|
azflyboy posted:I assume Trump has already sent a new RV to Thomas. Thomas doesn't work for Trump, he works for idk Harlan Crow, Leonard Leo, Koch, maybe a dozen other rich assholes. If they don't want to MAGA then maybe neither does he
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Thomas doesn't work for Trump, he works for idk Harlan Crow, Leonard Leo, Koch, maybe a dozen other rich assholes. If they don't want to MAGA then maybe neither does he The billionaires may have Clarence, but Trump has Ginni. Checkmate, comical monetary bribes. Classic cultish fanaticism wins again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 01:57
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Thomas doesn't work for Trump, he works for idk Harlan Crow, Leonard Leo, Koch, maybe a dozen other rich assholes. If they don't want to MAGA then maybe neither does he I've not looked at Leo but for reference Harlan Crow is a hardcore pro-business classical paleocon who is legitimately, obsessively patriotic in a weird and toxic way, but to the best of my knowledge is not any kind of MAGAhead. This does not mean that he necessarily wouldn't support Trump.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 02:02
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Why did they take a multiple week break mid trial? Wtf? Civil trials aren't as much of a rush as criminal trials, and that's doubly true for big business stuff that tends to be complicated and require a bunch a paperwork to be unraveled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 02:24
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The billionaires may have Clarence, but Trump has Ginni. Checkmate, comical monetary bribes. Classic cultish fanaticism wins again. Thomas really should recuse himself given that Ginni literally funded bus rides for the insurrectionists and organized a bunch of the trips, but of course he's not. Thomas has never met a conflict of interest he couldn't ignore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 03:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/1743388892315754720
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 04:57
|
|
|
Couldn't the SC decide that if a President engages in insurrection, then they can be excluded from ballots, and not have to say whether a specific President actually did that or not?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 08:22
|
|
|
How would they do that, outside of the context of a case coming to them about a specific president? Federal courts don't issue advisory opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 08:33
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:How would they do that, outside of the context of a case coming to them about a specific president? Federal courts don't issue advisory opinions. Wasn't there a time when they didn't rule on hypothetical situations either?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 08:45
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:How would they do that, outside of the context of a case coming to them about a specific president? Federal courts don't issue advisory opinions. Then how did they issues an advisory opinion for every one to stay away from trump cos he stinks. Huh wise guy.  Also, with all the different lawsuits against trump at the moment, does anyone know how much aprox it might be costing him/his campaign to fight them all? I'd say it would be a bit, but he doesn't seem to be hiring exactly the best lawyers, so would this be more of a trivial cost for him?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 08:45
|
|
|
What's with the voluntarily withdrawn cases? They figured since someone else was taking it to SCOTUS and getting it resolved one way or another they were just wasting time and money doing it on a state level?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 09:09
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:What's with the voluntarily withdrawn cases? They figured since someone else was taking it to SCOTUS and getting it resolved one way or another they were just wasting time and money doing it on a state level? I assume someone came over and had a Talk with them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 15:11
|
|
|
Husband of deceased Jan. 6 Darwin Award Winner files wrongful death suit against governmentquote:The husband of deceased Jan. 6 rioter Ashli Babbitt has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. government for $30 million, according to court records released Friday. Now, here's why it's all Trump's Legal Troubles: (quoting from the Fark thread, as I was not aware of the following fact): quote:Judicial Watch is headed by pond scum Tom Fitton, who has a non-zero chance of going down in history as the person responsible for Trump going to jail. Well done Agent Clinton. Comstar fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Jan 6, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 15:12
|
|
|
AvesPKS posted:Couldn't the SC decide that if a President engages in insurrection, then they can be excluded from ballots, and not have to say whether a specific President actually did that or not? It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever for them to do this. The question at the heart of these lawsuits isn't "are we allowed to remove an ineligible candidate from the ballot?", it's "is Donald Trump eligible to be president?". Nobody's appealing this to the Supreme Court to find out if states are required to put ineligible candidates on the presidential ballot. There is really no way the Supreme Court can reasonably avoid the question of whether Trump is eligible to be president. No matter how much they might want to punt on the issue or avoid the question, doing so would just be a pointless waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 15:54
|
|
|
AvesPKS posted:Couldn't the SC decide that if a President engages in insurrection, then they can be excluded from ballots, and not have to say whether a specific President actually did that or not? Well, kind of. The Supreme Court only has jurisdiction to decide actual cases, it doesn’t issue advisory opinions. In other words, it doesn’t just settle abstract points of law; it only “says what the law is” in the context of dealing with an actual live controversy before it (unless of course, gay weddings are involved, when apparently all bets are off). However, appellate courts often clarify the legal issues and then decide that a trial court needs to consider the facts to apply the law it has set out in the first instance. I haven’t read the CO opinion, so I don’t know if it could actually happen, but there’s theoretically room for SCOTUS to go “okay, here is how you apply Section 3, the findings of fact below aren’t sufficient to reach the conclusion that Trump is disqualified, but we’re not holding that he should be on ballots right now because the record needs further development. Reversed and remanded to the CO trial court to apply the test we’ve set forth here.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Husband of deceased Jan. 6 Darwin Award Winner files wrongful death suit against government *Obama rips off Fitton mask, cackling fiendishly*
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 16:38
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Husband of deceased Jan. 6 Darwin Award Winner files wrongful death suit against government Interesting argument that she was ambushed when the footage shows her in a crowd of people literally tearing at a barricade like something out of a zombie movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 16:56
|
|
|
But how was she supposed to know it was illegal to overrun a police barricade, climb over a mob of people, and attempt to bypass a locked and barricaded door in the US Capital?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 17:08
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Well, kind of. The Supreme Court only has jurisdiction to decide actual cases, it doesn’t issue advisory opinions. In other words, it doesn’t just settle abstract points of law; it only “says what the law is” in the context of dealing with an actual live controversy before it. Seems the Supreme court would be much more efficient if the judges operated by judge dredd rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:But how was she supposed to know it was illegal to overrun a police barricade, climb over a mob of people, and attempt to bypass a locked and barricaded door in the US Capital? I'm fairly certain there were obviously men with guns drawn on the opposite side of the door as well. This will be a fun case I'm sure
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 17:20
|
|
|
Don't we have video of the shooting from both sides of the door?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 17:47
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Interesting argument that she was ambushed when the footage shows her in a crowd of people literally tearing at a barricade like something out of a zombie movie. A key part of a good ambush is to trick the target into coming into the line of fire while unsuspecting. Shame they had to instigate a coup attempt and do all that collateral damage, but all's fair in love and war. Just some real top tier tactics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 17:50
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:*Obama rips off Fitton mask, cackling fiendishly*
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
Comstar posted:[url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4392515-husband-jan-6-rioter-ashli-babbitt-wrongful-death-suit/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark]Husband of deceased Jan. 6 Darwin Award Winner files wrongful death suit against government[/url Disappointed thus wasn't the actual headline. :-(
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 17:54
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Don't we have video of the shooting from both sides of the door? Audio, too. She was warned several times not to go through the door or she'd be shot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 18:05
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Audio, too. She was warned several times not to go through the door or she'd be shot. I was gonna say, I distinctly recall hearing multiple warnings that they would shoot on the videos. Glad I'm not losing my mind. Goddamn. I legitimately feel like my mind broke after Trump was elected. It's like Cthulhu themself pulled us all into their nightmare for a split second but it was enough to break my brain into not knowing what is real or possible anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 18:18
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Audio, too. She was warned several times not to go through the door or she'd be shot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 18:22
|
|
|
She didn't recognize their authority to give orders
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 18:26
|
|
|
Everyone knows yelling is the verbal version of ALL CAPS. And all caps is just the sign of yet another order that is only binding on a shell corporate identity, having no power over the true flesh and blood identity. I bet all the flags at the capital that day had gold fringe too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
She wasn't climbing through the smashed door she was travelling through it, and the officer wasn't wearing a gold-fringed flag, so-
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Everyone knows yelling is the verbal version of ALL CAPS. And all caps is just the sign of yet another order that is only binding on a shell corporate identity, having no power over the true flesh and blood identity. I bet all the flags at the capital that day had gold fringe too. The bullets only killed the body of Ashli Babbitt, not the legal person of ASHLI OF-THE-FAMILY: BABBITT. Case dismissed
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 19:08
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Seems the Supreme court would be much more efficient if the judges operated by judge dredd rules. The Onion has you covered, Judge Dredd reference and all. From 2008: Supreme Court Rules Death Penalty Is 'Totally Badass'
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 19:19
|
|
|
Comstar posted:“Ashli did not go to Washington as part of a group or for any unlawful or nefarious purpose,” they wrote, claiming Babbitt, an Air Force veteran, “posed no threat to the safety of anyone.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 19:29
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:what does this mean? like...in the realm of reality how can you make this argument? "she wasn't violent before she got to the violence therefore she was never violent" is...AN argument i guess? You can survive a motion to dismiss because the judge has to take all your facts as alleged in the complaint as true Probably just wants some wingnut welfare money before they lose in dramatic fashion
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 19:30
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever for them to do this. The question at the heart of these lawsuits isn't "are we allowed to remove an ineligible candidate from the ballot?", it's "is Donald Trump eligible to be president?". Nobody's appealing this to the Supreme Court to find out if states are required to put ineligible candidates on the presidential ballot. Apologies if this is a stupid question. Is this because it has been clearly established that it is already within the purview of states to remove ineligible candidates from their ballot? Ogmius815 posted:Well, kind of. The Supreme Court only has jurisdiction to decide actual cases, it doesn’t issue advisory opinions. In other words, it doesn’t just settle abstract points of law; it only “says what the law is” in the context of dealing with an actual live controversy before it (unless of course, gay weddings are involved, when apparently all bets are off). So there's no way they come back like Oprah and say "CO, you get to make a determination, and ME you get to make a determination!"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 20:34
|
|
|
SpelledBackwards posted:The Onion has you covered, Judge Dredd reference and all. From 2008: Haha of course it does! The onion know in legal circles for it's legitmatly good legal briefs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:Haha of course it does! The onion know in legal circles for it's legitmatly good legal briefs. They really like to get off on technicalities
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 21:24
|
|
|
Something something Judge Dred Scott
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 21:26
|
|
|
AvesPKS posted:Apologies if this is a stupid question. Is this because it has been clearly established that it is already within the purview of states to remove ineligible candidates from their ballot? States can already impose conditions and requirements on ballot access, as long as those conditions and requirements don't violate some other important constitutional principle. After all, presidential election ballots aren't something that's in the Constitution anyway; strictly speaking, they're a state practice created by the states themselves, so the states have a fair amount of latitude in how they can handle ballot access. For example, it would be legal for a state to deny ballot access to any candidate that refuses to swear that they don't intend to overthrow the government by force. However, this would only be constitutional if the state applies this requirement to all candidates from all parties. If it only applied this requirement to some candidates or some parties, then that policy would be an Equal Protection Act violation. (Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb) What that means is that, strictly speaking, the state governments didn't have to invoke the Insurrection Clause here. But that's what they chose to do, and as such, that's the question at hand. Naturally, it's well within the states' power to deny ballot access to someone who's constitutionally ineligible to run. The issue in these lawsuits isn't whether states have that power, it's whether Trump is eligible or not. And because this is a question of federal constitutional law, it can't have a different answer in every state. If the states wanted to make their own individual decisions about ballot eligibility, they had the power to do so under state law. Instead, they chose to rely on federal law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:46 |
|
|
SlinkyMink posted:I was gonna say, I distinctly recall hearing multiple warnings that they would shoot on the videos. Glad I'm not losing my mind. Goddamn. I legitimately feel like my mind broke after Trump was elected. It's like Cthulhu themself pulled us all into their nightmare for a split second but it was enough to break my brain into not knowing what is real or possible anymore. Same. And I honestly wonder how much more mine can break if/when he wins re-election in 9 months, which I tend to think he will, and regardless of what that might look like with all this other poo poo going on. Christ, this country seems so hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 22:01
|
|
