|
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. |
Is Trump now a part time police officer, president, golf pro and estate mogul at once?
What a man.
|
|
|
At least half of those kids were thinking "what did these white people get us into this time?"
The girl in back is everything.
Condi Rice is apparently one of the only people on TV with an informed/reasonable opinion on the Russian hacking. I'm sure you'll see the clips soon enough and the accusations that it's no coincidence she speaks... Russian!?!
|
|
|
On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns!
You're still doing this weird ad absurdum thing. Nobody said that the order itself doesn't matter, just that intent can have real bearing on the case. Just like it clearly matters if you killed the guy in a murder case, it just also matters what your intent was. If you honestly thought you were shooting them with an airsoft gun but some insidious individual swapped it with a pistol, you're gonna get off a lot easier than if you've been carrying around a pistol with a single round for five years waiting for your chance.
This isn't even really about whether the order is unconstitutional, it's just that getting self-righteous about the idea that intent could matter to the constitutionality of a law is an absurd thing to get self-righteous about. Hell, I think under current free exercise doctrine a law that happens to burden someone's free exercise is constitutional, but one specifically designed to target that religion is not. That means the same law could be constitutional or not based on whether the creators of a law can come up with a permissible rationale and convince the court that was their reason. To fully bear out the analogy, if those same lawmakers had campaigned on creating laws to persecute Jews, they're going to have a much harder time arguing that their law just happens to burden Jews' free exercise.
I get that years of experience have given conservatives a sort of persecution complex, and the idea that the only thing making the courts rule against this is the R in front of Trump's name is one you're pretty ready based on prior experience to believe. But it's sending you on this weird crusade against "intent" ever mattering or being discussed in a court room, which I don't think you appreciate is a perfectly normal thing even in completely nonpartisan contexts.
|
I don't know much about Bill Cassidy besides what I've watched here, but he seems to be a counterexample to the broadly true statement that Republican politicians are ignorant, spineless, cold-hearted jerks. Granted, he and his wife are also apparently medical professionals, which is good. ...........And then on the other hand, a quick Google search tells me that he wants to federally ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and he voted against Obamacare, so I guess only half-destroying our healthcare system is the best the Republicans have to offer.
|
On May 09 2017 21:08 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! You're still doing this weird ad absurdum thing. Nobody said that the order itself doesn't matter, just that intent can have real bearing on the case. Just like it clearly matters if you killed the guy in a murder case, it just also matters what your intent was. If you honestly thought you were shooting them with an airsoft gun but some insidious individual swapped it with a pistol, you're gonna get off a lot easier than if you've been carrying around a pistol with a single round for five years waiting for your chance. This isn't even really about whether the order is unconstitutional, it's just that getting self-righteous about the idea that intent could matter to the constitutionality of a law is an absurd thing to get self-righteous about. Hell, I think under current free exercise doctrine a law that happens to burden someone's free exercise is constitutional, but one specifically designed to target that religion is not. That means the same law could be constitutional or not based on whether the creators of a law can come up with a permissible rationale and convince the court that was their reason. To fully bear out the analogy, if those same lawmakers had campaigned on creating laws to persecute Jews, they're going to have a much harder time arguing that their law just happens to burden Jews' free exercise. I get that years of experience have given conservatives a sort of persecution complex, and the idea that the only thing making the courts rule against this is the R in front of Trump's name is one you're pretty ready based on prior experience to believe. But it's sending you on this weird crusade against "intent" ever mattering or being discussed in a court room, which I don't think you appreciate is a perfectly normal thing even in completely nonpartisan contexts.
Well, I find it absolutely absurd that you can't see all the problems with constitutional executive authority being tied down to what some judge thinks your campaign rhetoric shows. And it has everything to do with the constitutional test. Orders are or aren't. We're not trying Trump for murder where mens rea and the various degrees impact law. It's the constitution and nowhere does it reserve certain powers to the branches only if some judge in a corner of the country thinks your rhetoric wasn't too divisive.
And since you want to go there, I get that years of advocating for judges to write law turns you deaf to this kind of talk. I kind of expect you'd be singing a different tune if Obamacare was declared unconstitutional because Obama showed religious animus during the campaign and now he's making nuns pay for abortifascients. It does come down to disabusing ordinary Americans of notions about the peaceful transfer of power and whether we're a nation of laws or of men.
|
Rather a long video to watch somebody talk about unicorns. Free healthcare for everybody! We'll pay for it with the gold we find at the end of the rainbow!
|
United States42883 Posts
rip, fell victim to Poe's Law re: Trump
|
|
|
It was the first major piece of legislation that President Trump signed into law, and buried on Page 734 was one sentence that brought a potential benefit to the president’s extended family: renewal of a program offering permanent residence in the United States to affluent foreigners investing money in real estate projects here.
Just hours after the appropriations measure was signed on Friday, the company run until January by Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and top adviser, Jared Kushner, was urging wealthy Chinese in Beijing to consider investing $500,000 each in a pair of Jersey City luxury apartment towers the family-owned Kushner Companies plans to build. Mr. Kushner was even cited at a marketing presentation by his sister Nicole Meyer, who was on her way to China even before the bill was signed. The project “means a lot to me and my entire family,” she told the prospective investors.
www.nytimes.com
|
On May 09 2017 22:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 21:08 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! You're still doing this weird ad absurdum thing. Nobody said that the order itself doesn't matter, just that intent can have real bearing on the case. Just like it clearly matters if you killed the guy in a murder case, it just also matters what your intent was. If you honestly thought you were shooting them with an airsoft gun but some insidious individual swapped it with a pistol, you're gonna get off a lot easier than if you've been carrying around a pistol with a single round for five years waiting for your chance. This isn't even really about whether the order is unconstitutional, it's just that getting self-righteous about the idea that intent could matter to the constitutionality of a law is an absurd thing to get self-righteous about. Hell, I think under current free exercise doctrine a law that happens to burden someone's free exercise is constitutional, but one specifically designed to target that religion is not. That means the same law could be constitutional or not based on whether the creators of a law can come up with a permissible rationale and convince the court that was their reason. To fully bear out the analogy, if those same lawmakers had campaigned on creating laws to persecute Jews, they're going to have a much harder time arguing that their law just happens to burden Jews' free exercise. I get that years of experience have given conservatives a sort of persecution complex, and the idea that the only thing making the courts rule against this is the R in front of Trump's name is one you're pretty ready based on prior experience to believe. But it's sending you on this weird crusade against "intent" ever mattering or being discussed in a court room, which I don't think you appreciate is a perfectly normal thing even in completely nonpartisan contexts. Well, I find it absolutely absurd that you can't see all the problems with constitutional executive authority being tied down to what some judge thinks your campaign rhetoric shows. And it has everything to do with the constitutional test. Orders are or aren't. We're not trying Trump for murder where mens rea and the various degrees impact law. It's the constitution and nowhere does it reserve certain powers to the branches only if some judge in a corner of the country thinks your rhetoric wasn't too divisive. And since you want to go there, I get that years of advocating for judges to write law turns you deaf to this kind of talk. I kind of expect you'd be singing a different tune if Obamacare was declared unconstitutional because Obama showed religious animus during the campaign and now he's making nuns pay for abortifascients. It does come down to disabusing ordinary Americans of notions about the peaceful transfer of power and whether we're a nation of laws or of men.
I'm sure Trump saying "we know what that means" when reading and signing the EO is unrelated him repeatedly saying we need a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" (i.e. one of his main campaign promises).
|
On May 09 2017 15:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 13:52 IgnE wrote:On May 09 2017 12:38 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:06 IgnE wrote:On May 09 2017 10:51 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 10:30 IgnE wrote:On May 09 2017 09:07 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 08:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Maybe forty percent of America of America is waiting. But he is absolutely incorrect in regards to the FBI investigation; it's taxpayer funded and everybody wants to know if Trump actually coordinated with Russian agents to hack and release. The craziness and furor regarding it must end, though maybe not before Comey report and possibly not before Trump 2020 gets full into swing. The same kind of people that thought 538 severely underestimated Clinton's chances at 65% now think the country is united in wanting this pace of articles, unsubstantiated leaks, the whole nine yards. The opposition has to grow some balls and man up to their systemic problems in reporting on this political climate, though NYT Bret Stephens hiring (willing to expand their political reporting) did signal some overtures in the other direction. i dont remember you being so anti-furor and tax spending during benghazi Ho hum, the Obama administration lied about the issue, imprisoned the YouTube creator, but who are we kidding? The narrative became how Republicans grandstanded in the hearing, not the facts of the case. Only old farts remember Clinton and Rice propagating stories they knew to be false; let's move on to a more dependable liar in the White House. Oh my god dude. Come on. Sometimes to get respect you have to avoid taking these stupid partisan potshots. You really don't think Trump's lies are at least as bad? All I'm asking for is a little integrity from you. Don't you value integrity? Let's see. You asked me about possible hypocrisy on Benghazi. I answered to the merits of that case. Now you're flipped back to stupid partisan potshots. Sigh. Why do I bother talking about how the narrative switched to Republican grandstanding if nobody reads or cares? Credibility is in short supply if that's only a currency to be asked of Republicans and not simultaneously demanded of democrats. It's like fuck man, I talked about the desire to move on to the more dependable liar, but apparently the *real* story is how previous lies had nothing to do with integrity. Maybe the double-standard is passe, the reality is triple standards. The "narrative switched to Republican grandstanding?" Your original post had nothing about Republican grandstanding. It was about the "furor" of the Russian investigation. I asked you where your disappointment in the "furor" and waste of taxpayer money was on Benghazi and now you are trying to flip this into something about a "narrative" about grandstanding. I'm not trying to trick you here. Maybe you shouldn't bother talking about things you weren't asked about in an attempt to deflect. I don't give a shit about "Republican" or "Democratic" credibility; I am asking about your credibility. As much as there was 'furor,' the only bad direction was grandstanding in Hillary's testimony. The rest was entirely appropriate: Clinton and Rice lied about the facts of the case in the immediate aftermath. It's uncontested, and perhaps thankfully to the Russians, confirmed by emails sent during the time they were telling the lies. Maybe you should re-examine the actual statements that Benghazi was all about this insensitive YouTube video before you go on about credibility. There's not even a double standard at play here; nobody admitted their lies or wrongdoing.
I have watched the statements and hearing thank you. You are just either lying through your teeth or living in a complete alternate reality that is in no way connected to the real world of facts. It was literally republicans grandstanding and making a scandal out of literally nothing. If you can in any way defend what the Republicans did with benghazi, then you certainly should be all for turning up thr intensity on the russia investigations for the next 10 years until no one from the teump family can have their name said in public without being laughed at.
|
On May 09 2017 22:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 21:08 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! You're still doing this weird ad absurdum thing. Nobody said that the order itself doesn't matter, just that intent can have real bearing on the case. Just like it clearly matters if you killed the guy in a murder case, it just also matters what your intent was. If you honestly thought you were shooting them with an airsoft gun but some insidious individual swapped it with a pistol, you're gonna get off a lot easier than if you've been carrying around a pistol with a single round for five years waiting for your chance. This isn't even really about whether the order is unconstitutional, it's just that getting self-righteous about the idea that intent could matter to the constitutionality of a law is an absurd thing to get self-righteous about. Hell, I think under current free exercise doctrine a law that happens to burden someone's free exercise is constitutional, but one specifically designed to target that religion is not. That means the same law could be constitutional or not based on whether the creators of a law can come up with a permissible rationale and convince the court that was their reason. To fully bear out the analogy, if those same lawmakers had campaigned on creating laws to persecute Jews, they're going to have a much harder time arguing that their law just happens to burden Jews' free exercise. I get that years of experience have given conservatives a sort of persecution complex, and the idea that the only thing making the courts rule against this is the R in front of Trump's name is one you're pretty ready based on prior experience to believe. But it's sending you on this weird crusade against "intent" ever mattering or being discussed in a court room, which I don't think you appreciate is a perfectly normal thing even in completely nonpartisan contexts. Well, I find it absolutely absurd that you can't see all the problems with constitutional executive authority being tied down to what some judge thinks your campaign rhetoric shows. And it has everything to do with the constitutional test. Orders are or aren't. We're not trying Trump for murder where mens rea and the various degrees impact law. It's the constitution and nowhere does it reserve certain powers to the branches only if some judge in a corner of the country thinks your rhetoric wasn't too divisive. And since you want to go there, I get that years of advocating for judges to write law turns you deaf to this kind of talk. I kind of expect you'd be singing a different tune if Obamacare was declared unconstitutional because Obama showed religious animus during the campaign and now he's making nuns pay for abortifascients. It does come down to disabusing ordinary Americans of notions about the peaceful transfer of power and whether we're a nation of laws or of men.
I didn't bring up the analogy to murder, you did. And there's plenty of constitutional issues where intent matters too. I've already brought up one (free exercise doctrine); discrimination is clearly another. If the question is whether the order illegally discriminates against Muslims, how is it not relevant whether the author intended to use it to target Muslims?
If the analogy held I would be singing the same tune, but it doesn't. If during the campaign Obama had been stoking anti-Catholic fervor, and saying we need to force these papists to stop what they're doing by making it illegal, and when told that would be unconstitutional responding they'll do it by mandating everybody provide contraceptives that Catholics object to, that would certainly strengthen the case for ruling that unconstitutional on free exercise grounds.
I've never advocated for judicial activism and I'm not sure I'm in favor of a lot of recent instances of it. I strongly support gay marriage but I think Obergefell might have been on pretty shaky legal ground. But not that that's relevant anyway, you're just trying to score partisan points.
|
On May 09 2017 23:05 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 15:07 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:52 IgnE wrote:On May 09 2017 12:38 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:06 IgnE wrote:On May 09 2017 10:51 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 10:30 IgnE wrote:On May 09 2017 09:07 Danglars wrote:Maybe forty percent of America of America is waiting. But he is absolutely incorrect in regards to the FBI investigation; it's taxpayer funded and everybody wants to know if Trump actually coordinated with Russian agents to hack and release. The craziness and furor regarding it must end, though maybe not before Comey report and possibly not before Trump 2020 gets full into swing. The same kind of people that thought 538 severely underestimated Clinton's chances at 65% now think the country is united in wanting this pace of articles, unsubstantiated leaks, the whole nine yards. The opposition has to grow some balls and man up to their systemic problems in reporting on this political climate, though NYT Bret Stephens hiring (willing to expand their political reporting) did signal some overtures in the other direction. i dont remember you being so anti-furor and tax spending during benghazi Ho hum, the Obama administration lied about the issue, imprisoned the YouTube creator, but who are we kidding? The narrative became how Republicans grandstanded in the hearing, not the facts of the case. Only old farts remember Clinton and Rice propagating stories they knew to be false; let's move on to a more dependable liar in the White House. Oh my god dude. Come on. Sometimes to get respect you have to avoid taking these stupid partisan potshots. You really don't think Trump's lies are at least as bad? All I'm asking for is a little integrity from you. Don't you value integrity? Let's see. You asked me about possible hypocrisy on Benghazi. I answered to the merits of that case. Now you're flipped back to stupid partisan potshots. Sigh. Why do I bother talking about how the narrative switched to Republican grandstanding if nobody reads or cares? Credibility is in short supply if that's only a currency to be asked of Republicans and not simultaneously demanded of democrats. It's like fuck man, I talked about the desire to move on to the more dependable liar, but apparently the *real* story is how previous lies had nothing to do with integrity. Maybe the double-standard is passe, the reality is triple standards. The "narrative switched to Republican grandstanding?" Your original post had nothing about Republican grandstanding. It was about the "furor" of the Russian investigation. I asked you where your disappointment in the "furor" and waste of taxpayer money was on Benghazi and now you are trying to flip this into something about a "narrative" about grandstanding. I'm not trying to trick you here. Maybe you shouldn't bother talking about things you weren't asked about in an attempt to deflect. I don't give a shit about "Republican" or "Democratic" credibility; I am asking about your credibility. As much as there was 'furor,' the only bad direction was grandstanding in Hillary's testimony. The rest was entirely appropriate: Clinton and Rice lied about the facts of the case in the immediate aftermath. It's uncontested, and perhaps thankfully to the Russians, confirmed by emails sent during the time they were telling the lies. Maybe you should re-examine the actual statements that Benghazi was all about this insensitive YouTube video before you go on about credibility. There's not even a double standard at play here; nobody admitted their lies or wrongdoing. I have watched the statements and hearing thank you. You are just either lying through your teeth or living in a complete alternate reality that is in no way connected to the real world of facts. It was literally republicans grandstanding and making a scandal out of literally nothing. If you can in any way defend what the Republicans did with benghazi, then you certainly should be all for turning up thr intensity on the russia investigations for the next 10 years until no one from the teump family can have their name said in public without being laughed at.
Interesting how I mention twice what was at issue for me when I twice criticize the way the congressional investigation was conducted, and you pay no attention and prefer to say "literally nothing." If facts don't matter to you, I don't see why you have a problem with Trump. But don't let me keep you from marching on to conclusions. Construct your boogieman and persecute him as you please.
|
|
|
On May 09 2017 23:06 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 22:35 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 21:08 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! You're still doing this weird ad absurdum thing. Nobody said that the order itself doesn't matter, just that intent can have real bearing on the case. Just like it clearly matters if you killed the guy in a murder case, it just also matters what your intent was. If you honestly thought you were shooting them with an airsoft gun but some insidious individual swapped it with a pistol, you're gonna get off a lot easier than if you've been carrying around a pistol with a single round for five years waiting for your chance. This isn't even really about whether the order is unconstitutional, it's just that getting self-righteous about the idea that intent could matter to the constitutionality of a law is an absurd thing to get self-righteous about. Hell, I think under current free exercise doctrine a law that happens to burden someone's free exercise is constitutional, but one specifically designed to target that religion is not. That means the same law could be constitutional or not based on whether the creators of a law can come up with a permissible rationale and convince the court that was their reason. To fully bear out the analogy, if those same lawmakers had campaigned on creating laws to persecute Jews, they're going to have a much harder time arguing that their law just happens to burden Jews' free exercise. I get that years of experience have given conservatives a sort of persecution complex, and the idea that the only thing making the courts rule against this is the R in front of Trump's name is one you're pretty ready based on prior experience to believe. But it's sending you on this weird crusade against "intent" ever mattering or being discussed in a court room, which I don't think you appreciate is a perfectly normal thing even in completely nonpartisan contexts. Well, I find it absolutely absurd that you can't see all the problems with constitutional executive authority being tied down to what some judge thinks your campaign rhetoric shows. And it has everything to do with the constitutional test. Orders are or aren't. We're not trying Trump for murder where mens rea and the various degrees impact law. It's the constitution and nowhere does it reserve certain powers to the branches only if some judge in a corner of the country thinks your rhetoric wasn't too divisive. And since you want to go there, I get that years of advocating for judges to write law turns you deaf to this kind of talk. I kind of expect you'd be singing a different tune if Obamacare was declared unconstitutional because Obama showed religious animus during the campaign and now he's making nuns pay for abortifascients. It does come down to disabusing ordinary Americans of notions about the peaceful transfer of power and whether we're a nation of laws or of men. I didn't bring up the analogy to murder, you did.
No, zlefin brought it up, and you repeated it after I responded to him. So don't play games here, Mr. "Just like it clearly matters if you killed the guy in a murder case."
And there's plenty of constitutional issues where intent matters too. I've already brought up one (free exercise doctrine); discrimination is clearly another. If the question is whether the order illegally discriminates against Muslims, how is it not relevant whether the author intended to use it to target Muslims?
If the analogy held I would be singing the same tune, but it doesn't. If during the campaign Obama had been stoking anti-Catholic fervor, and saying we need to force these papists to stop what they're doing by making it illegal, and when told that would be unconstitutional responding they'll do it by mandating everybody provide contraceptives that Catholics object to, that would certainly strengthen the case for ruling that unconstitutional on free exercise grounds.
I've never advocated for judicial activism and I'm not sure I'm in favor of a lot of recent instances of it. I strongly support gay marriage but I think Obergefell might have been on pretty shaky legal ground. But not that that's relevant anyway, you're just trying to score partisan points.
When you said, "I get that years of experience have given conservatives a sort of persecution complex, and the idea that the only thing making the courts rule against this is the R in front of Trump's name is one you're pretty ready based on prior experience to believe," I knew we were already in the cheap partisan points of the argument phase, so restrain yourself if you'd like others to show restraint.
It doesn't change the fact that constitutionally delegated powers are not prejudiced by campaign rhetoric: it's merely judges thinking they have scope over national security and foreign policy, when in reality the President has plenary authority in those areas. And yes, it is reductio ad absurdum, any judge can look at prior comments critical of religion from Obama and say that's intent and sorry, the law's unconstitutional.
+ Show Spoiler +Or, as a lawyer would put it: It is naive to think this stops here. They won't and can't beat forum shopping at the District Court and Circuit level, regardless of competence. A little-known aspect of American history is that we've mistrusted courts more or less since the beginning. The last time judges went nuts on us, we basically stripped common law down to existing precedent and equity. On the beginning of absurdity:
|
Trump blurting "ban all Muslims" 500 times from a megaphone, including in presidential debates, putting it on his website as a signature campaign promise, and Giuliani saying he came up with an EO after Trump asked him how to do it legally, should apparently be ignored as meaningless.
|
And the numerous articles written by attorneys of all political leanings agreeing that Trump’s own statements are going to be the heart of the case. This is why all attorneys tell their clients to never talk to the press or discuss pending litigation.
|
On May 09 2017 23:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2017 23:06 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 22:35 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 21:08 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 14:19 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. It sure seems like you're getting self-righteous without understanding what you're talking about, which is a bad look. There are a lot of legal questions for which intent very much matters. In fact, even though you mock it, intent makes a big difference in murder cases – at the one extreme you have accidents, possibly with some negligence such that you could maybe sue for wrongful death in a civil case; in the middle you have something like manslaughter, and at the other extreme you have clear premeditated murder, with possible additional factors that increase the sentence (e.g. hate crime). So yes, it doesn't just matter what the text of the order is, it's also relevant to look at the person who issued it and what their motives were. If they were quite explicit all along about intending to discriminate Muslims, and repeatedly talked about national origin as their proxy for discriminating against Muslims, and the person who came up with the plan goes on national television saying he was tasked with finding a legal workaround to discriminate against Muslims, that's definitely relevant in a discussion of whether the order discriminates against Muslims. I'll be sure to let the next generation of presidential candidates know. It doesn't matter what their executive orders are, it matter what they say on the campaign trail. That will be sure to make for more exciting campaigns! You're still doing this weird ad absurdum thing. Nobody said that the order itself doesn't matter, just that intent can have real bearing on the case. Just like it clearly matters if you killed the guy in a murder case, it just also matters what your intent was. If you honestly thought you were shooting them with an airsoft gun but some insidious individual swapped it with a pistol, you're gonna get off a lot easier than if you've been carrying around a pistol with a single round for five years waiting for your chance. This isn't even really about whether the order is unconstitutional, it's just that getting self-righteous about the idea that intent could matter to the constitutionality of a law is an absurd thing to get self-righteous about. Hell, I think under current free exercise doctrine a law that happens to burden someone's free exercise is constitutional, but one specifically designed to target that religion is not. That means the same law could be constitutional or not based on whether the creators of a law can come up with a permissible rationale and convince the court that was their reason. To fully bear out the analogy, if those same lawmakers had campaigned on creating laws to persecute Jews, they're going to have a much harder time arguing that their law just happens to burden Jews' free exercise. I get that years of experience have given conservatives a sort of persecution complex, and the idea that the only thing making the courts rule against this is the R in front of Trump's name is one you're pretty ready based on prior experience to believe. But it's sending you on this weird crusade against "intent" ever mattering or being discussed in a court room, which I don't think you appreciate is a perfectly normal thing even in completely nonpartisan contexts. Well, I find it absolutely absurd that you can't see all the problems with constitutional executive authority being tied down to what some judge thinks your campaign rhetoric shows. And it has everything to do with the constitutional test. Orders are or aren't. We're not trying Trump for murder where mens rea and the various degrees impact law. It's the constitution and nowhere does it reserve certain powers to the branches only if some judge in a corner of the country thinks your rhetoric wasn't too divisive. And since you want to go there, I get that years of advocating for judges to write law turns you deaf to this kind of talk. I kind of expect you'd be singing a different tune if Obamacare was declared unconstitutional because Obama showed religious animus during the campaign and now he's making nuns pay for abortifascients. It does come down to disabusing ordinary Americans of notions about the peaceful transfer of power and whether we're a nation of laws or of men. I didn't bring up the analogy to murder, you did. No, zlefin brought it up, and you repeated it after I responded to him. So don't play games here, Mr. "Just like it clearly matters if you killed the guy in a murder case." Show nested quote +And there's plenty of constitutional issues where intent matters too. I've already brought up one (free exercise doctrine); discrimination is clearly another. If the question is whether the order illegally discriminates against Muslims, how is it not relevant whether the author intended to use it to target Muslims?
If the analogy held I would be singing the same tune, but it doesn't. If during the campaign Obama had been stoking anti-Catholic fervor, and saying we need to force these papists to stop what they're doing by making it illegal, and when told that would be unconstitutional responding they'll do it by mandating everybody provide contraceptives that Catholics object to, that would certainly strengthen the case for ruling that unconstitutional on free exercise grounds.
I've never advocated for judicial activism and I'm not sure I'm in favor of a lot of recent instances of it. I strongly support gay marriage but I think Obergefell might have been on pretty shaky legal ground. But not that that's relevant anyway, you're just trying to score partisan points. When you said, "I get that years of experience have given conservatives a sort of persecution complex, and the idea that the only thing making the courts rule against this is the R in front of Trump's name is one you're pretty ready based on prior experience to believe," I knew we were already in the cheap partisan points of the argument phase, so restrain yourself if you'd like others to show restraint. It doesn't change the fact that constitutionally delegated powers are not prejudiced by campaign rhetoric: it's merely judges thinking they have scope over national security and foreign policy, when in reality the President has plenary authority in those areas. And yes, it is reductio ad absurdum, any judge can look at prior comments critical of religion from Obama and say that's intent and sorry, the law's unconstitutional. + Show Spoiler +
I can understand the idea of slippery slope here, but I don't think this is slippery. I understand being cautious of it being slippery, but I don't think it is.
I also just generally don't like the idea that knowledge and correctness can be ignored as a matter of procedure. If the intent of a law is considered important, as has been shown a million times, the person's words when advocating for it are super important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
