Rove defies subpoena

[Ravi]

Nope. That is SCOTUS's job. To interpret the law. There is nothing in SCOTUS's interpretation outside the Second Amendment.

Except for the fact they ruled that the 2nd guaranteed the right to protect oneself against criminals. It doesn't and they could have made the same ruling without that interpretation.

 

[Steerpike]

Except for the fact they ruled that the 2nd guaranteed the right to protect oneself against criminals. It doesn't and they could have made the same ruling without that interpretation.

Doesn't really matter, that's just dicta. The important point is that they ruled it was an individual right, which it is.

 

[Ravi]

Doesn't really matter, that's just dicta. The important point is that they ruled it was an individual right, which it is.

I disagree. It is an individual right, but not for the reasons they stated. There was no reason for them to misinterpret when the actual interpretation serves the purpose.

 

[Steerpike]

What are you disagreeing about, specifically. That the reasons they gave are dicta?

 

[editec]

I love the lefty assumption that if you have nothing to hide, you should be happy to be dragged before the wolves. It's like the witch trial mentality. Strap them to a weighted chair and sink them beneath the water....if they're innocent, they'll be happy to submit!

Ever hear of HUAC, Allie?

Control-freakism and abuse of power are equal opportunity character disorders which both the right and left suffer from.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What are you disagreeing about, specifically. That the reasons they gave are dicta?

She thinks that the right to bear arms means you can go target shooting and if aliens invade you can fight them.

She ignores the fact that the 2nd was ALL about defense of self, community, State and Country. Militia's originally were the "cops" , called up when needed in emergencies including criminal.

She wants us to have an individual right to own weapons but no right to ever use them.

 

[Ravi]

What are you disagreeing about, specifically. That the reasons they gave are dicta?

I'm disagreeing that it doesn't matter. The second amendment gives us the right to protect ourselves against a government gone bad, it doesn't give us the right to individual protection against criminals. The way they ruled changes the intent of the 2nd.

 

[Steerpike]

It doesn't change it because dicta doesn't have any legal effect.

 

[sealybobo]

Capitol Hill is buzzing today with major developments regarding our campaign for impeachment hearings for President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Just today, in what could be described as a perfect impeachment storm:

• Karl Rove once again thumbed his nose at Congress and the American people by brazenly ignoring a lawful congressional subpoena to testify before the House of Representatives;

• Judiciary Chairman John Conyers indicated his willingness to use the power of inherent contempt against Rove if necessary;

• Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced another article of impeachment on Bush's lies regarding the Iraq war; and

• Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quoted today saying that the House Judiciary Committee should address the issues that Kucinich raises in the House Judiciary Committee.

 

[Steerpike]

Capitol Hill is buzzing today with major developments regarding our campaign for impeachment hearings for President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Just today, in what could be described as a perfect impeachment storm:

• Karl Rove once again thumbed his nose at Congress and the American people by brazenly ignoring a lawful congressional subpoena to testify before the House of Representatives;

• Judiciary Chairman John Conyers indicated his willingness to use the power of inherent contempt against Rove if necessary;

• Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced another article of impeachment on Bush's lies regarding the Iraq war; and

• Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quoted today saying that the House Judiciary Committee should address the issues that Kucinich raises in the House Judiciary Committee.

The Democrats would be idiots to start an impeachment proceeding at this point. A monumental waste of time and resources. They need to concentrate on the elections. There will be a new administration in place in 6 months.

 

[Taco]

No, they must push for impeachment.

Any time the criminals are allowed to get away with it, it only tells the next wave of crooks, "see, we can too"..and that includes the folks behind both major candidate.

 

[Steerpike]

No, they must push for impeachment.

Any time the criminals are allowed to get away with it, it only tells the next wave of crooks, "see, we can too"..and that includes the folks behind both major candidate.

Impeachment will just be political gamesmanship. Most americans are against it, and as someone who is leaning toward the Dems this time around, the one way they could ensure themselves of losing my support would be to go the impeachment route.

The only people who favor it are left-wing partisans who want to get Bush at any cost, or else pay the GOP back for impeaching their guy. It's asinine.

The smartest thing Pelosi did when she gained power was to take impeachment off the table. She's not stupid enough to put it back on either, imo.

 

[Wow]

No, they must push for impeachment.

Any time the criminals are allowed to get away with it, it only tells the next wave of crooks, "see, we can too"..and that includes the folks behind both major candidate.

What crimes, please list them?

 

[Taco]

Start with FISA.

Or Torture.

Or Extraordinary Rendition.

 

[JimH52]

Just what would impeachment accomplish? If there are certain actions against the criminals in the WH, then maybe. We all know bush, Uncle Fester, and Rove are criminals.

I agree with steerpike, they need to concentrate on the elections. If Obama wins the WH, the Dems may see a Super Majority in Congress for the first time in years.

The fall of the GOP is just one more symptom of an out of control Administration.

 

[manifold]

The second amendment gives us the right to protect ourselves against a government gone bad, it doesn't give us the right to individual protection against criminals. The way they ruled changes the intent of the 2nd.

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[AllieBaba]

I'm disagreeing that it doesn't matter. The second amendment gives us the right to protect ourselves against a government gone bad, it doesn't give us the right to individual protection against criminals. The way they ruled changes the intent of the 2nd.

That's not true. The second amendment gives us the right to protect ourselves, period. To keep and bear arms. Not to keep and bear arms to be used only against rogue government. That's idiotic.

 

[AllieBaba]

How did you come to that conclusion?

She read it on a cereal box.

 

[Ravi]

That's not true. The second amendment gives us the right to protect ourselves, period. To keep and bear arms. Not to keep and bear arms to be used only against rogue government. That's idiotic.

No it doesn't, read it. That doesn't preclude the states from allowing guns to protect ourselves, which is what a couple of states wrote into their constitutions immediately.

 

[AllieBaba]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The militia is supposed to exist to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That in no way reads that people keep and bear arms in order to satisfy the requirements of the militia only.