Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

But isn't it the roll of Congress re executive oversight to constrain the president or agencies under his authority. They've done that most recently with rescinding the War Powers act involving Iraq to constrain Trump's ability to authorize military ops v. Iran. Why is this up to SCOTUS?

Without going into the weeds, if Congress doesn't like the way an agency is interpreting it's statutes then, yes. But, that's not particularly practicable. Also, it's not particularly practicable to not have an administrative state. The question is always going to be where the balance is struck, and that's the where the Court comes in. As it currently stands, agency rules are given wide deference so long as they are vaguely in line with the statute authorizing the rules. The rulemaking process is public, interesting parties are notified and the agency -- the expert in that area -- makes the rule. The Courts then defer to that rule or interpretation unless it is egregiously wrong. What Justice Roberts (and others) are very inclined to do is to review agency rules with closer scrutiny. That is, he is inclined to shift the balance from the agency side more toward the middle (toward the potential litigant side). The agency is then more accountable to the Courts.

It's a debate worth having. There are pros and cons on either side. But, I think it's clear that we are continually drifting toward an Administrative Law state and that, as such, it makes sense to review Administrative rules as we do Congressional Statutes.

[iam416]

This will be my favorite headline of the day -- well done NRO: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...ing-witnesses/

I'm gonna put it here because it won't last -- GOP Sen. Lamar Jackson, a Pivotal Swing-Vote, Comes Out against Calling Witnesses

[Dr. Strangelove]

Here's Jonah Goldberg calling on Senators to expressly reject Dersh's rationale

Given Dersh's history and his embarrassing explanation for his flip-flop between the Clinton impeachment and now (This time I did more research!) people can judge for themselves how honest of a actor he is.

https://www.roanoke.com/opinion/wire...7b651936a.html

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...nse-dangerous/

And if anyone wants a second opinion on the merits of Dersh's arguments, here's Jonathan Turley, the star Republican witness from the House. Or seek out virtually any constitutional scholar -- the overwhelming majority disagree with Dersh (whose field of expertise is NOT constitutional law, if anyone mistakingly believes that)

******************

It was a surprising and baffling statement. Where his definition of impeachable offenses would proscribe too little, this argument would protect too much in presidential misconduct. Clearly everything that a president does in office will come with a patina of politics. However, this argument would make that common denominator into an absolute defense. It is akin to saying that the Navy cannot commit maritime crimes carried out in water. Politics is the common element of presidential conduct just as water is the common element of naval action. That is why the argument becomes circular. Presidents cannot be impeached for politics but he argues all is politics for presidents. To use a Simpson-like construct: if it is political, there must be acquittal.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/4619466002/

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/24/the-johnson-fallacy-why-dershowitz-is-wrong-about-the-prevailing-argument-in-the-johnson-impeachment/

[iam416]

Here's Jonah Goldberg calling on Senators to expressly reject Dersh's rationale

Goldberg is 100% spot on. The rationale that a president must commit a crime to be impeached is absolutely wrong. As I said.

That's different, of course, than asserting that Dershowitz said that a President can never be impeached if he acted in political self-interest. The former argument is correct. The latter argument is a lie and a torching of a strawman.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Jonathan Turley:

[iam416]

After reading the two Turley article -- he says the same thing Golderg said and I agree with: non-criminal acts CAN be impeachable.

[iam416]

The straw man is that I argued that President Trump the fact that he was motivated in part by his desire for reelection does not, in itself, constitute impeachable conduct.

100% correct.

[froot loops]

It's likely that the Senate will vote to acquit Trump today or tomorrow ...... the clown show - on both sides of the isle - is over with the Lamar Alexander's announcement last night that he would not vote for witness testimony.

Froot and DSL will be apoplectic.

On a serious note, the Constitution, yet again, serves to protect the Republic from the dangers of partisanship that the founders rightfully feared.

...... and to be clear, I think Trump has acted inappropriately as president, not just in the Ukraine affair but in multiple past occasions. However, the place to remedy that is at the ballot box in November not at the direction of a partisan House.

Saying the ballot box is an easy thing, the guy is trying to rig the ballot box by using foreign interference. Do you think he is done with that? This crime was stopped by a whistleblower. He and the GOP are trying to unleash the MAGA mob on whoever the whistleblower is to send a message to everyone else, "Snitches get stitches" to whoever tries to blow the whistle on the next illicit scheme.

I'm not sure apoplectic is the right state of mind to describe me, but I know incredibly naive describes you about this.

[iam416]

the guy is trying to rig the ballot box by using foreign interference

I'm not sure apoplectic is correct, either, but I'm not sure what the word would be for more unhinged than apoplectic.

[froot loops]

Good one

[Dr. Strangelove]

On another note, Jerry Nadler's been a liability this entire process. Anyone with ears can tell Schiff is a much more effective orator. Somewhere down the round I imagine we're going to hear about how much he resented Schiff and all that. Judiciary's supposed to be the ones running impeachment but it was always Schiff from the start. I think Nancy was simply obligated to make Nadler a Manager.

On that final question of the night...him rushing past Schiff to the mic as his colleagues try to call him back was just embarrassing. And then he gave a typically shitty answer.

That said, Nadler's wife was literally diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer in the middle of December. Who knows how that's affecting his judgment, irritability, whatever. He came off angry, abrasive, bumbling, the entire process. But a reminder of no matter how much you think someone's a perfect jackass, they could have some serious shit going on that you don't know about.

[iam416]

Good one

I knew you'd appreciate it. You definitely appreciate labeling folks.

[iam416]

On another note, Jerry Nadler's been a liability this entire process.

If you've watched the entire process, then godspeed. You deserve some sort of comp time to rest your exploding mind. I can't really comment as I've spared myself watching a preordained outcome. But, Nadler has always struck me a hack. Schiff, while I don't think that highly of him, is polished.

I would imagine Rs would say the same thing about Sekulow and Dersh, but meh -- whatever.

[froot loops]

On another note, Jerry Nadler's been a liability this entire process. Anyone with ears can tell Schiff is a much more effective orator. Somewhere down the round I imagine we're going to hear about how much he resented Schiff and all that. Judiciary's supposed to be the ones running impeachment but it was always Schiff from the start. I think Nancy was simply obligated to make Nadler a Manager.

On that final question of the night...him rushing past Schiff to the mic as his colleagues try to call him back was just embarrassing. And then he gave a typically shitty answer.

That said, Nadler's wife was literally diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer in the middle of December. Who knows how that's affecting his judgment, irritability, whatever. He came off angry, abrasive, bumbling, the entire process. But a reminder of no matter how much you think someone's a perfect jackass, they could have some serious shit going on that you don't know about.

I think Amash should have been a manager.

[froot loops]

I knew you'd appreciate it. You definitely appreciate labeling folks.

You taught me well.