|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:I cannot see them inventing a requirement for a criminal conviction for insurrection. More, there is an ongoing criminal proceeding on his criminal liability.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I doubt it. Roberts is the one conservative justice who understands that public perception of the court's legitimacy can affect his ability to effect change. He'd never sign onto an obvious bullshit Calvinball argument just to be on the losing side. He absolutely might cast the deciding vote either way, but he'd leave the dissents to the shameless shills. Exactly. If it's 5-4 without Roberts he would join to make it 6-3 and try to write the best sounding rationalization he could.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:I cannot see them inventing a requirement for a criminal conviction for insurrection. They don't have to do this to punt on the issue though. They can just point to something like the government not mustering any military response to count as evidence that there was no insurrection, or rather, that there is insufficient evidence to activate the insurrection clause.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 18:43
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:They don't have to do this to punt on the issue though. They can just point to something like the government not mustering any military response to count as evidence that there was no insurrection, or rather, that there is insufficient evidence to activate the insurrection clause. But there was a military response. Just a lovely and slow one that resulted in handful of guardsmen sitting on their asses a lot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:They don't have to do this to punt on the issue though. They can just point to something like the government not mustering any military response to count as evidence that there was no insurrection, or rather, that there is insufficient evidence to activate the insurrection clause. Right, and I could see them making a FoF that this doesn’t meet the definition of insurrection. I just can’t see them saying “we won’t decide if this was an insurrection but he has to be found criminally liable for the amendment to come into effect.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 18:58
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:They don't have to do this to punt on the issue though. They can just point to something like the government not mustering any military response to count as evidence that there was no insurrection, or rather, that there is insufficient evidence to activate the insurrection clause. Granted, that gets shot down pretty easily when the person doing the insurrecting is in charge of the military.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
If the other 5 conservatives side with Trump then Roberts is going to do so too so he can write for the majority rather than risk Alito writing as he does or Thomas writing an opinion passed to him by his wife and her J6 friends.Potato Salad posted:More, there is an ongoing criminal proceeding on his criminal liability. And Trump was impeached for the insurrection. Maybe the SCOTUS says that since the Senate didn't remove him from office it doesn't count but there are 'better' bullshit arguments they could make than that. The 'best' argument is that the 14th doesn't apply to the president, though that requires accepting the argument that POTUS isn't an officer of the State and that the post-war US decided that it'd be ok for an insurrectionist to be President but not any other office including Congress or part of a president's administration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 19:26
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:They don't have to do this to punt on the issue though. They can just point to something like the government not mustering any military response to count as evidence that there was no insurrection, or rather, that there is insufficient evidence to activate the insurrection clause. It’s this. Nobody with an ounce of wit believes keeping Trump off the ballot in a handful of states will materially effect the election. I think the court, knowing this, is going to want to just stay out of it. I mean a 6-3 is possible. But I really think that internal politicking has a very good chance of a unanimous “we’re not doing this right now, sorry” ruling that has limited with any actual precedential value
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 19:54
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I doubt it. Roberts is the one conservative justice who understands that public perception of the court's legitimacy can affect his ability to effect change. He'd never sign onto an obvious bullshit Calvinball argument just to be on the losing side. He absolutely might cast the deciding vote either way, but he'd leave the dissents to the shameless shills. I'm not arguing that Roberts would sign on to an insane losing argument. I'm saying he'd be on the "what the gently caress" side. (e: I also wouldn't bet against him being able to bring along one of Kav or Barrett, who've at least shown some willingness to listen to Roberts on this stuff.) Kalman fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Feb 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Granted, that gets shot down pretty easily when the person doing the insurrecting is in charge of the military. Maybe, but whatever pretense they come up with only has to be sturdy enough to satisfy our rising Christian Nationalist political sect. A headline and two-sentence summary from Dan Bongino on Facebook or some closeted klansman org like the Daily Wire on Twitter can just say "Supreme Court DESTROYS Attack on President Trump: No Military Response to Fake "Insurrection", See Now On Exclusive TruthRealPatriotNetwork Podcast..." would be satisfactory. The ruling doesn't have to make sense. The people who will be dangerously empowered by such a ruling are already convinced they're Saving America™. They just need a bit more legitimacy lended to them by the Court in order to gloat about it more publicly while privately stoking flames of fascism even hotter in their hearts. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Feb 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
My guess is that it ends up "It's only self-executing in the case of the civil war; anything else requires congressional action."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 20:08
|
|
|
For the presidental immunity question I think they'll get 4 people to accept cert, then decide to put it in on the normal schedule and won't be mentioning on it until after the election. Hey, if he wins then the problem goes away, if he loses well the problem goes away! Thats great for the court! (sucks for us) For kicking him off the ballot I'm betting they'll come up with some bullshit that 'congress has to pass a law to declare someone insurrectionist', and call it a day. Because this court is the benchmark for moral courage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 20:08
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Granted, that gets shot down pretty easily when the person doing the insurrecting is in charge of the military. Okay, but shot down by whom? The Secret Extra-Supreme Court? Justices could even just shoot down your argument by straight out saying, "as sitting President, Trump ipso facto could not engage in insurrection against the United States of which he was President, and the sole political remedy against misconduct by a sitting President is vested in Congress in the power of impeachment proceedings. Such proceedings occurred, and the Senate failed to convict Trump."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 20:12
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:It’s this. Nobody with an ounce of wit believes keeping Trump off the ballot in a handful of states will materially effect the election. I think the court, knowing this, is going to want to just stay out of it. I mean a 6-3 is possible. But I really think that internal politicking has a very good chance of a unanimous “we’re not doing this right now, sorry” ruling that has limited with any actual precedential value If Trump is blocked from the ballot in any state and the SCOTUS lets it stand then you will see efforts to have him removed in every remaining state, either by the state government itself or citizens suing to remove him as ineligible due to violating the 14th Amendment. If the SCOTUS actually upholds the 14th amendment against Trump then his campaign for POTUS will be dead right then and there, period (and you'll likely see violence from members of the far right in response). Which is why you're going to have most if not all the conservatives on the bench going "nah gently caress your 14th Amendment argument party over country." The majority is at the very least going to punt with a "clearly the voters should decide" decision. I fully expect at least one or two of them to put in writing that the office of the Presidency is not an Officer position and therefore completely immune to the 14th Amendment. Or they'll just delay hearing the case until next year so that the decision will be irrelevant one way or the other. eSports Chaebol posted:They don't have to do this to punt on the issue though. They can just point to something like the government not mustering any military response to count as evidence that there was no insurrection, or rather, that there is insufficient evidence to activate the insurrection clause. You mean the military who answered to the guy being charged with insurrection? The same military that was eventually deployed to the Capitol? I'd be surprised if even Thomas or Alito were insane enough to argue "well no military response during the incident means no insurrection" as their reason for keeping Trump on ballots. Even the argument that a sitting POTUS cannot engage in insurrection is bogus because Trump's entire goal of January 6th was so that he could remain in power despite losing the election. eSports Chaebol posted:Okay, but shot down by whom? The Secret Extra-Supreme Court? Justices could even just shoot down your argument by straight out saying, "as sitting President, Trump ipso facto could not engage in insurrection against the United States of which he was President, and the sole political remedy against misconduct by a sitting President is vested in Congress in the power of impeachment proceedings. Such proceedings occurred, and the Senate failed to convict Trump." The President is the leader of one of 3 co-equal branches of the US Government. They are not a king or emperor who has sole reign over it and a ruling that a member of the government cannot engage in insurrection against it would be a debacle of historic proportions. We had members of the US government side with the confederacy with the Civil War and the idea the President is a super special position that gets to do whatever it wants, even attack the US government, would undermine the country significantly. The entire reason the 14th Amendment exists is because people who were part of the government actively engaged in insurrection and rebellion against it. Sure, the SCOTUS can issue a ruling of whatever they want and that's that, but their power comes from the legitimacy of their rulings and issuing such blatant "gently caress you we do what we want" rulings is only going to make calls for judicial reform much stronger and if Congress passes a judicial reform bill there's gently caress all the SCOTUS can do about it because, again, they have no actual power of enforcement so ruling that Congress can't expand the SCOTUS (which they unquestionably have the authority to do) would be outright ignored and those justices would be told to deal with it or resign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 22:01
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:(and you'll likely see violence from members of the far right in response). This is true for any political outcome involving Trump including his victory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 22:09
|
|
|
Regardless of the ruling (which is already pretty obviously that states can’t remove him) he would not be successfully removed in any state that actually matters towards the outcome I’ll go a step further and say that if (read: when) the court says he shouldn’t be removed I actually agree. I don’t think this is something we should be expecting the courts to do for us, to step in and make sure elections come out the way we want, and I guess you should probably run good candidates if you don’t want celebrity dorks winning big, and just like Florida 2000 should have been this is very much for the political process and not some high council of elders to figure out HashtagGirlboss fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Feb 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 22:20
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:issuing such blatant "gently caress you we do what we want" rulings is only going to make calls for judicial reform much stronger and if Congress passes a judicial reform bill there's gently caress all the SCOTUS can do about it You've outlined the threat, and then immediately after that why the threat doesn't exist. The legislative branch has been thoroughly and completely broken. It will never in my lifetime pass judicial reform that removes the conservative majority. I'll  a regular ban on that. The court is going to do whatever the hell they want. If they want to pull a 2000's "We say in this one specific instance it doesn't count but this is never valid for anyone else ever and makes no precedent and no takes-backsies" they'll loving do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 22:54
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:The legislative branch has been thoroughly and completely broken. It will never in my lifetime pass judicial reform that removes the conservative majority. Probably the safest Toxx on the history of this site. I'm not the chicken-little type but in this one exceptional case, I believe with total certainty as a 40-year old man that I'll be dead of old age before the judicial branch is cleansed- either via reform or a function of successive D administrations, deaths and time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 00:50
|
|
|
It's also pretty much a guarantee with how the Senate works. Every state gets two Senators. It doesn't matter if you're Wyoming with nobody there, or California with many many millions of people. There are never going to be tons of left-leaning people clamoring to move to places like Wyoming, Utah, ND/SD, etc that would help make the Senate more competitive for Dems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 01:07
|
|
|
The major problem with a SCOTUS ruling either way is that 1)it sides with Trump and now Biden gets open pass to do whatever he wants (we know he will not, but it could) 2) it sides with anti-insurrectionists and conservative states escalate and begin using the ruling to knock Biden (or any non-Rs) off their ballots We are sort of hosed no matter what but I am guessing that they go with #1 because they know Biden will not do anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 04:21
|
|
|
They won't give a "Trump is a special boy and this only applies to him" ruling, but I could definitely see them giving a ruling that would sound like it would give Biden free reign too, only to real fast come up with some excuse to change it around in the hypothetical event that he actually did openly do some wild criminal thing
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 04:36
|
|
|
They're going to do the same thing they've been doing for decades at this point, "According to obvious and long-held American legal tradition, Republicans get what they want, and no take-backs. If anyone disagrees, they're free to come back to us in a few years for another ruling." And people will nod sagely as if there could have been no alternative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 05:17
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:You've outlined the threat, and then immediately after that why the threat doesn't exist. The legislative branch has been thoroughly and completely broken. It will never in my lifetime pass judicial reform that removes the conservative majority. I'll That's not exactly the riskiest toxx, given that even FDR at the height of his popularity with massive Dem supermajorities was still unable to force through blatantly partisan "reforms" to the Supreme Court to change its ideological makeup. The lack of massive partisan intervention in the makeup of the Supreme Court isn't a sign that the legislature is "broken".
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 05:20
|
|
|
A good system wouldn't allow evil parties like Republicans to begin with. Only parties that at least try to be good would be allowed. (And yes, Democrats do try to be good. It's just hard.) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 05:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's not exactly the riskiest toxx, given that even FDR at the height of his popularity with massive Dem supermajorities was still unable to force through blatantly partisan "reforms" to the Supreme Court to change its ideological makeup. We do have massive partisan intervention in the makeup of the Supreme Court though? Like, we do. Huge amounts of massive partisan intervention. McConnel ratfucked his way in to stealing multiple seats by inventing long-held traditions out of thin air that he then immediately discarded when he could intervene some more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 12:52
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:It’s this. Nobody with an ounce of wit believes keeping Trump off the ballot in a handful of states will materially effect the election. It can materially impact the election in a pretty ... strange way, if you think about the percentage of conservative voters who have no idea how the electoral college works. The percentage of conservative voters in the swing states that actually determine the election could meaningfully drop due to reduced voter enthusiasm because "they already stole the election"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 13:22
|
|
|
Cimber posted:For kicking him off the ballot I'm betting they'll come up with some bullshit that 'congress has to pass a law to declare someone insurrectionist', and call it a day. Because this court is the benchmark for moral courage. That would literally be a bill of attender so no, they won't do that. That kind of legislative finding of guilt was a major part of complaints against the crown leading up to the English civil war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 13:54
|
|
|
If it names Trump specifically it’s a bill of attainder, but lawmakers are very good at crafting laws that set out very particular generic conditions that coincidentally only apply to certain favored or disfavored people without naming them. It probably wouldn’t be too hard to pass “the crime of insurrection shall consist of _______________ and whosoever commits this crime shall be ineligible to hold federal office as per amendment 14 section 3” Then you have the problem of it being an ex post facto law, but they could probably get away with it by only applying it to future elections
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 14:00
|
|
|
Luckily, they already created such a bill, and passed it! It's called the 14th amendment
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 14:04
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:We do have massive partisan intervention in the makeup of the Supreme Court though? Like, we do. Huge amounts of massive partisan intervention. McConnel ratfucked his way in to stealing multiple seats by inventing long-held traditions out of thin air that he then immediately discarded when he could intervene some more. The "huge partisan intervention" in question is that he delayed the filling of one seat until after an election, giving voters a chance to decide which party that seat should go to. Crying about him "stealing multiple seats" is just sour grapes. Even if he hadn't done that, conservatives would still have a majority on the Court now, since McConnell didn't do anything new to get Kavanaugh's or ACB's seats. Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Feb 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 14:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The "huge partisan intervention" in question is that he delayed the filling of one seat until after an election, giving voters a chance to decide which party that seat should go to. Crying about him "stealing multiple seats" is just sour grapes. Wasn’t ACBs seat filled like, a month before a Presidential election, going against the rule/logic used to hold the Gorsuch seat open?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 14:30
|
|
|
Schiavona posted:Wasn’t ACBs seat filled like, a month before a Presidential election, going against the rule/logic used to hold the Gorsuch seat open?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 14:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The "huge partisan intervention" in question is that he delayed the filling of one seat until after an election, giving voters a chance to decide which party that seat should go to. Crying about him "stealing multiple seats" is just sour grapes. E: and yes the court would still have a conservative split but 5-4 is a lot closer than 6-3 in terms of moderating decisions or some edge cases. See all the talking about Roberts earlier in the thread about how in a hypothetical trial about Trump he probably joins a 6-3 majority to write the decision if he can't pull someone and will side with the liberals if someone else does. Without Gorsuch on the court that latter option seems a lot more likely. Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Feb 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 14:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The "huge partisan intervention" in question is that he delayed the filling of one seat until after an election, giving voters a chance to decide which party that seat should go to. Crying about him "stealing multiple seats" is just sour grapes. Why would a person ever find themselves wanting to defend the litch known as Mitch Mcconnel? Kavanaugh and ACB were absolutely stolen seats
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 15:08
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:Why would a person ever find themselves wanting to defend the litch known as Mitch Mcconnel? How were Kav and Barrett stolen seats? Or is this just a novel (to me) relitigation of 2016 where McConnell's loving of the SCOTUS pick somehow cost Hillary the election? I also don't know why MPF is watering down what McConnell did though as it was a pretty big deal at the time and also retrospectively.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 15:26
|
|
|
ACB wasn't a stolen seat, it was just Republicans reminding everyone they are happy to be hypocrites whenever it means they get a win. Also that RBG was a selfish rear end in a top hat (who just happened to be liberal on most things) to the very end and I hope her legacy in the long run properly reflects her hubris. If McConnell hadn't stolen a seat then ACB's appointment would've just been one of extreme frustration due to the timing and loss of a liberal majority so shortly after gaining it.Bizarro Kanyon posted:The major problem with a SCOTUS ruling either way is that Except Biden and other Dems haven't engaged in insurrection and the idea Republicans will be able to go "well we can just remove the Dems too then" and not immediate get shot down in almost any court other than that one guy in Texas who rubberstamps everything for the GOP is absurd. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Feb 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 15:27
|
|
|
I would caution against assuming anything is too absurd for the modern conservative movement. The House just attempted to impeach an administrator over a drummed-up  crisis . An unintended side effect of the whole far-right citizen journalist thing is that you can go watch people "attempt to get to the bottom of this," drive out to the border, and stand around confused why nobody is there, caravans are absent, the lines they heard about are non-existent, and nothing is happening.Doesn't matter, the border is in a crisis  it's a very real crisis!!!1 Nothing is beyond the pale. I wouldn't factor "yeah but that's crazy / that's too far" into your political tea leaves reading, whether here with the SCOTUS or in other domestic political topics. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Feb 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 15:33
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:How were Kav and Barrett stolen seats? Or is this just a novel (to me) relitigation of 2016 where McConnell's loving of the SCOTUS pick somehow cost Hillary the election? They might be swapping Kav and gorsich in their head? With Barrett I'd guess the argument is that one of the two (Her or Gorsich) is stolen. Either McConnell rat hosed Obama out of having his pick, or he ratfucked Biden by going against his own rule. https://www.youtube.com/live/lIRbvJq4MIY?si=9fuY5IudBMoU6vn8 Live audio on the Colorado supreme court arguments. Caros fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Feb 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 16:03
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:How were Kav and Barrett stolen seats? Or is this just a novel (to me) relitigation of 2016 where McConnell's loving of the SCOTUS pick somehow cost Hillary the election? It was blatantly partisan, in a way that hadn't been done before... ...but if the American populace as a whole thought it was illegitimate in a way that demanded immediate judicial reform, presumably people would have voted against the party doing it in the 2016 elections. For as often as people complain about how the right are dirty cheaters, actual court-packing would be much more of a cheat than simply delaying an appointment till after the next election. Delaying a Supreme Court appointment like that is pretty unprecedented, sure, but the only post-Civil War precedent for court-packing is FDR trying to do it with 70+ Dem Senate seats and still failing. It's important to keep some sense of perspective, I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It was blatantly partisan, in a way that hadn't been done before... The threat of it got FDR much more favorable rulings, so I’m not sure his attempt really failed even if the court headcount didn’t go up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 17:02
|
|