|
Yeah I don’t understand the court system at all. It seems so stupid. For rich elites or people in power, it’s more a means of just stalling and avoiding having to do something for as long as possible. Look at trump’s tax returns.. it’s been through like 5 judge rulings and two appeals or something? The same with the immigration lawsuits and emoluments lawsuits. They’ve really gotten nowhere and the rulings are completely unenforceable because they’re immediately re-appealed ad infinitum. loving broke as hell. The even luckier break is getting it thrown onto the SC’s pile of stuff to review because even if they don’t it might take a year or more to hear the conclusion and by that time the person’s probably fully gotten away with it. Bolton obviously doesn’t want to testify, I imagine it’s the least comfortable thing for him to do (I mean who in Trump’s cabinet would want to, the NDAs they all signed probably scare the poo poo out of them). Using the appeals process and “waiting on other rulings” is just avoiding it as passively as possible.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
Round 2 in the judiciary officially scheduled to begin Wednesday 12/4 https://twitter.com/paigelav/status/1199402572769087488
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
ewiley posted:I'm hoping their fear of a Democrat president wielding king power scares them away from this line of reasoning but I don't hold-out a lot of faith in Roberts to do the right thing. With enough conservatives in the Supreme Court they can just switch their interpretation of the constitution depending whether the President is Republican or Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Yeah I don’t understand the court system at all. It seems so stupid. For rich elites or people in power, it’s more a means of just stalling and avoiding having to do something for as long as possible. The legal system seems possible to indefinitely stall if you don't run out of money. Which is good for people on death row who have supporters, bad for people being sued by a billionaire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:With enough conservatives in the Supreme Court they can just switch their interpretation of the constitution depending whether the President is Republican or Democrat. I mean, this is in essence where its already heading. Being able to make a ruling that pertains only to the specifics of that one case and in no way is allowed to shape/guide future judgments is exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
The youtube Lawyer guy did a good breakdown of GOP legal arguments we've heard so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca12k2qbUQM
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1199450012717133826
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
eke out posted:Round 2 in the judiciary officially scheduled to begin Wednesday 12/4 nice. public hearings with this one or just the big report?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:nice. public hearings with this one or just the big report? If it's public hearings I don't think my brain or my liver can take Gaetz, Gohmert, and Gym Jordan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:If it's public hearings I don't think my brain or my liver can take Gaetz, Gohmert, and Gym Jordan. i weirdly forget gohmert exists. he is legit the dumbest dude in congress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i weirdly forget gohmert exists. he is legit the dumbest dude in congress. That is a very crowded field.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
eke out posted:Round 2 in the judiciary officially scheduled to begin Wednesday 12/4 Just looked at the membership of the Judiciary Committee and see that it includes Gaetz, Jordan, Gohmert, Ratcliffe and at least three or four other "Freedom Caucus" Rs. The D side is led by Nadler, who I think is pretty weaksauce, and Swalwell is the one D who moves the needle for me. Those hearings are gonna be paaaaainful, and I could see Nadler getting pushed around pretty bad. I wonder if they could have Schiff become a member of the Judiciary Committee for a few weeks. 
SchrodingersCat fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Nov 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Yeah I don’t understand the court system at all. It seems so stupid. For rich elites or people in power, it’s more a means of just stalling and avoiding having to do something for as long as possible. Look at trump’s tax returns.. it’s been through like 5 judge rulings and two appeals or something? The same with the immigration lawsuits and emoluments lawsuits. They’ve really gotten nowhere and the rulings are completely unenforceable because they’re immediately re-appealed ad infinitum. loving broke as hell. The even luckier break is getting it thrown onto the SC’s pile of stuff to review because even if they don’t it might take a year or more to hear the conclusion and by that time the person’s probably fully gotten away with it. Bolton obviously doesn’t want to testify, I imagine it’s the least comfortable thing for him to do (I mean who in Trump’s cabinet would want to, the NDAs they all signed probably scare the poo poo out of them). Using the appeals process and “waiting on other rulings” is just avoiding it as passively as possible. Which is why the democrats should start levying fines or arresting witnesses who do not cooperate, and defunding agencies that won't produce witnesses or documents. The house has an unambiguous power to do these things. They don't need to wait for the loving courts. They're choosing to, because it's apparently necessary to speedrun this impeachment for reasons that I cannot discern at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:Which is why the democrats should start levying fines or arresting witnesses who do not cooperate, and defunding agencies that won't produce witnesses or documents. The house has an unambiguous power to do these things. They don't need to wait for the loving courts. They're choosing to, because it's apparently necessary to speedrun this impeachment for reasons that I cannot discern at all. If they did those things it would be immediately enjoined and then probably appealed all the way up to SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:Trump has a lot of "Actually, the president is an absolute monarch" cases in the courts and while the appeals courts feel obligated to let the president have his say before giving rulings that translate to "LOL! Are you loving stupid?" the supreme court doesn't seem very interested in taking them up. These are cases that would be 7-2 or 6-3 decisions since only the most grotesquely incompetent and partisan of partisan hacks would agree with Trump's reasoning. If the appeals courts rule " "LOL! Are you loving stupid?" and then the Supreme Court doesn't take the case, that is confirming the lower court's ruling, which is exactly what we want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/blakehounshell/status/1199467268415119362 and here we go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:Which is why the democrats should start levying fines or arresting witnesses who do not cooperate, and defunding agencies that won't produce witnesses or documents. The house has an unambiguous power to do these things. They don't need to wait for the loving courts. They're choosing to, because it's apparently necessary to speedrun this impeachment for reasons that I cannot discern at all. That might make you feel good, but it would be tied up in courts of various layers for 20 years. We don't have that sort of time to throw around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:If they did those things it would be immediately enjoined and then probably appealed all the way up to SCOTUS. There's an abundantly clear supreme court precedent that they can do this. Like, Trump can get away with stonewalling in the courts because there actually isn't super clear precedent that courts are obligated to enforce congressional subpoenas but there's nothing stopping congress from doing it themselves. I'm not even sure that it would be subject to judicial review in the first place, since it's been determined that it's an inherent power of congress, but I don't really know for sure. But anyway, even if the courts did enjoin the fines or detentions or whatever, no court can force Pelosi to fund anything. Pass a spending bill that allocates 0 funding for the State Department until Pompeo produces evidence. Most Americans don't have any clue what the state department does anyway, no one would care if it shut down for a few months. It's not like any coherent diplomacy is happening anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:there's nothing stopping congress from doing it themselves. Actual manpower, if you're talking about arrests
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:There's an abundantly clear supreme court precedent that they can do this. Like, Trump can get away with stonewalling in the courts because there actually isn't super clear precedent that courts are obligated to enforce congressional subpoenas but there's nothing stopping congress from doing it themselves. I'm not even sure that it would be subject to judicial review in the first place, since it's been determined that it's an inherent power of congress, but I don't really know for sure. Edit: Deteriorata posted:That might make you feel good, but it would be tied up in courts of various layers for 20 years. We don't have that sort of time to throw around. Again, defunding the State Department would not take 20 years, but the precedent is remarkably clear here. You say we don't have time, but this would almost assuredly be settled faster if they used inherent contempt powers than if they tried to get the courts to enforce civil contempt via lawsuits. The latter is what they are currently doing. It doesn't make sense that, if house democrats really believe time is of the essence, they'd opt for an approach that has less grounding in precedent. This isn't about making me feel good; if impeachment fails in the senate Trump will think, correctly, that he can get away with anything. It is necessary to produce as much evidence as can possibly be acquired for the senate trial (and again there's got to be SOMETHING in the documents that they aren't turning over that will directly implicate Trump or they'd have just turned them over). We're in the midst of what is probably the greatest political crisis that the country has ever faced, there's a real chance that if this impeachment fails Trump will make even more blatant plays for foreign support in the elections, we'll never recover from a 2020 election that has rampant hacking and disinformation campaigns by foreign governments. If there were ever a time to use every resource possible, it is right now. theflyingorc posted:Actual manpower, if you're talking about arrests I mean they can't arrest Trump or Pompeo obviously but it wouldn't exactly take Rambo to throw some cuffs on Giuliani or Bolton and lug them to the capital jail. Also the house could deputize assistant sergeants at arms or whatever, and I can't imagine that DC/NYC local authorities wouldn't help if needed. They'd probably only need to do it once to get significantly more cooperation. Gnumonic fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Nov 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
The Democrats can't defund the State Department because a) budgets are passed by the Senate as well b) Trump would veto it and c) it's a hilariously bad idea that would accomplish nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
lol just blatant lying, I seriously have know idea how the GOP spins this
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The Democrats can't defund the State Department because a) budgets are passed by the Senate as well b) Trump would veto it and c) it's a hilariously bad idea that would accomplish nothing. Yeah, the fight would move to "Why do the dems want to shut down the government?" and the media would not be able to prevent themselves from going down the bothsidesdoit detour. oxsnard posted:lol just blatant lying, I seriously have know idea how the GOP spins this HE IS THE CHOSEN ONE
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
Also did President Deals just nuke any of Rudy's privilege claims?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Also did President Deals just nuke any of Rudy's privilege claims? Attorney client privilege doesn't exist in congress
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:The Democrats can't defund the State Department because a) budgets are passed by the Senate as well b) Trump would veto it and c) it's a hilariously bad idea that would accomplish nothing. Ok this is wrong on a few levels. 1) Revenue bills must originate in the house. The senate wouldn't pass it... but so what? Democrats could easily make the case that they're defunding one specific administrative agency until they comply. There's no default funding, if the house doesn't apportion money for the State Department then it doesn't get any, no matter what the senate does. Similarly it doesn't matter if Trump vetos it. 'Trump shuts down government to hide his crimes!' is a narrative that could be sold. 2) Withholding funding is literally the mechanism that the founders thought the legislature would use to force compliance by the executive branch. It's the most significant power that any branch of the federal government holds. Maybe it would be politically bad, but I'm not so sure. There's been this disconnect for years between what house democrats say about Trump and the way they act; if he's really an existential threat to the country (and he, in fact, is), then one would expect that measures which, in other times, would be considered too extreme would now be on the table. I'm just guessing here (since that's all anyone could do), but I doubt it would backfire dramatically and I think there's a good chance that hardball tactics would help to impress how serious this crisis upon people who aren't paying that close attention to this shitshow. I could be wrong, but right now removal is dead in the water and Trump's gaining ground in swing states, so I'm not sure what exactly the democrats have to lose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 01:16
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:Ok this is wrong on a few levels. This argument is completely removed from reality. You're basically arguing the Green Lantern theory of government. Policies fail because there just isn't enough will behind them. If we just close our eyes and wish hard enough, all our political dreams will come true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
although the House has the power of the purse in theory, the requirement that the Senate pass the bill basically means that they don't in practice. Also Trump has just been stealing money from other parts of the government to fund the wall with no consequences. Modern Iran-Contra would just involve taking money from other budgets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:although the House has the power of the purse in theory, the requirement that the Senate pass the bill basically means that they don't in practice. For that matter, in practice doesn't the part with revenue bills having to originate in the house just mean that the Senate can hollow out a House bill and make it something completely different? So like if McConnell was feeling like an rear end in a top hat this week he could take the anti-gerrymandering bill, turn it onto a tax on flags with more than three colors, and send it back to the House? I mean, both houses have to pass any bill either way, just I mean the "must originate in the House" thing is one of those Constitutional clauses that turned out to mean gently caress all in practice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 02:35
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:If it's public hearings I don't think my brain or my liver can take Gaetz, Gohmert, and Gym Jordan. I genuinely wonder if having this cast of idiots front and center isn't going to work against them. Gohmert is so dumb that even if you agree with him you end up thinking that anything he's arguing for is a horrible idea. Gaetz and Jordan both have a similar deal where they are so unlikable and unpleasant that outside of generating 2 second sound bites, they are doing no one any favors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:lol just blatant lying, I seriously have know idea how the GOP spins this Welcome to 2019, friend, where reality is whatever you want it to be, if you cognitive your dissonance hard enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:There's an abundantly clear supreme court precedent that they can do this. Like, Trump can get away with stonewalling in the courts because there actually isn't super clear precedent that courts are obligated to enforce congressional subpoenas but there's nothing stopping congress from doing it themselves. For precedent to even enter it has to go in front of the court will be appealed all the way up to SCOTUS. Gnumonic posted:I'm not even sure that it would be subject to judicial review in the first place, since it's been determined that it's an inherent power of congress, but I don't really know for sure. The court decides if something is subject to judicial review. Any decision either way would be appealed all the way up to SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:lol just blatant lying, I seriously have know idea how the GOP spins this I can think of any number of ways. I don't think you realize pervasive the right wing bullshit machine is, and how willing to suck the firehose of bullshit his fans are. I'm watching dudes on FB rationalize this in real time. It's deeply disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
I don't know about defunding agencies, but Congress absolutely has tools that don't require the courts to enforce. https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-congress-fine-federal-officials-under-its-contempt-power quote:Alternatively, Congress could leverage Section 713 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, an appropriation rider that has been included in the annual budget act since 1998. The act prohibits the use of appropriated funds to pay the salary of any federal official who prohibits or prevents other federal employees from communicating with Congress. The history of the act traces back to Congress’s concerns over executive orders by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Howard Taft to prohibit federal employees from contacting Congress except through the head of their agencies. Leveraging this act to punish federal officials, or heads of agencies, who curtail Congress’s access to information has two added advantages. First, unlike the DCIA, the act will allow for withholding of full salary. Second, the procedures currently in place for triggering the act are favorable to the legislative branch. quote:The main body in charge of enforcing this provision, since its adoption, has been the Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO is among the more esoteric government offices in Washington, D.C. The agency exerts a tremendous amount of power and influence over distribution of the federal budget, second, perhaps, to the Treasury Department. It owes some of this unique influence to its status as a legislative agency. Given the agency’s close ties to Congress, relying on GAO’s discretion removes the perennial problem of dealing with executive departments that are often unaccommodating in enforcing contempt power. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Congress has previously triggered the process of GAO’s reviews of violations under the act by merely sending a request letter to GAO, as opposed to taking a full vote in the House. GAO’s exercise of this power has been met with executive pushback in the past, particularly the claim that enforcement of the act violated the executive privilege. GAO has addressed such concerns before, asserting that “absent an opinion from a federal court concluding that [the provision] is unconstitutional,” the agency will continue to enforce it. GAO continues to make its own determinations of the balance between the executive privilege interest and Congress’s need for information. They have weapons,but are afraid of being seen as "escalating" despite these being already affirmed and used powers, compared to the unprecedented fuckery that the Republicans and Trump have been up to for years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 07:55
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Yeah I don’t understand the court system at all. It seems so stupid. For rich elites or people in power, it’s more a means of just stalling and avoiding having to do something for as long as possible. Look at trump’s tax returns.. it’s been through like 5 judge rulings and two appeals or something? The same with the immigration lawsuits and emoluments lawsuits. They’ve really gotten nowhere and the rulings are completely unenforceable because they’re immediately re-appealed ad infinitum. loving broke as hell. The even luckier break is getting it thrown onto the SC’s pile of stuff to review because even if they don’t it might take a year or more to hear the conclusion and by that time the person’s probably fully gotten away with it. Bolton obviously doesn’t want to testify, I imagine it’s the least comfortable thing for him to do (I mean who in Trump’s cabinet would want to, the NDAs they all signed probably scare the poo poo out of them). Using the appeals process and “waiting on other rulings” is just avoiding it as passively as possible. That's only for rich people. Poor people sit in jail while they wait for their appeal scheduled in March 2095. Working as intended.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
Holy lol. Yeah guys, appellate courts are a fascist conspiracy. There should just be one person who gets to decide what the law is in every case with no further review. Okay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Bolton obviously doesn’t want to testify, I imagine it’s the least comfortable thing for him to do (I mean who in Trump’s cabinet would want to, the NDAs they all signed probably scare the poo poo out of them). The NDA's that public employees signed as a condition of employment are absolutely unenforceable and everyone knows it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
kaworu posted:I've been following this all too closely since the Ukraine story broke in September and I am starting to feel a bit of fatigue with the fact that every successive 'revelation' has *seemed* worse for Trump, and yet at the same time it also *seems* to make absolutely no difference at all. I feel the same as you on this. The MSM has allowed republican lies to be given as much weight as the simple truth out of desire to "give both sides the benefit of the doubt" regardless of if they know it is truthful. There are two narratives. The republican narrative which is full of half truths and spin, and the truth. The problem is the MSM gives both the same level of credibility. They have allowed republican operatives and congresspeople to plain lie to our faces unchallenged and they don't ever have progressives on to refute them. This has led to this horrible landscape that exists in which we have normalized allowing lies to be considered "alternative facts" It has allowed someone like Trump to fundamentally change the conversation for the worse and I am really worried there is no way back for this. Welcome to the post truth world. Does anyone have any ideas on how we could fix this because I am losing hope very fast?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
ManBoyChef posted:I feel the same as you on this. The MSM has allowed republican lies to be given as much weight as the simple truth out of desire to "give both sides the benefit of the doubt" regardless of if they know it is truthful. There are two narratives. The republican narrative which is full of half truths and spin, and the truth. The problem is the MSM gives both the same level of credibility. They have allowed republican operatives and congresspeople to plain lie to our faces unchallenged and they don't ever have progressives on to refute them. This has led to this horrible landscape that exists in which we have normalized allowing lies to be considered "alternative facts" It has allowed someone like Trump to fundamentally change the conversation for the worse and I am really worried there is no way back for this. Welcome to the post truth world. CNN, at least, does report everything the Republicans say as lies now, but the issue is that at this point, it doesn't matter because having a Fox counterpart that can spread those lies at truth with just as much or more visibility meaning that everything gets muddled for anyone low information.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
ManBoyChef posted:Does anyone have any ideas on how we could fix this because I am losing hope very fast? Dems have a pretty good probability of keeping a majority in the House and a decent one at getting the presidency but the Senate will be a long shot at best and the most likely Dem candidate to win the election (Biden) flat out won't change or get rid of the filibuster and really in terms of policy is basically a 90s Repub so yeah that probably isn't happening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 06:04
|
|