Judge Napolitano meets with Trump for 2nd time to discuss Supreme Court

[euphemia]

The judge says he expects an announcement in the next two weeks? Wake up call for Congress: Here's a President who expects legislators to work as hard as he does. That might be a bit of a shock to some.

I've been listening to appointment hearings, and I have to say Al Franken is a singularly tiresome man.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Wake up call for Congress: Here's a President who expects legislators to work as hard as he does.

Amen to that.

They might also need to be reminded that the DJ DonMaster is 70-years old.

Eat that, slackers.

 

[euphemia]

Please allow me to point out that last year when responding to what Trump would do once elected, I replied, "I think he will get up and go to work." That response was not received well, but I won't say I told you so. Donald Trump works hard, and he expects his team to work hard, too. Congress better get moving or they will find themselves left at the station.

 

[Origanalist]

Not sure how to take this. I have no love of Reagan. At times he talked a good game, but didn't do much to walk it. "Smaller government... smaller government..." as government inflated to unprecedented proportions on a daily basis before our eyes. IMO, the best thing he ever did was to fire all the air traffic controllers when they went on strike. Kudos where due.

Also, Trump's style is fundamentally different from that of Reagan. He addresses issues in a way that puts the hallowed Ronbo to some paleness. I will go way out on a limb here and predict that Trump will be no milquetoast president in the manner of an Obama. He will either prove really good, or very lousy, on the net. Here's to hoping for the former.

I agree with this. No, his style isn't the same but I think his presidency will end up looking a lot like Reagan's. Including the recession of 82. I'm trying to get ahead of it as best I can. There will be no great reduction in government spending with the drunken sailor repubs and all his grandiose plans.

 

[Superfluous Man]

I hope he's also talking to other libertarian legal scholars who are more knowledgeable than Napolitano.

 

[Philmanoman]

Kinda hard to debate stuff that hasn't happened
If all the good happens that people guarantee is going to happen then that's great.
It's funny reading shit here though.You would think all of the great promises have already happened lmao

 

[TER]

Kinda hard to debate stuff that hasn't happened
If all the good happens that people guarantee is going to happen then that's great.
It's funny reading shit here though.You would think all of the great promises have already happened lmao

I think what you are witnessing is people being optimistic because we have seen tangible changes already compared to the direction the country was going to continue to go if Hillary was elected (for example, the Judge consulting and advising the President elect). Are all the changes great? Of course not! But I can't imagine it would have been better if Hillary won.

 

[euphemia]

I think what you are witnessing is people being optimistic because we have seen tangible changes already compared to the direction the country was going to continue to go if Hillary was elected (for example, the Judge consulting and advising the President elect). Are all the changes great? Of course not! But I can't imagine it would have been better if Hillary won.

I agree with this assessment. Obviously I would like to see a President with a more defined liberty point of view, but that doesn't mean I have to spend the next 4-8 years in a meltdown because I didn't get what I want.

And I think a Rand Paul presidency would not have seen any more immediacy than what we have seen. He would have had to make all these appointments, too, because a President does not have the authority to close whole departments without going through Congress.

 

[robert68]

Nap says Trump wants another Justice Scalia. That's neither surprising nor something special.

Also, if members of Congress not attending the Inauguration is bad for "our democracy", as Varney and Nap lament, then the more the better.

 

[TER]

Nap says Trump wants another Justice Scalia. That's neither surprising nor something special.

Better than another Ginsburg or SotoMayor by a loooong shot

 

[pcosmar]

And yet he's asking his advice.

and that is a good sign.

observing.. cautiously optomistic

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Truth is treason in the empire of optimism.

 

[nikcers]

Truth is treason in the empire of optimism.

Optimistic people are usually the most disappointed when they do not get what they perceive to be the outcome they desired. There are going to be some extremely upset people after this hope train turns into a nope train.

 

[shakey1]

Go Nap!!!

 

[euphemia]

Optimistic people are usually the most disappointed when they do not get what they perceive to be the outcome they desired. There are going to be some extremely upset people after this hope train turns into a nope train.

And haters don't see the good in anything. Go ahead and make yourself miserable. I'm not going to live that way. I try to be hopefully objective.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Go Nap!!!

That's a great quote.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Optimistic people are usually the most disappointed when they do not get what they perceive to be the outcome they desired. There are going to be some extremely upset people after this hope train turns into a nope train.

Heh. A lot of people seem optimistic that he's going to fail. Vindication is at stake.

 

[osan]

I agree with this. No, his style isn't the same but I think his presidency will end up looking a lot like Reagan's. Including the recession of 82. I'm trying to get ahead of it as best I can.

This is certainly plausible, but I'm staying on the fence until such time as the indications become a whole lot more telling, either way.

There will be no great reduction in government spending with the drunken sailor repubs and all his grandiose plans.

Wish I could bitch-slap you into the next county for this, but alas, it is all too likely to prove the case.

But I hold out some sliver of hope that things may not become this bad. I know it is foolish, but Trump surprised at least 150 million people, probably closer to double that, not only when he won the nomination, but when he won the booby prize. I still cannot rule out smoke and mirrors as the cause of this result, but if perchance it is not the case and Trump got where he did based on shrewd strategies and tactics, then I can only say that damned near anything is possible in the coming months, including a sea change in America for the better - even the MUCH better. I don't dare place any expectations there, but cling to that sliver of hope that I may be pleasantly surprised in the end. However, we have to keep in mind the currents against which he will be sailing in the even he proves the better man than that for which so many are perhaps understandably giving him credit. We've been bitten in the ass so many times since 1789... erm, perhaps 1980 anyhow, that one would have to be a complete idiot not to have serious reservations.

Now here's a question: to what should be all be looking in the event the better man makes his hand felt? It could only be a beginning because no man could correct 228 years of progressively worsening tyranny in a mere four years. What would be the path moving forward? A path with milestones set should be on the agenda for those interested in liberty. Thus far it has been willy-nilly Freedom! RAH RAH RAH... and nothing more. The progressives are planners. IF you want something to happen, you have specific goals, however humble, and you work to achieve them.

Liberty, if it is even possible to achieve, will be had piecemeal. It took 200+ years for this great land to be reduced to the pathetic state in which we find it. It will not bounce back in our lifetimes, much less the span of a full-monty presidency.

 

[osan]

I hope he's also talking to other libertarian legal scholars who are more knowledgeable than Napolitano.

This raises the question of a very serious and fundamental problem: our legal system is hosed in a most impossible way. In what way, you ask? We lack the basics of proper LAW. We have an abundance of LEGAL elements well established, yet next to nothing for law.

An example of this can be taken directly from Black's (hideously wrong) Dictionary. Take, for instance, the definition of "crime", which states:

CRIME. A positive or negative act in violationof penal law; an offense against the State.

Before we can assess the merits of this definition, we must first look at the definition of "penal law":

PENAL LAWS. Those which prohibit an actand impose a penalty for the commission of it.

Strictly and properly speaking, apenal law is one imposing a penalty or punish-ment (and properly a pecuniary fine or mulct)for some offense of a public nature or wrong committed against the state.

PENAL STATUTES. See Penal Laws.

Also important, the notion of "public":

PUBLIC, adj. Pertaining to a state, nation, or whole community; proceeding from, relating to, or affecting the whole body of people or an entire community. Open to all; notorious. Common to all or many; general; open to common use.

I am not prepared to go into an exhaustive analytic treatise on just how impossibly lacking these definitions are, for it would require much space and time. But rest you assured that American jurisprudence (har har har...) is based on the most flimsily arbitrary nonsense imaginable. That it has been so effectively robed in the false dignities attributed to it stands as testament to the ignorance, stupidity, corruption, fear, and plain pig-laziness of the vast majority of men, most lawyers included.

By the definitions given, a crime is anything the legislature says it is. There is absolutely no provenly principled basis upon which "crime" is defined and which would objectively limit the prerogatives of legislators. Furthermore, the only thing keeping said legislators in check are the questionable-at-best decisions of our jurists who occupy the bench. Their proclamations have proven with absolute certainty to be a crap-shoot on their best days. Just look at Heller, for example, where a largely correct opinion was nonetheless befouled by a court who left the door wide open for all tyrants coming down the pike from the time of its issue onward.

Nowhere have I found a clear, correct, and complete information set in the standard legal references that specify how to identify a crime and define it properly. These legal people simply pull the most inane and criminal nonsense from their anuses, proclaim it "law" (which is it not), thereby directing men with guns to enforce their capriciously arbitrary wills upon their fellows up to and including taking away life itself from those whom they claim to have "offended".

Honestly, this is all so nightmarishly wrong that it makes my thoughts seize up solid in my head such that I have to stop thinking about it in order not to get a migraine.

We as a people are utterly, perilously lost. Trump says he will do this and that, as do others, yet they have absolutely no idea upon what basis they will make their changes, thereby rendering their actions arbitrary by nature, even when those actions serve the enhance liberty. Then the next administration comes in, pulls a completely different narrative from their assholes and declare THAT to be the law whose line all must toe on literal pain of death. We have no invariant foundational principles formalized to serve as a standard by which the actions of legislatures may be validly judged. I am certain that this is the way Theye want things, of course, because it serves their purposes. Theye get to say what is "legal" and what is not, right and wrong be damned.

The very simple, yet endlessly essential tenet that in order for a crime to have occurred, there must be a victim, appears to be wholly absent from American jurisprudence. This is absolutely disastrous, and I am sure all those men behind bars across the land for ten and more years for possession of a joint would not be fast to disagree.

Going back to "crime", Bouvier's has more to say on the matter, the ultimate result being equally atrocious, if more clearly indicative of the atrocities to which it gives dye.

CRIME. A crime is an offence against a public law. This word, in its most general signification, comprehends all offences but, in its limited sense, it is confined to felony. 1 Chitty, Gen. Pr. 14.2. The term misdemeanor includes every offence inferior to felony, but punishable by indictment or by-particular prescribed proceedings.
3. The term offence, also, may be considered as, having the same meaning, but is usually, by itself, understood to be a crime not indictable but punishable, summarily, or by the forfeiture of, a penalty. Burn's Just. Misdemeanor.
4. Crimes are defined and punished by statutes and by the common law. Most common law offences are as well known, and as precisely ascertained, as those which are defined by statutes; yet, from the difficulty of exactly defining and describing every act which ought to be punished, the vital and preserving principle has been adopted, that all immoral acts which tend to the prejudice of the community are punishable by courts of justice. 2 Swift's Dig.
5. Crimes are mala in se, or bad in themselves; and these include. all offences against the moral law; or they are mala prohibita, bad because prohibited, as being against sound policy; which, unless prohibited, would be innocent or indifferent. Crimes may be classed into such as affect:

There appears to be no legislative bright line between mala in sé and mala prohibita. This is catastrophic.

Until we straighten out the basics, we have ZERO hope of putting this land on a reliable path toward the liberty our forbears promised. And yet, we continue on, wading around in the muck and shit of our legal environment, as if to seek and secure the remedies to the tyranny under which we all labor as slaves.

So what does anyone propose we do about this? Anything? Or are we all just here yanking our yo-yos for the sake of the old feel-good?

That's a serious question, BTW.

 

[nikcers]

Heh. A lot of people seem optimistic that he's going to fail. Vindication is at stake.

Not really optmistic about my president failing, just not optimistic he is my president. The people that I go to for political information are hinting at a possible nope train. I don't want to ride the nope train, but this is what the people who I go to are saying ahead of Trump becoming POTUS.. Paul, Lee call on Trump to work with Congress on foreign policy

I am no fan of Ted Cruz, but I don't see Rand Paul sending these letters to a hypothetical president Cruz.