• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-20-2020, 01:20 PM
    Trump's legal advisors know full well that any executive order (or statute, for that matter) nullifying birthright citizenship would be declared unconstitutional, but all that would mean is that the Narcissist-in-Chief, who thinks he can do whatever he wants, would throw a tantrum, complain about the judiciary, and win Brownie points from many people within his base. Legally, it's an empty gesture. The business about birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment has been hashed out before. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?534054-Judge-Nap-Off-topic-citizenship-split
    4 replies | 138 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-20-2020, 10:43 AM
    The religious expression of a teacher or other school official who uses it to proselytize in class or in school activities should be controlled.
    38 replies | 657 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-17-2020, 04:01 PM
    But this brief pause referred only to the period July 25-August 5. In fact, the "brief pause" ended up being 58 days, which is hardly brief. This clause was omitted from the last 6 GAO notices, suggesting that additional delay might affect DOD's execution of expenditure plans that had already been determined and communicated to Congress. Not really. 2 USC 682 includes in the definition of deferral "withholding or delaying the obligation or expenditure of budget authority (whether by establishing reserves or otherwise) provided for projects or activities".
    30 replies | 531 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    30 replies | 531 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2020, 06:30 PM
    The opinion states that the Department of Defense had certified on May 23, 2019 that Ukraine had taken “substantial actions” on “defense institutional reforms.” Thereafter, the OMB witheld the funds to, in its words, "allow for an interagency process to determine the best use of such funds." No mention was made of investigating corruption. At one point the OMB said that the withholding was necessary to make sure the funds weren't spent "in a manner that could conflict with the President's foreign policy", even though according to the GAO the applicable statute doesn't permit withholding for policy reasons. In addition, the report states that "at the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DOD had already produced a plan for expending the funds. See DOD Certification, at 4–14. DOD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23, 2019. Id. Program execution was therefore well underway when OMB issued the apportionment footnotes. As a result, we cannot accept OMB’s assertion that its actions are programmatic." The report can be read here: https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf
    30 replies | 531 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    30 replies | 531 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-12-2020, 02:17 PM
    But in Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), involving the impeachment of judge Walter Nixon, the Court held that the judiciary may not review the impeachment and trial of a federal officer because the Constitution reserves that function to Congress. Nixon had complained that his "trial" consisted of a Senate Committee hearing the evidence, writing a report, and submitting it to the full Senate, which then convicted him on the basis of the report.
    19 replies | 390 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-11-2020, 05:27 PM
    How do you know?
    19 replies | 390 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-11-2020, 05:26 PM
    But none of these occurred in the context of an impeachment trial. It's doubtful the courts will get involved, so Trump will have to count on his lemmings in the Senate to refuse to allow Bolton to testify.
    19 replies | 390 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-11-2020, 08:59 AM
    The Narcissist-in-Chief is peeved.
    8 replies | 203 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-03-2020, 08:13 AM
    At that point in the deposition every irony meter in the room exploded.
    50 replies | 1402 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-01-2020, 10:39 AM
    Black's views in this regard have never been adopted by a majority of the Court. Justice Douglas was probably the only other justice who thought the same way as Black regarding the scope of the First Amendment. The First Amendment has never been held to shelter defamation, a tort that has a long history in Anglo-American law. It's not a question of simply offending someone; it involves making a false statement either knowingly or with negligence that causes harm. Shakespeare expressed it well:
    50 replies | 1402 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-01-2020, 10:14 AM
    Is it possible you're a bigger conspiracy theorist than you think you are? Why didn't Tsarnaev's attorneys bring all this up? Or were they part of the conspiracy as well, especially since one of them admitted in her opening statement that Tsarnaev has committed the acts he was charged with? During the sentencing hearing Tsarnaev himself admitted to the bombings and apologized to the families of the victims, saying "Immediately after the bombing, which I am guilty of — if there's any lingering doubt about that, let there be no more. I did do it along with my brother" and "I am sorry for the lives that I've taken, for the suffering that I've caused you, and the damage that I've done." https://www.wbur.org/news/2015/06/24/tsarnaev-apologizes-sentencing Spare me any idiotic rationalizations that Tsarnarev was merely "taking one for the team" by refusing to reveal his governmental handlers or some other such drivel.
    50 replies | 1402 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-01-2020, 09:51 AM
    Riiight. So all the cemetery workers were part of the conspiracy too?
    50 replies | 1402 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    12-31-2019, 04:06 PM
    I haven't bought any of the various conspiracy theories; have you? Look at it this way: the plaintiff will likely put on evidence consisting in part of the police investigation, eyewitness accounts, and material from Jones and Infowars developed through the discovery process (assuming the defendants don't continue to disobey the court's orders to produce it and haven't destroyed anything). The latter might very well show that the defendants knew all along that Jones's claims were bogus but were just the kind of stuff that would appeal to his gullible listeners and help his ratings. In particular, they could show that the defendants had absolutely no basis to believe Sandy Hook was staged. But there will always be the idiots and the paranoids who are convinced that Stanley Kubrick staged the moon landing; that the Boston Marathon bombing was a false flag operation; that Elvis is still alive but Paul is dead; that Obama was born in Kenya; and that Sandy Hook was a hoax in which no one was killed and that the whole thing was a massive conspiracy involving not only the Newtown police, the Connecticut State Police, and the FBI, but all of the children's parents, the funeral homes, the school personnel, FEMA (yes, one author claimed it was a drill to promote gun control; he lost a defamation suit for his efforts), and who knows who else. And just to show what a monstrous conspiracy it is, not one person involved has broken his silence.
    50 replies | 1402 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    12-31-2019, 02:36 PM
    Jones's refusal to obey a court order is what the judge's sanction was for. It could have been a lot worse -- the rules of civil procedure allow the judge to impose some pretty strong sanctions, including having a default judgment rendered against a party. As far as the merits of the case are concerned the First Amendment doesn't protect defamation, and the plaintiff will have to prove among other things that Jones's claims about Sandy Hook were false. "Narrative" = "alternate facts" = pathetic rationalization for lying.
    50 replies | 1402 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    12-27-2019, 05:34 PM
    Indeed. And they weren't confined to acts that constitutes crimes. For the history of what the Founders considered impeachable conduct, including examples from Britain that didn't involve criminal activity, see Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, a report prepared in February 1974 by the staff of the Impeachment Inquiry for use by the House Judiciary Committee. It can be read here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20160622/105095/HHRG-114-JU00-20160622-SD004.pdf The report concluded that the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" was a term of art well-known in English law, and it referred to actions that subverted the system of government or constituted an abuse of power or trust, although there were some impeachments that were based on negligent discharge of duties. Of particular interest in the report are statements made in the state ratifying conventions. Edmund Randolph in the Virginia convention said that the President could be impeached if he "misbehaves" and, in an almost-prescient anticipation of today's situation, cited as an example the President's receipt of emoluments from foreign poerws in violation of the Emoluments Clause.
    79 replies | 1448 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    12-26-2019, 04:44 PM
    They don't have to. Those calling for Adam Schiff's impeachment should be advised that members of Congress aren't subject to impeachment. See the cited report at 7, especially note 22.
    79 replies | 1448 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    12-25-2019, 09:07 AM
    That's been obvious for quite some time. Wrong. A CPA or attorney can lose their license to practice by committing a crime, but that doesn't make the revocation proceeding a criminal one. Commission of a crime can also be the basis for a civil suit for damages, but that doesn' t make the civil trial a criminal proceeding.
    79 replies | 1448 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    12-24-2019, 06:36 PM
    Wrong. Under your misguided view the Senate could negate any impeachment action by the House by coming up with some absurd excuse, thereby effectively bestowing upon itself the sole power of impeachment, in direct conflict with the Constitution. No, Trump isn't going to be able to erase his impeachment that way. Yes, the Senate can acquit and claim that the reason has something to do with the Houseproceedings, but that would have no effect on the FACT that Trump was impeached. Haven't you been listening to McConnell? He says the impeachment trial in the Senate isn't a judicial proceeding; it's a political one. That's why he can say he isn't impartial but he can still participate in the trial. The Trump apologists want to have their cake and eat it too. They bitch and moan about the lack of due process in the House, yet they're fine with Senators falsely swearing to be impartial. (The Democrats are hypocritical as well, but in a different way.)
    79 replies | 1448 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    12-24-2019, 08:38 AM
    Let's say that's the case. McConnell and the GOP Senators aren't impartial, nor are Schumer and the Democrat Senators. So will all of these hypocrites take the oath to be impartial? Or will someone with an ounce of integrity move to amend Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment, the one that sets forth the following oath: "I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”
    17 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    12-24-2019, 08:30 AM
    No, because that's equivalent to giving the Senate the power of impeachment, which belongs solely to the House. The House, not the Senate, determines the rules for an impeachment. The Senate can summarily acquit if it wishes, but it has no authority to inquire into the House's procedures in order to negate the fact of impeachment.
    79 replies | 1448 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    12-23-2019, 02:06 PM
    In a piece in the Wall Street Journal Dershowitz says that Trump has been impeached. https://www.wsj.com/articles/president-trump-is-impeached-or-is-he-11577045305
    79 replies | 1448 view(s)
No More Results
About Sonny Tufts

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1

Signature


We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold

Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,744
Posts Per Day
0.62
General Information
Last Activity
Today 08:10 AM
Join Date
04-25-2012
Referrals
0

04-06-2018


03-17-2018


03-08-2018


08-03-2017

  • 10:57 AM - Hidden

12-15-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 38 12311 ... LastLast

01-20-2020


01-17-2020


01-12-2020


01-11-2020


01-01-2020


12-31-2019


12-27-2019


12-26-2019


12-25-2019



Page 1 of 38 12311 ... LastLast