|
logger posted:When you are president you are allowed to plan a coup. IIRC he most likely can't do this as committing crimes isn't a part of his official duties.
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2023 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Judges should start twitch accounts and livestream proceedings.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2023 22:50
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I'll post this here too. The parallels will make you stare into the distance for a while in horror. How so? They seem entirely dissimilar.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2023 23:55
|
|
|
I suspect SCOTUS splits it down the middle, the CO ruling stands but its a political question and they won't get involved, its up to the States to decide how to execute the 14th amendment etc.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Naah, for a defense attorney he was fantastic in the OJ trial and earned a bunch of credit as a super lawyer. It was after he started working for Trump that he really went off the rails. I even remember Andrew from Opening Arguments saying that Dersh was fantastic until abut 2017 when he suddenly went insane. "I managed to win one unwinnable case clearly I can make it happen twice." 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Am I wrong that a SCOTUS decision now would be restricted to whether states are individually allowed to bar Trump from their ballots because of their interpretations of the 14th amendment? I think this is how it goes, I think SCOTUS ultimately owe no loyalty to Trump beyond 1 or 2 of the worst of the hacks and just let states decide it and splitting down the middle is the easiest thing they can do; I think they balk at the idea that a President is immune to the 14th.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
Gyges posted:As it is now, if the court decides to rule on the ability of the states to use the 14th to limit ballot access they still have a wide range of options on how they do so. Uh, minor correction, but only some of the legal question is about primaries, I believe Maine and CO straight up ruled Trump cannot be on the general election ballot; there's likely no question that private parties can let anyone run in a primary, they just can't be on the ballot for the general election managed by states.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's not really about the process, it's about the results. While these cases are nominally about ballot access, the underlying constitutional question doesn't really have anything to do with ballots at all. The real question that underlies the Maine and Colorado cases is "is it legal, under US law, for Donald Trump to be president?". For obvious practical reasons, the answer to that question can't vary from state to state. On the other hand aren't there concerns about whether its "self-executing" or not? Could that be how the USSC tries to split the baby by saying its up to the states to decide how to execute it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2024 21:22
|
|
|
Trump being disqualified I think undisputavly has us enter the cool zone, like a politics event horizon where all the rules break down. No one can possibly know or predict what happens, it could collapse gop turnout across the board or it could super steroids it, literally anything could happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2024 14:05
|
|
|
It's still incredibly amusing to me that in Canada where we had a similar set of circumstances, the unrest was brought to an end basically instantly and decisively the moment they brought in French cops.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:I'm talking about the form of government, not its efficacy. Sure the Empire was relatively peaceful but the transfer of power was frequently bloody, chaotic, and somewhat less consensus-based than it was under the Republic. Consuls were constrained in numerous ways that emperors weren't. That gradual move toward autocracy is what I was getting at, not the relative happiness of the citizenry. I think its less about "Just like Rome" and more that all Empires suffer paralyzing problems without the means or wills or capacities to see it through. It's just that the US system because of how it cargo cults various aspects of Roman civil society by coincidence has problems that resemble Romes on a surface level (for instance while the US has many costly military commitments, the US mainland isn't even remotely under a similar threat as Rome's borders were during the 3rd Crisis). An example would be the gradual uptick in Japanese militerism that eroded the authority of its civilian government during the early Showa era; can hardly point to Rome to draw meaningful analogies but you also had its form of government, and its norms, eroded in favor of powerful military figures.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2024 07:27
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:So let me preface this by admitting "the US is going to fall just like Rome!" is one of the most boring, overplayed, bullshit proclamations ever- and is especially popular amongst the chuds, who usually mean it in a "Rome and the US were once moral and pure and fell / is falling due to degeneracy / gay people" kind of way. I definitely acknowledge that and it's infuriating to come across. That being said, I think there is an interesting comparison to be made between the reliance on social / political norms as a check against personal ambition in Republican Rome and the US. Both governments were rather obvious attempts to constrain the ability of one person to assume total control of the state, but the actual mechanisms to prevent such an occurrence are both largely informal - for example the soft prohibition on Presidents not running for 3rd terms. That was a powerful informal rule that remained in place for over a century and we have actual historical evidence to suggest the norm did dissuade multiple men from running for a 3rd term, even when it would be perfectly legal for them to do so. Yeah very reasonable, my thinking however is that I think *all* governments, and certainly all empires have varying degrees of some kind of social contact, a sort of flexible space not covered by explicit rules or rule making authorities where instead things are done according to patronage, norms, and reciprocity. To take Japan as an example you have all of these social norms, for example as most people who've seen anime are familiar with the hierarchy of the junior-senior dynamic. There's no law that lays this down, but on some level it affects a lot of Japanese society, and probably (I don't know for sure, but I got a sense for it from Sakai's book) moreso during WW2 or during the Meiji era. When those junior Japanese army officers tried that first coup incident and resorted to political assassination that's a lot of norms being broken in addition to laws and Japan was basically never the same until the end of WW2. Also of course the aftermatch of disasters like the Great Kanto earthquake bringing an end to the Taisho democracy. My point basically is I don't think its super unique to the US the idea of informal social arrangements that have a binding effect on day to day governance, and their erosion causing an accumulation of authoritarian power is likewise probably not unique to the US either.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2024 16:37
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:This is a big part of it I'm really getting the feeling here that we should basically completely be disregarding polling until about a few months out from the election beyond noting interesting trends.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2024 02:12
|
|
|
What's a pro se and does it differ from per se?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2024 17:39
|
|
|
Do we think that the fishing expedition worked to get their client better terms for that settlement?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2024 02:03
|
|
|
One way or another I'm waiting for Legal Eagle to weigh in but I imagine there's a specific definition and case history of what "conflict of interest" means in GA and it was already seeming like a high bar to clear based off of the motions being sent before and now seems even less likely to be an issue?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2024 21:09
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/1755290689863049343 I feel like that if Trump's team is having to go this route that there's no substance to any of the allegations thus far.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2024 20:23
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
My impression about the "this trump lawyer is actually competent" thing is it seems like Trump has the magic ability of making people who had real reputations and credentials eat poo poo for inexplicable reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2024 22:24
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If democracy dies, it's not going to be because of anything a judge did, it's going to be because a substantial chunk of the American population supported Donald Trump despite his numerous scandals and crimes. To add to this, I think Three Arrows had a mostly* good explainer about the fall of the Weimar Republic; where he presents the argument about the role of the legal system in enabling Hitler's rise to power and how many of Weimar's institutions including its judiciary were just completely captured by people who were either, Fash, Fash-enabling, Fash-curious, or Democracy-Apathetic. Essentially you had a lot of institutions and a lot of people who just lacked the willingness to have the Republic survive a Hitler figure entering the picture; many people on both the left and right didn't want the Republic to continue to exist in its current form. America is pretty far from this on many fronts, many of the US's institutions are still manned by dedicated people who want the US to continue to endure, and a lot of people (voters) who also want this. I think if the US can continue to endure long enough for demographics to kick in a little more the "Center" can continue to hold until the right breaks apart. *Three Arrows kinda makes the argument that this is all in large part to Germany lacking a history of democracy or democratic institutions but at a glance that seemed to me to be patently incorrect, but this is neither here nor there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 00:35
|
|
|
The Ol Spicy Keychain posted:Why is the prosecutor for this case on the stand and being grilled about possible legal wrongdoings she may or may not have done? Seems like this whole case is already turbo hosed if the prosecutor is the one in the headlines Because anyone can sue anyone in America for any reason.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 02:23
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Germany was an absolute monarchy until the end of WW1. Within 15 years Hitler was the Reichsführer. Their democracy was a teenager when it was strangled. Not quite, it had elections and political parties, people could vote, my contention isn't that Germany was a vibrant representative democracy like the US, but there was a core of democratic institutions that did exist prior to Weimar.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 13:06
|
|
|
cr0y posted:E: wrong thread CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH THIS!? 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 16:54
|
|
|
Caros posted:https://www.youtube.com/live/UZKSRifybjg?si=igV1cnKFAa5jX_hf These objections are more granular than I've heard in law films.  The back and forth is also hard to keep track of, jeez.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2024 20:14
|
|
|
fondue posted:Why are people underestimating the value of his $15bn property? Especially since Tommy Tallarico made it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 22:42
|
|
|
B B posted:This 6-3 ruling is gonna be amazing. At least Joe and the Democrats will be able to console themselves with the fact that they resisted the urge to politicize politicize the court maybe forever in a way that's not healthy, though. I'm not sure what you're saying, would it actually be "amazing" as in "good" or "aligns with my worldview" if it is a conservative 6-3 ruling in favor of Trump? Can you explain your reasoning? The second sentence also doesn't seem related to the first, I'm not sure what "Democrats" as a whole or Joe Biden has to do with the Supreme Court as there were no vacancies under a Democratic President while also having control of the Senate? By what method by "politicizing" the supreme court could Democrats have avoided a still entirely hypothetical outcome? I'm confused because you seem to suggest that such an outcome is good but also that Democrats should've done more to stop it, can you explain in detail?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 23:55
|
|
|
Didn't Legal Eagle point out that it was kinda irregular or kinda unprecedented to just skip to SCOTUS like that? I got the sense it isn't outrageous for SCOTUS to want to wait for it to make its proper path through the lower courts first?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2024 04:03
|
|
|
tk posted:Trump would never be able to win a democratic election. 2016 was a democratic election though? It wasn't as democratic as we'd like being defined as "being an elected by a majority of voters nation wide" and not just "being elected by the majority of people who happen to be living in the states comprising the majority of the electoral college" but both are democratic in process by the definition of the systems in question.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2024 01:18
|
|
|
tk posted:Well if we’re just saying that our elections our democratic then I don’t see why we wouldn’t expect the courts to intervene to save our democracy. Pardon? I'm not sure I understand?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2024 01:52
|
|
|
B B posted:Finishing out his second term after beating a guy who can't remember when his own son died Did this happen?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2024 02:50
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:https://www.huffpost.com/entry/prosecutors-request-trump-hush-money-trial-delay_n_65f34cc2e4b0b4d0b898c729?ww9 How is this different from many of the various other examples of Trump's lawyers attempting procedures to delay things which often results in just being denied?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2024 21:56
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Well, yeah. If they thought they clearly had facts and law on their side they would just do that and it would be pretty obvious even to casual observers like us that they were right. Isn't this literally the quote of "If you have the facts on your side pound the facts, if you have the law pound the law, if you don't have either pound the table."?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2024 16:30
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:One completely legitimate framing of this issue is that for the legal system to treat you like a human being, you functionally have to be rich enough to have a good lawyer who has time to work your case. I think one issue here about the misdemeanors is it frames the issue as being about the profit/expense for the city, when its about encouraging/discouraging behaviours. Presumably most people most of the time aren't knowingly violating laws/ordinances/etc and those the expense of someone regardless of being rightly or wrongly accused and lacking the means to hire their own lawyer, that cost is presumably worth it from the point of the government that everyone else is generally following it. The point of enforcing laws is not to derive a source of revenue, its pour encourager les autres. From a certain point of view it isn't about actually making Trump face consequence, but making it clear to anyone who thinks if just being rich means being immune from the law; which demonstrably Trump isn't immune, the complicating snag is what happens if he happens to win the Presidency, but normally in a sane universe no one like Trump should have ever been remotely near plausibly the next President and not relevant to the system as a whole; because systems aren't really about their "stars aligning outliers" but about how it generally works to do the things its intending to do. These delay tactics only kinda have a shot at working because Trump has a non-zero chance of being President; (but also Trump likely never would've been in this legal mess in the first place if he were never President, so its a land of contrasts), otherwise these delays just make things worse for him in terms of his eventual penalties. People usually would've settled by now, not constantly violate gag orders, or do this many crimes. To be clear it sucks the extent in which being a member of the rich and powerful does a lot to insulate you from consequence, but this is universally true in any form of society we know; and generally by most measures being Rich And Powerful in the US goes a lot less far than it does in most other industrialized countries. Trump is an isolated case of stupid evil who is able to take advantage of the legal system and go as far as he is able to because of a confluence of overlapping factors that normally wouldn't be true most other times.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 01:20
|
|
|
Levitate posted:the thing is what do you do if he violates the gag order? what punishment can you enact that does anything? it's another "rich people operate on a different level and the law doesn't apply" This is a specific Trump problem that doesn't apply to your run of the mill rich people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
Goatse James Bond posted:If the person who originally posted this and I are reading correctly (and the accountant upthread seems to have a similar take, Knight Insurance would be rendered insolvent if they had to pay up according to their own financial statement filed with the court It's nuts but is it illegal for a company to willingly bankrupt itself?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2024 23:15
|
|
|
The Bible posted:I'm not a legal expert, so I really can't suggest a solution, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize a problem. I don't see how we can readily and fairly make this determination without having all of the same problems and issues of fairness the system already has.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2024 00:32
|
|
|
I continue to be mesmorized at how often people line up to get kicked in the groin on Trump's behalf for no visible benefit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2024 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:He just needs to have the 5th circuit claim jurisdiction, like they are doing with every right wing pet project at the moment. By what legal justification?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2024 23:03
|
|