Trump wants Chuck Todd Fired for Misleading Barr Quote
Full Quote:
I mean look at this BIG INTENTIONAL lie by the Trump Campaign... If Chuck Todd should be fired, then Donald Trump certainly should be fired or worse...
I do wonder what it is like to be Barr and how he rationalizes his choices and actions.
Full Quote:
"Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who's writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law."Shortened Quote:
"Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who's writing the history."Now the funny part is that NBC has apologized and acknowledged that the full quote should have been used. How many times have you heard Trump or his Administration apologize for their lies, exaggerations, mis-quotes, etc? I am not sure I have ever even heard him acknowledge an error?
I mean look at this BIG INTENTIONAL lie by the Trump Campaign... If Chuck Todd should be fired, then Donald Trump certainly should be fired or worse...
I do wonder what it is like to be Barr and how he rationalizes his choices and actions.
13 comments:
I have a problem with the rule of law. It's become quite clear that the courts are more concerned with what they see as the rule of law than they are with things like freedom, or in the case of the recent Wisconsin election, the health of voters.
It's the problem from the movie, "Judgment at Nuremberg". In the movie, the Burt Lancaster character, a German judge in the Nazi era argued that by enforcing the duly enacted Nazi statutes, he was upholding the rule of law. The famous American case, Buck v. Bell which upheld forced sterilizations written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was cited. The movie concluded that Lancaster was wrong, that higher or at least different standards should apply. That movie was made in around 1962, only a few years after the end of WW II, and the lessons of the Nazi era were both fresher in people's laws and not ruled off limits for discussion by the application of Godwin's Law.
Barr is of the post WW II generation, of course. He grew up during the Vietnam era which helps to explain his reflexive cynicism about the nature of law. Truth was absolute to prosecutors of Nuremberg even if it didn't comport with legal rules and processes which were never designed to handle the monstrousness of the Third Reich. In the Vietnam era, where the very notion of truth was discredited, the rule of law, or at least the illusion because something for Barr and many others to cling to. It was something that offered order in a disorderly world.
--HIram
--Hiram
Are you now the one stumping for a theocracy? :-)
To me the rules of law can be good, bad, right, wrong, etc from the perspective of one person or another. And yet a court and the justice department should uphold them until they are changed.
To do otherwise to enable chaos and corruption. I can not wait to see how the judge weighs in on the justice departments request.
I don't identify religion with morality.
--Hiram
Religious people tend to believe that religion is necessary for morality to exist. This is not a belief widely shared among non religious people.
--Hiram
Maybe we can call your preferred government the "MORALocracy". :-)
Everyone gets to make their own rules...
Morality certainly plays a role in the decisions we make. And it's quite clear that our judges are far more concerned in preserving their cushy life time jobs than doing justice. There was a time when the Supreme Court issued decisions like Brown v. Board, but those were historical outliers. OUr courts today are the courts which were comfortable issuing Plessy v. Ferguson, and Dred Scott, decisions that made the rule of law a priority over freedom.
May Trump judicial nominees in their senate hearings are unwilling to say Brown v. Board was correctly decided. It's why I support the repeal of Article III of the constitution.
--Hiram
Unfortunately "FREEDOM" is a very nebulous term, since one person's "FREEDOM" may encroach on another person's "FREEDOM".
That is why we have a Constitution and Laws...
Now Justices may make decisions that you disagree with, however I think they are still an essential part of our culture. Who would you have interpret that gray and fuzzy if not them?
I am certain that a lot LGBT couples are thankful for the SCOTUS. :-)
Unfortunately "FREEDOM" is a very nebulous term, ''
Of course it is, which is why those Nazi judges sought refuge in the rule of law.
--Hiram
Our judges are both partisan and unelected. That's why they should no longer play a role in our Republic.
--Hiram
We will need to agree to disagree on this one.
Would you support the courts if they were becoming more Liberal?
Trump's continuing Twitter Meltdown
Trump issued 145 tweets on Sunday. I could not have physically done that and I didn't have also have a meeting with the Joint Chiefs scheduled for that morning along with a brunch with my mother. Among many other questions I have, I just wonder "How did he do it?" The retweeting alone boggles the mind.
--Hiram
Dexterous thumps... Or a proficient secretary...
Trump tries to distract from Fauci Testimony
Post a Comment