Noted liberal Constitutional Scholar, Alan Dershowitz, blasts fired AG

[WVPATX]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/31/d...ttorney-general-made-a-serious-mistake-video/

Watch the video brought to you by CNN. He disagrees with the policy but blasts her actions.

“Now, this is a terrible policy. I’m completely opposed to it, but as attorney general, if she disagreed with the policy, her option was to resign,” he said. “But to disallow the entire Justice Department from defending a policy — at least parts of which are probably constitutional, parts of which are probably lawful, instead of giving a nuanced analysis — to forbid from defending it instead of resigning, was a serious mistake.”

 

[op2]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/31/d...ttorney-general-made-a-serious-mistake-video/

Watch the video brought to you by CNN. He disagrees with the policy but blasts her actions.

“Now, this is a terrible policy. I’m completely opposed to it, but as attorney general, if she disagreed with the policy, her option was to resign,” he said. “But to disallow the entire Justice Department from defending a policy — at least parts of which are probably constitutional, parts of which are probably lawful, instead of giving a nuanced analysis — to forbid from defending it instead of resigning, was a serious mistake.”

Good start. You noted an expert dispassionately telling you the truth about the situation and you took it to heart. Note that the reason to take it to heart didn't have anything to do with the conclusion drawn...that any particular politician was right or wrong...but that the AG in that situation should not do what the Obama leftover AG did, period. The "Obama" part has nothing to do with it. Point being, you have to apply the conclusions of experts EVENLY instead of only when they fit your narrative. You have to do it and so does anyone on other side of the political spectrum, assuming they want to have credibility that is.

 

[WVPATX]

Good start. You noted an expert dispassionately telling you the truth about the situation and you took it to heart. Note that the reason to take it to heart didn't have anything to do with the conclusion drawn...that any particular politician was right or wrong...but that the AG in that situation should not do what the Obama leftover AG did, period. The "Obama" part has nothing to do with it. Point being, you have to apply the conclusions of experts EVENLY instead of only when they fit your narrative. You have to do it and so does anyone on other side of the political spectrum, assuming they want to have credibility that is.

I have learned in politics that there are two sides to almost anything. Including the meaning of the word, "is.", lol. The problem is that we are so divided, "experts" almost always end up on one or the other side. You read experts all the time disagreeing over even basic issues. Very difficult to discern the truth and the "fact checkers" are very biased in my opinion as various studies have shown (probably ideological studies for sure).

 

[op2]

I have learned in politics that there are two sides to almost anything. Including the meaning of the word, "is.", lol. The problem is that we are so divided, "experts" almost always end up on one or the other side. You read experts all the time disagreeing over even basic issues. Very difficult to discern the truth and the "fact checkers" are very biased in my opinion as various studies have shown (probably ideological studies for sure).

On issues of opinion experts vary but the Dershowitz's point was that although his OPINION on whether the policy was good is that it was not good, his view on whether it's legit legally for a POTUS to do what Trump did wasn't an opinion but essentially a legal fact he was noting. Point being that experts may be for or against Trump's policy but they would not disagree (if they were all being honest) on whether it was a legal thing to do.

So if Trump does something that ISN'T a legal thing to do and the experts agree that it's not legal (independent of whether they like the policy) then you can't just say "They're being partisian" but rather must not that in that case Trump is doing stuff that's not legal.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Including the meaning of the word, "is.", lol.

Or the word, "could". LOL![banana]

 

[WVPATX]

Or the word, "could". LOL![banana]

Like I said, place your bets. I'm ready, willing and able.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Like I said, place your bets. I'm ready, willing and able.

Save your money, you'll need it.

I am a noted authority on this subject and I say you are wrong.


"So let it be written, so let it be done!"

 

[WVPATX]

Save your money, you'll need it.

I am a noted authority on this subject and I say you are wrong.


"So let it be written, so let it be done!"

There is a word for you who make bold claims but won't back it up where it hurts but I am too nice a guy to repeat it here.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

I don't gamble... it's against my Religious beliefs... but I'll bet you have something to say about that too. (Get the pun?)

 

[WVPATX]

I don't gamble... it's against my Religious beliefs... but I'll bet you have something to say about that too. (Get the pun?)

Not against mine. And I somehow doubt very much your excuse.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Not against mine. And I somehow doubt very much your excuse.

[roll]