Tweet
I'll try to be an impartial observer of the recent exchange between Hack and talent. Absolutely nothing said in the exchange broke any forum rules. It's interesting and no parsing is necessary.
I thought Geezer made a decent post when he said ....... I think the above (below in my post) is a more accurate statement of progressive thinking...... in response to this post by Hack:
......These are our courts. They should reflect us, and not some weird other evolved standard that fits not one single person's notion of reality. The courts system is sick. It allows obvious criminals who are likely traitors to run the country....
talent's been very clear:
(a) obstruction as a legal concept is clearly defined if we're talking crimes; and (b) obstruction as a political concept is a different animal with political repercussions at the polls.
I'm not sure I understand the position Hack seems to be staking out reflected in the words, in italics above, attributed to Hack and that were part of a larger post he made.
The Courts are there ostensibly to insure justice, you know, Lady Justice. The courts, IMO, aren't "ours" as you state. They are there to dispose of a case justly where there are two opposing sides who argue the merits of the case according to the law. There's typically no grey area and I do find the sort of arguments progressives like to make about how the law can be and frequently is interpreted depending on circumstances to be flawed from a legal standpoint.
We make the law, the laws are ours. Now you may argue that the laws might appear to be "some weird other evolved standard that fits not one single person's notion of reality," but that's a tough row to hoe to make your case. That is because a law, when it is written, is going to be interpreted only as that specific law is applied in the cases that come before a court over time. That view, and I believe it is the correct one, is a far cry from what Hack seems to saying.
I'm certainly open to being shown I'm wrong on this take I have on the territory Hack appears to be staking out. Having said that, the bottom line for me is that no one has yet made the case that Trump has obstructed justice from a legal standpoint. Mueller may find that he has committed a crime, so, TBD. I'm also becoming more and more convinced that if DJT hasn't committed a crime, undertaking the impeachment process is a bad idea. Better for America and democracy for him to be ham strung or removed from office by the voters.
I thought Geezer made a decent post when he said ....... I think the above (below in my post) is a more accurate statement of progressive thinking...... in response to this post by Hack:
......These are our courts. They should reflect us, and not some weird other evolved standard that fits not one single person's notion of reality. The courts system is sick. It allows obvious criminals who are likely traitors to run the country....
talent's been very clear:
(a) obstruction as a legal concept is clearly defined if we're talking crimes; and (b) obstruction as a political concept is a different animal with political repercussions at the polls.
I'm not sure I understand the position Hack seems to be staking out reflected in the words, in italics above, attributed to Hack and that were part of a larger post he made.
The Courts are there ostensibly to insure justice, you know, Lady Justice. The courts, IMO, aren't "ours" as you state. They are there to dispose of a case justly where there are two opposing sides who argue the merits of the case according to the law. There's typically no grey area and I do find the sort of arguments progressives like to make about how the law can be and frequently is interpreted depending on circumstances to be flawed from a legal standpoint.
We make the law, the laws are ours. Now you may argue that the laws might appear to be "some weird other evolved standard that fits not one single person's notion of reality," but that's a tough row to hoe to make your case. That is because a law, when it is written, is going to be interpreted only as that specific law is applied in the cases that come before a court over time. That view, and I believe it is the correct one, is a far cry from what Hack seems to saying.
I'm certainly open to being shown I'm wrong on this take I have on the territory Hack appears to be staking out. Having said that, the bottom line for me is that no one has yet made the case that Trump has obstructed justice from a legal standpoint. Mueller may find that he has committed a crime, so, TBD. I'm also becoming more and more convinced that if DJT hasn't committed a crime, undertaking the impeachment process is a bad idea. Better for America and democracy for him to be ham strung or removed from office by the voters.
Comment