|
gregday posted:Robert’s basically just said if Colorado can kick Trump off the ballot, then every red state will kick off whoever the democratic is every election. He’s basically tipped his hand. "We must not enforce the law, or else others will in bad faith make up things that look like they're enforcing the law when in fact they are not." Every red state is going to do this anyway, Roberts. Sheesh. The solution to bad faith actors is not to pander to them, but to beat them: the same as any other bully.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
DTurtle posted:It doesn't matter, IMHO, that they admitted that they violated the twelfth amendment. A single state decided that candidates for President and Vice President did not meet the conditions to run and excluded them on their own. A state barred the a presidential candidate from running in their state. It matters because in this case, nobody (as far as I know) is disputing that states have the power to bar candidates who are constitutionally ineligible to run. The question is who gets to decide whether the candidate is constitutionally ineligible to run. That was not in question in the other cases you cite, because the candidates themselves admitted that they were constitutionally ineligible, but insisted that the Constitution was the one was wrong. Since "does this candidate fail to meet the eligibility requirements as written" was not a question that either side was raising or disputing, the courts treated it as settled fact and didn't address how the determination was made or whether it was made by the right person. Court cases are like that: pedantic as hell. If Hassan had argued that he was a natural-born citizen, that the state couldn't prove he wasn't, and that the state didn't have the right to demand any kind of proof from him, he might well have won that case (depending on state law). At the very least, he would have given the judges a much more difficult problem to consider. Instead, he chose to sue the FEC and several states, claiming that only a KKK regime would restrict presidential candidacy to natural-born citizens. A novel legal theory, but not a good one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 02:12
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:"We must not enforce the law, or else others will in bad faith make up things that look like they're enforcing the law when in fact they are not." I went hiking and listened to the whole thing because I’m normal like that. Just imagine a blond guy with one earbud in powering up a mountain while occasionally shouting, “Well then maybe you’d have to do your loving job, Brett!”
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 02:48
|
|
|
Don't sometimes Supreme Court justices ask questions without necessarily indicating how they would vote? I think Roberts asking might just be him testing the argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 02:54
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Don't sometimes Supreme Court justices ask questions without necessarily indicating how they would vote? I think Roberts asking might just be him testing the argument. The questions and answers are parts of the special intellectual shits and giggles many of them get from the job. Someone else in this thread compared everything to old school Kremlinology and that's a good comparison in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 02:55
|
|
|
More and more it looks like the legal argument about fascist American dictators was settled Jan 6 democrats decided the best course of action was to do nothing. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 03:00
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:More and more it looks like the legal argument about fascist American dictators was settled Jan 6 democrats decided the best course of action was to do nothing. I don't think so no? Lots of things happened, a lot of people got arrested. A lot of processes that had gaps that resulted in the scheme got revised to make it less likely. When Dems had the house they did investigations and made referrals to the DOJ, what are you saying in the context of the Trump legal thread that Dems should have done more that would've been legal for them to do?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 03:16
|
|
|
Man, I can't wait for the new lawsuit in November to determine whether or not President Elect Donald Trump is eligible for office under the 14th Amendment. Especially if his VP is acceptable to the old school GOP and it gives them a way to get rid of him while still keeping the White House. Which sets up a whole new round of navel gazing over whether or not they can appoint an ineligible hate golem to be VP. Which is probably Donny's dream job anyway. All the executive privilege and none of the having to do work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 04:02
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:More and more it looks like the legal argument about fascist American dictators was settled Jan 6 democrats decided the best course of action was to do nothing. Dems still get their shot at disrupting the peaceful transfer of power, should they lose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 04:24
|
|
|
Do you think President Goku would push for increased Senzu Bean subsidies in the farm bill?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 04:34
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I don't think so no? Lots of things happened, a lot of people got arrested. A lot of processes that had gaps that resulted in the scheme got revised to make it less likely. When Dems had the house they did investigations and made referrals to the DOJ, what are you saying in the context of the Trump legal thread that Dems should have done more that would've been legal for them to do? For starters, they should not have waited a month to start the impeachment of a president that attempted a self coup, followed up by declining to present any evidence or witnesses during this impeachment because they wanted to go home for their valentine week off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 07:24
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:For starters, they should not have waited a month to start the impeachment of a president that attempted a self coup, followed up by declining to present any evidence or witnesses during this impeachment because they wanted to go home for their valentine week off. I think you have a warped idea of how things work and what happened here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 07:29
|
|
|
Letting everybody go home instead of voting to impeach while they were still hosing the blood off and sweeping up the glass was dumb as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 07:47
|
|
|
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:Letting everybody go home instead of voting to impeach while they were still hosing the blood off and sweeping up the glass was dumb as gently caress It's adorable that you think that would've convinced Donny's collaborators in congress to vote to impeach/remove.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 08:15
|
|
|
That doesn't sound very adorable to me..
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 13:32
|
|
|
There was, what, a day or so where the people who were going to get beaten to death by an angry mob actually had their human reaction overpower their politician reaction? Some Republicans were actually mad at Donnie! Then they had some time to calm down, tell themselves soothing lies, and think about losing their jobs to a fundamentalist MAGA whack job primary challenger so they all started sucking that toadstool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 13:43
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:There was, what, a day or so where the people who were going to get beaten to death by an angry mob actually had their human reaction overpower their politician reaction? Some Republicans were actually mad at Donnie! Then they had some time to calm down, tell themselves soothing lies, and think about losing their jobs to a fundamentalist MAGA whack job primary challenger so they all started sucking that toadstool. Putting a lot of trust in Republicans to do the right thing when they always loving lie about their intentions and feelings. There is no timeline, no parallel universe, where enough Republicans defect to get the necessary 2/3 votes. Most of them were in on it, after all. Find me 10 extra Republican senators who you think would've voted Yes on January 7. You can't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 14:47
|
|
|
drat, I guess that’s all the excuse we need for never trying at all then! Cmon, they had the chance to get them on record, when everybody was reeling before any counter narrative had solidified. Democrats are capable of loving up, and this will absolutely be seen as a missed opportunity when the temperature was high and the bloody shirt was right loving there to be waved, and their lazy asses could only think to fundraise off it. We’ll fix it in court. Well that probably won’t work, let’s hope the ballot box will, because every institution empowered to do anything has completely hosed the pooch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 14:50
|
|
|
selec posted:drat, I guess that’s all the excuse we need for never trying at all then! Don't put words in my mouth. selec posted:Cmon, they had the chance to get them on record, when everybody was reeling before any counter narrative had solidified. Democrats are capable of loving up, and this will absolutely be seen as a missed opportunity when the temperature was high and the bloody shirt was right loving there to be waved, and their lazy asses could only think to fundraise off it. We’ll fix it in court. Well that probably won’t work, let’s hope the ballot box will, because every institution empowered to do anything has completely hosed the pooch. You, like others, have failed to say what could or should've been done other than something to the effect "instant impeachment right now and surely the Republicans will agree with us because temporarily their sociopathy was disabled". And of course I'm sure in this scenario, when it fails, you wouldn't poo poo on the Democrats for rushing things. Again. 10 senators. Name them. If you are so confident. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Feb 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 14:57
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Don't put words in my mouth. The point is to get them on the record, to at least be able to say you tried. And I think the odds were much better, they could’ve done plenty more than they did, because we see how doing not much turned out. This is still an argument against even trying: “Name ten senators who would’ve supported it” well you don’t know what you’re gonna get when those ten senators are forced in the 48 hours immediately after to go on camera and say if they’re gonna support the guy who tried to get them killed or not. They didn’t even bother to go with that level of rhetoric. Why should I care about any of this when they do the bare minimum, when they’re the ones who were at the center of it all? They didn’t even try, and defenses of them not trying just sound like sour grapes now that it’s becoming apparent the judicial system isn’t capable of delivering any meaningful challenge to the reelection campaign. Every institutional barrier we assumed must exist, doesn’t exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 15:01
|
|
|
So you can’t actually describe how it would’ve been better. It just totally would have been.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 15:04
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:So you can’t actually describe how it would’ve been better. It just totally would have been. Sometimes you try something and it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but you don’t get anything for not trying. If you want to defend sclerotic institutions like ours “they’re not even worth engaging with because it never works anyway” isn’t a strong sales pitch! Should the Colorado and other ballot access cases never been attempted now that we’re seeing how they’re turning out? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 15:09
|
|
|
selec posted:The point is to get them on the record, to at least be able to say you tried. And I think the odds were much better, they could’ve done plenty more than they did, because we see how doing not much turned out. Ah yes, getting people on record. A thing that definitely defeats Republicans as shown by literally nothing. It's not a magical one weird trick to get their hypocrisy on record, you and I both know this. Look how long it took for Republicans to jettison "George Santos" who they knew was a fraud And "at least they tried" is not something many would give them credit for. Haven't in the past, after all. selec posted:They didn’t even try, and defenses of them not trying just sound like sour grapes now that it’s becoming apparent the judicial system isn’t capable of delivering any meaningful challenge to the reelection campaign. Every institutional barrier we assumed must exist, doesn’t exist. So if the judicial system can't deliver any meaningful challenge and institutional barriers don't exist, then your own argument is pointless because under that logic, the impeachment and removal of Trump does not prevent him from running again. Because all of those barriers are institutional as well and subject to the Supreme Court's constitutional intepretation. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Feb 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 15:16
|
|
|
selec posted:Cmon, they had the chance to get them on record, when everybody was reeling before any counter narrative had solidified. Democrats are capable of loving up, and this will absolutely be seen as a missed opportunity when the temperature was high and the bloody shirt was right loving there to be waved, and their lazy asses could only think to fundraise off it. selec posted:The point is to get them on the record, to at least be able to say you tried. And I think the odds were much better, they could’ve done plenty more than they did, because we see how doing not much turned out. Democrats in congress had him impeached within the week, tho, congressional republicans' votes are on the record. Impeachment is a congressional action, even when quick it takes a few days and needs care to be done right. The quick way to have Trump removed, on that day, was for a few republicans led by Pence to simply say Trump isnt fit to be president anymore, they are on the record here, too atriptothebeach fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Feb 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 15:39
|
|
|
selec posted:Sometimes you try something and it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but you don’t get anything for not trying. If you want to defend sclerotic institutions like ours “they’re not even worth engaging with because it never works anyway” isn’t a strong sales pitch! So you don’t even have the conviction that this would work and you’re low-effort Monday morning quarterbacking. You can’t come up with something better, but it’s still all the Dem’s fault. How about you at least try to think through your argument before making us all read it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 15:44
|
|
|
So the problem isn't that they didn't do anything, as they did, but that they took too long? I feel like we're talking about an exceptional circumstance, isn't it entirely appropriate to take your time, gather the evidence, conduct an investigation? I don't think it was 100% obvious or factually a slum dunk in the initial days that "Trump definitely planned a coup", and it is only with the investigations the Dems led, and the DOJ investigations and so on, that we've gotten a more complete picture of "Trump definitely planned on this happening and took steps to aid in the furtherence of it." The claim of "Democrats decided the best course of action was to do nothing" is just blatantly false.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
There is a possibility that a faster impeachment would have kept emotions high enough to convict him in the senate, but that relied on McTurtle who, as we saw, deliberately slow walked it in order to have the excuse to not convict because he was no longer in office. No matter how fast the Dems acted, Mitch was the insurmountable hurdle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 17:08
|
|
|
They should have arrested all of the congress that were active participants in sedition instead of.... doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 18:38
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:They should have arrested all of the congress that were active participants in sedition instead of.... doing nothing. I think arresting members of congress is something that needs a high bar of evidence and to not be rushed. Well honestly it should be that for everyone but you know... America.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 18:40
|
|
|
Trump Legal Troubles: They should have arrested all of the congress
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 18:44
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:They should have arrested all of the congress that were active participants in sedition instead of.... doing nothing. "arrest all of bad congress" bananna republic rear end directive powers sound awesome and not even slightly at risk of backfiring
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 18:48
|
|
|
Just like the scotus case, I get that there’s complicated legal stuff that hat can get in the way. But what’s driving me off a wall is that, if these processes take more than the obvious, undeniable, anti-democratic behavior that has occurred, what will it take? SCOTUS could have found ways to explore section 3 so that a ruling was narrow enough. Hell, could have pulled a bush v gore (I mean, there is a court finding of insurrection). We’re in a situation where anything is legal, so long as there’s even a single typo, or even just enough loud assholes who think differently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 18:50
|
|
|
Democracy was doomed the moment 70 million people voted for a guy who was basically an open fascist. Arresting or impeaching or prosecuting a few people isn't going to save us from the fash, because the fash is ultimately coming from the voters. I think there was definitely a brief opportunity right after Jan 6 where GOP politicians weren't really sure about backing Trump or not, but then they took the temperature of the base and discovered the base still loved Trump. But realistically speaking, there was no way they were going to let themselves get dragged into impeaching or arresting top executive branch members without checking what the voters thought first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 18:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Democracy was doomed the moment 70 million people voted for a guy who was basically an open fascist. Arresting or impeaching or prosecuting a few people isn't going to save us from the fash, because the fash is ultimately coming from the voters. This is my worry. That ten years from now, or maybe two years from now, it will be obvious in retrospect that the country was doomed and already dead. Because the fact that after everything, COVID response, January 6, that polling could look even remotely like this means way too many Americans either don’t mind the fash or actively embrace and want it. It’s objective fact, science. How are you gonna fight against that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 19:08
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:"arrest all of bad congress" bananna republic rear end directive powers sound awesome and not even slightly at risk of backfiring Absolutely this. It's hard to imagine a mass arrest of sitting Republican politicians going over well either with voters who were upset with what January 6 was or with any established critics of the Dems. It's hard to see the proposal as anything more than a naked "COWARD Democrats refuse to eat this juicy bug!" argument. Like, when would the bad guys all have gone into Gitmo in this scenario? If it's a striking when the iron's hot argument, Democrats controlled only the House at that point. Is it just being done without trial, or are the Democrats also extrajudicially purging the courts ahead of time? It's hard to see anything softer than that that doesn't end with a whole lot of Republicans walking from their acquittals with their own strong "save democracy" counter-narrative. Sure this thing all would go over big with the #Resistance liberals but other than them the vast majority of people who want that kind of government or will reward the attempt are the ones who think Trump should be doing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 19:21
|
|
|
the best part about all this is that it probably won't ever come up again. a criminal on the level of trump won't happen again so all of this is over one simple little man. all these debates and all this talk and all this time and money and energy wasted on something that could be forever solved instantly and will be, eventually, in natural time. spending years and millions carefully handcrafting something only to put it on a high shelf and never look at it again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
Some news more actionable than pontificating on SCOTUS Smith fired a warning shot across Cannon's bow last night: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/294/united-states-v-trump/ quote:In two recent Orders (ECF Nos. 283, 286), the Court has denied the Government’s request to seal or redact certain material that was provided to the defendants in discovery pursuant to a protective order, and then attached either to the defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery or the Government’s response thereto. That discovery material, if publicly docketed in unredacted form as the Court has ordered, would disclose the identities of numerous potential witnesses, along with the substance of the statements they made to the FBI or the grand jury, exposing them to significant and immediate risks of threats, intimidation, and harassment, as has already happened to witnesses, law enforcement agents, judicial officers, and Department of Justice employees whose identities have been disclosed in cases in which defendant Trump is involved. The first point is that Cannon whiffed on the law, DoJ wasn't required to meet the burden she analyzed them to and so she should fix that. The second is that from the context of the motion it looks like DoJ is investigating the targeted harassment of witnesses (and we've seen appeals courts uphold Trump gag orders for this reason) and DoJ is saying here that if Cannon goes ahead and forces this release then she is placing witnesses, who are already under protection orders, into harm which she shouldn't be doing. They are giving her a chance to fix it but if she doesn't they seem ready to appeal this to the 11th circuit. edit: "Indeed, the witness whose statement appears in Exhibit D declined to have his interview recorded, citing the associated risks to him in “Trump world” of doing so. " and Cannon's literally ordering that person to be exposed. Like, holy poo poo is that fubar. Murgos fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Feb 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 19:30
|
|
|
Murgos posted:They are giving her a chance to fix it but if she doesn't they seem ready to appeal this to the 11th circuit. If she doesn't reconsider, I bet this is the straw the breaks the camel's back and they request it be reassigned
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 19:32
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:They should have arrested all of the congress that were active participants in sedition instead of.... doing nothing. Sounds like you want God to cast a magic spell and smite your enemies. Functional democratic governments don't perform roundups of significant segments of their political bodies without some kind of exceptional evidence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
Devor posted:If she doesn't reconsider, I bet this is the straw the breaks the camel's back and they request it be reassigned I'm not sure if there is a request a new judge button. I think though that if the 11th circuit is convinced that she needs to be ordered to 'get the law right' and 'stop endangering witnesses' then they will order her to recuse along with it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 20:43
|
|