Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
Ace do you feel that the law should be politically applied?
|
No. However, we do not live in a perfect world. Law is envorced based on politics - it is nothing new. Example: just last week we had a police officer in our neighborhood because we made complaints to the city about drivers going too fast. We used our political clout to get the law enforced. Is that right? I don't know, but it worked for us.
Quote:
|
That is the party in power uses the law to primarily find dirt and discredit their competition?
|
This is more clearly wrong in my view. I think reasonable people see this when it happens and most have a low tolerence for it. However, there have been and still are real abuses. For example in my view our marijuana laws compared to alcohol. People who drink make and enforce our laws, their perception of marijuana is skewed. Marijuana users face all kinds of problems for using their "drug" of choice.
Quote:
|
Somehow I don't think that was the founding fathers idea of what this nation should be like.
|
I also think they were more Libertarian than either of our current political parties. If we had fewer B.S. laws there would be less political prosecution.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
I don't mean to be rude, but are you kidding with this?
A) Legal hatchetmen, not political hatchetmen. And removing people for not pursuing unsubstantiated claims of election fraud (Iglesies with evidentiary problems)? Aside from being absurd, this doesn't square with you other point. Speaking of which,
|
Help me understand the difference between political law enforcement and non-political law enforcement. When are politics not involved in law enforcement? Also isn't up to our Judicial system to filter unjustified prosecution?
Quote:
|
B) Pat Fitzgerald was APPOINTED as independent counsel. He didn't go out and seek that case. He followed the evidence, and apparently made a decent case that Scooter Libby perjured himself - which, in fact, is a crime. Period. In terms of his production before his was assigned to that case, he was extremely effective.
|
He could have concluded the matter early, upon his determination there was no crime. But he did not, why?
Quote:
|
It really seems as though you have made your mind up about this and are cherry picking arguments to support pre-formed conclusions.
|
Yes, I pick cherries. I won't eat cherries with worms, rotten, brused, unripen, etc. Do you pick your cherries, or do you eat them blindly?
If you ever read what I write, you know I readly admit mty bias. Do you admit yours?