I agree that creates settled precedent. Before, though, there wasn't settled precedent. Still having a hard time threading the needle, huh?
President Joe Biden
- Thread starter tenacious
- Start date
I agree that creates settled precedent. Before, though, there wasn't settled precedent. Still having a hard time threading the needle, huh?
My opinion was affirmed by the Senate. Why would I have any problem with that.
I told you so almost three years ago Mr Magoo and you laughed at me. I told you so!!! You should give credit where credit is due. I told you so
Because you described it as settled precedent. Not precedent that was affirmed. You may have been proved legally right, but still overspoke
Grace, can you ask Espola why he wont give me props for calling my shots a long time ago?
Despite your opinion, it was settled precedent. The Senate agreed.
Desert Hound
DA
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?
Settled in the legal context means beyond dispute. The Chief Justice at least disagreed. You were wrong and overspoke
I’m fairly certain he has you on block
Joe Biden on CNN by claiming he didn't have the vaccine at the beginning of his admin either just massively lied or had a brain fart of epic proportions. Of course the media hasn't called him on it.
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.
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
What did the Chief Justice have to say about it?
He didn't show up. You can try to evade it all you like but it's very clear you overspoke. While precedent, until this verdict you couldn't call it settled precedent.
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?
You find his non-opinion to be support of your opinion?
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
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.
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.
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.