|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'd prefer a general strike of DoJ attorney s, ideally. Wouldn't a strike by a public sector employee be illegal?
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Wouldn't a strike by a public sector employee be illegal? If it were the only way to prevent unconstitutional executive actions, it would be Constitutionally mandated. The oath is not to the President; the president is not the client of the Department of Justice. The client is the Constitution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Wouldn't a strike by a public sector employee be illegal? The air traffic controllers tested this one under Reagan. It did not turn out well for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
So Marbury v. Madison got it wrong, the Court doesn't decide what's constitutional, individual DOJ attorney asked to defend something in court do. That's certainly a novel theory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:So Marbury v. Madison got it wrong, the Court doesn't decide what's constitutional, individual DOJ attorney asked to defend something in court do. That's certainly a novel theory. Does the executive not have a duty to follow the law just because the courts issue final legal rulings? Is anything the President does legal until the courts say no? Can an attorney be actively complicit in the commission of crimes just so long as a court hasn't found them guilty yet? Is "just following orders" an excuse to commit war crimes? Do prosecutors have an ethical duty to not prosecute individuals they know to be innocent? DoJ attorneys have an independent duty to act according to the Constitution. In fact, all government officials do! Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
“Just following orders” is a bad road to go down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
You need to take a break man
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:How many Obama DOJ should have resigned rather than rack up the worst Supreme Court record in modern history? Help me out, anyone?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/829446529089990657
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/JusticePresident.pdf That might be it. Link is from http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/JusticePresident.html - searching for it lead me to a paywalled version. I say might because I'm assuming Posner is an author and I only skimmed it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'd prefer a general strike of DoJ attorney s, ideally. Yeah, and half the nursing homes and ambulance companies out there should be unable to staff themselves, because any ethical medical professional should be unwilling to be associated with them, but but nothing is going to change and a man's gotta eat, y'know?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:I'm not seeing any victims here at all. The thread is the victim, you, the perpetrator .
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:This has nothing on the Bork obituary by Jeffrey Toobin, which is a pleasure to read. That is both entertaining and informative: I did not know Joe Biden chaired the committee that borked Bork.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Wouldn't a strike by a public sector employee be illegal? Yes, and we do not need a Trumper-led engine informally leaning on applicant assessments for those replacing fired strikers such that they're all alt-righters or at least Federalists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:That is both entertaining and informative: I did not know Joe Biden chaired the committee that borked Bork. I agree and there's something that I adore about demolishing a person's character and reputation in their own obituary. Essentially gently caress you, we're glad you're dead because you were an unrepentant piece of poo poo and everyone should know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
He needs to go Souter on Trump
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Yes, and we do not need a Trumper-led engine informally leaning on applicant assessments for those replacing fired strikers such that they're all alt-righters or at least Federalists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Academician Nomad posted:What's the difference if the current job holders do whatever Trump wants anyway? They half‐rear end it and lose cases, rather than working zealously and still losing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:edit: i need to take my calming medicine A lot of our institutions are built on the idea of good faith actors. That's part of the problem we are encountering right now. But, in short, yes. Assuming the Executive is acting in good faith, our system is designed such that his actions ought be viewed as legal until challenged. Prosecutors have to try and nail everyone, even people they personally suspect of being innocent, because that is their role in society. Can you imagine the reverse, where "guilty" people were refused defense? I agree they have an independent duty to act according to the Constitution. But part and parcel with that is respective checks and balances. Granted, a lot of these institutions are based on a gentleman's agreement with a heaping amount of white power, so when it gets abused, what can you expect?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:A lot of our institutions are built on the idea of good faith actors. That's part of the problem we are encountering right now. Ah, I didn't say suspect, I said know -- and I asked that specific question because it's one on which the model rules of ethics are clear. ( http://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...prosecutor.html ). The reverse situation is not applicable; prosecutors, as government attorneys, have a higher ethical standard they must adhere to, because they wield the power of the State. The right to counsel is a shield, not a sword -- defendants have it because they are weak. The president isn't. To be fair to your point in turn, though, yes, you are correct that the real debate here is over whether or not it is currently valid to assume that the executive is acting in good faith. Pretty much all my arguments above flow from the premise that Trump is an obvious bad faith actor. I personally believe that to be a valid premise but I will at least admit that a current DoJ attorney might have a more difficult time accepting that same premise, if only because of the old Upton Sinclair quote that it is very difficult to convince a man of something when his job depends upon not believing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Basically that. There aren't good counters to bad faith actors at multiple levels in the Constitutional system. Now that we've figured out ONE WEIRD TRICK it's pretty much a long slide into nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Wouldn't the attorney's moral obligation be to make a bad argument and lose, rather than quit and let someone who might win take the case? With bonus plausible deniability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Wouldn't the attorney's moral obligation be to make a bad argument and lose, rather than quit and let someone who might win take the case? With bonus plausible deniability. Wilhelm Stuckart tried that defence at Nuremberg. It only kind of worked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Wouldn't the attorney's moral obligation be to make a bad argument and lose, rather than quit and let someone who might win take the case? With bonus plausible deniability. I do have to admit that I'm very apprehensive about what happens if everyone opposed to Trump resigns in protest, since that could just mean that he and Bannon get to remake the formerly non-partisan civil service in their own image which could be extremely damaging in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Wouldn't the attorney's moral obligation be to make a bad argument and lose, rather than quit and let someone who might win take the case? With bonus plausible deniability. To Godwin's law this: if you were tasked to draft the Nuremberg Laws, would it be best for you to quit or try and argue the hardliners down to allowing those that have 2 Jewish grandparents count as full blooded Germans?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Historically speaking, mass resignation by public servants doesn't work. It just enables the awful people they are resigning from to run hog wild. The Long March through the Institution doesn't work either, you become institutionalized. But institutionalized bureaucrats are neither nor. They have inputs and they have outputs. The society creating and surrounding those inputs/outputs may be deranged and insane. It may be evil. But if the society is evil, and I believe the Trump administration is evil, I believe a rusty cog that slows the workings of the machine is far more damaging than a purposefully broken cog that can be immediately replaced. There are arguments to be made for people of absolute necessity. I'm not big on the whole "Great Man" take on history but some people do mean more than others so when they say "gently caress no" it means something. But, even charitably, those "Great Men" insofar as they exist, aren't DoJ lackeys. So, we have to rely on rusty cogs, poorly calibrated, slipping cogs. That's where their power lies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Historically speaking, mass resignation by public servants doesn't work. It just enables the awful people they are resigning from to run hog wild. The other thing worth noting is that people who resign get replaced. If the people in power are awful they're going to fill those posts with awful people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The other thing worth noting is that people who resign get replaced. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:To Godwin's law this: if you were tasked to draft the Nuremberg Laws, would it be best for you to quit or try and argue the hardliners down to allowing those that have 2 Jewish grandparents count as full blooded Germans? Quit, of course, so you could leave the country immediately. ...Oh. Oh!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/senatorshoshana/status/829728671757918208
Number Ten Cocks fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Feb 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Already gone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
It got replaced, I edited the link.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The air traffic controllers tested this one under Reagan. It did not turn out well for them. In one fell swoop, all federal attorneys are replaced by the liberty university law school class of 2016.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:In one fell swoop, all federal attorneys are replaced by the liberty university law school class of 2016. Staffing the DOJ full of inexperienced liberty university grads seems like it'd be a good thing for everyone that isn't in the administration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
skull mask mcgee posted:Staffing the DOJ full of inexperienced liberty university grads seems like it'd be a good thing for everyone that isn't in the administration. Plus there aren't but so many liberty law grads. The number of attorneys is finite.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
In case anyone's interested, Neil Gorsuch's DPhil Thesis on assisted suicide is available to download from the Oxford University Repository: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:688e5b8c-bb06-4d86-abe0-440a7666ffc1
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
mediadave posted:In case anyone's interested, Neil Gorsuch's DPhil Thesis on assisted suicide is available to download from the Oxford University Repository: Cliff notes: quote:I consider legal doctrine surrounding autonomy and personal privacy, and conclude that it is likely too weak a foundation on which to build a judiciallycreated right to assisted suicide (Chapter V). Because scholarly and legislative debate will not be confined by judicial doctrine, however, I consider three competing moral-political theories of autonomy. I find that two such theories could afford a right to assisted suicide and euthanasia, though, if so, they would likely require that the right be extended to all competent adults, not just the terminally ill or those suffering untreatable pain "Your body is not your own and even if it was we'd have to let anyone just kill themselves!" Man gently caress this guy
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Wilhelm Stuckart tried that defence at Nuremberg. It only kind of worked. I was not aware of this episode. I'd say that under the circumstances it really worked quite well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I was not aware of this episode. Yeah, "time served" is an amazing result. Doubly so for the guy who helped formulate jewish extermination policies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
Emergency stay upheld. Enforcement of the ban still blocked. https://apnews.com/1d68613554f140a49cff4a6f987c4f7e?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP Here's the order https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3457898/2-9-17-9th-Circuit-Order.pdf Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 00:26
|
|