|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:As far as I can tell the answer appears to be "no" to all those questions. They can't all be no, logically. Unless I'm misreading the questions badly!
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:They can't all be no, logically. Unless I'm misreading the questions badly! Ok, I'll show my work: botany posted:Somebody explain to me how this works: is a POTUS required to divest themselves of their investments? No, not by law to the best of my knowledge, but that's just what I've heard in the news. The laws as written do not cover the President, just everyone else. quote:Is it okay for them to own stock in a company? It isn't (morally) ok without a blind trust, which Trump isn't doing. Legally though it seems to be. It's legal, but it's not "ok." quote:Is this customary quote:are there laws to this effect? there are but they don't cover the president, so the answer here is also "no" -- there appear to be no laws covering the situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's legal, but it's not "ok." Ah, I took the question to be a legal one, given the thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Ah, I took the question to be a legal one, given the thread. Well, the other side us that all this is imho grounds for impeachment, but, haha, fun chance there. Functionally we are in "If the President does it, that means it's legal" territory come January.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
COI management on moral grounds has never been a thing for President Elect Trump. Even in legal COI matters, see Trump Foundation. Republican voters not knowing about then not giving a gently caress about than saying Democrats are the bad guys regarding conflict of interest shouldn't be a shocker in this thread. See: Thomas
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, the other side us that all this is imho grounds for impeachment, but, haha, fun chance there. Functionally we are in "If the President does it, that means it's legal" territory come January. afaik the federal conflict of interest laws don't apply to the president, so legally speaking it is impossible for the president to have a conflict of interest in anything. So if Trump decides to not put his assets in a blind trust, only conduct foreign affairs with countries where he's building hotels, and give huge tax breaks and incentives to companies that he has invested in, technically speaking all that is legal even though it would be insanely illegal if a member of his cabinet or a member of Congress were to do the exact same thing. It's incredibly morally wrong and would break all the existing uncodified norms of governance but it's pretty clear that neither Trump nor the GOP cares about that minor detail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
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? Legally speaking, most of the various ethics laws about this don't apply to the President. Practically speaking, it doesn't matter anyway - the President is the boss of the people whose job it is to enforce those rules. Typically, it's the job of Congress and of voters to keep a president's misbehavior in check, but the voters have already demonstrated they don't care about conflicts of interest, and anything Congress could do about it would require a majority vote. In other words, welcome to the post-ethics world!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
If Trump doesn't burn down the country over the next 4-8 years he's all but guaranteed to leave office with a net worth greater than even his highest previous claims.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If Trump doesn't burn down the country over the next 4-8 years he's all but guaranteed to leave office with a net worth greater than even his highest previous claims. I hope he's so unpopular that the next president campaigns with a "lock him up" plank and actually follows through with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, the other side us that all this is imho grounds for impeachment, but, haha, fun chance there. Functionally we are in "If the President does it, that means it's legal" territory come January. I had to break the news to my wife the other day about that scene in Frost/Nixon. She thought it was meant to be horrifying because it showed Nixon's lunacy. Poor sweet summer child. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:COI management on moral grounds has never been a thing for President Elect Trump. Even in legal COI matters, see Trump Foundation. As is traditional when this comes up, I must retort that I trust no justice in living memory more than Thomas when it comes to ignoring conflicts of interest or, indeed, of basic sanity with his consistent judicial logic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:" FTFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHN3IJ_j8A
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
This is literally true of conflicts of interest though, Nixon is correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Hey I was pretty close for phoneposting but thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
skull mask mcgee posted:I hope he's so unpopular that the next president campaigns with a "lock him up" plank and actually follows through with it. The corruption of Nixon and the cunning of Bush jr is going to be terrifying. And he'll need to be extremely unpopular because voting rights are going to get gutted even more nationwide since the GOP was able to steal the loving SCOTUS majority because of the stupidity of voters, so the Dems will need to overcome the hurdles that will be put in place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:There's no way Democrats were going to vote against the bill and let Republicans call them anti-American pussies. The Republicans knew drat well if they brought the bill to the floor and voted to override the Democrats would too rather than let Republicans make hay right before the election.  bill. If weaselly Democrats in unsafe districts were terrified of conservatives not supporting them, I can understand why they'd take the easy way out of a conflict, but 97-1, man. This is why people see the Democrats as spineless. "Why should we support you over a generic Republican?" "Well, I... voted just like Republicans, so you don't need to!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:There's no way Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein were going to lose their Senate seats because they didn't vote for a dumbass lol Platystemon fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
FronzelNeekburm posted:There's no way Barbara Boxer or Dianne Feinstein were going to lose their Senate seats because they didn't vote for a dumbass Yes because acting like sober technocrats telling hard truths and making tough decisions while Republicans took the easy way out of throwing out red meat and howling that Washington establishment insiders were selling us out to the Saudis has been such a winning strategy as shown by the Democratic landslide in November. If only Democrats had doubled down even harder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
This is the kind of thing that will just get the court stacked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
The Dems aren't anywhere near ballsy enough to try this and if they did it'd fuel right wing outrage unlike anything you can imagine. And yeah, the GOP would respond by immediately stacking the court even if it worked and Garland was seated. Would the Dems be in the right to do this? Absolutely. Would the GOP win the messaging war as well as stack the court and then proceed to spite gently caress the country even hard for the next few years? gently caress yes they would.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Lookin' forward to our brave new 15-member SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 06:19
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Kalman posted: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. And you'd lose a liberal circuit judge
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:And you'd lose a liberal circuit judge That would only work with a recess appointment. The hypothetical 34-democrat approval would result in a full and irrevocable appointment assuming it held up to constitutional muster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The Dems aren't anywhere near ballsy enough to try this and if they did it'd fuel right wing outrage unlike anything you can imagine. And yeah, the GOP would respond by immediately stacking the court even if it worked and Garland was seated. “Don’t make the GOP angry  ” hasn’t exactly worked lately.You’re right that Democrats aren’t bold enough to do it, though, so it doesn’t matter. Nothing matters. As for packing the court, let them to cross that Rubicon. Actuarial tables give them a good shot at locking up a nine‐member court till the 2040s. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That would only work with a recess appointment. The hypothetical 34-democrat approval would result in a full and irrevocable appointment assuming it held up to constitutional muster. Oh I misread that
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Oh I misread that Nah, my comment was about the recess approach. I'm not sure what the gently caress anyone is thinking with the "no you can totally swear him in before the new senators get sworn in" thing though. Even if you got away with it, then you've set a precedent that's literally one Democratic senator's death or early retirement away from a situation in which the GOP would have a 2/3 majority after the 2018 elections. 2/3, of course, is the proportion of the Senate who must vote to expel another member of the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:“Don’t make the GOP angry It's this. As long as progressive politics is content to follow informal norms and etiquette, it will lose in the long term because if you don't think the GOP would do this if the shoe were on the other foot you are a much bigger optimist than I am.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
So basically this is the last chance for the Democrats to do something good and shed some of their reputation as weak kneed cowards unwilling to fight for the good of the nation... and we should avoid doing it because if we do the Republicans might have mercy on us and be content with doing whatever they want completely unchecked? Uh Yeah, I am gonna say go for the appointment and own that poo poo as managing to beat the system
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Which is exactly what the GOP Senate did when they openly refused to confirm a nationally respected, moderate nominee for an entire year. They suffered no political consequences for it so why the gently caress would anyone want to reward them at this point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So basically this is the last chance for the Democrats to do something good and shed some of their reputation as weak kneed cowards unwilling to fight for the good of the nation... and we should avoid doing it because if we do the Republicans might have mercy on us and be content with doing whatever they want completely unchecked? Like I said, if you don't mind every President from here on out increasing the number of justices on the court, go for it duder. Go for it. Go for the gold! *Dean scream*
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Now explain why thats worse than the current situation where we just ignore Dem appointees and allow Republican ones, or why the Republicans wouldnt do exactly that anyway the moment they saw a reason to
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Like I said, if you don't mind every President from here on out increasing the number of justices on the court, go for it duder. Go for it. Go for the gold! *Dean scream* What makes you think they won't anyway? We're in a new era when old norms and conventions are no longer applicable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Family Values posted:What makes you think they won't anyway? We're in a new era when old norms and conventions are no longer applicable. No wait, we can't, what if it somehow convinced the Republicans to start abusing the rules in an attempt to prevent us from regaining control of the Supreme Court unless we also had control of the Presidency and Senate. What a terrible situation we would be in, then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Like I said, if you don't mind every President from here on out increasing the number of justices on the court, go for it duder. Go for it. Go for the gold! *Dean scream* This but unironically. I mean gently caress, if court rulings are gonna have this much of an impact on our entire country, Id like more then 9 people to decide the fate of gay marriage and healthcare for the majority of my lifespan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
At the very least they should do this to confirm all the rest of Obama's held up judicial appointments, if they are really concerned about the Supreme Court being stacked as revenge or don't want to trigger the nuclear option on top of everything else, fine, whatever, chicken out on the SC. At least get those other judges appointed if there's a way to do it, you know?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Family Values posted:What makes you think they won't anyway? We're in a new era when old norms and conventions are no longer applicable. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is dumb enough to try. Everyone else he'd need in Congress knows better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
The time to do something about the Garland appointment was nine months ago. Pulling some kind of between-sessions bullshit like that now would widely be seen as illegitimate, and most importantly, I somewhat doubt that Garland himself would accept such a nomination.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
"Surely Republicans won't stomp all over [insert political tradition here] purely for naked, partisan gain. Why, the People wouldn't stand for it!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The time to do something about the Garland appointment was nine months ago. Pulling some kind of between-sessions bullshit like that now would widely be seen as illegitimate, and most importantly, I somewhat doubt that Garland himself would accept such a nomination. I was arguing they should have done something 9 months ago too. They didn't. The past is irrelevant at this point, especially if your argument is "past inaction was in hindsight a bad choice, so inaction should continue to be pursued"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 03:49
|
|