Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Per Rehnquist, the intent of the Founding Fathers was reiterated and upheld -- not overruled -- by Nixon in 1993, LL. There is nothing on record like a 15th or 19th Amendment changing that intent.
Again, Nixon had to do with the authority of the Senate. The authority of the House was never at issue ... and Nixon made no complaint about the House.
On a hooker board blog you can play that cherry-picking game of quoting lines out of an opinion .... that are dicta and not relevant to the "holding" of the case. But in the real world of providing precedent for the court to rule upon it doesn't work. What you are doing is fixating on a conclusion you want and then looking for dicta to support your conclusion.
Contrary to what you say about me, and what I have posted about your focus in this thread, you on the other had are shifting the substance of what I have been saying away from the original statements I have made, because you can't find any holdings that support your opposition to what I said, which is:
the House does not have "full discretion" to impeach, but is restricted to the legal basis within the standards imposed in the Constitution, and Rhenquist AND Roberts have said if Congress acts outside the guidelines set in the Constitution the Court can and will look at it.....the same as the Court did in Nixon....(in the sense of examining and interpreting the provisions of the Constitution.)....because the Constitution gives the Court that jurisdiction over "all cases" arising out of acts of Congress.
Now don't take what I just said and distort it, like you've done before. And now you have WTF chihuahua yapping and snapping trying to prove what you distorted by changing the words I posted before.
You find the words I posted and give me the link with it where i said what you called a "lie" about what you posted. Not how you characterize what I posted, but quote all of the paragraph and/or sentence with the link to what I posted.
And then quit trying to refocus the discussion to a non-issue.
Contrary to what you say about me, and what I have posted about your focus in this thread, you on the other had are shifting the substance of what I have been saying away from the original statements I have made, because you can't find any holdings that support your opposition to what I said, which is:
Now don't take what I just said and distort it, like you've done before. And now you have WTF chihuahua yapping and snapping trying to prove what you distorted by changing the words I posted before.
I can't believe that you never realized that that is IB's modus operandi.
What quote? Be specific. You want to bet on what? Give me the quote in which you claim I was "lying"! We will go from there. (FYI .. not what IBH said I said, but my actual post on which you desire to piss off your money.)
I posted what I posted. Now you find my post and claim it's a lie. Don't expect me to pull up everything I've posted and play gotcha with your childish ass.
Post number 144 , the one where you quoted IB and posted the following...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
But you all go about your fantasy of "impeaching" Obminable.
It's not a "forbidden topic."
It's a waste of time, if which "we" don't have a lot.
You quoted IB and then wrote But you all go about your fantasy of "impeaching" Obminable.
Like I had stated earlier, IB has said it would not be a good political move. You kept implying that he wanted to impeach.
Again, Nixon had to do with the authority of the Senate. The authority of the House was never at issue ... and Nixon made no complaint about the House.
On a hooker board blog you can play that cherry-picking game of quoting lines out of an opinion .... that are dicta and not relevant to the "holding" of the case. But in the real world of providing precedent for the court to rule upon it doesn't work. What you are doing is fixating on a conclusion you want and then looking for dicta to support your conclusion.
Contrary to what you say about me, and what I have posted about your focus in this thread, you on the other had are shifting the substance of what I have been saying away from the original statements I have made, because you can't find any holdings that support your opposition to what I said, which is:
the House does not have "full discretion" to impeach, but is restricted to the legal basis within the standards imposed in the Constitution, and Rhenquist AND Roberts have said if Congress acts outside the guidelines set in the Constitution the Court can and will look at it.....the same as the Court did in Nixon....(in the sense of examining and interpreting the provisions of the Constitution.)....because the Constitution gives the Court that jurisdiction over "all cases" arising out of acts of Congress.
Now don't take what I just said and distort it, like you've done before. And now you have WTF chihuahua yapping and snapping trying to prove what you distorted by changing the words I posted before.
You find the words I posted and give me the link with it where i said what you called a "lie" about what you posted. Not how you characterize what I posted, but quote all of the paragraph and/or sentence with the link to what I posted.
And then quit trying to refocus the discussion to a non-issue.
The Founding Fathers, per the Constitution, unequivocally granted "sole power" to impeach to Congress, LL. That's the text in the Constitution, and that intent is supported by all extant notes in regards to the convention. Nixon was the only case in the last 50 years to challenge the Founding Father's intent, LL, so it it is relevant. In Nixon, Rehnquist was unequivocal when he reiterated what was in the Constitution: the judiciary has no role in the impeachment process per the intent of the Founding Fathers, LL. That opinion is a bald statement of fact, LL, and all of your semantical quibbling does not change what Rehnquist said.
BTW, LL, you were lying when you falsely equated Story, Justia, Cornell, Rehnquist, C. J., Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, J., Stevens, J., White, J., Blackmun, J., Souter, J. etc., as being "Wikipedia sources" and when you lyingly claimed that I advocated that Odumbo -- the first "black" president in the WH -- be impeached
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
I can't believe that you never realized that that is IB's modus operandi.
The only modus operandi I subscribe to, speedy, is to factually repudiating your stupid notions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
IBH:
"IMO: ".. if Odumbo were white, I'd urge my Congressman to impeach." Post #12
You do dissemble, don't you, LL, because I quite clearly stated that impeaching Odumbo would hurt -- not help -- this Republic, which directly and pointedly refutes your statements and implications that I said I wanted to impeach "Odumbo", LL.
The subject of this thread is now and has been none other than "Odumbo", LL: the one in the WH. So are you now arguing that Odumbo is "white", LL? Because such a character doesn't exist, LL. To prove you are not lying, LL, you need to show where I said I was for impeaching "Odumbo": the "black" Odumbo that actually lives in the WH, LL, because Odumbo considers himself to be "black", LL, not white, brown or yellow.
Until you produce such a quote wherein I stated I was for impeaching "Odumbo", the real and "black" Odumbo that currently lives in the WH rather than some imaginary "white" Odumbo as you contend, LL, you are lying.
My posting was academic in response to the obsession with impeaching Obaminable. I have been opposed to impeaching any President since Nixon.
As have I but that was not my point in regards to you implying that IB thought is would be political a good option to impeach Obama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
Not really ...
IBH:
"IMO: ".. if Odumbo were white, I'd urge my Congressman to impeach." Post #12
Translation: I want to impeach him, but he's the wrong color!
.
What you posted in fact proves exactly what I have said.
While I do not agree with IB on the skin color being the deciding factor , he is not a proponent on impeaching Obama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
You all play your word games and waste another week.
But take it up with IBH... not me.
.
Words are all we have . I am not trying to twist IB words to fit an agenda. I am trying to be truthful. You are the one who seems to try and twist others words or accuse them of drinking or trying to impress bimbo's. Every time you do those kind of things , people know you have lost the debate and are resorting to trying to distract from that fact.
you all go about your fantasy of "impeaching" Obminable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
That's what he wants, which means he really wants Biden to be President.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
You guys want the House to indict Obama ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
The Constitution establishes for what the House can impeach and for what the Senate can convict. Period.
And you guys really don't want "to go there"!
You lie when you say or insinuate such, LL. And my full statement -- in context -- directly refutes your lie regarding impeaching Odumbo, LL, just as the Founding Fathers and Rehnquist refute your interpretation of the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
IMO if Odumbo were white, I'd urge my Congressman to impeach. But Odumbo isn't white, and the political fall-out -- violence in the streets -- would off-set any imaginable political reward.
