pfife Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 1 minute ago, SkyBlue said: Uh, no they didn't. Read the ruling. They remanded it back to the court. No they really did say thar. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 (edited) 7 minutes ago, SkyBlue said: I decried that there was no evidentiary hearing and I speculated that the reason for it was to get the trial in prior to the election. So, I agree that Chutkan may be able to go faster than Cannon, that doesn't allow you to forgo requirements, such as an evidentiary hearing. Now Smith does that. So are you decrying that she didn't do an evidentiary hearing.... yet? Edited July 2 by pfife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Not too strong. The enabling acts were just codified. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 30 minutes ago, pfife said: So are you decrying that she didn't do an evidentiary hearing.... yet? Is one scheduled, if yes, for when I had not seen one scheduled or even being contemplated by Smith or the judge in this trial? This should have been done prior is the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 37 minutes ago, pfife said: No they really did say thar. Sorry. They sent it back for clarification in a few areas which had not been done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 4 minutes ago, SkyBlue said: Is one scheduled, if yes, for when I had not seen one scheduled or even being contemplated by Smith or the judge in this trial? This should have been done prior is the point. I don't think much of anything as been scheduled for months, since this went to the DC court, but honestly I'm not sure. I'm fine with deferring to you that it should have already been done, I don't have that expertise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 (edited) 5 minutes ago, SkyBlue said: They sent it back for clarification in a few areas which had not been done. If they sent it back that means they didn't decide the specific of the cases by definition, and instead they gave a rule for the ages for the lower courts to follow. Which is what they said they were going to do in oral argument. Which is what I said they said in oral argument. Edited July 2 by pfife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 We are at the point where Biden should be manipulating the system like McConnell was. Expand the court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 2 minutes ago, pfife said: If they sent it back that means they didn't decide the specific of the cases by definition, and instead they gave a rule for the ages for the lower courts to follow. Which is what they said they were going to do in oral argument. Which is what I said they said in oral argument. I need to stop being on zooms/teams meetings while also posting and missing context of your posts which I may have done here. Instead dealing with reflectivity of mirrored metal on flight paths impacting air traffic and conducting study to reflect the rays paths.... Think I quit one of the two discussions for the moment, lol. Or both and go to the mountains instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Just now, romad1 said: We are at the point where Biden should be manipulating the system like McConnell was. Expand the court. And when the court gets a makeup you don't like, ie decisions that don't fit your beliefs, do you expand the court again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 1 minute ago, SkyBlue said: And when the court gets a makeup you don't like, ie decisions that don't fit your beliefs, do you expand the court again? Kill the court? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 What part of the Documents case btw was an official act? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 (edited) From archive Actually, Presidents Still Can’t Murder People with Impunity'' Sorry for all caps and bold, still figuring portions of this board out. Edited July 2 by SkyBlue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 What I want is for the norms to be reestablished. But since the 800 foot tall orange hitler seems to be flinging his **** all over those norms... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 Rule of Law. Without it we are NOTHING. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said: The reason why I don’t like AOC. She’s 100% theater and 0% substance. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 2 hours ago, SkyBlue said: No, the case that was before them is what was ruled on and as there was no evidentiary hearing, ever, they remanded back to the lower court so they would actually do their job. Lets be honest about this, the case was always about getting to trial prior to the election and getting rid of Trump. In order to do this rules of law were NOT followed. I think it is obvious that most on this board seem to be ok with this as the goal, getting rid of Trump seems to justify the means to get there. This ruling said no, laws and rights need to be applied even when the defendent is Trump. This ruling actually protects all presidents going forward which is excellent. Now it is up to Smith to justify his indictment with an evidentiary hearing Of course the ruling was about this specific case, but the ruling has broader implications than just this specific case, which is what I was (clearly insufficiently) alluding to. This ruling was also about more than defending this specific defendant's individual rights in this specific case. This was a ruling that opened the door for how any president going forward can use the power of the office to commit crimes for personal gain (and I know I'm inviting some Biden example from you, so have at it) and be confident that it will get all tied up in knots while whatever court they arranged to hear the case labors over whether the acts were "official" or "unofficial", and bonus, perhaps even what the meaning of the word "is" is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 37 minutes ago, SkyBlue said: I need to stop being on zooms/teams meetings while also posting and missing context of your posts which I may have done here. Instead dealing with reflectivity of mirrored metal on flight paths impacting air traffic and conducting study to reflect the rays paths.... Think I quit one of the two discussions for the moment, lol. Or both and go to the mountains instead. haha that's awesome. Welcome, btw. I get the impression you're on the conservative side of stuff and we tend to run conservatives off so hope you stay and fight about politics with us. We're not very nice all the time though Also my experience is that a copy and paste into the textbox on the site retains the source formatting. For headlines it's actually kinda cool. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 (edited) 12 minutes ago, pfife said: haha that's awesome. Welcome, btw. I get the impression you're on the conservative side of stuff and we tend to run conservatives off so hope you stay and fight about politics with us. We're not very nice all the time though Also my experience is that a copy and paste into the textbox on the site retains the source formatting. For headlines it's actually kinda cool. Im in no mans land at the moment as I despise both these candidates and wish there were better options on both sides. Oh, I'm aware of the echo chamber on this portion of the board, lol. The irony, for me and I doubt many here will agree, is that many of your concerns on trump running a dictatorship so to speak were present with Biden's covid policies. Or many governor's policies. Mandating an EUA vaccine was not something I agreed with. Firing first responders for not taking it I did not agree with. masking never had science behind it for the purpose of covid. And I could go on. For most part I read only this portion of the board. Edited July 2 by SkyBlue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 47 minutes ago, romad1 said: Kill the court? Now that the Court has expanded presidential powers so dramatically, Trump can eventually jusy get to the point where he kneecaps the Court along with Congress and retains all legislative and judicial powers until himself. 😉 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 46 minutes ago, SkyBlue said: From archive Actually, Presidents Still Can’t Murder People with Impunity'' Sorry for all caps and bold, still figuring portions of this board out. TFW they cite articles by Baseball Crank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 14 minutes ago, pfife said: haha that's awesome. Welcome, btw. I get the impression you're on the conservative side of stuff and we tend to run conservatives off so hope you stay and fight about politics with us. We're not very nice all the time though Speak for yourself, asshole ... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 24 minutes ago, chasfh said: I don’t know who you are referring to, but if it’s me, I’m not an elected representative. AOC on 6 years hasn’t passed a single bill, voted no on the infrastructure bill because it didn’t pass her purity contest, and had blamed Jews for Bowman losing. Now she gets to draft useless impeachment articles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 It's still ironic and funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 2 Share Posted July 2 7 minutes ago, chasfh said: TFW they cite articles by Baseball Crank I typically read everything from NR to NYT and WaPost and host of others. Too many look at who the author is or the publication and just discount it, like you here. There are some that is justified on all sides but living in an echo chamber benefits no one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.