Why the Left fails at progress and just about everything.

[Ming]

Look in the mirror.

Yet another typical nonsense and childish response... Do the Alt Right Sheeple sites teach you that one?

[Elok]

If Trump is removed most Republicans will have forgotten about him within a week.

In the sense that he himself is a largely non-functional element in our nation's government? Yes.
In the sense that the changes he has made to the party will be rapidly undone? Not a prayer. We're not going back, and Trumpism will outlast Trump; he was a symptom, not a cause, of his movement. God knows what it will become.

[Kidlicious]

Yeah, we might even start weaponizing the government against the left. Wouldn't that be wierd.

[-Jrabbit]

"We"

[giblets]

You mean like closing polling stations in low income neighborhoods and voter id laws that accept gun permits as valid proof of identity but don't accept student id cards?

[Kidlicious]

The Left Criminalizes Politics by Weaponizing Investigations

By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
October 6, 2018 4:30 AM Sen. Cory Booker (left) and Sen. Kamala Harris listen to testimony from Christine Blasey Ford during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, September 27, 2018. (Tom Williams/Pool via Reuters)
Democrats turn impartial fact-finding into taxpayer-funded opposition research.

The Left ruins everything.

That’s because the Left stands ready to eradicate any norm at any time if there is political advantage in it. The latest to be cast aside are the precepts that we never tolerate unbridled, abusive investigations, nor do we abide full-blown criminal investigations without solid evidence that a crime has been committed — and even then, we demand adherence to time-honored limits.

In the probes of Donald Trump and, now, Brett Kavanaugh, these norms have been wiped away by the simple expedient of rebranding criminal investigations. Now the sleuths are unleashed under the guise of “counterintelligence” and “background checks” — whatever pretext is needed to get their foot in the door. Once they’re in, the earth is to be scorched, as if the crime of the century had occurred.

Of course, we want criminal investigators to be aggressive. But that has always meant aggressive within strict parameters. These are dictated by the degree of certainty that a crime has been committed, and by due-process rules with which the FBI must comply or be held to account when the case gets to court.

By contrast, when the Left criminalizes political opposition, no crime is required; just gossamer-thin, incoherent, uncorroborated, often unverifiable allegations: perhaps multiple-hearsay innuendo against a Republican presidential candidate, passed on by anonymous foreigners to a hyper-partisan, left-wing foreign spy working for the opposition Democratic political campaign. Or maybe a 36-year-old claim of sexual assault by an alleged victim who cannot remember basic details or keep straight the details she claims to remember; whose named witnesses do not back her account; who declines to address whether her accusation has been influenced by the controversial psychotherapeutic process of “recovered memory”; who refuses to disclose highly relevant therapy notes and polygraph information; and who is a Democrat advised by a prominent Democratic strategist and represented for free by Democratic activist lawyers, who were recommended to her by a senior Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat even as that Democratic senator concealed the sexual-assault claim from her Republican counterparts.

The Left requires no solid evidence of a crime, because solid evidence — the kind that truly justifies a criminal probe — narrows a good-faith investigator’s focus. To the contrary, the Left wants all the aggressiveness of a criminal investigation but none of the limits. The criminalization of politics leans on counterintelligence and background investigations; it wants no part of criminal courts, where due-process safeguards are enforced and allegations must be proved.

-National Review

[Kidlicious]

Will Democrats Regret Weaponizing the Judiciary?


Using the court system to stymie a president has backfired before. By MATTHEW PRITCHARD

09/24/2018 05:08 AM EDTMatthew Pritchard is an attorney and writer. His Twitter handle is @mw_pritchard.AP Photo

• Facebook
• Twitter

• Email
• Print

The year was 1937. Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts had to decide which was more important: his intellectual integrity, or the integrity of the court as an institution. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s court-packing plan—which FDR billed as a measure to shore up the country’s “overworked” courts—had precipitated a showdown with the judiciary. No one doubted the plan’s true purpose was to strong-arm the justices into ruling in the president’s favor on his signature New Deal program. If the court as constituted didn’t start approving the president’s agenda voluntarily, he was going to add enough seats filled by handpicked appointees to force it into compliance. The question was whether the justices would yield to the threat.

For Justice Roberts’ more conservative colleagues—ominously dubbed “the Four Horsemen” by political opponents—the answer was a resounding “no.” Such a blatant assault on judicial independence was too much for them, the long-term viability of the court be damned. They’d sooner see the judicial branch implode than give an inch in the face of what they saw as executive tyranny. On the other side, it was clear that the court’s liberal minority—the so-called “Three Musketeers”—would continue supporting FDR’s New Deal regardless of what happened in the court-packing fight. But Roberts, a moderate former prosecutor appointed by Calvin Coolidge, was in neither camp. So the role of saving the court fell to him and, to a lesser extent, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.
In the end, Roberts came through. Despite the blow his reputation would take, he began to side with the administration in virtually all the cases that came before the court, often reversing votes he had cast just a few terms before. The message was clear: The court would no longer get in the president’s way. And it worked. Despite the usual impulse of the Democratic majority in Congress to rubber-stamp anything Roosevelt advanced, Congress took heed of the court’s change of heart and killed the court-packing bill. The crisis was over.

But why did it arise in the first place?

***

Things hadn’t always been so strained between the president and the courts. It was something of an open question at the founding whether the judiciary even had the power to assess the constitutionality of the other branches’ acts. Marbury v. Madison answered it, with Chief Justice John Marshall pronouncing definitively that the court was the final arbiter of constitutional meaning in our governmental system.

The result was a relatively stable power equilibrium among the three branches. The elected branches’ role in developing the constitutional landscape had always been clear—Congress evaluated the constitutionality of a bill as a necessary part of the legislative process, and the president exercised the same prerogative through use of the veto power. Marbury simply established that the courts are equal participants in the process; that whenever a law is challenged, they too have to pass judgment on its constitutionality before it could be enforced.

Of course, there were a few ugly battles along the way. Among the worst was in 1832, when the court (again under Chief Justice Marshall) issued a decision ordering the state of Georgia to respect the rights of native tribes. Andrew Jackson, who, like Roosevelt, expanded the role and power of the presidency well beyond that of his predecessors, did not appreciate the court’s decision. He infamously declared: “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.” (The citizens and government of Georgia continued their encroachment despite laws and treaties mandating otherwise. And true to his word, Jackson refused to intervene.)

But Jackson’s defiance was an outlier. In the decades that followed, the judiciary’s prerogative to evaluate and halt the elected braches’ acts under the Constitution was increasingly accepted as a fundamental American norm. Judicial review (as the doctrine was called) became virtually synonymous with the rule of law, and before long it was a solid fixture in our constitutional landscape.

....

- Politico

[Kidlicious]

Government agency weaponizing like the IRS etc...

It blocks my post when I edit it. I guess it's because I use my phone.

[-Jrabbit]

No, it happens all the time when I edit a post, and I'm almost always on a laptop.

[giblets]

Republicans did over 9000 investigations into Hillary Clinton when Obama was president and Bill Clinton when he was president.

[Kidlicious]

9000?

When has anything like the Russia Probe turned up absolutely nothing? (Not counting what you consider obstruction) The Rs weren't trying to impeach Hillary or get her fired. They impeached Clinton but that's different. They didn't try to impeach him for Whitewater. He tried to coerce a witness. That's how he got impeached. Then they impeached him.

[-Jrabbit]

You are one deluded little puppy.

[rah]

Bet Trump goes down in a similar manner.

[COckney]

progress is just another scotsman

[Provost Harrison]

I remember when you were cool Kidicious. Now you're just another Maga-mentalist

[Provost Harrison]

Wearing your tinfoil hat to stop 5G giving you coronavirus?