2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Berkut]

There is no difference between Trump (as a potential President) using his position to influence a private suit brought against him, and Trump using his position as President to opine about the SC ruling on campaign contributions or some environmental case or some other public action that he may very well have a part in as the executive?

OK. If you think those are the same thing, there isn't much to discuss.

If public pressure on the judiciary impairs its independence in a private matter, then I don't see why it doesn't do so in a public matter as well.

I don't think it does impair their independence - I just think it shows Trump to be a un-ethical piece of shit that he would try.

And there is a difference between expressing your opinion on a matter before the court, and accusing the court of bias or not operating in good faith.

Finally, there is a huge difference between expressing your opinion about a court case in which you are actually the *defendant*, and one that you are simply a public official commenting on a public matter before the court.

If you don't see the differences, then I don't imagine me pointing out the obvious can really make much difference though.

[The Minsky Moment]

The problem with Trump is that it's become an impossible task to make meaningful distinctions between how bad the crazy things he says are.  It's like comparing the Titanic to the Hindenburg.  If you think he's said something that is the worst imaginable, just wait a few days.  He'll find some way to top it.

[Admiral Yi]

"I'll negotiate a discount on the national debt" is still sitting all alone at #1 in my book.

[The Minsky Moment]

Neither of those are remotely similar.

And to the extent that Nixon attempted to influence the Watergate investigation, that was very unethical. And notice he was forced to resign over that, so using it as an example of why it is ok kind of backfires.

So private lawsuits against the Clintons such as this one don't count?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

Can you explain why?

I don't recall Bill Clinton giving a press conference about the inherent bias of the 8th circuit, or saying that Justice Stevens (who authored the opinion against him) was unfit or biased.

[alfred russel]

Sure.

First of all, I don't recall Clinton going on any tirades during press conferences about how the judge was biased against him. So I don't agree that his conduct is anything at all similar to Trumps as it relates to the lawsuit itself. Indeed, Clinton mostly seemed to be very careful to NOT be seen as trying to influence the investigation, at least not publically.

He vigorously promoted his side of the case, which was ultimately inaccurate and led to significant sanctions against him personally (fines and the loss of his law license), and had white house staff do the same.

Secondly, Clinton could make a pretty compelling case that the entire thing was political in nature, and that absent him being President, it would never have even come up, and certainly the extent to which it was extended time and again betrayed a clearly political motivation in the prosecution. The case never started except after he became President, and it is very debatable to call it (especially once it went well beyond the bounds of the initial case and into "special prosecutor" bullshit) a "private" case anyway.

No such claim can be made by Trump - this lawsuit existed long before his running for office, and clearly has nothing to do with his being a candidate, and hence his attempt to intimidate the judge cannot possibly be considered as part of the political fray.

I see where this is going. You want to claim this is unprecedented, and we are going to keep adding conditions to get there:

-Only presidents and nominees count
-Only private lawsuits count
-It doesn't count if a case can be made the private lawsuit was brought for political reasons (which is extremely narrowing in this--basically every lawsuit involving a national level politician is going to have a political component, so I guess before Trump we have to go back to Eisenhower to find a potential qualifying case)
-Maybe too the public pressure on the court has to take the form of a public tirade in a press conference alleging the judge is biased? Not sure if that is what you are arguing.

[Barrister]

Neither of those are remotely similar.

And to the extent that Nixon attempted to influence the Watergate investigation, that was very unethical. And notice he was forced to resign over that, so using it as an example of why it is ok kind of backfires.

So private lawsuits against the Clintons such as this one don't count?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

Can you explain why?

I don't recall Bill Clinton giving a press conference about the inherent bias of the 8th circuit, or saying that Justice Stevens (who authored the opinion against him) was unfit or biased.

But you did have Hillary talking about the vast right-wing conspiracy against her husband...

[derspiess]

And all their surrogates out doing interviews attacking Ken Starr.

[alfred russel]

I don't recall Bill Clinton giving a press conference about the inherent bias of the 8th circuit, or saying that Justice Stevens (who authored the opinion against him) was unfit or biased.

Republicans have been trashing the courts as biased against them for years. "Judicial Activism" is usually the term used, I do remember Bush talking about it.

But I'm not sure where we are going here. It is okay to use your position to influence the court, but not to allege bias of the judges in private cases? (apparently you can allege bias in public cases, and you can seek to influence private cases, but combining the two is like crossing the beams in the Ghostbusters movie)

[The Minsky Moment]

And all their surrogates out doing interviews attacking Ken Starr.

Ken Starr was a prosecutor not a judge*, and he was not pursuing a private law suit but a investigation of alleged political corruption.

BB: the VWRC comment is also not remotely comparable.

*EDIT - he was a judge but not in the case against Clinton; he accepted appointment as special prosecutor

[Zanza]

"I'll negotiate a discount on the national debt" is still sitting all alone at #1 in my book.

Him going on about Obama's birth certificate for years is what sealed it for me even before he announced running for president. 

[Berkut]

Neither of those are remotely similar.

And to the extent that Nixon attempted to influence the Watergate investigation, that was very unethical. And notice he was forced to resign over that, so using it as an example of why it is ok kind of backfires.

So private lawsuits against the Clintons such as this one don't count?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

Can you explain why?

I don't recall Bill Clinton giving a press conference about the inherent bias of the 8th circuit, or saying that Justice Stevens (who authored the opinion against him) was unfit or biased.

But you did have Hillary talking about the vast right-wing conspiracy against her husband...

So?

Did Hillary get up to do a speech about planned parenthood or something, and instead spend it accusing the judge in her husbands lawsuit of being biased and unethical?

No?

Then it is hardly the same, is it?

[Berkut]

And all their surrogates out doing interviews attacking Ken Starr.

So in this case was it a Trump surrogate doing an interview trashing the prosecutor in a public lawsuit?

No?

Then it isn't really the same at all, is it?

Starr was not a judge, he was the prosecutor. His investigation was into Clinton's conduct WHILE IN OFFICE - it is, by definition, very much NOT a private lawsuit.

[Razgovory]

Neither of those are remotely similar.

And to the extent that Nixon attempted to influence the Watergate investigation, that was very unethical. And notice he was forced to resign over that, so using it as an example of why it is ok kind of backfires.

So private lawsuits against the Clintons such as this one don't count?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

Can you explain why?

I don't recall Bill Clinton giving a press conference about the inherent bias of the 8th circuit, or saying that Justice Stevens (who authored the opinion against him) was unfit or biased.

But you did have Hillary talking about the vast right-wing conspiracy against her husband...

That was about a very rich right winger manufacturing "scandals" for his magazine, not legal proceedings.

[Martinus]

Sure.

First of all, I don't recall Clinton going on any tirades during press conferences about how the judge was biased against him. So I don't agree that his conduct is anything at all similar to Trumps as it relates to the lawsuit itself. Indeed, Clinton mostly seemed to be very careful to NOT be seen as trying to influence the investigation, at least not publically.

He vigorously promoted his side of the case, which was ultimately inaccurate and led to significant sanctions against him personally (fines and the loss of his law license), and had white house staff do the same.

Secondly, Clinton could make a pretty compelling case that the entire thing was political in nature, and that absent him being President, it would never have even come up, and certainly the extent to which it was extended time and again betrayed a clearly political motivation in the prosecution. The case never started except after he became President, and it is very debatable to call it (especially once it went well beyond the bounds of the initial case and into "special prosecutor" bullshit) a "private" case anyway.

No such claim can be made by Trump - this lawsuit existed long before his running for office, and clearly has nothing to do with his being a candidate, and hence his attempt to intimidate the judge cannot possibly be considered as part of the political fray.

I see where this is going. You want to claim this is unprecedented, and we are going to keep adding conditions to get there:

-Only presidents and nominees count
-Only private lawsuits count
-It doesn't count if a case can be made the private lawsuit was brought for political reasons (which is extremely narrowing in this--basically every lawsuit involving a national level politician is going to have a political component, so I guess before Trump we have to go back to Eisenhower to find a potential qualifying case)
-Maybe too the public pressure on the court has to take the form of a public tirade in a press conference alleging the judge is biased? Not sure if that is what you are arguing.

Yup. 

It's unprecedented for a ginger real estate mogul Republican party nominee to attack a judge of Mexican ethnicity in a television interview with regard to his alleged bias in a lawsuit involving university! Something like this has never happened before!

[Capetan Mihali]

What's unique is the open racial/ethnic nature of the attacks.  As @NewtGingrich pointed out, if liberals said Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from civil rights cases, we (conservatives) would go crazi.