malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:12 am
I think this sort of misses the point. Some people might be upset about it because they don't understand the 'technical legal points'. Others aren't. Still I get that the legal types will scoff at the outrage but that is partly why the system is breaking down and why extremism is on the rise. This is more evidence that our system of 'justice' is deeply unfair to regular people and enfranchises the already powerful. When you compare that regular people get bullied into pleas while people like Trump spend our tax dollars to grind the system to a halt...well the absurdity of an outcome like this is a bitter pill to swallow. It is extremely corrosive. And it is driving people to want solutions that live outside our current system.
I disagree, and respectfully, think your attempt to see the forest for the trees is actually missing a fundamental point: What you appear to be dismissing as "technical legal points" are bedrock principles of our legal system. Applying those principles objectively and without a preference for an end result is what our system is built on. If SCOTUS (or SCOUTS as CNN likes to call them) had made some sort of exception here and overlooked the fact that there is no present case or controversy, that would undermine the system and be clear evidence that our system was breaking down.
This is just an end result you - and many others (including me) - don't like. It's not a sign that our system of justice is deeply unfair.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:12 am
I think this sort of misses the point. Some people might be upset about it because they don't understand the 'technical legal points'. Others aren't. Still I get that the legal types will scoff at the outrage but that is partly why the system is breaking down and why extremism is on the rise. This is more evidence that our system of 'justice' is deeply unfair to regular people and enfranchises the already powerful. When you compare that regular people get bullied into pleas while people like Trump spend our tax dollars to grind the system to a halt...well the absurdity of an outcome like this is a bitter pill to swallow. It is extremely corrosive. And it is driving people to want solutions that live outside our current system.
I disagree, and respectfully, think your attempt to see the forest for the trees is actually missing a fundamental point: What you appear to be dismissing as "technical legal points" are bedrock principles of our legal system. Applying those principles objectively and without a preference for an end result is what our system is built on. If SCOTUS (or SCOUTS as CNN likes to call them) had made some sort of exception here and overlooked the fact that there is no present case or controversy, that would undermine the system and be clear evidence that our system was breaking down.
This is just an end result you - and many others (including me) - don't like. It's not a sign that our system of justice is deeply unfair.
Yeah, that the lawsuits were only asking for prospective relief is absolutely critical to the result. If the suits are only asking for Trump to eliminate the conflict between being president and owning his businesses, then once Trump ceases to be president then that eliminates the grounds for prospective relief. That he still has the money is irrelevant to the relief sought by the suits.
The 50-second video doesn't address the other arguments for hearing the suit (around likelihood of issue recurrence), but that Trump still had the money seemed like a slam dunk to me, until I saw this video pointing out the relief sought. I was kind of curious why there wasn't a dissent or statement from any of the justices if this should have been a slam dunk.
It does suggest that someone should bring suit against Trump seeking damages, which would probably need to be a public agency (DOJ and/or state AGs).
Only 5 GOP members voted with the Dems to table Rand Paul's motion that impeaching an ex-president is unconstitutional. Doesn't give much hope that they'll actually vote to convict.
Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:32 pm
Only 5 GOP members voted with the Dems to table Rand Paul's motion that impeaching an ex-president is unconstitutional. Doesn't give much hope that they'll actually vote to convict.
Can't wait until Hawley and Cruz challenge Florida Man for the 2024 nomination.
Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:32 pmI disagree, and respectfully, think your attempt to see the forest for the trees is actually missing a fundamental point: What you appear to be dismissing as "technical legal points" are bedrock principles of our legal system. Applying those principles objectively and without a preference for an end result is what our system is built on.
I wasn't arguing about the technical merit though even that some people have called into question (more below). Some have noted that Roberts often takes the 'moot' ramp as an easy exit to questions they didn't want to address in the first place. This may or may not be that but that wasn't my point anyway. It was more about the optics of it.
If SCOTUS (or SCOUTS as CNN likes to call them) had made some sort of exception here and overlooked the fact that there is no present case or controversy, that would undermine the system and be clear evidence that our system was breaking down.
Maybe but several scholars said that there is an exception to mootness that they could have chosen to take up - to paraphrase what I heard, it was a question that could be reoccur and demanded an answer. I expect one to happen since the government has essentially said the emoluments clauses is unenforceable in courts and we've seen that the impeachment power is pretty ineffective. We just had a President who broke the law with astonishing openness without immediate consequence. I still believe there will be *no* consequence.
This is just an end result you - and many others (including me) - don't like. It's not a sign that our system of justice is deeply unfair.
To recap why I think this is deeply unfair to everyone, this case was filed on Day 1 (or near enough to not matter) of the Trump administration. It was delayed by the President endlessly, ruled moot, and it hadn't even gotten out of the lower court yet. They fought over and over on preliminaries. That is the problem. And when you look at it - the system is deeply unfair to people unless you have the power or endless wealth to essentially buy justice off indefinitely.
Last edited by malchior on Tue Jan 26, 2021 5:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:46 pmThe 50-second video doesn't address the other arguments for hearing the suit (around likelihood of issue recurrence), but that Trump still had the money seemed like a slam dunk to me, until I saw this video pointing out the relief sought. I was kind of curious why there wasn't a dissent or statement from any of the justices if this should have been a slam dunk.
I think it was unanimous because even the suing attorneys agreed it was moot. But again that isn't even close to the lens I look at it with. When you look at how the system performed against Trump...there was a whole lot of symbolic action. That's great and all but we need him to get 'punched hard in the face' by the law.
It does suggest that someone should bring suit against Trump seeking damages, which would probably need to be a public agency (DOJ and/or state AGs).
Standing to claw back any emoluments is a big issue. It is possible no one has standing. Maybe Congress. The whole thing is another indicator that our entire system is just a bunch of nearly toothless norms.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:46 pmThe 50-second video doesn't address the other arguments for hearing the suit (around likelihood of issue recurrence), but that Trump still had the money seemed like a slam dunk to me, until I saw this video pointing out the relief sought. I was kind of curious why there wasn't a dissent or statement from any of the justices if this should have been a slam dunk.
I think it was unanimous because even the suing attorneys agreed it was moot. But again that isn't even close to the lens I look at it with. When you look at how the system performed against Trump...there was a whole lot of symbolic action. That's great and all but we need him to get 'punched hard in the face' by the law.
It does suggest that someone should bring suit against Trump seeking damages, which would probably need to be a public agency (DOJ and/or state AGs).
Standing to claw back any emoluments is a big issue. It is possible no one has standing. Maybe Congress. The whole thing is another indicator that our entire system is just a bunch of nearly toothless norms.
Oh yeah. As a reflection of where the system is now....it's deeply problematic.
Why wouldn't DOJ have standing to enforce the emoluments clause restriction?
El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:46 pmThe 50-second video doesn't address the other arguments for hearing the suit (around likelihood of issue recurrence), but that Trump still had the money seemed like a slam dunk to me, until I saw this video pointing out the relief sought. I was kind of curious why there wasn't a dissent or statement from any of the justices if this should have been a slam dunk.
I think it was unanimous because even the suing attorneys agreed it was moot. But again that isn't even close to the lens I look at it with. When you look at how the system performed against Trump...there was a whole lot of symbolic action. That's great and all but we need him to get 'punched hard in the face' by the law.
It does suggest that someone should bring suit against Trump seeking damages, which would probably need to be a public agency (DOJ and/or state AGs).
Standing to claw back any emoluments is a big issue. It is possible no one has standing. Maybe Congress. The whole thing is another indicator that our entire system is just a bunch of nearly toothless norms.
Oh yeah. As a reflection of where the system is now....it's deeply problematic.
Why wouldn't DOJ have standing to enforce the emoluments clause restriction?
What I read was that back in 2018, the District Court ruled that 'Congress' was the right party with standing to sue so the logical extension is that they'd be the right party for a 'clawback' since this is a Constitutional issue instead of a statutory one.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:46 pmThe 50-second video doesn't address the other arguments for hearing the suit (around likelihood of issue recurrence), but that Trump still had the money seemed like a slam dunk to me, until I saw this video pointing out the relief sought. I was kind of curious why there wasn't a dissent or statement from any of the justices if this should have been a slam dunk.
I think it was unanimous because even the suing attorneys agreed it was moot. But again that isn't even close to the lens I look at it with. When you look at how the system performed against Trump...there was a whole lot of symbolic action. That's great and all but we need him to get 'punched hard in the face' by the law.
It does suggest that someone should bring suit against Trump seeking damages, which would probably need to be a public agency (DOJ and/or state AGs).
Standing to claw back any emoluments is a big issue. It is possible no one has standing. Maybe Congress. The whole thing is another indicator that our entire system is just a bunch of nearly toothless norms.
Oh yeah. As a reflection of where the system is now....it's deeply problematic.
Why wouldn't DOJ have standing to enforce the emoluments clause restriction?
What I read was that back in 2018, the District Court ruled that 'Congress' was the right party with standing to sue so the logical extension is that they'd be the right party for a 'clawback' since this is a Constitutional issue instead of a statutory one.
Yeah, a bunch of effected businesses had tried to sue and that was the result. Which is kind of crazy, imo.
Ya so I guess storming the capital is fair game now? Good to know... We really to live it up the next 4 years, because 2024 is going to be SUPER fun.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.
Octavious wrote:Ya so I guess storming the capital is fair game now? Good to know... We really to live it up the next 4 years, because 2024 is going to be SUPER fun.
Hey, if you're impatient you can get a taste of the insanity even sooner if the Republicans take the Senate in 2022!
Black lives matter!
Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:46 pmThe 50-second video doesn't address the other arguments for hearing the suit (around likelihood of issue recurrence), but that Trump still had the money seemed like a slam dunk to me, until I saw this video pointing out the relief sought. I was kind of curious why there wasn't a dissent or statement from any of the justices if this should have been a slam dunk.
I think it was unanimous because even the suing attorneys agreed it was moot. But again that isn't even close to the lens I look at it with. When you look at how the system performed against Trump...there was a whole lot of symbolic action. That's great and all but we need him to get 'punched hard in the face' by the law.
It does suggest that someone should bring suit against Trump seeking damages, which would probably need to be a public agency (DOJ and/or state AGs).
Standing to claw back any emoluments is a big issue. It is possible no one has standing. Maybe Congress. The whole thing is another indicator that our entire system is just a bunch of nearly toothless norms.
Oh yeah. As a reflection of where the system is now....it's deeply problematic.
Why wouldn't DOJ have standing to enforce the emoluments clause restriction?
What I read was that back in 2018, the District Court ruled that 'Congress' was the right party with standing to sue so the logical extension is that they'd be the right party for a 'clawback' since this is a Constitutional issue instead of a statutory one.
Yeah, a bunch of effected businesses had tried to sue and that was the result. Which is kind of crazy, imo.
Was that decision vacated as part of this?
Anyway, it'll depend in part on Garland's temperament on this. The core of that ruling would just be that those businesses don't have standing. The court opining that Congress is the right party isn't really legally binding. DOJ would probably expect to lose in a new suit at the district court level, but hope to win at the DC Circuit.
Eh that just means they will block everything. That's not nearly as fun as someone like Cotton welding absolute power.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 5:48 pmAnyway, it'll depend in part on Garland's temperament on this. The core of that ruling would just be that those businesses don't have standing. The court opining that Congress is the right party isn't really legally binding. DOJ would probably expect to lose in a new suit at the district court level, but hope to win at the DC Circuit.
I feel that the DOJ is too risk averse to take on this fight.
Octavious wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 5:25 pm
Ya so I guess storming the capital is fair game now? Good to know... We really to live it up the next 4 years, because 2024 is going to be SUPER fun.
Pretty much. January 6th the President tries to end democracy. 20 days later the Republicans in the GOP are saying, so what? Our democracy is on life support at the moment.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 5:48 pmAnyway, it'll depend in part on Garland's temperament on this. The core of that ruling would just be that those businesses don't have standing. The court opining that Congress is the right party isn't really legally binding. DOJ would probably expect to lose in a new suit at the district court level, but hope to win at the DC Circuit.
I feel that the DOJ is too risk averse to take on this fight.
Yeah, probably fair. It's also a bit of a half measure - if they're inclined to go after Trump, might as well go big and prosecute him.
The 45 Republican Senators do not want to fulfill their Constitutional obligations. Have the testicular fortitude at least to argue storming Congress was permissible — and surrender all pretense at being the “law and order” party while you acquit.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
By arguing that the process is illegal, they hope to neutralize a referendum of loyalty to trump. It's really the best play they've got with a bad hand.
If they had a secret vote you'd see how many of them really want him.
Perhaps there was a bit more nuance to the vote yesterday than is being widely reported.
That said, I still think that vote likely gives us a pretty good idea about how the final impeachment vote will go. After all, nuance isn't something most GOP congressional members seem to understand.
Eh this is kind of a silly take. Of course they didn't take a vote on the constitutionality. The reason it was described this way is because Paul raised the point of order and said it was a show of how many think that the trial was unconstitutional. These guys all signed on to that position.
He's right again. These old doddering fools are going to be the death of our democracy. He dragged McCarthy down to kiss the ring in Mar a Lago. If they refuse to convict we'll be seeing a whole lot more of these pilgrimages.
I wish they at least weren't idiots. "He'll go away quietly" was a stupid argument even before the events of the past few months. Trump's activities between November and the inauguration should've disproven that a million times over.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 10:17 am
I wish they at least weren't idiots. "He'll go away quietly" was a stupid argument even before the events of the past few months. Trump's activities between November and the inauguration should've disproven that a million times over.
That's the trouble. Are they idiots? I can't believe it across such a big group of our 'top tier' of politicians. These 'quiet' comments are just more the lies they are telling people as an excuse that all they care about is power. As the party went full tilt into far right authoritarian extremism you would have thought they would have shed a whole lot of support along the way. Instead, a lot of them just went with it. That there are very few conscientious objectors tells me all I need to know.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 10:17 am
I wish they at least weren't idiots. "He'll go away quietly" was a stupid argument even before the events of the past few months. Trump's activities between November and the inauguration should've disproven that a million times over.
That's the trouble. Are they idiots? I can't believe it across such a big group of our 'top tier' of politicians. These 'quiet' comments are just more the lies they are telling people as an excuse that all they care about is power. As the party went full tilt into far right authoritarian extremism you would have thought they would have shed a whole lot of support along the way. Instead, a lot of them just went with it. That there are very few conscientious objectors tells me all I need to know.
Well, I imagine it's a mix of idiocy, complicity, and cravenness among the group of GOP leaders. Probably they're making generally self-interested decisions and 'he'll go away quietly' is a hope for the best after they've otherwise made their decisions.
Octavious wrote:Ya so I guess storming the capital is fair game now? Good to know... We really to live it up the next 4 years, because 2024 is going to be SUPER fun.
Hey, if you're impatient you can get a taste of the insanity even sooner if the Republicans take the Senate in 2022!
R’s are taking the House in 2022 barring some seriously crazy shit. If they ALSO re-take the Senate.....
Octavious wrote:Ya so I guess storming the capital is fair game now? Good to know... We really to live it up the next 4 years, because 2024 is going to be SUPER fun.
Hey, if you're impatient you can get a taste of the insanity even sooner if the Republicans take the Senate in 2022!
R’s are taking the House in 2022 barring some seriously crazy shit. If they ALSO re-take the Senate.....
The House has to be 80+% now. The chances that they re-take the Senate is somewhere around a coin flip if not better for the GOP right now.
I'm not sure about that. Many of the Dems up for reelection in 2022 are pretty safe seats, while there are a number of R's from swing states up for re-election.
I think it's way too early to talk odds (especially since who knows how differently the world will look in a year and a half), but the map would, under normal circumstances, favor Democrats.
You have to price in that at least one state - Florida - has plans to follow Wisconsin into gerrymandering Ragnarok. The 80+% chance is just practical back of envelope math. The Democratic Majority is 11 right now in the House. House mid-terms have a strong pattern of swinging against the President's party. The 20% is a safe uncertainty cushion IMO. The Senate odds are a looser guess but the NY Mag piece in the 'A Republic, If You Can Keep It' thread goes into decent depth on the math there. It isn't looking good.
2018 midterm - 41 against Trump
2014 midterm - 13 against Obama
2010 midterm - 63 against Obama
2006 midterm - 31 against Bush II
2002 midterm - 8 for Bush II
1998 midterm - 5 for Clinton (attributed to blowback against impeachment)
1994 midterm - 54 against Clinton
1990 midterm - ~8 (1 independent) against Bush I
1986 midterm - 5 against Reagan
1982 midterm - 26 against Reagan
Defiant wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:16 pm
I think it's way too early to talk odds (especially since who knows how differently the world will look in a year and a half), but the map would, under normal circumstances, favor Democrats.
Yeah, two more years of the Republican crazy train, potentially whipped up by trump's threatened Riot Party, and (hopefully!) ameliorated by Biden successes on the pandemic, the economy, foreign policy, and the environment pretty much guarantee that any predictions made today are guesses at best. If trump continues to divide the GOP, and Democrats don't screw themselves over more than usual, then today's balance of power could persist more or less intact.
The issue is that Republican outrage sells, even if it is bogus bat-shit insane bullshit. It limited Biden’s win to leave him historically weak to face massive obstacles.
Trump was actively disruptive enough to sabotage the GOP. There is no way two Democrats should have been elected ti the Senate. It’s bad enough that McConnell seemed willing to sacrifice Trump to save the party.
Now McConnell is trying to still sell the meme “Trump has learned his lesson” to avoid a schism. But if he thinks the GOP can get away with it, he’ll sacrifice Trump in a heartbeat.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
