-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots
- Thread starter Sam I am
- Start date
After reading that article, I took away that Bowman thinks Roberts not being there gives those opposed to having the trial a little more ammo to argue it shouldn't happen. I wouldn't debate that. It's a data point open to interpretation, so it could facilitate the argument. That said, I didn't see Bowman or the article author attributing the view that the trial is unconstitutional to Roberts. It seemed like the point was Roberts is trying, as is his usual practice, to stay out of the spotlight, which seems to track with some of what's been said here.A law professor who wrote a book about impeachment said that he’s shirking his duty by not being there.
As far as the “petty personal beefs”, if you don’t find it odd that the never-Trumpers are in your camp here then congratulations.
“Frank Bowman III, a University of Missouri law professor and author of a recent book on impeachment, said he would have preferred that Roberts preside over the upcoming trial, even though he believes his absence is constitutional.
Bowman told The Hill the arguments being lobbed by Senate Republicans shows that Roberts's non-participation has already given them "another procedural excuse to vote against conviction in a case that's a slam dunk on the facts."
"It would be better to have Roberts in the chair. But not, I think, an error of constitutional dimension not to have him there," he said. "Still, since I have reason to think that Roberts was requested to appear, but declined, I find myself disappointed in him. I think he's shirking here."”
Why John Roberts’s absence from Senate trial isn’t a surprise
Chief Justice John Roberts’s apparent decision to sidestep former President Trump’s upcoming impeachment trial met with some criticism but little surprise among court watchers who have long noted h…www.google.com
Are you saying Roberts passing on the gig necessarily shows he thinks the trial is unconstitutional, or are you saying that that is an argument Rand Paul and the other 44 are likely to make? I agree that they will make the argument (and seemingly have at least alluded that way), but I don't see any support for attributing the view that the trial is unconstitutional to Roberts. The article suggests to me the Chief had a different reason for avoiding the trial and says nothing either way about his views on its constitutionality.
Random unrelated question, but who even remembers what this thread is about anyway (sorry Sam) - What is a never-Trumper? Is that term specific to Republicans who want to keep him out at all costs, or does it apply to anyone opposed to him holding power? If you vote for Trump, are you a never-Bidener? Do you (this is a question for everyone, so the royal you) think the term itself suggest something about the cult-of-personality arguments out there?
No idea what the benefit/value is. But evidently, he decided not to attend. I have to assume he knows what he’s doing, and made a purposeful decision to let this episode play out entirely in the Senate. If there are any dedicated SCOTUS watchers, maybe they can chime in and enlighten me!
I think everything you're saying in this post is correct. It does seem he opted to sit out. I think the disagreement comes from what meaning you attribute to that decision. It seems more likely to me (not a "dedicated" SCOTUS watcher, but I peruse SCOTUS blog semi-regularly and have had to read quite a few of their cases for school/work) that he sat it out to stay out of the spotlight and specifically didn't want to be forced into stating an opinion on the constitutionality. I actually think the article Slick posted, which quotes a law prof that would probably qualify as a dedicated SCOTUS watcher, lays it out decently.
These days, it's arguably just another synonym for RINO. People who identify as GOP or at least conservative, who still never got on the Trump Train and have been pointing out what a trainwreck and a boat anchor for conservatism he's been since 2015. See Bill Kristol, David French, Kevin Williamson, Jonah Goldberg et al.
GroundPounder
Well-Known Member
To me, that is evidenced by how someone responded to good news under Trump. If the person refused to acknowledge it, because bad orange man was involved, then that person may be a "never Trumper ".
I did not vote for Biden, but, if he succeeds at something, I will acknowledge that and give his administration credit , where it is due. I am rooting for him to do well because in the long run I want my county to prosper and grow. ( To paraphrase Chauncey Gardner, and his economic theories of growth )
I think that is what we are in the process of losing, and it will be to our long term detriment.
Last edited:
So, pretty much the GOP's approach to the Obama administration, except with a different color in mind.
Is it OK to say Greene Woman Bad? ???
It doesn’t matter how convincing the argument is to the lefties on here. To them the orange man is always bad no matter what. Not wasting my time.
It's funny how the GOP is succumbing to meme shitposting Q believing members, like MTG and anti-vax freaks. It's why a lot of former Republican voters, like myself, won't vote for a lot of them until they clean their house of Trump cultists and Q believers.
This will probably deleted. But, please tell me how Trump's trade policies were 'conservative'. Hell, Bernie agreed with them. He got zero done, except tweet and nominate judges that somebody handed him. He's transformed the party to attract dumber versions of Sarah Palin to become members of the House, run probably the most corrupt Executive branches in history, and...lest we forget, incited an insurrection.
What actual principles made you vote for conservatives in the past?
I’ll ignore your comment about insurrection.
Why would you ignore that comment? Isn't that kind of a big deal? Do you think a demagogue riling up his rube base with lies about election fraud is conservative?
For your other point:
-good administration of (limited) federal government
-fiscal responsibility
-defense and promotion of western liberal democracy globally
-good stewardship of relationships with global alliances
From a personal character POV:
-Not gaslighting the American people with claims the free press is the 'enemy of the people', which is Stalinist language.
-Not lying to the American people about your finances, and who you are in debt to.
-Not churning through countless cabinet members, and humiliating them by Tweet.
-Not cheating on every wife you've had.
-Not hiring your daughter and son--in-law to serve as senior advisers.
-Etc.