ST Alpha - "I don't see how I'm wrong in saying if the House/Senate/CJ decide it's legal, then it is legal. -- (edited)" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 151

In response to "From b2: it’s of course possible for the house to do that, the questions is whether it’s legal. Perhaps we are discussing separate points " by JackDawson

I don't see how I'm wrong in saying if the House/Senate/CJ decide it's legal, then it is legal. -- (edited)

Posted by Max Sep 25 '19, 13:26

That is the definition of legal, is it not? Not what anyone else thinks should be legal, but what is actually decided by the specific people who have the sole authority to set the law?

Responses:

(And your definition for what it’s worth is not exact because you don’t need a court to pass judgment to determine legality) - JackDawson Sep 25, 13:37 4
- understood, I was thinking in terms of Constitutional outcomes. -- nm - Max Sep 25, 13:40 3
  - By the way before the house voted on articles of impeachment the house’s lawyers and likely the individual reps’ lawyers will give advice as to legali - JackDawson Sep 25, 13:48 2
    - sure, and the precedent is there that some lawyer told McConnell he didn't have to hold a hearing for Obama's nominee. - Max Sep 25, 13:56 1
      - But again that example is not at all apples and oranges - JackDawson Sep 25, 14:04
Well now you’re putting the CJ into it - JackDawson Sep 25, 13:35

Post a message top

I don't see how I'm wrong in saying if the House/Senate/CJ decide it's legal, then it is legal. -- (edited)

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.