McCain was right. Cox has allowed the ETF's which double and triple short groups of stocks. Big money uses his ignorance to develop trading approaches that drive down the price of stocks. They use the change in the up ticks rules and the lack of enforcement of naked shorting to destroy more capital than Communism. Cox more than anyone is responsible for the crash of 2008....
Too funny. The Obama shills here are shilling so hard they cannot admit they are wrong even when they have been utterly and comprehensively demolished.
At last count, the Supreme Court, 2 circuit courts, at least 2 law professors, and a specialty law journal say that McCain is right that the SEC Chair CAN be fired for cause. Obviously, those who say he CAN'T be fired are wrong.
dogstar7 can't provide a cite because his cite is Keith "I play a legal eagle on TV" Olbermann. How I laughed.
"Members of the Commission, in turn, are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and subject to removal by the President for cause; its chairman is selected by and serves at the pleasure of the President." Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (DC Cir. 2008).
dogstar7, give up. You're only making yourself look like an ignorant douchebag. Everyone from the courts to Professors Sunstein and Bainbridge say you are wrong.
"sklanger is arguing a hypothetical: Can the President fire the Chairman of the SEC? No, otherwise there would be precedent in history."
There IS precedent you ignoramus.
SEC v. Blinder, Robinson & Co. (10th Cir. 1988): "it is commonly understood that the President may remove a commissioner...for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."
Not to mention your argument is dumb. So Andrew Johnson couldn't be impeached because there was no precedent as he was the first? Really?
If you are unaware, there IS NO precedent in history because NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER FIRED THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.
The other reason that you are trying to advance a hypothetical argument is that President Bush has NO PLANS to confront, let alone take any action whatsoever against, Chairman Cox...nor is John McCain taking Congressional action to sanction Cox.
The truth of the matter is that you were trying to ridicule McCain's statement on firing the SEC Chair for cause because you thought -- wrongly -- that it cannot be done and that the president had no authority.
You were proven wrong. Court precedent says he CAN fire the SEC chief for cause. I've quoted the cases again and again but you are obviously retarded. Clearly the law does not matter for Obama shills.
Stick to taking pictures. Leave the law to experts. You fail.
Wrong. There is legal precedent that the president CAN fire the SEC chairman. That it was never done doesn't mean it can't be done, do you understand the difference, idiot?
The President was never impeached before Andrew Johnson. That he was never impeached up till that point does not mean that he cannot be impeached, since he clearly could be, by law.
By law, the president can fire the SEC chairman. There is LEGAL PRECEDENT for it. Keep squirming. It's funny to watch you flailing and failing.
I've simply been using you to illustrate how absolutely imbecilic this argument has been. Thank you for a job well done offering up utterly meaningless "proofs" for an outcome (Presidential firing of a seated SEC Chair) that will NEVER HAPPEN.
I'm owning you. You know you are defeated when you call Supreme Court and circuit court precedents "meaningless".
Face it. You listened to idiots like Olbermann without checking the law yourself. Now that he has been proven to have gotten it all wrong, you are desperately backtracking and changing the subject.
You accuse others of ignorance when you were ignorant yourself. FAIL!
"Keep arguing something that hasn't happened, won't happen, can't happen"
But it can happen. The D.C. Circuit, 10th Circuit and the Supreme Court have said that it can happen. And the cases have been quoted to your face again and again. Like so:
SEC v. Blinder, Robinson & Co.: "it is commonly understood that the President may remove a commissioner...for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."
Keep squirming, and ignoring the law. Silly Obama shill.
Listen, it's useless for me to argue the fine points law with an auto parts counter attendant, Starbucks barrista, Wal*Mart 'associate' or whatever you do for a living.
Case law does not prove the legality of any act...in particular an act that HAS NOT HAPPENED...such as a future (and not to over-stress, unlikely) President John McCain firing SEC Chair Christopher Cox (who says he will step down in January, regardless).
Case law is only an indication of how an act may be interpreted by the courts if it is contested.
It's unlikely any President will attempt to fire Cox...so this argument is moot on it's face.
It is even less likely that John McCain has the intestinal fortitude to CHARGE Chairman Cox with MALFEASANCE and force a unprecedented CONSTITUTIONAL SHOWDOWN...instead of simply SCAPEGOATING him for CHEAP POLITICAL POINTS!
Stop lying. Earlier, you said that the president "cannot" fire the SEC chair. Now you're changing your tune to "he can but it's unlikely he will".
I like how you're changing the subject from whether he CAN do so to whether he WILL do so. You fail.
And btw, POTUS can "charge" him with inefficiency. Malfeasance is not necessary. There will be no constitutional showdown, because this is not a constitutional matter. It is statutory law, and has nothing to do with the constitution. You idiot.
I'm an attorney. Of course case law proves the legality of an act, you fool. Roe v. Wade does not merely apply to Jane Roe but to all future women who want to get an abortion.
The future acts of abortion have not happened, but they are nevertheless legal under Roe. Likewise, the legal precedent that finds the removal of an SEC commissioner legal proves the legality of such an act in the future.
Do you have ANY idea at all of how the law works? I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself.
Six years ago McCain called for the firing of Harvey Pitt, Bush's first SEC chairman, after accounting scandals at Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. Pitt announced his resignation four months later. Yesterday, Pitt called McCain's remarks "a lot of sound and fury."
"The true mark of leadership is focusing on constructive solutions, rather than asserting blame," he said.
Cox said he's always been clear about his intent to leave the SEC when the Bush administration ends in January 2009.
Wow some dumbass below said "a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president" when in reality the SEC Chair can be removed for cause as McCain has said.
Apparently the idiot below just can't bring himself to admit that he was wrong. Too funny.
Even more amusing are the clumsy attempts at changing the subject... asking a DUMB question about why an official serving at the pleasure of the President can't be removed by ANOTHER branch of government. LOL!
So we have two Supreme Court decisions, at least two circuit court decisions, and Obama's own legal advisor agreeing (with McCain) that the president CAN fire the SEC Chair for cause.
But some retard below (dogstar7) wants you to think that the SEC Chair can't be fired. Hilarious.
Some people stubbornly do not want to "concede" the point, but rest assured that they are ignoramuses who have no idea what they are talking about.
Moral of the story: don't mindlessly parrot talking points.
"...for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."
There's the operative term: "for cause"
Still no response to the question:
If there is cause for firing Cox, why hasn't McCain convened a Senate Hearing to establish it?
If McCain has a leadership role in his party, then why has President Bush proclaimed his SUPPORT for Cox...without being condemned by the Congressional minority leaders?
Why does McCain have to wait until he's President before taking action?
If Cox is guilty of malfeasance and neglect of duty, as McCain alleges...if Cox is ruining the American economy as we watch... then why wait until the election?
Is that putting "Country First"???
No, that's putting election to office first!
"I haven't used my Senate authority to address this crisis in the meantime, but make me the Emperor/President and I can simply force everyone to do as I say!"
In fact, Obama's own legal advisor Cass Sunstein agrees with McCain (from his book Free Markets & Social Justice):
"The relevant provisions allow the president to discharge the commissioner 'for cause'...allow[ing] him to remove officials under certain circumstances...the president has very broad removal power over the commissioners of independent agencies...They are not, as a matter of statutory law, 'independent' of him at all."
Again, don't let the blustering shill below mislead you. :-)
SEC v. Blinder, Robinson & Co. (10th Cir. 1988): "it is commonly understood that the President may remove a commissioner...for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."
Ergo, a president can fire an SEC Chair for cause, exactly as McCain said.
The courts have spoken. Don't let the blustering shill below mislead you.
Maybe McCain will nominate is son, Andrew, to be the next SEC Chairman.
Andrew K. McCain, a son of Republican presidential nominee John McCain, sat on the boards of Silver State Bank and of its parent, Silver State Bancorp, starting in February but resigned in July citing "personal reasons".
Nevada regulators closed Silver State on Friday, September 5th, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was appointed receiver of the bank.
McCain has a disturbing pattern of looking for scapegoats. He scapegoated Gen Casey when Iraw was not going well and now he is after this guy that has actually done a lot of good things for investors.
As though the firing of a single individual could change the course of our financial culture! Even if it could be done.
The perfidy of of our top financiers would best be purged by allowing them to fail. Sure it would mean some very hard years, but we would emerge from the depression cleansed.
This dysfunctional culture must not be kept on life support with hundreds of billions of our future. Let their illiquidity be their doom.
Oh, wait. When such an appointee has been proved to be completely inadequate and ignorant of his job, he can be removed. Not by political positioning, but in defense of the American public. Quit watching MSNBC and do some research.
While the president nominates and the Senate confirms the SEC chair, a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president.
McCain evidently is ignorant of the SEC, the tenure of it's Commissioner and the limits of Presidential Powers.
"a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president."
WRONG!
Humphrey's Executor v. U.S.: "any commissioner may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."
SEC v. Blinder, Robinson & Co. (10th Cir. 1988): "it is commonly understood that the President may remove a commissioner...for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."
You fucking failed so hard you are still eating the failcake in your next life.
"The Chairman of the SEC serves as such solely at the pleasure of the President." Pitt & Shapiro, Securities Regulation by Enforcement: A Look Ahead at the Next Decade, 7 Yale Journal on Regulation (1990).
Terms of removal by the President are "very broad and...could sustain removal...for any number of actual or perceived transgressions." (DC Circuit citing Bowsher v. Synar in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB).
I can read Professor Bainbridge's blog as well as you. Those are simply arguments for McCain's case.
If Senator McCain has cause to charge Chairman Cox with malfeasance, HE SHOULD DO SO IMMEDIATELY!
McCain can convene a Senate hearing AT ANY TIME to establish cause to petition the President to remove Cox due to "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office" if that is your argument.
Wow you are such retarded shill. Look, you were busted like the clueless little moron you are. I like how when you're proven wrong, you quickly change the subject to something else to avoid looking like a complete fool over your remarks about the SEC Chair.
LOL You're such a pointless retard I don't think I will bother. Last msg to you. Bye ignoramus!
Who is Professor Bainbridge? Does he agree with me? I assume he does. Which makes you look all the more ignorant and stupid.
Those are not "simply arguments" you clueless idiot. Those are WELL KNOWN cases establishing the fact that the SEC Chair CAN be fired by the president.
You are evidently ignorant of the SEC, the tenure of its Commissioner(s!) and the scope of Presidential Power.
What's funnier is that you tried to mock McCain for it while being ignorant yourself. Pwned!
By the way, I haven't conceded that you're correct about McCain's statement about the SEC Chairman's tenure.
Bainbridge's hypotheses have not been proven out; there has never been an SEC Chairman removed in this manner. It remains to be seen if the President truly has this authority...and McCain has yet to prove so nonetheless.
So far, without McCain taking positive steps to prove Cox's "neglect of duty" using the authority at his disposal, these are simply hollow campaign promises.
McCain was right. Cox has allowed the ETF's which double and triple short groups of stocks. Big money uses his ignorance to develop trading approaches that drive down the price of stocks. They use the change in the up ticks rules and the lack of enforcement of naked shorting to destroy more capital than Communism. Cox more than anyone is responsible for the crash of 2008....
garygw 3 years ago
McCain on CBS "60 Minutes" 8/21/08:
By the way, technically he cant be quote, fired. But Ill tell you, when Im president, if I want somebody to resign, they resign.
FAIL!
dogstar7 3 years ago
Too funny. The Obama shills here are shilling so hard they cannot admit they are wrong even when they have been utterly and comprehensively demolished.
At last count, the Supreme Court, 2 circuit courts, at least 2 law professors, and a specialty law journal say that McCain is right that the SEC Chair CAN be fired for cause. Obviously, those who say he CAN'T be fired are wrong.
dogstar7 can't provide a cite because his cite is Keith "I play a legal eagle on TV" Olbermann. How I laughed.
sklanger 3 years ago
whatever...
dogstar7 3 years ago
OMG more case law:
"Members of the Commission, in turn, are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and subject to removal by the President for cause; its chairman is selected by and serves at the pleasure of the President." Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (DC Cir. 2008).
dogstar7, give up. You're only making yourself look like an ignorant douchebag. Everyone from the courts to Professors Sunstein and Bainbridge say you are wrong.
You probably fail at life too. :)
sklanger 3 years ago
"sklanger is arguing a hypothetical: Can the President fire the Chairman of the SEC? No, otherwise there would be precedent in history."
There IS precedent you ignoramus.
SEC v. Blinder, Robinson & Co. (10th Cir. 1988): "it is commonly understood that the President may remove a commissioner...for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."
Not to mention your argument is dumb. So Andrew Johnson couldn't be impeached because there was no precedent as he was the first? Really?
sklanger 3 years ago
I've had quite enough abuse from you.
If you are unaware, there IS NO precedent in history because NO PRESIDENT HAS EVER FIRED THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.
The other reason that you are trying to advance a hypothetical argument is that President Bush has NO PLANS to confront, let alone take any action whatsoever against, Chairman Cox...nor is John McCain taking Congressional action to sanction Cox.
It's a non-issue
dogstar7 3 years ago
The truth of the matter is that John McCain is scapegoating Cox, who has already stated that he plans to resign in January anyway.
McCain is delivering empty boats and leveling incrimination instead of offering positive direction.
Rant all you want. Nothing has come of this ridiculous bluster about Cox other than ridicule against McCain.
dogstar7 3 years ago
The truth of the matter is that you were trying to ridicule McCain's statement on firing the SEC Chair for cause because you thought -- wrongly -- that it cannot be done and that the president had no authority.
You were proven wrong. Court precedent says he CAN fire the SEC chief for cause. I've quoted the cases again and again but you are obviously retarded. Clearly the law does not matter for Obama shills.
Stick to taking pictures. Leave the law to experts. You fail.
sklanger 3 years ago
Wrong. There is legal precedent that the president CAN fire the SEC chairman. That it was never done doesn't mean it can't be done, do you understand the difference, idiot?
The President was never impeached before Andrew Johnson. That he was never impeached up till that point does not mean that he cannot be impeached, since he clearly could be, by law.
By law, the president can fire the SEC chairman. There is LEGAL PRECEDENT for it. Keep squirming. It's funny to watch you flailing and failing.
sklanger 3 years ago
Keep arguing something that hasn't happened, won't happen, can't happen, and never will happen.
That's the definition of futile.
If you think you're making a point here, you're mistaken.
First: it doesn't appear that anyone else is interested.
Second, you're making absolutely no sense whatsoever regardless of what you think your point is.
Lastly, I'm not inclined to be persuaded by your flawed logic.
dogstar7 3 years ago
I've simply been using you to illustrate how absolutely imbecilic this argument has been. Thank you for a job well done offering up utterly meaningless "proofs" for an outcome (Presidential firing of a seated SEC Chair) that will NEVER HAPPEN.
Now go play outside. Grownups are talking here.
dogstar7 3 years ago
I'm owning you. You know you are defeated when you call Supreme Court and circuit court precedents "meaningless".
Face it. You listened to idiots like Olbermann without checking the law yourself. Now that he has been proven to have gotten it all wrong, you are desperately backtracking and changing the subject.
You accuse others of ignorance when you were ignorant yourself. FAIL!
sklanger 3 years ago
"Keep arguing something that hasn't happened, won't happen, can't happen"
But it can happen. The D.C. Circuit, 10th Circuit and the Supreme Court have said that it can happen. And the cases have been quoted to your face again and again. Like so:
SEC v. Blinder, Robinson & Co.: "it is commonly understood that the President may remove a commissioner...for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."
Keep squirming, and ignoring the law. Silly Obama shill.
sklanger 3 years ago
sklanger:
Listen, it's useless for me to argue the fine points law with an auto parts counter attendant, Starbucks barrista, Wal*Mart 'associate' or whatever you do for a living.
Case law does not prove the legality of any act...in particular an act that HAS NOT HAPPENED...such as a future (and not to over-stress, unlikely) President John McCain firing SEC Chair Christopher Cox (who says he will step down in January, regardless).
dogstar7 3 years ago
For the record:
I've never mentioned Obama in this exchange.
None of Sen. Obama's positions on anything at all have been cited by me as an argument for or against McCain on this issue.
dogstar7 3 years ago
Case law is only an indication of how an act may be interpreted by the courts if it is contested.
It's unlikely any President will attempt to fire Cox...so this argument is moot on it's face.
It is even less likely that John McCain has the intestinal fortitude to CHARGE Chairman Cox with MALFEASANCE and force a unprecedented CONSTITUTIONAL SHOWDOWN...instead of simply SCAPEGOATING him for CHEAP POLITICAL POINTS!
dogstar7 3 years ago
Stop lying. Earlier, you said that the president "cannot" fire the SEC chair. Now you're changing your tune to "he can but it's unlikely he will".
I like how you're changing the subject from whether he CAN do so to whether he WILL do so. You fail.
And btw, POTUS can "charge" him with inefficiency. Malfeasance is not necessary. There will be no constitutional showdown, because this is not a constitutional matter. It is statutory law, and has nothing to do with the constitution. You idiot.
sklanger 3 years ago
I'm an attorney. Of course case law proves the legality of an act, you fool. Roe v. Wade does not merely apply to Jane Roe but to all future women who want to get an abortion.
The future acts of abortion have not happened, but they are nevertheless legal under Roe. Likewise, the legal precedent that finds the removal of an SEC commissioner legal proves the legality of such an act in the future.
Do you have ANY idea at all of how the law works? I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself.
sklanger 3 years ago
To everyone else: please don't confuse calling for someone to be removed with actual authority to compel his removal "for cause."
dogstar7 is failing epicly and I'm laughing so hard but I have better things to do now. Enough owning that ignoramus for the day.
sklanger 3 years ago
Who's getting owned?
Who's resorting to obscene insults?
Who's trying to prove a hypothetical?
D'uh!
dogstar7 3 years ago
LA Times:
Six years ago McCain called for the firing of Harvey Pitt, Bush's first SEC chairman, after accounting scandals at Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. Pitt announced his resignation four months later. Yesterday, Pitt called McCain's remarks "a lot of sound and fury."
"The true mark of leadership is focusing on constructive solutions, rather than asserting blame," he said.
Cox said he's always been clear about his intent to leave the SEC when the Bush administration ends in January 2009.
dogstar7 3 years ago
Wow some dumbass below said "a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president" when in reality the SEC Chair can be removed for cause as McCain has said.
Apparently the idiot below just can't bring himself to admit that he was wrong. Too funny.
Even more amusing are the clumsy attempts at changing the subject... asking a DUMB question about why an official serving at the pleasure of the President can't be removed by ANOTHER branch of government. LOL!
sklanger 3 years ago
Not changing the subject.
sklanger is arguing a hypothetical: Can the President fire the Chairman of the SEC?
No, otherwise there would be precedent in history.
Fact: No President has been successful in removing a seated SEC Chairman.
This is hypothetical because of Cox's stated intention of stepping down at the end of the Bush Administration.
This is all another sideshow, anyway.
Another empty boast by McCain about what he;ll do when he's crowned ruler.
dogstar7 3 years ago
So we have two Supreme Court decisions, at least two circuit court decisions, and Obama's own legal advisor agreeing (with McCain) that the president CAN fire the SEC Chair for cause.
But some retard below (dogstar7) wants you to think that the SEC Chair can't be fired. Hilarious.
Some people stubbornly do not want to "concede" the point, but rest assured that they are ignoramuses who have no idea what they are talking about.
Moral of the story: don't mindlessly parrot talking points.
sklanger 3 years ago
"...for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."
There's the operative term: "for cause"
Still no response to the question:
If there is cause for firing Cox, why hasn't McCain convened a Senate Hearing to establish it?
If McCain has a leadership role in his party, then why has President Bush proclaimed his SUPPORT for Cox...without being condemned by the Congressional minority leaders?
Why does McCain have to wait until he's President before taking action?
dogstar7 3 years ago
If Cox is guilty of malfeasance and neglect of duty, as McCain alleges...if Cox is ruining the American economy as we watch... then why wait until the election?
Is that putting "Country First"???
No, that's putting election to office first!
"I haven't used my Senate authority to address this crisis in the meantime, but make me the Emperor/President and I can simply force everyone to do as I say!"
McCain: No Leadership - Lack of Duty
dogstar7 3 years ago
In fact, Obama's own legal advisor Cass Sunstein agrees with McCain (from his book Free Markets & Social Justice):
"The relevant provisions allow the president to discharge the commissioner 'for cause'...allow[ing] him to remove officials under certain circumstances...the president has very broad removal power over the commissioners of independent agencies...They are not, as a matter of statutory law, 'independent' of him at all."
Again, don't let the blustering shill below mislead you. :-)
sklanger 3 years ago
To everyone else:
SEC v. Blinder, Robinson & Co. (10th Cir. 1988): "it is commonly understood that the President may remove a commissioner...for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."
Ergo, a president can fire an SEC Chair for cause, exactly as McCain said.
The courts have spoken. Don't let the blustering shill below mislead you.
sklanger 3 years ago
Maybe McCain will nominate is son, Andrew, to be the next SEC Chairman.
Andrew K. McCain, a son of Republican presidential nominee John McCain, sat on the boards of Silver State Bank and of its parent, Silver State Bancorp, starting in February but resigned in July citing "personal reasons".
Nevada regulators closed Silver State on Friday, September 5th, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was appointed receiver of the bank.
McCain and Savings and Loans: See "Keating Five"
dogstar7 3 years ago
McCain has a disturbing pattern of looking for scapegoats. He scapegoated Gen Casey when Iraw was not going well and now he is after this guy that has actually done a lot of good things for investors.
Penguin367 3 years ago
As though the firing of a single individual could change the course of our financial culture! Even if it could be done.
The perfidy of of our top financiers would best be purged by allowing them to fail. Sure it would mean some very hard years, but we would emerge from the depression cleansed.
This dysfunctional culture must not be kept on life support with hundreds of billions of our future. Let their illiquidity be their doom.
praxbaffle 3 years ago
Oh, wait. When such an appointee has been proved to be completely inadequate and ignorant of his job, he can be removed. Not by political positioning, but in defense of the American public. Quit watching MSNBC and do some research.
morse03 3 years ago
WRONG!
While the president nominates and the Senate confirms the SEC chair, a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president.
McCain evidently is ignorant of the SEC, the tenure of it's Commissioner and the limits of Presidential Powers.
FAIL!
dogstar7 3 years ago
"a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president."
WRONG!
Humphrey's Executor v. U.S.: "any commissioner may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."
SEC v. Blinder, Robinson & Co. (10th Cir. 1988): "it is commonly understood that the President may remove a commissioner...for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."
A President CAN fire an SEC Chair for cause.
dogstar7 = EPIC FAIL!
sklanger 3 years ago
You fucking failed so hard you are still eating the failcake in your next life.
"The Chairman of the SEC serves as such solely at the pleasure of the President." Pitt & Shapiro, Securities Regulation by Enforcement: A Look Ahead at the Next Decade, 7 Yale Journal on Regulation (1990).
Terms of removal by the President are "very broad and...could sustain removal...for any number of actual or perceived transgressions." (DC Circuit citing Bowsher v. Synar in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB).
FAIL!
sklanger 3 years ago
sklanger:
What's up with the obscenity and vulgar language?
No one else was using that tone with you.
I can read Professor Bainbridge's blog as well as you. Those are simply arguments for McCain's case.
If Senator McCain has cause to charge Chairman Cox with malfeasance, HE SHOULD DO SO IMMEDIATELY!
McCain can convene a Senate hearing AT ANY TIME to establish cause to petition the President to remove Cox due to "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office" if that is your argument.
dogstar7 3 years ago
This is another one of the many marvelous things McCain promises that he will do when...AND ONLY WHEN...he is elected President.
This is the same as his boast that He and He Alone will find and capture Osama Bin Laden...once He's elected!
Why can't this be done now?
McCain has the GOP nomination. He is the presumptive head of his party. His party still holds the Oval Office.
Has he NO LEADERSHIP?
dogstar7 3 years ago
Wow you are such retarded shill. Look, you were busted like the clueless little moron you are. I like how when you're proven wrong, you quickly change the subject to something else to avoid looking like a complete fool over your remarks about the SEC Chair.
LOL You're such a pointless retard I don't think I will bother. Last msg to you. Bye ignoramus!
sklanger 3 years ago
Who is Professor Bainbridge? Does he agree with me? I assume he does. Which makes you look all the more ignorant and stupid.
Those are not "simply arguments" you clueless idiot. Those are WELL KNOWN cases establishing the fact that the SEC Chair CAN be fired by the president.
You are evidently ignorant of the SEC, the tenure of its Commissioner(s!) and the scope of Presidential Power.
What's funnier is that you tried to mock McCain for it while being ignorant yourself. Pwned!
sklanger 3 years ago
sklanger:
Since that was not your last message, as you promised, maybe you can answer my question.
Why won't McCain convene a Senate Hearing on Chairman Cox IMMEDIATELY?
If, as you argue, Cox can be fired by the President, why doesn't McCain establish Cox's "malfeasance" and force Bush's hand...RIGHT NOW!!?
That would be putting "Country First", wouldn't it?
If McCain has a sollution, BRING IT!
John McCain would rather lose America's Economic Strength than lose the election.
dogstar7 3 years ago
By the way, I haven't conceded that you're correct about McCain's statement about the SEC Chairman's tenure.
Bainbridge's hypotheses have not been proven out; there has never been an SEC Chairman removed in this manner. It remains to be seen if the President truly has this authority...and McCain has yet to prove so nonetheless.
So far, without McCain taking positive steps to prove Cox's "neglect of duty" using the authority at his disposal, these are simply hollow campaign promises.
dogstar7 3 years ago