|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I have another post that is more topic centric than the prior appeal for some more good faith. It's hard to have a leftist judge because the legal system is an authoritarian right wing system. It's like asking why there aren't many atheist priests. A leftist who was a criminal judge would very likely either quit being a judge, quit being a leftist, or go insane from moral injury.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2024 09:11
|
|
|
Caros posted:
Yeah actually Carney's right there. You can't hold people without active charges. If I were the defense attorney I'd be making GBS threads bricks. If nothing else, make them file that appeal ASAP.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2024 19:13
|
|
|
Caros posted:It is worth noting that these issues typically are decided before jeopardy attaches for that exact reason. No such appeal would work but Cannon doesn't have the balls for such a play anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 21:37
|
|
|
Big Slammu posted:So, no trial until after election, awesome job, way to go Supreme Court. More likely trial in October.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2024 01:32
|
|
|
Caros posted:Is it funnier if they drop the verdict on election day? Or the day after. Ideally the jury is sequestered while the recount is happening.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2024 01:37
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I will be amazed if this trial happens before the election. I'm just betting on the most hilarious outcome at this point. Trial and conviction in October, sentencing delayed until December.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2024 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
I mean, it's a bad decision because it leads to a bad result.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 19:11
|
|