|
The remedy in that situation is impeachment, not jailing the judges.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
Devorum posted:Wild that folks can look at "stop a legally mandated recount because the relatives of a POTUS candidate asked you to" and "let a legally mandated recount continue, despite the relatives of a POTUS candidate asking you to stop it" and think "both of these are corrupt, actually". When the SCOTUS thread gets drive-by posters we get only the hottest of takes. I'm interested in what their take is on the ISL lawsuit from the NCGOP that would just so happen to give the GOP an unassailable majority and permanent control over the WH due to numerous state legislatures they've gerrymandered majority control over. Surely the SCOTUS, which includes multiple jurists who actively worked for the GOP in the Bush v. Gore lawsuit will issue a fair and just ruling and anyone who thinks otherwise is just not holding a rational, defensible position. Dameius posted:The remedy in that situation is impeachment, not jailing the judges. It's both, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 04:44
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:When the SCOTUS thread gets drive-by posters we get only the hottest of takes. Lmfao that “it would have been wrong for Clinton to tell the FBI and Marshalls to imprison sitting Supreme Court justices for their decision in Bush v Gore” is considered a “hot take” in this thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 06:14
|
|
|
When you say “wrong” do you actually think it would be immoral to do so or just impractical or counterproductive?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 10:29
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I'm interested in what their take is on the ISL lawsuit from the NCGOP that would just so happen to give the GOP an unassailable majority and permanent control over the WH due to numerous state legislatures they've gerrymandered majority control over. Violence, gun play, lots of dead people and things on fire. Civil war in 18 months.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 10:31
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:When you say “wrong” do you actually think it would be immoral to do so or just impractical or counterproductive? You’re seriously asking me if I think the President having the unilateral power to arrest and jail justices for the crime of “not coming up with the answer I wanted” would be good, but maybe impractical
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 13:48
|
|
|
"Laws apply to oligarchs? In my America?" Meanwhile, today's news has been filled with how Trump ordered IRS investigations into Comey and McCabe, and we still have folks bending over backwards to insist that somehow this is all super legal and might have all been a big coincidence.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Jul 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 13:51
|
|
|
Goddamn, some people are just utterly terrified at the idea of wielding power. I suppose we should instead just continue to put our full faith in the system that is currently collapsing our country and turning it into a living nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 14:05
|
|
|
Who's up for a preview of next norm to be overturned in an unprecedented 6-3 decision? https://twitter.com/SethGoldstein13/status/1543936862196305922?t=dhj6rz0jjMB9EKk1xkQgIw&s=19
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:You’re seriously asking me if I think the President having the unilateral power to arrest and jail justices for the crime of “not coming up with the answer I wanted” would be good, but maybe impractical It's already been covered how that decision was nakedly corrupt, to the point that even the justices couldn't actually give justifications in the text of the decision, but we understand you like the ruling and think it's bad for the SCOTUS to be held accountable regardless of how blatant their abuses are. What's more important is  regardless of the consequences because the executive actually leading, let alone putting a check on abuse of authority by another branch, is just something too terrible to consider.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 14:24
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:I'm not trying to be an edgelord when I say I honestly appreciate the philosophical honesty of crazy regressive anti-abortionists. If you honestly believe abortion is murder, and the little clump of cells is a human, you should be against it in all cases. Miscarriages according to these people should be a national health crisis. You could wave it away by parodying them with some "God's will poo poo," but that's not how we treat real people when they get sick or at risk. Malaria is known to often increase the likelihood of misscarriage, are these people doing everything in their power to increase access to malaria medication and preventive care? Are they advocating for increase prenatal care and education? Are they advocating for greater access to healthcare for mothers in general? Are they advocating for greater intervention specifically in low-income places, for Black and indigenous mothers, groups that suffer both high fetal and maternal death rates compared to the general population? The United States has a significantly higher infant mortality rate than other comparable nations with red states like Mississippi trailing Chile by a wide margin. If these people really gave a poo poo about embryos and fetuses as people or even babies, they could do a lot better to save lives than forcing ten year old rape victims to have babies. So, let's be very clear that even in a world where they are objectively right and an embryo and a fetus is a life and abortion is murder, these are still, absolutely morally inconsistent people. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Jul 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
Kaal posted:"Laws apply to oligarchs? In my America?" Meanwhile, today's news has been filled with how Trump ordered IRS investigations into Comey and McCabe, and we still have folks bending over backwards to insist that somehow this is all super legal and might have all been a big coincidence. it is legal and it was a coincidence, as much as we hate to admit it. Here's an expert on the matter explaining it: quote:This is extremely unlikely to be anything; these are National Research Program (NRP) audits and they work through an entirely different selection process than investigative ones. I struggle to conceive of any way for the commissioner to find a way to target anyone for any kind of audit, given the layers of procedure and bureaucracy now in place at the IRS. The likelihood is also not represented accurately by the article, because although the specifics aren't public, NRP audit selection uses a stratified sample that also probably increases sampling for areas that the IRS is considering increasing overall enforcement. Both men may have been selected because they had high income, used a particular investment vehicle, recently left federal service, or some combination of those- or any number of other factors, individually or as a pair. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That indicates a lack of vision on your part more than anything else. There's nothing particularly leftist about holding government workers accountable to the law. It's a very moderate concept that the vast majority of Americans are perfectly comfortable with, even if it makes some of the lawyers squirm at the indecorum. The leftist approach isn't to have the DOJ investigate corrupt deal-making and then try them in federal court. The leftist approach is to form a people's court and start prosecuting everyone who enabled it. When talking about holding people accountable to the law by prosecuting them, the most important part is being able to show a specific law that the prosecutors can prove that they broke. What is important here is not whether things appear corrupt, or whether you think the Supreme Court decided correctly, but rather whether an actual established federal law was broken. Even if the Supreme Court is widely perceived as fudging Constitutional interpretations sometimes doesn't mean that the president can fudge a reason to arrest the top level of the entire judicial branch of government and unilaterally declare their decisions retroactively invalid. Otherwise, half the Supreme Court would have gone to jail on trumped-up charges the first time they struck down Trump's Muslim ban. And "people's courts", much like right-wing "citizen's courts", are just fantasy roleplaying. And even if we did send a judge to jail, that would not remove them from the Court or invalidate their ruling. However, Congress can remove judges from the Supreme Court and does have the ability to effectively invalidate Supreme Court decisions (by changing the underlying law).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 15:34
|
|
|
No just autocracy other than my just autocracy!!! There is definitely a lot of sunlight between what the Gore campaign did and jailing the supreme court. I dont think either represents the ideal path that could have been taken
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:And even if we did send a judge to jail, that would not remove them from the Court or invalidate their ruling. However, Congress can remove judges from the Supreme Court and does have the ability to effectively invalidate Supreme Court decisions (by changing the underlying law). How does Congress accomplish this specifically wrt BvG?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
is pepsi ok posted:Goddamn, some people are just utterly terrified at the idea of wielding power. I suppose we should instead just continue to put our full faith in the system that is currently collapsing our country and turning it into a living nightmare. The man we're talking about wielding power here is Bill Clinton, and I'm astonished that posters here are expressing so much faith in the man that they wish he ordered the cops to do a coup d'etat for him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
It's wild that people accepted the Court going uh this decision only applies to this specific case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:How does Congress accomplish this specifically wrt BvG? Probably repeal the electoral count act of 1887, then do whatever they want. If the supreme court has a problem with that, then they would have to quickly impeach a lot of justices until they get a court saying its OK. None of that was remotely possible in 2000 and any future congress that did this would probably cause a national riot, but bureaucratically thats probably the way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:it is legal and it was a coincidence, as much as we hate to admit it. Here's an expert on the matter explaining it: Did you just blind quote a DV post from another thread as evidence for your argument? I love D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:The man we're talking about wielding power here is Bill Clinton, and I'm astonished that posters here are expressing so much faith in the man that they wish he ordered the cops to do a coup d'etat for him. I guess I just don't really care who the individual is that's doing the right thing 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
Bribery, public corruption, fraud, racketeering, election interference, and official misconduct are all standard crimes, whether folks want to recognize that or not. Ethics rules apply to every government employee, even judges. Investigating and prosecuting them for criminal behavior is not some wild authoritarian act. Politicians, judges, and other government employees get investigated and prosecuted routinely for these types of abuses. Courts have ample powers of injunction that they use all the time - tying up the actions of a corrupt court is very possible. Every part of government is required to abide by the Constitution and statutory law as they best understand it. I know these ideas challenge some folks' preconceptions about bureaucratic legalism and judicial supremacy, but they need to wake up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
If only we had been fascists back in 2000 and jailed our political enemies regardless of laws or the will of the people, then surely democracy would be safe today (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
I thought the issue with Bush v Gore was that the date of the presidential transition is written directly into the Constitution and it was plausible that the process would not have selected a president by that time. That's not something that can be legislated away, certainly not in the time available. If they hadn't ruled that the recount had to stop, they would have had to throw out that small chunk of the 20th Amendment, which would be just as huge and unprecedented a reach as the real ruling Or go for the maximum chaos option and allow the president's term to end without a clear successor, which would also be a huge and unprecedented reach (and which, since there would not be a VP or a cabinet at that time, would have made Dennis Hastert the President) haveblue fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Jul 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Bribery, public corruption, fraud, racketeering, and official misconduct are all standard crimes, whether folks want to recognize that or not. Ethics rules apply to every government employee, even judges. Investigating and prosecuting them for criminal behavior is not some wild authoritarian act. Politicians, judges, and other government employees get investigated and prosecuted routinely for these types of abuses. Courts have ample powers of injunction that they use all the time - tying up the actions of a corrupt court is very possible. Every part of government is required to abide by the Constitution and statutory law as they best understand it. I know these ideas challenge some folks' preconceptions about bureaucratic legalism and judicial supremacy, but they need to wake up. Unless you’re the governor of Illinois it’s actually pretty hard to violate federal bribery/corruption laws as a public political figure. One guess as to who set those precedents!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:If only we had been fascists back in 2000 and jailed our political enemies regardless of laws or the will of the people, then surely democracy would be safe today We had to give the presidency to the guy who didn't actually win the election and then went on to murder and torture a million people because doing otherwise would be fascism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
haveblue posted:I thought the issue with Bush v Gore was that the date of the presidential transition is written directly into the Constitution and it was plausible that the process would not have selected a president by that time. That's not something that can be legislated away, certainly not in the time available. If they hadn't ruled that the recount had to stop, they would have had to throw out that small chunk of the 20th Amendment, which would also be a huge and unprecedented reach The supposed issue was the safe harbor deadline. If a state certifies their results by that deadline, congress has to accept it unless they repeal the electoral count act as mentioned above. There was not enough time to do the recount and meet that safe harbor deadline, so FL did have an interest in certifying the election, and the court ruled that there wasn't a good enough reason to force the state to blow the deadline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
haveblue posted:I thought the issue with Bush v Gore was that the date of the presidential transition is written directly into the Constitution and it was plausible that the process would not have selected a president by that time. That's not something that can be legislated away, certainly not in the time available. If they hadn't ruled that the recount had to stop, they would have had to throw out that small chunk of the 20th Amendment, which would also be a huge and unprecedented reach Twentieth Amendment, Section 3 posted:If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:If only we had been fascists back in 2000 and jailed our political enemies regardless of laws or the will of the people, then surely democracy would be safe today Wild takes like this one are good "through the looking glass" examples of what American legal discourse would look like if Trump's Insurrection had been successful. There would have been an initial anger, followed by a rush to justify everything that happened as the uncomfortable but unavoidable result of lawful democracy. "It would have been wrong and authoritarian to order police and troops into the streets to defy the will of the people and break up the peaceful rally supporting the vice-president as he exercised his constitutional duty upholding President Trump's rights to avoid irreparable harm that might cause a needless and unjustified cloud on his legitimacy, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court in their emergency decision, which some court critics have argued is partisan in nature. Congress has vowed to investigate the matter fully, and has formed a sub-committee to pursue the facts of the matter throughout the next year." Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Jul 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
haveblue posted:I thought the issue with Bush v Gore was that the date of the presidential transition is written directly into the Constitution and it was plausible that the process would not have selected a president by that time. That's not something that can be legislated away, certainly not in the time available. If they hadn't ruled that the recount had to stop, they would have had to throw out that small chunk of the 20th Amendment, which would be just as huge and unprecedented a reach as the real ruling And to be clear: a recount had already occurred, in which Bush won. The issue was not "let us count votes" or "let us recount votes", it was "let us hand-count votes that we think might not have been machined re-counted accurately due to ballot issues and hanging chads". And to be further clear: if Gore had won Bush v. Gore, and the recounts had taken place, it would have still resulted in Bush winning Florida. The Washington Post reviewed all of the ballots and determined that a manual recount as Gore was requesting would have maintained Bush's final lead. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/11/12/florida-recounts-would-have-favored-bush/964f109e-c871-4050-af25-f7978cc25dfa/ The only way for Gore to have won would have been to have a full state recount, which neither the Gore campaign asked for nor was allowed for under current law. So Bush v. Gore didn't change at all the outcome of the election, and we're demanding that the president be allowed to jail justices for writing opinions of specious logic based upon that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
SubG posted:The 20A explicitly gives the Congress the power to decide what happens if "a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term": So if the court had told Florida to do a full recount, and no president or vice president would be selected until a later meeting of the EC, we would have had President... quote:John Dennis Hastert (/ˈhæstərt/; born January 2, 1942) is an American former politician and convicted felon who represented Illinois's 14th congressional district from 1987 to 2007 and served as the 51st speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1999 to 2007.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
Flappy Bert posted:So if the court had told Florida to do a full recount, and no president or vice president would be selected until a later meeting of the EC, we would have had President... Unless Congress legislated otherwise, apparently, which would be a big ask to accomplish in the 14 days remaining in that session, or the 17 days between the start of the next session and the end of Clinton's term
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
The weird insistance that Bush somehow won the Florida election, despite 20 years of proof that he did not, remains very weird. Media organizations looked into the election thoroughly, and came to the consensus decision that Gore in fact won it, and if the Florida Supreme Court-ordered full recount had been allowed to continue they would have come to that conclusion. The comfortable unwillingness to reexamine historical facts that defy established ideas is a stubborn defect in the American psyche. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida#Florida_Ballot_Project_recounts
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Bribery, public corruption, fraud, racketeering, election interference, and official misconduct are all standard crimes, whether folks want to recognize that or not. Ethics rules apply to every government employee, even judges. Investigating and prosecuting them for criminal behavior is not some wild authoritarian act. Politicians, judges, and other government employees get investigated and prosecuted routinely for these types of abuses. Courts have ample powers of injunction that they use all the time - tying up the actions of a corrupt court is very possible. Every part of government is required to abide by the Constitution and statutory law as they best understand it. I know these ideas challenge some folks' preconceptions about bureaucratic legalism and judicial supremacy, but they need to wake up. There doesn't seem to be any evidence at all that the judges have committed any acts that fit any applicable federal (not state) crimes, though. You keep saying "bribery, public corruption, fraud, racketeering, and official misconduct", but as far as I can tell, the only specific allegation you've made supporting that is that Supreme Court justices sometimes do paid speaking engagements or visit politicians' dinner parties. Those friendly relationships between Supreme Court justices and political movements may not suit your sense of decorum, but I think the DoJ would have an extremely uphill battle to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that actual crimes were committed. As for "election interference", it's hard to see how that can be anything but absurd. There's no realistic legal basis for sending the Supreme Court to jail. For starters, US federal election law is pretty specific in what counts as "election interference", and I don't see any way whatsoever to stretch it to apply to federal courts overruling a state court's decision on a recount. Of course, those limits apply only to prosection by the executive branch. Congress doesn't need to prove an actual violation of federal law to take action against federal judges. If they want to, they can impeach for blatantly partisan reasons, with no need for things like "evidence" or "needing to list an actual specific law that was broken". And they're not required to produce any justification at all for alternative remedies like packing the Court or changing the laws to "clarify" things for the Court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Did you just blind quote a DV post from another thread as evidence for your argument? I love D&D. lol I was going to say the same thing - "wasn't this just a goon's POV from another thread?" Not that it's without merit - but it certainly doesn't shut the door on anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:It's wild that people accepted the Court going uh this decision only applies to this specific case. Sounds wild to non-lawyers, but it's extremely common for appellate courts to issue decisions that aren't precedential. Looking at today's decisions from CAFC (the Circuit I follow for work reasons), there were 6 decisions - none are precedential. (For that matter, 3 of them are decisions issued without opinions at all, just a "we affirm".) It's unusual for SCOTUS to do this because they have discretion over their docket, not because it's somehow illegitimate. SCOTUS tends to just not grant cert on cases that would lead to a non-precedential opinion, but politically they couldn't decline to hear BvG.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Sounds wild to non-lawyers, but it's extremely common for appellate courts to issue decisions that aren't precedential. Looking at today's decisions from CAFC (the Circuit I follow for work reasons), there were 6 decisions - none are precedential. (For that matter, 3 of them are decisions issued without opinions at all, just a "we affirm".) It is routine for courts to state that a decision is nonprecedential or "unpublished" but all that that means is "pretty please ignore this one." Sometimes because it's a rote inconsequential opinion and sometimes because the judge is ashamed of writing it. Judges and attorneys routinely cite to unpublished cases, and there's no such thing as an unpublished Supreme court decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Sounds wild to non-lawyers, but it's extremely common for appellate courts to issue decisions that aren't precedential. Yeah but. The principle built into the common law and basic fairness of “treat like cases alike” says every case is precedential by example, even if not necessarily binding. Skidmore precedent, as it were. E;f,b.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
I think we know who the Republican Congress would have installed as president if nothing got certified for Florida. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jul 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 18:09
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Yeah but. The principle built into the common law and basic fairness of “treat like cases alike” says every case is precedential by example, even if not necessarily binding. Skidmore precedent, as it were. Which is why (despite the “consideration limited to the present circumstances” language) appellate courts have, in fact, cited BvG, as have litigants. It’s a normal non-prec decision, it just came in a high profile case. I think people over-read the “limited to the present circumstances” to mean “this isn’t precedent”, rather than “this is a highly fact specific area so the precedent may have limited application.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
Kaal posted:The weird insistance that Bush somehow won the Florida election, despite 20 years of proof that he did not, remains very weird. Media organizations looked into the election thoroughly, and came to the consensus decision that Gore in fact won it, and if the Florida Supreme Court-ordered full recount had been allowed to continue they would have come to that conclusion. The comfortable unwillingness to reexamine historical facts that defy established ideas is a stubborn defect in the American psyche. You responded to my link with a link that literally repeats what I said and contradicts your point. Under all of the conditions in play in 2000, Bush wins all recounts. For Gore to have won, there would have had to have been a full, state-wide recount which was neither provided for in the law nor requested by the Gore campaign. If Bush v. Gore goes the other way, Florida is still decided for Bush and he wins the election. skeleton warrior fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jul 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2022 20:52
|
|