|
How does a special master work for the most classified info the US potentially has? https://twitter.com/MarcACaputo/status/1563637809541431296 Edit: lol I guess it's not a thing https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1563638893613879302
|
# ? Aug 27, 2022 22:25 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 19:37 |
|
BiggerBoat posted:I'm not entirely sure how to account for their gains in the Latino community other than that Democrats take those voters for granted and that Latinos, like anybody else, are as vulnerable to the crab bucket mentality as anyone else; along with being fairly socially conservative, religious, dedicated to being hard working and (many of them) with a built in opposition to anything resembling a socialist government. Because the Republicans push on every possible angle including Spanish language media that the Democrats have indeed taken completely for granted.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 00:26 |
|
Queering Wheel posted:The GOP doesn't like educated people, because educated people are less likely to support them. On the other hand, they love getting loans for themselves that are later forgiven. That's literally it. They want their loans to be forgiven, but they don't want yours to be forgiven, because they hate you. This is a very recent development, within the last decade. The GOP used to dominate the suburbs because they did well with college educated whites. Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Aug 28, 2022 |
# ? Aug 28, 2022 00:29 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:How does a special master work for the most classified info the US potentially has? https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1563644872850313218
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 00:34 |
|
Charlz Guybon posted:This is a very recent development, within the last decade. The GOP used to dominate the suburbs because they did well with college educated whites. This switched pretty quickly when 'college educated' stopped being a reliable cipher for 'comfortably wealthy'.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 01:11 |
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:How does a special master work for the most classified info the US potentially has? A special master would basically be a third party taint team. Pretty sure it was a Special Master that did the Michael Cohen privilege review.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 06:37 |
|
Devor posted:A special master would basically be a third party taint team. Pretty sure it was a Special Master that did the Michael Cohen privilege review. God drat what a dungeons and dragons rear end legal system
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 07:47 |
|
Keyser_Soze posted:and not gently caress around with a useless degree. And what degrees would that be?
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 14:22 |
|
Freakazoid_ posted:And what degrees would that be? Most law degrees >;]. colleges should include some mandatory courses that provide general job training so competence in stuff like excel is ubiquitous. General requirements outside of stuff like writing 100s that are x amount of credits in various humanities get a bad rap because they are considered a waste of time and energy for students who know they want a degree in a specific major. But not everyone does know. Plus in some fields/mqjors only the top and/or most gregarious students get into the field. If school were free (as it should be), these general requirements would be considered a waste of taxpayer money, even though they are not though I do not think they should be required. Those courses definitely increase the workload, on top of more material study in every subject every year.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 15:41 |
|
can the special master thing be reviewed or appealed at all? Or is that basically it?
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 16:17 |
|
Question, when Moore vs Harper is decided in the next 4-8 months, if it turns out that state judiciary can decide elections(I believe this is what is being angled for) what's the option after that? Obviously the SC would have ruled, but I mean for the average citizen, the political institutions, democracy. It seems like if the SC goes one way on this that the experiment is sort of over?
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 16:17 |
|
lobster shirt posted:can the special master thing be reviewed or appealed at all? Or is that basically it? DOJ could appeal, but it’s not out of the question that they walk in and say “it’s a moot point, the review is done” and that’s that. The judge didn’t stay any ongoing work so if I’m the FBI and somehow not finished yet I’m pulling triple shifts to finish before Monday.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 16:25 |
|
Zotix posted:Question, when Moore vs Harper is decided in the next 4-8 months, if it turns out that state judiciary can decide elections(I believe this is what is being angled for) what's the option after that? Obviously the SC would have ruled, but I mean for the average citizen, the political institutions, democracy. It seems like if the SC goes one way on this that the experiment is sort of over? State legislature, not judiciary, so still in theory answerable to voters. But the court also ruled they can gerrymander as hard as they want, to limit their exposure to this. After that, well, it’s a lot more convenient to riot in your state capital than DC
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 16:27 |
|
lobster shirt posted:can the special master thing be reviewed or appealed at all? Or is that basically it? IANAL, but based on the articles I've read, it sounds like the judge announced their intent to do so after hearing both sides' arguments. So there's still a possibility that the DoJ makes a persuasive argument or Trump's team fails to lawyer their way out of a paper bag.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 16:30 |
|
lobster shirt posted:can the special master thing be reviewed or appealed at all? Or is that basically it? As others have covered, she didn't stay the work so her ruling is likely to be irrelevant anyway. She's also not made a decision at this point. My read of the articles and various tweeters is that it's in the category of "weird and likely meaningless", which is grifter paradise to farm engagement on socials. It'd be helpful if you explain what you think/are worried happens next if she does followthrough on her inclination to appoint a special master.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 16:44 |
|
Cranappleberry posted:Most law degrees >;]. College does not exist to be job training, and talking about it like it needs to be turned into some stripped down training program is gross. You can already look around and see the consequences of folks with a lot of domain-specific knowledge showing their asses whenever they stray outside their bubble, and your suggestion is that we should make that problem worse. I went to college and, in the course of completing my gen eds and degree requirements, took classes in chemistry, biology, history, statistics, logic and ethics, political science, geology, art history, environmental sustainability, ecology, and anthropology. None of these had anything to do with my "bullshit major" of recreation. What all those classes did do was give me a glimpse of the world outside of my own direct experience. That's the point: to be confronted by different perspectives and challenge your preconceived notions about the world around you. And your suggestion is to torch all of that and teach Excel as though college ought to be a really expensive Skillshare subscription.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 16:52 |
|
Paracaidas posted:Is what basically what? Another take I read which makes a bit of sense, is that this would be a very easy way for the judge (if they are nervous about personally inviting the wrath of the chuds) to get away from having to tell Trump and his lawyers that their motion is both idiotic and denied. If the DOJ just comes back and says they already went through and catalogued everything, the judge can then just shrug and say OK, well then now its all moot.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 16:57 |
|
How do we think Moore v. Harper will come into play here? It's definitely Trump's escape hatch, with no popular vote in purple states he can be appointed straight back into office.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 17:07 |
|
slurm posted:How do we think Moore v. Harper will come into play here? It's definitely Trump's escape hatch, with no popular vote in purple states he can be appointed straight back into office. Realistically, it might prevent a state court from rejecting a Federal map or impose fair rules for Federal elections based on state law, eventually perhaps netting the GOP an extra house seat or two. Realistically, that is pretty much it. There's going to be some doomsday theorycrafting about the presidential election which won't actually happen in 2024. That said, the fact that those doomsday scenarios might become actually plausible is unacceptable.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 17:15 |
|
Rigel posted:Realistically, it might prevent a state court from rejecting a Federal map or impose fair rules for Federal elections based on state law, eventually perhaps netting the GOP an extra house seat or two. Realistically, that is pretty much it. There's going to be some doomsday theorycrafting about the presidential election which won't actually happen in 2024. That said, the fact that those doomsday scenarios might become actually plausible is unacceptable. It means the state legislatures can just appoint electors and Congressional seats I thought.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 17:21 |
|
Cranappleberry posted:colleges should include some mandatory courses that provide general job training so competence in stuff like excel is ubiquitous. No, those subjects and others like budgeting and financial literacy should be taught in high school so that everyone in the country can make a resume and knows to be wary of banks and scammy contracts.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 17:42 |
|
slurm posted:It means the state legislatures can just appoint electors and Congressional seats I thought. They could already do that now for the electors, they don't need this court decision. Theres nothing saying we have to have elections for presidential electors. They haven't cancelled presidential elections despite this ability, and won't in 2024. Its more about the maps and how elections are run, that dont conflict with federal law. The court decision which could come down would say state courts and governors veto don't get a say. Edit: regarding congress, elections are required, you cant appoint representatives. Senators can only be appointed to serve out a term, but you cant even do that for the house. The feds make the rules, and then the state fills in whatever gaps the feds dont make rules for. The scotus decision might change that to say only state legislatures instead of the state, but federal rules still control. So if hr1 is ever passed that would fix a lot of issues that shouldn't be left up to lovely red state legislatures. Rigel fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Aug 28, 2022 |
# ? Aug 28, 2022 18:38 |
|
Zotix posted:Question, when Moore vs Harper is decided in the next 4-8 months, if it turns out that state judiciary can decide elections(I believe this is what is being angled for) what's the option after that? Obviously the SC would have ruled, but I mean for the average citizen, the political institutions, democracy. It seems like if the SC goes one way on this that the experiment is sort of over? The state legislature can already decide elections. The question in Moore v Harper is whether state legislatures have to obey the state constitution and state courts in elections-related matters. The practical impact will be to block out the most successful avenues of challenging gerrymandering and voter suppression.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 18:53 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:The state legislature can already decide elections. No, it can't. Currently, people have a right to an equal vote if a state is holding elections. The state cannot retroactively change this, but it can change it in advance (cancelling elections). SCOTUS is possibly set to change this so that a state can retroactively alter elections.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 19:16 |
|
Fart Amplifier posted:SCOTUS is possibly set to change this so that a state can retroactively alter elections. Thats not what the decision is about. If they could ignore the results of an election post-decision, then they could do it now if a governor or state court agrees and it doesnt violate federal laws. Its only about cutting out state courts and governors for things that the feds dont already have rules for. If congress passes the update to the electoral vote count act they are debating, then that would definitively close that "ignore an election result we don't like" door. Rigel fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Aug 28, 2022 |
# ? Aug 28, 2022 19:20 |
|
some plague rats posted:God drat what a dungeons and dragons rear end legal system Where charisma is not a dump stat. Cross posting from the RWM media but since it's on topic: Not even kidding but I think Trump heard his lawyer mention the idea of a "Special Master" and Donald decided to go with it just because it sounded so loving cool and he likes words like that. "This will be really special here and we need a true master for this. This person will be truly special. Just a master of law. A SPECIAL MASTER just like the constitution says. The most special of masters in all of history. And if we can't find one, we'll go with a Beautiful Expert or a Champion Genius like no one has ever seen. Yeah, sounds great. Go ahead and file that." ... Then when the guy goes "welp, this FBI affidavit checks out. Everything looks good and seems in order here. Not seeing a case to be honest", the person will go from special master to total loser coffee runner in the blink of an eye. "Turns out, they weren't very special at all and the only thing they mastered was picking on me, your favorite President ever, and being fat/bald/short. Currently, we're filing a motion to get a Perfect Wonderful Supreme Litigator to review these documents fairly, like our wonderful Declaration of Independence requires by law"
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 19:23 |
|
If you want an idea of how states with GOP controlled legislatures would look post-ISL, the closest right now would probably be Ohio.* tldr: The unrepresentative, GOP-controlled state legislature, directed by the insane religious right groups writing their legislation, tell their own voters to gently caress off even when state Constitutional amendments to end the gerrymandering pass by ~70%, and then laugh in peoples faces about it. It's paywalled so, here's the whole thing, but it's very pro-read, and people really should just take the time and read the whole thing. https://twitter.com/danielrskinner/status/1562779197017190400 New Yorker posted:State Legislatures Are Torching Democracy * (so probably slightly worse than this)
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 19:30 |
|
Also, this is apparently a huge problem https://news.yahoo.com/now-illegal-anyone-under-21-201514100.html It's now illegal for anyone under 21 to buy canned whipped cream in New York, officials say it's to stop teens from inhaling nitrous oxide quote:It is illegal for New Yorkers under age 21 to purchase a can of whipped cream, according to recently-passed state law. As if you can't buy whippets from any head shop and beyond that who loving gives a poo poo? AFAIK, they're relatively harmless. I remember having dental surgery when I was maybe 9 or 10, given nitrous and really loving loving it so maybe it's a gateway drug(?) I remember when I worked at Denny's as a teenager and they used to keep the whipped cream supply locked up in a cage and the servers used to get pissed off because every time they had to make a sundae, the dispensers were dead. But thank god NY is addressing this epidemic problem
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 19:30 |
|
lobster shirt posted:can the special master thing be reviewed or appealed at all? Or is that basically it? By all accounts, all the Special Master will do, if he or she is appointed, is review whether all the documents seized were government documents, or if any of the documents are Trump's private documents taken by mistake. Even if a Special Master is appointed, it isn't likely to be a bog deal.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 19:52 |
|
How do you appoint a special master to examine documents that all but a small handful of people in the country are forbidden to read? I don’t think any of the joint chiefs of staff have that kind of free time
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 19:57 |
|
Ohio Article posted:Ohio has become the Hindenburg of democracy.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 20:04 |
|
BiggerBoat posted:Also, this is apparently a huge problem This post brought to you by the council of wannabe boomer posters.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 20:04 |
|
haveblue posted:How do you appoint a special master to examine documents that all but a small handful of people in the country are forbidden to read? I don’t think any of the joint chiefs of staff have that kind of free time I doubt you could normally. The Trump judges may try to force it but who knows hot that will turn out
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 20:19 |
|
BiggerBoat posted:Also, this is apparently a huge problem It's a neurotoxin with long-term use. Also the bill went into effect last November; here it is. It's getting press because the retail association just noticed it and has started enforcing it (which should give you an idea of how important it is to all involved). Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Aug 28, 2022 |
# ? Aug 28, 2022 20:23 |
|
haveblue posted:How do you appoint a special master to examine documents that all but a small handful of people in the country are forbidden to read? I don’t think any of the joint chiefs of staff have that kind of free time That is part of what would have made it difficult. It might have been a smart gambit to delay things quite a bit if the Feds hadn't already gone over everything, to find an independent person with all the extremely high level of security clearances who everyone could agree would be fair (maybe a retired general with help from lawyers or something). And the Feds would then only get whatever the special master says is relevant to their investigation. But, the Feds already went over everything and catalogued what the documents are, so.... its all moot. The judge could ask "so, did you seize anything you shouldn't have? Well, if so then give those few random irrelevant personal Trump documents back, I guess."
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 20:25 |
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's a neurotoxin with long-term use. Also the bill went into effect last November; here it is. TCC's consensus was that it was safe last time I checked, is there more up-to-date info? Also cans of whipped cream are both a poor value and minor volume compared to the amounts I see people doing from whip-its at music festivals.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 20:26 |
|
No, nitrous is as safe as it's always been. Not only is it still used at dentists, it is now being used in childbirth as an alternative to epidurals. Overuse/abuse can lead to B12 deficiency, symptoms of which include loss of sensation or tingling in fingertips or other extremeties. The primary risk of nitrous inhalation is suffocation, typically because someone filled a trash bag off a tank and then passed out inside of it
Happiness Commando fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Aug 28, 2022 |
# ? Aug 28, 2022 20:30 |
|
MixMasterMalaria posted:TCC's consensus was that it was safe last time I checked, is there more up-to-date info? Also cans of whipped cream are both a poor value and minor volume compared to the amounts I see people doing from whip-its at music festivals. The Wikipedia page has some info and links to get you started https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide#Safety . If you’ve got to trust your brain with strangers online, Wikipedia is probably a better bet than TCC, even if there aren’t any tragicomic stories about research benzodiazepines.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 20:32 |
|
Fart Amplifier posted:No, it can't. Currently, people have a right to an equal vote if a state is holding elections. The state cannot retroactively change this, but it can change it in advance (cancelling elections). This is a bunch of unrelated things that have all been mixed up together. State legislatures have the power to just ignore the election and just pass a law picking their own slate of electors instead (assuming that doing so is permitted by the state constitution). They've always had that power, and could do it even after the election. However, Congress has the power to ignore the state legislature's chosen slate of electors, or to decide which slate to choose in the case of a disputed election. Following the disputed election of 1876, Congress set down and formalized procedures for how they would treat electoral votes from states in various circumstances, in what's known as the Electoral Count Act. A slate of electors submitted and verified according to the rules in the ECA should be accepted even if they're sketchy and in dispute. Of course, it's unclear whether the ECA is actually binding on Congress, but it represents considerable precedent and tradition. But the Electoral Count Act comes with one very important caveat: the electors the state sends have to be chosen using the law that was in place on Election Day. If the legislature changes the law after the election and chooses a different slate of electors, the guarantees in the ECA are void, and Congress can do whatever they want with that state's electors. This makes retroactive changes a risky proposition, especially if they're from the party that doesn't already hold Congress. Now, the most important part is this: none of the above is impacted in any way by Moore v Harper, which is exclusively about the relative power of the different branches of state government. The independent state legislatures theory has no impact on federal law.
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 20:45 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 19:37 |
|
I know you're referring to presidential elections but other poo poo has been changed to allow legislatures to pick winners in other elections, to overrule election boards and the like and potentially ignore/override court decisions. I don't know if any of the new election laws have been tested yet, though voter suppression and gerrymandering legislation have been supported by the federal courts. Pretty sure a state legislature choosing a senator, even with their new laws, flies in the face of the 17th amendment. It's going to be an interesting election season
|
# ? Aug 28, 2022 21:41 |