US Politics Thread

[PistolPete13]

7 hours ago, Sabrefan1 said:

As far as I can tell, Trump is in all likelihood still in trouble in Georgia.

 

The federal court cases with Jack Smith are going to litigate the bejesus out of this new "official act" doctrine that the SCOTUS just introduced.

 

What a clusterf*ck. 

My understanding is that “official act” is a very broad term. Lawyers are licking their chops in anticipation. Assuming they’re going to get paid. 

[King Heffy]

3 minutes ago, Cerridwen said:

We were underreacting.  It's going to take generations to undo the damage caused by Trump's nazification of the SCOTUS.

[Sabrefan1]

42 minutes ago, Nbin said:

Would it be the same if Trump did it on American soil to democratic ‘terrorists’? 

 

That would be the job of law enforcement.  They handle domestic lawbreakers.

[King Heffy]

1 minute ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

That would be the job of law enforcement.  They handle domestic lawbreakers.

Will that remain the case if a domestic terrorist gets elected as POTUS this year?

[Sabrefan1]

16 minutes ago, PistolPete13 said:

My understanding is that “official act” is a very broad term. Lawyers are licking their chops in anticipation. Assuming they’re going to get paid. 

 

No doubt.  Like most of what SCOTUS does, it's a guideline for the lower courts to litigate.  The SCOTUS didn't really help Trump in this ruling. 

 

Aileen Canon has helped Trump way more than this ruling will.

[Sabrefan1]

2 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Will that remain the case if a domestic terrorist gets elected as POTUS this year?

 

That will be up to Congress.

 

Technically, Congress could impeach him on day 1 and remove him on day 2 if they choose.  Impeachments are more of a political move these days.

[DrJockitch]

6 hours ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

Nah.  If he loses, MAGA will begin it's decline and eventual death.  There's no way that they stay in love with a 2-time loser.

I think what is scarier is what will come after him and try to claim his followers. 
Ultimately Trump was incompetent and got in his own way. Get a smart ruthless person who can take his mantle and there is trouble. 

[the destroyer of worlds]

I really don't see how anything TRUMP has been indicted for fall under official duties.   Like none at all.

[Sabrefan1]

6 minutes ago, the destroyer of worlds said:

I really don't see how anything TRUMP has been indicted for fall under official duties.   Like none at all.

 

They don't.  Today's ruling did nothing for him except delay things.  He'll find that out soon enough.

[Sapper]

This ruling effectively ends the USA as a democratic republic and is now under an autocrat ruled country 

 

The damage caused by Trump and his take over of the SCOTUS has fundamentally undone the entire fabric of what the USA was.

 

As soon as a president  is exempted under law from being held to account in court .. they can no longer call.themselves a democratic nation. 

[Sabrefan1]

2 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

I think what is scarier is what will come after him and try to claim his followers. 
Ultimately Trump was incompetent and got in his own way. Get a smart ruthless person who can take his mantle and there is trouble. 

 

Trump has always had followers his entire life.  It's not easy to replicate.  Some people just have a weird thing about them that others gravitate towards.

 

Heck, Oprah was even the one who set him on the path to consider running for president decades ago.  You could probably even find a clip of it on YouTube.

Edited Tuesday at 04:41 AM by Sabrefan1
Grammar

[Nbin]

2 hours ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

That would be the job of law enforcement.  They handle domestic lawbreakers.

But the president did it as an official act which is above the laws of the United States. So would it be the same?

Edited Tuesday at 03:42 AM by Nbin

[Sabrefan1]

9 minutes ago, Nbin said:

But the president did it as an official act which is above the laws of the United States. So would it be the same?

 

There was a time in our history where the president (Hoover) turned the police and the then-present troops against war veterans who went to Washington DC to protest against their treatment after they were no longer soldiers.  Make no mistake, the then-current troops would have opened fire on the war veterans by orders of the president, just like the police did, had the veterans not disbanded and left.

 

Today, this past real world scenario would get a president thrown out of office.

 

That was an official act by President Hoover so he was never tried for the killing of the 2 veterans who died.

 

-------------

 

An official act isn't an official act because the president said it's an official act.  If a presidential action is in question, the federal courts would decide what is an official act and what isn't.

 

All today's ruling did was restate what was already very well established precedent in the United States.  The president has wide latitude in his official capacity as president.

 

If a president does something outside of what presidents are historically permitted to do, he/she will face the consequence after they are gone from the office.

 

---------------

 

Right now the left wing is whining because they no longer have the influence and power that they had for decades.  Like a pendulum, the political landscape has shifted from decades of left wing advantage to the right wing.

 

This is why I prefer a split government.  I preferred it when the SCOTUS was working well when it was 4 Republican leaning justices, 4 liberal leaning justices, and 1 swing vote.

 

I hope that some day that term/year limits for the SCOTUS are amended into the constitution. 

[bolt]

https://x.com/0rf/status/1807620571934478683

 

Edited Tuesday at 04:16 AM by bolt

[the destroyer of worlds]

28 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

There was a time in our history where the president (Hoover) turned the police and the then-present troops against war veterans who went to Washington DC to protest against their treatment after they were no longer soldiers.  Make no mistake, the then-current troops would have opened fire on the war veterans by orders of the president, just like the police did, had the veterans not disbanded and left.

 

Today, this past real world scenario would get a president thrown out of office.

 

That was an official act by President Hoover so he was never tried for the killing of the 2 veterans who died.

 

-------------

 

An official act isn't an official act because the president said it's an official act.  If a presidential action is in question, the federal courts would decide what is an official act and what isn't.

 

All today's ruling did was restate what was already very well established precedent in the United States.  The president has wide latitude in his official capacity as president.

 

If a president does something outside of what presidents are historically permitted to do, he/she will face the consequence after they are gone from the office.

 

---------------

 

Right now the left wing is whining because they no longer have the influence and power that they had for decades.  Like a pendulum, the political landscape has shifted from decades of left wing advantage to the right wing.

 

This is why I prefer a split government.  I preferred it when the SCOTUS was working well when it was 4 Republican leaning justices, 4 liberal leaning justices, and 1 swing vote.

 

I hope that some day that term/year limits for the SCOTUS are amended into the constitution. 

And some big heavyweights of WW2 participated in various capacities in that attack on the veterans.   Patton, MacArthur, Eisenhower.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

On 6/28/2024 at 9:27 AM, Sabrefan1 said:

 

The Chevron Doctrine case is much more impactful than the Jan 6 ruling.  That's a huge shift in national power that will affect the economy and especially the environment.

 

On 6/28/2024 at 9:28 AM, 24K said:

Oh right forgot about that one.

We are so f*cked.

 

Just catching up on some OT banter, and an e-mail from an electronic mailing list came in that discussed concerns in my field about SCOTUS ending the Chevron Deference.

 

Not sure if it's what you're referring to @Sabrefan1 but the fact that Agencies will no longer have final say on interpreting the law (which is kind of their role, no?), it'll instead be the courts' prerogative how regulations and administrative actions will be interpreted - despite the fact that the judges who will be making these interpretation rulings will not always be experts in the field(s) impacted and being ruled upon.

 

Hullo, unintended consequences.  Totally not looking forward to having to deal with that as the rule (instead of the exception). 

 

And so much for separation of powers - good thing I'll be dead and long cremated before the United Christian States of America is officially installed (or maybe I won't, if they pick up the pace - fuck, that'd really suck to be alive to see it come into existence).

[UnkNuk]

3 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

I think what is scarier is what will come after him and try to claim his followers. 
Ultimately Trump was incompetent and got in his own way. Get a smart ruthless person who can take his mantle and there is trouble. 

 

Touching on this, conservative commentator David Brooks did a recent interview with Steve Bannon for the NY Times.  It's a bit long but it's interesting reading.

 

An excerpt:

 

The historical left is in full meltdown. They always focus on noise, never on signal. They don’t understand that the MAGA movement, as it gets momentum and builds, is moving much farther to the right than President Trump. They will look back fondly at Donald Trump. They’ll ask: Where’s Trump when we need him?

 

The link to what should be the unlocked article is:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/opinion/steve-bannon-trump.html?unlocked_article_code=1.4E0.eKBl.xqL004XQ_hLh&smid=url-share

 

My Unsettling Interview With Steve Bannon

[24K]

1 hour ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

There was a time in our history where the president (Hoover) turned the police and the then-present troops against war veterans who went to Washington DC to protest against their treatment after they were no longer soldiers.  Make no mistake, the then-current troops would have opened fire on the war veterans by orders of the president, just like the police did, had the veterans not disbanded and left.

 

Today, this past real world scenario would get a president thrown out of office.

 

That was an official act by President Hoover so he was never tried for the killing of the 2 veterans who died.

 

-------------

 

An official act isn't an official act because the president said it's an official act.  If a presidential action is in question, the federal courts would decide what is an official act and what isn't.

 

All today's ruling did was restate what was already very well established precedent in the United States.  The president has wide latitude in his official capacity as president.

 

If a president does something outside of what presidents are historically permitted to do, he/she will face the consequence after they are gone from the office.

 

---------------

 

Right now the left wing is whining because they no longer have the influence and power that they had for decades.  Like a pendulum, the political landscape has shifted from decades of left wing advantage to the right wing.

 

This is why I prefer a split government.  I preferred it when the SCOTUS was working well when it was 4 Republican leaning justices, 4 liberal leaning justices, and 1 swing vote.

 

I hope that some day that term/year limits for the SCOTUS are amended into the constitution. 

Scotus pretty much spelled out the quiet part out loud. 

 

The decisions pretty much just reinforce that presidents is essentially immune from war crimes.

 

Nothing new, otherwise Obama would be rotting in the Hague right now. 

 

[andrea84]

2 hours ago, Sabrefan1 said:

 

There was a time in our history where the president (Hoover) turned the police and the then-present troops against war veterans who went to Washington DC to protest against their treatment after they were no longer soldiers.  Make no mistake, the then-current troops would have opened fire on the war veterans by orders of the president, just like the police did, had the veterans not disbanded and left.

 

Today, this past real world scenario would get a president thrown out of office.

 

That was an official act by President Hoover so he was never tried for the killing of the 2 veterans who died.

 

-------------

 

An official act isn't an official act because the president said it's an official act.  If a presidential action is in question, the federal courts would decide what is an official act and what isn't.

 

All today's ruling did was restate what was already very well established precedent in the United States.  The president has wide latitude in his official capacity as president.

 

If a president does something outside of what presidents are historically permitted to do, he/she will face the consequence after they are gone from the office.

 

---------------

 

Right now the left wing is whining because they no longer have the influence and power that they had for decades.  Like a pendulum, the political landscape has shifted from decades of left wing advantage to the right wing.

 

This is why I prefer a split government.  I preferred it when the SCOTUS was working well when it was 4 Republican leaning justices, 4 liberal leaning justices, and 1 swing vote.

 

I hope that some day that term/year limits for the SCOTUS are amended into the constitution. 

"Today, this past real world scenario would get a president thrown out of office."

The Senate Republicans would not convict one of their own as they have already demonstrated twice, so this is a totally incorrect statement. The impeachment process is no longer a functioning device to remove a president for any crimes they commit in office. Thus, in Hoover's scenario in present day, he (Trump) could absolutely get away with encouraging either the actual army or his private militia of brown shirts that would happily do his bidding to harass, remove, or even kill his opponent(s) while he hides behind plausible deniability. Except in this case, remove 'war veterans' with political opponents or democratic protestors, and you will have a freefall slide into authoritarianism where violence against the most vulnerable people in America will become normalized. And you are right, the power of the president to do stuff like this has always technically been there, but the impeachment safeguards are no longer reliable to hold the President accountable when they cross a line, and once those safeguards are off, then the red carpet to dictatorship becomes real. We also used to be able to rely on presidents having at least some internal moral compass and allegiance to democracy and the American experiment, but we no longer have that luxury. When you can remove opposition without physical consequences or moral misgivings, bad things happen. It's not as black and white as you make it.

Edited Tuesday at 06:39 AM by andrea84

[24K]

With recent scotus decisions and the fact Trump can lock in 3 justices in their 40s in his 2nd term locking scotus to generations, Biden need to and should step aside immediately

 

There is way too much at stake to take the what looking like a losing gamble at this point. 

 

You can say whatever you want about Trump but Americans clearly care more about punishing Biden for high cost of everything despite everything else and symptoms of his old age than anything else Trump would and had done and said. His own party somehow believs in punishing Biden over gaza even if it means Trump wins.

 

Biden is beyond repair and should step aside. His ego may be what doom democracy in US at this point. 

 

[Sabrefan1]

2 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

 

Just catching up on some OT banter, and an e-mail from an electronic mailing list came in that discussed concerns in my field about SCOTUS ending the Chevron Deference.

 

Not sure if it's what you're referring to @Sabrefan1 but the fact that Agencies will no longer have final say on interpreting the law (which is kind of their role, no?), it'll instead be the courts' prerogative how regulations and administrative actions will be interpreted - despite the fact that the judges who will be making these interpretation rulings will not always be experts in the field(s) impacted and being ruled upon.

Hullo, unintended consequences.  Totally not looking forward to having to deal with that as the rule (instead of the exception). 

 

The problem with the agencies was that they were not only making rules with the force of law, but the courts in a way were subservient to those agencies and were told to defer to them because they were "experts".  Over the decades, these agencies abused that power often for political reasons or to get their way. 

 

The so called "expertise" of the agencies would do 180's when a new party/administration would be elected into the White House.  Whereas with federal courts, judges are appointed for life so most don't feel the need to kowtow to a political party like the agencies.  Aileen Cannon notwithstanding of course.

 

Now if Trump gets into office in January, he can't replace the people in the EPA and have them make rules that can crap all over the environment immediately.  If contested by outside interests, it will have to go through a court first and be argued by lawyers and witnesses who are actually experts in their field.

 

Quote

And so much for separation of powers - good thing I'll be dead and long cremated before the United Christian States of America is officially installed (or maybe I won't, if they pick up the pace - fuck, that'd really suck to be alive to see it come into existence).

 

The pendulum will eventually swing back towards the left.  It always goes back and forth.  The left just enjoyed a very long swing their way and that's beginning to change.

 

The Republicans will eventually piss off the voter base enough that they will hang themselves.  It's going to start when they screw with Social Security which they plan on doing as soon as they have both houses of Congress and the White House.

 

It won't be long.  The only thing that the Republicans will have long term is the SCOTUS.  And if the left will stop over-reacting because they didn't get their every wish, they'll see that the SCOTUS isn't as conservative as people figured it would be.  They've been pretty good to the LGBTQIA+ community and conservatives are less than thrilled about that.  SCOTUS is more of an originalist smaller government interference court now.  Congress will have to pick up the slack that the rulings will cause such as the Chevron ruling's potential effect on OSHA.  Congress and the states are going to have to start codifying a whole bunch of new regulations instead of just letting OSHA shoot from the hip.

[Sabrefan1]

2 hours ago, 24K said:

Scotus pretty much spelled out the quiet part out loud. 

 

The decisions pretty much just reinforce that presidents is essentially immune from war crimes.

 

Nothing new, otherwise Obama would be rotting in the Hague right now. 

 

 

Technically, almost every president who has ever been in charge of a war could be held liable for war crimes.  The idea of trying to regulate men slaughtering other men because older men told them to is foolhardy and is an idea filled with hubris by those in power.

 

You'll never see a leader from a world power be held liable for any charge of war crimes.  That's only a tool to use against the weaker countries.

[Sabrefan1]

1 hour ago, andrea84 said:

"Today, this past real world scenario would get a president thrown out of office."

The Senate Republicans would not convict one of their own as they have already demonstrated twice, so this is a totally incorrect statement. The impeachment process is no longer a functioning device to remove a president for any crimes they commit in office. Thus, in Hoover's scenario in present day, he (Trump) could absolutely get away with encouraging either the actual army or his private militia of brown shirts that would happily do his bidding to harass, remove, or even kill his opponent(s) while he hides behind plausible deniability. Except in this case, remove 'war veterans' with political opponents or democratic protestors, and you will have a freefall slide into authoritarianism where violence against the most vulnerable people in America will become normalized. And you are right, the power of the president to do stuff like this has always technically been there, but the impeachment safeguards are no longer reliable to hold the President accountable when they cross a line, and once those safeguards are off, then the red carpet to dictatorship becomes real. We also used to be able to rely on presidents having at least some internal moral compass and allegiance to democracy and the American experiment, but we no longer have that luxury. When you can remove opposition without physical consequences or moral misgivings, bad things happen. It's not as black and white as you make it.

 

 

You need to take a break from social media. 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

I hope Jimmy Kimmel pays his writers well:

 

 

[The Arrogant Worms]