Poll: Is the Trump White House circling the drain?

[piezoe]

His argument is not that the president is above the law.

You misunderstand. Go back to square one, do not pass GO do not collect 200$.

Kavanaugh did not argue that the President is above the law, at least not directly. Instead, he has written opinions that depend on this condition for implementation. The flaw in Kavanaugh's arguments i'll repeat: Kavanaugh's arguments depend on the President being above the law. This is a fundamental, unstated axiom necessary to Kavanaugh's arguments. You can prove this to yourself by examining whether any of Kavanaugh's conditions can be met if the president is not above the law.*

The condition of the President being above the law is antithetical to every American Bone in Every American Body, including the bones and bodies of the founders, may they rest in peace. [Here may I interject that your best counterargument is to claim that the Federalist papers contain clear assertions that the President should be above the law, and that principle should be assumed in the new constitution even though not directly stated. If you find this, do please let me know.]

Kavanaugh has taken the absurd position that the president may decide what statutory law's to obey and what ones not to. If Kavanaugh's opinion were to hold, indictment after the President is out of office would be no remedy, because there would be no crime.

It is clear to me, and many others, that Kavanaugh's indefensible opinions are a result of a giant hole he has dug himself, a hole from which there is no exit without humiliation. During the G.W. Bush administration he developed positions on shaky legal ground in defense of the Administration's manifestly illegal actions. He is now saddled with his tenuous interpretations of law made during that time. It has now also come out that he was engaged in some activities related to prior court appointments that some consider to skirt ethical bounds, and it seems when questioned about these activities he lied.

Kavanaugh has shown himself to be human with human frailties. No one cares. But he's made two serious mistakes he might have avoided. He was not entirely truthful and fully forthcoming before the Senate Judicial Committee, and he failed to take the opportunity to rescue himself by being frank about the weaknesses in his previous arguments. He could have stated plainly that he has revised his view; he didn't. Now, although its almost certainly a fait accompli that he'll be elevated to the Court by the spineless Senate Republicans, he'll be tarnished.

__________________
*You stated earlier that Kavanaugh's views do not place the president above the law because he may be indicted once out of office. This depends on a contradiction. Please see the third paragraph from the bottom of my post.

 

[Cuddles]

You misunderstand. Go back to square one, do not pass GO do not collect 200$.

Kavanaugh did not argue that the President is above the law, at least not directly. Instead, he has written opinions that depend on this condition for implementation. The flaw in Kavanaugh's arguments i'll repeat: Kavanaugh's arguments depend on the President being above the law. This is a fundamental, unstated axiom necessary to Kavanaugh's arguments. You can prove this to yourself by examining whether any of Kavanaugh's conditions can be met if the president is not above the law.*

The condition of the President being above the law is antithetical to every American Bone in Every American Body, including the bones and bodies of the founders, may they rest in peace. [Here may I interject that your best counterargument is to claim that the Federalist papers contain clear assertions that the President should be above the law, and that principle should be assumed in the new constitution even though not directly stated. If you find this, do please let me know.]

Kavanaugh has taken the absurd position that the president may decide what statutory law's to obey and what ones not to. If Kavanaugh's opinion were to hold, indictment after the President is out of office would be no remedy, because there would be no crime.

It is clear to me, and many others, that Kavanaugh's indefensible opinions are a result of a giant hole he has dug himself, a hole from which there is no exit without humiliation. During the G.W. Bush administration he developed positions on shaky legal ground in defense of the Administration's manifestly illegal actions. He is now saddled with his tenuous interpretations of law made during that time. It has now also come out that he was engaged in some activities related to prior court appointments that some consider to skirt ethical bounds, and it seems when questioned about these activities he lied.

Kavanaugh has shown himself to be human with human frailties. No one cares. But he's made two serious mistakes he might have avoided. He was not entirely truthful and fully forthcoming before the Senate Judicial Committee, and he failed to take the opportunity to rescue himself by being frank about the weaknesses in his previous arguments. He could have stated plainly that he has revised his view; he didn't. Now, although its almost certainly a fait accompli that he'll be elevated to the Court by the spineless Senate Republicans, he'll be tarnished.

__________________
*You stated earlier that Kavanaugh's views do not place the president above the law because he may be indicted once out of office. This depends on a contradiction. Please see the third paragraph from the bottom of my post.

Republican's strategy 101. Don't cheat; instead change the rules so you don't have to.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

It is clear to me, and many others, that Kavanaugh's indefensible opinions are a result of a giant hole he has dug himself,

"Indefensible", yet Kavanaugh's position is exactly the same position as DOJ's internally developed legal opinion - regarding indicting a sitting president- which the DOJ used as a basis for establishing the policy/guidance to prosecutors in their handbook and other regulations.

I have raised that point three times, and your posts keep getting longer and longer in an attempt to not mention it. If you want to post an even long one -longer than the previous Gutenberg Bible- go for it- if you like circling the toilet bowl trying to get your turd to flush.

Meanwhile- say hello to Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Republican's strategy 101. Don't cheat; instead change the rules so you don't have to.

Really? And what was the DOJ's policy/rule toward indicting sitting president before Trump came along and even at this time? Trump is more than okay with the established policy.

Wise up.

 

[piezoe]

...Kavanaugh's position is exactly the same position as DOJ's internally developed legal opinion - regarding indicting a sitting president- which the DOJ used as a basis for establishing the policy/guidance to prosecutors in their handbook and other regulations. I have raised that point three times, and your posts keep getting longer and longer in an attempt to not mention it.

I'll mention it now then.

The opinions you mention have no force of law, and I have ignored this issue simply because the general view is that whether a sitting president can be indicted remains for the time being an open question of law. If and when a prosecutor attempts to indict a sitting president the matter will be promptly adjudicated, and regardless of the outcome it will not be dispositive regarding whether a criminal president can be removed or whether there will eventually be punishment for crimes committed. We have ample provisions in our present constitution to judiciously handle such instances.

What is currently before us is the prospect of a judge, Kavanaugh, that holds the unitary executive viewpoint and will likely be appointed to the highest court, a Court above which there is no appeal. The opinions on the current Court tend to be divided equally. Thus an additional justice holding the unitary executive view would constitute a deciding opinion in many matters coming before the court, especially those with political connotations. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, matters to be decided according to whether the president is above the law, or is not*, could well be decided by a justice that holds opinions where the condition that the president be above the law is innate. Each of us should ask ourselves whether that is what we want on our Court. We need to think long and hard of the repercussions of even a single such case in which the president was allowed to set himself above the law, and what such a precedent might portend for the Country's future form of government. *

________
*You may see Kavanaugh's view of the imperial president as boiling down to whether a sitting president can be indicted. It is more complicated and sinister . If the president is above the law, then what would in the past have been regarded as crimes committed by the president, such as intentional breaking of statutory laws -- which Kavanaugh says the President may do with impunity-- would no longer be treated as crimes, but would be accepted as being permitted by law. The president could not be indicted for such, in or out of office! The president being above the law is implicit in several of Kavanaugh's strange views, such as his view that the President does not have to obey statutory law! This is an issue apart from whether the President can be indicted while in office. All of this sounds rather bizarre to reasonable persons. Unfortunately, the views expressed in Kavanaugh's writings are indeed bizarre.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

All of this sounds rather bizarre to reasonable persons. Unfortunately, the views expressed in Kavanaugh's writings are indeed bizarre.

And when went down that road before a couple posters asked you to cite specific examples, and your reply was that the examples are in the bush presidential papers that have not been released but your Secret Batman Decoder Ring lets you know that they are there.

And round and round you go.

Bottom line: All the scary and ballsy stuff you and your ilk said about why Kavanaugh will never be appointed and the dems will blow him out of the water has fallen flat- BIG FAIL ON YOUR PART AND TARD-DOM IN GENERAL. FAIL!!!!

Now you try to crabwalk away from your embarassment and failed analysis about his prospects by laying out future scenarios that will have to be settled in future legal action. NO SHIT DICK TRACY!!!. Isn't it that way for every justice and court that is appointed?

But there is no futuristic speculation about whether or not he is going to be confirmed. That will be settled VERY shortly. So deal with the fact that you were completely wrong and go have yourself a good cry.

Maybe Sparatacus will come and save you.


GIGGLE!!!

 

[piezoe]

And when went down that road before a couple posters asked you to cite specific examples, and your reply was that the examples are in the bush presidential papers that have not been released but your Secret Batman Decoder Ring lets you know that they are there.

And round and round you go.

Bottom line: All the scary and ballsy stuff you and your ilk said about why Kavanaugh will never be appointed and the dems will blow him out of the water has fallen flat- BIG FAIL ON YOUR PART AND TARD-DOM IN GENERAL. FAIL!!!!

Now you try to crabwalk away from your embarassment and failed analysis about his prospects by laying out future scenarios that will have to be settled in future legal action. NO SHIT DICK TRACY!!!. Isn't it that way for every justice and court that is appointed?

But there is no futuristic speculation about whether or not he is going to be confirmed. That will be settled VERY shortly. So deal with the fact that you were completely wrong and go have yourself a good cry.

Maybe Sparatacus will come and save you.


GIGGLE!!!

There are hundreds , probably thousands , of pages, freely available, in which there is full discussion of Kavanaugh's imperial presidency view (also called unitary executive view). These pages give detailed specific examples of Kavanaughs views and how they were applied in actual cases. Please do your own search. I suspect you are not really interested in factual information, but prefer to indulge your own preconceived biases. Therefore I won't take my time to go further just for your sake. The information is there for you. All you have to do is read it.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

There are hundreds , probably thousands , of pages, freely available, in which there is full discussion of Kavanaugh's imperial presidency view (also called unitary executive view). These pages give detailed specific examples of Kavanaughs views and how they were applied in actual cases. Please do your own search. I suspect you are not really interested in factual information, but prefer to indulge your own preconceived biases. Therefore I won't take my time to go further just for your sake. The information is there for you. All you have to do is read it.

Your ilk just had your crack at Kavanaugh in a long exhaustive Senate review.

Howd that work out for ya? Oh, I see. Your Secret Batmat Decoder Ring is recommending more pages that people should be off looking at.

I do agree though that there thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, of pages of freely available material about Kavanaugh's views. Even though you and your ilk argued extensively that there was not enough on the record without getting into bush's presidential papers. You might want to get your rap together a little there, but whatever.

 

[piezoe]

Even though you ... argued extensively that there was not enough on the record without getting into bush's presidential papers.

Of course I said nothing of the sort. If you want to make an extraordinary claim you are obligated to do something equally extraordinary, and give your source by quoting me.

Here below are two quotes from my posts where I mention Kavanaugh's record in regard his time in the G.W. Bush White house. As will be obvious to everyone, except you I suppose, I said nothing of the sort that you claim I said. I invite you to read these quotes somewhat more carefully this time.

from post#23

Mr. Trump selected Bret Kavanaugh for one overriding reason. Kavannaugh was chosen for his singular, and peculiar views on the powers of the Chief Executive, views highly favorable to Mr. Trump's in his current precarious position. These strange views, expressed in writing and especially while he was in the G.W. Bush White House --there again seemingly tailored to be highly favorable to the chief executive -- break away from those of nearly all legal scholars, precedents set by courts, and the principle taught to all school children for over two centuries that the President is not above the law.​

from post #41

It is clear to me, and many others, that Kavanaugh's indefensible opinions are a result of a giant hole he has dug himself, a hole from which there is no exit without humiliation. During the G.W. Bush administration he developed positions on shaky legal ground in defense of the Administration's manifestly illegal actions. He is now saddled with his tenuous interpretations of law made during that time.
​

We each have are own standards, and our readers can judge for themselves who is telling the truth, who isn't, and who is toying with "truthiness." One of the several indicators that I use in judging another's integrity and the likely veracity of their arguments is whether they have stated facts incorrectly, an excusable error, or have intentionally lied by stating something incorrect that's very unlikely to get wrong. In the latter case they have destroyed what integrity they may have had. Integrity once lost is difficult to regain. Apology helps. Another indicator I find fairly reliable is whether they have resorted to ad hominem attack. Sometimes this can be out of frustration when dealing with someone absurdly hard headed, but more often it is the refuge of someone whose arguments have little substance.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Of course I said nothing of the sort. If you want to make an extraordinary claim you are obligated to do something equally extraordinary, and give your source by quoting me.

Here below are two quotes from my posts where I mention Kavanaugh's record in regard his time in the G.W. Bush White house. As will be obvious to everyone, except you I suppose, I said nothing of the sort that you claim I said. I invite you to read these quotes somewhat more carefully this time.

from post#23

Mr. Trump selected Bret Kavanaugh for one overriding reason. Kavannaugh was chosen for his singular, and peculiar views on the powers of the Chief Executive, views highly favorable to Mr. Trump's in his current precarious position. These strange views, expressed in writing and especially while he was in the G.W. Bush White House --there again seemingly tailored to be highly favorable to the chief executive -- break away from those of nearly all legal scholars, precedents set by courts, and the principle taught to all school children for over two centuries that the President is not above the law.​

from post #41

It is clear to me, and many others, that Kavanaugh's indefensible opinions are a result of a giant hole he has dug himself, a hole from which there is no exit without humiliation. During the G.W. Bush administration he developed positions on shaky legal ground in defense of the Administration's manifestly illegal actions. He is now saddled with his tenuous interpretations of law made during that time.
​

We each have are own standards, and our readers can judge for themselves who is telling the truth, who isn't, and who is toying with "truthiness." One of the several indicators that I use in judging another's integrity and the likely veracity of their arguments is whether they have stated facts incorrectly, an excusable error, or have intentionally lied by stating something incorrect that's very unlikely to get wrong. In the latter case they have destroyed what integrity they may have had. Integrity once lost is difficult to regain. Apology helps. Another indicator I find fairly reliable is whether they have resorted to ad hominem attack. Sometimes this can be out of frustration when dealing with someone absurdly hard headed, but more often it is the refuge of someone whose arguments have little substance.

Sorry, lots of verbal diarrhea there and walking sideways like crab but I stand by my assertion 100% that you pissed and moaned about how the most important records about Kavanaugh were part of the bush presidential records and that they had not been released.

You were pressed by a couple posters to cite specific examples to support your statement about Kavanaugh's "crazy writings and opinions." And were unable to cite any but crabwalked sideways by trying to make the case that the good stuff was being withheld.

You recognize this quote below? Didn't think so. It's from your words. If you need to have me cite the specific source location for that I will do that, right before I put you back on ignore. Otherwise. Don't play that game with me.

"Many, if not nearly all of Kavanaugh's most absurd, and "endearing" opinions, a la manière de Rudy Giuliani, are most likely to have come while working in his ultra sycophantic role as a former White House step-and-fetch-it. These are the very records most interesting to the public; yet these are among the records being withheld!"