|
Fister Roboto posted:The problem is that you're making the inverse claim, that the ends never justify the means, which is easily shown to be incorrect (I provided two examples in my previous post), and mischaracterizing my argument as saying that the ends always justify the means. I even provided an example of some means that I believed were not justified (the many war crimes that the Allies committed in WW2). Did you actually read anything that I posted? If you genuinely believe Biden should start ignoring laws and doing as he wishes then why should he stop at firing judges? Biden won in 2020 by less than 100k votes in a handful of key states. Many of those voters he won over were suburbanites who had voted for Trump and Romney previously. You don't seriously believe that a democratic president can just start doing blatantly illegal acts and that it won't have any effect in the following elections, do you? Because what you're advocating for is the surest way of jettisoning Democrats from power in government. If you don't give a gently caress about elections then, again, why stop at firing judges? Just start rounding up Republicans and taking away their rights.
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:25 |
|
|
Owlspiracy posted:actually I'll just do it for you: the immigration apparatus that trump constructed was so monstrously evil that biden has a moral responsibility to get rid of it, even if it means violating labor norms, particularly because most of these immigrants are fleeing disastrous conditions largely created by the us in the first place. i recognize that this might create a dangerous precedent that later republican presidents can abuse, but the immediacy and extent of the current crisis justifies this action. is this a fetish thing for you or what (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Can you post like a normal person and not a c-tier star wars character, what 'tyranny' am I supporting in the stance of 'yea the president shouldn't be inherently bound by the nomination lists of the past president, that's a stupid system' We must keep our faith in the Republic. The day we stop believing democracy can work is the day we lose it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:is this a fetish thing for you or what just stop posting like an rear end in a top hat. this is like the last thread left for you in d&d. instead of assuming that everyone here disagrees with you and you need to score sick owns by hot dropping random tweets, you could just make a simple argument (which you just did! and it was fine!) and let people discuss that. if you legitimately think that this entire forum is populated with ice-loving immigrant haters then why bother posting here. like, just post "its really hosed up how ice and cbp are still loving over immigrants, biden needs to fix this ASAP, even if it means firing people who are federal employees." and then if someone disagrees with you you can discuss that.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
Owlspiracy posted:just stop posting like an rear end in a top hat. this is like the last thread left for you in d&d. instead of assuming that everyone here disagrees with you and you need to score sick owns by hot dropping random tweets, you could just make a simple argument (which you just did! and it was fine!) and let people discuss that. if you legitimately think that this entire forum is populated with ice-loving immigrant hates then why bother posting here. I think 'actually let me tell you what you think' is a pretty huge rear end in a top hat move and that's like 90% of your posting but hey
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:I think 'actually let me tell you what you think' is a pretty huge rear end in a top hat move and that's like 90% of your posting but hey I mean, in all honesty, it would help tremendously if you actually addressed people's arguments rather than repeating the same nonsense like "imperial executive branch". If your argument is "the president shouldn't be inherently bound by the nomination lists of the past president" then fine, make that argument and propose a mechanism to change the law. Suggesting that the president should just ignore the law on the basis that you think it is stupid, and act like a tyrant because that's what the previous president from the opposing party did, is a very intellectually shallow argument and that is why people are responding to you with ridicule.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:I think 'actually let me tell you what you think' is a pretty huge rear end in a top hat move and that's like 90% of your posting but hey here's the thing, i don't even disagree with you. i think the immigration situation is very hosed up and that biden could easily find some quasi-legal justification for firing judges, ice and cbp officers which doesn't create a wider precedent that could be abused by a later republican president. i think bearing this in mind - and the endless expansion of the authority of the executive - as well as the moral debt created by how horribly trump treated immigrants, how these immigrants are fleeing conditions created by the us, and biden's own role in obama's immigration plan, he should pursue this. but i couldn't even parse this argument out of your first like, five posts, because you're just yelling at other posters and implying they're dumb hypocrites. like if your goal is just to actually say 'lol you loving losers who supported biden, look at the poo poo he's allowing to continue, just another example of how biden's true colors always shine through and his pro-immigration campaigning was empty rhetoric' just post that and eat your probation. it'd save everyone a lot of time and could even be funny if you did it well enough (maybe with a funny .gif?). Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 22:30 on May 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
the thing you're all forgetting is it's not the law that the president has to loving rubber stamp the nominations of the last guy, presidents of both parties have pulled past administration nominations to agencies under them for literally any reason including 'pft gently caress you you lost', so this handwringing about 'wow you want the president to VIOLATE THE LAW???' is absurd on its own.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:the thing you're all forgetting is it's not the law that the president has to loving rubber stamp the nominations of the last guy, presidents of both parties have pulled past administration nominations to agencies under them for literally any reason including 'pft gently caress you you lost', so this handwringing about 'wow you want the president to VIOLATE THE LAW???' is absurd on its own. These are not judicial nominations, these are Justice Department positions.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:These are not judicial nominations, these are Justice Department positions. you're right I should have said it's not the law that the person the president appoints to head the DOJ is not bound by law to rubber stamp these, which makes the handwringing even dumber
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:you're right I should have said it's not the law that the person the president appoints to head the DOJ is not bound by law to rubber stamp these, which makes the handwringing even dumber I mean, it might be the law. I don't know for sure how conditional offering with the feds works, nor what the conditions are - but it looks to me from googling the other night like they can't be pulled completely arbitrarily. If anyone can find details on the process i might very well change my mind about these seventeen hires.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:55
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I mean, it might be the law. I don't know for sure how conditional offering with the feds works, nor what the conditions are - but it looks to me from googling the other night like they can't be pulled completely arbitrarily. right there has to be cause, cause such as 'I, the person in charge of this agency, do not have confidence in their ability to do this job'.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:56
|
|
|
yep i agree biden should instruct his cabinet officials to essentially find justifications to fire the worst cbp/ice/doj trump hanger ons
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
Owlspiracy posted:yep i agree biden should instruct his cabinet officials to essentially find justifications to fire the worst cbp/ice/doj trump hanger ons you were literally just acting like that was 'ends justify the means' and somehow a violation of employment laws
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:These are not judicial nominations, these are Justice Department positions. Trump fired the head of the fbi and faced 0 consequences, and the guy never got his job back. Trump also had the deputy director fired, and while a lawsuit got him his pension restored, never gave him his job back. I think people, average people, care a lot less about judicial appointments than you think they do. If Biden is doing a good job, and has three and a half years left to continue to do a good job, there should be no problem in firing a bunch of trump holdovers from the most racist immigration system in history. He should be applauded for doing so, scrubbing the stain of trump off the federal government. But he's not, because it's business as usual for Joe, and Joe hates the immigrants too.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:you were literally just acting like that was 'ends justify the means' and somehow a violation of employment laws no, I was saying that breaking the law to illegally fire these officials would have consequences further down the road in the context of your weird 'the ends justify the means, gently caress employment law' tangent. what I'm saying is I don't think you need to do that, at all! you can find many ways to fire them which are perfectly legal.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:01
|
|
|
Maybe there are steps a administration committed to rooting out trump's rot could take to fire these people legally? They have an army of employment lawyers they could use for such things.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
Owlspiracy posted:no, I was saying that breaking the law to illegally fire these officials would have consequences further down the road in the context of your weird 'the ends justify the means, gently caress employment law' tangent. what I'm saying is I don't think you need to do that, at all! you can find many ways to fire them which are perfectly legal. nobody was talking about illegal! I was saying 'who gives a gently caress about lawsuits' in the context of 'they could get sued', which is just an objective fact regardless of legality
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
Reality Protester posted:Trump fired the head of the fbi and faced 0 consequences, and the guy never got his job back. Trump also had the deputy director fired, and while a lawsuit got him his pension restored, never gave him his job back. Also the laws around high-level Senate confirmed political appointees are not the same as the laws about lower level political employees. Reality Protester posted:I think people, average people, care a lot less about judicial appointments than you think they do. If Biden is doing a good job, and has three and a half years left to continue to do a good job, there should be no problem in firing a bunch of trump holdovers from the most racist immigration system in history. He should be applauded for doing so, scrubbing the stain of trump off the federal government. Reality Protester posted:But he's not, because it's business as usual for Joe, and Joe hates the immigrants too.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
Reality Protester posted:Trump fired the head of the fbi and faced 0 consequences This has to be one of the funniest things posted in this thread. An epic scandal that prompted the appointment of a special counsel by Trump's own DoJ, followed by two full years of extensive investigations that hung over Trump, his family and his administration like a dark cloud, which caused him and everyone around him immense frustration, misery and embarrassment. You're right though, zero consequences! 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:This has to be one of the funniest things posted in this thread. there were no meaningful consequences, 'trump was mad' is not a meaningful consequence. If it were then the sun rising or birds would have been a crushing blow to trump since I assume he also gets angry at those happening
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:10
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:there were no meaningful consequences, 'trump was mad' is not a meaningful consequence. If it were then the sun rising or birds would have been a crushing blow to trump since I assume he also gets angry at those happening it did result in one of D&D's mods being convicted of multiple felonies
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
My desire for a wider-scale cleanup is in fact why I am tentatively dubious of "just don't hire these guys". It doesn't have much large scale impact - and building a history of doing things in an arbitrary and capricious way actually did wind up biting Trump in the rear end in his administration's arguments in court that they were doing things for legally valid reasons no seriously. I don't want Biden's future efforts to be hosed for the sake of a fight that doesn't really matter, and rn it looks to me like both "might be a problem" and "doesn't much matter" are the case.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:there were no meaningful consequences, 'trump was mad' is not a meaningful consequence. If it were then the sun rising or birds would have been a crushing blow to trump since I assume he also gets angry at those happening You are wrong, of course. One of the meaningful consequences was that Dems used the Mueller investigation (along with every other scandal and fuckup that Trump managed to cause) to gain control of the House in 2018, which they then successfully used to block most of the rest of his agenda.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
Would firing 17 immigration judge employees be more or less scandalous than firing the head of the fbi? If less scandalous, Joe should do it, because the consequences to Joe are less than the consequences of Trump immigration judges continuing a genocide.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:17
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:there were no meaningful consequences, 'trump was mad' is not a meaningful consequence. If it were then the sun rising or birds would have been a crushing blow to trump since I assume he also gets angry at those happening (Of course, Trump ended up being kicked out of office, and Comey-Mueller certainly didn't help his reelection chances.) Taking up like half a year of the entire GOP's time, tying that party to Trump, and the GOP's reputation in the 2018 midterms are not nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
Reality Protester posted:Would firing 17 immigration judge employees be more or less scandalous than firing the head of the fbi? If less scandalous, Joe should do it, because the consequences to Joe are less than the consequences of Trump immigration judges continuing a genocide. Firing those judges out of the many, many more that Trump appointed would stop a genocide? I don't think that's true.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
You all are derailing the thread to excuse talking about the actual topic at hand, Joe Biden continuing to offer employment to 17 Trump judges who had not yet been seated.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:Firing those judges out of the many, many more that Trump appointed would stop a genocide? I don't think that's true. It would reduce it, would it not? Not a perfect fix but a good start.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
Reality Protester posted:It would reduce it, would it not? Not a perfect fix but a good start. Insisting Biden act like Trump, or else he hates immigrants is quite a myopic view of how government works. Trump kept trying to waive his Article II magic wand and got regularly shut down by the courts, his own DoJ, sometimes his own staff. Continuing the damage he did to republican norms in order to possibly reduce the harm you see in front of you will not lead to better places. Because the side that's a lot better at exploiting weakened norms and the concomitant cynicism that engenders both in and out of the government is not the Dems, or even the left.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
Reality Protester posted:You all are derailing the thread to excuse talking about the actual topic at hand, Joe Biden continuing to offer employment to 17 Trump judges who had not yet been seated. might be illegal to do so, might be overturned as arbitrary / in violation of federal labor law, which would potentially interfere with going after a much, much bigger number of Trump hires than seventeen
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:We don't even know that's true. I think it's true.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
Reality Protester posted:I think it's true. Why do you think it's true? More importantly, can you prove that it's true?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:39
|
|
|
Mods, I need help. How am I supposed to argue with this? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:41
|
|
|
Reality Protester posted:Mods, I need help. How am I supposed to argue with this? The same way the rest of us are supposed to argue with this: Reality Protester posted:I think it's true. Be the change you want to see in the thread!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
"I think having less trump appointed judges would reduce the amount of genocide happening." "Can you prove it?" "..."
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:there were no meaningful consequences, 'trump was mad' is not a meaningful consequence. If it were then the sun rising or birds would have been a crushing blow to trump since I assume he also gets angry at those happening He didn't just get mad - he lost multiple court cases, immigration was one the strongest issues used against him and it cost him a huge portion of support from the business community which supposed to be the base of the Republican Party. The claim that he simply got away with simply isn't true.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Rejection of the facist worldview you're endorsing here *is* an end. The harm reduction we had in mind voting for Dems wasn't being blue Trump. Listen, we all hate the camp that's up there at Auschwitz and we'd love to take it down, but Hitler promised those guards a paycheck and if we don't honor his commitments we'll be just as bad as he was. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
tbh I feel like the issue has been pretty thoroughly discussed, so far we have: -Legality be damned, fire the 17 immigration judges immediately. Trump got away with it, Biden will get away with it, the next GOP admin definitely won't care about rule of law, there's no reason to play by the rules. -Have DOJ come up with some legal justifications to fire them. -Firing these 17 judges probably breaches federal employment protections and will lead to lawsuits. This could make it harder to replace the hundreds more Trump (and Obama? etc) judges. -Actually there are workarounds like DOJ clearing the courts' calendar and issuing rules the courts operate under which would limit the harm Trump judges can cause. Reality Protester posted:Mods, I need help. How am I supposed to argue with this? if you don't have anything else to add to support your argument then 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:25 |
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:might be illegal to do so, might be overturned as arbitrary / in violation of federal labor law, which would potentially interfere with going after a much, much bigger number of Trump hires than seventeen Yes, it's this. There are ways for the feds to back out of a conditional offer, but they're highly constrained (for example, for some positions if there were a government shutdown or a sudden lack of need for the position, which, good luck arguing that with immigration cases). Conditional offer status likely means there's a background check under way on them, but hey, you want to uncork one hell of a shitstorm, try perverting the background check system. "Disagree with their politics" is the thing which is very least able to function, and coming up with a pretext (especially in the context of a position like an immigration judge) is also not going to work.
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 00:33
|
|
