Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"This is not about politics. This is about the rule of law. Republicans and Democrats alike should defend it above all else.
In my nearly 96 years, I have seen our country rise above extraordinary challenges — the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, segregation, assassinations, the resignation of a president and 9/11, to name just a few.
I continue to believe in and pray for the ability of all Americans to overcome our differences and pursue the common good. Order protects liberty, and liberty protects order."
William Webster, a former federal judge, was director of the F.B.I. from 1978 to 1987, and director of the C.I.A. from 1987 to 1991.
"The rule of law is the bedrock of American democracy, the principle that protects every American from the abuse of monarchs, despots and tyrants. Every American should demand that our leaders put the rule of law above politics."
Is this not still true today?!? Seems we are demanding something else entirely lately. To many of us anyway...
"Rule of law" has been circling the garbage can for 100 years
if we (the government) followed the rule of law and our constitution, then we would not have prohibited alcohol in the 1920's, we would not have prohibited hemp/cannabis in the 1937, we would not have split countries up in 1944, would not have allowed a POTUS to sleep with and possibly kill MM, we would not have allowed LBJ to make Vietnam bigger, etc, etc.
you can paste "lack of rule of law" onto almost every POTUS of the last 100 years... especially including the last 5
Should we throw in disclosure of their tax returns while we're at it?
Love the Reagan quote! Hadn't heard that one before. A keeper. Thanks!
Lots of people have been credited for that quote, so while you might want to repeat it, you may want to refrain from giving credit to Reagan when he definitely didn't originate it.
Did you read the article? I think the point is that while politics will always be an integral part of how America goes forward, we must also respect and protect the rule of law or there will be no moving forward...
"Over my nine-plus years as F.B.I. director, I reported to four honorable attorneys general. Each clearly understood the importance of the rule of law in our democracy and the critical role the F.B.I. plays in the enforcement of our laws. They fought to protect both, knowing how important it was that our F.B.I. remain independent of political influence of any kind."
Yes I did read it !
Actions do speak louder then words, Director Wrey in my opinion has not put forth enough
effort to restore the credibility of the F.B.I.
I do understand your point, however someone might want to remind the Democrats
in the Intelligence and Judicial branches and the saddest part of their actions is they
are the ones who clearly think they are above the law, the evidence is clear for all except for the blind, deaf and stupid.
No, now the cancel culture Left prefers "guilty by virtue of accusation and the defendant must prove their innocence, which is logically impossible, thus the accusation stands, now hand down and carry out sentence, tyvm."
Too many examples to list, but the bottom line is, the actual rule of law gets discarded entirely when the Left wants a scalp. It is replaced by the absurd notion of the accused being required to "exonerate" themselves under impossible standards, or otherwise have their lives/families/careers destroyed.
Take for example, this impeachment.
The first charge - abuse of power - is a catch all placeholder for "stuff we can't prove but makes us feel icky all the same." It's apparently like pornography and evil: hard to define specifically, but you know it when you see it. Or it's the "we see a ton of smoke, so we'll prosecute on the fire we figure is burning somewhere" theory.
The second charge - obstruction of Congress - was invented literally just for this impeachment, as there was no such crime in existence prior to them needing it for this process. And that charge that they level at the accused is based on them NOT FOLLOWING THE RULE OF LAW AS IT EXISTS. Got that? They ignore the rule of law and in doing so, create a scenario to further ignore the rule of law by accusing the defendant of ignoring the rule of law?
And in media, among the House Democrats and the anti-Trump intelligentsia, the burden of proof is on Trump to "exonerate" himself, which is absolutely opposite to the established legal basis and rule of law of this country.
So yeah, too many of you - since I am not part of that particular "us" that demands flipping the rule of law and the presumption of innocence on its head in order to satisfy political vengeance - do want something else entirely. You want guilt presumed and innocence proven.
the problem comes when we get people who take their orders from god and therefore a higher authority..
a certain Mr Barr played a pivotal role in pardoning of the Iran-Contra people when they violated congressional law
im sure its only coincidental this man is back around while discuss rule-of-law..and you could ask conservative Barry Goldwater hi opinion of the religious right the phrase "higher authority" could be mentioned
No, now the cancel culture Left prefers "guilty by virtue of accusation and the defendant must prove their innocence, which is logically impossible, thus the accusation stands, now hand down and carry out sentence, tyvm."
Too many examples to list, but the bottom line is, the actual rule of law gets discarded entirely when the Left wants a scalp. It is replaced by the absurd notion of the accused being required to "exonerate" themselves under impossible standards, or otherwise have their lives/families/careers destroyed.
Take for example, this impeachment.
The first charge - abuse of power - is a catch all placeholder for "stuff we can't prove but makes us feel icky all the same." It's apparently like pornography and evil: hard to define specifically, but you know it when you see it. Or it's the "we see a ton of smoke, so we'll prosecute on the fire we figure is burning somewhere" theory.
The second charge - obstruction of Congress - was invented literally just for this impeachment, as there was no such crime in existence prior to them needing it for this process. And that charge that they level at the accused is based on them NOT FOLLOWING THE RULE OF LAW AS IT EXISTS. Got that? They ignore the rule of law and in doing so, create a scenario to further ignore the rule of law by accusing the defendant of ignoring the rule of law?
And in media, among the House Democrats and the anti-Trump intelligentsia, the burden of proof is on Trump to "exonerate" himself, which is absolutely opposite to the established legal basis and rule of law of this country.
So yeah, too many of you - since I am not part of that particular "us" that demands flipping the rule of law and the presumption of innocence on its head in order to satisfy political vengeance - do want something else entirely. You want guilt presumed and innocence proven.
I think a primary aspect of believing in the rule of law is that everyone has their opinion about right, wrong and who is doing either. With all due respect to your opinions about that too...
The rule of law is supposed to rise above that sort of opinion and render verdicts and punishment in order to promote all the author of this article is arguing. Can't say there isn't plenty right and/or wrong being done by people on both sides of the political spectrum, but the argument is for a better respect and or demand from our politicians to promote the rule of law. Not subvert it.
You can choose to ignore the evidence that happened right in front of all of our faces, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
To clarify, obstruction of Congress is against the law. That one isn't even debatable.
oh...just how did Trump obstruct congress...congress CAN NOT order someone to appear, they can request it, but not ORDER it...and when the request is received, the person9s0 receiving it CAN and SHOULD take it to court, and have the court make this order, a lawful order. the democrats skipped that part... therefore there is no obstruction of congress, because congress BYPASSED the "rule of law" (the very topic of this thread) in their egotistical way... congress is the legislative branch...not the judicial branch
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
