|
Zwabu posted:You left out The SCOTUS has not been afraid to rule against Trump in the past. They shot down several of his challenges 2020 post-election to gently caress with the electors.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
Zwabu posted:You left out It's really going to be something along the lines of that the conservative wing will internally conclude - We can't let this part of the constitution ACTUALLY be enforceable by the states as written, even though as textual originalists we pretend that's our whole deal, because we completely understand that this will screw up the necessary fig leaf understandings that prop up and excuse the functionality of the electoral college, and our own party will start thunderously abusing the opportunity as fast as they can, and that'll be a whole mess - Also, we just went through a few years of tearing down the popular legitimacy of the court really surprisingly bad so we'll need to take a pretty cowardly route here, and we're already workshopping the ruling between us to expressly constrain the ruling to this specific instance and not creating any further precedent - God, we loving suck
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:Appeals court rules Trump can't claim immunity from Capital Police lawsuits. So from what I can tell in your articles, the system worked and it doesn't really seem like tort reform is needed? Again, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. If someone wants to run a business they accept the responsibility of following and adhering to whatever regulations that they are beholden to. If you are not capable of that, you aren't capable of being a business owner. Small businesses are so jerked off in this country and its so dumb. Being a "small business" is no excuse for incompetence. Most small business owners I've known have been regressive shitheads who were completely unprepared for what it takes to succeed as a business, and the only way they can stay afloat is by skirting and ignoring regulations as much as possible, paying employees as little as possible and offering zero benefits, and opposing any and every law which provides workers with better wages and more rights. The idea that most small business owners are these poor put upon mom and pop types who are just trying their best is conservative fiction meant to push back against any kind of labor reform. Again, your example clearly shows that in this case, the system essentially functioned as it should and I don't see how this is evidence that small businesses should get a chance to slide. e: Slightly tangential and not necessarily related, but see also the media drumming up stories about "businesses fleeing Seattle" because of high taxes, high minimum wage, and enhanced protections for employees. Guess what, there's still like thousands of successful businesses in Seattle, and for every dipshit not capable of staying afloat without exploiting workers, there's 2-3 more happy to move in. The idea that businesses are fleeing Seattle en masse because of out of control socialism is just another conservative fiction meant to push back against actual positive reforms as much as possible, same as this poo poo framing. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Dec 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 21:21
|
|
|
There is always the option for the court of, putting an end to Trumps run by saying "Yes he did violate the 14th", letting some stupid state say they are taking Biden off the Ballot, and then shadow docketing the decision and saying "Biden hasn't sorry you can't kick him off." then scampering off on some billionaries jet plane to a place where the maga can't find them till things calm down. They don't have to spend a lot of time slapping down frivolous lawsuits based on the 14th if they don't want to, they can just chuck them out of existence by saying "This is so dumb we won't even hear it,"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 21:39
|
|
|
I think the USSC has to be very careful with how it rules on this case and make actual well reasoned arguments on whichever way it decides. Their moral authority is pretty shaky lately, and if they pull rulings out of their asses that are obvious hackery they might find themselves in a case of 'well, Roberts has made his ruling, now lets see him enforce it.'. I think it is a small but non zero chance that either Maine or Colordao might disregard the court's ruling if they make a bad issuance. That being said, I think the most likely outcome is the court states that because Trump is on trial for his actions on January 6th, it would be improper for the court to agree that he committed insurrection as it would effectively judge him guilty in a case that will likely find its way before them in the future. They will then overturn Colorado's decision under that logic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 21:47
|
|
|
I have a feeling the sc won’t keep him off any kind of ballot using the excuse that he wasn’t actually convicted of a crime or insurrection
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 21:55
|
|
|
wet_goods posted:I have a feeling the sc won’t keep him off any kind of ballot using the excuse that he wasn’t actually convicted of a crime or insurrection I'm not saying they won't necessarily do this, but it would prove correct anyone who said they were going to do this in the most chickenshit fashion, given that the language of the law that they are spuriously reinterpreting never, never required any kind of legal conviction whatsoever
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 22:13
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I think the USSC has to be very careful with how it rules on this case and make actual well reasoned arguments on whichever way it decides. Their moral authority is pretty shaky lately, and if they pull rulings out of their asses that are obvious hackery they might find themselves in a case of 'well, Roberts has made his ruling, now lets see him enforce it.'. SCOTUS doesn't need to agree that Trump did an insurection, they just need to agree that states have the right to make this determination themselves and keep candidates off ballots accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 22:50
|
|
|
Comedy option: the Court says sure throwing him off the ballot's fine, as someone else said Republicans immediately call the poo poo they made up about the border insurrection and strip Biden off the ballot everywhere they can, they then have to justify their made-up bullshit under oath, they can't, Biden stays on, they do the obvious thing and get their base angry by lying through their teeth about activist judges every possible second they're not under threat of going to jail for lying (and only then)
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 23:10
|
|
|
Do we have any idea when the supreme Court might actually settle this? I honestly can't keep track of all the various lawsuits and where they are in the legal pipeline.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 23:23
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:So from what I can tell in your articles, the system worked and it doesn't really seem like tort reform is needed? Again, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. If someone wants to run a business they accept the responsibility of following and adhering to whatever regulations that they are beholden to. If you are not capable of that, you aren't capable of being a business owner. Small businesses are so jerked off in this country and its so dumb. Being a "small business" is no excuse for incompetence. Most small business owners I've known have been regressive shitheads who were completely unprepared for what it takes to succeed as a business, and the only way they can stay afloat is by skirting and ignoring regulations as much as possible, paying employees as little as possible and offering zero benefits, and opposing any and every law which provides workers with better wages and more rights. The idea that most small business owners are these poor put upon mom and pop types who are just trying their best is conservative fiction meant to push back against any kind of labor reform. No. The ADA is supposed to encourage litigation and actions that actually produce meaningful accessibility in the places where it is needed. In practice, individual businesses are rarely the party that actually does the construction or design of any of the elements subject to federal regulation. The point of the example is that the law as it exists allows thousands of nuisance suits and abuse of the statute to no actual benefit to people with disabilities. Allowing a grace period for compliance where noncompliance is found allows for such compliance to still occur, while removing the perverse incentives for this sort of predatory litigation. Like I don't know how to make this clearer. The fact that someone was able to abuse the law hundreds of times to the point of disbarment, after years of the conduct, indicates there's a problem with the law. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Dec 30, 2023 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Do we have any idea when the supreme Court might actually settle this? I honestly can't keep track of all the various lawsuits and where they are in the legal pipeline. The loser (it will be Trump) will then appeal to SCOTUS and hopefully they will just refuse to hear it, upholding the 10th Circuit. More likely, they will fast track it like they did Gore v. Bush, or worse they will say they want time to consider it and we find out in May or June. In the meantime, the trial won't be stayed and the March DC trial can get rolling. E: I highly doubt they will give Trump immunity, I doubt they will rule invading the Capitol doesn't count as obstruction of an official proceeding, and I very highly doubt they rule for Trump on the 14th Amd. He incited an insurrection and he does not need to be convicted of anything to find that as a fact. This isn't optimism. Trump wants to be a dictator and everyone on SCOTUS knows no dictator wants a SCOTUS to even deal with. They got their lifetime appointments, now they can throw Trump to the DoJ. Dr. Faustus fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Dec 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
The Islamic Shock posted:Comedy option: the Court says sure throwing him off the ballot's fine, as someone else said Republicans immediately call the poo poo they made up about the border insurrection and strip Biden off the ballot everywhere they can, they then have to justify their made-up bullshit under oath, they can't, Biden stays on, they do the obvious thing and get their base angry by lying through their teeth about activist judges every possible second they're not under threat of going to jail for lying (and only then) The glaring flaw here is that the Court has been accepting obviously untrue statements in arguments for years. The right wing plan is literally to lie all the way to the USSC, who then rubber stamp it. Sotomayor went to the step of putting photos in Kennedy vs. Bremerton to highlight it, not that the howler monkeys cared.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:This isn't optimism. Trump wants to be a dictator and everyone on SCOTUS knows no dictator wants a SCOTUS to even deal with. They got their lifetime appointments, now they can throw Trump to the DoJ. For Alito, the chance to establish a Christian theocracy is probably worth risking not being a justice anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 00:03
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:This isn't optimism. Trump wants to be a dictator and everyone on SCOTUS knows no dictator wants a SCOTUS to even deal with. They got their lifetime appointments, now they can throw Trump to the DoJ. You and I see this but remember that Trump's cult is made of people who keep seeing all the faces the leopard has eaten and going "Surely he won't eat MINE!" I do hope the SCOTUS will know better but I'm not gonna hold my breath.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 00:03
|
|
|
Platonicsolid posted:The glaring flaw here is that the Court has been accepting obviously untrue statements in arguments for years. The right wing plan is literally to lie all the way to the USSC, who then rubber stamp it. Sotomayor went to the step of putting photos in Kennedy vs. Bremerton to highlight it, not that the howler monkeys cared. Yeah, remember that case about the webpage designer who didn't want to do a gay wedding? Well, the 'victim' wasn't even a webpage designer and she wasn't ever asked to design a webpage for a gay wedding. The USSC is supposed to deal with real controversy, not hypotheticals. Did that matter to them? Nope, not one bit. Same with the Christian Coach who allegedly was fired for praying quietly after the game. Pictures showed him in the middle of the field with all his players around him. Facts don't matter to this bunch, only the results they want. Funny, I remember Rush Limbaugh railing for years about legislating from the bench. Don't hear that from him now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 00:10
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Yeah, remember that case about the webpage designer who didn't want to do a gay wedding? Well, the 'victim' wasn't even a webpage designer and she wasn't ever asked to design a webpage for a gay wedding. The USSC is supposed to deal with real controversy, not hypotheticals. Did that matter to them? Nope, not one bit. He's literally dead
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Facts don't matter to this bunch, only the results they want. Funny, I remember Rush Limbaugh railing for years about legislating from the bench. Don't hear that from him now. ...correct
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 00:24
|
|
|
I’m expecting the court to issue a narrow ruling to avoid the insurrectionists heavily armed wrath. I don’t want to go all clancychat but I don’t see how finding Trump can be removed results in anything less than another insurrection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 00:42
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:I’m expecting the court to issue a narrow ruling to avoid the insurrectionists heavily armed wrath. I don’t want to go all clancychat but I don’t see how finding Trump can be removed results in anything less than another insurrection. There's two things to be aware of here. The first is the people who are going to do that poo poo are going to do it regardless, they don't need people to give them an excuse, they'll find one. The second is that most of the people who would do such things, the ringleaders at least, are doing post-Jan-6 jailtime now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 00:56
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:So from what I can tell in your articles, the system worked and it doesn't really seem like tort reform is needed? Again, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. If someone wants to run a business they accept the responsibility of following and adhering to whatever regulations that they are beholden to. If you are not capable of that, you aren't capable of being a business owner. Small businesses are so jerked off in this country and its so dumb. Being a "small business" is no excuse for incompetence. Most small business owners I've known have been regressive shitheads who were completely unprepared for what it takes to succeed as a business, and the only way they can stay afloat is by skirting and ignoring regulations as much as possible, paying employees as little as possible and offering zero benefits, and opposing any and every law which provides workers with better wages and more rights. The idea that most small business owners are these poor put upon mom and pop types who are just trying their best is conservative fiction meant to push back against any kind of labor reform. We've probably all been to places where we've noticed there's no wheelchair access or other substantial ADA issues. We probably didn't notice or care that the signage was out of date with current regulations, such as at the incorrect height.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 01:02
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:I’m expecting the court to issue a narrow ruling to avoid the insurrectionists heavily armed wrath. I don’t want to go all clancychat but I don’t see how finding Trump can be removed results in anything less than another insurrection. It will be a much taller order for Trump to gain the Presidency from the position of being a failed challenger than staying in power as an incumbent (which he also failed at) where he had the ability to interfere with National Guard response to the invasion of the Capitol etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 01:08
|
|
|
Papercut posted:He's literally dead Oh, I know. I just like re-reading that fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 01:33
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Yeah, remember that case about the webpage designer who didn't want to do a gay wedding? Well, the 'victim' wasn't even a webpage designer and she wasn't ever asked to design a webpage for a gay wedding. The USSC is supposed to deal with real controversy, not hypotheticals. Did that matter to them? Nope, not one bit. I heard he’s been sober for a few years now, good for him
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 01:45
|
|
|
Gyges posted:As it is now, if the court decides to rule on the ability of the states to use the 14th to limit ballot access they still have a wide range of options on how they do so. Funniest ruling would be them saying that Trump can be on the ballot (primary and general) but is disqualified from the presidency due to the insurrection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 01:49
|
|
|
So, how does Collateral Estoppel fit into the 14th amendment disqualifying Trump discussion? If SCOTUS rules that the the states have to use their sovereignty to make the decision unless and until congress passes overriding legislation then does the fact that Trump has been found by a competent court to have committed insurrection prevent other venues from saying he didn’t?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 01:51
|
|
|
Name Change posted:We've probably all been to places where we've noticed there's no wheelchair access or other substantial ADA issues. We probably didn't notice or care that the signage was out of date with current regulations, such as at the incorrect height. Ok but we're not business owners responsible for being in compliance with the ADA. What you and I are noticing are not noticing is irrelevant to the conversation. Discendo Vox posted:No. The ADA is supposed to encourage litigation and actions that actually produce meaningful accessibility in the places where it is needed. In practice, individual businesses are rarely the party that actually does the construction or design of any of the elements subject to federal regulation. The point of the example is that the law as it exists allows thousands of nuisance suits and abuse of the statute to no actual benefit to people with disabilities. Allowing a grace period for compliance where noncompliance is found allows for such compliance to still occur, while removing the perverse incentives for this sort of predatory litigation. This is fair enough I guess but I think tort reform for anything, but especially with something as potentially as serious as ADA compliance, is a slippery slope and gives business owners too much leeway. If I don't see a speed limit sign and get pulled over for going twenty over, I'm probably going to get cited, I don't get to use my ignorance as an excuse, because ignorance of the law is not a valid defense for being in violation of it. It's the matter of giving any amount of slack for a group of people largely resistant to any sort of "burdensome government regulations" that bothers me. But I will concede that yes, ultimately the important part is (timely) compliance with the law, and it seems reasonable to give at least some time for them to fix it, as long as it's not something particularly egregious or obviously intentional.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 02:08
|
|
|
Why isn’t this argument extending to all the Freedom caucus people clearly involved?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 02:24
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:Why isn’t this argument extending to all the Freedom caucus people clearly involved? No one's brought a suit against them yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 02:28
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:Why isn’t this argument extending to all the Freedom caucus people clearly involved? Folks can make that argument, but the line from Trump to J6 is a lot clearer than for everyone else, who were all hiding out from the J6ers. Trump was a lead speaker at the J6 event, he put a lot of effort into getting people there and talking about a march to congress, his tweets clearly encouraged it and eventually ended it. Having that clear a line should help with dumb future fights asking courts to disqualify folks because they're born in Hawai'i or aren't anti-immigrant enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 04:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The problem the Court faces is that all the easy outs like this one are precluded by either the text or the historical context that they profess to value -- for example, the 14th amendment clearly barred all former confederate soldiers from holding office, that was the whole point, but none of them had actually been tried and convicted either, so clearly that can't be a requirement. The Congressmen who wrote the 14th clearly meant for it to bar all former Confederate soldiers from holding office, but in practice, that never really actually happened. Several states openly defied the 14th and allowed ex-Confederates to hold positions that they should have barred from by the 14th Amendment, but there's basically no documented cases of those ineligible officials being removed from their illegal offices by lawsuits. That's the issue that stabs deep into the heart of the Insurrection Clause: it's always been deeply, deeply impacted by political considerations, to the point of rendering it essentially unenforceable in the real world. The Maine and Colorado opinions find plausible explanations for addressing all the various ambiguities in Section Three in the direction of "yes, this applies to Trump", but it wouldn't be ridiculously unreasonable for the Supreme Court to decide some of those ambiguities in the other direction. Murgos posted:So, how does Collateral Estoppel fit into the 14th amendment disqualifying Trump discussion? It wouldn't make any sense at all for the Supreme Court to leave it up to the states to individually decide for themselves whether or not an individual is constitutionally eligible for the presidency. Federal eligibility for president isn't a state-by-state thing, it's a federal thing. States are free to have extra ballot access restrictions of their own on a state-by-state basis, but whether someone is federally disqualified is ultimately a federal matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 07:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The Congressmen who wrote the 14th clearly meant for it to bar all former Confederate soldiers from holding office, but in practice, that never really actually happened. Several states openly defied the 14th and allowed ex-Confederates to hold positions that they should have barred from by the 14th Amendment, but there's basically no documented cases of those ineligible officials being removed from their illegal offices by lawsuits. That's the issue that stabs deep into the heart of the Insurrection Clause: it's always been deeply, deeply impacted by political considerations, to the point of rendering it essentially unenforceable in the real world. Specifically, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "political considerations" you're talking about are that the 13th amendment functionally barred almost all white men in the South from political office, so the alternatives were "Allow black people to hold office like equals" or "chaos government" and America was still far too racist, even in the North, to prefer option A. But yes, that's part of why I find all this so hilarious. Like, ok, "originalists", what do you think the absolute clear text here means? How many logical hoops are you going to jump through to avoid the clear meaning? But right-wing "originalists" *never* apply the same level of fidelity to their analysis of the civil war amendments that they do to the earlier parts of the Constitution. Normally they all just sort of wink and nod and pretend, and there's a hundred and fifty years of legal history they can use to handwave away the due process clause and the equal protection clause and so forth when they want to. But here, we have functionally a brand new issue, barely ever litigated at all so no prior precedent to hide behind, the law is actually quite plainly written and the original intent is extremely clear and directly applicable. They're either going to have to boot Trump or break kayfabe and either result is gonna be comical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 14:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
The constitution expressly grants the power to choose electors however they wish to each state to enact individually. It’s a pretty easy lift IMO to say, “the states always had the power to decide who meets or doesn’t meet the constitutional requirements.” Particularly as states each independently already make the decision on who gets to be on the federal presidential ballot. You’re saying that it’s obvious that section 3 of the 14th amendment is special and different than the other presidential requirements and I don’t think there is much reason to think that’s true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:For historical reasons, voters in each state are really voting for electors, and it's those electors who cast the votes to actually elect a president. Each state can set its own rules and procedures for choosing or electing the presidential electors. This has mostly been abstracted away in modern presidential elections, but the system still technically exists and the Constitution goes by that. That means that while electors can't vote for someone who's not eligible to be president (technically they can, but those votes won't be counted), the voters are under no such constraint I hadn't seen any articles mentioning electors in relation to this before. If no electors are suspected of insurrection, I suppose the SC could still leave it up to the states, with no need for a nationwide ruling on eligiblity. Then, if the electors choose a president who may be ineligible, "that's a political question", which the court would also not rule on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 15:53
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:I hadn't seen any articles mentioning electors in relation to this before. If no electors are suspected of insurrection, I suppose the SC could still leave it up to the states, with no need for a nationwide ruling on eligiblity. Then, if the electors choose a president who may be ineligible, "that's a political question", which the court would also not rule on. Electors are specifically excluded and listed in the text of the insurrection clause. quote:
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 15:58
|
|
|
D.C. circuit might not even have jurisdiction according to a Scalia ruling about interlocutory appeals. An amicus brief by a big law firm points out that textualist Scalia ruled you couldn't appeal in the middle of a trial unless you had solid textual proof. Since the issue with the DC criminal case appeal is universal presidential immunity, if Trump wants to argue it he has to wait until a conviction to take it to the DC circuit as there's no explicit doctrine of presidential immunity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 16:27
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Ok but we're not business owners responsible for being in compliance with the ADA. What you and I are noticing are not noticing is irrelevant to the conversation. Worth noting that something like a sign not being straight or at the incorrect height could be caused by something out of the control of the business (i.e. someone running into the sign with a vehicle). Other similar issues can crop up when things fail over time or from damage. And there are plenty of issues where motorists are given opportunities to fix a problem. Tickets for lights being out, or registration being out of date, etc. where you are expected to provide proof that the issue is fixed. There's a minor fine involved, but it's very small compared to the fine for a full violation. It's also not unreasonable to provide a grace period when construction is involved - it takes time to source the materials, hire a crew, schedule the fix, clear enough space in the parking area for the crew to work, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
wet_goods posted:I have a feeling the sc won’t keep him off any kind of ballot using the excuse that he wasn’t actually convicted of a crime or insurrection None of the Confederate officers were convicted but their ineligibility was adjudicated under 14A. Smith's brief lays this out as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
mdemone posted:None of the Confederate officers were convicted but their ineligibility was adjudicated under 14A. Smith's brief lays this out as well. The problem is you are using logic against a court that uses logic only when it suits their needs, otherwise they make up whatever they want to achieve the desired outcome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
Reading the Maine decision and I'm pretty loving surprised he actually had the audacity to file a motion for the (oops not a judge) to recuse themselves for bias. I can only hope they've reached the limit of his ridiculous and dangerous antics, making veiled mob boss threats and constantly discrediting the system of law with accusations of corruption and bias.
Asproigerosis fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Dec 31, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 22:54
|
|