- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Barr was Bush 41's second AG after Dick Thornburg. He apparently has been nominated by Trump to be the Attorney General. Should he be confirmed and if not, why?
No. He's a huge supporter of mass incarceration and the War on Drugs (complete with magical thinking!) and urged blanket pardons for all engaged in Iran/Contra.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...rump-attorney-general-criminal-justice-reform
He's also somewhat delusional on matters involving Trump and his firings, to say nothing of him buying into conspiracist bull**** (Uranium One, etc...)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...rump-russia-collusion/?utm_term=.05367bccd4cd
No. Democrats should be the like the GOP and oppose everything Trump wants.
Depends. He's probably the best qualified candidate who would actually take a job in the dumpster fire that is the Trump administration. And he's probably better than the guy he currently (likely illegally) has as his acting AG.
If I were a Senator voting on his confirmation I'd vote for him if he could make these promises:
-You will not stifle the Mueller investigation in any way, either by firing him, by cutting his budget, by sitting on indictments or reports and preventing them from going public.
-If you can promise under oath that you made no promises or negotiations to Trump or his associates in order to get this job.
Assuming he could promise under oath those things then I'd likely vote for him. But I haven't done a deep dive in to his history. I know I don't agree with him politically but that shouldn't matter when looking at presidential cabinet picks.
Republicans. That's what I said.
In some of those conversations, Mr. Trump has also repeatedly asked whether the next pick would recuse himself from overseeing the special counsel investigation into whether his campaign conspired with Russia in its interference in the 2016 election, several people said.
that's based on what? seems to me its been going on for awhile. We had Bork and then we had Keisler and Estrada.
Bork didn't believe the free speech in 1st Amendment applied to the average citizen.
really? I never heard that when I was at Yale and he was a law professor. I never heard that claimed when he was a DC judge either. have some sources?
Yes. He said it during his confirmation hearings. You watched them all, yes?
Were there a poll answer option of "yes," without the additional "elements," I'd have ticked "yes."
most of them-plus I had the benefit of knowing Judge Bork since his son was one of my friends in college and Judge Bork and my late father were classmates in HS. I don't recall him saying the first amendment did not apply to individuals.
He did. It was rather a long conversation. He argued that 'free speech' only applied to official sessions of Congress. The purpose of the 1st Amendment was to allow people in Congress to argue passionately without fear of being sued libel or slander.
I'd love to see some proof of that/ he would also have to claim Congress was given the power to regulate speech as well
You should search it out and see for yourself. Good point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?