ADDED: From the comments over there: "The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available."
Is it possible for both sides to do the Gish gallop at each other?
Yes, but good luck keeping up with Miller. Remember Miller with Jake Tapper in 2018? Tapper tapped out:
Posts
74 comments:
There are lots of laws that the Constitution specifically says that the Judicial branch has no jurisdiction in. This isn't "news" to anybody who took a 9th grade Civics class - which is no longer required to graduate from any American high school and that explains why we have to constantly remedially educate our media bimbos.
It seems this asshat federal judge thinks his black robe gives him authority to issue direct orders to the president of the United States. That seems like a violation of separation of powers. How would he feel if President Trump gave him direct orders on how to rule on cases?
Here is the point in the interview when Miller makes the crucial distinction(s) about the role of a district judge and the limits of justiciability.
Notice how the CNN hack - is clueless, but presents her democrat party position with phrases like....->
"This is how our system works... It starts with these Judges"
OMG.
I was curious, so I verified with our new digital overlord and savior, Grok:
"The President can safely and legally ignore some court orders—particularly those that are blatantly unconstitutional or exceed the judiciary’s authority, like a direct command to the military—without immediate legal consequence, thanks to the separation of powers and the executive’s independent authority."
You have to hand it to Trump - he knows how to walk an issue right up to the precipice, and on the way, make his opponent increasingly crazy. So by the time they reach the edge, the opponent is primed to do something stupid.
CNN Talking Head being willfully obtuse. And to say it starts with the judges. SMH.
CNN hack said that the Commander in Chief is subject to district court review... then she denies saying it.
OMG.
OMG - These democrat operatives are HACKS. Embarrassing hacks.
And then they talk about the autopen at the end -- as if CNN thinks it's a winning strategy. Wow.
It is easy to throw around the term "Constitutional Crises". It is apparently harder to actually inform yourself and think hard about how the constitution actually works and what a democracy really is and means. The fact that supposedly smart people don't know even the basics of how our country works or is designed to work, is the true Constitutional Crises.
Kacie Hunt is a Spoonerism waiting to happen.
JSM
There once was a judge of a district
Who revealed himself to be a misfit
Acting like commander in chief
Though nothing but a thief
Disregard his decisions, they're worth shit
our Constitution lays out, in detail, what to do IF you don't think the President is following the Constitution.
step1: a MAJORITY of Representatives must vote to Impeach..
step2: 2/3rds of Senators must vote to CONVICT.
THAT, is the recourse.. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.
This isn't "news" to anybody who took a 9th grade Civics class
Boomer here. They used to teach civics in the 5th and 6th grade back in my day.
Here's a Democrat President; about THIS EXACT topic:
John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it
Eh - lets cut to the end:
Everything Trump does - should be stopped by a district court judge... or any judge!
Biden - and his crooked grfting family... and the Jan 6th frauds... and the masked feds in the crowd... and Fauci... are all above the law.
The CNN reporter is way out of her depth.
She can eat paste!!
Boy that's a big sticking point for people white knighting Boasberg. SCOTUS has ruled previously. That's how it works, right?
CNN Talking Head being willfully obtuse.
I think she's just a dumb lefty, but YMMV.
"The President can safely and legally ignore some court orders."
Shouldn't that be all court orders. If I remember right, from my civics classes, the courts have no enforcement mechanism. The courts would have to rely on the executive to arrest and imprison people. I think there have been a few times the president told the courts to stuff it.
I'm not saying I approve of this. I think the courts need to be a little less grasping or they will cause a true constitutional crisis
CNN Reporter: (OMG he's explaining things to the American people! I'd better interrupt him with an off-topic question!)
You can watch her desperate for someone to say something in her ear after his first answer. She has no idea how to counter what he said. The Venezuela line was better... some producer was reading Wikipedia quickly. But CNN is out of its depth if they think they're going to take on Miller on immigration. This has been game planned for years.
Begging the question, Judge Boasberg is an idiot because the people saying he's not are imbeciles.
Your party is in big trouble when you can't win elections and your Hawaiian judges can't lawfare their way into the white area between words...
@ rehajm, We're not even 2 months into this administration and I firmly believe not-so-distant precedents are going to leave them weaponless. They have done every unethical thing they can think of in the last 8 years and their arsenal is about to run dry.
I even hear trantifa is likely to be declared a terrorist organization. 'Araqua' will enjoy running 'Trens' on them in El Salvadorian prisons.
She made the case for Trump, citing the separation of powers doctrine. She wanted to make an argument for the rouge judge, but she was not equipped to do so successfully.
We just finished 4 years of corrupt leftist legal warfare - and now the same hacks and anti-constitutional leftist democratic appointed judges are at it again. with hack media in tow.
I like the way Miller jerks his neck and jaw every once so often, as if his shirt collar is bothering him. She was getting under his skin a little bit, with her recurring demand to 'just answer the question'.
Funnily enough, it reminded me of another public persona that had the same tic: Rodney Dangerfield. If Miller starts yanking on his tie and sweating, it'll be all over.
Under CNN’s understanding of the law, whether the defenders of Pearl Harbor could lawfully repel the Japanese attack could be argued in front of a district court because Japan and the United States had yet to formally declare war.
Dershowitz says it's stupid to go with that statute. Just deport them as illegal.
Jus-ti-cia-ble. Whoa... slow down. Let me review the official handmade tale for the finer points. Remember, use a scalpel where a machete would be inhumane.
Democrats just want to portray Trump as reckless, period, end of story.
I say that because when Biden defied the Supreme Court over the student loan forgiveness, the Democrats gave zero f's about a "constitutional crisis".
that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available
Why is Hunt "the opponent"? Isn't she supposed be journalisming or something?
Somehow it's never a Constitutional crisis when the Judiciary oversteps into the Executive.
I wonder where Miller ranks in the list of most hated Republicans. Trump and Musk top the list, but where does Miller rank? Grok thinks he may be number 3 or 4. Quick, somebody make a poll!
Dershowitz says it's stupid to go with that statute. Just deport them as illegal.
Won't they just file for asylum and start the clock on years of waiting for a hearing?
Scott Adams calls it the list argument. Many arguments, some perhaps contradictory, after which if one is refuted you go to another, and always willing to come back to a refuted one as if it hadn't been refuted.
There's also kettle logic, contradictory reasons why you're right offered in sequence. I didn't borrow the kettle, it was broken when I borrowed it, and I returned it undamaged.
a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength
Do you think they meant Miller or Hunt?
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. "
"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Nothing about district courts having the power to 2nd guess the President on foreign affairs or immigration. Nothing about nation wide injuctions from D/C. In fact, it seems, DC are the creatures of congress and congress can add or delete them as they feel fit. Further, Congress can make exceptions to their juridiction. Hmmm.... wonder if this has ever been done.
So, is Kevin trying to screw things up with italics?
Hunt appeared to have several objectives:
1. Get Miller to admit the Administration defied the court's order
2. Get Miller to admit it's up to the Supreme Court to decide
3. Get Miller to agree that separation of powers requires judicial oversight of all Executive actions.
4. Get Miller to admit the law cited is out of date
5. Get Miller to admit the law cited requires a declaration of war for it to be invoked
6. Get Miller to say we're at war with Venezuela
Whenever he would knock one down, she and her producers would move to the next. When an embarrassing headline could not be manufactured, they ended the interview.
So, is Kevin trying to screw things up with italics?
LOL! Kevin knows how to use them properly.
Hard to find any of this Judicial grandstanding or hurbris from District Courts prior to 1990s. First serious DC injuction against a POTUS action is 1952, when Truman tried to take over the steel industry. Looking at other Injuctions against the POTUS, they were fairly uncommon till the 1990s.
Kacey Hunt. Bold name.
I don't think Trump or Miller is really accomplishing much by going on CNN and these other DNC propaganda outlets. It must be fun for them to debate the reporters, but no one watches, and it doesnt convince the CNN leftwing audience. Because... nothing would. Liberal/leftists just march to the party line.
Kevin said...
Somehow it's never a Constitutional crisis when the Judiciary oversteps into the Executive.
I don’t agree. When SCOTUS said Biden couldn’t appropriate funds to pay off student debt, Biden said he would do it anyway. He ultimately didn’t, but he also entertained packing the courts and Democrats wanted to impeach Thomas for vacationing with a friend.
The list argument is bad, but the repetition arguement is the worst. Nothing more annoyng then seeing some Trump presser with the DNC-MSM reporters all asking the same Goddamn question, over an over.
THe only reason the D's didn't pack the courts, is they didn't have the votes. But lets keep "reaching accross the aisle" and pretending their our friends. Someday, it will work. Really.
She went all Tom Cruise, as in “Colonel Jessup - did you order the code red??”, expecting Miller to just break down like Samuel Jackson and and say “Hell yes I did it, and I hope they burn in hell!”
Previous presidents didn't have any trouble deporting illegals when they wanted them out of the country (the problem was more that the presidents didn't really want to do it). Lately, though lawyers, NGOs and judges have so muddled and muddied and gummed up the process that it's understandable that some judge somewhere would have made such a ruling.
"Gish gallup": in high school debating, the winners were the competitors who could talk the fastest. That doesn't work so well in real life. You could present perfectly valid, accurate and strong facts and arguments and still be accused of trying to snow your opponents. The assumption in Liberalland is that the other side's arguments are always invalid and "without evidence." Any forceful presentation of those arguments is likely to be dismissed out of hand.
"Kacey Hunt. Bold name"
Imus, Feb 24, 2011, Carly Shimkus, the pick on the girl staff member
Carly: I've got two for you. The first one is from Mike Hunt from Pinehurst, North Carolina
McGuirk: Oh no you didn't just fall for that..She just got punked
Carly: Oh my God!
The question of whether or not the adminstration's actions are justiciable, is itself a justiciable question. Miller's argument is one you bring up when seeking relief from a higher court, not an excuse for ignoring the lower court's order.
It's for the higher court to seek a remedy if ignoring the lower court is wrong. If it's blatant it's a political problem one way or the other and goes to the voters in the end.
n.n writes, "Jus-ti-cia-ble. Whoa... slow down."
Justiciable has three syllables.
Under CNN’s understanding of the law, whether the defenders of Pearl Harbor could lawfully repel the Japanese attack could be argued in front of a district court because Japan and the United States had yet to formally declare war.
Ha ha! Some people, though, may be confused about this issue. But, as UCLA constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh has discussed at The Volokh Conspiracy, no congressional declaration of war (or AUMF—same thing) is required when war has already commenced and is now underway due to attack(s) on U.S. territory, forces, assets, or shipping.
This involves a tiny number of illegal immigrants. According to the DOJ's answer to the judge today, there are about 250 more that could fall under the act. Meanwhile there are still 20,000 Haitians greedily feasting on cats in Ohio.
The left needs someone as articulate and quick-witted as Christopher Hitchens was. But the left left him and his kind behind.
Justiciable has five syllables. /dʒʌsˈtɪʃ.i.ə.bəl/
Australians probably make a diphthong out of it.
The fuss over these deportations is nothing more than the Democrats struggling to defend their penultimate weapon against President Trump's reforms and actions against the corruption, incompetence, and waste they have come to depend on to buy votes, to bribe journalists and judges, and to enrich themselves, which is a compliant lower court judge who will, through arrogance or stupidity, follow orders.
"no congressional declaration of war (or AUMF—same thing) is required when war has already commenced and is now underway due to attack(s) on U.S. territory, forces, assets, or shipping. "
just finished watching Josie, the Redheaded Libertarian's youtube on the Barbary Pirates.
In 1801 the Ruler of Morocco declared WAR on the United States.
President Jefferson sent the Marines over, and took the city of Derna.
You want to know the things that did NOT happen?
a) the United States Congress NEVER declared war on Morocco.
b) some district court judge did NOT decide that Jefferson's actions were "illegal"
What DID happen is: WE WON, and the Marines got a line for their Hymn
Kasie Hunt did ask SM a good Q which he ducked - if the judge has no power/jurisdiction then why not ignore what he ordered? If you forced SM to answer that Q I am not sure what he would have said. Also - I really think SM needs to go to charm school. He's got a little too much of the Neidermeyer attitude. He would never be cast as the good guy in a movie.
I'm still trying to figure out how a District Judge could order a plane full of people to turn around.... It's not like he's got Superman on speed dial. It's an irrational and unenforceable order.
rhhardin said...
Justiciable has five syllables. /dʒʌsˈtɪʃ.i.ə.bəl/...
The word looks like a portmanteau of "justice" and "able" and should pronounced as such. The "e" in justice had to go to avoid a three-vowel pileup.
When SCOTUS said Biden couldn’t appropriate funds to pay off student debt, Biden said he would do it anyway.
That's not a case of judicial overreach.
He ultimately didn’t, but he also entertained packing the courts and Democrats wanted to impeach Thomas for vacationing with a friend.
Those are examples of the Executive meddling in the Judiciary.
The problem is Americans have come to think of the Judiciary as a set of umpires, who exist to mediate disputes between the two parties -- which is false.
This then informs them that any dispute within the electorate must therefore be justiciable -- which is also false.
And worst of all, we've come to believe any dispute should be put into the form of a lawsuit, such that the Justices would be empowered to find favor with your preferred outcome.
Miller, along with Trump's Cabinet, are taking up the cause to dispel the nation of these notions.
Is it possible for both sides to do the Gish gallop at each other?
...to Hell with the attempt at bothsidesism here...
HistoryDoc said...
She went all Tom Cruise, as in “Colonel Jessup - did you order the code red??”, expecting Miller to just break down like Samuel Jackson and and say “Hell yes I did it, and I hope they burn in hell!”
That must have been from the Directors cut version.
I'm still trying to figure out how a District Judge could order a plane full of people to turn around...
We put pilots in charge in the air for a reason...The nephew flew the traffic copter and the meat wagon for a while and on occasion flew law enforcement for various reasons, including pursuit. On a couple of occasions he had to lecture them on who was in charge....
The question of Biden's mental incompetence, a subject actively covered up by the media, is the subject under discussion regarding the validity of his last minute presidential pardons. Did he authorize all pardons and know about each of them, or did an underling make a list, use the autopen, and someone told Joe that Hunter had been pardoned, and all was well? That the press isn't hounding the members of the former White House staff for this information is mind-boggling evidence of their partisanship, bias, and unselfconscious idiocy.
Cops should know what justiciable means. Journalists? I guess not.
Miller made a point that occurred to me immediately upon hearing that the Judge ordered the plane to return; does he know the fuel status of the plane?, the crew's fatigue status? There is one hell of a lot of hubris in this guy.
I'm glad Stephen Miller is on my side and that Left has no equivalent.
She went all Tom Cruise, as in “Colonel Jessup - did you order the code red??”, expecting Miller to just break down like Samuel Jackson and and say “Hell yes I did it, and I hope they burn in hell!”
Actually the actor was was Jack Nicholson. But both he and Jackson can sure chew the scenery.
Post a Comment
Comments older than 2 days are always moderated. Newer comments may be unmoderated, but are still subject to a spam filter and may take a few hours to get released. Thanks for your contributions and your patience.