m not sure that’s Trump, he seems more interested in self-aggrandizement and is probably too lazy to want the role of Dictator.


If/when the right person comes along the US will follow in the footsteps of Turkey/Russia/China. Consolidation of political power followed by legal changes to protect that power and suppress/arrest anyone who challenges it.
Click to expand...


Which is a major reason I believe in private gun ownership..
 
Giordano said:
First, I think you have a very poor understanding of ancient Rome. Back in old Roman people absolutely and frequently leapt to conclusions long before there was a chance for the rule of law to take place, leading to frequent riots based on perceived political injustices. You can google it if you wish to learn more.

Of course I am not suggesting that burning down one's own city is a great way to express one's political views- only correcting your misguided attempt to invoke the citizens of ancient Rome as models of wisdom, devotion to due process, and patience.

Second- are you really attempting to conflate speculation in an Internet forum as to what the Republicans in Congress might do in response to a plausible scenario with a lynching?!? Is merely discussing the implications of the positions already expressed by the Republican leadership "an unwillingness to wait for the rule of law to take place"?!?! A bit of hyperbole before lunch, huh? I fear you may have been taken in by the Republican strategy of using melodramatic over-reaction as a means of discrediting opponents and shutting down legitimate discussion.
Click to expand...

First, I didn't bring up Rome to start with, I was just running with a bad analogy, although I am sad to hear that there weren't lions in the Senate. :(

Second, I was thinking of a posse, you can google the documentary "Hang 'em High" if you wish to learn more.

Third, melodrama? You are in a thread where on fella said "300 years of democracy in the US is teetering on the edge," another guy is talking about "that is why I own guns" or something and declared that people that don't think the way he does are "neo-fascists" and you accuse ME of "melodrama"?

Oh mercy...
 
Belz... said:
It's not my idea. This is what Bob is arguing. 'Course, now he says the opposite, but if you want, I'll let you try to pin him down on something. Can't be done.
Click to expand...
That's not an exercise that interests me.

Anyway, even though the President's role as chief law enforcement officer puts him in an interesting position when it comes to investigating himself via the agencies under his authority; it seems clear that the Constitution does put him under the law, and provides the means for him to be checked and balanced by the other branches. Would you agree that--whatever is dreamt of in Bob's philosophy--the president is not actually above the law?
 
I think the basic idea is that the President has the ultimate check and balance, the voting populace.

"Above the law" is an odd statement when applied to someone who is by definition at the top of the enforcing branch of "the law."
 
theprestige said:
That's not an exercise that interests me.

Anyway, even though the President's role as chief law enforcement officer puts him in an interesting position when it comes to investigating himself via the agencies under his authority; it seems clear that the Constitution does put him under the law, and provides the means for him to be checked and balanced by the other branches. Would you agree that--whatever is dreamt of in Bob's philosophy--the president is not actually above the law?
Click to expand...

No it isn't, it never says that the president is not able to be charged with crimes while in office, it just provides a method of removing the office from him. It is called a constitutional crisis for a reason, and that is that there is no clear answer to what happens when the president is charged or convicted of a crime.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I think the basic idea is that the President has the ultimate check and balance, the voting populace.

"Above the law" is an odd statement when applied to someone who is by definition at the top of the enforcing branch of "the law."
Click to expand...

That is what Nixon quite firmly held. Never played out enough to see if the supreme court would agree with that or not.
 
Border Reiver said:
If the person directing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion is directing said discretion to stop himself from being prosecuted we have a clear case of obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

Ethically, maybe.

Constitutionally, maybe not. One side effect of having separate but equal branches of government that act as checks and balances on each other, is that each branch's authority is necessarily absolute within its Constitutional domain.

There is no higher constitutional authority than the President, when it comes to the direction of the agencies of the executive branch. Congress can't compel him to investigate himself with those agencies.

Which is why the Constitution provides Congress with a separate mechanism--impeachment--for intervening in the event of presidential misconduct.
 
theprestige said:
Ethically, maybe.

Constitutionally, maybe not. One side effect of having separate but equal branches of government that act as checks and balances on each other, is that each branch's authority is necessarily absolute within its Constitutional domain.

There is no higher constitutional authority than the President, when it comes to the direction of the agencies of the executive branch. Congress can't compel him to investigate himself with those agencies.

Which is why the Constitution provides Congress with a separate mechanism--impeachment--for intervening in the event of presidential misconduct.
Click to expand...

Adding to this, prosecutorial discretion combined with the branch that handles foreign negotiations is already some shady stuff. Or look at prosecutorial discretion around "too big to fail." There are plenty of terrible rationalizations for prosecutorial discretion that can be applied to his own case.
 
The Big Dog said:
Well in old Rome, I think most people would, you know, wait until he does it?

Ya follow?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. There is a long history of people making what are commonly known as "Contingency Plans" of how to handle this or that IF this or that happens. You know, plans that are made beforehand so you're not scrambling for a plan in the immediate aftermath.

Of course, this would never occur to the simple minded among us.

Furthermore, the title of this thread is "Will the Republican party stand for the rule of law or for Trump? "

Do you know what the word "Will" means? You act as though you do not.
 
Why is the thread title asking this as a question in the future tense?

We've already seen multiple people in the Trump administration commit crimes and the Republicans have done nothing but deny, excuse, or feign concern.
 
The_Animus said:
Why is the thread title asking this as a question in the future tense?

We've already seen multiple people in the Trump administration commit crimes and the Republicans have done nothing but deny, excuse, or feign concern.
Click to expand...

Because I wonder if there is a point too far for them or if democracy really did die.
 
applecorped said:
Man, the other side is always corrupt
Click to expand...

It's more that the other side is corrupt, my side is corrupt but it's okay because they are only corrupt in order to work within the system in order to make good stuff happen.

In the real world bias is very rarely in absolute, direct statements. It's in the excuses, the "buts," the asterisks, the backpeddling, the ass coverings, the softening of the language.
 
Cabbage said:
Incorrect. There is a long history of people making what are commonly known as "Contingency Plans" of how to handle this or that IF this or that happens. You know, plans that are made beforehand so you're not scrambling for a plan in the immediate aftermath.

Of course, this would never occur to the simple minded among us.

Furthermore, the title of this thread is "Will the Republican party stand for the rule of law or for Trump? "

Do you know what the word "Will" means? You act as though you do not.
Click to expand...

Contingency plans, folks, means wild speculation and casting blame before anything, you know, actually happens. I like when you said called preemptive attacks on republicans for something that actually has not happened a "contingency plan."

My favorite part, tho, was when you wrote all the rest of that patent nonsense.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Because I wonder if there is a point too far for them or if democracy really did die.
Click to expand...

Some have been pushed past their moral comfort zone and decided not to run again. But for most they'll keep doing whatever they think will benefit them financially or politically, which right now seems to be to latch on to Trumps teet and hold on for dear life.

Enjoy that mental image folks :boxedin:
 
Oh Jesus reel in the sturm und drang people.

Democracy is not "in danger." Andrew Jackson straight up dared the Supreme Court to stop him.

Democracy will survive Trump.
 
The Big Dog said:
I like when you said called preemptive attacks on republicans for something that actually has not happened a "contingency plan."
Click to expand...

If you liked it then it should be no trouble at all for you to provide the specific quote where I said this.

I'll be over here waiting, laughing at you as you fail to back your words up.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Oh Jesus reel in the sturm und drang people.

Democracy is not "in danger." Andrew Jackson straight up dared the Supreme Court to stop him.

Democracy will survive Trump.
Click to expand...

You have to admit that there's a bit of polarization and radicalisation on both ends of the spectrum, in a lot of western countries, and it isn't encouraging.
 
Cabbage said:
If you liked it then it should be no trouble at all for you to provide the specific quote where I said this.

I'll be over here waiting, laughing at you as you fail to back your words up.
Click to expand...

Liked it? Loved it!
 
Belz... said:
You have to admit that there's a bit of polarization and radicalisation on both ends of the spectrum, in a lot of western countries, and it isn't encouraging.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's down to both sides reacting with hysteria and ludicrous hyperbole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom