Ser Scot A Ellison

Because only two other Presidents in the history of the United States have been impeached. And being impeached, even if not convicted and removed from office by the Senate will always be there.

You need ID to walk to your house in Seattle??? That is fascist bullshit right there.

I’m curious to hear what their hypothesis are. Any links?

I am more curious how they think they can distance themselves from their orange Albatross. They have stood idly by and supported the most outrageous shit, and shielded him from taking any responsibility. Their no-impeachment vote really should have sealed their fate in that regard. I know the average voter is stupid, but surely not that stupid. That’s an excellent point. They’ve been carrying his water, denying he is a problem, and defending his bizarre and illegal behavior his entire term. Abandoning Trump now will not assuage anyone who opposes Trump and will only enrage Trump’s loyal core. It’s entirely possible the Republicans who aren’t in Trump strongholds are screwed. I know there is no way in hell I’m casting a ballot in favor of Lindsey Graham. I had a very nice text exchange with a volunteer from Jamie Harrison’s campaign a couple of days ago.

No question it needs work. The hard discussion is what work would fix it in a way that doesn’t make things worse than they already are. Ran’s link to the speech from Lincoln and his quote from “A Man For All Seasons” both illistrate the problem very well. Law that only protects those we find worthy of protection is easy to twist into something very dangerous and that is ripe for abuse.

LTI, Why are you laughing?

We need better laws, more accountability for police, and an elimination of “qualified immunity” for police to facilitate that end.

Inkdaub said: While not explicitly stating Inkdaub wants to eliminate the rule of law it strongly implies Inkdaub believes the rule of law exists only to serve the powerful. Which leads to my question, what does Inkdaub want to replace the rule of law with. If Inkdaub doesn't want to replace law with something else Inkdaub is free to state that isn't where Inkdaub was going when Inkdaub wrote that sentence. I appreciate that you do not want to eliminate the rule of law. What specific changes to our existing structure would you suggest to more effectively distribute power amongst all members of our society?

Not perfectly no. If you believe law is insufficient what ideal would replace “law” with?

If the Republicans wait for Labor Day to drop Trump... they're screwed. They will not be able to turn things around in the time they have left.

And when conflicts arise that cannot be successfully mediated how do you propose resolving those conflicts without resort to “law”? A uniform set of rules that apply equally to everyone.

So, if “the rule of law is created by the powerful to serve the powerful” what alternative do you offer to the “rule of law”?

I understand your point. And I understand why something like a lanyard would be removed from someone being placed under arrest. The problem is that arresting a Journalist at a location where they are actively reporting the news, without something significant from the Journalist, is problematic given the "freedom of the press" guaranteed under the US Constitution's First Amendment. You are correct that it doesn't give Journalists full immunity but police are arresting Journalists and then releasing them with the "Oops, our bad" excuse all the time. They know that there will suffer little or no consequences for their actions and it's one less person taking video or photos of their actions. It is US police showing disrespect for the laws they exist to uphold. For example: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/29/us/minneapolis-cnn-crew-arrested/index.html

The problem is that police are targeting journalists and arresting them on specious charges claiming they didn’t know they were journalists or falsely alleging the journalists “didn’t obey orders”.