SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›839 »

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Discendo Vox posted:

Do you have a reason to think it was "tacitly allowed"?

As opposed to ordered from above? It's clear the Bush White House directed the CIA to torture people with the acquiescence of Congress, but I think you can draw a pretty hard line between the CIA's program and Abu Gharib. The CIA documented their methods, procedures, and the legal authorities they were operating under. Their entire program was designed to exploit high level detainees for intelligence information. It was organized and authorized from the top. The Abu Gharib scandal had all the hallmarks of originating from near the bottom of the chain of command. For starters, the mere fact that they were taking pictures of themselves mugging for the camera while abusing detainees strongly suggests that the MPs were not operating under the supervision of experienced intelligence personnel. There also doesn't appear to have been any organized effort to optimize their abuse for the purposes of interrogation. Say what you will about the CIA's program, it was clear that they were applying their coercive methods as part of a holistic interrogation and intelligence gathering effort. Even if we assume that the hearsay relayed by the guy Space Gopher quoted was true and some MI personnel were asking MPs to "soften up" detainees for interrogation, the fact that they refused to document their efforts in any written SoP or orders rather strongly implies that they knew there was no formal approval or authority for what they were doing. While I have no doubt that the prison command tolerated and covered up abuse, I also don't think they ordered anyone to do it.

I'm also amused that people seem to think that the only way enlisted personnel would come up with the idea of abusing prisoners was if it was suggested from higher. Anyone else remember the Marine Corps' blood winging scandal? The reason the military has hard rules against hazing isn't because newly-installed commanders sit in their offices thinking, "man I need to come up with some lunatic gladiator academy poo poo to make the subaltern do to each other." As a reminder, certain units had to have formal policies that members weren't allowed to brand each other with coat hangers or play anything called "The Trust Game."

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I'm not sure why "since 1980" matters, that seems an arbitrary cutoff.

It wasn't entirely arbitrary. I'm quite certain that some crazy poo poo happened during the Vietnam war, probably during the Phoenix Program or some similar bullshit, but the culture of the military at the tail end of Vietnam has little to do with service culture from 2001-present. Most of the Joint Chiefs joined around 1980, and since they are the most senior members of their services, it felt like a good cutoff for discussing the "modern" US military. (There are probably some crusty old dudes in the National Guard, but they are a tiny minority.)

Agnosticnixie posted:

Wealthy volunteers are probably more likely to follow illegal orders because they see the people on the other side as their lessers, hth.

This is retarded for its own reasons, but not only does it have nothing to do with my point, it is literally the opposite of twodot's argument that I was addressing.

Speaking of which, still waiting for twodot to explain which part of the U.S. Constitution prohibits indefinite detention of foreign enemy combatants.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 09:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 09:42

Booourns: Jan 20, 2004; Please send a report when you see me complain about other posters and threads outside of QCS

~thanks!

FAUXTON posted:

Ahh poo poo I forgot this part of the Bush years. Haven't forgot the "we don't torture prisoners" ("torture" and "prisoners" being definitions micro-engraved on the tips of a set of high-speed all-terrain motorized goalposts) part though.

My favorite was "waterboarding isn't torture", I guess they were just doing it for fun then?

# ? Jan 12, 2017 10:35

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Dead Reckoning posted:

It wasn't entirely arbitrary. I'm quite certain that some crazy poo poo happened during the Vietnam war, probably during the Phoenix Program or some similar bullshit, but the culture of the military at the tail end of Vietnam has little to do with service culture from 2001-present. Most of the Joint Chiefs joined around 1980, and since they are the most senior members of their services, it felt like a good cutoff for discussing the "modern" US military. (There are probably some crusty old dudes in the National Guard, but they are a tiny minority.)
This is retarded for its own reasons, but not only does it have nothing to do with my point, it is literally the opposite of twodot's argument that I was addressing.

Ok, fair enough I guess.

And for the record I don't intend to imply that members of the military are uniquely horrible or likely to commit torture or other war crimes.

I just think pretty much ever human being responds to incentives and the military -- just like most other institutions large enough to avoid external oversight -- has an internal structure that too often encourages looking the other way and plausible deniability. War crimes are hardly the only example of this -- look at enforcement or rather non-enforcement of sexual harrassment, assault, and rape charges in military settings. People in the military aren't any more or less moral than anyone else, they just live in a system that's structured to prioritize authority over justice in certain situations.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 15:08

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

And for the record I don't intend to imply that members of the military are uniquely horrible or likely to commit torture or other war crimes.

I just think pretty much ever human being responds to incentives and the military -- just like most other institutions large enough to avoid external oversight -- has an internal structure that too often encourages looking the other way and plausible deniability. War crimes are hardly the only example of this -- look at enforcement or rather non-enforcement of sexual harrassment, assault, and rape charges in military settings. People in the military aren't any more or less moral than anyone else, they just live in a system that's structured to prioritize authority over justice in certain situations.

That's sort of an odd thing to say, since committing war crimes is really hard for people who aren't in the military. Sort of like how pedestrians commit far fewer traffic offenses than drivers.

It's still pretty lovely and sanctimonious though. Are you saying that, if you got drafted, you'd probably go along with torturing another human being out of deference and fear of being a dissenter? If not, why would you assume that people in the military are less moral than you?

Even if we assume that looking the other way is rampant in the military (and lol, it is) that is very different from compliance with unlawful orders, which is what twodot and I were talking about.

Your opinions about sexual assault in the military are misinformed. It's actually rather vexing to do an apples-to-apples comparison, but the data seems to suggest that military members commit sexual assault at the same or lower rates than their civilian counterparts, especially once you control for things like the demographics of the military vs the general population. (For example, a lot of the headlines trumpeting "XX% of women in the military report having been the victim of a sexual assault" accidentally use a number that includes women who were assaulted prior to joining the service, or who were assaulted by non-service members.) The reason the story has such resonance in the public eye is that the only acceptable number of military sexual assaults is zero, and because the military has become incredibly good at suppressing a lot of other crimes, but has not yet been successful with sexual assault.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 18:55

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Dead Reckoning posted:

Speaking of which, still waiting for twodot to explain which part of the U.S. Constitution prohibits indefinite detention of foreign enemy combatants.

I'm ignoring your nonsense about legal doctrine, because it's obviously just a boring Socratic argument where I say a thing, and then you say "Well what about this Court decision that disagrees with you" and I say "Well clearly I disagree with it". If you think my reasoning leads to some outcome you think I think will be unfortunate, just show where the trap is. If you're desperate to have it, I'll play along because you did eventually answer my questions. Here's the part:

quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

On the topic of my questions:

quote:

Mr. Nice! already answered your question (Congress, preventing/reversing any attempt to transfer detainees), so I felt no need to pile on.

You aren't going to clarify why you think Congress has standing after the person posted the decision that said Congress didn't have standing to sue for merely misallocated funds that were correctly appropriated? Also if that's your remedy are we agreed that if Obama succeeds in releasing the prisoners prior to someone getting a court order, no one has any sort of recourse to undo the supposedly illegal actions that released them?

# ? Jan 12, 2017 20:11

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; c-spam cannot afford

I can't believe people are still entertaining your dumb derail. You've had multiple people explain why all of your points are dumb, and all that you have in response is "I think things should be different."

Please go start a new thread to argue about Obama's inability to overcome the entire rest of the government in releasing the last of the GTMO detainees and please stop making GBS threads up the SCOTUS thread with this stupid, non-SCOTUS related derail.

EDIT: I finally remember why twodot was familiar to me. He used to constantly poo poo up the gay marriage thread with stupid loving derails about polygamy until a mod told him to knock it the gently caress off.

Please do not engage twodot in further discussion on this matter. He is just trolling you with this derail. You will never convince him of anything due to this.

Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jan 12, 2017

# ? Jan 12, 2017 20:26

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Dead Reckoning posted:

Your opinions about sexual assault in the military are misinformed. It's actually rather vexing to do an apples-to-apples comparison, but the data seems to suggest that military members commit sexual assault at the same or lower rates than their civilian counterparts, especially once you control for things like the demographics of the military vs the general population. (For example, a lot of the headlines trumpeting "XX% of women in the military report having been the victim of a sexual assault" accidentally use a number that includes women who were assaulted prior to joining the service, or who were assaulted by non-service members.) The reason the story has such resonance in the public eye is that the only acceptable number of military sexual assaults is zero, and because the military has become incredibly good at suppressing a lot of other crimes, but has not yet been successful with sexual assault.

So wait, are you actually going to link any numbers, or are you just going to say "actually, all the studies and statistics you've seen are wrong" and leave us to hunt down whatever source you're using for that claim?

# ? Jan 12, 2017 20:54

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

I might, but it's been a few years since I dug through the the SAPR data. It's a complex question ("is the military worse about sexual assault than their civilian counterparts?") that ends up being largely about how you define your terms. The public perception of the issue is largely influenced by coverage of individual scandals than by hard data.

twodot posted:

I'm ignoring your nonsense about legal doctrine, because it's obviously just a boring Socratic argument where I say a thing, and then you say "Well what about this Court decision that disagrees with you" and I say "Well clearly I disagree with it". If you think my reasoning leads to some outcome you think I think will be unfortunate, just show where the trap is. If you're desperate to have it, I'll play along because you did eventually answer my questions. Here's the part: (full text of the 4th amendment)

🤔 Well, I'm not sure why you quoted the warrant clause, since no one at Gitmo was arrested pursuant to a warrant. Holding them definitely constitutes a seizure, but it is a reasonable one pursuant to military exigency and the need to keep them from returning to the fight against the United States.

This isn't some Socratic thing, you claimed that the military's continued detention of enemy combatants at Gitmo was both illegal and unconstitutional, but you're wrong, and not in a "well we disagree, but both sides have valid points and a judge might see it either way," you're wrong in the sense that there is literally nothing in the western legal tradition that supports your position, it has never successfully been argued before any court, and to my knowledge there has never even been an attempt to argue it. I'm really enjoying watching you stubbornly fumble your way forward, because I suspect it would (metaphorically) kill you to admit you were wrong.

Also, "I thought <the full text of a constitutional amendment> was obvious" is like a giant loving beacon visible from space that you have no idea what you're talking about.

twodot posted:

You aren't going to clarify why you think Congress has standing after the person posted the decision that said Congress didn't have standing to sue for merely misallocated funds that were correctly appropriated? Also if that's your remedy are we agreed that if Obama succeeds in releasing the prisoners prior to someone getting a court order, no one has any sort of recourse to undo the supposedly illegal actions that released them?

It's not really an answerable question, because Obama emptying out Gitmo against the wishes of Congress is such a radical hypothetical that any hypothetical remedy is going to turn heavily on which superpower you give him via the power of fiat.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jan 12, 2017

# ? Jan 12, 2017 20:59

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Dead Reckoning posted:

🤔 Well, I'm not sure why you quoted the warrant clause, since no one at Gitmo was arrested pursuant to a warrant. Holding them definitely constitutes a seizure, but it is a reasonable one pursuant to military exigency and the need to keep them from returning to the fight against the United States.

I'm claiming this is unreasonable given there isn't an actual fight against the United States, to the extent there is ongoing violence against the United States, that can never be concluded.

quote:

This isn't some Socratic thing, you claimed that the military's continued detention of enemy combatants at Gitmo was both illegal and unconstitutional, but you're wrong, and not in a "well we disagree, but both sides have valid points and a judge might see it either way," you're wrong in the sense that there is literally nothing in the western legal tradition that supports your position, it has never successfully been argued before any court, and to my knowledge there has never even been an attempt to argue it. I'm really enjoying watching you stubbornly fumble your way forward, because I suspect it would (metaphorically) kill you to admit you were wrong.

If I thought something in the historic western legal tradition supported my assertion, I would be quoting stuff from the western legal tradition. My point is our current law makers' understanding of the law is wrong much like Korematsu was wrong despite everyone agreeing it was an ok thing to do.

quote:

It's not really an answerable question, because Obama emptying out Gitmo against the wishes of Congress is such a radical hypothetical that any hypothetical remedy is going to turn heavily on which superpower you give him via the power of fiat.

If you can't articulate a damage and a remedy to that damage, you don't have a case, and no way to demonstrate Obama doing a thing Congress doesn't want is actually illegal.
edit:

quote:

Also, "I thought <the full text of a constitutional amendment> was obvious" is like a giant loving beacon visible from space that you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're the one that asked me what part of the Constitution supported me. How in the world am I supposed to answer that question other than quoting a part of the Constitution? I'm the one who thinks this conversation is dumb. Don't ask questions you don't want the answer to.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 21:23

Acebuckeye13: Nov 2, 2010; Ultra Carp

twodot posted:

I'm claiming this is unreasonable given there isn't an actual fight against the United States, to the extent there is ongoing violence against the United States, that can never be concluded.

If I thought something in the historic western legal tradition supported my assertion, I would be quoting stuff from the western legal tradition. My point is our current law makers' understanding of the law is wrong much like Korematsu was wrong despite everyone agreeing it was an ok thing to do.

If you can't articulate a damage and a remedy to that damage, you don't have a case, and no way to demonstrate Obama doing a thing Congress doesn't want is actually illegal.
edit:

You're the one that asked me what part of the Constitution supported me. How in the world am I supposed to answer that question other than quoting a part of the Constitution? I'm the one who thinks this conversation is dumb. Don't ask questions you don't want the answer to.

All you did was quote the 4th Amendment, without bothering to argue in any way how the text of that amendment supports your argument. I mean, come on, man.

The fact is, there's a difference between something being morally wrong and legally wrong. Is holding people in Guantanamo until the day they die morally wrong? Of course. Is it legally wrong? Nothing that you've posted thus far demonstrates any actual legal analysis as to why this is the case.

# ? Jan 12, 2017 22:25

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Dead Reckoning posted:

Even if we assume that looking the other way is rampant in the military (and lol, it is) that is very different from compliance with unlawful orders, which is what twodot and I were talking about. [quote]

Technically, legally, sure. Morally? Substantively? Not so much.

[quote]
Your opinions about sexual assault in the military are misinformed. It's actually rather vexing to do an apples-to-apples comparison, but the data seems to suggest that military members commit sexual assault at the same or lower rates than their civilian counterparts, especially once you control for things like the demographics of the military vs the general population. (For example, a lot of the headlines trumpeting "XX% of women in the military report having been the victim of a sexual assault" accidentally use a number that includes women who were assaulted prior to joining the service, or who were assaulted by non-service members.) The reason the story has such resonance in the public eye is that the only acceptable number of military sexual assaults is zero, and because the military has become incredibly good at suppressing a lot of other crimes, but has not yet been successful with sexual assault.

This is . . . exactly my point. Military members are just people like anybody else, apart from demographic differences (i.e., younger and maler than the rest of the population). There's no special Morality Bonus you get from joining the military, you're still just a person.

Dead Reckoning posted:

It's still pretty lovely and sanctimonious though. Are you saying that, if you got drafted, you'd probably go along with torturing another human being out of deference and fear of being a dissenter? If not, why would you assume that people in the military are less moral than you?

Everybody likes to think that if they were in the Milgram Experiment or the Stanford Prison experiment they'd be one of the people who stood up and objected, not one of the people who followed along. But those experiments,as well as historical experience, tell us that most people follow along most of the time.

Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Jan 13, 2017

# ? Jan 13, 2017 02:31

UrbanLabyrinth: Jan 28, 2009; When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence; College Slice

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Everybody likes to think that if they were in the Milgram Experiment or the Stanford Prison experiment they'd be one of the people who stood up and objected, not one of the people who followed along. But those experiments,as well as historical experience, tell us that most people follow along most of the time.

They're also bad experiments and in the case of Milgram, extensively cherry-picked data by the researcher.

# ? Jan 13, 2017 02:42

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

UrbanLabyrinth posted:

They're also bad experiments and in the case of Milgram, extensively cherry-picked data by the researcher.

Yeah, fair point, but that doesn't mean they were wrong, either (which is why I also cited to the historical record).

# ? Jan 13, 2017 02:44

ulmont: Sep 15, 2010; IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE

In actual SCOTUS news (sort of; this is from Beckles v. US back at the end of November), here's Justice Breyer wrapping himself around the axle trying to ask a question:

quote:

7 JUSTICE BREYER: This is -- this is a fairly
8 deep question, actually, you're going into, in my mind.
9 And what is -- before I reached a constitutional
10 question, I would ask whether the Guideline falls within
11 the scope of the words "Guideline-enabling statute." I
12 don't see why you have to get into the Constitution.
13 But even doing it that way, it then becomes
14 a matter of the extent to which the Federal courts are
15 going to review the substantive Guidelines, itself an
16 open question.
17 So rather than get into that, I might think
18 about your case like this: Why was the statute vague?
19 It was vague because with three examples preceding the
20 residual clause, they tried to apply it, Congress, to
21 thousands of State criminal statutes that vary in a
22 variety of ways one from the other. That's what caused
23 the problem, I think.
24 Now, if that was the problem, that isn't
25 present here because these apply to Federal statutes.
1 Moreover, they don't apply to State statutes. Oh,
2 maybe -- I see. Yeah, yeah, you're right. There is.
3 You're right. You're right. I can't get around it that
4 way. Thank you for your answer.
5 (Laughter.)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2016/15-8544_c1o2.pdf

Or, if you want to hear it, it starts at around 17:34.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2016/15-8544

# ? Jan 13, 2017 02:46

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Yeah, fair point, but that doesn't mean they were wrong, either (which is why I also cited to the historical record).

It kinda does though. They are bad experiments and their conclusions are very, very suspect.

# ? Jan 13, 2017 03:08

mila kunis: Jun 10, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

The military can detain enemy combatants more or less indefinitely until the conclusion of hostilities, and I don't think Al Queda is going to surrender any time soon.

Is this meaningful, given that Al Qaeda is more of a symbolic franchise that any random group of pissed off sunnis in a warzone can brand themselves rather than a formal organization?

quote:

This isn't something George W. Bush made up either, it's explicitly permitted by the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court held in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the government can detain foreign national enemy combatants indefinitely in accordance with the laws of war. Although the Court held in Rasul v. Bush that detainees have a right to challenge their designation as enemy combatants, this isn't the same thing as a trial, and the military already meets this burden through their Combatant Status Review process. (The detainees have been able appeal the military's decision to the federal courts since Boumediene v. Bush.) The whole scheme is approved by Congress and has survived multiple legal challenges, so that's about as lawful as an order can get.

It is pretty funny that you're really mad in the Supreme Court thread about Guantanamo not getting closed, but are apparently unfamiliar with the two most famous Supreme Court decisions about its legality.

Is it really that funny? It seems pretty reasonable to be mad about a legalized torture camp, regardless of the thread.

# ? Jan 23, 2017 04:29

EwokEntourage: Jun 10, 2008; BREYER: Actually, Antonin, you got it backwards. See, a power bottom is actually generating all the dissents by doing most of the work.

SCALIA: Stephen, I've heard that speed has something to do with it.

BREYER: Speed has everything to do with it.

tekz posted:

Is this meaningful, given that Al Qaeda is more of a symbolic franchise that any random group of pissed off sunnis in a warzone can brand themselves rather than a formal organization?

If you identify yourself as a member of al qaeda, they can detain you as a member of al qaeda, regardless of if al qaeda thinks of you as a member

# ? Jan 23, 2017 04:49

Rygar201: Jan 26, 2011; I AM A TERRIBLE PIECE OF SHIT.

Please Condescend to me like this again.

Oh yeah condescend to me ALL DAY condescend daddy.

So that lawsuit CREW filed against Trump is absolutely going to get dismissed on standing right?

# ? Jan 23, 2017 19:37

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal of Texas in their voter ID case but Roberts basically 'wink wink, nudge nudge' implied that he wants to rehear the issue once Trump appoints Scalia Mark II

# ? Jan 23, 2017 20:00

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

FlamingLiberal posted:

SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal of Texas in their voter ID case but Roberts basically 'wink wink, nudge nudge' implied that he wants to rehear the issue once Trump appoints Scalia Mark II

I don't know about you, but I'm rock hard about the possibility of hearing

In a 6-3 decision stamped forever.

# ? Jan 23, 2017 21:21

Javid: Oct 21, 2004

It was stated in the conference today that we can expect a nominee within the next week or two, so that day will be here shortly.

# ? Jan 23, 2017 22:17

Rygar201: Jan 26, 2011; I AM A TERRIBLE PIECE OF SHIT.

Please Condescend to me like this again.

Oh yeah condescend to me ALL DAY condescend daddy.

I fully expect a filibuster. I'm iffy on McConnell pushing the button and ending the filibuster.

# ? Jan 23, 2017 23:06

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

They better filibuster.

# ? Jan 23, 2017 23:20

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

If McConnell is going to end it, make him end it.

# ? Jan 23, 2017 23:21

Rabble: Dec 3, 2005; Pillbug

Rygar201 posted:

I fully expect a filibuster. I'm iffy on McConnell pushing the button and ending the filibuster.

McConnell was on Fox News Sunday yesterday and was asked if he would remove the filibuster. His response was, "The nominee will be confirmed." The host pressed on whether or not that meant they would remove the filibuster, and McConnell deadpan replied, "the nominee will be confirmed" in the most matter-of-fact way a person could.

So yes, they will push the button.

# ? Jan 23, 2017 23:22

Evil Fluffy: Jul 13, 2009; Scholars are some of the most pompous and pedantic people I've ever had the joy of meeting.

Good. Make them go full loving nuclear and own every god awful thing that's going to happen in the next several years. Maybe if the country isn't hosed beyond belief Dems will show up in 2018 and take at least one chamber of Congress, or not lose as badly as they will otherwise, and actually show up in 2020 to take back control. Assuming women and minorities can still vote by then, since nationwide voter suppression is very high up on the right wing wishlist.

# ? Jan 23, 2017 23:26

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Rabble posted:

McConnell was on Fox News Sunday yesterday and was asked if he would remove the filibuster. His response was, "The nominee will be confirmed." The host pressed on whether or not that meant they would remove the filibuster, and McConnell deadpan replied, "the nominee will be confirmed" in the most matter-of-fact way a person could.

So yes, they will push the button.

Nice of him to drop the pretense that Advise and Consent is an actual thing and that he's nothing but a rubber stamp for anything the executive wants.

Also if they ram some right wing nut on to the court ending the filibuster, the next Dem president should state that the seat is illegitimate and add 2 more seats to the court.

mcmagic fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Jan 23, 2017

# ? Jan 23, 2017 23:27

Number Ten Cocks: Feb 25, 2016; by zen death robot

mcmagic posted:

Also if they ram some right wing nut on to the court ending the filibuster, the next Dem president should state that the seat is illegitimate and add 2 more seats to the court.

The next one with majorities in both houses of Congress.

# ? Jan 23, 2017 23:49

Kawasaki Nun: Jul 16, 2001; by Reene

Rabble posted:

McConnell was on Fox News Sunday yesterday and was asked if he would remove the filibuster. His response was, "The nominee will be confirmed." The host pressed on whether or not that meant they would remove the filibuster, and McConnell deadpan replied, "the nominee will be confirmed" in the most matter-of-fact way a person could.

So yes, they will push the button.

What benefit would being coy about this provide unless it was a bluff? That the filibuster was removed for the appointment of federal judges at every other level provides ample ammo to justify removing it for SCOTUS appointments, as far as I think the public is concerned. I would wonder what the optics of pulling out all the stops for Trump to appoint justices would be in the case of his eventual meltdown and ouster. I wonder if they are hesitant to further hitch themselves to the Trump wagon.

# ? Jan 24, 2017 04:04

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

tekz posted:

Is it really that funny? It seems pretty reasonable to be mad about a legalized torture camp, regardless of the thread.

It's not just that he was arguing that Gitmo was bad, he was trying to argue that its existence was facially unconstitutional & illegal, and that everyone there was following illegal orders. That he was apparently unfamiliar with or uninterested in the legal history of detaining enemy combatants while making this claim was the funny part.

# ? Jan 24, 2017 04:15

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

mcmagic posted:

Nice of him to drop the pretense that Advise and Consent is an actual thing and that he's nothing but a rubber stamp for anything the executive wants.

Also if they ram some right wing nut on to the court ending the filibuster, the next Dem president should state that the seat is illegitimate and add 2 more seats to the court.

Why stop at 2? Add fifty brown kindergarten girls to the court.

# ? Jan 24, 2017 05:09

U-DO Burger: Nov 12, 2007

PerniciousKnid posted:

Why stop at 2? Add fifty brown kindergarten girls to the court.

In a 50-9 ruling the SC holds that paid recess is a constitutional right for people of all ages

# ? Jan 24, 2017 05:14

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Dead Reckoning posted:

It's not just that he was arguing that Gitmo was bad, he was trying to argue that its existence was facially unconstitutional & illegal, and that everyone there was following illegal orders. That he was apparently unfamiliar with or uninterested in the legal history of detaining enemy combatants while making this claim was the funny part.

Not so much that it is facially unconstitutional, but rather that Constitutional-ness of a torture camp for non-soldiers is sufficiently murky, that the objection that soldiers involved in it would both be aware of a bill passed by Congress limiting how the military spends money that it was legally given, and that they would object to spending money in a way Congress said they shouldn't, while also running a torture camp, is a deeply weird objection. I'm not an expert of the legal training of the average US soldier, but the argument of "A US soldier would never perform an illegal order" is just silly.

# ? Jan 24, 2017 05:20

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

U-DO Burger posted:

In a 50-9 ruling the SC holds that paid recess is a constitutional right for people of all ages

The Democrats would have a majority for a hundred years if this happened.

# ? Jan 24, 2017 05:20

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Why is Ben Cardin, who is in a safe seat, playing footsie with voting for a possible Trump SCOTUS nominee. Any Democrat voting for any Trump nominee should face a primary challenge as they are facilitating the republican's theft of the seat.

# ? Jan 24, 2017 15:19

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

In theory he could nominate someone not crazy.

I know. But he could!

# ? Jan 24, 2017 15:25

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

mcmagic posted:

Why is Ben Cardin, who is in a safe seat, playing footsie with voting for a possible Trump SCOTUS nominee. Any Democrat voting for any Trump nominee should face a primary challenge as they are facilitating the republican's theft of the seat.

Maybe this time if we show them we're reasonable they'll agree to compromise! :downs:

# ? Jan 24, 2017 15:28

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

hobbesmaster posted:

In theory he could nominate someone not crazy.

I know. But he could!

It doesn't matter who he nominates. The seat is not his to fill.

# ? Jan 24, 2017 15:32

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

mcmagic posted:

Why is Ben Cardin, who is in a safe seat, playing footsie with voting for a possible Trump SCOTUS nominee. Any Democrat voting for any Trump nominee should face a primary challenge as they are facilitating the republican's theft of the seat.

Harry Reid isn't around anymore to threaten to fight him

# ? Jan 24, 2017 15:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 09:42

Kloaked00: Jun 21, 2005; I was sitting in my office on that drizzly afternoon listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk and reading my name on the glass of my office door: regnaD kciN

mcmagic posted:

It doesn't matter who he nominates. The seat is not his to fill.

You know, with the election so recent, and because there's so much you have to learn and become used to when one becomes President, there really shouldn't be any Supreme Court Justice nominations for at least the first two years. You know, that way it can get the full attention it deserves.

# ? Jan 24, 2017 15:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›839 »