LogFAQs > #933756499

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 262: Witless Protection
xp1337 01/31/20 8:06:53 PM #460:	Nelson_Mandela posted... They voted to cede all senatorial power to Roberts? Lmao the GOP should have said yes. Why? They just voted them all down. Giving Roberts the power to determine the probative value of subpoenas just cracks the door open to him saying, "Yeah, Bolton is relevant." Like I think they could still then overrule him but my layman understanding of the motion would be that Roberts would have the first say and the amendment specified he's ruling on the relevance/probative value of the motions as opposed to the current situation where the Senators have the first and only word (since Roberts just said he isn't breaking ties). Roberts's own rational for "I can't rule on tiebreakers!" is that he has no business ruling in the Senate, but adopting that amendment would be the Senators literally empowering him so it would kill that logic and force him to either rule that obviously these witnesses and documents are relevant to the Articles or dig even deeper into aiding the cover-up by somehow saying they aren't. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out? <cite>xp1337 posted [p:933756499] in Politics C... [t:78366000]...</cite> <quote>Nelson_Mandela posted... </cite> <quote>They voted to cede all senatorial power to Roberts? Lmao the GOP should have said yes.</quote>Why? They just voted them all down. Giving Roberts the power to determine the probative value of subpoenas just cracks the door open to him saying, "Yeah, Bolton is relevant." Like I think they could still then overrule him but my layman understanding of the motion would be that Roberts would have the first say and the amendment specified he's ruling on the relevance/probative value of the motions as opposed to the current situation where the Senators have the first and only word (since Roberts just said he isn't breaking ties). Roberts's own rational for "I can't rule on tiebreakers!" is that he has no business ruling in the Senate, but adopting that amendment would be the Senators literally empowering him so it would kill that logic and force him to either rule that obviously these witnesses and documents are relevant to the Articles or dig even deeper into aiding the cover-up by somehow saying they aren't. --- xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1