Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Is this "change"  (Read 739 times)

vercingetorix

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Vive le quebec libre
    • View Profile
Is this "change"
« on: February 03, 2009, 10:06:25 PM »
Richardson, Geithner, Daschle (how does the one in charge of the IRS get in while the other is out? and Geithner knew he owed money for two years and didn't pay), Killefer, Hillary (emolument issue....and this from a constitutional scholar http://volokh.com/posts/1227548910.shtml) and this bill where only 12 cents of every dollar go to actual stimulus http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123326587231330357.html . I can feel the change! How can objective liberals, genuinely hoping for a fresh slate, rationalize this away? Truly breathtaking!

nealric

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2261
  • a.k.a. Miguel Sanchez
    • View Profile
Re: Is this "change"
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2009, 01:46:31 PM »
No, this is change:





1. Emolument issue: Come on, it's a stupid technicality. Certainly not the situation the framers meant to include.
2. Geithner: Got in because he was first. Plus amount of taxes he owed was far less than Daschle. He had also paid back taxes before being considered for nomination.
3. Daschle: Bowed out himself- he might have made it through if he had pushed on.
4. Stimulus: Percentage= stimulus is a matter of what economic system you believe in. Almost any govt. spending is stimulus according to some.
5. Richardson: No proof of any wrongdoing, only investigation. Get back to me when he has been shown to have done something wrong.
Georgetown Law Graduate

Chief justice Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!
Now who's being naive?

vercingetorix

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Vive le quebec libre
    • View Profile
Re: Is this "change"
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2009, 11:54:08 PM »
1. emolument is not a "technicality", it's actually outlined expressly in the Cx.
2.Geithner knew he owed back taxes and chose not to pay them.
3.Daschle was absolutely booted out.
4.Most Americans (and most of the Senate) thinks the stimulus package as presented by Congress to the Senate blows.
5.Richardson.  A lot like Cheney and Bush. Nothing proved yet right? Just had to withdraw....

A TOUCH OF OBJECTIVITY PLEASE!!!! This is not the change we wanted.


vercingetorix

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Vive le quebec libre
    • View Profile

vercingetorix

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Vive le quebec libre
    • View Profile

nealric

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2261
  • a.k.a. Miguel Sanchez
    • View Profile
Re: Is this "change"
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2009, 03:42:18 PM »
Quote
1. emolument is not a "technicality", it's actually outlined expressly in the Cx.
2.Geithner knew he owed back taxes and chose not to pay them.
3.Daschle was absolutely booted out.
4.Most Americans (and most of the Senate) thinks the stimulus package as presented by Congress to the Senate blows.
5.Richardson.  A lot like Cheney and Bush. Nothing proved yet right? Just had to withdraw....
 

1. Perhaps the clause itself is not a technicality (it's there for a good purpose), but the particular way it was violated (minor cost of living increase) really was a technicality. The clause was put there to avoid a conflict of interest. No reasonable person would see a serious conflict of interest here. In any event, there is no way the lawsuit about this is going anywhere.
2. No way of proving what he did or did not know. Can't enter into another's consciousness. My guess is there was probably some willful ignorance on his part.
3. He dropped out. His tax issues were not any more serious than Geithner's.
4. So what? That wasn't what I was disputing.
5. As far as I'm concerned, neither Bush nor Cheney are guilty of any criminal wrongdoing unless it has been proved so in a court of law. Bad governance is a different story.


Frankly, I don't think it's possible to view anything objectively. Everyone has their biases and pre-conceptions. Ranting and raving about how Obama has let us down when he is less than a month into his presidency does not sound too objective either.

But right now, the only evidence I'm seing is that Obama had a spate of bad luck with his appointments. None of these people (Geithner, Daschle, Rihchardson) were controversial figures before their appointment. There was no reason to think any of them were involved in any wrongdoing. Granted, there should always be a duty of due dillegence, but I'm not convinced Obama would have had reason to think the three appointments would be problematic.

Georgetown Law Graduate

Chief justice Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!
Now who's being naive?

CTL

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3553
    • View Profile
Re: Is this "change"
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2009, 09:18:33 PM »
I'm pretty sure 'change' isn't an all-or-none concept.
If looks could kill, you would be an uzi.

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27222
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Is this "change"
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2009, 07:26:50 PM »
julie glad see wingnuts got nothing better this these days.

hahahahaha.