Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, the President can only be impeached for ""high crimes and misdemeanors" under the Constitution, whatever the hell high crimes and misdemeanors are.

But, lest we all forget:

THE MAN'S NOT THE FUCKING PRESIDENT ANY MORE!!!!!!!!

To some, he will always be the fucking president.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why not?

You can't indict a sitting President because he has executive immunity. He would have to be impeached before he could be indicted.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am going to beat T-Rex to the punch - do you know why?

The doctrine finds it roots in common law. The Chief Executive should not have to fear politically motivated prosecutions while serving his/her term.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Sorry T-Rex - I just don't agree with you. If a President can't be indicted why can he be sued? Presidents should be immune from lawsuits while they are in office. People can wait until they get out to sue them. When the Supreme Court said that the presidency was like any other job that was just insane. I don't want the man with his finger on the button worried about law suits. And obviously, the potential for political abuse is massive.

The other thing I don't get is why Whitewater had a special prosecutor. It happened before Clinton was in the White House so why did it need a special prosecutor?

Until Clinton, the President could not be sued whille in office. Executive Privilege applied both civilly and criminally. The Supremes took a major step back down from their ethical duties when they ruled the suit could go forward.

Whitewater had a special prosecutor because the Attorney General, who reports to the President, theoretically might not be able to fulfill completely and zealously her prosecutorial duties when the subject of the investigation is her direct superior.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Until Clinton, the President could not be sued whille in office. Executive Privilege applied both civilly and criminally. The Supremes took a major step back down from their ethical duties when they ruled the suit could go forward.

2.!!!!!!!! - I don't know the legal ethics and precedents, but from a practical standpoint, it had to be one of the worst decisions those bozos ever made. And from what I remember the vote wasn't even close. However, they made the call, so Clinton should have been removed from office and prosecuted for Perjury.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm catching up. See above.

Not even close. If you cannot see the difference, you have less soul left than Rove.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Until Clinton, the President could not be sued whille in office. Executive Privilege applied both civilly and criminally. The Supremes took a major step back down from their ethical duties when they ruled the suit could go forward.

Whitewater had a special prosecutor because the Attorney General, who reports to the President, theoretically might not be able to fulfill completely and zealously her prosecutorial duties when the subject of the investigation is her direct superior.

"ial was, furthermore, premature....

We add a final comment on two matters that are discussed at length in the briefs: the risk that our decision will generate a large volume of politically motivated harassing and frivolous litigation, and the danger that national security concerns might prevent the President from explaining a legitimate need for a continuance.

We are not persuaded that either of these risks is serious. Most frivolous and vexatious litigation is terminated at the pleading stage or on summary judgment, with little if any personal involvement by the defendant.... History indicates that the likelihood that a significant number of such cases will be filed is remote. Although scheduling problems may arise, there is no reason to assume that the District Courts will be either unable to accommodate the President's needs or unfaithful to the tradition--especially in matters involving national security--of giving "the utmost deference to Presidential responsibilities...." "

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...tonvjones.html

Anyone still buy that?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

We are not persuaded that either of these risks is serious. Most frivolous and vexatious litigation is terminated at the pleading stage or on summary judgment, with little if any personal involvement by the defendant....

This may be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard. "At this point no personal involvement by the defendant" That is beyond stupid. How long had it been since any of these idiots practiced law? And the consumption of ones time, although onerous, isn't the biggest problem - this doesn't even address the fiscal and emotional toll. It ain't cheap. And where in the United States are frivilous or vexatious lawsuits terminated at the pleading stage? Its not like courts give out Summary Judgements like candy. At the time this decision was issued I thought it was really shortsighted and naive, but practical experience has shown that the decision has had drastic consequences that where worse than anything I had imagined.


That is the biggest problem of appointing judges for life. They become completely detached from reality.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
Not even close. If you cannot see the difference, you have less soul left than Rove.

The "outrage" from the Democrats at his accurate statement is laughable. And if you cannot see this, you have less sense that Sens. Reid or Durbin.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Most frivolous and vexatious litigation is terminated at the pleading stage or on summary judgment, with little if any personal involvement by the defendant....

Have the Robes ever represented a client? By the time you get to summary judgment -- hell, often by the time you get thru motions to dismiss (PSLRA cases excepted), you've gone thru extensive discovery, depositions, investigation, etc. That should be as obvious as breathing to anyone who has ever handled civil litigation on behalf of an actual client (other than "the state" or "the people").

[Sidd Finch]

USSC rules no Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courtroom -- in a 5-4 decision.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/church___state_issues

Let the culture wars resume.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
USSC rules no Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courtroom -- in a 5-4 decision.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/church___state_issues

Let the culture wars resume.

But the Texas case allows Tem Commandments on state grounds.

Now, if anything, this split seems a result-oriented decision geared solely to prevent having to tear this down from the front of the US Supreme Court Building

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But the Texas case allows Tem Commandments on state grounds.

Now, if anything, this split seems a result-oriented decision geared solely to prevent having to tear this down from the front of the US Supreme Court Building

It's the "Ten Commandments as religion" vs. "Ten Commandments as part of our legal history" test. Whatever that means.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It's the "Ten Commandments as religion" vs. "Ten Commandments as part of our legal history" test. Whatever that means.

I always thought that it's OK to display the actual words of Commandments 6-10 (5-10 for the Catholic version of the commandments) because these are the "legal" commandments.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

It's 1-5 that are the religious ones (i.e. the objectional ones):

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

My guess is two blank tablets as show in Slave's picture are OK, because it's arguable that blank tablets are shown for their legal significance.

Also, from snopes:
"The friezes which adorn the north and south walls of the courtroom in the Supreme Court building depict a procession of 18 great lawgivers: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (south wall); Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon (north wall).

According to the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court of the United States, these figures were selected as a representation of secular law.

Note that Moses is not given any special emphasis in this depiction: his figure is not larger than the others, nor does it appear in a dominant position. Also, the writing on the tablet carried by Moses in this frieze includes portions of commandments 6 through 10 (in Hebrew), specifically chosen because they are not inherently religious. (Commandments 6 through 10 proscribe murder, adultery, theft, perjury, and covetousness.)"

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
I always thought that it's OK to display the actual words of Commandments 6-10 (5-10 for the Catholic version of the commandments) because these are the "legal" commandments.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

It's 1-5 that are the religious ones (i.e. the objectional ones):

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

My guess is two blank tablets as show in Slave's picture are OK, because it's arguable that blank tablets are shown for their legal significance.

Also, from snopes:
"The friezes which adorn the north and south walls of the courtroom in the Supreme Court building depict a procession of 18 great lawgivers: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (south wall); Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon (north wall).

According to the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court of the United States, these figures were selected as a representation of secular law.

Note that Moses is not given any special emphasis in this depiction: his figure is not larger than the others, nor does it appear in a dominant position. Also, the writing on the tablet carried by Moses in this frieze includes portions of commandments 6 through 10 (in Hebrew), specifically chosen because they are not inherently religious. (Commandments 6 through 10 proscribe murder, adultery, theft, perjury, and covetousness.)"

I'm so going to hell. I wonder if you get bonus points for not breaking one.