|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:There is this thing called "appeals". And "finder of fact." Appellate courts have sharply limited authority to overturn factual findings of a jury. The Iron Rose posted:Neither are binding, and ICJ cases themselves are decided on a case by case basis; previous decisions can be used for informative value, but you're right that they're not precedent in American courts. I was using those cases for illustrative purposes to demonstrate what the international law in regards to the matter is. LOL if you believe any of this. This is "the Iraq War didn't happen because it was against international law" level stuff.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:If its so meaningless and unenforceable then why is the KSA bothering to threaten retaliation and making statements about it? Number Ten Cocks posted:And "finder of fact." Appellate courts have sharply limited authority to overturn factual findings of a jury. Because I'm not talking about enforcement, I'm talking about what the law is? I'd expect at least an ability to distinguish between what may happen in fact and what is lawful in the SCOTUS thread. The bill is legally meaningless. That does not mean that the United States could not proceed to compel redress on the basis of a decision rendered by its courts - it'd just be illegal to do so. also the Iraq war in regards to international law is... pretty complicated, actually. There's a surprising amount of leeway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:33
|
|
Cat Army 
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Was it passed with some legal loop hole in mind where "Yeah this will actually never bear fruit, sorry, you're out of luck! Bye!" was the actual legal thought process of the Congress criters in question or does this actually legitimately allow a law suit to come forward, will go to court unless the Saudi's settle, and compels the President/government to do something about it since it passed Congress? There's no loophole. No one's been forthcoming about their reasoning, but the best guess is that they just didn't really think about the consequences. Originally it was pushed by the far right, and moderate Republicans likely signed on without a second thought based on the simple populism value. Resistance from the Dems and the White House only stiffened their resolve and made the pot look all the sweeter for moderates eager to display some conservative cred before the election, and when Obama vetoed, obviously they couldn't back down from that challenge. I don't recall hearing about any loopholes in the law, other than the fact that the Saudis are exceedingly unlikely to willingly cooperate. Trump won't care, though; ill-conceived populism without concern for the consequences is basically his thing, and he's already demonstrated willingness to endanger fundamental foreign relationships, so he'll enthusiastically support it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Appeals from Texas go first to the same 5th Circuit court that upheld the nationwide injunction against Obama's immigration program and then to a Supreme Court with one more conservative member than the Supreme Court that split 4-4 on DACA when it came to them. FSIA grants a sovereign nation a right to a bench trial. Would be interesting to see if Court's would apply it to claims under JASTA. quote:Nonetheless, state immunity is customary international law. If the United States decided to enforce the judgement, the KSA would respond through the ICJ - and they'd win. This is meaningless. If a plaintiff won a suit against Saudi Arabia, and the judge allowed them to collect via garnishment or execution or what not, then the ICJ can't do poo poo. The ICJ can't enjoin a federal district court, and it can't enforce any of its judgment against the US. the ICJ can say it has jurisdiction over the US regardless if the US signs the treaty or not, but what is the ICJ going to do? What is the UN going to do? Even when the UN voted overwhelming to make the US pay the fine in Nicaragua v US, what did the US do? It chose not to pay it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:This is meaningless. If a plaintiff won a suit against Saudi Arabia, and the judge allowed them to collect via garnishment or execution or what not, then the ICJ can't do poo poo. The ICJ can't enjoin a federal district court, and it can't enforce any of its judgment against the US. the ICJ can say it has jurisdiction over the US regardless if the US signs the treaty or not, but what is the ICJ going to do? What is the UN going to do? Even when the UN voted overwhelming to make the US pay the fine in Nicaragua v US, what did the US do? It chose not to pay it. Far from it! It may not provide precedent, but it nonetheless informs customary international law and serves as legal retrenchment against this growing trend against state immunity. Obviously it will never negatively affect a permanent member of the Security Council, but such a case would absolutely be usable to inform a future case; presumably one where the ICJ has compulsory jurisdiction or a UNSC resolution mandates compliance. Besides, illegal actions taken are still illegal even absent enforcement mechanisms. It may not impact this specific case, but it's sure as hell meaningful to the rest of the international community that's not in the P5. You're basically making that old, tired argument that international law is irrelevant because enforcement mechanisms are not credible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's no loophole. No one's been forthcoming about their reasoning, but the best guess is that they just didn't really think about the consequences. Originally it was pushed by the far right, and moderate Republicans likely signed on without a second thought based on the simple populism value. Resistance from the Dems and the White House only stiffened their resolve and made the pot look all the sweeter for moderates eager to display some conservative cred before the election, and when Obama vetoed, obviously they couldn't back down from that challenge. I don't recall hearing about any loopholes in the law, other than the fact that the Saudis are exceedingly unlikely to willingly cooperate. Trump won't care, though; ill-conceived populism without concern for the consequences is basically his thing, and he's already demonstrated willingness to endanger fundamental foreign relationships, so he'll enthusiastically support it. I would like to point out that it passed both houses by voice vote the first time around, was veto'd by Obama, and then returned to be overridden. 348-77 in the House, 97-1 in the Senate, with Harry Reid as the lone dissenting voice. Not exactly a party line vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:If its so meaningless and unenforceable then why is the KSA bothering to threaten retaliation and making statements about it? If it’s meaningless and unenforceable, why did Obama veto it? Because it’s dumb and it looks bad even if there are no direct consequences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If it’s meaningless and unenforceable, why did Obama veto it? Never said that it was meaningless in terms of practical effect. Its very existence damages international relations for absolutely no reason. In the unfortunate event that a plaintiff somehow won their suit against the KSA, even setting aside the massive international relations snafu that would ensue, enforcement of that ruling by the United States (and subsequent ICJ case, jurisdictional challenge, UNSC resolution, US veto, etc) would damage the international order and faith in international law just like U.S. v. Nicaragua. I'm just saying that the bill sure as hell can't change international law, and no matter what the domestic courts in one state say the ICJ sure as hell isn't going to give them precedence over customary international law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
To recap, sovereign immunity in the US is a statutory right, the ICJ has no actual jurisdiction over the US, the US Supreme Court has already ruled that unless the US accepts an ICJ judgment the judgment isn't enforceable in the US, and international law has no bearing on a federal district court's ability to hear a case against a sovereign nation. but, uh, it informs customary international law and serves as legal retrenchment or something. quote:You're basically making that old, tired argument that international law is irrelevant because enforcement mechanisms are not credible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No one knows what will happen!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:You're basically making that old, tired argument that international law is irrelevant because enforcement mechanisms are not credible. It's not irrelevant; it just isn't law. It should just be called international relation norms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:Far from it! It may not provide precedent, but it nonetheless informs customary international law and serves as legal retrenchment against this growing trend against state immunity. Obviously it will never negatively affect a permanent member of the Security Council, but such a case would absolutely be usable to inform a future case; presumably one where the ICJ has compulsory jurisdiction or a UNSC resolution mandates compliance. If international law is not enforced, it loses credibility and legitimacy. If the US can openly flaunt ICJ rulings, why should any other country willingly submit to the ICJ unless forced to by pressure from that very same US and the very same US allies that refuse to push the US on its own failure to comply? This, incidentally, is why the ICJ is incredibly unlikely to take a case against the US ever again - if court decisions go ignored, that hurts the court more than it hurts the target country. Let's be real here - international law that can't credibly be enforced is irrelevant. Just look at the League of Nations, prohibitions on the use of chemical weapons, and so many other bits of international law that were completely undone by the inability to present credible consequences for violations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If international law is not enforced, it loses credibility and legitimacy. If the US can openly flaunt ICJ rulings, why should any other country willingly submit to the ICJ unless forced to by pressure from that very same US and the very same US allies that refuse to push the US on its own failure to comply? This, incidentally, is why the ICJ is incredibly unlikely to take a case against the US ever again - if court decisions go ignored, that hurts the court more than it hurts the target country. P5 nations can do whatever the gently caress they want, others must (and often do) abide. News at 10. Don't confuse nonappliction of international law to the P5 for wholesale lack of credibility. It's hypocrisy, sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
kelvron posted:I showed writings where he expressed the belief that white males are highly persecuted in America, and conservatives are highly persecuted in America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
How would Obama go about recess appointing Garland in my fantasy world where he drops the mic and burns the bridge out of town instead of being an obedient nice guy liberal - do it sometime in the morning of Jan 3rd so that the pro-forma session bullshit isn't an issue? What is involved with that? Just a signed statement or is there some sort of complicated ritual to it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
zegermans posted:How would Obama go about recess appointing Garland in my fantasy world where he drops the mic and burns the bridge out of town instead of being an obedient nice guy liberal - do it sometime in the morning of Jan 3rd so that the pro-forma session bullshit isn't an issue? That's all it would take, but then he'd be on the bench a year at most and then Trump would replace him on the federal circuit and his spot on the supreme court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
If his recess appointment is going to be shot down anyway he should just appoint himself imo
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That's all it would take, but then he'd be on the bench a year at most and then Trump would replace him on the federal circuit and his spot on the supreme court. Oh, so Trump gets to renominate? I thought it went to a confirmation vote automatically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
President Trump shouldn’t make a nomination. It’s too early. We need to wait for a new president to be elected, one with a mandate from the people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Oh, so Trump gets to renominate? I thought it went to a confirmation vote automatically. The senate can confirm a recess, but they expire if not confirmed and then it's just a vacancy. Recess appointing Garland, while possible, would just create two vacancies for Trump to fill instead of just Scalia's seat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
With both houses of Congress in near-total Republican control it's entirely possible that Congress could simply do something super dumb like end the session after only a few days, then start a new one. Customarily recess appointments expire "at the end of their next Session," which is typically the end of the year when Congress adjourns sine die, but Congressional Republicans could argue that Congress gets to determine when its own sessions happen. It'd go to court, of course, and I'm not certain they'd bother, but it's one avenue of legal fuckery available to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Quorum posted:With both houses of Congress in near-total Republican control it's entirely possible that Congress could simply do something super dumb like end the session after only a few days, then start a new one. Customarily recess appointments expire "at the end of their next Session," which is typically the end of the year when Congress adjourns sine die, but Congressional Republicans could argue that Congress gets to determine when its own sessions happen. It'd go to court, of course, and I'm not certain they'd bother, but it's one avenue of legal fuckery available to them. Nah. They'd just adjourn sine die on January 4th and call themselves back in January 5th via a special session. Wouldn't go to court - it's explicitly within the powers of Congress to do so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
It'd look bad to do that without having a replacement lined up, if anyone who voted R cared about anything. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It'd look bad to do that without having a replacement lined up, if anyone who voted R cared about anything. Probably, but things done at the very beginning of the session have the least impact on the next election, which we'll be a whole ten months away from (22 months if you're worried about the next election that isn't just a couple of state-level offices, which Congress does). Nothing Congress does for a while will matter at all unless it causes an economic downturn they can credibly be blamed for come election time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
What is the likely practical effect of the Saudi suits? I can see a judgement being placed against them, and a US court ordering assets frozen. That would be enforcible inside the US. The question is - what then? I'm assuming it'll be a tit-for-tat asset seizure with what they can get their hands on inside Saudi (or friendly countries let them - Dubai, mabye?) Does this escalate into a full-blown oil-shock when some idiot plaintiff seizes a tanker? More likely, they treat it as a cost of business, get it reduced 100x on appeal, and pay it. They still end up making more than that via oil sales and military subsidies, and they'll continue paying their homegrown terrorists to fuckoff to another country and cause trouble there instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
What are the chances of Democrats blocking any SC nominations until there is an up-down vote on Garland? As in, arguing that he was a legitimate pick by Obama that Congress denied and they will block up the SC until he gets a full and fair hearing. It would be a gesture move since Republicans would almost certainly just vote against him so that Trump's pick gets in but it would force them to actually explain why they rejected a qualified and experienced centrist. The other alternative is just block anything in the last year so RBG only needs to make it 3 years instead of 4. On the Saudi thing, it absolutely is damaging to international law as a concept. It needlessly creates more tension and discredits bodies like the ICJ for no real material benefit. I'd say that Republicans were idiots for pushing it but they probably view that as a favourable outcome. You should wait for the fun shitstorm when a court orders KSA property seized, Trump has a phone call with the King and it's followed by an executive order to not enforce the court order and a new Trump tower opening in Jeddah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:What are the chances of Democrats blocking any SC nominations until there is an up-down vote on Garland? As in, arguing that he was a legitimate pick by Obama that Congress denied and they will block up the SC until he gets a full and fair hearing. It would be a gesture move since Republicans would almost certainly just vote against him so that Trump's pick gets in but it would force them to actually explain why they rejected a qualified and experienced centrist. The other alternative is just block anything in the last year so RBG only needs to make it 3 years instead of 4. The democrats can't block anything- they don't have the ability to filibuster under the new administration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The democrats can't block anything- they don't have the ability to filibuster under the new administration. Yes they do. McConnell could change that but has not yet decided if he will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
If they don't kill the filibuster at the start of the new session, when is their next chance to do it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:
Y'all are obsessed with the ICJ. How does a bill that lets individuals sue in a US court discredit an international body that only nation-states have a right to participate in? Also, congress as a whole, democrats included, overwhelming supported the bill
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Y'all are obsessed with the ICJ. How does a bill that lets individuals sue in a US court discredit an international body that only nation-states have a right to participate in?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:In the Senate, the veto override passed 97-1. Harry Reid voted against it, Kaine & Sanders were absent. Nobody was going to vote against the 9/11 victims two months before an election. Then the senate blamed Obama for not explaining how bad the bill he vetoed was, because of course they did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Also, congress as a whole, democrats included, overwhelming supported the bill This bill is 100% the fault of Republicans, and they know that too because as soon as it passed they blamed it on Obama for not doing a better job convincing them not to override. On the other hand, I don't care about the Saudis or about sovereign immunity so while I understand why politicians wouldn't like this bill I think it's hilarious that it passed and I hope all the consequences Obama warned about come true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:In the Senate, the veto override passed 97-1. Harry Reid voted against it, Kaine & Sanders were absent. Nobody was going to vote against the 9/11 victims two months before an election. Yes, and? Or are you agreeing with me? Chuck Schumer in the senate was a lead sponsor. Something like 25 dems in the house were cosponsors. 77 people voted against the override in the house. No one was forced to vote for this, stop denying them agency in this matter EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
haveblue posted:If they don't kill the filibuster at the start of the new session, when is their next chance to do it? Whenever they want to. It isn't a session issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Whenever they want to. It isn't a session issue. Huh. I had thought - other than odd rulings from the parliamentarian - that the rules were only established at the beginning of a session and thereafter required a 2/3 vote to change or suspend. Edit: unanimous to suspend, but to change with notice looks like a majority only, from Rule V. http://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleV ulmont fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Huh. I had thought - other than odd rulings from the parliamentarian - that the rules were only established at the beginning of a session and thereafter required a 2/3 vote to change or suspend. It's done via a ruling from the parliamentarian, not under the default rules. Change with notice can be filibustered, but that can be overridden as a parliamentary maneuver by the chair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
U-DO Burger posted:If his recess appointment is going to be shot down anyway he should just appoint himself imo It would give him something to do in DC while the kids finish school.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
So the Dakota Access Pipe Line was pushed back to allow for some more investigation into alternative routes. Trump will take office in a couple of weeks, and he is personally invested in one of the companies wanting to build the pipeline. Somebody explain to me how this works: is a POTUS required to divest themselves of their investments? Is it okay for them to own stock in a company? Is this customary or are there laws to this effect?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
botany posted:So the Dakota Access Pipe Line was pushed back to allow for some more investigation into alternative routes. Trump will take office in a couple of weeks, and he is personally invested in one of the companies wanting to build the pipeline. Somebody explain to me how this works: is a POTUS required to divest themselves of their investments? Is it okay for them to own stock in a company? Is this customary or are there laws to this effect? As far as I can tell the answer appears to be "no" to all those questions. All the federal conflict of interest laws appear to have been written to exclude the President, apparently for constitutional reasons -- the only remedy is impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 14:13
|
|
