Jump to content


Verified Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


NolaAuTiger last won the day on October 27 2018

NolaAuTiger had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,829 Sterling

About NolaAuTiger

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yep. And to add, majority of investment bankers that specialize in the energy business, natural resources and minerals sectors will tell you that their best years were under Clinton.
  2. Exactly. I've thought the same about other coaches too on occasion, be it working in politics, banking, etc. But then again (and tubs is a good reminder), convincing 17 and 18 year-olds to come play football for you is not necessarily a trait that transcends realms, if you follow my drift.
  3. That is a great question. My gut says it depends on the means by which congress is attempting to bar the person. In other words, if they are proceeding under Article II (impeachment clause), a conviction may be a precondition to subsequent disqualification. The opposing view would argue that, given the Senate's broad latitude and discretion over impeachment, a conviction is not necessary. Now, if congress were to proceed towards disqualification under the 14th Amendment (Section II or III, it's one of them but my mind is failing me at the moment), only a simple majority of both bodiesis
  4. Wrong forum. The question isn’t who has the sole power of impeachment; but when and against whom may that power be exercised. The Court’s interpretation of the impeachment clause, with respect to whether the senate may exercise the power granted it by that clause against a former president, is not a political question. Likewise, whether a former president is subject to the senate’s impeachment power is not a political question. Perhaps you, or the authority you are relying on, do not understand the doctrine. To be fair, it’s a complex rule. You are inclined to attack persons
  5. How is the question of whether a former President is subject to the Constitution's impeachment clause nonjusticiable? Contrary precedent, if any, is not determinative to the Supreme Court granting writ. Appellate Courts and SCOTUS routinely hear cases with contrary precedent. Why would that be necessary? Is it your view that the issue would ultimately be a political question, and therefore nonjusticiable on that basis?
  6. Correct. Likely a constitutional issue properly suited for SCOTUS
  7. Check out this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/12/once-trump-leaves-office-senate-cant-hold-an-impeachment-trial/ Once Trump leaves office, the Senate can’t hold an impeachment trial
  8. You would do well to read the following: https://store.legal.thomsonreuters.com/law-products/Textbooks/Scalia-and-Garners-Reading-Law-The-Interpretation-of-Legal-Texts/p/100022429
  9. Sorry - just getting to this now. In short, an originalist is one who adheres to originalism. The latter term, in turn, connotes one’s interpretative philosophy regarding Constitutional texts. As to the issue of packing the Court, I fail to see how a meaningful position on it is necessarily informed by one’s interpretive methodology. Ostensibly, the article is intended to be a “gotcha” regarding originalists.
  10. Let’s assume this case arose ten years ago. Let’s further assume the decision was 5-4, in favor of the “left” wing of the Court. Guess who the “swing” vote would have been. I’ll give you a hint: his first name is Antonin.
  11. Email voting = much integrity.
  12. I did a cursory review of the statement. Seemed like a lot of it was hearsay, which would minimize the personal knowledge mandate. Someone correct me if I am mistaken. I’m not advocating one way or the other, trying to be objective.
  • Create New...