Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Ranxerox said:

 

Michael Cohen was sentenced to 3 years for his part on the whole sorted ordeal.  Why can't Trump get the same sentence?

 

VERY, VERY different charges.  Cohen was convicted of bank fraud and tax fraud...federal charges.  Tax fraud includes 5 years.  It's a class B felony.  And bank fraud, which is a class C...so, lower.  Trump was convicted of falsifying business records, which is a class E.

[BoloOfEarth]

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

VERY, VERY different charges.  Cohen was convicted of bank fraud and tax fraud...federal charges.  Tax fraud includes 5 years.  It's a class B felony.  And bank fraud, which is a class C...so, lower.  Trump was convicted of falsifying business records, which is a class E.

 

There is nothing about Trump that is class E.  Nothing at all.

[Ranxerox]

9 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

VERY, VERY different charges.  Cohen was convicted of bank fraud and tax fraud...federal charges.  Tax fraud includes 5 years.  It's a class B felony.  And bank fraud, which is a class C...so, lower.  Trump was convicted of falsifying business records, which is a class E.

 

Thanks.

[DShomshak]

Over the hours, different talking heads on NPR offer a variety of scenarios. On the one hand, document falsification rarely gets jail time and it's Trump's first criminal conviction, so he could receive probation and monitoring. OTOH it's been pointed out that in sentencing, judges can consider external factors such as the perp's conduct and past convictions. This is Trump's first *criminal* conviction, but he and his organizations have faced civil conviction for fraud and other offenses many times. (Most recently, the E. Jean Carroll defamation suit.) Far from showing remorse, he shows a pattern of enraged defiance and verbal attack. Judge Merchan cited him for contempt *10 times.* He has slandered the judge, the prosecutors, and the jury, and there's a history of people Trump reviles receiving death threats. As a billionaire, he is of course a tremendous flight risk. Those aggravating factors could justify a sentence of greater severity, including real, no kidding jail time.

 

No one seems to think it likely that Judge Merchan will impose the maximum possible sentence of a four year term for each conviction, served sequentially. It would be terribly nice if Trump received any jail time at all. But I prepare to be disappointed. Even when Trump is convicted, he gets away with a heck of a lot.

 

Dean Shomshak

[death tribble]

This has the potential to get political so posting here. The ANC vote has collapsed from 58% to 40%. The ANC will have a problem as the party in 3rd place will not work with them and the party in second place will not back certain parts of the ANC platform which the ANC say are non-negotiable.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-africa-69076473

[Lord Liaden]

South Africans have been very unhappy with the ANC for years. There have been many complaints of corruption and incompetence. Sadly, the other principle parties haven't fared better in that regard.

[unclevlad]

6 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Over the hours, different talking heads on NPR offer a variety of scenarios. On the one hand, document falsification rarely gets jail time and it's Trump's first criminal conviction, so he could receive probation and monitoring. OTOH it's been pointed out that in sentencing, judges can consider external factors such as the perp's conduct and past convictions. This is Trump's first *criminal* conviction, but he and his organizations have faced civil conviction for fraud and other offenses many times. (Most recently, the E. Jean Carroll defamation suit.) Far from showing remorse, he shows a pattern of enraged defiance and verbal attack. Judge Merchan cited him for contempt *10 times.* He has slandered the judge, the prosecutors, and the jury, and there's a history of people Trump reviles receiving death threats. As a billionaire, he is of course a tremendous flight risk. Those aggravating factors could justify a sentence of greater severity, including real, no kidding jail time.

 

No one seems to think it likely that Judge Merchan will impose the maximum possible sentence of a four year term for each conviction, served sequentially. It would be terribly nice if Trump received any jail time at all. But I prepare to be disappointed. Even when Trump is convicted, he gets away with a heck of a lot.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

I'm absolutely NOT advocating for this, but it is the reality we have to face.

 

If Merchan sentenced Trump to prison, I would seriously, SERIOUSLY be concerned that he would be targeted for an extreme reprisal.  We hear the noise...but actually putting Trump in jail feels like the impetus to move things from just talk to action.

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

 

I'm absolutely NOT advocating for this, but it is the reality we have to face.

 

If Merchan sentenced Trump to prison, I would seriously, SERIOUSLY be concerned that he would be targeted for an extreme reprisal.  We hear the noise...but actually putting Trump in jail feels like the impetus to move things from just talk to action.

 

If we start giving corrupt politicians get-out-of-jail-free passes because of the threat of violence, then we've already lost.  It's a lot to expect of Merchan though.

[tkdguy]

We need better protections for our judges, prosecutors, and witnesses. And law enforcement should come down very hard on those offenders. 

Edited June 2 by tkdguy

[MrWolf]

What sound to me like extremists are out in force.

 

Doxx the jury?  How about this is a terrible precedent?

[tkdguy]

10 hours ago, MrWolf said:

What sound to me like extremists are out in force.

 

Doxx the jury?  How about this is a terrible precedent?

 

Perhaps we should flip the script on them and see how they like it.

[Asperion]

I realize what the laws say,  but with the way Trump has been acting combined with his conviction should America introduce a requirement where any felony will disqualify someone from any elected and appointed position? This would include all of congress, president,  Supreme Court. 

[Ranxerox]

1 hour ago, Asperion said:

I realize what the laws say,  but with the way Trump has been acting combined with his conviction should America introduce a requirement where any felony will disqualify someone from any elected and appointed position? This would include all of congress, president,  Supreme Court. 

 

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on views concerning the possibility of the weaponization of the justice department), it would take a constitutional amendment to change the qualifications for president or vice president.  However, IIRC, a law would be sufficient for congress and the court.  Though of course, that law would need to passed by congress and SCOTUS could possibly strike it down by declaring it unconstitutional. 

Edited June 2 by Ranxerox

[Cygnia]

Kansas supreme court rules state constitution does not provide the right to vote

Quote

In a bizarre mixed ruling combining several challenges to a 2021 election law, Kansas’s supreme court has ruled that its residents have no right to vote enshrined in the state’s constitution.

The opinion centering on a ballot signature-verification measure elicited fiery dissent from three of the court’s seven justices. But the majority held that the court failed to identify a “fundamental right to vote” within the state.

The measure in question requires election officials to match the signatures on advance mail ballots to a person’s voter registration record. The state supreme court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit that challenged that. The majority of justices on the state supreme court then rejected arguments from voting rights groups that the measure violates state constitutional voting rights.

In fact, writing for the majority, Justice Caleb Stegall said that the dissenting justices wrongly accused the majority of ignoring past precedent, holding that the “fundamental right to vote” within the state constitution “simply is not there”.

That finding is contrary to the US constitution, which dedicates large portions of itself to the right to vote for citizens.

Justice Eric Rosen, one of the three who dissented, wrote: “It staggers my imagination to conclude Kansas citizens have no fundamental right to vote under their state constitution.

 

[DShomshak]

Relevant to Trump and related discussions, the cover story for the May 18 Economist is, "Is America Dictator-Proof?" I'd post a link, but the Economist paywalls everything now.

 

Summary: No. Over the years, presidents have acquired imperial powers, limited only by norms and possible resistance from other branches of government or the civil service Deep State. Those are not insignificant, but presidential systems have a worse record of falling to dictatorship than do parliamentary systems.

 

My summary: Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. Laws and institutions have only as much force as people want them to. In the bad old days of the South, sherriffs charged to uphold the law routinely oversaw lynchings. If enough people want something, they get it, no matter what the law says. And an awful lot of Americans want a dictator.

 

Also related: The May 25, 2024 "Lexington" column Texas governor ?Gregg Abbott's pardoning Daniel Perry's conviction for the murder of Black Lives Matter protester Garrett Foster. Abbott claimed Perry had merely defended himself under the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine and accused the judge and prosecutor of being politically motivated. He did not (of course) cite gthe abundant witness testimony that Perry sought the confrontation, that Foster carried his own gun legally and never pointed it at Perry... or that Perry's case was made a cause celebre by Tucker Carlson. Conclusion drawn: "Politics is the law in Texas."

Quote

All the more reason the rule of law, and perceptions of justice, should stand apart from politics. Mr Perry was convicted by a jury of his peers, the bedrock unit of the American legal system. The jury weighted all this context, including Mr Perry's claims. That also went unmentioned in Mr Abbott's proclamation. But maybe Texans believe a Travis County jury cannot be fair, just as Donald Trump has insisted a New York jury considering his criminal case cannot be fair to him. Politics, and assumptions about politics, are seeping into every American institution, and so is cynicism about what chance ideals of fairness have against the realities of power.

Dean Shomshak

[Starlord]

So, now that he's a convicted felon...

 

Donald Trump Pretends Like 'Lock Her Up' Was Never One Of His Rallying Cries

[Cygnia]

Texas professors sue to fail students who seek abortions

Quote

A pair of Texas professors figured out that their female students have sex and, boy, they do not like it. So now the philosophy professor and finance professor are suing for the right to punish their students who, outside of class, have abortions.

"Pregnancy is not a disease, and elective abortions are not 'health care,'" University of Texas at Austin professor Daniel Bonevac sneers in a federal court filing with professor John Hatfield. Instead, Bonevac writes, because pregnancy is the result of "voluntary and consensual sexual intercourse," students should not be allowed time off to get abortions. If the students disobey and miss class for abortion care, the filing continues, the professors should be allowed to flunk students. Additionally, Bonevac asserts that he has a right to refuse to employ a teaching assistant who has had an abortion, calling such women "criminals."

 

[Lord Liaden]

So, these attitudes are not a matter of simple lack of education. Even though the bias of the article's author is blatantly obvious, so is that of the "professors" bringing this lawsuit.

 

But a philosophy prof? Makes me wonder what century of philosophy he studied up to.  

 

[Iuz the Evil]

38 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

So, these attitudes are not a matter of simple lack of education. Even though the bias of the article's author is blatantly obvious, so is that of the "professors" bringing this lawsuit.

 

But a philosophy prof? Makes me wonder what century of philosophy he studied up to.  

 

Victorian era utilitarianism?

[unclevlad]

4 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

But a philosophy prof? Makes me wonder what century of philosophy he studied up to.  

 

 

Every answer I come up with would risk The Wrath of Simon.

[Cygnia]

US House Speaker Mike Johnson says the quiet part on Fox

Quote

It was a given, of course, that Trump backers would spring to his defense following his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

Trump’s supporters are trying to dox the jurors, a sheriff is saying that it’s time we put a felon in the White House, and a bunch of MAGAs are flying the American flag upside down (though we have no update from the Alitos on the status of their flagpole). One of Trump’s lawyers and his legal spokesperson have both gone on Fox News and called on the Supreme Court to get their client off the hook. (More on that later.)

But one statement stands out in all this sound and furor: GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson’s call for SCOTUS to “step in.”

The morning after the conviction, Johnson went on Fox & Friends to reassure Trump supporters that he has the ear of the justices.

“I think that the justices on the court — I know many of them personally — I think they’re deeply concerned about [Trump’s conviction], as we are. So I think they’ll set this straight, but it’s going to take awhile.”

Johnson went on to say “this will be overturned, guys, there’s no question about it. It’s just going to take some time to do it.”

 

[Cygnia]

 

[Asperion]

With the way Alito has been acting like a personal dictatorship in our high court,  something needs to be done to control them. While I dislike internal policing, this is a good first step until someone comes up with something better. 

 

If two justices agree that a member needs to step down from a case (just that one case), then there is no argument,  that person MUST step down from that case. He cannot hear anything about it, say any opinions,  give a vote, anything else dealing with stated case. If six justices agree that one needs to step down permanently,  that ends the argument.  That justice MUST be removed from official duties permanently at that time. This would apply to ALL members of the Supreme Court,  even the chief Justice. 

[unclevlad]

4 hours ago, Cygnia said:

US House Speaker Mike Johnson says the quiet part on Fox

 

 

This is why Biden was 10000% right.

We MUST defeat Trump in November.

[DShomshak]

1 hour ago, Asperion said:

If two justices agree that a member needs to step down from a case (just that one case), then there is no argument,  that person MUST step down from that case. He cannot hear anything about it, say any opinions,  give a vote, anything else dealing with stated case. If six justices agree that one needs to step down permanently,  that ends the argument.  That justice MUST be removed from official duties permanently at that time. This would apply to ALL members of the Supreme Court,  even the chief Justice. 

Problem: There are currently 6 conservative justices. If they wanted, they could block the 3 liberal justices from even issuing dissenting opinions on cases. If Trump wins, they can immediately remove the 3 liberals so Trump can replace them.

 

It would be a blatant "flex," but that's what the Republican base seems to want right now -- in-your-face, because-we-can shows of power.

 

We do certainly need changes to the high court, but to give the members even less control of who's on it. The best suggestion I've heard so far is a yearly lottery among appellate judges, so no one knows in advance who will hear cases that year. You'll get some wackadoodles and partisan hacks, of course, but a President and Senate might have a harder time *looking for them.* 

 

Someone check me on this, but I suspect this change wouldn't even require a Constitutional amendment. Article II defines the existence and powers of the judicial branch, but I don't see anything about how justices are appointed, how long they stay on the court, or even how many there should be. (And historically, it hasn't always been 9.)

 

This would not remove all possibility for partisan mischief -- nothing ever can -- but it might make it more difficult.

 

Dean Shomshak