President Joe Biden

Grace T. said:
Because you described it as settled precedent. Not precedent that was affirmed. You may have been proved legally right, but still overspoke
Click to expand...
Has it been proved legally right?

The clause for impeachment says the Chief Justice SHALL preside. Is there wiggle room there?

He apparently thought this was not correct and declined?

Is the new precedent that a partisan (Leahy in this case) who has been an advocate for impeachment of T now for some time can now take the place of a Chief Justice?

This is now a precedent?
 
Desert Hound said:
Has it been proved legally right?

The clause for impeachment says the Chief Justice SHALL preside. Is there wiggle room there?

He apparently thought this was not correct and declined?

Is the new precedent that a partisan (Leahy in this case) who has been an advocate for impeachment of T now for some time can now take the place of a Chief Justice?

This is now a precedent?
Click to expand...

The Senate operates on precedent, so yeah it's now precedent. It may have been wrongly decided (lots of cases are), but this is a lot closer to "settled precedent" than what espola describes as "settled precedent" before the trial. When there's is a Republican house and an exiting d president (particularly if that president is a 1 termer), I'm sure this precedent will be used to impeach.
 
Grace T. said:
I’m fairly certain he has you on block
Click to expand...
I think he's speaking through EOTL. EOTL is only talking soccer right now and I blown away. Do you remember the nice Espola back in the day? I always would rely on him for support. I told him to just believe and things will change in socal. He said, "nonsense and nothing will change because." I said they will and I think I've been right. People think I'm on drugs because I'm smart and use my brain to think and make decisions. What drugs are you on Grace? Be honest with the group please. My God, I dont take drugs. I only eat from the green earth. I lost 30 LBs Grace :)
 
espola said:
What did the Chief Justice have to say about it?
Click to expand...
Espola, its me, Ellejustus. I'm the same guy as soccerhelper, NewWaveDave and let's not forget about detective Justus. It's me, crush. Bro, I told you so. I have more predictions coming that will 100% blow your mind. Do you want to know more?
 
espola said:
You find his non-opinion to be support of your opinion?
Click to expand...

No I find his not showing up as lack of support for yours. If he had shown up it would have shorn up your position of "settled precedent". He did not, leaving the matter in question. I have the advantage here because of the word "settled" which you used which has a specific meaning. I only have to show there are questions. You have to show there are none. You haven't done that and are wrong....you overspoke
 
Grace T. said:
No I find his not showing up as lack of support for yours. If he had shown up it would have shorn up your position of "settled precedent". He did not, leaving the matter in question. I have the advantage here because of the word "settled" which you used which has a specific meaning. I only have to show there are questions. You have to show there are none. You haven't done that and are wrong....you overspoke
Click to expand...

The plain language of the Constitution states "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside". The operative verb clause "is tried" is in present tense. Since t was no longer President, it was not necessary for him to preside.
 
espola said:
The plain language of the Constitution states "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside". The operative verb clause "is tried" is in present tense. Since t was no longer President, it was not necessary for him to preside.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing that legal point. I don't know what Roberts was thinking. All I'm saying is his failure to show up is another indication that it's not "settled precedent" as you claim. Again, I only have to raise questions....you have to show that there are none....his failure to show up is a question. Again, you miss the little nuances here and find yourself off the road.
 
Grace T. said:
I'm not disputing that legal point. I don't know what Roberts was thinking. All I'm saying is his failure to show up is another indication that it's not "settled precedent" as you claim. Again, I only have to raise questions....you have to show that there are none....his failure to show up is a question. Again, you miss the little nuances here and find yourself off the road.
Click to expand...

The settled precedent is that federal officers can be impeached and tried after they have left office. That Roberts' absence supports your position is just wishful thinking.

And your tell is showing.
 
espola said:
The settled precedent is that federal officers can be impeached and tried after they have left office. That Roberts' absence supports your position is just wishful thinking.

And your tell is showing.
Click to expand...

The Roberts thing is only one prong. I pointed out several others. Kicker said next you'd be having me write your responses because you get so lost. You know what....I'm going to do it because I have a bit of sadistic streak.

Here's what you should have said: "I didn't mean to use 'settled precedent' in its legal sense. Perhaps I did overspeak. But there is precedent, and it's very good precedent, even though it's old and not directly on point. It establishes federal officers can be impeached and tried after they have left office, even if it doesn't address the issue of the president himself."

But you didn't. Because you are stubborn and will hold onto any foolish point even when it's evident you've gone off the rails and are lost.

And as we've discussed before, that tell actually says more about where you are, than where I am.
 
Grace T. said:
The Roberts thing is only one prong. I pointed out several others. Kicker said next you'd be having me write your responses because you get so lost. You know what....I'm going to do it because I have a bit of sadistic streak.

Here's what you should have said: "I didn't mean to use 'settled precedent' in its legal sense. Perhaps I did overspeak. But there is precedent, and it's very good precedent, even though it's old and not directly on point. It establishes federal officers can be impeached and tried after they have left office, even if it doesn't address the issue of the president himself."

But you didn't. Because you are stubborn and will hold onto any foolish point even when it's evident you've gone off the rails and are lost.

And as we've discussed before, that tell actually says more about where you are, than where I am.
Click to expand...

Your ad hominem attack is not advancing your position.
 
espola said:
Your ad hominem attack is not advancing your position.
Click to expand...
You couldn’t even say “yeah sorry I missed your post. Thank you for getting back to me. I respect that”. Instead you missed my post and then tried to tweak me for still waiting. And now rather than answer the charge you deflect citing an ad when I was making no such argument...I was making an observation about you which you did to me with the “tell” which is also wrong because that says more about you than me (ie that you are really far off the road). How wrong can you get in one day?
 
Grace T. said:
You couldn’t even say “yeah sorry I missed your post. Thank you for getting back to me. I respect that”. Instead you missed my post and then tried to tweak me for still waiting. And now rather than answer the charge you deflect citing an ad when I was making no such argument...I was making an observation about you which you did to me with the “tell” which is also wrong because that says more about you than me (ie that you are really far off the road). How wrong can you get in one day?
Click to expand...

" you are stubborn and will hold onto any foolish point even when it's evident you've gone off the rails and are lost."

That's pretty much textbook ad hominem. It's Latin for "at the person", implying not addressing the content or logic of the question at issue. It is generally regarded as a weak tactic in a debate, usually indicative of a failed position.

It appears your rebuttal is just more of the same.

q.e.d.

Please continue.
 
espola said:
" you are stubborn and will hold onto any foolish point even when it's evident you've gone off the rails and are lost."

That's pretty much ad hominem. It's Latin for "at the person", implying not addressing the content or logic of the question at issue. It is generally regarded as a weak tactic in a debate, usually indicative of a failed position.

It appears your rebuttal is just more of the same.

q.e.d.

Please continue.
Click to expand...
It’s hilarious you think we are debating. Detecting a pattern here? Once you are off that road you have a tendency to keep going further and further out.

This isn’t a debating society. I did competitive debate in high school (finished top ten in the state). If I were to choose an opponent it wouldn’t be you because of the simple reason you have a hard time understanding what the issue even is at times.

It says a lot about you that you think you are debater and that’s what we are doing. We aren’t and even if we were you aren’t really capable of it.

And all this deflection just simply because you can’t admit you overreached, which is also a classic debating mistake. A bigger person would have just said yeah maybe I did but my point still stands.
 
Grace T. said:
It’s hilarious you think we are debating. Detecting a pattern here? Once you are off that road you have a tendency to keep going further and further out.

This isn’t a debating society. I did competitive debate in high school (finished top ten in the state). If I were to choose an opponent it wouldn’t be you because of the simple reason you have a hard time understanding what the issue even is at times.

It says a lot about you that you think you are debater and that’s what we are doing. We aren’t and even if we were you aren’t really capable of it.

And all this deflection just simply because you can’t admit you overreached, which is also a classic debating mistake. A bigger person would have just said yeah maybe I did but my point still stands.
Click to expand...

That's a whole paragraph of ad hominem. You have totally abandoned the question.

One good reason for studying formal debate (forensics) in high school is so that one will know how to argue effectively in adult life. My debate team was given the "for" position on the then-new topic of Medicare, many years ago. We assumed that our opponents on the "against" side would bring up "socialized medicine", so my task was to prepare a "so what" counter with data gathered from countries with public health care systems, comparing the relative costs and benefits.
 
espola said:
That's a whole paragraph of ad hominem. You have totally abandoned the question.

One good reason for studying formal debate (forensics) in high school is so that one will know how to argue effectively in adult life. My debate team was given the "for" position on the then-new topic of Medicare, many years ago. We assumed that our opponents on the "against" side would bring up "socialized medicine", so my task was to prepare a "so what" counter with data gathered from countries with public health care systems, comparing the relative costs and benefits.
Click to expand...
It’s funny too now you rail against ads but you are the king of them. Indeed the entire conversation started off with your error of tweaking me for not replying when I did. Apparently your rules apply only in one direction. Then you yourself raise every deflection in the book to avoid admitting you overreached which was the central question. It’s really quite comical.

Ps it’s not my burden to prove. I only have to show there a questions. You’ve done everything but show there aren’t on the “settled precedent”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top