- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:06 pm to Janky
quote:On its face, yes.quote:Which is the craziest thing ever.
The problem is that Congressional motivation is irrelevant to the question of whether it is entitled to pursue these records, under current law.
But do we really want appellate courts speculating about the motivations behind every Congressional action? That is a completely different ugly can of worms.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:08 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
But do we really want appellate courts speculating about the motivations behind every Congressional action?
Congress should have to spell out what it expects to find....... Specifically
Otherwise, it's the equivalent of a search warrant to search my house for "something" because you think I "might" have committed a crime you can't specify.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:10 pm to AggieHank86
Is this the one?
Do they finally have him?
Do they finally have him?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:15 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Judge Tatel (who authored the opinion) was nominated by President Bill Clinton and Judge Patricia Millett, who joined him in the majority, was selected by President Barack Obama.
This post was edited on 10/11/19 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:16 pm to Rebel
quote:Are you capable of engaging in a reasonable and objective discussion of this ruling, without this childishness?
Is this the one? Do they finally have him?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:16 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
To the best of my recollection, I have not expressed any views on the issue.
You views are expressed in every post and topic you start. They all have a "we got him now" thought
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:17 pm to Jbird
The Dissent spends 68 pages to say that Congress should have requested the documents for investigation of an impeachment rather than investigation for legislative purposes.
It's a decent argument, but it boils down to whether Congress can get the documents now, or only after an impeachment investigation begins.
It's a decent argument, but it boils down to whether Congress can get the documents now, or only after an impeachment investigation begins.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:17 pm to AggieHank86
It's going to be laughed out of the Supreme Court. Why not laugh at it now?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:20 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
without this childishness?
Keep it up and I’ll tell you how fat your mother is.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:20 pm to timdonaghyswhistle
quote:What justices do you see voting to overturn the DC circuit, and on what basis?
It's going to be laughed out of the Supreme Court. Why not laugh at it now?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:22 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Are you capable of engaging in a reasonable and objective discussion of this ruling, without this childishness?
No you are not.
Please Communist Hanktina, show us the law that states a person running for office MUST supply their tax return.
Please show us the law that states Congress has a right to infringe upon the privacy of elected officials when NO laws were broken.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:23 pm to Dday63
quote:I agree.
The Dissent spends 68 pages to say that Congress should have requested the documents for investigation of an impeachment rather than investigation for legislative purposes.
It's a decent argument, but it boils down to whether Congress can get the documents now, or only after an impeachment investigation begins.
Based upon the analysis contained in the dissent, I think the decision would’ve been unanimous, if this subpoena had been issued as part of a formal impeachment proceeding.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:28 pm to Jjdoc
quote:no such law exists. I have so-opined repeatedly over the past weeks. I have also opined that the traditional practice of doing so is stupid.
Please ... show us the law that states a person running for office MUST supply their tax return.
quote:The DC Circuit outlines (in great detail over some 66 pages of the majority opinion) the law applicable to THIS request. I doubt that I could condense it much more than 30 pages, because it is reasonably well written. Feel free to read the opinion. You may find it educational.
Please show us the law that states Congress has a right to infringe upon the privacy of elected officials when NO laws were broken.
This post was edited on 10/11/19 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:32 pm to AggieHank86
There is no law.
You have 2 activist judges period.
That's why California law requiring it was struck down.
You have 2 activist judges period.
That's why California law requiring it was struck down.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:33 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:42 pm to Jjdoc
quote:have you read the opinion? Either way, it is clear that you don’t understand it.
There is no law. You have 2 activist judges period.
In a nutshell, it boils down to the question of whether we do (or do not) want appellate courts reviewing the alleged motivations underlying the actions of legislative bodies, when the actions themselves (examined in a vacuum) clearly fall within the purview of the legislative branch.
Many would see that as an invitation to extreme judicial activism, and I tend to fall into that camp.
It is far easier to remove elected legislators who overstep their bounds than to remove life-tenured judges who do so.
quote:You really have absolutely no idea of the extent to which those two issues are utterly unrelated to one another, do you?
That's why California law requiring it was struck down.
This post was edited on 10/11/19 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:54 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
In a nutshell, it boils down to the question of whether we do (or do not) want appellate courts reviewing the alleged motivations underlying the actions of legislative bodies, when the actions themselves (examined in a vacuum) clearly fall within the purview of the legislative branch.
Name the law Hank. It's as simple as that.
quote:
You really have absolutely no idea of the extent to which those two issues are utterly unrelated to one another, do you?
I'm capable of seeing the over all picture. Had it not been struck down, they would have used it as evidence to support their over reach.
So again.... state the law.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:57 pm to SCLibertarian
Not only that but half the opinion is a dissent.
That accounting firm needs to appeal on behalf of all professionals who are entrusted with private information of their clients.
Or else privilege is dead.
That accounting firm needs to appeal on behalf of all professionals who are entrusted with private information of their clients.
Or else privilege is dead.
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News