The Political Geography of the USA

[lawrocket 3]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10626679/

Quote

John Dean said it best when he stated that this is the first time in history that a president has admitted to an impeachable offense.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "impeachable" is. This is a controversy over a few phone calls. It's not like he has admitted to interning all middle easterners for national security purposes, which would be impeachable. Maybe it wasn't impeachable in FDR's day but it would be now.

Abuse of power is nothing new. Clinton just didn't admit to having anything to do with the tax information of political opponents beign found in the White House. Nixon just never admitted to his enemies list. Hell, Jefferson had zero authority for the Louisiana Purchase! He stole from the Federal Treasury to do that!

"Impeachable offense" is like a "ticketable offense" for a car going down the road. There isn't a car going down the highway that can't be ticketed for something if you check long enough. The issue is whether it is worth it, and whetheryou can get a CONVICTION, which has never occurred.

I think it's impeachable. I think that it's horrible what the administration is doing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

That's been done. Several congressmen are calling for him to stop his illegal wiretap program, for example.

OK, so how come the SC has not step up and done something?

Quote

He admits that he's doing it. There's no question that he's doing something that is _normally_ illegal - his claim is that, as president, he can violate laws in the interests of national security, thus allowing him to break the law at his discretion.

If he is wrong, then why has not the SC done something?

[billvon 3,118]

>OK, so how come the SC has not step up and done something?

The SC does not "step up" and do anything. They hear cases. There's no case yet.

>If he is wrong, then why has not the SC done something?

See above.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

The SC does not "step up" and do anything. They hear cases. There's no case yet.

Ok so why no case yet? You claim its the Rebuplicans will not let there be a case?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

The SC does not "step up" and do anything. They hear cases. There's no case yet.

Ok so why no case yet? You claim its the Rebuplicans will not let there be a case?

It usually takes years to get to the SCOTUS. First you have the trial court level. Then appaeals. Then moving up through the appeals before you get to ask the SCOTUS whether they'll even hear the case, and the rejection rate is high.

The Gore thing back in 2000 was exceedingly rare, and there was a better reason for making it prompt.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[penniless 0]

Quote

I only mention Hillary's name because I know that it works the neocons into a lather. But I will say that I can't stand Bush and it's because of the damage he and his train wreck of an administration has inflicted. I know that if Hillary were Pres then we'd be hearing nothing about her policies but more about the size of her ankles or how much it costs to cut her hair....you know....the important stuff. .

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I'd rather see better choices come out of the primary process. As noted in another thread, when BOTH parties aren't changing and we can't tell the difference we either work to elevate a 3rd party, or start at the grass roots levels within the 2 parties and change the leadership.

I heard this interview with Paul Reickhoff yesterday. I wouldn't mind hearing more about him. He seems to have his priorities in order.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5382507

[billvon 3,118]

>I heard this interview with Paul Reickhoff yesterday.

I first heard of him two years ago. Since then, I've been reading a lot of what he has written, and been pretty impressed with him.