Now that Kavanaugh's confirmed...

[Rion]

Have you ever seen Antifa protest or get violent against Democrats? Even people writing for the Chicago Tribune can see the problem they're creating: The Democratic silence on antifa is dangerous

As do others:
From antifa anarchists to angry liberals, bullying becomes the norm

They once beat up a Bernie bro, but only because he was holding an American flag.

 

[Aldebaran]

They once beat up a Bernie bro, but only because he was holding an American flag.

American flag= racism, conservatism, slavery, and everything wrong with the world. Now, if someone was out on the street and burning one, then that would have been acceptable.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The Supreme Court is about the long run, not contemporary politics. I mean when groups such as the ACLU and the Cato Institute both think the doctrine should go, well maybe the doctrine should go.

It's "supposed to be" but that hasn't stopped others from trying to use it as a political tool for their own gain.

FDR attempted to stack it for his own favor to get a majority he didn't have
Reagan attempted to put a judge in there that had verbally stated that he opposed certain constitutional amendments would definitely put his personal feeling before the consitution
Bush attempted to appoint a few buddies that didn't even have judicial experience.

Difference being, the presidents mentioned above didn't have the numbers in their favor to do those things and ended up getting blocked...this judicial pick got approved.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Have you ever seen Antifa protest or get violent against Democrats?

Having the same opponents isn't the same as being part of the party.

 

[Aldebaran]

Having the same opponents isn't the same as being part of the party.

The democrats don't have the same opponents. Antifa doesn't oppose the democrats or anything they do.

 

[super animator]

It's "supposed to be" but that hasn't stopped others from trying to use it as a political tool for their own gain.

FDR attempted to stack it for his own favor to get a majority he didn't have
Reagan attempted to put a judge in there that had verbally stated that he opposed certain constitutional amendments would definitely put his personal feeling before the consitution
Bush attempted to appoint a few buddies that didn't even have judicial experience.

Difference being, the presidents mentioned above didn't have the numbers in their favor to do those things and ended up getting blocked...this judicial pick got approved.

Are you calming that it was do to not having enough partisan support?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The democrats don't have the same opponents. Antifa doesn't oppose the democrats or anything they do.

Surprise, the democrats don't oppose the democrats or anything they do. Make a point?

 

[Aldebaran]

Surprise, the democrats don't oppose the democrats or anything they do. Make a point?

That's just another way of saying that Antifa are people who are followers of the democrats, which is the point I was making starting at post #77.

 

[Speedwell]

That's just another way of saying that Antifa are people who are followers of the democrats, which is the point I was making starting at post #77.

Just like the Christian nationalists are followers of the Republicans.

 

[Aldebaran]

Just like the Christian nationalists are followers of the Republicans.

Christians generally do support the election of Republican candidates.

 

[Speedwell]

Christians generally do support the election of Republican candidates.

But they're not all Christian nationalists, any more than Liberals who support Democratic candidates are AntiFa.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's just another way of saying that Antifa are people who are followers of the democrats, which is the point I was making starting at post #77.

Except you failed to make it -- all you've established is that Antifa and the Democrats are against the same things.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Christians generally do support the election of Republican candidates.

As do White Supremacists. By your logic, White Supremacists are all Christians.

 

[NotreDame]

Does that mean Burdick v US only applies to presidential pardons?

Yes, because Burdick v. U.S. concerned a pardon by the President.

There is language from court decisions describing a pardon by the President as rendering the recipient innocent.

"A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the
offense and the guilt of the offender . . . it releases the punishment
and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed..." Ex parte Garland
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9065&context=penn_law_review

​

Of course, there is the contradicting language of Burdick v. United States.

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.

​

So, there is competing dicta by the Court.

​

 

[TLK Valentine]

So, there is competing dicta by the Court.

Indeed -- and at some point in the future, the Supreme Court is going to get a case where it has to sort through the verbiage and settle this...

...I only hope it's not because our current president suddenly decides to pass out pardons (including potentially to himself) as if they were gift vouchers...

 

[Aldebaran]

But they're not all Christian nationalists, any more than Liberals who support Democratic candidates are AntiFa.

I never said they were, so why make it sound as if I did?

 

[Aldebaran]

Except you failed to make it -- all you've established is that Antifa and the Democrats are against the same things.

Then why do you have no problem with calling anyone who agrees with Donald Trump as being his fan base, or followers? It works the same both ways if you want to use your own logic.

 

[Aldebaran]

As do White Supremacists. By your logic, White Supremacists are all Christians.

Why are you getting so defensive now that I've shown Antifa to be on the same side as the democrats?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then why do you have no problem with calling anyone who agrees with Donald Trump as being his fan base, or followers? It works the same both ways if you want to use your own logic.

I see the subject has changed... predictably so.

Perhaps a new thread on an old obsession is in order?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why are you getting so defensive now that I've shown Antifa to be on the same side as the democrats?

odd talk for someone who was allegedly all about logic a post or two ago...