|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 31 2016 05:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:51 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:48 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:17 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
gonna need someone to put up a source now
important to note xdaunt is separating court costs from attorney fees here, when attorney fees can be a big part of the "costs" Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed. So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money. And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims. So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist? You're not listening to what I'm saying (or what Trump is saying, for that matter). It all depends upon the quality of the claim that Trump brings. His strategy only works if the claim is sufficiently viable. If he brings suit against someone who says something that is demonstrably false and injurious, then that is a sufficiently viable claim, even if Trump is going to lose on it in the end because he can't prove actual malice. Do yes he can bankrupt journalists if they something naughty about him regardless of merit. Thank you for the answer. We got there eventually. So you're in favor of journalists publishing defamatory things about candidates? Or do you just not like the fact that Trump has a separate means to punish journalists who do so? This is where I'm getting a little hung up. It's not like the defendants have clean hands here. I'm against being able to litigate someone into submission without actually having to win a case regardless of who is on which side. On August 31 2016 04:48 Nevuk wrote:
I think people tend to dislike the separate means part. If it were accessible to every politician it would be a different argument entirely, but this is only available to a rather rich individual. Again, the reason why Trump can't win the case is because the Supreme Court has made it nearly impossible for him to do so. So do you agree with Trump's point that it should be easier for public figures to prevail on their defamation claims so as to even the playing field between rich and poor plaintiffs? Objection your honor, Strawman. My statement was very simple. try reading it.
I did read it, which is why I'm asking you a question to get further clarification (as opposed to making a statement). Context matters.
|
On August 31 2016 05:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 05:01 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:51 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:48 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:38 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:30 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 04:27 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Court cost vs Attorney fees indeed.
So what xDaunt says is that yes, you can bankrupt someone through bogus 0 proof court cases because he still has to get an attorney every time and that is not payed by the losing party. No, filing "bogus 0 proof court cases" will result in the defendant being awarded his attorney fees and costs. Plus, the defendant may have a counterclaim for malicious prosecution, which could get him even more money. And yet we have Trump saying that he can financially ruin people with such claims. So he is yet again lying through his teeth while attempting to strong arm a journalist? You're not listening to what I'm saying (or what Trump is saying, for that matter). It all depends upon the quality of the claim that Trump brings. His strategy only works if the claim is sufficiently viable. If he brings suit against someone who says something that is demonstrably false and injurious, then that is a sufficiently viable claim, even if Trump is going to lose on it in the end because he can't prove actual malice. Do yes he can bankrupt journalists if they something naughty about him regardless of merit. Thank you for the answer. We got there eventually. So you're in favor of journalists publishing defamatory things about candidates? Or do you just not like the fact that Trump has a separate means to punish journalists who do so? This is where I'm getting a little hung up. It's not like the defendants have clean hands here. I'm against being able to litigate someone into submission without actually having to win a case regardless of who is on which side. On August 31 2016 04:48 Nevuk wrote:
I think people tend to dislike the separate means part. If it were accessible to every politician it would be a different argument entirely, but this is only available to a rather rich individual. Again, the reason why Trump can't win the case is because the Supreme Court has made it nearly impossible for him to do so. So do you agree with Trump's point that it should be easier for public figures to prevail on their defamation claims so as to even the playing field between rich and poor plaintiffs? Objection your honor, Strawman. My statement was very simple. try reading it. I did read it, which is why I'm asking you a question to get further clarification (as opposed to making a statement). Context matters.
I have no opinion on it at this time. Tho i'm probably fine with the current situation. It however has 0 impact on how I feel about being able to litigate someone into submission without ever winning a case against them.
|
Trump: "Judges never let these cases get litigated and go to court but I'm glad I cost him a lot of time and money and my express purpose was to cost him time and money".
xDaunt: "If Trump's case doesn't get to court that means it had no validity and the other side will recoup. But ignore the fact that I'm talking about recouping costs rather than attorney's fees, even though the latter are much more expensive and are what Trump is trying to drive up. Also ignore the fact that Trump himself was glad to have cost his opponent a lot of money even though the cast didn't get to court (i.e. discovery). Also ignore the fact that I admit it's pretty much impossible for public figures to prevail on these cases".
This was not a stellar display of intellectual honesty by xDaunt. But generally, when someone is trying to defend Trump's first-resort lawsuit strategy (including against pageant queens who say bad things), they're not gonna be winning any logic awards.
|
On August 31 2016 05:09 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump: "Judges never let these cases get litigated and go to court but I'm glad I cost him a lot of time and money and my express purpose was to cost him time and money".
xDaunt: "If Trump's case doesn't get to court that means it had no validity and the other side will recoup. But ignore the fact that I'm talking about recouping costs rather than attorney's fees, even though the latter are much more expensive and are what Trump is trying to drive up. Also ignore the fact that Trump himself was glad to have cost his opponent a lot of money even though the cast didn't get to court (i.e. discovery). Also ignore the fact that I admit it's pretty much impossible for public figures to prevail on these cases".
This was not a stellar display of intellectual honesty by xDaunt. But generally, when someone is trying to defend Trump's first-resort lawsuit strategy (including against pageant queens who say bad things), they're not gonna be winning any logic awards.
Yes, please keep talking about "intellectual honesty" when you can't even summarize or recite what I've said accurately. But hey, the effort to get it right would probably result in you tearing something. Make sure you stretch before trying.
|
On August 31 2016 05:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 05:09 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump: "Judges never let these cases get litigated and go to court but I'm glad I cost him a lot of time and money and my express purpose was to cost him time and money".
xDaunt: "If Trump's case doesn't get to court that means it had no validity and the other side will recoup. But ignore the fact that I'm talking about recouping costs rather than attorney's fees, even though the latter are much more expensive and are what Trump is trying to drive up. Also ignore the fact that Trump himself was glad to have cost his opponent a lot of money even though the cast didn't get to court (i.e. discovery). Also ignore the fact that I admit it's pretty much impossible for public figures to prevail on these cases".
This was not a stellar display of intellectual honesty by xDaunt. But generally, when someone is trying to defend Trump's first-resort lawsuit strategy (including against pageant queens who say bad things), they're not gonna be winning any logic awards. Yes, please keep talking about "intellectual honesty" when you can't even summarize or recite what I've said accurately. But hey, the effort to get it right would probably result in you tearing something. Make sure you stretch before trying.
It's a very simple recitation and it's what you said, as you know. Not rocket science. Realize that other posters too can read what you said and realize that is in fact what you said.
|
Judging by Xdaunts unwavering defense of Trump in the last three weeks, I am pretty sure he would defend Trump threatening to kick a baby. Not kick a baby out of a rally. Like punt a baby football style.
|
So you're in favor of journalists publishing defamatory things about candidates? Or do you just not like the fact that Trump has a separate means to punish journalists who do so? This is where I'm getting a little hung up. It's not like the defendants have clean hands here.
Again, the reason why Trump can't win the case is because the Supreme Court has made it nearly impossible for him to do so. So do you agree with Trump's point that it should be easier for public figures to prevail on their defamation claims so as to even the playing field between rich and poor plaintiffs?
this is what xdaunt said
pretty sure you actually misrepresented him
|
United States42685 Posts
I see two separate conversations here.
Firstly, can Trump deliberately bankrupt people who say mean things about him with legal costs, despite not having a winnable case.
xDaunt says no. Trump says yes.
Secondly, does Trump's case have merits, even if he can't win it. xDaunt says yes. Supreme Court says no, that's why he can't win it.
|
On August 31 2016 04:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:32 KwarK wrote:On August 31 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:04 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. Which was the 2012 election... Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today. it applies to ALL vacancies that occur during his tenure in office, as you well know. don't troll with unsound counters. It's all informal now, don't cherry pick your extreme literal readings. The senate today was not the senate the confirmed his prior appointments. Senates during Obama did not go 100-0 in confirmations, in fact Kagan's barely cleared consent for the filibuster phase. Now the American people have voted in more Republicans in 2014 to take back the Senate. The Supreme Court for some time now has functioned as a lawmaking organization, and the appointments for life make no sense if this is still a government of the People. However, constitutional forms have not been amended and they are appointed for life. The 2016 election ought to have that responsibility at this moment. It was Biden and the Democrats back in the day that suggested it. I had hoped you'd believe more in bipartisanship, zlefin! Partizanship would be rejoicing that Hillary gets to pick, surely? I'm not worried that my side is going to lose, quite the opposite, they're probably going to get a more liberal judge than they could have gotten with the election looming over our heads. I just don't think the founders intended an even numbered court for a year because people read the that it's the President's job to nominate and think that somehow means whoever the next President is. Hell, I'm not entirely convinced this would even be happening had Hillary won in 08 and 12, Obama seems to generate a special effort to refuse to follow the normal forms from the opposition. This is obstructionism, plain and simple. They have the right to refuse to accept a nominee but they're not even holding hearings. There is no constitutional grounds for it. What the founders intended is not a Supreme Court that acts in this way, and until constitutional amendment, Congress should act with this knowledge in mind. This is Democrats wanting it both ways, plain and simple. When they're in power, they'll use every rule in the book to get their way. When they're out of power, they'll claim Republicans have no right to do the same. It's been repeated ad infinitum. Surely the Democrats will respect philibuster, nah. Bills for raising revenue should originate in the house? Haha, you must be joking we have ways around that! Harry Reid refuses to bring a bill or amendment to the floor? ...forget about it ever happening. The President shall nominate by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate? OH MY GOD it means an up or down vote on this timeframe because the president is a Democrat and his sought justice is a liberal. Did Biden first want it to be done for this reason? Ignore it, remember we set precedents and we expect Republicans-only to abide by them. The same partisan stand on principal when it suits you and hope the GOP just dances to your tune.
that democrats abuse the rules means the Dems should not do so in those cases; it does not justify the republicans doing so.
You're the one bringing horrible bias into this and not looking at the actual constitution. It's just your trolling biased nonsense to refuse to accept that some of us are against it because it's wrong, and that some of us are against it when the dems do it as well.
You're more partisan than those you rail against.
|
On August 31 2016 05:24 Plansix wrote:
Judging by Xdaunts unwavering defense of Trump in the last three weeks, I am pretty sure he would defend Trump threatening to kick a baby. Not kick a baby out of a rally. Like punt a baby football style.
pretty sure xdaunt has called out trump's failures on several issues repeatedly. unless i'm thinking of someone else.
|
On August 31 2016 05:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 05:09 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump: "Judges never let these cases get litigated and go to court but I'm glad I cost him a lot of time and money and my express purpose was to cost him time and money".
xDaunt: "If Trump's case doesn't get to court that means it had no validity and the other side will recoup. But ignore the fact that I'm talking about recouping costs rather than attorney's fees, even though the latter are much more expensive and are what Trump is trying to drive up. Also ignore the fact that Trump himself was glad to have cost his opponent a lot of money even though the cast didn't get to court (i.e. discovery). Also ignore the fact that I admit it's pretty much impossible for public figures to prevail on these cases".
This was not a stellar display of intellectual honesty by xDaunt. But generally, when someone is trying to defend Trump's first-resort lawsuit strategy (including against pageant queens who say bad things), they're not gonna be winning any logic awards. Yes, please keep talking about "intellectual honesty" when you can't even summarize or recite what I've said accurately. But hey, the effort to get it right would probably result in you tearing something. Make sure you stretch before trying.
With fear that you call me stupid too, that did sound a whole lot like what you said in a span of a few posts.
Care to explain what do you think is the inaccuracy that runs contrary to the meaning of your posts?
|
The notion that everyone in the same or a similar "game" as Trump need be a litigious asshole is not true; otherwise the courts would be hopelessly mired with endless caseloads like those brought on by folks like Trump.
Also, mentioning the high standard imposed on Slander/Defamation/Libel claims via New York Times v. Sullivan without also noting that the bar for establishing frivolous claims, which would be necessary to override most jurisdictions' separate assessment of costs barring victory by a party, is also very difficult to meet is misleading.
|
On August 31 2016 05:26 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +So you're in favor of journalists publishing defamatory things about candidates? Or do you just not like the fact that Trump has a separate means to punish journalists who do so? This is where I'm getting a little hung up. It's not like the defendants have clean hands here.
Again, the reason why Trump can't win the case is because the Supreme Court has made it nearly impossible for him to do so. So do you agree with Trump's point that it should be easier for public figures to prevail on their defamation claims so as to even the playing field between rich and poor plaintiffs? this is what xdaunt said pretty sure you actually misrepresented him
This entire argument assumes we agree with Trumps claims of "defamation". He threatened the Washington Post in that story, directly, even though they had not printed anything about him yet. What counts as defamation for Trump and what qualifies for defamation under the law are two separate things. But he doesn't care about the merit of the case or if it will win, he just wants to cost them more than they can afford.
To put it another way, it is unlikely Hulk will prevail on appeal in his case against Gawker. Gawker is still gone. In that case, the merit of the argument didn't matter. All that matter is who had more money, and the Hulk was bankrolled by a billionaire. The attorney who worked for Hulk is now working Trump's wife. The attorney recently sent out letters threatening to file claims against them because they reported a claim that his wife might have been an escort before marrying him.
|
On August 31 2016 05:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 05:00 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:43 KwarK wrote:On August 31 2016 04:42 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:29 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:04 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead.
I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. Which was the 2012 election... Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today. it applies to ALL vacancies that occur during his tenure in office, as you well know. don't troll with unsound counters. It's all informal now, don't cherry pick your extreme literal readings. The senate today was not the senate the confirmed his prior appointments. Senates during Obama did not go 100-0 in confirmations, in fact Kagan's barely cleared consent for the filibuster phase. Now the American people have voted in more Republicans in 2014 to take back the Senate. The Supreme Court for some time now has functioned as a lawmaking organization, and the appointments for life make no sense if this is still a government of the People. However, constitutional forms have not been amended and they are appointed for life. The 2016 election ought to have that responsibility at this moment. It was Biden and the Democrats back in the day that suggested it. I had hoped you'd believe more in bipartisanship, zlefin! suggested but did not implement. And I'm for the constitution, which the republicans are not following by refusing to hear the nominee at all. Bipartisanship is good, but it takes two sides willing to work together, when the republicans are not. And appointments for life make perfect sense, as it's not a lawmaking organization, despite your claims to the contrary, and it's clear the elected judges do a worse job than appointed judges anyways. Fair weather friend of the constitution indeed. We're in a messy area of the intact fragments of the constitution and the way the Supreme Court operates. I need only look at the rulings during Obama's tenure to see how perverted the rationale has become on big cases. They make laws and choose to include various penumbras of justification to make it all look prettier and fool the blind that this is interpretation and not invention. Radical courts demand this kind of consideration. It stands that appointments only join the bench with the advice and consent of the Senate, and this is the current form of not consenting. Sorry, I'm all out of rewind buttons to before Reid & Pelosi abused every rule to get the ACA through, and Reid with Obama appointments. You'll have to sit and stew if you want to make moral stands at position A and say how position B was clearly not a moral issue, they had the power to do it and did. Welcome to the operation of the Senate: they have the power to delay a vote until a different party gains power or the leader changes identity or opinion. Out of curiousity, do you think the constitution should be amended? I'm widely supportive of term limits for justices made by constitutional amendment. It's one important step towards reigning in the abuse of power as occurs now with a look towards rights of the individual and the several states. Do you know why the appointment is for life? So that once the Judge is in place he is beholden to no one and make objective calls based on his interpretation of the constitution. Your idea would undermine the very foundation of the Supreme Court.
The judge is making slanted calls based on his own thoughts on government and citizen, not the constitution. Do you realize what I'm saying? The Supreme Court is and stands undermined.
On August 31 2016 05:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:55 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:32 KwarK wrote:On August 31 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:04 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. Which was the 2012 election... Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today. it applies to ALL vacancies that occur during his tenure in office, as you well know. don't troll with unsound counters. It's all informal now, don't cherry pick your extreme literal readings. The senate today was not the senate the confirmed his prior appointments. Senates during Obama did not go 100-0 in confirmations, in fact Kagan's barely cleared consent for the filibuster phase. Now the American people have voted in more Republicans in 2014 to take back the Senate. The Supreme Court for some time now has functioned as a lawmaking organization, and the appointments for life make no sense if this is still a government of the People. However, constitutional forms have not been amended and they are appointed for life. The 2016 election ought to have that responsibility at this moment. It was Biden and the Democrats back in the day that suggested it. I had hoped you'd believe more in bipartisanship, zlefin! Partizanship would be rejoicing that Hillary gets to pick, surely? I'm not worried that my side is going to lose, quite the opposite, they're probably going to get a more liberal judge than they could have gotten with the election looming over our heads. I just don't think the founders intended an even numbered court for a year because people read the that it's the President's job to nominate and think that somehow means whoever the next President is. Hell, I'm not entirely convinced this would even be happening had Hillary won in 08 and 12, Obama seems to generate a special effort to refuse to follow the normal forms from the opposition. This is obstructionism, plain and simple. They have the right to refuse to accept a nominee but they're not even holding hearings. There is no constitutional grounds for it. What the founders intended is not a Supreme Court that acts in this way, and until constitutional amendment, Congress should act with this knowledge in mind. This is Democrats wanting it both ways, plain and simple. When they're in power, they'll use every rule in the book to get their way. When they're out of power, they'll claim Republicans have no right to do the same. It's been repeated ad infinitum. Surely the Democrats will respect philibuster, nah. Bills for raising revenue should originate in the house? Haha, you must be joking we have ways around that! Harry Reid refuses to bring a bill or amendment to the floor? ...forget about it ever happening. The President shall nominate by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate? OH MY GOD it means an up or down vote on this timeframe because the president is a Democrat and his sought justice is a liberal. Did Biden first want it to be done for this reason? Ignore it, remember we set precedents and we expect Republicans-only to abide by them. The same partisan stand on principal when it suits you and hope the GOP just dances to your tune. Just so we're clear. You believe that the Supreme Court, which are the supreme constitutional authority on the constitution as appointed by the constitution, are acting in an unconstitutional way? I don't really understand that opinion at all. Like if the Supreme Court, the final constitutional safeguard of the constitution itself, is working against the constitution, isn't that the entire ball game? Isn't that game over, grab your guns, form your militias and start again time?
You're reaching very far in calling it the final constitutional safeguard of the constitution. It is in reality a complex system of checks and balances. Look at Article V for instance. Couldn't that be argued to be the final constitutional safeguard?
I've referenced in the past that we're living in the post constitutional society. Structural limits on power are largely ignored/absent. Etc etc.
"Isn't that game over" is in fact very near the truth. The growth of government and erosion of society cannot be reversed by a single election, by an originalist court, or by a single Congress. The remaining avenue is constitutional amendment likely by Article V process. Not all means have been exhausted. What continues is the fight to argue in public debate (similar to here) the merits of a return to limited government. The good news is if conservatives are right and this present course is despotic, the collapse will be very visible and the other side will be fumbling to deflect blame. I only wish we had a better candidate to take the case to the American people, but we got close this time. This present generation may be steadfastly liberal, but the following may undertake their own intellectual revolution.
On August 31 2016 05:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 04:55 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:32 KwarK wrote:On August 31 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:04 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 31 2016 03:54 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 02:10 Slaughter wrote:
Mitch McConnell is such a clown and a disgrace. He usually is, but this time out of sheer self-interest, he's doing the right thing. The American people deserve a referendum to who selects the next justice-legislator. I'm sure you can comfort yourself that Hillary is ahead. I say given Grassley's voting pattern, he'll soon be just as dirty as McConnell if he isn't already. Which was the 2012 election... Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today. it applies to ALL vacancies that occur during his tenure in office, as you well know. don't troll with unsound counters. It's all informal now, don't cherry pick your extreme literal readings. The senate today was not the senate the confirmed his prior appointments. Senates during Obama did not go 100-0 in confirmations, in fact Kagan's barely cleared consent for the filibuster phase. Now the American people have voted in more Republicans in 2014 to take back the Senate. The Supreme Court for some time now has functioned as a lawmaking organization, and the appointments for life make no sense if this is still a government of the People. However, constitutional forms have not been amended and they are appointed for life. The 2016 election ought to have that responsibility at this moment. It was Biden and the Democrats back in the day that suggested it. I had hoped you'd believe more in bipartisanship, zlefin! Partizanship would be rejoicing that Hillary gets to pick, surely? I'm not worried that my side is going to lose, quite the opposite, they're probably going to get a more liberal judge than they could have gotten with the election looming over our heads. I just don't think the founders intended an even numbered court for a year because people read the that it's the President's job to nominate and think that somehow means whoever the next President is. Hell, I'm not entirely convinced this would even be happening had Hillary won in 08 and 12, Obama seems to generate a special effort to refuse to follow the normal forms from the opposition. This is obstructionism, plain and simple. They have the right to refuse to accept a nominee but they're not even holding hearings. There is no constitutional grounds for it. What the founders intended is not a Supreme Court that acts in this way, and until constitutional amendment, Congress should act with this knowledge in mind. This is Democrats wanting it both ways, plain and simple. When they're in power, they'll use every rule in the book to get their way. When they're out of power, they'll claim Republicans have no right to do the same. It's been repeated ad infinitum. Surely the Democrats will respect philibuster, nah. Bills for raising revenue should originate in the house? Haha, you must be joking we have ways around that! Harry Reid refuses to bring a bill or amendment to the floor? ...forget about it ever happening. The President shall nominate by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate? OH MY GOD it means an up or down vote on this timeframe because the president is a Democrat and his sought justice is a liberal. Did Biden first want it to be done for this reason? Ignore it, remember we set precedents and we expect Republicans-only to abide by them. The same partisan stand on principal when it suits you and hope the GOP just dances to your tune. that democrats abuse the rules means the Dems should not do so in those cases; it does not justify the republicans doing so. You're the one bringing horrible bias into this and not looking at the actual constitution. It's just your trolling biased nonsense to refuse to accept that some of us are against it because it's wrong, and that some of us are against it when the dems do it as well. You're more partisan than those you rail against.
I might be just as partisan as you, we'll see.
You're onto the next facet of this debate. Hold yourself to the higher standard in the hopes that they'll reforms their ways/grab some blame/be seen to be in the wrong, or use the same tools so the next time around they'll be too fearful to repeat the power-grab, should they lose an election and lose the their agenda. My opinion varies on the issue because there's a real fear of becoming the despot to fix an existing despotism, with the same power that corrupted the last one in that office. On the other hand, the backdrop is power to remake the nation. If the unscrupulous Dems (and historically GOP) will always be one step ahead if they refuse to play by the rules of separation of powers etc, you're just making the argument that the defending side should admit defeat by increments in the land of lawlessness by pretending the laws still exist for all.
In this issue, the Senate sets its own rules, and appointments are only moved to the bench following the consent of the Senate. Right now, the majority leader is not taking a vote and he's well within his rights to do so.
|
There are hundreds of constitutional scholars who literally disagree with everything that Danglars has posted; anecdotally, not a single professor at my law school, a mid tier, unusually conservative establishment, thinks that we're in a "post constitutional society."
|
Yeah I think Dangers has gone way off the deep end of conservatism and has landed somewhere near the libertarian camp. If things not being shitty goes behind your ideological purity you're no better then the deepest blue kill all males feminists.
If you're honestly pineing over days past when old people died mostly beacuse they ran out of money to live then you aren't a conservative anymore.
|
On August 31 2016 05:22 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 05:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 31 2016 05:09 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump: "Judges never let these cases get litigated and go to court but I'm glad I cost him a lot of time and money and my express purpose was to cost him time and money".
xDaunt: "If Trump's case doesn't get to court that means it had no validity and the other side will recoup. But ignore the fact that I'm talking about recouping costs rather than attorney's fees, even though the latter are much more expensive and are what Trump is trying to drive up. Also ignore the fact that Trump himself was glad to have cost his opponent a lot of money even though the cast didn't get to court (i.e. discovery). Also ignore the fact that I admit it's pretty much impossible for public figures to prevail on these cases".
This was not a stellar display of intellectual honesty by xDaunt. But generally, when someone is trying to defend Trump's first-resort lawsuit strategy (including against pageant queens who say bad things), they're not gonna be winning any logic awards. Yes, please keep talking about "intellectual honesty" when you can't even summarize or recite what I've said accurately. But hey, the effort to get it right would probably result in you tearing something. Make sure you stretch before trying. It's a very simple recitation and it's what you said, as you know. Not rocket science. Realize that other posters can read what you said and realize that is in fact what you said.
Other posters have read what I have said. You have not. Normally I wouldn't bother with doing an anatomy of a shitpost, but I'm tired of your shit. So I'm going to make example out of you to hopefully spur improvement in the quality of posting around here. I'm going to point out everything that you got wrong about what I said and back link what I actually said. Let's begin:
But ignore the fact that I'm talking about recouping costs rather than attorney's fees, even though the latter are much more expensive and are what Trump is trying to drive up.
Wrong. I very clearly delineated what would be awarded depending upon the circumstances of Trump's loss. Range of possible outcomes that I discussed were awards of costs, awards of costs and attorney fees, and awards of costs, attorney fees, and other damages from a malicious prosecution claim. See here, here, and here.
Also ignore the fact that Trump himself was glad to have cost his opponent a lot of money even though the cast didn't get to court (i.e. discovery).
Wrong once again. I never told people to ignore Trump's comments that he was glad to cost his opponents a lot of money. In fact, I very clearly said I have no doubt that he enjoys it. And he enjoys it because he effectively has no way to punish people who defame him, which leads us to the next point.
Also ignore the fact that I admit it's pretty much impossible for public figures to prevail on these cases".
And this is where your ignorance comes around full circle. You've completely missed that the real issue here that I've raised (and that Trump has raised, not that you could really gather it from the transcript quote that was taken out of context) is that public figures like Trump, as a matter of law, have minimal recourse to stop people from defaming them publicly. But clearly that conversation is way above your pay grade, so you can't see anything other than "HURRR DURRR XDAUNT IS MINDLESSLY DEFENDING TRUMP AGAIN."
For everyone else: let me once again make it clear that, when it comes to this thread, you're going to get out of me what you put in. People who want to engage me in good faith are going to have a good time arguing with me (see all of my other posts over the past several pages). In contrast, I have considerably less patience for people like Doodsmack.
|
On August 31 2016 05:46 farvacola wrote:
There are hundreds of constitutional scholars who literally disagree with everything that Danglars has posted; anecdotally, not a single professor at my law school, a mid tier, unusually conservative establishment, thinks that we're in a "post constitutional society."
If they're really conservative and not just unusually conservative given the profession, they'll come around 
|
On August 31 2016 05:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 05:04 Gorsameth wrote:On August 31 2016 05:00 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:43 KwarK wrote:On August 31 2016 04:42 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:29 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:26 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 04:04 zlefin wrote:On August 31 2016 04:01 Danglars wrote:On August 31 2016 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
[quote]
Which was the 2012 election... Which was Sotomayor & Kagan. The confirming senate in those days was freely elected, just as the one not holding a confirmation today. it applies to ALL vacancies that occur during his tenure in office, as you well know. don't troll with unsound counters. It's all informal now, don't cherry pick your extreme literal readings. The senate today was not the senate the confirmed his prior appointments. Senates during Obama did not go 100-0 in confirmations, in fact Kagan's barely cleared consent for the filibuster phase. Now the American people have voted in more Republicans in 2014 to take back the Senate. The Supreme Court for some time now has functioned as a lawmaking organization, and the appointments for life make no sense if this is still a government of the People. However, constitutional forms have not been amended and they are appointed for life. The 2016 election ought to have that responsibility at this moment. It was Biden and the Democrats back in the day that suggested it. I had hoped you'd believe more in bipartisanship, zlefin! suggested but did not implement. And I'm for the constitution, which the republicans are not following by refusing to hear the nominee at all. Bipartisanship is good, but it takes two sides willing to work together, when the republicans are not. And appointments for life make perfect sense, as it's not a lawmaking organization, despite your claims to the contrary, and it's clear the elected judges do a worse job than appointed judges anyways. Fair weather friend of the constitution indeed. We're in a messy area of the intact fragments of the constitution and the way the Supreme Court operates. I need only look at the rulings during Obama's tenure to see how perverted the rationale has become on big cases. They make laws and choose to include various penumbras of justification to make it all look prettier and fool the blind that this is interpretation and not invention. Radical courts demand this kind of consideration. It stands that appointments only join the bench with the advice and consent of the Senate, and this is the current form of not consenting. Sorry, I'm all out of rewind buttons to before Reid & Pelosi abused every rule to get the ACA through, and Reid with Obama appointments. You'll have to sit and stew if you want to make moral stands at position A and say how position B was clearly not a moral issue, they had the power to do it and did. Welcome to the operation of the Senate: they have the power to delay a vote until a different party gains power or the leader changes identity or opinion. Out of curiousity, do you think the constitution should be amended? I'm widely supportive of term limits for justices made by constitutional amendment. It's one important step towards reigning in the abuse of power as occurs now with a look towards rights of the individual and the several states. Do you know why the appointment is for life? So that once the Judge is in place he is beholden to no one and make objective calls based on his interpretation of the constitution. Your idea would undermine the very foundation of the Supreme Court. The judge is making slanted calls based on his own thoughts on government and citizen, not the constitution. Do you realize what I'm saying? The Supreme Court is and stands undermined.
feel like the supreme courts, legislators, and holders of executive office have always put their thoughts first and then checked it against the constitution
and the constitution being a living document that has an interpretation that can change has been a part of american political theory for a long time
idk feels like youre pining for an era of idealistic judicial thinking that never existed
|
On August 31 2016 05:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2016 05:46 farvacola wrote:
There are hundreds of constitutional scholars who literally disagree with everything that Danglars has posted; anecdotally, not a single professor at my law school, a mid tier, unusually conservative establishment, thinks that we're in a "post constitutional society." If they're really conservative and not just unusually conservative given the profession, they'll come around
If they're really religious and not just unusually religious given the profession, they'll come around
Do you even realise how the shit you write sounds? Going for "religious" was an act of curtosy, thank me later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
