Is this one of your cases. Is there a President Hillary Clinton now or in the past? That is false. Did a President Hillary Clinton present a soliticitation to the Supreme Court in defense of a "bank robber"? This is not a false choice?
It was laid out as an alternative path that a future case MIGHT have taken had President Bush not done what he has done.
It does require imagination to consider that such a future event might occur. I'm sorry to have troubled you with something that is beyond your capabilities to comprehend.
It was laid out as an alternative path that a future case MIGHT have taken had President Bush not done what he has done.
In my hypothetical
It was laid out as an alternative path that a future case MIGHT takeUnder President Hillary!
, who chose to have a case of a bank robbery committed by an illegal?
The lack of courage by so many Freepers, including yourself, to look into the mouth of the lion on so many of issues is very disappointing and shows a real lack of courage and imagination.
I didn’t give any false choises. As the facts exist, it IS in front of SCOTUS.
My comments to you were reality based on what happened. Your fantasy about a fictitious bank robber, under an as yet unknown president, provided as a fact according to your statement, then as a hypothetical, then as not false, then what might happen, and finally an editorial comment on me and other freepers imagination and courage. My first answer remains. Your imagination is unrestrained in the extreme. What I comprehend is that you live in a pretend world which most of us do not.
My comment that the Bush administration solicitor general would provide amicus briefs on behalf of a supranational judicial body in violation to his Constitutional oath of office does violence now to the Constitution of the United States of Amlerica. The act of that solicitation does violence to our sovereignty. The act of solititation sets a presidence, not a fictionalized 'woulda, coulda, shoulda". That is reality. Yours is imagined and absolute fiction, which you stated was fact. It was not. In all probability it will never be. There may be a future case of solititation before the court on behalf of a supranational judiciary, but when and by whom is simply conjecture and is therefore meaningless at this time. That was my point. YOur creating fiction to remove criticism of Bush was clearly your point. He is not above being criticized. That is simpy the process of being informed on issues and having opinions of the actions of the government. I like Bush at many levels, but at several levels he has failed. I do not think the Constitution is something up for grabs by Bush or any other president. To excuse a flagrant attack on the Constitution like this is irresponsible of any citizen. It is no more or less eggregious if Clinton had done this same thing. For those who raise their hand and take an oath to uphold the constitution, then attack its very underpinnings is something every citizen should take very seriously in reality, not in a fantasy world.