Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

in2herbs

(2,945 posts)

1. Thniking in fantasy, for the purposes of "closure" the CJ should be required to write a legal

Reply to kairos12 (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2020, 09:47 AM

Jan 2020

opinion on the legal claims made by both parties during the impeachment trial. Otherwise, by default, the Rs actions will stand as precedent. Any brief would likely contain the caveat that the USSC issued in the Gore v. Bush matter -- not allowed to use as precedent, yet every decision by the USSC (Gore v. Bush, CU, voting rights) has cemented the behavior the Rs use as precedent.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

New Rule of Presidential Power-with a caveat. [View all] kairos12 Jan 2020 OP

Thniking in fantasy, for the purposes of "closure" the CJ should be required to write a legal in2herbs Jan 2020 #1

Accordingly, deficits are only deficits if a Democrat is President. Firestorm49 Jan 2020 #2