ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th July 2018, 02:09 PM   #841
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,972
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If that's the the most important correction you have to make, the I consider us substantially in agreement on my other points.
Your "points" are your opinions. You're welcome to them.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2018, 02:14 PM   #842
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,827
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
All we can know about her is what she has said and done.
The NYT article doesn't really examine any of that, though.

Quote:
Unless you have a crystal ball, nobody can know what she will do. But we can speculate about what she might do.
Her substantial published body of work in the field of law is probably a much better basis for informed speculation, than is her practice of a particular religious discipline in her private life.

Quote:
The fact that she is an extremely inexperienced judge, in comparison with other candidates, should by itself be disqualifying.
Too bad the NYT didn't write a well-researched, informative article raising this concern.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2018, 02:15 PM   #843
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,827
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Your "points" are your opinions. You're welcome to them.
Thanks! You're welcome to them, too, if you want them. I notice you didn't disagree with them.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2018, 03:23 PM   #844
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,857
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
I used to be a media buyer. Election season was a major pain because the candidates get the commercial inventory at the book rate, which is often higher than what private advertisers have negotiated in special quantity deals. This would apply equally to all sides, so at that level there shouldnít be any influence. Similarly, sales departments and editorial are totally separate at almost every station, although this is changing with maniacs like Sinclair.
Well that's closer than any experience I have, so it sounds like it's not very likely that it influences things, at least not much.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2018, 09:25 PM   #845
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
 
Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,319
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Let's be frank,the destruction of Democracy is a goal of many on the right.
You canít destroy something that never existed.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. - Mark Twain
Tony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2018, 06:12 PM   #846
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,316
President Trump has nominated Brett M. Kavanaugh, a 53 year old Yale Law School Graduate and current D.C. Circuit Court Judge to replace Justice Kennedy.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2018, 06:13 PM   #847
portlandatheist
Master Poster
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,814
Is it just me or does it seem like everything Trump does, he does solely for the purpose of pissing off liberals.
portlandatheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2018, 06:23 PM   #848
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,402
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
Is it just me or does it seem like everything Trump does, he does solely for the purpose of pissing off liberals.
Not just you.

https://twitter.com/ChrisFrenzy/stat...29749905543168
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2018, 06:25 PM   #849
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 17,250
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
Is it just me or does it seem like everything Trump does, he does solely for the purpose of pissing off liberals.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c47385...de-abomination

Quote:
5/9/2006 Schumer: "Do you consider Roe v. Wade to be an abomination?"
USER-CREATED CLIP
JULY 5, 2018 Kavanaugh: "If confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be binding precedent of the Court. It's been decided by the" #SCOTUS
I think in this case he picked to cover his legal butt.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2018, 06:36 PM   #850
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 29,025
Picked a guy that opined that a sitting president should be immune from indictment........I wonder why.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2018, 07:07 PM   #851
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 68,002
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Picked a guy that opined that a sitting president should be immune from indictment........I wonder why.
Jokes on Trump, the Constitutional remedy is impeachment first, indictment second.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 02:17 AM   #852
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 21,578
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Picked a guy that opined that a sitting president should be immune from indictment........I wonder why.

Interestingly, he didn't seem to have too much problem with the idea when he worked for Ken Starr.

I wonder what changed his mind?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 02:23 AM   #853
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 24,987
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Interestingly, he didn't seem to have too much problem with the idea when he worked for Ken Starr.

I wonder what changed his mind?
Indeed, I wonder if he would have another Damascene moment should there be a desire from the GOP to indict a Democratic Party president in the future.
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 05:08 AM   #854
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,106
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Interestingly, he didn't seem to have too much problem with the idea when he worked for Ken Starr.

I wonder what changed his mind?
Why do you think his mind needed changing? Do you think his boss, at the time, Ken Starr, wanted his 35 year old lawyer to tell him about his personal views on indicting a president?
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 08:04 AM   #855
carlitos
"mŠs divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,099
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Jokes on Trump, the Constitutional remedy is impeachment first, indictment second.
Exactly.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 08:49 AM   #856
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,363
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Why do you think his mind needed changing? Do you think his boss, at the time, Ken Starr, wanted his 35 year old lawyer to tell him about his personal views on indicting a president?
Short answer - yes.

When preparing a legal opinion on a potentially contentious subject you need to consider both sides of the argument - this allows you to do some evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of both sides and decreases the effect of the "surprise" argument.

Not doing so is called "negligence."
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 04:56 PM   #857
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 21,578
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Why do you think his mind needed changing? Do you think his boss, at the time, Ken Starr, wanted his 35 year old lawyer to tell him about his personal views on indicting a president?

Sure. I'd be surprised if he didn't. Unlike Trump minions, Starr wasn't fundamentally incompetent at the job he was chosen for.

And more importantly, I don't think that Ken Starr would have picked Kavenaugh to be a principle author of his final report to Congress on the Clinton-Lewinsky investigation if Kavenaugh was ideologically opposed to the very case that Starr was trying to make.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 05:06 PM   #858
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,827
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Short answer - yes.

When preparing a legal opinion on a potentially contentious subject you need to consider both sides of the argument - this allows you to do some evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of both sides and decreases the effect of the "surprise" argument.

Not doing so is called "negligence."
Is there any evidence that he was negligent?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 05:31 PM   #859
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,715
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Is there any evidence that he was negligent?
I don't think you read that post correctly.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 05:46 PM   #860
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,708
A little, not much, a little relieved it's Kaveanugh. He's a mainstream Catholic,as opposed to the People Of Priase, which I found scary.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 05:49 PM   #861
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,827
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I don't think you read that post correctly.
Then I don't see the problem.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 06:04 PM   #862
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,708
I don't want to live in the Republic of Gilead, thank you.
I think a theocracy is too high a price to pay for some tax breaks.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 06:21 PM   #863
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,827
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I don't want to live in the Republic of Gilead, thank you.
I think a theocracy is too high a price to pay for some tax breaks.
LOL. By the time the Supreme Court finishes reinterpreting the Constitution to mean Gilead, you'll be long dead. And the Court will be all liberal. So the reinterpretation never happens. But you'll still be dead. After living a long life. A full life. Full of fear of Gilead.

Last edited by theprestige; 10th July 2018 at 06:25 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 06:29 PM   #864
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,390
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
A little, not much, a little relieved it's Kaveanugh. He's a mainstream Catholic,as opposed to the People Of Priase, which I found scary.
I had to look this up. I thought it might be a reference to another sci-fi universe.

Apparently you meant People of Praise - which I had not heard of before. Just out of interest, are there any Supreme Court wannabes in this organization?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 07:34 PM   #865
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I had to look this up. I thought it might be a reference to another sci-fi universe.

Apparently you meant People of Praise - which I had not heard of before. Just out of interest, are there any Supreme Court wannabes in this organization?
Amy Coney Barrett.

Did you design your rock or just find one?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 07:39 PM   #866
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 24,787
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Amy Coney Barrett.

Did you design your rock or just find one?
That being said, she would be the hottest supreme court justice since Sandra day was tanning on the roof of the Supreme Court
__________________
Godspeed Buddy! Keep on Making America Great Again!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 08:14 PM   #867
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 17,250
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I had to look this up. I thought it might be a reference to another sci-fi universe.

Apparently you meant People of Praise - which I had not heard of before. Just out of interest, are there any Supreme Court wannabes in this organization?
My hometown of South Bend is crawling with the Charismatics / People of Praise. They even run a high school, Trinity.

Also home to Notre Dame... which is also crawling with Charismatics, I believe.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 10th July 2018 at 08:15 PM.
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 09:19 PM   #868
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 24,787
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Yeah, I've seen dogs eat ****. So what they think is hot is of no interest to me.
Well then you would certainly be able to identify someone hotter?

Roberts? Taft? Frankfurter?
__________________
Godspeed Buddy! Keep on Making America Great Again!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 09:43 PM   #869
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 39,800
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I don't want to live in the Republic of Gilead, thank you.
And I donít want to use bees as currency. Neither is at risk of happening.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 06:20 AM   #870
paulhutch
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 2,178
Prof. Volokoh has posted the entire passage from the law review article that talks about prosecuting a sitting president.
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/10...utions-of-sitt
The conclusion:
Quote:
This reads to me as simply a policy argument supporting Congressional action, and not a basis for judge-made immunities. But since some have quoted lines from it (usually not focusing on the argument about what Congress should do), I thought I'd quote the whole argument, both for its substantive analysis and for its tone, which strikes me as quite representative of the man.
Based on the first news stories and articles I read I was concerned, after reading the longer excerpt and other neutral articels I'm not now.
paulhutch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 06:22 AM   #871
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,715
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Then I don't see the problem.
The problem with what? No one was claiming Ken Starr was being negligent. The only problem is that you didn't read very carefully.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 09:34 AM   #872
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,403
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Interestingly, he didn't seem to have too much problem with the idea when he worked for Ken Starr.
I wonder what changed his mind?
It might have been that experience which changed his mind or maybe not, maybe he was just doing his job.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Jokes on Trump, the Constitutional remedy is impeachment first, indictment second.
Which actually seems to be Kavenaugh's opinion. He seems to think or thought at one point that congress should be running the investigation rather than a special counsel that still technically works for the president and if congress finds the president needs to be indicted they should then impeach him.

It also appears that the legal types don't have a consensus on whether the president can be indicted while in office or if he needs to be impeached first, so Kavenaugh's opinion on the matter is not at all uncommon. It also seems to be something that cuts across ideological lines with both dem and gop lawyers comming down on both sides.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 09:39 AM   #873
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,827
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
: confused : The problem with what?
The problem with Kavanaugh working for Starr on the Clinton investigation.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 10:56 AM   #874
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 21,578
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Interestingly, he didn't seem to have too much problem with the idea when he worked for Ken Starr.
I wonder what changed his mind?
It might have been that experience which changed his mind or maybe not, maybe he was just doing his job.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Jokes on Trump, the Constitutional remedy is impeachment first, indictment second.

There is a little bit of confusion of terminology here. Impeachment is basically an indictment by the House of Representatives. If it passes then the next step is a trial in the Senate.

Quote:

Which actually seems to be Kavenaugh's opinion. He seems to think or thought at one point that congress should be running the investigation rather than a special counsel that still technically works for the president and if congress finds the president needs to be indicted they should then impeach him.

There is no reason that the investigation cannot be used to provide evidence for Congress to proceed with an indictment, which is what an impeachment by the House would be. And the same evidence can be used in the ensuing trial in the Senate, should the impeachment motion pass.

Quote:

It also appears that the legal types don't have a consensus on whether the president can be indicted while in office or if he needs to be impeached first, so Kavenaugh's opinion on the matter is not at all uncommon. It also seems to be something that cuts across ideological lines with both dem and gop lawyers comming down on both sides.

If a President is impeached by the House of Representatives, then he has been indicted.

It's just a different word for the same thing, because the process is being done by a legislative body for the holder of a particular office instead of by a judge or grand jury. And the only end point of the process is that the person may or may not be removed from that office.

So the question actually being debated is whether or not a President can be indicted by some other process than that of impeachment by the House, with some other potential result aside from being removed from office.

Like being locked up.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 11:17 AM   #875
ahhell
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,403
There is no confusion in terminology, people just don't want to write, "indictment other than impeachment" Nobody is seriously arguing that the president can't be indicted by impeachment so nobody is confused when we write, "indicte" rather than "indict by means other than impeachment."

As I understand it there is substantial support among legal scholars that the the president can't be indicted while in office except for an impeachment. There also seems to be plenty of support for the notion that he can.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 11:33 AM   #876
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,827
As a conservative, I would prefer to avoid activist judges, but of course the American political landscape doesn't always offer me ideal choices. The GOP is barely conservative at all, most of the time. It is what it is.

Kavanaugh's 2nd amendment legal opinions are troubling to me. On the other hand, I suspect there might be a conservative, originalist argument to be made for those. I haven't seen such an argument, and I'm not here to make one. I have no plans to defend Kavanaugh on this point.

That said, it's not like there any originalist progressive judges to choose from. If the slate this time around is dominated by varying flavors of activist judge, I'd prefer one from the conservative side of the spectrum. Obviously. If anyone thinks there's an originalist, non-activist judge I should consider (or that Trump should consider), please let me know their name.

Last edited by theprestige; 11th July 2018 at 11:34 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 11:43 AM   #877
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,396
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
There is a little bit of confusion of terminology here. Impeachment is basically an indictment by the House of Representatives. If it passes then the next step is a trial in the Senate.
I think what SG was getting at was that if you want to indict the President for a crime, you have to impeach and remove him from office before bringing the criminal indictment.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 01:31 PM   #878
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 21,578
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I think what SG was getting at was that if you want to indict the President for a crime, you have to impeach and remove him from office before bringing the criminal indictment.

That's not the way I read it, but maybe I misunderstood.

That's the question being pondered, whether or not a President can (or should) be able to be indicted by any means aside from the House impeachment process.

To me, there are two different intents. One is if the person in office has committed transgressions which, in the opinion of a majority of the members of Congress, make him unfit to continue in office. The other is if that person has committed crimes under the law, whether Congress sees them as a problem which merits removal or not.

The first is, almost by definition, an intrinsically political process. The other isn't.

Could Trump shoot someone on Fifth Ave. and not be impeached and removed from office by Congress?

For any other Congress, at any other time, I would probably have said no way. But these days I'm not so sure.

Should it be possible to try him in a court of law and let a jury determine his guilt for such a crime?

Yes, I think so. No public official should be above the law. Even the President. No matter how well tamed the two chambers of Congress are.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 01:37 PM   #879
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 11,316
Here's the thing.

There's an unwritten, assumed 4th branch (or 5th branch if you want to count the press) at work here; the populace and it holds the ultimate check and balance.

If most people want Trump gone, SCOTUS can almost certainly find a reason to.

If most people want Trump to stay, SCOTUS can almost certainly find a reason for as well.

If we have an engaged, educated voter base checks and balances are only marginally necessary.

If we don't have an engaged, educated voter base checks and balances are only marginally effective.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 11th July 2018 at 01:39 PM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 01:54 PM   #880
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 23,390
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Amy Coney Barrett.

Did you design your rock or just find one?
Well, I don't live in the US or pay that much attention to what happens. I am still interested from time to time.

Wow! So there are some pretty wacky people jockeying for places on the court, then.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:04 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.