I find it ironic that the connotations of the word "p***y" frame the beginning and end of the Buffoon's tenure.

#17 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

The necessity for two votes comes from Art. 1 Sec. 3 Cls. 7, "... removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office ...". Removal and disqualification are separate remedies.

The last example is Alcee Hastings. He was impeached, convicted and removed as a federal judge. He was not disqualified from another federal office and was later elected to the House.

I actually have no problem with this delay. If he is going to be impeached let us do it legally and correctly with all the Constitutionally required safe-guards. Also, 100 days from now the ugliness of what Trump has done will only come clearer into view as he himself fades further from public view.

#60 | Posted by moder8

Is that what you, more importantly your client, thinks when seeking to delay a trial? No. At least, your client is hoping and praying that emotions will calm and evidence will become less available or unavailable.

If this impeachment is to be done then it needs to be done now. The public and many legislators are leaning in that direction. In 100 days they'll be fighting like cats and dogs again. No one will give a s**t about the Buffoon.

Do it now or not at all.

ARRESTED is the law.
(Bradenburg (sic) v Ohio)

Assuming you mean Giuliani, you need to understand 1) that decision doesn't say what you think it says and 2) the decision is inapplicable to a private state bar disciplinary proceeding.

One would think the NYSBA would, at least follow their own disciplinary rules.

1240.18 Confidentiality

(a) All disciplinary investigations and proceedings shall be kept confidential by court personnel, Committee members, staff and their agents.

BILLJOHNSON

I've spent years on this site arguing about voter fraud. I've done so in the context of advocating the constitutionality of voter ID. Thus, I was looking for evidence of voter fraud. I've read many professional studies of the issue. I've read the testimony and affidavits of experts in major court cases involving the issue.

My conclusion, voter fraud is minuscule. Statistically insignificant. No matter the ballot source.

Mail balloting may require some tweaks in the jurisdictions that permit it. I'm sure that's forthcoming as the upcoming state legislative sessions kick off. However, as a general proposition, mail balloting is about as secure as any other source.

BTW, "about" is as close as it gets in an event conducted by humans that involves hundreds of millions of transactions that involve multiple steps. The law recognizes that. So, the courts' ask, "does it change the result?" So far the answer is no.

Fort Sill Artillery School

Graduated late summer '74.

I can't wait to see all of these "self proclaimed" tough guys mug shots after realizing they will be spending some serious time in federal prison.

You may be disappointed. From what I've read, except for the guy with the firearms and Molotov cocktails, most if not all charges so far are misdemeanors, year or less max.

I was perusing the Fox Live Updates and ran across a comment along the lines that a tied Senate would make it difficult for Biden to govern. I disagree.

I like the idea of a president holding a small majority in the House and a tied Senate. Motivating the majority shouldn't be difficult. The tie vote is the threat. Compromise looms, says the optimist.

Errata

Public domain of knowledge such property is a good thing.

#2

True enough, property is property. However, "intellectual property" i.e. patents and copyright are uniquely singled out as property subject to Congressional regulation. They saw a public utility in that regulation. Public domain of knowledge is a good thing. Balancing is required. Ninety five years is ridiculous.

#2

True enough, property is property. However, "intellectual property" i.e. patents and copyright are uniquely singled out as property subject to Congressional regulation. They saw a public utility in that regulation. Public domain of knowledge is a good thing. Balancing is required. Ninety five years is ridiculous.

#34

I expect Pence will act appropriately. Certain members of the House and Senate not so much. Pence has no control over objections if there is one from each house. Those are determined by the separate vote of each chamber.

#23 | POSTED BY EFFETEPOSER

The plaintiffs argue the ECA is unconstitutional because 1.) it violates separation of powers because legislation requires the president's signature to be valid and 2.) it purports to bind future sessions of Congress contrary to the constitutional prerogative of the House and Senate to make their own rules as each session see fit.

Again, I've not read their source materials so I'm not commenting on the merits, only that it's a plausible argument.

Their argument that, if the ECA is unconstitutional, the President of the Senate can act unilaterally under the Twelfth Amendment is bovine fecal matter.

italics off

Make their case,Et Al,convince me.

You can read it for yourself, I gave you the link and the page numbers. Trying to explain it would be futile because your post demonstrates you don't have a clue what this case is about. Even after the hint in the first three sentences of #13.