A different question on Roy Moore

[Darkwind]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

As someone pointed out already, there's no such thing as being "legally innocent".

He hasn't been (and won't be) found guilty. But that's not the same thing.

See above. The presumption of innocence disagrees. Either way, it is immaterial as there is no functional difference.

The presumption of innocence does not convey a state of factual innocence. There's a reason why juries don't ever return a verdict of "innocent", instead they use "not guilty".

You're right that there's not much of a functional difference, but there is a semantic one.

As for the Senate, the precedent that your article mentions is true to the extent that the Senate cannot refuse to seat him.

Bit if there's a 2/3 majority of the Senate that wants him out, there's nothing to stop them from expelling him, and nothing the courts can do to stop it either.

That is false. They MAY have that power BUT the court has not ruled on expelling a sitting member on events that occurred before becoming a senator or even before the election took place. Precedent has not been set so the statement that the courts can do nothing has not been established. The SCOTUS does have the final say in such a matter. I guess you can say they cant stop it but they certainly could overturn it.

The court may rule that expulsion due to conduct from before becoming a member is unconstitutional. More to the point I was trying to get at in the OP, I don't think that they should.

When the voters speak, no matter how distasteful, the senate should listen.

Perhaps saying that they "can't" do anything about it is wording it incorrectly.

The Court won't rule on it - they wouldn't take the case - because of separation of powers. The Constitution gives the Senate the ability to write its own rules, and the rules say that the Senate can vote to expel a member with a 2/3 majority. The Court won't step over those lines.

It's no different from impeaching a President. The court won't interfere with that, either.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

If Moore wins and the Republicans act on it, it may be a grave mistake.

One of the reasons Trump appealed to so many Republican voters is he challenged the media. Normally, when the media yells "jump" the Republicans ask how high, and it irritates the hell out of us, especially when the RINO's and Establishment does it.

We conservatives are sick of seeing this pathetic display by our party. Attacking Moore on any level (after a successful election) will be yet more pandering to the media. The state of Alabama has the right to choose their electors like any other state. And unless Moore is found to have broken a law of some sort, the rest of the Senate should just MoveOn.org.

 

[Darkwind]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

If Moore is expelled from the Senate, it won't be because of "the left".

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That is quite clearly not an answer to the question I asked you.

If Moore wins the election, and is subsequently expelled from the Senate, what do you think should happen?

 

[Darkwind]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

If Moore is expelled from the Senate, it won't be because of "the left".

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That is quite clearly not an answer to the question I asked you.

If Moore wins the election, and is subsequently expelled from the Senate, what do you think should happen?

It clearly is an answer to the question you asked. Since you rephrased the question to include what should happen if he is expelled, I would say that those who expell members from holding a duely elected office should be recalled and removed. They clearly don't believe in the Constitution or due process and out themselves as nothing more than a bunch of natty old biddies promoting the gossip vine.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

If Moore is expelled from the Senate, it won't be because of "the left".

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That is quite clearly not an answer to the question I asked you.

If Moore wins the election, and is subsequently expelled from the Senate, what do you think should happen?

It clearly is an answer to the question you asked. Since you rephrased the question to include what should happen if he is expelled, I would say that those who expell members from holding a duely elected office should be recalled and removed. They clearly don't believe in the Constitution or due process and out themselves as nothing more than a bunch of natty old biddies promoting the gossip vine.

Go back and read the first time I asked my question again. I didn't change my question, you just didn't read it right the first time.

There is no recall process in the Constitution for Senators. It is impossible to do.

For someone who so loudly proclaims their defense of the Constitution, you don't seem to know much about it.

 

[DarkFury]

The burden of proof may well been set by the Goldwater rule. He lost the election but won the lawsuit he filed against the liar. That puts everything on that year book. If it's forged it's over. If not? He is over. And with Gloria Alred in on it? Likely it's crap.

 

[FA_Q2]

As someone pointed out already, there's no such thing as being "legally innocent".

He hasn't been (and won't be) found guilty. But that's not the same thing.

See above. The presumption of innocence disagrees. Either way, it is immaterial as there is no functional difference.

The presumption of innocence does not convey a state of factual innocence. There's a reason why juries don't ever return a verdict of "innocent", instead they use "not guilty".

You're right that there's not much of a functional difference, but there is a semantic one.

In all honesty, I could care less about semantic.

It is irrelevant in the end. He is not guilty - if that phrasing is better suited to convey my point then that is fine. That does not effect the overall point.

As for the Senate, the precedent that your article mentions is true to the extent that the Senate cannot refuse to seat him.

Bit if there's a 2/3 majority of the Senate that wants him out, there's nothing to stop them from expelling him, and nothing the courts can do to stop it either.

That is false. They MAY have that power BUT the court has not ruled on expelling a sitting member on events that occurred before becoming a senator or even before the election took place. Precedent has not been set so the statement that the courts can do nothing has not been established. The SCOTUS does have the final say in such a matter. I guess you can say they cant stop it but they certainly could overturn it.

The court may rule that expulsion due to conduct from before becoming a member is unconstitutional. More to the point I was trying to get at in the OP, I don't think that they should.

When the voters speak, no matter how distasteful, the senate should listen.

Perhaps saying that they "can't" do anything about it is wording it incorrectly.

The Court won't rule on it - they wouldn't take the case - because of separation of powers. The Constitution gives the Senate the ability to write its own rules, and the rules say that the Senate can vote to expel a member with a 2/3 majority. The Court won't step over those lines.

It's no different from impeaching a President. The court won't interfere with that, either.

I am not so sure. I have a feeling that you are correct that they would refuse to hear it. In general, the SCOTUS hates getting involved in matters that are internal to the other branches as that is not really their place. They did, however, rule against the senate in seating a prospective member, another internal process.

They may rule here as well though doing so is far more 'cloudy' than seating a member.

I think it would be a disaster either way. I do not think that it is a good idea for the senate to start deciding who can and cannot be a senator. In today's climate I could actually see one side simply refusing to seat the other should they ever gain 2/3 of the senate. That is a high bar to reach to be sure BUT certainly within reach these days.

OTOH, SCOTUS does not belong in the internal affairs of the other branches.

 

[Darkwind]

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

If Moore is expelled from the Senate, it won't be because of "the left".

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That is quite clearly not an answer to the question I asked you.

If Moore wins the election, and is subsequently expelled from the Senate, what do you think should happen?

It clearly is an answer to the question you asked. Since you rephrased the question to include what should happen if he is expelled, I would say that those who expell members from holding a duely elected office should be recalled and removed. They clearly don't believe in the Constitution or due process and out themselves as nothing more than a bunch of natty old biddies promoting the gossip vine.

Go back and read the first time I asked my question again. I didn't change my question, you just didn't read it right the first time.

There is no recall process in the Constitution for Senators. It is impossible to do.

For someone who so loudly proclaims their defense of the Constitution, you don't seem to know much about it.

There is a way, it just takes a long time. Would be much faster if there was no 17th Amendment.

Clearly, the Senate has no leg to stand on to keep him from being seated, so its a moot point. However, without a doubt, if they should even try to do so, then accusers should come forward and bring unsubstantiated accusations against them from four decades ago and then see if they will be willing to unseat someone who is already seated.

I can hear what they'll say because it is what Conyor and Pelosi have been saying. That we have due process and should adhere to that.

Hypocrisy, the left invented the concept.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

They should accept his victory as "the people have spoken" but as we've seen since the last election, Democrats are not very good at accepting defeat.

It isn't just Democrats who hate Trump, plenty of independent and Republicans do too, because we saw what kind of culture a predatory psychopath would bring to the Oval Office and the country, other predatory sexual deviants like Roy Moore.

 

[FA_Q2]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That assumes that none of these things ever happened and that the accusations are simply made up as an attack on Moore. I don't buy into that.

Further, this is not a break from normal politics anyway. It is simply amplified at this moment because the heightened sensitivity to sexual scandals at the moment.

 

[Darkwind]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That assumes that none of these things ever happened and that the accusations are simply made up as an attack on Moore. I don't buy into that.

Further, this is not a break from normal politics anyway. It is simply amplified at this moment because the heightened sensitivity to sexual scandals at the moment.

I do believe it. I do not find that accusations credible in any way at all. However, that would not matter in the slightest. Should Moore lose the seat on just the unsubantiated accusations, then no Republican running for office will be safe from that treatment.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That assumes that none of these things ever happened and that the accusations are simply made up as an attack on Moore. I don't buy into that.

Further, this is not a break from normal politics anyway. It is simply amplified at this moment because the heightened sensitivity to sexual scandals at the moment.

I do believe it. I do not find that accusations credible in any way at all. However, that would not matter in the slightest. Should Moore lose the seat on just the unsubantiated accusations, then no Republican running for office will be safe from that treatment.

This is a good example of the histrionics that I was referring to. You are being intentionally vague and emotional.

If Moore loses the election and all of the allegations are found to be baseless?

Then thems the breaks. It wouldn't be the first or last time that dirty politics won an election.

We don't judge the law in the court of public opinion.

But that is how we judge elections.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

I don't think the senate has any choice but to seat him. And they have no authority to judge him on things that may or may not have happened before he joins the senate, because he hasn't violated any senate ethics rules as a senator.


.

I clicked on the link in your signature: exposethemedia.com, and I must say I'm really impressed with the editors and their credentials, from their About page:

"The Mainstream Media (MSM) is very “liberal” and full of Socialists, Communists and Marxists who vote Democrat. They lie, misreport, use extreme liberal bias, and ignore news in order to further their Big Government agenda. This website exists to report the news that the liberal media ignores and expose them for their Big Government/Democrat bias.""

So proud they won't even give their damn names. Probably because they're Russian.

Oh, I see by the links that they just regurgitate Breitbart. Fake news, Sparky.

 

[S.J.]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That assumes that none of these things ever happened and that the accusations are simply made up as an attack on Moore. I don't buy into that.

Further, this is not a break from normal politics anyway. It is simply amplified at this moment because the heightened sensitivity to sexual scandals at the moment.

I do believe it. I do not find that accusations credible in any way at all. However, that would not matter in the slightest. Should Moore lose the seat on just the unsubantiated accusations, then no Republican running for office will be safe from that treatment.

They're not safe from that treatment now. They go with whatever they think will work, and it's always some kind of unsubstantiated allegation.

 

[Darkwind]

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That assumes that none of these things ever happened and that the accusations are simply made up as an attack on Moore. I don't buy into that.

Further, this is not a break from normal politics anyway. It is simply amplified at this moment because the heightened sensitivity to sexual scandals at the moment.

I do believe it. I do not find that accusations credible in any way at all. However, that would not matter in the slightest. Should Moore lose the seat on just the unsubantiated accusations, then no Republican running for office will be safe from that treatment.

This is a good example of the histrionics that I was referring to. You are being intentionally vague and emotional.

If Moore loses the election and all of the allegations are found to be baseless?

Then thems the breaks. It wouldn't be the first or last time that dirty politics won an election.

We don't judge the law in the court of public opinion.

But that is how we judge elections.

Please. If that is all the awareness you can show of the expanding hatred of the left, then do Me a favor and just put Me on ignore so you don't stroke out or something. I find your distasteful, "Oh, let's destroy someone in the name of party or ideology" to be rather amoral if not downright unprincipled. The excuse, "Its been done in the past" is akin to saying, "Everyone else is doing it too!".

Party above principle, though, right? Just following orders.

 

[Darkwind]

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

They are not histrionics. If the left pulls this off, do you really think they won't be doing this in every election in which a Republican has a commanding lead?

What should happen if Moore wins is he takes his seat in the U.S. Senate and begins doing the people's business. I would be saying he should do the State of Alabama's business, but that was screwed up with the passage of the 17th Amendment.

That assumes that none of these things ever happened and that the accusations are simply made up as an attack on Moore. I don't buy into that.

Further, this is not a break from normal politics anyway. It is simply amplified at this moment because the heightened sensitivity to sexual scandals at the moment.

I do believe it. I do not find that accusations credible in any way at all. However, that would not matter in the slightest. Should Moore lose the seat on just the unsubantiated accusations, then no Republican running for office will be safe from that treatment.

They're not safe from that treatment now. They go with whatever they think will work, and it's always some kind of unsubstantiated allegation.

All the more reason to push back and push back hard.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

So, I think that a lot has been lost in the noise with the Roy Moore allegations. Those against Moore tend to point out that Moore is being tried in the court of public opinion and not in an actual court so the veracity of the evidence is immaterial. Those supporting him point out that there are no charges (as there cannot be) and that the yearbook as well as the timing of the stories is questionable. All of this is background noise to me considering that I am not an Alabama voter so I do not have any influence in the matter. What does interest me though is what happens after the election. If Moore looses than it is a moot point, and a devastating blow for the republicans as they loose a crucial seat in the senate. If he wins, well, it is still bad for the republicans because they are going to have to decide what to do with Moore.


Now, there has been a lot of talk about not seating him but as far as I can tell, the senate does not have the power to keep him from taking his seat.
Why the Law Might Not Allow the Senate to Expel Roy Moore

This also deals with expelling him as well. There are some things to take into consideration here:

Moore is innocent. This is not a conjecture. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is legal FACT. Moore is innocent of the accusations because there can be no trial and, ergo, no conviction for those acts.

IF Moore wins then he has been 'tried in the court of public opinion' and the people have spoken with the full knowledge of the allegations against him.

So, given Moore is innocent according to the law and the people of Alabama chose him (again assuming he wins) I do not see how the senate has the power or the standing to eject him from his seat. They are going to have to accept him as a senator and deal with the allegations IMHO and they should. No matter how distasteful one may or may not find the situation the voters will have decided and they should have the final say unless the constitution specifically states otherwise.

What do you think the senate should do or even can do?

There is, in fact, a solid reason why it should matter to you.

Should Moore be defeated on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations from four decades ago, then no Republican Senator will ever be safe from this political tactic. It will, in essence, established that courts are unnecessary and elections are only necessary as an observance of the 'old ways'.

We will have returned to Plymouth colony era of governance as found in Salem, MA at the turn of the 16th century.

Your histrionics aside, what do you believe should happen, if Moore wins the election and the Senate votes to expel him?

I think Moore will win and the Senate will huff and puff around and do nothing, just as they have done with Trump, who has violated the emoluments clause and even admitted (to TAS and the Russians in the Oval Office) that he fired Comey to take the pressure off of him. And Congress does nothing.