|
Evil Fluffy posted:Nah they'll refuse to take up the case as moot because Harris won't be the nominee, even if Biden wins reelection and she's VP in 2028 because nobody likes Kamala Harris and she's not going to convince people like Newsom not to run against her because she'd be the easiest Dem candidate to beat in the past several decades. Because a bunch of red states would find reasons to call something biden did "a treason" and summarily remove him from their ballots citing trump v colorado. Most vitally, roberts thinks they will, and does not want to unfuck that cluster of lawsuits in october, which is why I expect a 9-0 reversal
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
Given the divisive, unpopular 5-4 rulings made in the past few decades it sure would be odd for the conservative majority to suddenly adopt the stance of "Sure, the text says [x] but we have to make some pragmatic considerations here. Bad actors might behave badly.". They clearly weren't making considerations like these in cases like Shelby County v Holder, despite the dissent warning about the exact scenario that unfolded in the wake of the decision. And watch as they do the same with Chevron deference. "Yeah, dynamiting this 40 year old foundation of administrative law may lead to a massive clusterfuck, but pragmatic concerns like those shouldn't weigh on our ruling. Our job is simply to arrive at decisions based on a fair reading of the text."
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 22:51
|
|
|
Javid posted:Because a bunch of red states would find reasons to call something biden did "a treason" and summarily remove him from their ballots citing trump v colorado. Yep this is what I'm expecting. We're already seeing "Biden is allowing illegals into the country, this is an insurrection and since you don't need to be convicted it's all we need"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 23:30
|
|
|
Dick Jones posted:Given the divisive, unpopular 5-4 rulings made in the past few decades it sure would be odd for the conservative majority to suddenly adopt the stance of "Sure, the text says [x] but we have to make some pragmatic considerations here. Bad actors might behave badly.". They clearly weren't making considerations like these in cases like Shelby County v Holder, despite the dissent warning about the exact scenario that unfolded in the wake of the decision. The Shelby County ruling was made with the full intent and understanding that bad actors in the GOP would immediately act on it. Roberts knew full well that the decision would immediately result in a bunch of voter suppression that wouldn't otherwise be possible and that saying Congress should act was a loving absurd statement considering Congress had acted and that the majority was overturning said action. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Feb 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 23:48
|
|
|
Shelby county was made with the full intent of allowing bad actors to do the things the voting act prevented by a person who was elevated to his seat to write that exact opinion by those same actors who then proceeded to act… badly. Did we forget the impeach earl warren movement? Did we think those people just went away?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 01:37
|
|
|
Dick Jones posted:Given the divisive, unpopular 5-4 rulings made in the past few decades it sure would be odd for the conservative majority to suddenly adopt the stance of "Sure, the text says [x] but we have to make some pragmatic considerations here. Bad actors might behave badly.". They clearly weren't making considerations like these in cases like Shelby County v Holder, despite the dissent warning about the exact scenario that unfolded in the wake of the decision. No one outside of law geeks is going to get upset about Chevron going away. It's too much inside baseball for the general public to know or care about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 03:09
|
|
|
FistEnergy posted:SCOTUS is not going to save the Democrats from the iceberg they are heading for, full steam ahead. They're going to have to beat Trump at the polls. If democracy is at stake I'd start by directly giving the voters things they want via executive authority, but it seems like they'd rather scold and fearmonger about the end of democracy just like in 2020. The Justices seem very skeptical. I agree that it feels like 8-1 or 7-2. This wasn't brought forward by Democrats but you knew that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 04:42
|
|
|
Cimber posted:No one outside of law geeks is going to get upset about Chevron going away. It's too much inside baseball for the general public to know or care about. This is true but a lot of people seem to conflate chevron with the entire administrative state, rather than a standard of judicial review. So that’s why you tend to see people acting like it’s going to blow everything up instead of just incrementally advance the slow dismantling of the federal government
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 05:11
|
|
|
Medullah posted:Yep this is what I'm expecting. We're already seeing "Biden is allowing illegals into the country, this is an insurrection and since you don't need to be convicted it's all we need" The Supreme Court is hearing this because nobody will take such a decision lying down. Trump wasn’t convicted of insurrection, but a judicial finding was made that he had engaged in insurrection. And then that finding was upheld on appeal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 05:58
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:You would need a strong consensus that it was an insurrection. You may feel confident that it was, but that consensus does not exist generally. Without that consensus, it would be extremely damaging Post / avatar combo
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 07:47
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:You would need a strong consensus that it was an insurrection. You may feel confident that it was, but that consensus does not exist generally. Without that consensus, it would be extremely damaging If there was a strong consensus, you wouldn't need to disqualify someone because they wouldn't be a serious candidate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
My new favorite fact from those oral arguments is "almost every former confederate who wanted to run for office afterwards got a congressional waiver"
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 20:41
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:You would need a strong consensus that it was an insurrection. You may feel confident that it was, but that consensus does not exist generally. Without that consensus, it would be extremely damaging Disagree. Virtually everyone agrees it was an insurrection. The fascists just think that it was also cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 20:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Disagree. Virtually everyone agrees it was an insurrection. The fascists just think that it was also cool and good. I think the principle political difference between this instance and the Civil War is that the insurrectionists have not been thoroughly repudiated. If the aftermath had consisted of all the Trump supporters who failed to recant being removed from government, then there probably wouldn't be much of a question. The slavers were (for a time at least) unequivocally defeated. The fascists have not (at least yet) been.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 21:05
|
|
|
ringu0 posted:A few years back this thread pointed me towards Opening Arguments podcast as a source of legal commentary. It was indeed a fine source of legal commentary, and I'm thankful for the recommendation. An update on this since it was a big topic here last year: Thomas is now back recording OA because the court ordered him to be let back in, and appointed a receiver to be the tiebreaking vote between him and Andrew. And apparently Andrew won't be, because he's gone radio silent for weeks now, ever since Liz Dye announced she was leaving the show, which just so happened to be right after the receiver was made official. The trial proper is apparently still set for August, but considering Thomas got Andrew's anti-SLAPP motion thrown out, things are looking up for him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 21:12
|
|
|
von Metternich posted:If there was a strong consensus, you wouldn't need to disqualify someone because they wouldn't be a serious candidate. And there have been over three years to build that consensus, and it hasn’t been built Hieronymous Alloy posted:Disagree. Virtually everyone agrees it was an insurrection. The fascists just think that it was also cool and good. You can act like it’s settled but I can tell you it’s absolutely not. People are all over the place. Some people think it was cool and good, some think it was boys being boys and got a little out of hand, some think it’s better classified as a riot, some people land on insurrection. It’s almost certainly an insurrection if you get into hyper technical legal arguments, but hyper technical legal arguments don’t tend to move the court of public opinion. And whether there’s a public consensus on whether it was an insurrection absolutely matters to whether it looks like a valid move by the state to protect the sanctity of the office or a naked power grab by partisans looking to help reelect an unpopular executive (nevermind that Biden’s best shot by far of reelection is against Trump, because most people aren’t as tuned in to that kind of stuff as you are)
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:An update on this since it was a big topic here last year: Thomas is now back recording OA because the court ordered him to be let back in, and appointed a receiver to be the tiebreaking vote between him and Andrew. And apparently Andrew won't be, because he's gone radio silent for weeks now, ever since Liz Dye announced she was leaving the show, which just so happened to be right after the receiver was made official. The trial proper is apparently still set for August, but considering Thomas got Andrew's anti-SLAPP motion thrown out, things are looking up for him. So if Thomas is back and sex-pest is gone, who's the lawyer explaining all this poo poo? Hell, i think Thomas should hire the guy who makes the legal eagle youtube channel to do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 21:26
|
|
|
Thank you for the update, Fuschia tude!Cimber posted:So if Thomas is back and sex-pest is gone, who's the lawyer explaining all this poo poo? Hell, i think Thomas should hire the guy who makes the legal eagle youtube channel to do it. https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/comments/1alznbv/im_now_on_opening_arguments_ama/ Matt Cameron posted:Hi everyone! My name is Matt Cameron, and as you know by now if you have listened to my previous appearances on Serious Inquiries Only or the first full episode of the new Opening Arguments (out today for patrons!), I am an attorney in Boston who has specialized in immigration and criminal defense matters since 2006. As of this week, I am proud to be able to announce that I will be joining your favorite legal podcast with original OA co-creator Thomas Smith.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 21:42
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The Shelby County ruling was made with the full intent and understanding that bad actors in the GOP would immediately act on it. Roberts knew full well that the decision would immediately result in a bunch of voter suppression that wouldn't otherwise be possible and that saying Congress should act was a loving absurd statement considering Congress had acted and that the majority was overturning said action. I know the conservative majority are essentially Federalist Society foot soldiers. I was more directing my post at commenters who think optics, ripple effects, and other pragmatic political concerns are a valid off ramp for SCOTUS to take. Those shouldn't factor in at all. The political fallout is a concern for Congress. If they feel Trump was wrongly disqualified, they have the power to waive that disqualification with a vote. Surely there are more than a few D reps who think removing Trump from the ballot is a step too far.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 22:49
|
|
|
listening to the "can public officials block people on facebook" oral arguments, and I feel like there needs to be a branch of jury duty where you JUST explain technology and internet things to the supreme court justices. When one of the most expensive lawyers on earth is really rolling on a complicated answer and clarence thomas bombs in to ask if facebook is a forum or a website  E: bless the soul of the law student efforting uploading all the argument audio recordings to spotify, thus multiplying the number of devices I can binge these on https://open.spotify.com/episode/5ujthxKSZsrY43vy8ohvUA?si=932d229f6b9d445c Javid fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Feb 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 21:15
|
|
|
Javid posted:listening to the "can public officials block people on facebook" oral arguments, and I feel like there needs to be a branch of jury duty where you JUST explain technology and internet things to the supreme court justices. I couldn’t find anything like that in the transcript (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-324_fe9g.pdf) - Thomas asks about whether/what about the Facebook service is a *property*, which is important to the sense of the argument re: restricting access to personal property, but that’s the only thing even remotely similar to what you describe. (Also he didn’t bomb in, it was right after the advocate signaled that he was done with his opening and was ready for questions.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 21:54
|
|
|
I'm paraphrasing an assortment of boomer questions along that vein from thomas/kav/roberts, and they all seem to like to cut people off midsentence if it isn't going where they want it to. It is entirely sensible if you imagine having absolute job security and enormously more power in the conversation than the guy you're grilling, and if anything I'm surprised they don't do it more when some of these guys get bloviating. There is no greater point than it being interesting to listen to, having not done so before
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 22:18
|
|
|
Remember that forum is a magic word in the context of the first amendment - they probably are not asking if it’s a web forum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
I'm not sure a justice who was ok with the idea of "free speech zones" is going to see an issue with politicians being allowed to block people on social media to more easily ignore them and deny them the ability to yell at their elected officials.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:This wasn't brought forward by Democrats but you knew that. Yes it was, don't be dense. The lawsuit came about because CREW, a democratic legal activist group went plaintiff shopping in Colorado until they could find a handful of Republicans to sign their name to the lawsuit they want to file. They did this because due to legal bullshit they needed republican voters on the lawsuit to have standing. This is fundamentally no different for ever 'gay wedding cake' case you've ever seen where Republicans throw together a fictitious grievence so they can have grounds to sue over what they care about (gays existing in public or what have you). Crew wanted to fight to get trump disqualified and they wrangled some people to meet the legal minimum. That is it. Don't be dishonest and pretend it is something it isn't. It just makes us look bad because we're wither liars or stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 09:06
|
|
|
Caros posted:Yes it was, don't be dense. What makes them democratic? They claim to be nonpartisan and seem to have filed lawsuits against many Dems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 10:12
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:What makes them democratic? They claim to be nonpartisan and seem to have filed lawsuits against many Dems. CREW was founded in 2003 by former federal prosecutor Melanie Sloan and white-collar lawyer Norm Eisen, who went on to serve as President Barack Obama's chief ethics lawyer and later his ambassador to the Czech Republic. Liberal political consultant David Brock became CREW's chairman in 2014 and stepped down in 2016. He was replaced by Richard Painter, who went on to take a leave of absence to run as a Democrat in Minnesota's 2018 U.S. Senate special election. Under Painter's leadership, CREW pursued aggressive litigation against the Trump administration, which it called the "most unethical presidency" in U.S. history. CREW filed 41 lawsuits during George W. Bush's administration, 38 during Obama's administration and, by January 2018, 180 against the Trump administration.[6] It is staffed by Democrats, who often leave to take positions in democratic politics and focuses the overwhelming bulk of its suits against Conservatives. To the extent that tehy go after democrats at all I suspect it is a combination of low hanging fruit and plausible deniability. They are a 501(c) (3) so going exclusively after Republicans stands to lose them their tax exempt status. We would never accept the 'sometimes they go after republicans' excuse when talking about judicial watch, I don't know why we'd accept it here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:03
|
|
|
Javid posted:I'm paraphrasing an assortment of boomer questions along that vein from thomas/kav/roberts, and they all seem to like to cut people off midsentence if it isn't going where they want it to. It is entirely sensible if you imagine having absolute job security and enormously more power in the conversation than the guy you're grilling, and if anything I'm surprised they don't do it more when some of these guys get bloviating. Don't appellate courts in general have the judges interrupt the lawyers constantly anyway? Thought it was some sort of tradition to see how well counsel "think on their feet" or something, or at least stop them from just relying on memorized points.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 00:11
|
|
|
Yep.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 00:36
|
|
|
The more positive spin is that if the lawyers are spinning a bunch of BS the judges have to cut through it. Ideally if the judge has a question on his mind you want to answer it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 04:33
|
|
|
Caros posted:CREW was founded in 2003 by former federal prosecutor Melanie Sloan and white-collar lawyer Norm Eisen, who went on to serve as President Barack Obama's chief ethics lawyer and later his ambassador to the Czech Republic. Liberal political consultant David Brock became CREW's chairman in 2014 and stepped down in 2016. He was replaced by Richard Painter, who went on to take a leave of absence to run as a Democrat in Minnesota's 2018 U.S. Senate special election. Under Painter's leadership, CREW pursued aggressive litigation against the Trump administration, which it called the "most unethical presidency" in U.S. history. CREW filed 41 lawsuits during George W. Bush's administration, 38 during Obama's administration and, by January 2018, 180 against the Trump administration.[6] The numbers you just quoted paint a picture of a group that goes after Republicans and Democrats fairly equally, with the Trump Administration being an organized criminal enterprise. Which it was... I have no clue what CREW's intentions might be, but your facts don't back up your argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 14:52
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:The numbers you just quoted paint a picture of a group that goes after Republicans and Democrats fairly equally, with the Trump Administration being an organized criminal enterprise. Which it was... CREW is a Democratic organization in the same sense that the ACLU is - the people who work there are mostly Dems because they believe in ethical behavior in government, but they don’t care who they go after if they’re loving up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 17:20
|
|
|
Kalman posted:CREW is a Democratic organization in the same sense that the ACLU is - the people who work there are mostly Dems because they believe in ethical behavior in government, but they don’t care who they go after if they’re loving up. I mean, right now, any given political organization is either Democratic in that sense, or they aren't democratic in the other sense (e.g., Project Veritas; anything assisting Trump in any way).
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
Right, which is why it’s a meaningless way to claim an organization is Democratic in nature.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
Yeah unless it's run by Democratic Congresspeople or like the DNC labeling it "a democratic organization" because its a watchdog organization that it's members used to work for Democrats seems like a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 18:52
|
|
|
I feel like I'm entering crazy town here. Like I'm having to explain the sky is blue. CREW's primary donors are democratic party politicians. It's head was the same guy who founded media matters. If you go to the About page on their website the top three comments are about Trump, Citizen's United and Trump.. Fully half the paragraphs on their about page are 'about' Donald Trump. In their Reports and investigations tab I had to go back two pages to find soemthing that did not mention Republicans. Their ninth link talks about senators getting money from 'big oil' and looked promising. But of course when I clicked through the only reference to democrats was how two democrats did take money but were doing the right thing in their policy (after three paragraphs attacking Republicans. The next mention of a democrat is page 7 (about a year ago) which is an article about *checks notes* how much better Biden is than trump on financial disclosures. The first actual news about democrat wrongdoing is on page 15, which is the making a foia request against the Garland Doj. Specifically they wanted information about inactivity for the DOJ election task force. As to the 'numbers' problem listed above, I apologize for the confusion. When they say '38 lawsuits' under Obama that could lead a person to assume that they are trying to hold the Obama admin responsible. The reality is that most of their lawsuits were FOIA complaints best summarized as 'we want dirt on republican wrongdoing and the government won't give it to us'. For example, they attempted to sue for FOIA information on John Woo's torture documents. Or for the information about the criminal investigation of Tom Delay or the Jerry Lewis bribery scandal. Or Gingrich's IRS investigation. Or... Well, you get the picture. The only meaningful thing they ever sued Obama for was FOIA info for the white house visitor logs. During the same period they put in dozens of ethics complaints in the house and Senate that are split 80-20 democrat republican. Similar splits exist in their IRS and DOJ referrals. Now to be clear, I like CREW, they do good work. The right has been whipping our rear end for years with poo poo like judicial watch, and it is good that democrats have an alternative willing to hold Republicans (and yes, occasionally democrats) to the flame. But pretending the org is non-partisan because they say so is just dishonest. Caros fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Feb 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 20:39
|
|
|
If the Republicans controlling the Supreme Court can pretend they’re just impartial observers calling balls and strikes, I don’t see why an actual watchdog group can’t do the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 20:47
|
|
|
Kaal posted:If the Republicans controlling the Supreme Court can pretend they’re just impartial observers calling balls and strikes, I don’t see why an actual watchdog group can’t do the same thing. Oh the watchdog group can, I'm cool with that. But do we need to keep up the kayfabe on this dead internet forum? Or can we jsut call a spade a spade?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 21:15
|
|
|
Caros posted:Oh the watchdog group can, I'm cool with that. But do we need to keep up the kayfabe on this dead internet forum? Or can we jsut call a spade a spade? In a sense it is important that we don't, that is, we should very carefully specify which groups support small d democracy and which do not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
Caros posted:Oh the watchdog group can, I'm cool with that. But do we need to keep up the kayfabe on this dead internet forum? Or can we jsut call a spade a spade? I’m fine with a bit of generalizing but I think blaming “the Democrats” for something that this group is doing, with little context provided, seems like quite the stretch. They might be a bit more progressive than the ACLU, but there’s quite a bit of daylight between them and the DNC. It’s probably fair to call them a liberal group, but frankly a watchdog organization mostly going after corrupt Republicans is simply a reflection of how corrupt they are. An institution that tries to investigate both parties equally, in a world where the GOP is filled with crooks, is certainly neither moderate nor nonpartisan. Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Feb 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 22:02
|
|