|
How much money is every willing to put on the Trump admin having already destroyed the evidence of the EO having it's roots in an anti-muslim animus (e-mails, memos, etc)
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:How much money is every willing to put on the Trump admin having already destroyed the evidence of the EO having it's roots in an anti-muslim animus (e-mails, memos, etc) I have not yet been struck by their competence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:How much money is every willing to put on the Trump admin having already destroyed the evidence of the EO having it's roots in an anti-muslim animus (e-mails, memos, etc) If the trump admin destroys rudy giuliani I may begin to rethink my position on them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'd add to that the codicil "getting destroyed for an awful argument in service of an awful goal." Few people are in a strong enough position (financially) to say "you know what, gently caress you fire me but I won't do this" assuming that they actually don't agree with what they're trying to defend. After Trump fired the acting AG people who aren't going to try to get out of the DoJ are going to be more than happy to fall in line with emperor baby hands' authoritarianism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:How much money is every willing to put on the Trump admin having already destroyed the evidence of the EO having it's roots in an anti-muslim animus (e-mails, memos, etc) They'd have to delete YouTube
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Few people are in a strong enough position (financially) to say "you know what, gently caress you fire me but I won't do this" assuming that they actually don't agree with what they're trying to defend. After Trump fired the acting AG people who aren't going to try to get out of the DoJ are going to be more than happy to fall in line with emperor baby hands' authoritarianism. That's true, but it doesn't change the ethical duty. Lots of people are going to have to make horrible choices. And all things considered, senior DoJ attorneys are in a better position for such sacrificing and a better position to gain new employment than a lot of people are going to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Few people are in a strong enough position (financially) to say "you know what, gently caress you fire me but I won't do this" assuming that they actually don't agree with what they're trying to defend. After Trump fired the acting AG people who aren't going to try to get out of the DoJ are going to be more than happy to fall in line with emperor baby hands' authoritarianism. But that "few people" includes every single DoJ attorney.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:But that "few people" includes every single DoJ attorney. How much do you think young AUSA's make vs. some typical student loan balances. There are plenty of non-prestige positions in unsexy districts and satellite offices that aren't going to immediately absorb a bunch of new litigators.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:How much do you think young AUSA's make vs. some typical student loan balances. There are plenty of non-prestige positions in unsexy districts and satellite offices that aren't going to immediately absorb a bunch of new litigators. Ok, so, the government is handcuffing five year old kids and locking them up in solitary away from their parents and innocent people are losing jobs and being separated from their families and being denied necessary medical care because they can't come to America but I think the real victims here are young highly qualified attorneys who *might* have to look for another job for a while
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok, so, the government is handcuffing five year old kids and locking them up in solitary away from their parents and innocent people are losing jobs and being separated from their families and being denied necessary medical care because they can't come to America I'm not seeing any victims here at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok, so, the government is handcuffing five year old kids and locking them up in solitary away from their parents and innocent people are losing jobs and being separated from their families and being denied necessary medical care because they can't come to America Welcome to America! You know, I think I was wrong about you. You're finally starting to get what this country is all about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkhX5W7JoWI
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:How much money is every willing to put on the Trump admin having already destroyed the evidence of the EO having it's roots in an anti-muslim animus (e-mails, memos, etc) https://twitter.com/AriMelber/status/829119243778195456
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Welcome to America! quote:The chief weapon of the sea pirates, however, was their capacity to astonish. Nobody
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Judges aren't buying that The better question would be to ask if they deny Trump repeatedly made statements about a Muslim ban. Put Trump in the spotlight even more. Though given Gorsuch's "I don't care what people say they intended, I care what's written" stance when it comes to law it seems like he's Trump's ideal pick. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Though given Gorsuch's "I don't care what people say they intended, I care what's written" stance when it comes to law it seems like he's Trump's ideal pick. lol if you think that’s what Gorsuch really cares about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:lol if you think that’s what Gorsuch really cares about. I'm aware, it just gives him a more convenient excuse for his awfulness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
I'm still really confused by DoJ assertions that the action in question is "unreviewable". Like, aren't they saying this to a judge(/s)? Where do they think this authority comes from?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm still really confused by DoJ assertions that the action in question is "unreviewable". Like, aren't they saying this to a judge(/s)? Where do they think this authority comes from? They spotted a gold‐fringed flag in the courtroom, which means that it is an admiralty court with no power over them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm still really confused by DoJ assertions that the action in question is "unreviewable". Like, aren't they saying this to a judge(/s)? Where do they think this authority comes from?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:How much do you think young AUSA's make vs. some typical student loan balances. There are plenty of non-prestige positions in unsexy districts and satellite offices that aren't going to immediately absorb a bunch of new litigators. If you have a history as an AUSA (esp one who quit over a point of principle) there will be PLENTY of firms happy to throw you money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ziiiiing, but the Constitution guarantees criminals a right to counsel. It does not guarantee the president a right to have unconstitutional actions defended. It should be and I think it'd be pretty easy to expand the right to include that. Plus, I'd much rather phoning-it-in-dude than a fire-breathing believer. He seems to be doing his legal due diligence (as any lawyer should) but he doesn't seem to be looking for creative ways to win the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
twodot posted:I would think there's broad agreement that unreviewable actions exist, for instance, actions that don't have remedies. I'm not saying this particular action falls into that category, but it doesn't seem like a foreign concept. Sure, it's just a really odd term to use, and for those actions or settings, other terms are more conventional. It seems to invite rebuke. I've read through this article on the subject, and if that's the intended doctrine, it seems to have very little to do with what occurred. I'm also confused by how Congress could have the authority to delegate authority on a subject in a way that makes it unreviewable on constitutional grounds. The article is...not great at supporting its assertions. It cites Webster v Doe, but when I read that it seemed like 1. wow this is not a set of case reasoning I would want to rely on, and 2. The relevant constitutional reviewability claim regarding wasn't necessary to the finding and appears to be dicta (I haven't dug further into the cited record than that). Skimming the apparent root case, Johnson v. Robison, it seems not to be trying to give congress the power to create laws that grant administrators immunity from constitutional review at all. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:It should be and I think it'd be pretty easy to expand the right to include that. It's a bit of a catch-22 argument but I'd posit that the president cannot, definitionally, have a right to take unconstitutional action, and similarly cannot have a right to have his unconstitutional actions defended. You could argue that he has a right to criminal defense but unconstitutional action is not necessarily criminal action, and even if the two actions were the same (for example, a presidential order that the FBI shoot all brown people without trial) the two legal questions would be distinct -- the president's legal power to order X is a separate question from whether or not ordering X is a crime, in the same sense that civil liability for a homicide is a distinct question from whether the homicide was criminal murder.. The president would not be *constitutionally* entitled to an attorney to defend his assertion of the legal power to order murder, even if he subsquently did have the constitutional right to an attorney when placed on trial for conspiracy to commit murder. Of course I'm making a circular argument here because I'm assuming that the presidential action under debate is axiomatically unconstitutional and that will almost never be the case except in the most egregious circumstances. But we're living in egregious times. Shbobdb posted:Plus, I'd much rather phoning-it-in-dude than a fire-breathing believer. He seems to be doing his legal due diligence (as any lawyer should) but he doesn't seem to be looking for creative ways to win the case. Yeah, maybe I'm being too hard on the guy and he's using terms like "unreviewable authority" for that reason. Still though. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm still really confused by DoJ assertions that the action in question is "unreviewable". Like, aren't they saying this to a judge(/s)? Where do they think this authority comes from? I think he just stuck his foot in his mouth while trying to split hairs, since everyone on that phone call was smart enough to know that was literally the worst possible answer to that question. He immedietly walks it backs in the next sentence, which I wish I could find a transcript for. A lot of his arguments revolved around trying to convince the judges that the EO should be judged only by its contents and not by the intent. A very large portion of both sides of the debate revolved around this debate; and I think he mentally was answering the "intent" question since I don't think anyone expected the debate to swing into Marbury vs. Madison territory. If anyone has a transcript, it would be great to link it. edit: I do want to point out the whole call is incredibly interesting, and it's only about an hour long. I strongly suggest loading it up instead of a podcast on your next commute. Based on my extensive legal knowledge coming from listening to the OA podcast and following the supreme court thread, the DOJ lawyer's arguments come off as incredibly week. It's also interesting how much time both sides spent addressing standing -- because I suspect the DOJ's arguments that Washington/Minnesota didn't have standing to bring the case, although weak, are stronger than the arguments that the EO is constitutional. Chuu fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Chuu posted:I think he just stuck his foot in his mouth while trying to split hairs, since everyone on that phone call was smart enough to know that was literally the worst possible answer to that question. He immedietly walks it backs in the next sentence, which I wish I could find a transcript for. If I recall the moment he tried to move the burden of Presidential Infallibility, I mean non-reviewability onto the actual determination of risk - it's the President's call if Countries X, Y and Z pose a national security threat to the United States. Which leads me to ask 'so we're not allowed to look at bad faith?'
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
Chuu posted:If anyone has a transcript, it would be great to link it. Think this is what you're after Starts on page 75/6
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/04/17-35105%20motion.pdf No, we're talking about the transcript of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPOFowWqFGU
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
So something interesting happened on Monday in Aziz v Trump:quote:Before the Court are Motions to Intervene on Behalf of President Donald J. Trump et al. by  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4576795/aziz-v-trump/I'm unclear if the hearing to show cause as to why they shouldn't be in contempt happened or not. edit: the motion was denied for "reasons stated in open court", but the transcript is paywalled. quote:the Commonwealth of Virginia's Motion for the Issuance of a Rule to ShowCause [Dkt. 18] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ShadowHawk fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
Holy poo poo the Grenadier motion is amazingly crazy: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4576795/aziz-v-trump/#entry-45 Also the Okyay one (much shorter and fewer youtube citations, but similar pseudolaw wonderousness): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4576795/aziz-v-trump/#entry-47
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 10:37
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Holy poo poo the Grenadier motion is amazingly crazy: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4576795/aziz-v-trump/#entry-45 That is some prime frothing insanity right there, nearly Time Cube level.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:How many Obama DOJ should have resigned rather than rack up the worst Supreme Court record in modern history? Are...are you even familiar with the nature of many of the cases brought before the SC since 2009? Dude, yes, we have indeed been losing ground 5-4 on labor, capacity of states to tax and regulate business operating within their borders, campaign finance transparency, etc. Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and Thomas have continued to be 100% reliable corporate-interest shills and Kennedy is only socially kinda moderate w.r.t application of privacy theory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:How much money is every willing to put on the Trump admin having already destroyed the evidence of the EO having it's roots in an anti-muslim animus (e-mails, memos, etc) Within an hour of it being announced Trump corporate email was on a Win2003 box and Exchange 2010 without Forefront, they had taken everything offline and quickly replaced it. Additionally, Trump businesses have a long and publicly-documented history of destroying mail, documents, memmos etc during discovery. Inb4 Number Ten Cocks wants to debate this one so I can slap him with publicly-available court proceedings  They've got this, unfortunately. I'd go so far as to postulate there's token pious email of requests back and forth for perfectly reasonable action that is totally outside the demonstrated animus Trump speaks, types, press releases, and chants. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:That is some prime frothing insanity right there, nearly Time Cube level. I read the Okyay one first and was like "well it's definitely some suburban SUV driving trumpist horseshit but I wouldn't call it frothing" so I opened the Grenadier one and 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I read the Okyay one first and was like "well it's definitely some suburban SUV driving trumpist horseshit but I wouldn't call it frothing" so I opened the Grenadier one and gently caress the tables, ya'll need to see this page in its original glory: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:gently caress the tables, ya'll need to see this page in its original glory: lol wut Is that...did somebody...what does this have to do with Aziz v. Trump? Can anybody just file anything and try to attach it to any case?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Yes. (Also Grenadier is batshit crazy - this ain't the first insane filing she's made in Virginia.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, it's like someone appended an Avshalom post to a court document.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
mdemone posted:lol wut Yep. The court, of course, denied the motion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's true, but it doesn't change the ethical duty. Lots of people are going to have to make horrible choices. We would rather people not do a lovely job of defending awful laws that their job requires them to do, instead we would prefer good people quit and be replaced by awful people who will do a good job of defending the awful laws? People who will likely be there after the awful laws stop getting passed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
OnceIWasAnOstrich posted:We would rather people not do a lovely job of defending awful laws that their job requires them to do, instead we would prefer good people quit and be replaced by awful people who will do a good job of defending the awful laws? People who will likely be there after the awful laws stop getting passed. I'd prefer a general strike of DoJ attorney s, ideally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:27
|
|