|
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] This wiki summary leaves out a lot. For example, it doesn't mention that Richard Painter was a lifelong Republican who served in GWB's White House. He ran for office as a Democrat in 2018, yes, but that's because he was a Never Trumper in 2016 and was highly critical of MAGA. Till then, he was a diehard Republican - and also a career ethics lawyer. CREW generally does lean somewhat on the liberal side, but that's largely because there's already highly-motivated conservative groups dedicated to ethics investigations of Democrats, and also because there's more ex-Clintonites who've been pushed out of party politics than there are ex-Bushites.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
Kaal posted: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. I'm not insinuating anything though, I'm suggesting that we engage with reality. CREW doesn't investigate both parties equally and find more Republicans. They investigate Republicans substantially more and the handful of attacks they lob at democrats are low hanging fruit (they go after a democrat who is already in hot water and likely to leave office) or ideological (guys like Manchin who lean right). Do I think that they are literally getting marching orders from the DNC? Probably not. But a group that is funded by Democrats , staffed by democrats and has its focus on democratic party issues? That is a democratic organization. Does anyone here dispute that judicial watch is a republican org simply because it isn't literally run by the rnc? Hieronymous Alloy posted: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. So you think it is important that we simply lie about motives in order to win points? My whole argument here stems from someone saying 'The Republicans sued Trump in Colorado'. The reality is that the entire thing was funded and organized by CREW. It was their lawsuit, the plaintiffs in the case are just the method by which they create standing, in the same way that the emoluments case they brought against trump had some functionally unrelated DC Hotel owner attached. They are doing the legal equivalent of when Congress guts HR 238 — puppies for all in favor and turns it into Iraq war funding. They draped a half dozen Republicans around their lawsuit like it was Ed Gein, but that doesn't make it a republican suit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 22:40
|
|
|
Caros posted:I'm not insinuating anything though, I'm suggesting that we engage with reality. So what democrat should they investigate but haven't?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 22:42
|
|
|
This shows up in my news feed https://www.thenation.com/article/society/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-gifts-felony/ I’m guessing it is yet another thing that won’t matter but curious to other people’s thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 23:15
|
|
|
god this blows posted:This shows up in my news feed https://www.thenation.com/article/society/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-gifts-felony/ I mean nothing in that article is wrong. It is just operating from the assumption that the American legal system's kayfabe is American actuality, which is a false axiom. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Feb 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 23:25
|
|
|
Caros posted:I'm not insinuating anything though, I'm suggesting that we engage with reality. Republicans do a lot more evil poo poo. Like, any given legal activism group of any stripe, if run by the sane and moral, *should* be filing a shitload of actions against Republicans, because the current Republican party is actively opposed to the rule of law. See: Donald Trump, Clarence Thomas. quote:So you think it is important that we simply lie about motives in order to win points? No, not what I said even remotely. Fact is the current Republican Party does not support small d democracy any more while the current Democratic Party still does. This is a (comparatively) recent shift so it would make sense that it wasn't that hard to find a fair number of people who used to vote Republican or were Republican Party officeholders who no longer support the modern Republican Party because they aren't explicit brazen unapologetic fascists. It's both technically and substantively true that the CREW lawsuit in this instance was filed on behalf of [a faction of the former] Republican Party plaintiffs. Past that, no, my point was that the Democrats should not run from being the party of small-d democracy. They should proudly say "If you support democracy, this go-round, vote Democrat" and be a big tent party with room for disaffected (former) Republicans. We're talking about a repolarization where terms and alliances have been shifting in meaning so stuff's going to get a bit muddled. The (modern) republican party is all-fascist and anti-democratic; being a "democratic organization" is nothing to be ashamed of in that environment; there's no reason to pretend to neutrality between democracy and fascism and in fact it would be shameful to do so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 00:02
|
|
|
Caros posted:I'm not insinuating anything though, I'm suggesting that we engage with reality. It doesn't take much to figure out why a group going after corruption in politics would find more dirt on Trump or Bush admins than Obama's. People like Obama and Holder have done plenty of dumb and awful poo poo but they are are a leaf in a forest compared to the dipshits who came immediately before and after him (which ends up making his own failing look much better by comparison). On the Congressional side you have poo poo like Boehner handling out bribes from the Tobacco lobby on the House floor which only made his fellow Republicans mad because he did it so publicly instead of in private. On the court side you have judges Kacsynki or whatever that rubberstamping Fedsoc chucklefuck's name is in Texas all the way up to Clarence "doesn't recuse himself from matters his wife's involved in" Thomas to Brett "nobody look at all my debt magically being paid off" Kavanaugh. There's also the fact that that when right wing groups "investigate" Democrats you regularly end up with full blown propaganda from groups like Project Veritas because their investigation found nothing of actual substance. Or how the biggest "scandals" the right scream about are things they themselves did and are trying to deflect from. IE: Trump and the GOP screaming about Hunter Biden when Ivanka and Jared were directly and very openly using their position in the Trump admin for their own ends (as was Trump himself). Then there's the entire circus of poo poo-eating clowns that is the QAnon movement. Again, this is not "CREW barely pays attention to Democrats" it is "the Republicans do in fact engage in a metric fuckload more corruption than the Dems and so there are more complaints about Republicans." That's why these groups end up with more damning reports about Republicans than Dems, while their right wing counterparts are busy putting out investigation "results" that Hunter Biden totally did that thing and also Dems eat babies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 00:16
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:
I have no earthly idea why you'd say the first part fo this and then go on to repeat an absolute lie. Like I get your justification, Republicans are morally evil so anything you do against them is fine, but this isn't it chief. To be very specific Here is one of the plaintiffs openly stating that she was recruited by CREW to file the suit. This wasn't a bunch of Republicans deciding to file a suit against Trump and CREW helping them, it is a liberal judicial activist group filing a suit against Trump (as they did with Greene and Cawthorne elsewhere without Republicans helping them) and getting a few Republicans to sign on for procedural reasons. Here is a detailed article about the forum shopping the best state to find their plaintiffs in. Because again, it is their lawsuit, not the Conservatives. And you know what? That is fine. Good, even! I'm completely fine with CREW trying to find the best way to kick him off the ballot. Trump is a fascist who shouldn't be on the ballot. But if you've decided 'nah, gently caress the actual truth, I'd rather pretend this is a bunch of conservatives suing trump' then you are part of the political poison that just drowning all reasonable discourse. You've chosen easy lies over reality and that is disappointing. Edit: ultimately what pisses me off about this is that I've often trusted SA to give fairly good and honest takes on poo poo. If you want to say this dumb poo poo on twitter to trick some fence sitter I think that is dumb and counterproductive. But everyone here already agrees trump is bad. Do we really need to build shibboleths and lie to one another to make the echo chamber that much stronger? Caros fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Feb 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 00:39
|
|
|
god this blows posted:This shows up in my news feed https://www.thenation.com/article/society/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-gifts-felony/ quote:The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The constitution plus prior interpretation of “civil officers” seems pretty clear about how you’re supposed to accuse and remove a justice for bribery. Testing the practical bounds of judicial immunity through a different process would seem ill advised?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 01:40
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The constitution plus prior interpretation of “civil officers” seems pretty clear about how you’re supposed to accuse and remove a justice for bribery. Testing the practical bounds of judicial immunity through a different process would seem ill advised? Criminal prosecution and impeachment are distinct and parallel processes. Thomas would continue to remain a SC justice until removed via impeachment or death, regardless of Criminal conviction. This isn't new, federal judges have been charged and convicted before. Judicial immunity has nothing to do with this because it isn't a conviction about his judicial actions because failing to report bribes is not a judicial action. https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-claiborne.htm Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Feb 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 02:39
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The constitution plus prior interpretation of “civil officers” seems pretty clear about how you’re supposed to accuse and remove a justice for bribery. Testing the practical bounds of judicial immunity through a different process would seem ill advised? A judge doesn't have to be removed from the bench to be criminally charged and prosecuted though. A justice could very well remain on the bench and sit in prison for crimes they committed. Sure, at that point they should be impeached and removed from the bench but the GOP sure as gently caress isn't going to do so if they don't hold the Senate and WH. There is absolutely no sound legal argument that someone would have to be removed from the bench before they can be criminally prosecuted. The only argument would be not being able to actively prosecute a sitting POTUS, especially for state-level crimes, but that they'd be fair game once out of office and only because of the can of worms you open by prosecuting active heads-of-state (which is why nobody does it). Thomas could and should be prosecuted for taking and trying to hide bribes, especially given that he actively solicited them with his "I don't make enough money and might retire  " poo poo in the 00s that directly lead to this. If/when found guilty, throw his rear end in prison and let him teleconference into hearings. If his appeal makes it to the SCOTUS then make clear in no uncertain terms to the rest of the SCOTUS that when Thomas refuses to recuse himself they need to ignore him entirely because even if they rule 8-0 against him, allowing him to have any judicial voice in his own criminal appeal would be a point of no return for the court's legitimacy, to say nothing of if the court would rule 5-4 in his favor with one of the 5 being Thomas himself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 02:45
|
|
|
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] What this Wikipedia snippet doesn't mention is that while Richard Painter later went on to run for election as a Democrat, when he chaired CREW he was mostly known for being George W. Bush's ethics lawyer. The fact that he signed up to run as a Democrat after spending several years openly blasting Trump wasn't really a surprise; despite being a lifelong Republican, he wouldn't exactly have much hope of running as a never-Trump Republican in 2018. And while the text describes David Brock as a "liberal political consultant", I'd rather describe him as a Clinton loyalist with no particular political views beyond his deep loyalty to Hillary, who personally wooed him away from conservatism when he signed up to write a hit piece on her. The Wikipedia snippet also leaves out that Mark Penn, who's now a big DeSantis guy, also spent time as a director at CREW. Does CREW lean a bit on the liberal side? I'm sure it does. That's a natural consequence of there already being a dedicated "anti-corruption" (self-proclaimed) group on the right-wing and no real equivalent on the left-wing. The right-wing people who mostly want to investigate Democrats are going to go to Judicial Watch, which in turn means there's fewer conservative donors or staffers looking to spend time with CREW. Caros posted:Does anyone here dispute that judicial watch is a republican org simply because it isn't literally run by the rnc? Judicial Watch thinks Hillary Clinton murdered multiple political opponents, claimed that the Obama DoJ was astroturfing protests against George Zimmerman, claimed that the Democrats were stacking the voter rolls with fake names in 2016 and 2020, and so on. Judicial Watch is a Republican org because it churns out misinformation and fake news on a regular basis for political convenience, not because it investigates Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 02:50
|
|
|
Caros posted:I have no earthly idea why you'd say the first part fo this and then go on to repeat an absolute lie . . . I'm not lying at all, not even remotely. What I am doing is pointing out that there are two applicable and valid definitions of "republican" here. If we define "Republican" as "person who has historically been an elected Republican party official," which is an entirely valid definition of "Republican," then it is literally and specifically, not just technically but legally and substantively, true that a Republican was a plaintiff in this case. Sure, she was recruited; that's irrelevant. She's a republican, she's a plaintiff. That's what "filed by" means, legally speaking.. You're acting like this is some weird gotcha but it's literally and substantively true. It would be inaccurate to claim otherwise. In a real and legally binding sense she is the plaintiff and she filed the case and CREW is her agent and attorney and has legally binding ethical duties to her as their client. That all remains true even when she is recruited as a client by the firm! Now, sure, if you want to argue she isn't a republican any more given the current nature of the modern Republican party -- ok, but that's precisely what the fight is about. The case is about the Republican primary ballot. It's precisely over who gets to be a candidate for the Republican ballot and who doesn't. If plaintiffs weren't Republicans (in some sense, current or former) they would not have standing to file the case. This stuff matters, and courts care about it, it isn't just kayfabe for rubes in online discussion forums. Maybe rather than assume I'm deliberately or maliciously lying for some bizarre reason, take a deep breath and ask yourself if I might have a reason for making these points. Again, this stuff matters and is important. Plaintiff selection is hugely important in a number of different ways. It is not dishonest to call it "her" case or to refer to the plaintiff as filing the case, it is substantively important and it would be inaccurate to claim otherwise. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Feb 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 02:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not lying at all, not even remotely. What I am doing is pointing out that there are two applicable and valid definitions of "republican" here. If we define "Republican" as "person who has historically been an elected Republican party official," which is an entirely valid definition of "Republican," then it is literally and specifically, not just technically but legally and substantively, true that a Republican was a plaintiff in this case. Sure, she was recruited; that's irrelevant. She's a republican, she's a plaintiff. That's what "filed by" means, legally speaking.. You're acting like this is some weird gotcha but it's literally and substantively true. It would be inaccurate to claim otherwise. In a real and legally binding sense she is the plaintiff and she filed the case and CREW is her agent and attorney and has legally binding ethical duties to her as their client. That all remains true even when she is recruited as a client by the firm! With respect, this is pedantic bullshit. I can't tell if you're intentionally missing my point or just trying to be aggrivating. The original argument was: 'this wasn't brought forward by Democrats, but you know this' CREW is a liberal organization funded and staffed by current and former members of the democratic party. If you go to their website and search their legal complaints you have to go back to 2022 to find an issue that is not explicitly targeting Republicans, and which was a lawsuit against FINcen regarding money laundering. The last one targeting a Biden official was a hatch act lawsuit targeting Jen Psaki back in 2021. They are a Democratic party group. Just like judicial watch (who they openly admit to modelling themselves after) is a republican org. CREW filed similar lawsuits elsewhere, forum shopped for just the right jurisdiction and then hunted down plantiffs to give them standing. This is CREW's lawsuit. To suggest 'it wasn't brought forward by Democrats' because of the repugnant fig leaf that 'well acktuallly we had to get some Republicans to sign on' is patently dishonest. You would never accept that sort of bullshit line from the right when some anti abortion org hunts down the perfect plaintiff to make their bullshit suit, don't try that poo poo now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 03:20
|
|
|
Caros posted:With respect, this is pedantic bullshit. I can't tell if you're intentionally missing my point or just trying to be aggrivating. Not what I said. What I said was quote:It's both technically and substantively true that the CREW lawsuit in this instance was filed on behalf of [a faction of the former] Republican Party plaintiffs. "brought forward" is not what I said. What I said was "Filed on behalf of". One of those phrases has legal meaning, the other doesn't. It isn't pedantry, it's the law. For example, if the Republican plaintiffs all told CREW they wanted the case dismissed, or wanted to accept Trump's offer to resolve the case, CREW would be ethically bound to accept. I feel like I'm trying to explain how math works to someone angrily pounding a calculator with a rock. quote:CREW filed similar lawsuits elsewhere, forum shopped for just the right jurisdiction and then hunted down plantiffs to give them standing. This is CREW's lawsuit. To suggest 'it wasn't brought forward by Democrats' because of the repugnant fig leaf that 'well acktuallly we had to get some Republicans to sign on' is patently dishonest. You would never accept that sort of bullshit line from the right when some anti abortion org hunts down the perfect plaintiff to make their bullshit suit, don't try that poo poo now. Sure, CREW is a largely left-wing organization. That's irrelevant, legally speaking, to the specific plaintiffs in this specific case, who are Republicans. To the extent CREW is a left wing organization -- ok sure whatever yes absolutely that's great, shout it to the heavens, they should all wear rainbow pride flag suits in the courtroom, fuckin' great. They're all gay muslim Obama. Doesn't matter, legally speaking. Legally speaking as relevant to the case, they're just the lawyers. Lawyers don't have standing, plaintiffs do. The plaintiff is who matters. If this case were organized by Theodore Olsen and the entire Federalist Society and filed on behalf of Bill Clinton . . it would be thrown out and dismissed, because Bill CLinton wouldn't have standing in a dispute over the Colorado Republican Primary. I'm not talking about optics or presentation, I'm talking about the actual case. As far as optics or presentation goes, who gives a poo poo? Either you're left wing and fuckin' great, CREW is also left wing, great, or you aren't and gently caress you you're a fascist. The optics or presentation isn't even worth discussing, there's nothing to discuss with fascists, anyone who cares that CREW is left-wing can go take hydroxychloroquine about it. The only thing that's worth actually talking about is the legal realities of the case, which is what I was doing. And legally speaking, the Trump immunity case was filed by Republican plaintiffs. Who their lawyers are isn't (legally) relevant to the case. Lawyers don't have standing, plaintiffs do. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Feb 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 03:26
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:A judge doesn't have to be removed from the bench to be criminally charged and prosecuted though. A justice could very well remain on the bench and sit in prison for crimes they committed. Sure, at that point they should be impeached and removed from the bench but the GOP sure as gently caress isn't going to do so if they don't hold the Senate and WH. There is absolutely no sound legal argument that someone would have to be removed from the bench before they can be criminally prosecuted. The only argument would be not being able to actively prosecute a sitting POTUS, especially for state-level crimes, but that they'd be fair game once out of office and only because of the can of worms you open by prosecuting active heads-of-state (which is why nobody does it). I felt this was reading the article. I wasn’t sure if I was missing something from all of the other articles that came out. I figured it was as bleak as I thought as a normal person would resign in spite of it but these rear end in a top hat feel they’re above the law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 04:37
|
|
|
Edit: to hell with it, this argument is pointless. Caros fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Feb 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 04:45
|
|
|
Caros posted:Holy christ you are insufferable. Then why are you trying to argue with me and quoting my posts and calling me a liar . . . . about something some other dude said? I'm not that other dude, don't mix my poo poo up with his. As above, I don't think there's any practical universe in which what you term the "semantic front" matters. Either you're talking to left wingers and nobody cares or should care that CREW is left wing . . . or you're talking to right wingers and why are you wasting time talking to right wingers, they're fascists. If they're upset that CREW is left wing they can go take hydroxychloroquine about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 04:53
|
|
|
Caros posted:CREW is a liberal organization funded and staffed by current and former members of the democratic party. If you go to their website and search their legal complaints you have to go back to 2022 to find an issue that is not explicitly targeting Republicans, and which was a lawsuit against FINcen regarding money laundering. The last one targeting a Biden official was a hatch act lawsuit targeting Jen Psaki back in 2021. 2022 wasn't exactly that long ago, especially when you consider that CREW doesn't file all that many lawsuits in a year. Hell, let's actually look at their legal complaints section and see what they did in 2023:
Yeah, it's all against Republicans, but these are all real issues, most of them against figures who are well-known to be dirty as hell with ethics failings out the wazoo. Trump, Santos, Thomas, Scott...all of these are people who have done plenty to earn ethics investigations! Meanwhile, let's look at what Judicial Watch has been up to:  If you're wondering why I'm not listing these out with more detail, part of it is that they've already filed more lawsuits in 2024 than CREW did in all of 2023. Another part of it is that quite a few of their lawsuits have nothing to do with any sorts of ethics violations. For example, out of the nine lawsuits on the first page of their press releases:
I hope this explains why Judicial Watch is considered a conservative organization and CREW isn't considered a liberal organization. The reason Judicial Watch is seen as conservative isn't because it was founded by conservatives or because it files ethics complaints against liberals. While CREW confines itself almost exclusively to filing lawsuits about funding irregularities against Congressmen, Judicial Watch is out there targeting affirmative action policies and non-white get-togethers by city councilors and school districts. To CREW, "corruption" means bribery, campaign finance violations, and other ways in which politicians might abuse the power of their office for their own benefit. On the other hand, here's a sampling of what Judicial Watch thinks qualifies as corruption:  That is why Judicial Watch is seen as more partisan than CREW is. Because CREW pursues what ethics lawyers consider to be ethics violations and corruption, while Judicial Watch pursues what right-wing MAGA Twitter provocateurs consider to be ethics violations and corruption.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 04:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:. . . More importantly, being a left wing partisan is cool and good and nothing to be ashamed of. Being a left wing partisan is great. Everybody should be doing it. Let's reject the premise that being a left wing partisan is bad, because that is a false premise. If someone complains that CREW is just left wing partisans, the appropriate response isn't "oh no!" it's "gently caress yes!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 04:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:More importantly, being a left wing partisan is cool and good and nothing to be ashamed of. Being a left wing partisan is great. Everybody should be doing it. Let's reject the premise that being a left wing partisan is bad, because that is a false premise. If someone complains that CREW is just left wing partisans, the appropriate response isn't "oh no!" it's "gently caress yes!" So just to be clear, (and to answer your question) I think this literally stems from a misundetanding. On the last page I asked: 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 just call a spade a spade? To which you replied: Hieronymous Alloy posted: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. I took this as you saying it is important that we 'don't call a spade a spade' (ie, call crew out as the liberal group it clearly is, which is fine) but judging by the above post you appear to have meant we 'don't keep kayfabe'. Which, yeah, makes a lot more sense why we were just talking past each other. I interpreted that as you arguing that we just lie about it on the forums here for the sake of it which... Yeah, felt lovely. My b.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 05:07
|
|
|
Caros posted:you appear to have meant we 'don't keep kayfabe'. Right, to the extent such discussions matter, we can acknowledge CREW is a left wing organization, there's no particular reason not to. But given the reality of modern American politics calling something "left wing organization" just means we're acknowledging they aren't a fascist organization, so. . just a normal organization? For discussions among other left-wingers then that seems like a redundant discussion, and for discussions with right wingers . . .there's nothing to discuss any more, anyone still voting republican at this point is too far gone around the q-anon bend to be worth having that kind of discussion with. (Maybe an intervention, but not a nuanced debate about relative bias). So the only part of this that seems worth discussing at all in any depth is the legal realities of the case, so that was what I was focusing on and thinking about (especially since this is the SCOTUS thread) and it didn't really occur to me that there was anything else to talk about on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 05:23
|
|
|
May it please the thread, the Hawaii vs. Wilson decision is a fun read. It presents a spicy take on Bruen and Heller, and cleverly derides originalist interpretation by using an exhaustive historical assessment of Hawai'i state law on firearms. This includes King Kamehaha getting a paddle broken over his head, musket load timing and a relevant quote on originalism from HBO show The Wire. The “come at me bro” allusion to Aloha attitude is a joy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 06:04
|
|
|
https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1757910192262615044?s=46&t=v69FFc9gmilk6I-vYnAGzw Wherein Sen Whitehouse suggests that Trump gave Koch his Supreme Court picks
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 06:13
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1757910192262615044?s=46&t=v69FFc9gmilk6I-vYnAGzw Time for some game theory ... 1/256
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 06:17
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1757910192262615044?s=46&t=v69FFc9gmilk6I-vYnAGzw I mean... I wouldn't throw it to the Kochs specifically, I'd point at the federalist society more generally, but I can't imagine Trump had much real input on his supreme court picks. He got handed a list, his advisors told him the political advantages of each and he made a decision largely based on that, if anything. He almost certainly put more thought into Cannon's pick to protect himself than he did for the picks for the court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 06:34
|
|
|
bort posted:May it please the thread, the Hawaii vs. Wilson decision is a fun read. It presents a spicy take on Bruen and Heller, and cleverly derides originalist interpretation by using an exhaustive historical assessment of Hawai'i state law on firearms. This includes King Kamehaha getting a paddle broken over his head, musket load timing and a relevant quote on originalism from HBO show The Wire. The “come at me bro” allusion to Aloha attitude is a joy. The Bruen decision frustrates me more than almost any other recent decision, it's so nakedly divorced from any judicial reasoning and there's not nearly as much chatter about overturning/ignoring it in left legal circles as there should be. "Every other right is subject to a balancing test, except this one" is just such transparent bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 08:33
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1757910192262615044?s=46&t=v69FFc9gmilk6I-vYnAGzw https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1757910193856475405 https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1757910195622297896 "They've never told everyone that a list exists so it must not exist." Not sure that necessarily follows, buddy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 15:52
|
|
|
Yeah that seems silly. Is the premise that the Federalist Society does not have a list of judges they recommend for the SCOTUS?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 15:55
|
|
|
I think the stronger case would just be that Koch money basically funds the Federalist Society anyway. More to the point, there's little reason for a Supreme Court Justice to *stay* bought. They are functionally not impeachable in the current environment. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Feb 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 15:57
|
|
|
You don’t have to buy them at all if you set up a selection and filtering process to ensure only the ideologically pure make it on to the list to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 16:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think the stronger case would just be that Koch money basically funds the Federalist Society anyway. Buying is such a crude word. Much better to pretend to be their best friends.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 16:50
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:You don’t have to buy them at all if you set up a selection and filtering process to ensure only the ideologically pure make it on to the list to begin with. Yeah, I thought that was the point of the modern Federalist Society. They didn't like that the Reagan and HW Bush justices tended to drift towards the center (not all of them, and not necessarily that much, but still) so they set up their pipeline to get people who definitely wouldn't do that onto the court
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 16:54
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Yeah, I thought that was the point of the modern Federalist Society. They didn't like that the Reagan and HW Bush justices tended to drift towards the center (not all of them, and not necessarily that much, but still) so they set up their pipeline to get people who definitely wouldn't do that onto the court He was pitched to Republicans as a conservative lock on the court and in reality he was either a swing vote for a vote with the liberals pretty often
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 17:09
|
|
|
The Federalist Society is a RICO case just waiting to be heard. The group charges members to be part of an influence-peddling gang that undermines confidence in the American judicial system. People who go along with the gang are bribed with cozy jobs and positions of power, while those who do not are threatened and blackballed. If they were in the field of construction contracts they’d already be in jail, but since they’re lawyers the judiciary prefers to look the other way.
Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Feb 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 17:49
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:You don’t have to buy them at all if you set up a selection and filtering process to ensure only the ideologically pure make it on to the list to begin with. That's fine if you only want ideological purity. But "is Donald Trump immune to prosecution for crimes?" isn't really an ideological question. Ideologically-pure justices chosen off a Federalist Society list aren't going to have any particular attachment to Trump personally; they'd be just as happy with DeSantis or Haley or whoever else. Supreme Court justices, who hold lifetime appointments and whose power is mostly independent of the presidency, don't really have much reason to care who the president is
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The Federalist Society is a RICO case just waiting to be heard. The group charges members to be part of an influence-peddling gang that undermines confidence in the American judicial system. People who go along with the gang are bribed with cozy jobs and positions of power, while those who do not are threatened and blackballed. If they were in the field of construction contracts they’d already be in jail, but since they’re lawyers the judiciary prefers to look the other way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:This is probably why they want to run the Supreme Court Oh agreed. Heck, the infamous McCarthy Hearings got going over a lot less than an open conspiracy to take over the American justice system. They protect each other, and their patrons, and the rest of the country puts up with it. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Feb 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 19:47
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think the stronger case would just be that Koch money basically funds the Federalist Society anyway. Ultimately I think most people know who the Koch’s are and what they do with their money. The federalist society, while hardly obscure, has much smaller name recognition, so it’s probably easier to just tie to a well known name than establish who the organization is and why they matter, especially when communicating by twitter
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
Kaal posted:The Federalist Society is a RICO case just waiting to be heard. The group charges members to be part of an influence-peddling gang that undermines confidence in the American judicial system. People who go along with the gang are bribed with cozy jobs and positions of power, while those who do not are threatened and blackballed. If they were in the field of construction contracts they’d already be in jail, but since they’re lawyers the judiciary prefers to look the other way. I'm not super familiar with RICO but I'm pretty sure there has to be actual crimes involved. Advocating for conservative policies and supporting lawyers who push for conservative rulings is not, generally speaking, a crime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 20:07
|
|