Again, if you listen to the podcast, which is hosted by an actual lawyer, and not some internet wanker, you'll see that they're not upholding the law.
And I call my bed heaven. Does it make it so? The tent city is a nonissue except to brain damaged idiots. There are really issues like ignoring court orders so stop whining about nonissues.
1. It wasn't just walls 2. He literally said there were good people on both sides, one of those sides being Nazis 3. People were literally imprisoned in Arpaio's camp without being charged with any crimes, some of whom weren't ever guilty of any crimes.
Dude. "Both sides" means right and left. If you honestly think that Charlottesville was 100% Nazi vs. Antifa, then you're mistaken. There were plenty of groups present that weren't Nazi or Antifa -- on both sides. Trump's assessment of the situation was factual and accurate.
Whoever it was, when they saw the flag of the Third Reich, they thought to themselves, "Guess I'll go stand over there with those people."
Almost as bad as if the Nazis saw folks waving the Confederate flag and thought "these seem like reasonable folk".
For clarification: The article then describes several cases of sick people who were basically murdered through willful neglect.
Wow, a podcast featuring an actual lawyer, no shit? No chance at all an actual lawyer could say something equivocal or wrong about a complex constitutional question, no chance at all. Just ask any actual lawyer spouting about con law, they're all right.
Said lawyer was a classmate of Rod Rosenstein, he kinda knows his stuff. He's also willing to admit when he's wrong, but hey, don't feel you have to listen to anyone who disagrees with you.
It is hard to take that podcast seriously when it comes out trying to defend the no whites allowed on campus day at that college in Washington.
^Ridiculous, when it comes to Con. Law pretty much everything is subject to stare decisis which changes with the times or Scotus composition, and whether one agrees or disagrees with any particular or favored interpretation is open. *You* happen to have a low credibility based on your posts here, but that still doesn't make everything you say wrong. I spend far more time listening to opinions (yes, even that podcast is just opinion) with which I disagree in part or full.
^The words on the page say you're wrong. Until Congress passes a law to add "sexual orientation" the legally "correct" answer is obvious, notwithstanding any variation of EEOC "opinion." The only "opinion" that can change the meaning of the actual words on the page is when SCOTUS issues one on point; they alone have power to change the plain meaning of words (legislated by Congress, or even the original Constitution text) to suit whatever politics/public policy they're on about at the moment by issuing an "Opinion."
The whole thing started with a group of white nationalists and Nazis protesting. Are you seriously calling the entire right-wing Nazis and white nationalists? Or are you saying that those right-wingers who showed up just happened to decide it was a good idea to stay on the side of the Nazis? Because if that's the case, they made their intent clear. I love how it's already been just a few weeks, and the right is already trying to spin the whole thing to minimize the fact that fucking Nazis marched on a US town and a woman died as a result. Speaks volumes of your mindset.
Lol, like BLM didn't murder. Yes, all Nazis are probably on the right. No, all the right are not Nazis. There were murderers and good people on both sides. There were extremists and moderates on both sides. You're not retarded: you know this.
I am the only one who is more than a little nervious about all this. Mueller's entire strategy has been to get dirt on the little fish (and he is doing an excellent job at that) and then use that to get the little fish to flip against bigger fish. Thus working his way up to the orange baffoon himself. Trump has just shown he is willing to use pardoning powers to help out criminal law breakers as long as they are friends or supporters. Presumably he would be even more willing to do so if said crony had dirt on him. We know Trump has been acting like a very guilty man and we know collusion did occur by the admission of his son and several other campaign officials. Right now Trump's only defense is to implausibly claim he never knew about it even though we know he insists on micromanaging everything and kept personal control over just about everything.
No, others have pointed it out on news sites, but it remains to be seen if Trump could actually pardon people over the Russia thing without some form of constitutional crisis or the public turning on him. Pardoning Arpaio for being a prick who failed to uphold his duties as an officer of the law is skirting it. Pardoning someone who may very well have evidence against him? If you think "obstruction of justice" was a thing before, just wait and see.
No, you're not the only one. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/trump-arpaio-pardon-robert-mueller-russia-investigation
I don't think he should but it's absolutely clear that legally he can. Those news sites are idiots is they think Trump can't. "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Let's take Manafort for example. Is Manafort being impeached? No. Then Trump could pardon him. It would be colossally stupid of Trump to do but legally he could do it. So there is no crisis. And the reason it is stupid is just because you pardon someone doesn't mean the investigation won't continue or won't be completed. The information is still there. It's not like you could buy Manafort's silence. It's already too late by the time a pardon roles around.
I always wondered if I was governor could I call on people to destroy all abortion clinics (without hurting anyone of course) and then promise to pardon anyone caught? I don't think that would be considered legal at least in spirit even if it were in the letter of the law.
