Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[unclevlad]

Wow.

 

I don't recall any President, at any time, *ripping* a Supreme Court decision, and BLASTING the Court itself.

 

I suspect this is going to be the core thrust of national Democratic electoral messaging.  And this could be the moment...if one was needed...where the Democrats circle the wagons finally, because this decision reframed the risk, should Trump return to office.

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

Yeah but there's no chance he'll use them.

 

American right-wingers believe exactly the opposite. That's what their politicians and pundits have been telling them for years. That's what would make it an effective argument.

[Lord Liaden]

 

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

 

What surprises me most about this ruling is that it happened so far from the election.  I expected the SCOTUS to punt the case back down to the lower courts or otherwise delay it so as not to coronate Biden.  Instead they made Biden king.  Which is a hell of a gift, except that we all know Biden is an institutionalist and will not do what needs to be done at this point.

 

I've lost count of all the times President Biden has done what everyone knew he wouldn't do.

Edited Tuesday at 02:03 AM by Lord Liaden

[Lord Liaden]

I wonder if the members of the Supreme Court have yet realized that they've thrown away their power and security? If Donald Trump returns to office they'll have no leverage over him, and he won't need them. Any of them don't kiss his boot, they're gone. And if they expect gratitude from him, they haven't been paying attention the past eight years.

Edited Tuesday at 02:14 AM by Lord Liaden

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, Cygnia said:

You just KNOW SCOTUS would find some way to twist it to ban democrats from taking any advantage of this ruling though....

 

Hard to do that from a cage in Guantanamo.

 

Yes that's what needs to happen.

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

 

I don't recall any President, at any time, *ripping* a Supreme Court decision, and BLASTING the Court itself.

 

Obama did that after Citizens United, but then did nothing.  Biden had a front row seat for that, hopefully he has taken the lesson to heart.

[unclevlad]

12 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Obama did that after Citizens United, but then did nothing.  Biden had a front row seat for that, hopefully he has taken the lesson to heart.

 

There might be something else, but this was a press conference and the Citizens United decision was the lead-in question.  I CANNOT recommend this flashback more highly.  WATCH!  It *totally* captures the current situation.

 

 

But Obama's criticizing it, sure...but rather mildly, perhaps in part because the Citizens United decision wasn't a fundamental question about power.  Biden attacked the Court because this decision goes so fundamentally against the root principles of the American Revolution...and didn't stop with this decision.  Biden all but called the Court a dictator's rubber stamp.

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

 

Hard to do that from a cage in Guantanamo.

 

Yes that's what needs to happen.

 

 

You let a POTUS unilaterally choose to send their political opponents to prison -- even with the best of intentions -- you set the precedent for their successor to do that with less than best intentions. I have never in my lifetime seen an example, anywhere in the world, of a government taking that kind of power to itself, then voluntarily giving it up.

[Old Man]

3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

You let a POTUS unilaterally choose to send their political opponents to prison -- even with the best of intentions -- you set the precedent for their successor to do that with less than best intentions. I have never in my lifetime seen an example, anywhere in the world, of a government taking that kind of power to itself, then voluntarily giving it up.

 

 

Well, the government just took that power to itself.  Now what?

[MrWolf]

Because I can't avoid snark and it's how I handle things:

 

"I must have absolute immunity from prosecution".

 

"We don't prosecute sitting Presidents".

 

"Not good enough!"

 

Me - absolute immunity isn't a thing.  Please stop asking.

 

John Roberts' SCOTUS - "IT IS NOW!"

 

"So all my charges and that conviction are dropped, right?  RIGHT???"

 

Me - horrified by this decision.

[Hermit]

On the other side of the world, France's election appears to be ... uhm... a bit alarming to this clueless American?

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, Hermit said:

On the other side of the world, France's election appears to be ... uhm... a bit alarming to this clueless American?

 

Yes, nationalism is on the rise around the world right now. The pendulum will swing back eventually, but much harm can be done before then.

 

"Elections belong to the people. It's their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters." -- Abraham Lincoln

[Old Man]

2 hours ago, Hermit said:

On the other side of the world, France's election appears to be ... uhm... a bit alarming to this clueless American?

 

If it helps, I read somewhere that right wing sentiment is on the rise worldwide, and 2024 was supposed to have a record number of countries holding high level elections.  Fortunately, I'm too enthralled and horrified by what's happening in Ur Murrika to be able to pay much attention to events overseas.

[DShomshak]

Yesterday's ep of "Today Explained" went into the SCOTUS decision in greater depth. It seems to me the danger is less what the 6 said than what they didn't say but should have.

 

Okay, they split all presidential acts into 3 categories:

 

*Core constitutional acts: Absolute immunity. 

*Official acts that aren't specified in the Constitution, but are necessary to act as President: Presumed immunity, unless proved otherwise. Which is a very high bar.

*Unofficial acts: No immunity.

 

Except there's no guidance on determining which is which! The only example Roberts gives of "official acts" is the Prez communicating with his Attorney General. That's something the President has to do to function as President.

 

It's also easy to imagine simple examples for the other two categories. The President is Commander in Chaief, so probably should enjoy immunity over most military matters, especially in time of war. Or, if the Prez drives drunk at 90 mph and gets pulled over, he shouldn't get away with slurring, "Do you know who I am?"

 

But the Court's job is to consider edge cases and make rules to cover them. Instead, they punted by saying, no, let lower courts work it out.

 

The 6 also reject Jack Smith's claim for a need of speedy decision. They don't think enough has been factually established about Trump's actions, so again, let the lower courts sort it out and they'll take it up again on appeal a few years from now. The very fact of an approaching election means they don't want to touch it because heavens forfend they should be suspected of interfering in an election by ruling whether criminal charges can go forward! And the case against Trump isn't really that important, is it?Surely, the Republic will survive having a Prez who talks openly of rejecting the Constitution?

 

As for the dissenters' dire warnings of what the ruling leaves possible, Roberts refutes them by saying, more or less, "Oh pshaw, don't be so alarmist. Nobody would do that. And if a Prez did, it's obviously beyond the pale, just use your common sense."

 

Which shows Roberts is ignoring not only the SCOTUS' job to consider extreme cases, but the entire thrust of law from the Code of Hammurabi forward. If common sense and goodwill were enough, we wouldn't need legal codes, with laws spelled out in mind-numbing detail what is and isn't allowed. IMO this seems disingenuous.

 

I grant, I've been a bit more acid than the Today Explained people in my summary, and added a few of my own comments. I hope the distinctions are clear from context. If anyone wants to hear the original program, here's a link:

 

Today, Explained (pod.link)

 

Dean Shomshak

[unclevlad]

9 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

But the Court's job is to consider edge cases and make rules to cover them. Instead, they punted by saying, no, let lower courts work it out.

 

These justices are better punters than Ray Guy.

[Old Man]

48 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

Yesterday's ep of "Today Explained" went into the SCOTUS decision in greater depth. It seems to me the danger is less what the 6 said than what they didn't say but should have.

 

Okay, they split all presidential acts into 3 categories:

 

*Core constitutional acts: Absolute immunity. 

*Official acts that aren't specified in the Constitution, but are necessary to act as President: Presumed immunity, unless proved otherwise. Which is a very high bar.

*Unofficial acts: No immunity.

 

Except there's no guidance on determining which is which! The only example Roberts gives of "official acts" is the Prez communicating with his Attorney General. That's something the President has to do to function as President.

 

It's also easy to imagine simple examples for the other two categories. The President is Commander in Chaief, so probably should enjoy immunity over most military matters, especially in time of war. Or, if the Prez drives drunk at 90 mph and gets pulled over, he shouldn't get away with slurring, "Do you know who I am?"

 

But the Court's job is to consider edge cases and make rules to cover them. Instead, they punted by saying, no, let lower courts work it out.

 

The 6 also reject Jack Smith's claim for a need of speedy decision. They don't think enough has been factually established about Trump's actions, so again, let the lower courts sort it out and they'll take it up again on appeal a few years from now. The very fact of an approaching election means they don't want to touch it because heavens forfend they should be suspected of interfering in an election by ruling whether criminal charges can go forward! And the case against Trump isn't really that important, is it?Surely, the Republic will survive having a Prez who talks openly of rejecting the Constitution?

 

As for the dissenters' dire warnings of what the ruling leaves possible, Roberts refutes them by saying, more or less, "Oh pshaw, don't be so alarmist. Nobody would do that. And if a Prez did, it's obviously beyond the pale, just use your common sense."

 

Which shows Roberts is ignoring not only the SCOTUS' job to consider extreme cases, but the entire thrust of law from the Code of Hammurabi forward. If common sense and goodwill were enough, we wouldn't need legal codes, with laws spelled out in mind-numbing detail what is and isn't allowed. IMO this seems disingenuous.

 

I grant, I've been a bit more acid than the Today Explained people in my summary, and added a few of my own comments. I hope the distinctions are clear from context. If anyone wants to hear the original program, here's a link:

 

Today, Explained (pod.link)

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

The entire ruling is intentionally vague so that it can be variably applied to King Biden and King Trump.  As a matter of law it's absurd--nowhere in the Constitution or the U.S. Code is the president given immunity for anything, whereas the opposite is quite strongly hinted at throughout.  Instead the six corrupt justices invented the entire concept wholesale. 

 

 

[DShomshak]

Well, yes. Various legal experts have noted the six invent new legal theories quite a lot, to justifywhatever results seem politically useful, whether it's giving Trump the delay he wants, dismantling the regulatory state, or opening the way for Catholic dogma to become the law of the land.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Lord Liaden]

The rot in American politics, and society, has been putting down deep roots for a long time. Maybe the only way to cut it out is to force this magnitude of confrontation.

[Old Man]

22 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

The rot in American politics, and society, has been putting down deep roots for a long time. Maybe the only way to cut it out is to force this magnitude of confrontation.

 

 

That's where we're at, but so far the Democrats are still playing by the rules while the Republicans knock over all the pieces and poop on the board.  It wasn't technically legal to take up arms against the Confederacy, but it was sure as hell necessary.  I'm sorry everyone, but this situation is either going to get really ugly in the short term, or really ugly forever.  And by ugly, I mean dead Americans ugly.  I do not see a way to avoid it now.

[Old Man]

So the testimony and evidence from the Epstein trial were unsealed today.  Guess who appears in the trial record?

 

Spoiled for NSFW underage SA:

 

Spoiler

 

Not that it matters given that democracy ended yesterday.

[MrWolf]

Very interesting.  Very, very interesting.

 

Also this is my total lack of surprise.

[BoloOfEarth]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

So the testimony and evidence from the Epstein trial were unsealed today.  Guess who appears in the trial record?

 

Spoiled for NSFW underage SA:

 

  Hide contents

 

Not that it matters given that democracy ended yesterday.

 

Obviously, this was done as a part of his presidential duties, and thus he is immune.  </sarcasm>

[Sociotard]

I really feel like the court should have included "anything you get impeached and convicted for" on the list of things you can prosecute a president for. Impeachment just gets a person out of office. If it could always be followed by jail, that would take care of most of the extreme fears. 

 

What if they sent special forces to kill opponents? Impeachment, then criminal prosecution 

[Lord Liaden]

Impeachment in the US has become a slave to politics.

[tkdguy]

Robert Reich shares a few thoughts.

 

Some folks have raised the question about the Electoral College. Is it possible for Biden to dissolve it given the SCOTUS decision about Presidential immunity on official acts? The popular vote has favored the Democrats for a while now.

Edited yesterday at 06:00 AM by tkdguy

[Lawnmower Boy]

The US Supreme Court is, when we pull away the veil of enchantment, an indirectly elected legislative house lacking various handrails  in the Founders' infinite wisdom. Its members, with some  exceptions, would prefer to lounge back and let their clerks write technocratic decisions to technocratic problems, but their job is to support their party's governing agenda. 

 

From this it follows that there is no way that a Democratic President will be able to use the powers this decision ostensibly grants him, and they will be yanked away from a Republican President when and if enough members of the government majority can be persuaded to defect. 

 

The real issue is why it is not treated like the House of Lords and the Canadian Senate, and ruthlessly packed whenever it obstructs a governing majority in the White House and Congress.