|
V-Men posted:It's not a rock solid case (yet) and Garland is risk-averse enough that he won't indict unless it is rock solid. There's enough wriggle room that Trump can claim (in court) it was just overzealous aides who packed classified materials or anyone else but him and he never knew where they were because aides and assistants and lawyers handled all that for him. There's enough wiggle room based on what has been publicly revealed so far, but there's still a lot to it that hasn't gone public. And the administration wouldn't have gone as far as it already has unless they either had something more solid, or had good reason to believe that they will find something more solid. VitalSigns posted:That vote certainly would have failed if Dems had actually opposed her enough to show up and not, ya know, voted for her because there weren't enough Republicans there. That is just arithmetic. Even in this ultra-partisan landscape filled with Congressional obstructionism, even the GOP isn't whipping against federal judge nominations. As far as I can tell, not a single Biden federal judge confirmation has faced an all-out "all 50 GOP senators show up and vote No" opposition. For that matter, almost all of them actually got GOP crossover votes. In many cases, this happened even when one or two Dem senators didn't show up, granting the GOP the ability to block or delay the nomination just as you're describing here. But instead of playing games with the nominations to slow the proceedings or force the Dems to get everyone back to DC, the GOP appears to have simply waved them through without seriously whipping up opposition, apparently judging that it was not worth it to waste everyone's time with pointless obstruction. And if even the McConnell GOP doesn't think it's worth obstructing, it probably really isn't worth it. For example, the nomination of Alison J. Nathan, where 3 Dems didn't show up to the vote - but 3 GOP senators voted Yea to make sure that it passed anyway. Or Mary Dimke, where 7 Dems didn't vote, but 23 GOP senators didn't bother to show up and vote either, and 4 GOP senators crossed the aisle to vote Yea. Or Patricia Giles, where 3 Dems didn't vote, but 22 Republicans crossed the aisle to vote for her. Thanks to that, Biden has confirmed exactly as many federal judges as Trump had at this point in his term, even though Trump had a larger Senate majority than Biden did. I'm not going to speculate about why, but even the GOP is still being bipartisan about federal judge nominations. It doesn't really seem to be a point that's been contentious thus far.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 14:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 01:17 |
|
|
one of the few things that makes me feel better about the tangled gearwheel pile that is our government is biden's inexplicably cruise control success with judicial appointments, but i am open to that becoming a fresh disappointment if these judges turn out to be tepid mince
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 14:14
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
For lower judges yeah, but that's to be expected since there isn't any obvious GOP advantage from obstructionism. Less than 50% of federal judges are like Cannon because you still have moderate Republicans on benches, so as long as both parties are cordially voting for each other's judges, Republicans will benefit. Whenever Republicans get within striking distance of total domination, you can expect this will change just like it did for the courts where they went full obstructionist already. For Democrats the calculus is the opposite, it didn't make sense for them to wave through "chudges" to use D&D parlance, as we can see now with the freakout over a pro-Trump ruling from a Trump appointment that Democrats voted for. Maybe they believed the fiction that because she was from a respectable family and vetted by the Nice Republicans at the Federalist Society and came highly recommended by Chuck and Nancy's good friend Mitch McConnell, that she couldn't be a "chudge" since she represented the good Republican Party which we need to be strong. Or maybe they just wanted more vacay time on Epstein Island. Either way here we are. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Sep 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 14:21
|
|
|
Is there any reason for the executive branch to not simply... ignore this judges orders? Or is the new standard that any judge in the country regardless of jurisdiction is now allowed to make decrees without legal basis that bind the executive branch? Because that seems like an absolutely insane precedent to set.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 14:22
|
|
|
Has the house said when the J6 hearings will start up again? I know they said September, but I'm guessing not until next week, at least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 14:32
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Is there any reason for the executive branch to not simply... ignore this judges orders? I know we're all high on that good good Dark Brandon poo poo, but we're talking about the potential indictment of a former President. This administration, for better or for worse, wants to do this right—so shirking the courts is not gonna happen. And as much of a poison pill as 'DeCoRuM' has been over the past, I dunno, 15 years, it's probably for the best that we don't have the Executive actively ignoring the Judicial when it comes to criminal prosecution of political enemies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 14:36
|
|
|
I know Biden doesn't directly control the investigation or its pace, but I think he is fine letting this slow motion train wreck play out during the midterms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 14:39
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Is there any reason for the executive branch to not simply... ignore this judges orders? Well the ruling can be appealed, I'm not sure what the advantage of ignoring it would be. Do they expect to win the appeal? Then just do that. Do they expect to lose the appeal? Well then are they going to ignore the Supreme Court too? It would be awesome if they did, but if they aren't willing to then what's the point of defying a lower judge only to go "yes honey" when SCOTUS weighs in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 14:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well except at the Supreme Court level right. And the DC Circuit which they filibustered under Obama The difference of course is that Biden is nominating competent judges while Trump pushed in weirdos that's never even been in a court sometimes, so it's not exactly apples and oranges.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:The difference of course is that Biden is nominating competent judges while Trump pushed in weirdos that's never even been in a court sometimes, so it's not exactly apples and oranges. Correct. Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, but yes that is another reason why voting for GOP judges didn't make sense even if Mitch is being nice to some of Biden's nominees now. The GOP judges were actually incompetent or evil and should have been opposed regardless of decorum, but this one wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 14:54
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Is there any reason for the executive branch to not simply... ignore this judges orders? The executive branch does not get to just ignore the judiciary. That's not how the government works.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 15:39
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The executive branch does not get to just ignore the judiciary. That's not how the government works.  VitalSigns posted:Correct.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The executive branch does not get to just ignore the judiciary. That's not how the government works.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 15:48
|
|
|
Simplex posted:Aileen Cannon has made her decision; now let her enforce it We're supposed to be fighting authoritarianism, not encouraging it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
Can we for once take a break from the loving "why don't we just overthrow the government?" Erich Frommfest?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
Maybe LIV golf was created by the Saudis in order to funnel money to Trump under the basis of using Trump Golf courses in exchange for Israel's nuclear secrets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
I think the argument being made is "This judge has no jurisdiction here, her opinion has no power"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The executive branch does not get to just ignore the judiciary. That's not how the government works. Sure it is, just look up what Lincoln got up to. The question isn't whether they "get to", the executive has the guns and the judges do not, so they get to, if they want to. Is Cannon going to karate kick the FBI's door down and kung-fu fight them for the classified documents? No. They are generally okay with letting the judicial branch usurp authority from the other branches though so they just let it happen almost all the time (exception: Lincoln). As they will in this case, since they can appeal and either win the appeal and get what they want anyway, or lose the appeal which would make defying Cannon for being a "random judge" pointless if they aren't going to defy the higher courts too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
SniHjen posted:I think the argument being made is "This judge has no jurisdiction here, her opinion has no power" That argument could be easily made in court
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:We're supposed to be fighting authoritarianism, not encouraging it. I feel like a thread about the limits of judicial authority might be interesting. If the court ruled 6-3 to reinstate Trump and make him president for life, would Biden just have to sigh "yes honey" and peacefully turn the government over to a dictatorship because defying a court order is The Real authoritarianism E: VV lol yeah probably so VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Sep 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I feel like a thread about the limits of judicial authority might be interesting. Such a thread would either have to be modded into oblivion or would instantly lead to Secret Service scrutiny, I fear
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
Clearly what the DoJ should do is appeal the decision, then claim Executive Privilege over their actual argument in court, but they should tell the court "Trust me bro, is real good." The court will have no choice but to rule in favor of the DoJ, because Executive Privilege is all encompassing and there is a chance that the DoJ might have a really good argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:I'd think Israel because I feel Saudi Arabia would be more concerned about getting that info. Iran info is next in line for sure, but most smart people are pretty sure Iran does not have nukes, but that Israel does. So Israel's deets seem more valuable in this not-so-hypothetical scenario. The Saudis and Israel have been fairly cool with each other for awhile now due to their shared hatred of Iran. If I'm betting, money is on Iran. Plus Trump and the Israelis got on so well during his tenure it rather soured relations with the Biden Administration, they were being so partisan in who they supported. Not that Trump is ever above betraying allies, for money or pique or 'just cuz.' Oracle fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Sep 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
You have to ignore this judge, otherwise, you are creating the precedence, that any judge, anywhere, can make demands and judgements, in any case, anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
SniHjen posted:You have to ignore this judge, otherwise, you are creating the precedence, that any judge, anywhere, can make demands and judgements, in any case, anywhere. Eh not if she's overruled on appeal, then it sets the opposite precedent. If her judgment is upheld on appeal then what do you do, the appellate court has jurisdiction so...
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well except at the Supreme Court level right. And the DC Circuit which they filibustered under Obama The Supreme Court is quite a different thing, politically. But even then, Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination didn't face party-line obstructionism (she got 3 GOP votes). The rest, I don't really get. It seems to be based on the idea that Cannon is a new style of judge, different from what came before, and that the GOP will only nominate those types of judges from now on. But I don't really see that being true. The GOP has been drawing from the Federalist Society rolls for decades. Yeah, Trump's Supreme Court nominees were Federalist Society members...but so were GWB's. Thomas, Alito, and Roberts* were all Federalist Society members. Many of the Bushes' lawyers and legal aides were Federalist Society members. Even Reagan had a fair few Federalist Society members in the ranks of his administration. The Federalist Society, the spearhead of the GOP's partisan project to take over the judicial branch, has been around for forty years. And the conservative legal movement that put it together is even older than that. *Roberts would object strongly to this sentence, and has sought to make clear to reporters that he never actually paid membership dues during his time participating in Federalist Society activities and leadership GlyphGryph posted:Is there any reason for the executive branch to not simply... ignore this judges orders? This is a pretty excessive reaction to a single pre-trial ruling on the handling of evidence. Judges make dumb rulings all the time, that's what the appeals process is for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The Supreme Court is quite a different thing, politically. But even then, Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination didn't face party-line obstructionism (she got 3 GOP votes). It seems to me that as the Republican Party has radicalized, the Federalist Society has gotten bolder about nominating more and more unqualified judges, do you disagree? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Sep 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay? So what is your point then. That Cannon is fine? Or that she's bad but every Republican judge back through the Bush era would do the same (and therefore I suppose we can expect SCOTUS to back her?) Or that she's just a one-off mistake and not the exact kind of judge Republicans are trying to stack on the courts? Can't speak for MP but their contention, which I would agree with, seems to be that while this is an absolutely garbage decision, the over-the-top theatrics about it being horrendous the Democrats somehow let her onto the bench implies there weren't already plenty of judges on the bench who'd have made a similarly garbage decision. It's not that it's fine she's on the bench, it's that she's nothing new and Congress has acted in a surprisingly bipartisan manner to let her and many other garbage judges take lifetime appointments—so getting selectively and excessively angry with her and the entire process over what's ultimately, as MP said, a pre-trial decision over the handling of evidence is just weird.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay? So what is your point then. That Cannon is fine? Or that she's bad but every Republican judge back through the Bush era would do the same (and therefore I suppose we can expect SCOTUS to back her?) Or that she's just a one-off mistake and not the exact kind of judge Republicans are trying to stack on the courts? Why should I agree with the bolded? I haven't seen any evidence on it one way or the other, and researching it myself seems like a huge pain in the rear end just to refute a point you haven't bothered to back up in the first place. You've just asserted that it's true, but you haven't provided any backing at all for that assertion, so I don't really have any reason to think that it's a reasonable assertion. And if Federalist Society judges haven't been getting worse (whether because they're not that bad or because they were always that bad), then your argument for the Dems to change their behavior and go full obstructionist in nominations kind of falls apart. After all, even the highly obstructionist GOP still routinely cross the aisle to help Dem court appointments along (though not nearly to the same level as during the Obama administration, when judges were getting confirmed almost-unanimously even as late as summer 2016), so it's difficult to make a case for the Dems pointlessly going full obstructionist even on votes that are guaranteed GOP wins anyway. In general, I think that the general "politics addict" mindset is very poorly suited to livewatching high-profile court cases, and therefore people (including the media) are catastrophizing over a decision that (by itself) is not particularly consequential. It could lead to more consequential decisions, and definitely shows that the judge is taking some latitude to be excessively favorable to Trump's team at this point, but the special master ruling itself is not a Big Deal. Now, it could become a bigger deal if the appeals court says something truly bizarre, or if she nominates Special Master Steve Bannon, or something like that, but at this point all this amounts to is slowing the DoJ's roll a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 17:29
|
|
|
The DoJ ignoring the Judiciary would possibly give Trump a get out of jail free card. The DoJ would have a legitimate separation of powers argument to hold onto the documents and do whatever they want, but it's also possible the courts would just throw out all the evidence in a trial against Trump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 17:39
|
|
|
Toaster Beef posted:Can't speak for MP but their contention, which I would agree with, seems to be that while this is an absolutely garbage decision, the over-the-top theatrics about it being horrendous the Democrats somehow let her onto the bench implies there weren't already plenty of judges on the bench who'd have made a similarly garbage decision. It's not that it's fine she's on the bench, it's that she's nothing new and Congress has acted in a surprisingly bipartisan manner to let her and many other garbage judges take lifetime appointments—so getting selectively and excessively angry with her and the entire process over what's ultimately, as MP said, a pre-trial decision over the handling of evidence is just weird. Idk maybe I'm in the minority on this but I think putting garbage judges on the courts is probably not good. If you think we shouldn't care because this particular decision isn't a Big Deal, maybe it's not and we shouldn't, but it seems like a bad sign and I'm not sure why I should trust a quote "garbage judge" to get the big stuff right if she's getting the little stuff so wrong that it can't be explained by anything other than obvious partisan favoritism. Main Paineframe posted:Why should I agree with the bolded? I haven't seen any evidence on it one way or the other, and researching it myself seems like a huge pain in the rear end just to refute a point you haven't bothered to back up in the first place. If you're making the same point as Toaster Beef see my response above.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But that seems like an argument that they should have been obstructing garbage judges like her? I don't necessarily disagree with you: Democrats should not be allowing grossly unqualified and deeply partisan judges onto the bench, and the fact that they are is troubling. I'd prefer not having to worry about judges like this one. My point is more geared, I guess, toward what I'd consider to be over-the-top reactions like the poster above who suggested the Executive just ignore the Judiciary in response to this ruling. It's possible I lumped you in with that, which, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
Toaster Beef posted:I don't necessarily disagree with you: Democrats should not be allowing grossly unqualified and deeply partisan judges onto the bench, and the fact that they are is troubling. I'd prefer not having to worry about judges like this one. My point is more geared, I guess, toward what I'd consider to be over-the-top reactions like the poster above who suggested the Executive just ignore the Judiciary in response to this ruling. It's possible I lumped you in with that, which, my bad. Which is actually why I'm surprised to see the argument that she's no different from most any other republican judge appointed in the last 40 years because if that's so then why would we expect an appeal to succeed...
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The executive branch does not get to just ignore the judiciary. That's not how the government works. Funny, it seems like the executive (and legislative) branches in a bunch of states have been expressly ignoring their judiciaries in the recent past on several points, so that is clearly not always how the government works. Sometimes, it seems, they do get to just ignore the judiciary. You can argue that shouldn't be how things work, but we are clearly living in a reality where that is how things work, at least sometimes, so you need a stronger argument to support "they can't" than "because that's not how things work". Plus, surely even you recognize there are limits to this and things judges can declare that will absolutely get ignored by the executive branch. If a judge up and declares that Trump is President, the executive branch is not going to suddenly recognize his presidency until they finish an appeal - they are going to refuse to follow the ruling even if they also appeal it or seek some other legal response. And it is right and proper that they do so. There might be a case they should follow the judicial decree in this particular instance, but you can't realistically believe this as a general rule. Otherwise, there is no legal remedy to Trump just filing for whatever he wants and getting it as long as he has a single judge anywhere in the country reliably on his side, and any case against him can't proceed. The question isn't "should there be a line where the executive ignores the judiciary", it's "where should that line be drawn?" There's a good argument to be made it shouldn't be drawn here, but I think we are getting dangerously close to crossing the line. Deteriorata posted:We're supposed to be fighting authoritarianism, not encouraging it. Allowing judicial dictates without legal grounding to stand for any length of time could just as realistically be argued to be "encouraging authoritarianism". All that said, I concede on consideration in this case the ruling should not be ignored, but it's not for any of those reasons, but practical ones. Ignoring it might bias a future court on this case in favour of Trump, and the damage from following it considering the government has already reviewed the documents might well be minimal. I do think an additional legal remedy in the form of removing the judge in question for misconduct at least must be pursued to avoid worse consequences though, and I hope it is. But in principal, I think these arguments that we must hold decrees without legal bases or jurisdiction from Trump judges sacrosanct is extremely problematic, especially since they had been busy establishing precedent that they do not, will not, and need not follow decrees from judges they disagree with. We are slowly and constantly expanding the scope of what conservatives can get away with in gross violation of the law. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Sep 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
Rigel posted:That argument could be easily made in court Not a snide hypothetical: If a judge rules, "no one is allowed to wear red to work" and I wear red to work, would you say I should have appealed it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Not a snide hypothetical: Depends, is red communist or MAGA in this context?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Interesting to see Barr very publicly going after Trump repeatedly lately It seems like a few of his former higher level people that didn't part ways with him amicably do that. For Barr at least I can see his motivation being in addition to probably worrying about some level of revenge if Trump gets re-elected, he probably wants to confirm the correctness of his decision to sever from Trump. If Trump goes down, Barr was right to get out when he did, if Trump gets re-elected, the wisdom of Barr's decision is less clear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 18:30
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Funny, it seems like the executive (and legislative) branches in a bunch of states have been expressly ignoring their judiciaries in the recent past on several points, so that is clearly not always how the government works. I'm sure you can provide examples of these. GlyphGryph posted:Plus, surely even you recognize there are limits to this and things judges can declare that will absolutely get ignored by the executive branch. If a judge up and declares that Trump is President, the executive branch is not going to suddenly recognize his presidency until they finish an appeal - they are going to refuse to follow the ruling even if they also appeal it or seek some other legal response. And it is right and proper that they do so. This is not within lightyears of what is currently happening. Main Paineframe posted:This is a pretty excessive reaction to a single pre-trial ruling on the handling of evidence. Judges make dumb rulings all the time, that's what the appeals process is for.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm sure you can provide examples of these. The Republican electoral strategy in Ohio was to ignore decrees by the courts, and they did. Yes, another higher court later expressly rewarded them for doing so, but it was only able to do so because they ignored court decrees until then. quote:This is not within lightyears of what is currently happening. Sure. Agreed. I'm not saying it is. But you agree they would be right in ignoring that hypothetical ruling, right? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Sep 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 01:17 |
|
GlyphGryph posted:The Republican electoral strategy in Ohio was to ignore decrees by the courts, and they did. Yes, another higher court later expressly rewarded them for doing so, but it was only able to do so because they ignored court decrees until then. That's now how it worked. GlyphGryph posted:Sure. Agreed. I'm not saying it is. But you agree they would be right in ignoring that hypothetical ruling, right?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 19:14
|
|