First off, I'm no fan of Carter, but what difference does it make if he appointed this judge or not? Also, if the president has in fact violated the law, should he not be impeached? After all, I remember arguing in 1998 that Clinton should be impeached based on the fact he lied under oath. We cannot selectively apply the law to support those presidents we like on most issues and take down those we disagree with. The law is the law and must be applied equally to all.
Oh, and we are not at "war" with anyone. Congress has not declared it.
Thats funny. Saying we aren't at war is like saying you aren't a lefty.
Far from having proven any violation of the law, Diggs-Taylor's opinion will likely be thrown out because those who brought the suit don't have the standing to do so.
It makes a LOT of difference, who placed this judge on the bench where she now sits and just how incompetently. Even Dems are saying that her ruling is without substance.
Last time I looked, President Bush wasn't being sued by someone who had accused him of sexual assault, he never committed perjury in court, and so, your pathetic, benighted analogy is not only silly beyond words, but ill educated in the extreme.
Fine....we're not at war and haven't been at war once, since WW II; however, we HAVE engaged in war. Heck, call it PEA SOUP for all I care.