Zoltan, didn't you change your name from what you originally used on SI?
In any case, no I'm not a lawyer, I made that decision after seeing how grandiose many lawyers think of themselves and how little they do while capitalizing on people's problems.
To your reply, I will continue to side with being naive and ".. think that Clinton has not engaged in a protracted assault on the system of justice," as you put it.
He has done no more than what most well trained attorneys do every day in defence of their client's or their own positions. If he weren't able to use the system to defend himself against the system being used to politically attack him (as you concur, you ".. never said that the Republicans weren't using the system of justice, that's absurd), he shouldn't be president in the first place.
Your next pearl of wisdom.. "Clinton is now left with basically the OJ defense, a call to the rabble and jury nullification," clearly shows you're lack of belief in the system of justice we have, which you double talk to use to attack the President. Rable indeed.. so you don't have faith in the common man or the will of the people! Too bad.
I personally would rather have a few OJ's go free than a thousand innocents go to jail. Juries and the occasional injustice, are the system we have agreed to despite your protests. I'm surprized that you would use such a snobbish, class derogartory term as rable. Shame on you.
Next, you're so quick to pontificate on what you didn't read accurately. I said ".. that was one of the intentions of the founding fathers... to allow and promote a continuing argument and struggle to determine what justice should be over time (because justice is not and never will be a fixed and absolute set of conditions)." I didn't say anything about judicial review of congress, but lets go there since you brought it up.
You do seem to grasp Marbury v. Madison as establishing the Supreme Courts' authority to vote acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceed the powers granted in the Constitution... which (thank you) confirms my earlier statement which you argued against that the Supreme Court has established itself as the interpreter of the Constitution.
The independent council statute doesn't stand on its own two feet, regardless of which party is promoting it, hopefully it will be voted down on renewal. Your arguments that if Democrats can use it so can Republicans, or that its good because there's a weak Attorney General is just politics as usual and doesn't rise to the question of if it belongs in our system at all. Its a political gun, defended by whoever feels they have their hand on the trigger. I don't feel it belongs, for what its worth you apparently do.
The balance of your comments seem confused. |
