NYT Trump Tax Return Case Confronts Supreme Court With a Momentous Choice
This will be very interesting to see how they rule?
And if the GOP voters will be happy with either ruling?
I mean what may help Trump may help future DEM Presidents.
Though I still wonder what Trump has hidden in those tax returns that he is so scared to show us like he promised he would... :-)
This will be very interesting to see how they rule?
And if the GOP voters will be happy with either ruling?
I mean what may help Trump may help future DEM Presidents.
Though I still wonder what Trump has hidden in those tax returns that he is so scared to show us like he promised he would... :-)
19 comments:
Now that we have a Republican federal judiciary, I think it will be clear that no Republican president can be investigated for any criminal activity. Such investigations are limited to Democratic presidents.
--Hiram
However that ruling will hold for both... :-)
Republicans have no concern about being called hypocrites and if they can get away with it would / will have totally different standards for what is allowable for dems and republicans.
I would not be so fast to negatively stereotype 10s of millions of your fellow citizens.
If I remember correctly the DEMs fought pretty hard to protect Bill Clinton.
However that ruling will hold for both... :-)
I don't think it will. Democrats simply cannot expect favorable rulings from Republican judges. That's not why they were put on courts.
--Hiram
So you think the Court will be so fickle as to reverse its previous ruling if a DEM President did something stupid?
So you think the Court will be so fickle as to reverse its previous ruling if a DEM President did something stupid?
I like to think in the future neither party will choose a candidate as unfit as Donald Trump. But I also think that the era of judicial supremacy is at an end, that either this president or the next one will reject the principle of judicial review, and from that point on Supreme Court opinions will be treated as advisory. As far as the court is concerned, this is because of both internal and external roles. Internally, the court has acted recklessly in it's encroachment on the authority of the other branches of government, particularly with regard to health care policy. Externally, the politics surrounding the courts have delegitimized it. I think the failure of the senate even to take up the nomination of Merrick Garland has resulted has permanently damaged the court. That his replacement was selected by a minority president has made the situation worse. I don't think the Supreme Court can come back from that unless the Trump justices resign, and not even that might do the job.
--Hiram
I am not so cynical.
The court has been through a lot of strife and change over the centuries, and yet it still is there. Doing its job.
Do you think Clinton should have been impeached for telling a lie about his personal life?
I don't really have an opinion...
Clinton Impeachment
Do you think a President who gets a blow job in the oval office and then lies about it under oath is guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors?
Maybe Trump learned from Bill to never let them make you testify under oath...
Remember that Monica was apparently only 22 years old. Just think of how the modern Democrats would freak at the powerful man taking advantage of a young vulnerable woman...
It was interesting that ZERO DEMs wanted to hold him accountable... It sounds familiar.
"On February 9, after voting against a public deliberation on the verdict, the Senate began closed-door deliberations instead. On February 12, the Senate emerged from its closed deliberations and voted on the articles of impeachment. A two-thirds vote, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict and remove the President from office. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against, and the obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.[3][30][31] Senator Arlen Specter voted "not proved"[b] for both charges,[32] which was considered by Chief Justice Rehnquist to constitute a vote of "not guilty". All 45 Democrats in the Senate voted "not guilty" on both charges, as did five Republicans; they were joined by five additional Republicans in voting "not guilty" on the perjury charge."
I think impeaching Clinton was ridiculous.
Of course you do... You are a Democrat and he was a Democrat...
Implicit Bias
Confirmation Bias
Are you sure you would feel the same way if it was George Bush who had a history of harassing women, covering it up, used his position and influence to take sexual advantage of a 22 year old innocent intern, lied about it under oath, thereby obstructing justice?
I certainly think we expect more from President than that...
Which level did you make it to in the defense of Bill? :-)
Bill Clinton Stages of Denial. :-)
1.He didn't do / say that.
2.And if he did, he didn't mean that.
3.And if he did, you didn't understand it.
4.And if you did, it's not a big deal.
5.And if it is, others have said / done worse."
I can disapprove of what he did and have the strong opinion that it was not a high crime for which he should be removed from office.
Does it seem like a high crime to you?
Remember...
"the the impeachable offenses of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” as dictated by the Constitution.impeachable offenses of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” as dictated by the Constitution."
"One professor has even suggested that “high crimes and misdemeanors” are not the standard for impeachment, and that a president can be impeached for considerably less. The Constitution says the president “shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This is analogous to saying that “murderers will be indicted and jailed,” which does not imply that kidnappers won’t be indicted and/or jailed too. According to this argument, the framers believed that Congress could impeach the president for offenses smaller than “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
So my answer is that it likely was not treason, bribery,or other high crimes...
But I certainly could see it as a misdemeanor...
The man lied under oath... Apparently you and I could go to jail for up to 5 years if we did it.
The court has been through a lot of strife and change over the centuries, and yet it still is there.
Well, there has been no move to turn the building into condos so far. But I think the time of the Supreme Court and judicial power in America generally, is over. It's an 18th Century idea that simply has not worked out.
There is part of me that actually hopes that Trump will do the job. If he refuses to follow a lawful court order, and there is the possibility of a number of them heading his way, that will mean the end of the court's authority. It won't be something that can be revived in a Democratic administration or really ever again.
--Hiram
Since you agree with me that Clinton did not commit treason or high crimes, it is not really partisan to hold the view that he should not have been impeached.
I think censure was appropriate.
Does censure equal 5 years in jail?
I am fine that he was put on trial for impeachment and let off. But he definitely deserved his Senate trial.
Same for Trump?
Post a Comment