Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
What are we disagreeing about, then? That's all I was saying.
|
We're disagreeing because you insist on calling these political when they're judicial. The two have nothing to do with each other, as I've tried to tell you over and over.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Still, I have to wonder... couldn't a supreme court justice use favorable precedence to support their political agenda? I know in some cases there can be conflicting precedent, and if something does appear before the supreme court it's often not open and shut. Say Scalia names a conservative precedent and Ginsberg names a liberal precedent, is that political or judicial philosophy?
|
Not only could they, but they do, especially in high-profile cases. I don't pretend to know nearly as much about the court as loquitur, but I know enough that they use whatever precedent is handy to explain their views on any single issue. That's the way courts work.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Can you explain this to Jazz? When I brought this up, he basically called me stupid.
|
I said no such thing. I did not address your chart or any of the information within it at all. Will, my frustration stems from you not admitting that you are wrong on so many issues here, especially when confronted with people who do actually know what they're talking about.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Jazz, do you think that a Republican Senate would impeach Bush under any circumstances?
|
ANY circumstances? Sure. If he killed someone in a duel. If he raped his mother. If he went completely running-around-naked-on-Pennsylvania Avenue crazy. Johnson (the first) was impeached by his own party. Just because they're in his party doesn't mean that they do or don't agree with him. They just think that he hasn't done something suitably agregious to be impeached.