Jump to content

Powell PC on Alexander Nomination


Dogslife

Recommended Posts

Today we are seeing partisanship at its absolute worst and, surprise surprise, its Senator Pinnacle leading it. The republicans are planning on holding up a very qualified man to be attorney general. John Alexander has had experience as Minnesota Attorney General for the past 6 years. He is a man who has said that he puts the constitution and the facts over his own personal feelings.

So why is the GOP standing against him? Well the first reason is because he agrees with them on guns. During his hearing, he was question about if he thought the individual had the right to bear arms because of the second amendment, he said yes. He said yes and that he believes that the case DC v Heller is settled law. So what do the gop do? THey say he is anti-second amendment because of how he interprets a supreme court case from the 1880's, presser v illinois. But even though he and the gop disagreed on that case, they still ultimately agreed on DC v Heller and the right to bear arms. So the GOP is saying that they will vote against this very very well qualified man because they disagree on a case from the 1880's that is now been rendered irrelevant. 

They are also now attacking him for his stance on immigration. THe republicans seem to think that it is completely disqualifying for an AG to say that he doesn't want to deport every single one of the 12 million illegal immigrants, even though that would take 20 years and more cost more than 600 billion dollars. That plus the $1.2 trillion that would be lost from the GDP. John Alexander has shown that he will do what is best for the nation and that he will follow the laws of the country. He has shown that he will put the constitution above his own feelings and he has shown to be immensely qualified for the job. 

The GOP has shown that their partisanship knows absolutely no bounds. There is not a single valid reason to vote against his nomination. He has not committed any crimes, he is not a womanizer, he has paid all of his taxes, he has the experience for the job. He should absolutely be confirmed. 

Now I will open the floor to any questions the press might have.

William C. Motter D-CO-02 (Boulder, Fort Collins, Broomfield)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are okay with a member of the executive branch making the decision as to what’s best for American citizens, even if that decision contradicts existing U.S. law?

Congress & Supreme Court Admin


Admin NPCs:
Rep. Derek H. Gray (D-TX-20)

Speaker of the House & Democratic Party Chair

 

The Hon. John Roberts

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pinnacle said:

You are okay with a member of the executive branch making the decision as to what’s best for American citizens, even if that decision contradicts existing U.S. law?

I'm ok with not bankrupting the US and destroying entire communities. The current GOP position seems to be the direct opposite. They want to get rid of these human beings who are here fleeing violence or poverty, no matter what the cost is. No matter if it will sink our economy or not. No matter if the moral fabric of our country will be torn. They don't care because the republican party has become that radical. 

William C. Motter D-CO-02 (Boulder, Fort Collins, Broomfield)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dogslife said:

I'm ok with not bankrupting the US and destroying entire communities. The current GOP position seems to be the direct opposite. They want to get rid of these human beings who are here fleeing violence or poverty, no matter what the cost is. No matter if it will sink our economy or not. No matter if the moral fabric of our country will be torn. They don't care because the republican party has become that radical. 

Follow-up: The Majority Leader simply asked the nominee

“...will you enforce law to the extent directed by Congress and the Constitution, or will you enforce the law based on your determination of what’s in Americans’ economic and social interests?”

Is it a radical request that Congress make and reform laws, and that the executive branch just enforce them?

Congress & Supreme Court Admin


Admin NPCs:
Rep. Derek H. Gray (D-TX-20)

Speaker of the House & Democratic Party Chair

 

The Hon. John Roberts

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pinnacle said:

Follow-up: The Majority Leader simply asked the nominee

“...will you enforce law to the extent directed by Congress and the Constitution, or will you enforce the law based on your determination of what’s in Americans’ economic and social interests?”

Is it a radical request that Congress make and reform laws, and that the executive branch just enforce them?

Its radical to deport 12 million people, a number greater than the population of all but 6 states in the Union, and kill the American economy while doing so. Sadly that is the GOP position on this issue, yet they call themselves fiscally conservative.

William C. Motter D-CO-02 (Boulder, Fort Collins, Broomfield)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dogslife said:

Its radical to deport 12 million people, a number greater than the population of all but 6 states in the Union, and kill the American economy while doing so. Sadly that is the GOP position on this issue, yet they call themselves fiscally conservative.

But...no one has suggested deporting 12 million immigrants. My question was whether it’s okay for the executive to determine what laws to follow or not, in any case?

Congress & Supreme Court Admin


Admin NPCs:
Rep. Derek H. Gray (D-TX-20)

Speaker of the House & Democratic Party Chair

 

The Hon. John Roberts

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pinnacle said:

But...no one has suggested deporting 12 million immigrants. My question was whether it’s okay for the executive to determine what laws to follow or not, in any case?

The Senate Majority leader was just arguing it on the senate floor. If you argue for immigration law to be enforced in the strictest sense possible, aka what Senator Pinnacle is doing, then you argue for deporting every illegal immigrant.

William C. Motter D-CO-02 (Boulder, Fort Collins, Broomfield)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dogslife said:

The Senate Majority leader was just arguing it on the senate floor. If you argue for immigration law to be enforced in the strictest sense possible, aka what Senator Pinnacle is doing, then you argue for deporting every illegal immigrant.

Hopefully third times a charm...

Is it okay for the executive to determine what laws to follow or not, in any case?

Congress & Supreme Court Admin


Admin NPCs:
Rep. Derek H. Gray (D-TX-20)

Speaker of the House & Democratic Party Chair

 

The Hon. John Roberts

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pinnacle said:

Hopefully third times a charm...

Is it okay for the executive to determine what laws to follow or not, in any case?

Its ok for law enforcement to choose which laws are more important to enforce. Loitering is illegal but most police don't enforce it because its more important for them to keep the community safe from people like drunk drives or robbers. Its the same thing with immigration; its more important for police to have the trust of their community then it is for them to deport people who, if they went back to their home countries, would be killed

 

William C. Motter D-CO-02 (Boulder, Fort Collins, Broomfield)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...