Politicspolitics

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:27 PM

Another interesting read.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whitaker-is-unfit-to-be-attorney-general-acting-or-otherwise/

8 replies, 208 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply Another interesting read. (Original post)
Independent.mind Nov 2018 OP
Carlos_Danger Nov 2018 #1
Independent.mind Nov 2018 #2
Nostrings Nov 2018 #3
Independent.mind Nov 2018 #4
Nostrings Nov 2018 #5
Independent.mind Nov 2018 #6
Nostrings Nov 2018 #7
Independent.mind Nov 2018 #8

Response to Independent.mind (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:30 PM

1. His resemblance to

His resemblance to David Koechner is enough of a reason to disqualify him IMO

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0462712/?ref_=tt_cl_t5

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carlos_Danger (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:33 PM

2. LOL

Todd Packer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:36 PM

3. Rather than "interesting", I'd call that a one sided, short sighted read.

For example:

"Indeed, the protections of the Bill of Rights would depend on the outcome of elections."

THAT is already the case, and has been for a long long time now.

Either you missed that sentence, OR you don't have your eyes open to the real world.

Which is it?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:43 PM

4. Did I offer commentary on it?

Beyond saying it was interesting.

NOPE.

Did I say I think the author makes a good point?

NOPE

Did I say I disagree with his conclusions?

NOPE

I posted it so others could read it and make up their own minds what they think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:45 PM

5. Fair enough...however, I wonder if you still find it interesting, and if so why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:52 PM

6. Because I like to take in a wide range and variety of opinions and thought

I find that reading various points of view on any subject matter causes me to consider my viewpoints and opinions and analyze my own bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Independent.mind (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:57 PM

7. What did you find interesting about this part of it?

"Indeed, the protections of the Bill of Rights would depend on the outcome of elections."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 20, 2018, 03:12 PM

8. I found the entire article interesting

Not one cherry-picked sentence.

"Therefore, every action taken by Mr. Whitaker sits under a legal cloud, including domestic and foreign electronic surveillance warrants."

"He deplores the power of judicial review as proclaimed by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803), i.e., the authority of the United States Supreme Court in adjudicating concrete cases or controversies to invalidate actions of Congress, the Executive Branch, or the States for violating the Constitution."

"Without judicial review, the law would be no more than a jumble of political calculations with ulterior motives."

That is why Justice Antonin Scalia, lauded by President Trump, testified at his Senate confirmation hearing:
Partisan Warfare Will Shatter Our Constitution
The Constitution is Crystal Clear On Birthright Citizenship
“…Marbury is of course one of the great pillars of American law. It is the beginning of the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the Constitution…As I say, Marbury v. Madison is one of the pillars of the Constitution. To the extent that you think a nominee would be so foolish, or so extreme as to kick over one of the pillars of the Constitution, I suppose you should not confirm him.”

"Mr. Whitaker decries Marbury as one of the Court’s many “bad rulings.” At the same time, the Acting Attorney General berates the Court for neglecting to employ its power of judicial review (which he believes it should not enjoy) to nullify New Deal legislation expanding the power of the federal government, including Obamacare."

Interesting thoughts and compelling conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics