sblfilms

Fiers with no apology for being on the cheating team

Because they can’t help but say dumb things besides what they should say, which is “we are sorry we cheated”.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28556285/dallas-keuchel-apologizes-sign-stealing-says-ex-teammates-well Keuchel says that Astros should apologize Says their sign stealing doesn’t help their pitchers but also maybe adds a couple of runs per game (LOL, run support doesn’t matter apparently) Says the Astros didn’t do it every game Suggests that illegal sign stealing was so prevalent that at least 6 of the 8 playoff teams were constantly changing signs even without runners on 2nd Thinks Mike Fiers is a rat without explicitly stating it Yeah, maybe it is best for the players to keep quiet

And all based off of the insane ramblings of Rudy. It wasn’t even an attempt at corruption based off of something real, all imagined. We live not in the darkest timeline, but the dumbest timeline.

They do have to go to court to prove the validity of a law if somebody raises a constitutional objection to the law. In this case they have to prove the validity of a subpoena when the validity of it was challenged. Whether this is a good system or not is a separate matter, and @Massdriver makes the compelling case that this particular strategy of the Trump administration stretches the bounds of the constitution to its breaking point. But it is the system. I try and give a little change of pace to the sometimes boring conversation here since there tends to be broad agreement on a lot of issues, and in fact I think all of us would like to see Trump gone. I also really enjoy issues of constitutional non-sense, more so than most things political. I mean...I read SCOTUS opinions for fun.

Don’t talk to cops, challenge all subpoenas. Make them earn it!

Whether it is in a criminal/civil court or another governmental body, you have every right to challenge the validity of a subpoena. And who settles the question of the validity of that demand?

Wouldn’t that be the question anytime the judicial branch makes a ruling about any constitutional issue?

What?

SCOTUS should at least move to non-En Banc work so they can take more cases, particularly for cases that don’t have major constitutional ramifications.

The book “Miracle at Philadelphia” is a great title for something that covers in detail how the constitution was crafted. That we made it this far as a semi-functional nation with such a document as our guiding light is indeed miraculous. It is the actual remedy though. And it didn’t use to be this way. Certainly the modern executive branch uses this shift to their advantage, but in the “what do I think should happen” context of this discussion...fixing that is what I think should happen

The courts being slow to act is certainly a problem that needs its own fix! In the case you are talking about, it actually is very pertinent to the current discussion because the fight was actually about the specific issue of whether or not the courts are the place to settle records request disputes. The DOJ has long held that they aren’t, which is a wild notion. Spoiler alert: the DOJ was wrong! Presidents do all sorts of things for personal electoral gain. They are politicians. This is why committing a crime is an important differentiator to me. Bribing somebody for personal electoral gain would be a good example of something that I would take issue with. The House doesn’t have unfettered access to all things the executive does. Literally nobody believes that. And the courts are where you settle disputes between the two. The founders made a lot of...bad decisions, let’s be honest.

Impounding funds is absolutely legal. There is a process for how it is to be done. The administration didn’t follow the process, and congress didn’t follow the remedy laid out in the relevant statute. The courts are the arbiter of disagreements between the executive and the legislature. End of story.

The argument by Trumps lawyers are different than mine. They are saying it’s constitutionally invalid because there is no crime, I explicitly said you can impeach and remove a president for any reason. But whether you can is different from whether you should. I don’t think these particular articles warrant removal based on what they actually allege. Obviously. The AOIs don’t even allege a criminal action occurred. They just say he was a naughty boy, and certainly he is.

The statute requires the executive to notify congress of why they withheld the funds within a certain time period, but the statute provides the remedy for that and congress didn’t exercise that remedy. “Obstructing congress” is also not a crime and see below in my answer to Wade about the remedy for not complying with Congress. The last sentence is neither here nor there in regards to the point I made, which is that I don’t find these particular articles to be worthy of removing a president even though I think Trump specifically has no business being President The obstruction of congress charge is based on the administration withholding evidence and instructing potential witnesses not to comply with subpoenas. The congress has lawyers to argue their case in court. They filed lawsuits to compel testimony and documents and withdrew them. If the executive thinks they don’t have to do something the congress says they do, the courts are the remedy for that dispute. 1. it is true, read the AOI and show where the crime is. 2. I’m only giving my personal standard for what I find to be a reason to remove the president, regardless of whether they can be. You can remove the President for any reason if you have the votes. You’ll need to be more specific in regards to what you mean as this makes no sense in regards to what I wrote.