|
haveblue posted:No. The Constitution and well-established law specify the line of succession and gaps in the line are filled by appointment from above or by Congress. What if all 25 people in the line of succession have a simultaneous heart attack?
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:What if all 25 people in the line of succession have a simultaneous heart attack? Trump hasn't made Death Note real no matter how many anime promises he made
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:What if all 25 people in the line of succession have a simultaneous heart attack? I believe there is none. Congress probably assumed that if they were all dead, there probably wasn't a United States left to govern.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
The line of succession after VP is set by Congress. So they could always change it but obviously they wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:What if all 25 people in the line of succession have a simultaneous heart attack? As soon as a new speaker of the house is appointed, they would immediately become president.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:What if all 25 people in the line of succession have a simultaneous heart attack? Kiefer Sutherland becomes president.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:As soon as a new speaker of the house is appointed, they would immediately become president. presuming of course that in this event of a nuclear war or asteroid impact enough of congress survived to have a quorum
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Yeah ultimately if supreme court rulings are seen as increasingly illegitimate you're gonna get a president actively running on the platform of ignoring the supreme court. And I'm sure there will be defenders in this thread saying that as long as they can get away with it and were elected on that platform and so long as they had the consent of congress it would be perfectly fine to do so.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:As soon as a new speaker of the house is appointed, they would immediately become president. What if the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is still alive and doing a fine job as acting president but the House needs a new Speaker?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:What if the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is still alive and doing a fine job as acting president but the House needs a new Speaker? If he has been sworn in, that's it. He finishes the term. If the previous President had less than half a term left, the VA Sec would get to run for two more terms himself even.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:If he has been sworn in, that's it. He finishes the term. If the previous President had less than half a term left, the VA Sec would get to run for two more terms himself even. quote:(2) An individual acting as President under this subsection shall continue so to do until the expiration of the then current Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act, except that the removal of the disability of an individual higher on the list contained in paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his service. When a new Speaker is chosen, is that considered “ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list”? If so, when would “not after a qualified and prior-entitled individual is able to act” apply? When someone higher on the list is still alive but cannot be reached? Or they temporarily decline to resign their current office for whatever reason?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:When a new Speaker is chosen, is that considered “ability to qualify on the part of an individual higher on such list”? Yes. The "Bumping" problem was discussed in the "Second Report of the Continuity of Government Commission", and is of questionable constitutionality. quote:Bumping Procedures https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_continuity_of_government.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:What if the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is still alive and doing a fine job as acting president but the House needs a new Speaker? The Speaker of the House could refuse to serve as President and remain in the House. I kinda suspect that will happen if Trump and Pence get sent down. People won't want to sit in that chair. My hope would be they'd all step back and let Mattis keep the seat warm.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The Speaker of the House could refuse to serve as President and remain in the House. I doubt that Ryan wouldn't "begrudgingly accept the ominous burden of assuming the presidency" while being unable to continue his huge smirk. The amendment really shows that when it comes to drafting laws/amendments, the general principal is "good enough." Is there a huge glaring hole in the law? gently caress it, it's good enough
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Yes. The "Bumping" problem was discussed in the "Second Report of the Continuity of Government Commission", and is of questionable constitutionality. EwokEntourage posted:The amendment really shows that when it comes to drafting laws/amendments, the general principal is "good enough." Is there a huge glaring hole in the law? gently caress it, it's good enough I feel like the thinking is "if this ever matters, everything is probably on fire anyway and the survivors get to do whatever they want" Or we're in a Tom Clancy novel.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I doubt that Ryan wouldn't "begrudgingly accept the ominous burden of assuming the presidency" while being unable to continue his huge smirk. Yeah, Ryan clearly wants to be President, no way he wouldn't accept after doing the requisite dithering, so as not to seem too eager. There's also a path where Trump goes down and Pence stays afloat long enough to nominate a VP, but then Ryan pulls a Jerry Ford to make his lifelong dream come true when Pence goes down and jumps from the House to the White House. If both Trump and Pence go down together, everyone else in the line of succession in the executive branch is gonna be radioactive, so it's basically Ryan or Orrin Hatch who end up in the White House trying to put the pieces back together and even if Ryan weren't ahead of Hatch in line, I'd still bet money he'd end up there first.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
One big question is whether the party would fall in line behind a hypothetical Trump replacement, or would view that person as a usurper.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Imo there's no way the GOP impeaches Trump without a huge split in the party. A huge portion of the base simply won't tolerate it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
skull mask mcgee posted:Imo there's no way the GOP impeaches Trump without a huge split in the party. A huge portion of the base simply won't tolerate it. Not every GOP rep is from an R +10 district. Plenty of the guys in districts Clinton won are already getting nervous. It's not a foregone conclusion, but I certainly wouldn't table it either
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
The consequences of Trump need to be much greater than the embarrassment of impeaching your own drat party's president. It seems so unlikely that... gently caress it nothing's really anymore. Really though, he'll resign once it gets too bad or he'll have a massive heart attack and resign from his hospital bed if he survives.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The Speaker of the House could refuse to serve as President and remain in the House. I think Mattis' would largely be seen as a caretaker administration, which makes that possibility way to conciliatory for the current administration or house leadership.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Not every GOP rep is from an R +10 district. Plenty of the guys in districts Clinton won are already getting nervous. It's not a foregone conclusion, but I certainly wouldn't table it either I know that. That doesn't mean it wouldn't piss off a substantial subset of the party.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Really though, he'll resign once it gets too bad or he'll have a massive heart attack and resign from his hospital bed if he survives. I don't see Trump ever resigning. It goes against every fiber of his being. People talk about refusing succession to the presidency, can you actually do that? I guess you could just refuse to be sworn in, or resign on your first day, if you had to.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:I don't see Trump ever resigning. It goes against every fiber of his being. Yeah, you can just say no.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
It's possible, Argentina has a lot of stuff modeled on the us. Before the Kircheners they went through a series of people that took the office and resigned a few days later basically after reviewing the economic books. This was I believe after a particularly corrupt administration that basically looted the treasury during the 90s boom and disappeared after the tech bubble crashed. So if things look difficult enough to work out people may well feel being president would be a poison chalice that would leave them with no future career, unpopular and recorded in history as a trivia point for school quizzes.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:disappeared after the tech bubble crashed. Was there a big Argentine tech boom? I haven't heard about it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
More the general international economic decline, specifically triggered by the us .com bubble. Sorry maybe should have been clearer in that reference
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
The unthinkable has happened: Clarence Thomas is the voice of reason.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:The unthinkable has happened: Clarence Thomas is the voice of reason. Also, the Eastern District of Texas is out of the patent business, in a unanimous decision that's so short it can be effectively summarized as "the federal circuit are loving morons who ignored our prior decision, which is still good. reversed."
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:The unthinkable has happened: Clarence Thomas is the voice of reason. Well, kinda; he has a little concurrence that calls out majority-minority districts as a terrible thing that should be subject to strict scrutiny whenever they even exist. But, even though today's a victory, this seems like a bad sign for the future. Alito and Roberts going full "sure, we have piles of explicit evidence that the state crafted these districts with racially discriminatory intent, but since they also had a political motivation, it's perfectly legit," was pretty much to be expected. Kennedy joining on, though, is seriously loving bad news for future voter suppression cases. The dissent makes no sense unless you accept that partisan gerrymandering, to any extreme, is a good thing - to the point where we should accept explicitly racial voter suppression to preserve the noble partisan gerrymander.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Well, kinda; he has a little concurrence that calls out majority-minority districts as a terrible thing that should be subject to strict scrutiny whenever they even exist. It may not have been argued that the gerrymandering was unacceptably partisan in the lower courts. I only skimmed the dissent however so I don't know if they addressed that issue.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:The dissent makes no sense unless you accept that partisan gerrymandering, to any extreme, is a good thing - to the point where we should accept explicitly racial voter suppression to preserve the noble partisan gerrymander. "Good, bad - I'm the guy with the Constitution."
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Also, the Eastern District of Texas is out of the patent business, in a unanimous decision that's so short it can be effectively summarized as "the federal circuit are loving morons who ignored our prior decision, which is still good. reversed." Now they'll all be in Delaware if I understand it right?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Now they'll all be in Delaware if I understand it right? Either in the state of incorporation or the state they are headquartered in, yes. So Delaware will almost always be an option but depending on how friendly they are to plaintiffs it may become the center or companies may routinely get sued in their HQ states to avoid Delaware if it becomes considered defendant-friendly.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
esquilax posted:The appeals court okay'd it, and SCOTUS declined to review. Frank v Walker. There was another appeals decision on it last year but I don't know much. This account is worth reading, for the practical effects of Wisconsin voter ID. This guy spends hundreds of dollars trying to correct an error on his birth certificate in order to meet Wisconsin's requirements, only to eventually give up and move back to his home state. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-black-man-brought-3-forms-of-id-to-the-polls-in-wisconsin-he-still-couldnt-vote/
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It may not have been argued that the gerrymandering was unacceptably partisan in the lower courts. I only skimmed the dissent however so I don't know if they addressed that issue. I'm going off of this: quote:A critical factor in our analysis was the failure of those challenging the district to come forward with an alternative redistricting map that served the legislature’s political objective as well as the challenged version without producing the same racial effects. If the plaintiffs want to prevail under the standard set by Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy, they don't get to just prove racial animus and kick the map back to the state for a fix. The plaintiffs also have to provide a map that preserves the partisan gerrymander.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
This article makes the case that Kagan has carefully structured that NC decision to be a huge weapon against southern gerrymanders:quote:... http://electionlawblog.org/?p=92675
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This article makes the case that Kagan has carefully structured that NC decision to be a huge weapon against southern gerrymanders: Doesn't matter if five justices don't give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This article makes the case that Kagan has carefully structured that NC decision to be a huge weapon against southern gerrymanders: this seemed pretty damning: quote:Finally, an expert report by Dr. Stephen Ansolabehere lent circumstantial support to the plaintiffs’ race-not politics case. Ansolabehere looked at the six counties overlapping with District 12—essentially the region from which the mapmakers could have drawn the district’s population. The question he asked was: Who from those counties actually ended up in District 12? The answer he found was: Only 16% of the region’s white registered voters, but 64% of the black ones. See App. 321–322. Ansolabehere next controlled for party registration, but discovered that doing so made essentially no difference: For example, only 18% of the region’s white Democrats wound up in District 12, whereas 65% of the black Democrats did. See id., at 332. The upshot was that, regardless of party, a black voter was three to four times more likely than a white voter to cast his ballot within District 12’s borders. See ibid. Those stark disparities led Ansolabehere to conclude that “race, and not party,” was “the dominant factor” in District 12’s design. Id., at 337. His report, as the District Court held, thus tended to confirm the plaintiffs’ direct evidence of racial predominance. See 159 F. Supp. 3d, at 620–621.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Doesn't matter if five justices don't give a gently caress. The Supreme Court can always reverse itself, but that decision gives little room for maneuver for district and appeals courts reviewing challenges and the Supreme Court may not be interested in reviewing them all. Plus Thomas is saying he's not buying the "our packing of all the black voters into one district is for their benefit!" argument and he has shown a propensity to refuse to deviate from his (usually crazy) beliefs to support, even if its what the Republican Party wants (though usually they want something less extreme and he's going more extreme).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:51
|
|