Skip to main content
Topic: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision? (Read 2186 times)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #100
And you're unaware that the House January 6th Committee's hearings are being aired live
As we all know, that would've never happened 40 years ago — oh, wait. ;)

https://live.house.gov/
http://www.dekamer.be/media/index.html?language=nl&sid=55U2976
https://www.tweedekamer.nl/vergaderingen/livedebat/plenaire-zaal

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #101
oh, wait.  ;)
As I said (and you ignored?), the so-called Committee abrogates the rules of the House of Representatives — and was meant to: It's not a fact-finding (in furtherance of needful legislation) body: It's an infomercial generating consulti for the Democrat Party, a campaign expenditure that our "finance laws" will overlook, 'cause -ya know- it's Dems, eh? :)

Didya see what Pelosi was doing, instead of attending? :)

(I couldn't make heads nor tails of the links you posted... Give me the gist, please?:)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #102
As I said (and you ignored?), the so-called Committee abrogates the rules of the House of Representatives
If I ignored it, it's because you didn't say it. Which rules are abrogated by whom? I can trivially find some random hearing from 1995 or from 1946 because these things are almost always open to the public.[1] A quick search suggests the first televised broadcast of American congressional hearings was in 1951 and I know for a fact they've been a mainstay ever since. I assume you've heard of some highlights like McCarthy and Watergate.

I'm not commenting on whether it's desirable to treat politics as a soap opera, but it's a tradition dating back 50 years, arguably 70. What is it that the Democrats are doing other than not being Republicans?
Would you really quibble that a hearing from 1946 or from 1879 wasn't televised? But if so, that's what the next few sentences are for.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #103
Special committees are comprised of members selected by their party's leadership: House Speaker Pelosi rejected the Republican members proposed by Leader McCarthy....and went on to "construct" a purely partisan panel. For that -as far as I can tell- there's no precedent.
And what, pray tell, is the legislative purpose of said committee?[1]
It's political purpose is straightforward: Prevent Donald J. Trump from running in '24! :) How is that a legitimate aim of a House committee?
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #104
So to summarize, you concede that being aired live is nothing unusual.

Re: What's Your Favorite U.S. Supreme Court decision?

Reply #105
Special committees are comprised of members selected by their party's leadership: House Speaker Pelosi rejected the Republican members proposed by Leader McCarthy.
This is not how it went. Pelosi rejected two appointments (of a total of five or six) by McCarthy for the reason that the appointed persons were among prime candidates to get subpoenaed. Upon that, McCarthy withdrew all of his appointments. So it was not that Pelosi rejected Republican members just because they were Republican. It was House minority (Republican) leader who refused to cooperate with the committee when some of his troll appointments were called out. 

...and went on to "construct" a purely partisan panel. For that -as far as I can tell- there's no precedent.
False. One of the spokespersons of the committee is Liz Cheney, a Republican. So the committee is not purely partisan.

From what I have read, the allegedly "unprecedented" bit is rather
1. that there is a congressional committee where the minority leader has not appointed any members AND
2. the same committee issues subpoenaes.

I have two counterarguments to this. First, assuming that this truly is unprecedented, it is just a technicality of no legal consequence. The committee may be set up and act in an unprecedented way, but nobody has said that there is any breach of law and prescribed procedure in this, so it is irrelevant that it is unprecedented.

Second, I do not believe for a second that it is actually unprecedented. Surely there were more extreme failures of bipartisanship at least during Lincoln's tenure - you know, when the civil war thing happened. So "unprecedented" is most likely just a lie to add fluff to a filibuster.

If unprecedented really worries you, then how's the following for unprecedented: A vice president disagrees with the president about the presidential election results. A president sends a mob on another branch of government to "cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women" (is it legal for a mob to be present and "cheer on" during any congressional procedure?) and says that hanging his vice president is a "right idea".

And what, pray tell, is the legislative purpose of said committee?
What, pray tell, is the legislative purpose of e.g. House Un-American Activities Committee? Examples of non-legislative, emergency-response, ad-hoc or just-so congressional committees abound, if one is willing to have a look. You are just not willing.

You have no point to make about anything. We know consistently everything about America better than you, even though we are far away from it and only mildly interested in the events for amusement purposes.

It's political purpose is straightforward: Prevent Donald J. Trump from running in '24! :) How is that a legitimate aim of a House committee?
To really prevent Trump from running, he would be put on trial and jailed. He is not on trial for his coup attempt (that's the name of his crime), so I'd conclude that there is no genuine willingness to stop Trump.

The committee exists likely for show because it is still felt too widely that justice has not been served (which it hasn't, as the criminal is not on trial). But justice will not be served because neither party in USA wants their president to have to suffer real consequences for overreaches of power. Both parties prefer the president reserve the ability to overreach without consequences. Otherwise who would want to be the president if the job involved any actual responsibility?

Justice would be served by the judicial system. If you had a functioning judicial system, Trump would be in the grinder already. Either you do not have a functioning judicial system (just like you do not have a functioning impeachment procedure) or there is a political purpose to keep the judicial system away from Trump. Justice will only be sham-served by a committee who cannot prosecute and sentence.

There should be no obstacle to a real trial. The more prominent perpetrators of the coup attempt are already in jail, so the instigator certainly qualifies for the same.