|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Point to location in the constitution or and amendment that grants specific and explicit powers to the Supreme Court? This is absolutely factually incorrect. Where the constitution grants authority it also grants all powers necessary to exercise that authority. This is not even a remotely able to be challenged concept.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 14:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
Murgos posted:This is absolutely factually incorrect. Where the constitution grants authority it also grants all powers necessary to exercise that authority. This is not even a remotely able to be challenged concept. Cite your sources in the text please. Otherwise all your are doing is posting your personal feelings instead of using the information within the constitution. The constitution plus amendments are VERY explicit on what powers they do and do not grant. In the case of powers given to the Supreme Court, the only power granted are to review cases and grant their opinion. The executive branch is not bound to those opinions. Again, if it were, it would have been clearly stated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 14:36
|
|
|
It's never correct to fetishize old slaver writings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 15:07
|
|
|
"Um, excuse me, the constitution doesn't say the SCOTUS gets a police force to enforce its rulings so clearly the intent was that they just be purely advisory. " This is nonsense, akin to arguing that because the 3rd amendment doesn't include a remedy or mechanism for enforcement that the government can quarter troops all they want because SCOTUS can't send their own troops down to kick them out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:It's never correct to fetishize old slaver writings. It's not fetishization to realize that as enforcement of government's domestic affairs there's like the United States Postal Inspection Service that has it's authority from the get-go of the nation's history and NOTHING ELSE, and that maybe the people who wrote it didn't intend that everything else isn't allowed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 15:31
|
|
|
Murgos posted:This is absolutely factually incorrect. Where the constitution grants authority it also grants all powers necessary to exercise that authority. This is not even a remotely able to be challenged concept. That's right. President's War Powers are well-litigated and understood and never left anything muddy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:The executive branch is not bound to those opinions. Again, if you're talking about the power granted to it under the Constitution, this is just utterly, completely, and verifiably false. You might as well say that Joe Biden can
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 15:45
|
|
|
Joe Biden abusing the executive power in that way would certainly comparable to the way Republicans have abused theirs that all levels, scotus included
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
In news that'll shock no one it turns out Thomas's patron is a big collector of Nazi memorabilia including a signed copy of Mein Kampf. Also has a garden full of statues of dictators. https://twitter.com/zephoria/status/1644701758390927361?s=20 Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Apr 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:The most basic fundamental understanding of government includes understanding that any branch exceeding its constitutional authority, and refusing, perhaps by force, to be reined in, is a constitutional crisis. You mean like the judiciary for the past several decades? Because the only way they're going to be brought to heel is by the other branches forcing them to do so (and I'd expect a SCOTUS ruling that the other 2 branches are wrong to do it).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:You mean like the judiciary for the past several decades? Because the only way they're going to be brought to heel is by the other branches forcing them to do so (and I'd expect a SCOTUS ruling that the other 2 branches are wrong to do it). The fact that they should be circumvented where they are making rulings that clearly deviate from the law does not mean that their making such rulings entitles the executive to disband them altogether. There's a vast gulf between "I have asked the Attorney General to investigate whether state-level officials who interfere with the delivery of FDA-approved medications across state lines through the mail are engaging in criminal activity" and "I'm pleased to tell you today that I've issued an executive order that will outlaw the Supreme Court forever; the arrests begin in five minutes."
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 16:54
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:"I'm pleased to tell you today that I've issued an executive order that will outlaw the Supreme Court forever; the arrests begin in five minutes." 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
 Pack the court Send the court packing
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
Well, history has shown time and time again that when one faction starts bending the rules and doing things out of bad faith the other faction has to react. Specifically I'm thinking of the Late Roman Republic around the time of Marius and Sulla. Once the political norms started being broken each side was forced to do more and more extreme things to try to keep up. This ended with Sulla marching on Rome, installing himself dictator and proscribing his political enemies. I'd say the start of this turmoil began with the assassination of the Gracci. Are we starting to see the similar things now in respect to the US courts, and other actions by the GOP? McConnel blocking tons of Obama judges, the destruction of the 'blue slips', packing the courts with extremists and venue shopping by GOP activists? Its not a coincidence that the advocacy group that brought about this abortion pill ban chose to file in Amarillo. Kacsmaryk is the only federal judge assigned to that town, so they knew they were going to get a judge who aligned with their beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
Kacsmaryk was suggested for the role because he'd be the default selection there as well, iirc. The FedSoc's decades of work is entering its final stages and they know that the amount of effort (and strife) it'd take to stop them at this point is far beyond what any electable Dem is willing to consider.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Kacsmaryk was suggested for the role because he'd be the default selection there as well, iirc. The FedSoc's decades of work is entering its final stages and they know that the amount of effort (and strife) it'd take to stop them at this point is far beyond what any electable Dem is willing to consider. There was a Vox article about how right wing advocasy groups are forum shopping to get all sorts of rulings they want. I might have seen it here earlier. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...tice-department quote:But the case assignments process in Texas is not functioning properly. Texas federal courts assign 100 percent of all cases filed in Amarillo to Kacsmaryk. They assign virtually all cases filed in Victoria to Tipton. That means that right-wing litigants can guarantee their lawsuit will be heard by an allied judge simply by filing their suit in one of these two cities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:That's right. President's War Powers are well-litigated and understood and never left anything muddy. Not sure your point here but the constitution is clear how this works. It grants authority for a thing, like tax collection, and the legislature writes laws that control that thing unless they are specifically otherwise enumerated or forbidden. It’s not controversial. The idea is that there is no power for the judiciary to to enforce their decisions is an absurdity that would end the country immediately. It’s also not controversial to note that a lot of stuff in the constitution is contradictory or vague and has to be interpreted using reason and precedent. Murgos fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Apr 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 18:47
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Cite your sources in the text please. Otherwise all your are doing is posting your personal feelings instead of using the information within the constitution. No, it’s actually not explicit at all. Show me in the constitution where it creates an FBI? A CIA? Where does it say radio waves can be regulated? Paved roads? Build a space ship? C’mon man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
Murgos posted:No, it’s actually not explicit at all. Article 1, Section 8 covers all those abilities of congress. Specifically Clause 1, 3 and 8
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 19:51
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Article 1, Section 8 covers all those abilities of congress. Specifically Clause 1, 3 and 8 That's. . . not what explicit means. It may be implied that an intelligence agency is necessary to defend the United States, but there is no clause that says that. Moreover, what makes radio waves commerce and not speech in this circumstance? If the government wanted to regulate the sound waves a person produces, could it do that? None of those clauses gives the government the explicit authority to build anything. Under the interpretation you're arguing, I guess the government could build an ICBM, but not a space shuttle, unless it was going to arm it as well. The Framers have massive issues and couldn't even agree on interpretations of the Constitution they themselves wrote, but in general they knew that if you try to define everything in one document that you also make difficult to change, then the whole thing falls apart. The Constitution being vague and implicit is a big reason why it's still around, for better and for worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
If Biden tried to simply ignore a Supreme Court ruling, exactly the same thing would happen as if Trump had tried to ignore one: many of the largely nonpartisan career civil servants who would be tasked with actually implementing that order would refuse to cooperate with an order that had already been ruled unconstitutional. It's all well and good to say that the executive branch should simply ignore the judicial branch, but the executive branch isn't just the president. It's a whole array of executive agencies and workers who are bound to obey legal orders given by the president according to the legitimate authority invested in him by the Constitution and US law. But unconstitutional orders don't carry that authority. The intel agencies' rank-and-file might be willing to ignore that, but I highly doubt anyone at the FDA is eager to place their agency at the center of a constitutional crisis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
Hmmm, maybe Biden shouldn't have messed up the hearings of a certain corupt supreme court justice...and 11 democrats not have voted to push him over the line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2023 01:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If Biden tried to simply ignore a Supreme Court ruling, exactly the same thing would happen as if Trump had tried to ignore one: many of the largely nonpartisan career civil servants who would be tasked with actually implementing that order would refuse to cooperate with an order that had already been ruled unconstitutional. That chud judge already put the FDA at the center of a constitutional crisis by basically ruling that they don't actually have the power that Congress gave them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2023 06:00
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Well, history has shown time and time again that when one faction starts bending the rules and doing things out of bad faith the other faction has to react. Specifically I'm thinking of the Late Roman Republic around the time of Marius and Sulla. Once the political norms started being broken each side was forced to do more and more extreme things to try to keep up. This ended with Sulla marching on Rome, installing himself dictator and proscribing his political enemies. I'd say the start of this turmoil began with the assassination of the Gracci. I too am a Mike Duncan fan, but eeeeh. The Roman senate was voting special privileges to people from varying factions (usually read as “families”) for a long time before even the Gracci (I’m looking at you, Scipio), and of course there were opposing factions that didn’t like it and tried to win power back over to their side, blah blah blah. The fine details get covered up by the veneer of history, so it seems simple to say “it was this one thing.” I don’t think that’s how it goes usually (and neither does Mike Duncan, it seems). Reading lessons out of history can be very useful, but I’m not sure the lesson you’re trying to pull or even if it’ll be useful. What do you suggest? Ban political parties? Get the pope to beat judges we don’t like to death with bust up chair legs? Have “our faction” take power and right the wrongs a la Marius, but better?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2023 06:15
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Well, history has shown time and time again that when one faction starts bending the rules and doing things out of bad faith the other faction has to react. Specifically I'm thinking of the Late Roman Republic around the time of Marius and Sulla. Once the political norms started being broken each side was forced to do more and more extreme things to try to keep up. This ended with Sulla marching on Rome, installing himself dictator and proscribing his political enemies. I'd say the start of this turmoil began with the assassination of the Gracci. You're thinking of stasis, which is more of a Greek city-state thing. Bret Devereaux goes over that here https://acoup.blog/2020/10/30/fireside-friday-october-30-2020/
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2023 08:59
|
|
|
Rodenthar Drothman posted:I too am a Mike Duncan fan, but eeeeh. Well, not to go too far down the Roman history rabbit hole, but as the land under roman control expanded, citizen solders had to travel further and further away from Rome to fight the wars, and were gone longer and longer. What might have been a few weeks during the early republic/late monarchy was turning into months or years away that the soldier was away from his farm. As more wars happened more sons and fathers died and the farms started failing, only to be purchased on the cheap by wealthy aristocrats. More and more people flooded into the city of Rome causing more and more urban issues. The Gracci's land reform bills tried to stop this, but this directly impacted the profits of the rich. So the Gracci had to go. The Optimates and the Popularies calcified, and more and more parliamentary tricks were being done that were unthinkable just a few generations before, ending with Marius serving an unheard of 6 consecutive Consulships. This (and other things I'm not getting into here) were a direct cause of a Optimate general named Sulla to take his troops and march on Rome. That had _never_ been done before. Is there a direct relationship to what happened 2100 years ago in Rome and today's GOP vs Dems? No, not at all, but the patterns are similar enough that it is alarming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2023 13:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kjhealy/status/1645189718663995392
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2023 03:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JustinElliott/status/1646579185131855872?t=RCKvtJ4ps6ofliTcptlI3w&s=19
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:https://twitter.com/JustinElliott/status/1646579185131855872?t=RCKvtJ4ps6ofliTcptlI3w&s=19 This is somewhat burying the lede deeper in the thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/lrozen/status/1646587112358117376
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
What, rich people buy Supreme Court Justice’s mother’s houses all the time and fix them up for free. What’s the issue? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 21:21
|
|
|
Straight to jail
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 21:38
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:This is somewhat burying the lede deeper in the thread: And then…. https://twitter.com/lrozen/status/1646590189991612436?s=20 Do not party and disturb Clarence’s momma or you will get your house torn down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 21:40
|
|
|
I don't really understand why any of this is a problem? For years we've been hearing reasons why it's all actually fine:
So like what's the big deal? Did this Crowe guy ever look into a camera and say "I am bribing you, this is not just a present for your mom" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Apr 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
Thank you Justice Roberts
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't really understand why any of this is a problem? Unless you’re governor of Illinois for some bizarre reason, then bribery laws work the way everyone thinks they should and not this way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:This is somewhat burying the lede deeper in the thread: The fact that Clarence Thomas' mother is still alive at 94 has some chilling actuarial implications for the partisan makeup of the Court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2023 22:41
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Unless you’re governor of Illinois for some bizarre reason, then bribery laws work the way everyone thinks they should and not this way. As someone from Illinois, I look back and I am surprised that the D party was willing to drop Blago that quickly. A lot of times, it does seem like Ds are more willing to take that seriously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
Silly Burrito posted:What, rich people buy Supreme Court Justice’s mother’s houses all the time and fix them up for free. What’s the issue? lol that this is probably unironically true
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:As someone from Illinois, I look back and I am surprised that the D party was willing to drop Blago that quickly. In Blago's case they had mycrimes.mp3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 04:11 |
|
|
This Clarence Thomas poo poo originally felt like a shoulder shrug "won't be talking about it in a week" thing but propublica just kept going until it turned into something that would at least have the decency to dog him for the rest of his life
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2023 11:50
|
|
