Author Topic: The World Today (Read 303482 times)

BillSharp · « **Reply #4525 on:** May 14, 2021, 05:22:47 am »

If Ashli Babbitt only was trying to stab another with a knife the lefties might have cared:

josephc · « **Reply #4526 on:** May 14, 2021, 05:33:30 am »

Quote from: BillSharp on May 13, 2021, 06:08:02 pm

"Just to be clear Bill - you're saying that constitutional law experts universally agree with your opinion on this? Like, there's no debate on it among constitutional law experts?"

you will always find lunatics like the couple that testified at the first impeachment or Jeffery Toobin (he who got fired for jerking off on skype) but the most respected Constitutional Law scholars like Johnathan Turley or Elizabeth Foley are in agreement on this.

Love's assertion that Trump was guilty of INCITEMENT isn't even a "Constitutional" issue at its core, its just based upon her ignorance of criminal law.

The assertion that the legal standard of "high crimes & misdemeanors" can be ignored or is subject to any interpretation is not accepted by anyone. It would be a negation of the law.

…so yes or no?
Is it universally agreed?

Sounds like no, based on your response.

BillSharp · « **Reply #4527 on:** May 14, 2021, 09:50:51 am »

Quote from: josephc on May 14, 2021, 05:33:30 am

Quote from: BillSharp on May 13, 2021, 06:08:02 pm
"Just to be clear Bill - you're saying that constitutional law experts universally agree with your opinion on this? Like, there's no debate on it among constitutional law experts?"

you will always find lunatics like the couple that testified at the first impeachment or Jeffery Toobin (he who got fired for jerking off on skype) but the most respected Constitutional Law scholars like Johnathan Turley or Elizabeth Foley are in agreement on this.

Love's assertion that Trump was guilty of INCITEMENT isn't even a "Constitutional" issue at its core, its just based upon her ignorance of criminal law.

The assertion that the legal standard of "high crimes & misdemeanors" can be ignored or is subject to any interpretation is not accepted by anyone. It would be a negation of the law.

…so yes or no?
Is it universally agreed?

Sounds like no, based on your response.

If you want me to admit there are lunatics in my profession I will without reservation. This morn I was listening to a Dr on the radio (Chicago's morning answer) who thought no one should be vaccinated, not just the young, but everyone. I consider this to be an extreme view. You will find nutty people in all professions. Toobin was clearly a nutball for a couple of decades before he humiliated himself. The guy on Fox Napolitano I've watched for about 15 yrs and its's always been obvious he has no knowledge of Federal law (he was a lower State Court judge for a short time).
I named probably the 2 highest regarded Con Law experts who are not considered "conservatives" (altho Turley does have a reverence for Madison that a leftist wouldn't have). Didn't mention Dershowitz as his research on the topic is well known and you would consider him biased.

I honestly don't know any scholar who would understand Love's argument that the only law existing at the time the Constitution was written (the Common Law) needed to be referred to by the framers. (the law that applies is the law - is beyond redundant it's just nonsense)

BillSharp · « **Reply #4528 on:** May 14, 2021, 09:59:56 am »

BINGO, the Aussies get it:

Bird of Prey · « **Reply #4529 on:** May 14, 2021, 11:19:45 am »

Quote from: BillSharp on May 13, 2021, 11:16:00 pm

Not much of an Insurrection when no one is armed & when you have videos of the Capital police waving people in.

When I watched the videos it reminded me of the Kavanaugh protests occurring inside the Capital - which shocked me at the time.

Incitement is the verbal advocacy of acts of violence - actual advocating of violence, the words used have to be such that can be objectively judged to naturally lead others to violence/riot.

Only an idiot could say that the words "march peacefully and patriotically" are words that can be objectively judged to lead others to do the opposite. The law does not recognize secret meanings opposite to what is actually said.

We have a lot of idiots in the country. Combine that with a dishonest media and you have lots of people believing stupid things. Ignorance may be a more serious pandemic in this country than covid 19. It certainly seems harder to eradicate as people hold tight to their false beliefs.

That's right, Bill. The accursed media spews out outright lies with no consequence. Journalism is dead and has been dying ever since Cronkite went political and called the Vietnam War lost.

aka Loveland · « **Reply #4530 on:** May 14, 2021, 11:41:23 am »

BillSharp,
I am not arguing with you from a strictly legal standpoint, that seems to be out of your grasp - and definitively my fault for entertaining the discussion. The house is not a legal body, impeachment is not reviewable by the court. I don’t enjoy being called stupid and idiotic but so be it as you refuse to accept any other basis other than constitutional law scholar as valid.

I submit you are missing the political forest through the trees. Try responding to ISF’s or my points about behavior. You say it doesn’t matter and shouldn’t - people should be able to divorce behavior from policy. Is that not what we were also told about Bill Clinton prior to his election?. Character doesn’t matter - but it did then and it does now. I submitted an example to you about how Mr. Nixon behaved when Daley stole the election from him. Do you think that may not have been a better option than punting Georgia away in the Senate?

Apparently many people won’t separate the man from his behavior. Too bad for Mr Trump since in our system you have to get even people who agree with your policies to vote for you. Your anger should be directed at Trump for refusing in his mid 70s to grow up and exhibit some self control. It was primarily his actions after his election - not before that damaged.

BillSharp · « **Reply #4531 on:** May 14, 2021, 12:14:04 pm »

Love, you are explaining why you don't like Trump. Why you wouldn't vote for him. Fine, you have a right not to like him, I really don't care. I know lots of people who don't like him. I'm not asking you to approve him.

But the issue is Impeachment - which is an issue of Constitutional Law. Your refusal to accept this is not just objectively wrong, it's mystifying. The House IS a legal body created by the Supreme Law of the land. When it considers Impeachment the Constitution contains a written standard the House is required by the Constitution to apply.

This is not a difficult concept to understand, this is not a controversial concept. To quote josephc it is universally accepted except by those who reject the Constitution entirely.

You are arguing that Constitutional officers bound by oath to follow the Constitution need not follow the Constitution.

Just take a minute and think about it. Your argument isn't rational.

josephc · « **Reply #4532 on:** May 14, 2021, 12:18:59 pm »

Quote from: BillSharp on May 14, 2021, 12:14:04 pm

This is not a difficult concept to understand, this is not a controversial concept. To quote josephc it is universally accepted except by those who reject the Constitution entirely.

Well, if I understand you correctly, the only acceptable interpretation of the constitution is the one that you agree with. Anything else --> not allowable by Constitutional "experts."

I just want to make sure you're not misinterpreting what I'm asking (a simple yes or no question)

BillSharp · « **Reply #4533 on:** May 14, 2021, 12:33:11 pm »

no. I'm only saying that EVERYONE agrees that when considering Impeachment the House & Senate are required by the Constitution to apply the STANDARD written into the Constitution.

This Standard is part of the common law - Impeachment ITSELF is a creation of the common law.

You literally could not graduate from law school without understanding something so basic.

Only post-modern theorists who believe words have no meaning could disagree. And post-modernism isn't an accepted legal theory.

josephc · « **Reply #4534 on:** May 14, 2021, 12:40:32 pm »

So literally inciting a riot isn't a crime?

Good to know.

BillSharp · « **Reply #4535 on:** May 14, 2021, 01:23:37 pm »

I've already said Inciting a riot is a crime. I've also explained why saying "march peacefully and patriotically" doesn't fit the requirements of the crime. Which is why Trump faces no legal jeopardy. If he had committed the crime I'd fully support his prosecution.

Asked and answered. Stop making me repeat myself.

josephc · « **Reply #4536 on:** May 14, 2021, 01:40:47 pm »

If you think what happened on January 6 was a "peaceful" and "patriotic" march, then I guess there's no hope of finding common ground.

BillSharp · « **Reply #4537 on:** May 14, 2021, 02:05:37 pm »

I know you are ignorant of the criminal law so I will repeat once more - INCITEMENT to riot requires:

1.The verbal advocacy of acts of violence;

2. The words used must be such as can be objectively judged to naturally lead others to riot/violence.

The people so incited must be reasonable in their understanding of what was said. The words of the inciter must be judged by an objective standard.

"What happened" is irrelevant. You have to prove the 2 factors outlined above.

Again this is black letter law. It is not subject to dispute.

If you are intentionally being obtuse, stop it. It is neither clever nor entertaining.

josephc · « **Reply #4538 on:** May 14, 2021, 02:19:48 pm »

Again, we're making no progress in any of this. No common ground to be had, so we can close this conversation.

Just out of curiosity, what are your qualifications in criminal and/or constitutional law? I recall you had SOMETHING to do with the legal profession from the WXing days...

AndyMacFAIL · « **Reply #4539 on:** May 14, 2021, 02:36:42 pm »

BillSharp

All right I've had just about enough of your flaming and insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you. No need for you to constantly troll here with your name calling. Stop it. If you can't stop, go back to the "no holds barred" of the Bears Board's Politics thread.

In the very first post on this thread, over 10 years ago, I asked posters to "be civil in your tone". You've ignored that request from the very start. Clean up your act as you can attempt to make your case without being confrontational or go elsewhere. Consider this your only warning. I don't want to lock or nuke this thread or ban you, but I'm out of patience and will do so if you continue with your aggressive ways.

If you can't follow the rules, go elsewhere or start your own site.

http://bbf.createaforum.com/chicago-bears-forum/politics-religion-etc

ISF · « **Reply #4540 on:** May 14, 2021, 02:54:37 pm »

Quote from: josephc on May 14, 2021, 01:40:47 pm

If you think what happened on January 6 was a "peaceful" and "patriotic" march, then I guess there's no hope of finding common ground.

Normally I would agree with you joec, but CNN continues to tell me this type of behavior is peaceful and patriotic, so I'm not sure what to believe...

ISF · « **Reply #4541 on:** May 14, 2021, 03:01:01 pm »

josephc · « **Reply #4542 on:** May 14, 2021, 03:02:29 pm »

Nice to see you and I still largely disagreeing on something, ISF.

Was starting to think something was amiss.

aka Loveland · « **Reply #4543 on:** May 14, 2021, 03:12:05 pm »

I think BillSharp was fine and didn’t need to be “moderatored” Andy. At least the discussion was interesting before it got repetitive- which is more than can be said for the lack of any convo for the past 5 years. Besides, he was more civil than Mr. Trump.

BillSharp · « **Reply #4544 on:** May 14, 2021, 03:34:15 pm »

Andy, I actually think I was patient with people who had studied neither Con Law nor basic Criminal Law.

Try to imagine a Dr. having to explain how & why ischemic changes appear on an EKG and the people he is explaining it to keep misunderstanding in a fashion that appears intentional.

BillSharp · « **Reply #4545 on:** May 14, 2021, 03:36:09 pm »

and pointing out irrationality is not name calling.

josephc · « **Reply #4546 on:** May 14, 2021, 03:48:46 pm »

Sorry. Was just trying to figure out where you were answering my simple questions vs. where the extra information was. Apologies if you thought I was being intentionally obtuse - I just like to be very clear in my understanding of people's positions if I'm going to engage with people or try to understand their detailed opinions.

BillSharp · « **Reply #4547 on:** May 14, 2021, 04:29:17 pm »

the following is a panel discussion on Gov Cuomo & N.Y. law concerning sexual harassment. I hate defending Cuomo especially as I believe he obstructed justice in the covid nursing home investigation the former justice department had opened. (his aide appeared to admit it) But why should "making someone uncomfortable" be sexual harassment. Should boorish behavior be actionable? Can a single conversation that makes one uncomfortable be harassment? Doesn't it have to be repeated? Shouldn't the lines be clear? Isn't an "unwelcome comment" too subjective? I'm really not defending Cuomo, but the law keeps expanding to the point that many men don't want to work with women.

Method · « **Reply #4548 on:** May 14, 2021, 04:33:38 pm »

"many men don't want to work with women."

No only old dinosaurs that cant seem to respect women.

AndyMacFAIL · « **Reply #4549 on:** May 14, 2021, 04:34:46 pm »

BillSharp

You're on a short leash here now. Don't try justifying your past actions to me. If you truly are a law school grad/practicing attorney you should be able to get your point across without using a "flamethrower" or a condescending tone. You rarely have been "civil" in your posts direct to those that hold opposite viewpoints than you. Your habit of posting "pet names", calling people "stupid" and posting inflammatory videos to get a rise from "the other side" will no longer be accepted here. Try using a more civil approach. More like the Cal Thomas/Dennis Prager approach rather than emulating the Ann Coulter method. Don't push your luck. If you can't follow my rules, please go elsewhere where your past actions are encouraged or start your own site.

...and for the record I'm a registered Republican for over the last 20+ years.