|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:now i'm just a layman, but it seems bananas to me that executive privilege is somehow supposed to be an impediment to the executive branch. like this isn't a congressional investigation, what is executive privilege even supposed to mean in this context? She writes that she is ignoring 4A and EP precedent to ensure the appearance of fairness in this case.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
If we ever want to have a functional government again the judiciary needs a house cleaning and rules/laws put in place to prevent presidents from stacking it in their favor, particularly presidents that like to pack it with heritage foundation dumb fucks. I would also like a unicorn please.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
mdemone posted:She writes that she is ignoring 4A and EP precedent to ensure the appearance of fairness in this case. “There are things which should prevent me doing what I am doing but, I, a Trump appointed judge, am ignoring them so to appear fair” leaves a whole lot to be desired from a fairness point of view. The DoJ is going to appeal this order, probably to the 11th circuit, because they cannot just let this not-impartial judge set a precedent that Trump’s absurd executive privilege claims have merit here. It won’t take long either because it was apparent this was going to happen last week so, I assume they’ve long since had it written up. Also, in her confirmation hearing she asserted that she would recuse herself from Trump related matter than came before her. So, not surprising that she was full of poo poo but just another example of the “working toward hitler” mentality that Trump cultivates. Edit: I skimmed through some of it and it appears that she’s relying A LOT on that Trump not having the few potentially privileged or personal items is some sort of irreparable harm which is absurd because DoJ has already identified those items and was wrapping up screening them so as to return them. Also, she’s pontificating that maybe there is some executive privilege argument that is currently unknown that could prevail in the future which just doesn’t make any sense for a basis of an action today. Let that argument be made and carry, not presuppose it and grant it. Murgos fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Sep 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:If we ever want to have a functional government again the judiciary needs a house cleaning and rules/laws put in place to prevent presidents from stacking it in their favor, particularly presidents that like to pack it with heritage foundation dumb fucks. I would also like a unicorn please. Isn't it the other way around? If we ever want to have a functional judiciary again, Congress needs a housecleaning and a change of rules/laws. It's largely the fault of Congress that the judicial branch is in the state it's in now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Isn't it the other way around? If we ever want to have a functional judiciary again, Congress needs a housecleaning and a change of rules/laws. It's largely the fault of Congress that the judicial branch is in the state it's in now. Congressional term limits. Forced retirement age. That would fix a lot of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
Douchebag posted:Congressional term limits. I think we could fix a lot of problems by increasing the House of Representatives to be one for every 60k people. That's more in line with the apportionment ratio set by the Founding Fathers. That'd bring a whole mess of other issues, but at a minimum I think it'd make gerrymandering a lot obvious if you tried it. Edit: Comedy solution: increase size of House to 5500 members and use a lottery method to choose winners: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_ballot Dr. Arbitrary fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Sep 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I think we could fix a lot of problems by increasing the House of Representatives to be one for every 60k people. That's more in line with the apportionment ratio set by the Founding Fathers. Has lottery legislative branch been tried anywhere?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Isn't it the other way around? If we ever want to have a functional judiciary again, Congress needs a housecleaning and a change of rules/laws. It's largely the fault of Congress that the judicial branch is in the state it's in now. The executive, too; "we're not going to confirm your nominees and appointees because you're from The Enemy Party" was not a thing before the Obama, or arguably Clinton, administrations. But really, "rules/laws" are not going to be enough to fix the legislature and judiciary, because most of the problems are inherent in the Senate and SCOTUS as they're defined in the constitution. We'd need a new one to really address either. MixMasterMalaria posted:Has lottery legislative branch been tried anywhere? Ancient Athens used sortition to select all of their magistrates, juries, and councils. Laws were passed by a smaller board called nomothetai, drawn by sortition from the larger body of jurors (which usually numbered 6000), whenever a need for legislation was identified, and annually to review all the laws for contradictions and remove useless ones. I believe the nomothetai generally numbered a few hundred. So there were no career legislators; lawmakers were regular citizens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 21:29
|
|
|
But they excluded the idiots
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
Douchebag posted:Congressional term limits. Congressional term limits are usually seen as a bad thing because it actually increases the influence of lobbyists. You end up with a bunch of congresspeople who have no experience in writing laws, so they defer to outsiders who do. Probably a law that mandated that judges have to be voted on would solve a lot. This way an oppositional Congress can’t just hold things up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
JesustheDarkLord posted:But they excluded the idiots And women, and slaves, and non-landowners and… yeah don’t look to ancient civilization for answers here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:Congressional term limits are usually seen as a bad thing because it actually increases the influence of lobbyists. You end up with a bunch of congresspeople who have no experience in writing laws, so they defer to outsiders who do. yeah, severe congressional term limits in california ended up contributing to some dysfunction in our state legislature. state assembly members could only serve six years total and state senators could only serve eight years total. this was seen as leading to two bad outcomes. firstly, legislators spent nearly half their time in office learning the ropes (the byzantine process of creating legislation inherent in the american system being at least partly intended to slow down the ability to change policy), and once they really started to understand the process of how to craft effective legislation, they weren't eligible to continue. this combined with legislators constantly having to meet and develop working relationships with new people as other legislators termed out meant that our legislators were essentially reinventing the wheel every session secondly, the knowledge that your time in the legislature was very limited drove politicians to focus almost exclusively on building their power base and fund-raising apparatus so that they can be ready to win a fight to a different state or federal office when their term ended, and/or you sell out to lobbyists as hard as you can to build up the gravy train coming after your short political career. this kind of activity already eats up a lot of federal legislator's time, but now they at least occasionally focus on the work of legislation, while under strict term limits those politicians that harbored any greater ambitions at all spent absolutely no time on legislating a decade ago, california ended passing a proposition to change how term limits work to try to mitigate these issues 61% to 39% (going from a total possible tenure of fourteen years max with six years in the assembly and eight years in the senate to twelve years max in either body).
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
A mandatory retirement age would be great, though. It's already in place for many jobs, just not the supposedly most important ones in the land.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
Gort posted:A mandatory retirement age would be great, though. It's already in place for many jobs, just not the supposedly most important ones in the land. That's what elections are for. If people aren't happy with the job they're doing, they get voted out. "Voters don't know what's good for them" has a rather undemocratic vibe to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:"Voters don't know what's good for them" has a rather undemocratic vibe to it. It's more like "voters don't vote for what's good for them" because in FPTP voting systems, it's not incentivized.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
Also, at the federal level any new law saying "you can't run for this federal office because of X" is generally presumed to be unconstitutional unless the constitution specifically allows that restriction to be imposed. So term limits, mandatory retirement ages, etc are all probably out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 23:51
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Also, at the federal level any new law saying "you can't run for this federal office because of X" is generally presumed to be unconstitutional unless the constitution specifically allows that restriction to be imposed. Outside of an actual amendment, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 23:54
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:That's what elections are for. If people aren't happy with the job they're doing, they get voted out. I mostly agree with what you're saying but the issue is that old politicians tend to wield a lot of power, especially inside the party. So any Republican who could have credibly challenged Strom Thurmond would have found an easier path to office doing pretty much anything else, and no Democrat would win in SC. Maybe the best option would be a public pressure campaign with people publicly saying "If you haven't done what you want by 65, you aren't able to and you won't get my vote." Definitely going to be popular because parties love
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:I mostly agree with what you're saying but the issue is that old politicians tend to wield a lot of power, especially inside the party. So any Republican who could have credibly challenged Strom Thurmond would have found an easier path to office doing pretty much anything else, and no Democrat would win in SC. Yeah, measures designed to limit the power of incumbency would sit better with me than ones designed to limit the choices of voters
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:That's what elections are for. If people aren't happy with the job they're doing, they get voted out. Kicking out the olds would probably have done a lot to save us from our current circumstances. I don't really think it's undemocratic to not allow people who won't have to live with the consequences of their short term greed to not just get to sit on a seat for basically life like Feinstein or Thurmond because of incumbency advantage. Plus, it's not like there aren't plenty of other jobs that someone over 65 aren't already disqualified from and none of those jobs are as critical as a president, judge, or congressperson. Or put another way, we already have the arbitrary minimum age requirements so I don't see anything wrong with arbitrary maximum age requirements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:Kicking out the olds would probably have done a lot to save us from our current circumstances. The only way I can see that is with the courts, and a better fix there would be to give judges set terms instead of appointing them for life. I'm not sure how you can blame any of the problems with the executive or legislative branch on age; if anything young Republicans lean more fascist (compare house vs. senate). Feinstein should retire, but all she has to do is side with the other Democrats every time there's a floor vote, which she does. There are a thousand issues with the senate that are much worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:Congressional term limits are usually seen as a bad thing because it actually increases the influence of lobbyists. You end up with a bunch of congresspeople who have no experience in writing laws, so they defer to outsiders who do. you dont really think our nationally elected officials write legislation themselves, do you? it gets written out by their office staff or just directly submitted by lobbyists/donors. I'm not sure that lobbyists could have any more influence then they currently do, either if nothing else, it would be nice to get ghouls like mitch mconnel or lindsay graham out of office and out of a position of power e: https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill https://www.cpr.org/show-segment/its-common-for-lobbyists-to-write-bills-for-congress-heres-why/ etc, etc BIG-DICK-BUTT-FUCK fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Sep 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 02:20
|
|
|
Gee, trumps clownshoes lawyers sure don't seem to matter he's still getting what he wants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
This decision is such garbage nonsense https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1566982955360190466
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Gee, trumps clownshoes lawyers sure don't seem to matter he's still getting what he wants. It turns out lawyers don't matter and rich-and-powerful people don't get their way in court because they hire good lawyers, they get their way because they are rich and powerful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 04:10
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:It turns out lawyers don't matter and rich-and-powerful people don't get their way in court because they hire good lawyers, they get their way because they are rich and powerful. Yeah that's exactly what I've said. People keep talking about how bad his lawyers are. It does not matter. Trumps not already in jail for having documents any one of us would be already in jail for having even 1 of. It's clear the law doesn't apply to him already. The rest of this is just a dance to get the public to accept him getting away with all of this. There's going to be all sorts of other "there's no legal basis for this but they're going to let him move forward" BS so get ready for it. Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Sep 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 04:12
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Gee, trumps clownshoes lawyers sure don't seem to matter he's still getting what he wants. Jaxyon posted:Yeah that's exactly what I've said. People keep talking about how bad his lawyers are. It does not matter. The trial hasn't even started yet, this is pre-trial jockeying over the precise manner in which evidence should be handled. Might be a tad bit premature to be forecasting Trump's total acquittal. Having a bad lawyer doesn't mean that you lose everything all the time forever! Judges actually can sometimes be fairly patient with people who have bad lawyers, because they can always slap the lawyer down later. Even when somebody wastes the court's time with dumb antics, the judge may tolerate it for a little while, but in the long run it's a pretty poor idea to wear down a judge's patience without a real good reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 04:37
|
|
|
You think theres gonna be a trial?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 09:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The trial hasn't even started yet, this is pre-trial jockeying over the precise manner in which evidence should be handled. Might be a tad bit premature to be forecasting Trump's total acquittal. this is an overly-optimistic look at what just happened. There wasn't legal basis for much in the judge's ruling but she decided that didn't matter because there might be ambiguity (what ambiguity?) in executive privilege.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 09:59
|
|
|
So forgive me if I missed out on some things, but wasn't the point with this ruling that Trump basically sought out a judge who was in the area of Florida (where the raid took place) who had jurisdiction to make an order and then went looking for one appointed by the Trump administration in the hope that their line of thinking would match up with what Trump wants. It is judge shopping and arguably abusive of the legal process (since they went to a different judge instead of the one dealing with this criminal investigation) but it is a strategy. (Albiet one that feeds into Trumps world view of "I appointed this judge, so they must be loyal to me!") But I also got the impression that the DOJ had anticipated something like this and are lining up their appeal knowing that the foundations of Trumps order are shakey. It's something I have seen colleges talk about and I thought myself. (Where you know a judge is deadset against you and you are thinking "hurry up and rule against me so I can appeal it.") Like the thing to take from this is if the DOJ appeals, they will hopefully know enough to send it to an appeals judge who will look favourably at any arguments about errors in the lower Judge's ruling and or errors in the process that brought the application for the special master in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 11:16
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The executive, too; "we're not going to confirm your nominees and appointees because you're from The Enemy Party" was not a thing before the Obama, or arguably Clinton, administrations. Biden is doing okay with judges. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta..._bidenjudges_1/
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 12:51
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:You think theres gonna be a trial? Biden wouldn't have given that speech if they didn't plan to indict.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 12:56
|
|
|
Noted far left radical institution the Federal Bureau of Investigation Jan. 6 committee members say Trump's calling the FBI 'vicious monsters' at a rally may constitute incitement quote:Trump called the FBI "vicious monsters" controlled by left-wing radicalists at a Saturday rally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 13:14
|
|
|
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/06/politics/surveillance-video-voting-machine-breach-coffee-county-georgia/index.htmlquote:Newly obtained surveillance video shows fake Trump elector escorted operatives into Georgia county's elections office before voting machine breach
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The executive, too; "we're not going to confirm your nominees and appointees because you're from The Enemy Party" was not a thing before the Obama, or arguably Clinton, administrations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 14:10
|
|
|
Some Cowboys for Trump yahoo has been barred from office for participating on Jan 6 A first since 1869 https://twitter.com/AP/status/1567186643362234368 Its now time for Biden to secure the cowboy vote, while the gettins good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Even if you do you need someone to enforce it. Ohio passed an amendment to their constitution by referendum essentially saying that the gerrymandering in the state was illegal and the maps needed to be redrawn to be more proportional. The (very republican) state Supreme Court rejected all the maps the redistricting group made because they were incredibly biased and not at all constitutional, and yet we are still getting the old biased maps because a federal chudge said there wasn't time to draw up a new map, so gotta use the old ones despite the obvious delaying tactics. Nothing at all happened to the people in clear blatant violation of the state constitution. That's why any constitutional reform needs to include SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
OgNar posted:Some Cowboys for Trump yahoo has been barred from office for participating on Jan 6 This case presumes Jan 6 was an insurrection, full stop. This guy wasn't convicted of insurrection, only trespassing, but the judge says that's close enough to call up the 14th amendment. This would seem super appealable until you read that this idiot represented himself lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:So forgive me if I missed out on some things, but wasn't the point with this ruling that Trump basically sought out a judge who was in the area of Florida (where the raid took place) who had jurisdiction to make an order and then went looking for one appointed by the Trump administration in the hope that their line of thinking would match up with what Trump wants. I was listening to MSNBC this morning and I can't remember the name of the legal expert they had on but they said that the DOJ might not appeal this ruling because it could add a considerable amount of delay. If they appeal, I believe they said it could then go to the 11th circuit court which is a conservative majority. And I believe if they don't rule in Trump's favor then his lawyer can appeal the ruling which will send it to the supreme court. Which has a conservative majority... So yeah it's bad all the way around it seems like for the DOJ and their best option timewise is to just let the special master process play out. I'm going off memory on all this so I'm sure there are some inaccuracies with what I said.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
I've definitely heard that take as well, on the other hand the experience with all the election lawsuits is that Trump was told to gently caress off even by all the chudges he appointed, so they might not be willing to torpedo their credibility if the case is sufficiently baseless. Also Bill Barr thinks the gov should appeal  https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1567233443909476354 Anyway I don't really have the legal background to tell what would be better for putting Trump in prison so 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2022 21:09
|
|
