In Bowls mind, there is no difference between Trump and John Gotti.
Run, Jack, run!
- Thread starter DANC
- Start date
By your non-answer, I'll just assume the all the pain and trauma that makes you lash out like a grade-a asshole is just too much to face. Prayers for you and yours DANC. I know that's not really you talking. We'll get through this.
What a weird response. It's typed out. Bolding it isn't going to make it any louder. You should have posted a squinty-eye emoji. Boomer.
Nothing is going to happen any of the J6 committee or Jack Smith. Why? Because they didn't do anything illegal.
They will most likely get a talking too at a well publicized Congressional hearing. It will make for all sorts of great clips to use on social media. Can't wait.
When do grocery prices come down again?
They will most likely get a talking too at a well publicized Congressional hearing. It will make for all sorts of great clips to use on social media. Can't wait.
When do grocery prices come down again?
The overturning of Roe was a years (decades) long concentrated engagement in lawfare. It isn't just about going after people.
As an olive branch, the paying off a porn star thing for Trump was lawfare. And stupid, politically.
I think of lawfare as personal, not policy. Challenging a law is part of the Constitution. Identifying a crime after based on political beliefs is not.
Fair enough but war, whether legal or illegal, is called warfare. A concerted effort to use the law to bend something to your will is lawfare.
I don't think so. I think the term is best used to go after a person or a party using the legal system.
What you're describing re overturning Roe v. Wade, the concerted effort to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick, drive for Obergefell, and the work to end segregation through the courts is something different. I'd call it constitutional advocacy? I guess the differentiator for Roe is that conservatives went out of their way to find SCt justices who viewed the issue their way, but isn't that within and contemplated by our Constitutional system?
Well sure, all legal and fine. But certainly lawfare. They struck out changing public opinion to a degree suitable for legislation so they used the law to get their way.
Obviously, and the Supreme Court surely agrees, I would have rather they used the legislative process to do same. But here we are.
And, to be sure, the stupid ****ing Dems had 50 years and couldn't find their spine long enough to codify Roe. The right wing played them for suckers, as they surely were, and made a consistent and concerted/targeted effort to use the law to overturn Roe.
It's a bit potato/potahto but I'm pretty ****ing reasonably certain the right wing didn't go after Roe b/c of their consitutional sensitivities.
The point is they went after it through legitimate means. Many see what the various prosecutors did towards Trump as illegitimate.
do you consider it illegitimate if it ends up not getting thrown out by the court/judge at teh first review. I mean, and I'm not going to look this up, the Stormy Daniels shit went through a grand jury? Is that not legitimate?
Many may not LIKE it but if the judge doesn't throw it out on its head, I feel like it's legitimate.
The outcome is immaterial. It’s the intent/motivation
They weren't "played for suckers". They spent nearly half a century in Have Cake/Eat Too mode, being able to point to the court decision and claim "law of the land", all while not having to deal with the consequences of codifying and having their names being attached by authorship or vote to the legislation with the constituents back home.
Ok. But the right wings motivation wasn’t based in the purity of the constitutional argument in re abortion. It was to end abortion. Period. Full stop.
They used the law to get their way. The outcome was very material to them and, hats off, they executed pretty damn well.
The law, like a gun, was used as a tool to reach their desired outcome under their intense motivation/intent to end abortion.
We can go back and forth forever but I’m only saying that lawfare is when intent and desired outcome match and there were other means (legislatively or otherwise eg politics) to achieve that goal.
The judge can't know if the prosecutor is going after the accused because of personal animus or political bias. That's what the (rational) people who are critical of the cases against Trump find so problematic and what they think makes those cases illegitimate.
Both are true. I’ve seen plenty of talking heads, left and right, point out how terrible the Roe decision was and strictly constitutionally speaking it needed to be overturned. That much is undeniable and something we can all agree on.
But yes. The moral motivation was there as well.
Well, except that on your final definition, the anti Roe people wanted to create a path to allow a legislative means. Roe had shut that down. If you want to put it that way, did the lawyers who argued for Roe also engage in lawfare under your definition?
Are you talking about Roe v Wade where a bunch of Dems on the court made a ruling they knew was unconstitutional? What is wrong with reversing a bad ruling?
I’m not going to look into the etymology of the word lawfare so I’m going to wing it with my unassailable instincts while recognizing and admitting I could be wrong with full respect due to my inner circle of posters which includes you. I think the genesis of lawfare was political enemies, not issues. When a person running for office, bereft of evidence/discovery etc states if you elect me I’m going to prosecute trump that’s lawfare. Not people abusing the real estate appraisal process but trump. And that’s what bowl and others don’t understand that goat highlighted appropriately. Liz Cheney served on the Jan 6 board and was outspoken re her disdain for trump. Pubs saying we are going to investigate her. That’s lawfare. Cart before the horse. IGW shit.
And on that note IGW has been prophetic about quite a lot. RIP IGW. May the naysayers kiss your comcast hating ass
Last edited:
Probably. This isn’t a one side thing. It’s politicians not having the fortitude to fully own their beliefs or position to the extent they will pursue it legislatively. I think it’s one of the bigger problems in our system today. Probably because being a politician is a career now and standing g on principle will often get you primaried
As an aside I hope, if there is a heaven and IGW made it, he found out the truth and said “I ****ING KNEW IT!!!!!”
Sure. And that’s lawfare too. In my book. Which apparently I’m writing alone. ****ing lawyers on here argue about EVERYTHING.
Blackmun--Nixon appointee
Stewart--Eisenhower appointee
Douglas--FDR
Burger--Nixon
Brennan--Eisenhower
Marshall--Johnson
Powell--Nixon
Justice White, one of the two dissenters, was appointed by Kennedy.
Maybe you are my most favorite libtard then after all !! (But very low on the libtard scale!, more like just Li...)
So like a Gazebo that takes over 12 months to design. ... Totally flat ass confused. Is that what you are saying? OR, who ever can offer the best time?
Which reminds me of the past, working in Tucson. Due to a tip from a buddy, I asked a Mexican coworker. "if you are out with a buddy for a long time, would you have gay sex"
He simple said, "well you said it was a long time, so yea! "
The question you need to ask is, if Trump was not running for political office - specifically President - would he have been indicted for something like the Stormy Daniels deal?
Let me answer for you - hell no. Because it's done all the time by guys with money who can pay to keep things quiet.
Same for the documents case - Hillary, Joe, and Pence all had classified docs they didn't turn in. They weren't prosecuted, and please dont say it was because they cooperated. Everyone cooperates after they've been busted, except for Trump, who thought he had the right to have them in his possesion.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Indiana hits new low in Woodson Era: 'We Got Embarrassed'- Latest: ZachBrowning
-
-