|
gradenko_2000 posted:You just print out a bunch of them with the names and dates blank, but already have them pre-signed. Don't tell sovereign citizens this they might try and pass more bad checks.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:As much as I would love to go into more detail about Ted Cruz loving, can you expand on this a bit? I get that this was some shady poo poo but it always seems to me people at that level are untouchable legally speaking. This was already touched on in the thread but once RICO/FCPA spins up smaller fish like the aforementioned senior managers get the chance to make deals. It's legislation pointed at eating the snake from tail to head. These guys had every single chance to not cause international crimes, so gently caress em. They will slowly get squeezed out until they rat out their superiors or take the majority of their adult life in prison. gently caress them. The poo poo they were party to destabilized nations and killed hundreds of thousands of people. These people most likely will be caught materially funding ISIS. They're not Americans, so I can't really speak to their rights, but they're financial war criminals and I hope they live their lives in abject pain and misery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
Is there anything besides decorum that stops Obama from yanking Merrick Garland's SCotUS nomination on Election Night and nominating Sri Srinivasan instead? "Y'all had eight months to vote on Garland. I got tired of waiting, so now you can vote on Srinivasan."
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Is there anything besides decorum that stops Obama from yanking Merrick Garland's SCotUS nomination on Election Night and nominating Sri Srinivasan instead? "Y'all had eight months to vote on Garland. I got tired of waiting, so now you can vote on Srinivasan." Decorum is all you really need for President Obama.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Is there anything besides decorum that stops Obama from yanking Merrick Garland's SCotUS nomination on Election Night and nominating Sri Srinivasan instead? "Y'all had eight months to vote on Garland. I got tired of waiting, so now you can vote on Srinivasan."
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
It'd be a pretty dick move to Garland though
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:It'd be a pretty dick move to Garland though Yeah, dude got legit emotional during his part of the announcement. It'd be a tremendously dick move by Obama to yank the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
Yeah the SCOTUS thread had this discussion already. It would be extremely out of character for the President to pull his nomination given the circumstances. If I'm not mistaken it does expire automatically when the 114th Congress is gaveled out and the 115th is gaveled in. Some people float the idea of then actually Lame Duck Obama recess appointing someone in the seconds it takes the speaker to raise and lower the gavel, but that's a little out there. It could happen if Clinton wins and McConnell holds on to his majority and also signals that Clinton is just too drat female/communist/murdererd Vince Foster to be allowed to appoint a Justice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
If Clinton wins the nomination/election, I fully expect RBG to retire at the very end of this court's session. (Probably another thing that has come up in the Supreme Court thread.) So the GOP would have to decide whether they can wait 3.5 years of a 4-year presidential term to "let the people vote" on her replacement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Having a 4-3 conservative majority seems like a good deal for Republicans. I'm not sure they would confirm at all in that case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
Bastard Tetris posted:This was already touched on in the thread but once RICO/FCPA spins up smaller fish like the aforementioned senior managers get the chance to make deals. It's legislation pointed at eating the snake from tail to head. These guys had every single chance to not cause international crimes, so gently caress em. They will slowly get squeezed out until they rat out their superiors or take the majority of their adult life in prison. gently caress them. The poo poo they were party to destabilized nations and killed hundreds of thousands of people. These people most likely will be caught materially funding ISIS. They're not Americans, so I can't really speak to their rights, but they're financial war criminals and I hope they live their lives in abject pain and misery. RICO is much more powerful than the FCPA but both are similar in that being anywhere near wrongdoing is potentially enough to gently caress you, even if you didn't know about it. In FCPA staying willfully ignorant as to where the money is going is just as bad as directly saying exactly who should be paid off and how much they should get. That makes a defense much much more difficult and causes people to be a lot more willing to flip. And once you have underlings as witnesses it becomes a lot easier to flip managers or get a plea deal to nail CEOs because they know that your average jury isn't going to buy the excuse of "I wasn't being willfully ignorant about where $XX million went, you can't micromanage every dollar in a company this large".
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:If Clinton wins the nomination/election, I fully expect RBG to retire at the very end of this court's session. (Probably another thing that has come up in the Supreme Court thread.) So the GOP would have to decide whether they can wait 3.5 years of a 4-year presidential term to "let the people vote" on her replacement. She has signaled zero interest in retiring. She could change her mind, of course, but she's had cancer scares twice and that wasn't enough to get her off the bench. She definitely won't retire while there's Republicans in charge of who's replacing her.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:If Clinton wins the nomination/election, I fully expect RBG to retire at the very end of this court's session. (Probably another thing that has come up in the Supreme Court thread.) So the GOP would have to decide whether they can wait 3.5 years of a 4-year presidential term to "let the people vote" on her replacement. If RBG retires, the Supreme Court is now 4-3 and then President Clinton is facing two nomination fights, or the prospect of a judiciary that's probably not all that better from when Scalia was still here. That sounds like advantage McConnell, since even in the face of overwhelming pressure he could allow one nomination to get through, stall the SC again at 4-4, and then "well those darned Democrats just don't want to negotiate"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Has anyone official said that RICO might be in play for this bribery news? Or are we all hypothesizing and hoping
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:You just print out a bunch of them with the names and dates blank, but already have them pre-signed. Shhhh! Don't give out the secrets of The Campus! Jack Ryan Jr. will come after you!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
If the democrats do not take the senate and Clinton/Sanders is elected, the republicans will not allow a nomination. This of course assumes that the current republican power structure is still in place after Trump/contested convention/maybe party purge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Yeah there is no way a Republican controlled senate lets a Democrat appoint a SC justice without some serious changes w/r/t how the party operates. Sometime in the 2020's: "In a 1-1 decision..."
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
I'm not an accelerationist but seeing this country break down due to the highest court not being able to function once we are down to five justices will certainly be interesting in the "may you live in interesting times" sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:If RBG retires, the Supreme Court is now 4-3 and then President Clinton is facing two nomination fights, or the prospect of a judiciary that's probably not all that better from when Scalia was still here. Yeah, if one of the left leave the bench before a confirmation is through, you'll hear a lot that the Constitution doesn't require nine justices. Every republican involved would lose a primary in a heartbeat if they took any action to go from a 4-3 conservative majority to a 5-4 liberal one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
Nosre posted:Has anyone official said that RICO might be in play for this bribery news? Or are we all hypothesizing and hoping Well the story just broke so investigations probably haven't even started to spin up yet so even FCPA charges are speculation at this point. From the descriptions and quotes in the articles though major FCPA violations certainly occurred, as did money laundering and violations of international sanctions. Like I and others have mentioned if they were slinging money around Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the general Middle East as liberally as described to secure drilling and transit rights there's almost no way that some of the money didn't end up in the hands of ISIS. Using RICO is probably unlikely, as using it against the companies involved would be completely unprecedented. The FBI doesn't want their wrecking ball taken away so they don't use it very often. They worry that levying the sort of punishment it carries against anyone but clearly "evil" people like the mob or cartels would probably make the public, congress, and perhaps the courts ask whether such a law is fair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
What legal or extralegal recourse does the executive have in this situation? Could they have the senate locked out of the building for the period of time it'd take to be considered in "recess"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:Yeah, if one of the left leave the bench before a confirmation is through, you'll hear a lot that the Constitution doesn't require nine justices. Every republican involved would lose a primary in a heartbeat if they took any action to go from a 4-3 conservative majority to a 5-4 liberal one. it's precisely this unwavering stubborn self-righteousness that led to our current group of presidential candidates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Really this 4-4 nonsense feels like the beginning of what may become a big political deal. What happens if the Senate simply refuses to allow a functioning Supreme Court but the people not being able to vote out congress because of a combination of gerrymandering and rural, less populated areas being more influential results in the stalemate to continue indefinitely? The only thing really stopping them from scuttling the system is the threat of being beaten in an election but now don't have to worry about that. It's going to be a while for someone other than RGB to retire or die but it's a little scary to think that this might just be the foreshock for a real crisis to how our government (that has been built on the idea that politicians are acting in good faith) works. I know the GOP endgame is to hold out until they eventually win the presidency then slam through three Scalia clones but I'm not sure what happens in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
I think there's an inevitable backlash brewing. People know our government is nonfunctional and that something has to change. The problem is the "for my team to win your team has to lose" tribal mentality that pervades both sides of the political spectrum and I have no idea how you go about defusing that situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Yeah from what I understand everyone hates congress but is ok with their own representative. That sounds like it will take a lot to overcome and if both sides are blamed for the quagmire and Serious people on TV talk about how we need to compromise it would be hard to unseat the people that are actually causing it. If the government just can't function and people aren't willing to take an honest look at how to fix that (or are actively rooting for it not to be able to in regards to the Tea Party) I don't know what we do. Congress is an absolute mess because of the threat of crazy primaries so I can't fathom how this resolves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
In the latest "god dammit college kids, stop making progressive issues look stupid" news; Black woman accuses white man of cultural appropriation for having dreadlocks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:What legal or extralegal recourse does the executive have in this situation? Could they have the senate locked out of the building for the period of time it'd take to be considered in "recess"? "I will pardon whoever brings me the head of Mitch McConnell"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I think there's an inevitable backlash brewing. People know our government is nonfunctional and that something has to change. The problem is the "for my team to win your team has to lose" tribal mentality that pervades both sides of the political spectrum and I have no idea how you go about defusing that situation. Bring back earmarks. Seriously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted:Bring back earmarks. I agree that would be a good first step.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
God the reporting around this Clinton email poo poo has been so bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:In the latest "god dammit college kids, stop making progressive issues look stupid" news; Black woman accuses white man of cultural appropriation for having dreadlocks. There's no cultural precedent for white men having dreadlocks though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I think there's an inevitable backlash brewing. People know our government is nonfunctional and that something has to change. The problem is the "for my team to win your team has to lose" tribal mentality that pervades both sides of the political spectrum and I have no idea how you go about defusing that situation. I don't know, I feel the social/culture wars are too entrenched for this to ever change. I cannot ever see myself voting for anything close to a Republican as a transwomen who is also a lesbian. Just look at the recent spate of Kim Davis laws. I can't say those people would want to personally kill, but I don't think they'd mind tossing LGBT people in an oubliette and throwing away the key. And this kind of issue effects all kinds of minorities as Trump makes clear. I don't see anything of Eisenhower left in the Republican party, someone willing to let the law stand in spirit and not just word. Kasich tries to talk that, but just look at his record or how he responds to Roe V Wade. It just seems like that everyone knows the power that legislation can have and the stakes are too high to give up control of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
e: 
Nostalgia4Infinity fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:There's no cultural precedent for white men having dreadlocks though? Ancient celts, greeks. I mean, as a black dreadlock haver I say white people shouldnt wear dreadlocks because: 1) It always looks bad with their hair texture 2) White people do some atrocious poo poo to get their hair to lock and reinforces all of the negative stereotypes out there for people w/ dreadlocks whose hair texture doesn't require neglect to lock But I'd never try to base my opposition on cultural appropriation. Unless they were going hardcore fake-rastafarian, then I'd be upset as a Jamaican with rasta family members.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:What legal or extralegal recourse does the executive have in this situation? Could they have the senate locked out of the building for the period of time it'd take to be considered in "recess"? "I will veto every single bill passed until the Senate Republicans fulfill the constitutional duty they swore an oath to uphold" They'll break eventually, even if it takes something like FAA appropriations running out and grounding the entire US air system. The economic hit would be awful but better than a full constitutional crisis. Locking them out of the building (or locking them IN until they hold hearings) would arguably be a violation of the speech and debate clause of the constitution, which protects members of the legislature from being arrested while going to or from Congress. Or more specifically you could lock them out but you wouldn't be allowed to arrest them for ignoring the blockade or breaking into the chamber.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:In the latest "god dammit college kids, stop making progressive issues look stupid" news; Black woman accuses white man of cultural appropriation for having dreadlocks. Dreadlocks on white people are an abomination, good for her.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:There's no cultural precedent for white men having dreadlocks though? I'm almost certain that that's a student film. But you can be certain that in the long history of western civilization that there have been white dudes running around with dreadlocks before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:There's no cultural precedent for white men having dreadlocks though? Yeah this a great topic worth arguing about. These types of discussions are what really gets at the heart of structural inequities and holding people with power accountable for abuses. Let's really have a long, drawn out discussion about this very topic!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I'm almost certain that that's a student film. But you can be certain that in the long history of western civilization that there have been white dudes running around with dreadlocks before. Well "white dudes" didn't really exist until fairly recently. Are dreadlocks a tradition that dates back to Africa or is it primarily Afro-Carribean? Not that it matters w/r/t appropriation, I'm just curious. menino posted:Yeah this a great topic worth arguing about. These types of discussions are what really gets at the heart of structural inequities and holding people with power accountable for abuses. Let's really have a long, drawn out discussion about this very topic! All war is class war eh comrade?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:In the latest "god dammit college kids, stop making progressive issues look stupid" news; Black woman accuses white man of cultural appropriation for having dreadlocks. The video is edited(or doesn't have the full encounter, that dude was being an rear end in a top hat to her prior to the camera being turned on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 15:19
|
|
