US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2493

On July 10 2020 04:23 micronesia wrote:

The argument is most likely that a significant majority of congress can remove the president at any time. If the republican senators didn't fully side with the president in the impeachment hearing Trump would have been out.

On July 10 2020 04:28 Danglars wrote:
Impeachment still contains subpoena power, as demonstrated in unsuccessful fights by Clinton and Nixon to prevent it. They went too slapdash on Trump to pursue subpoenas past challenges. The dissent is fine. It's a matter that reasonable people can disagree on.

On July 10 2020 04:23 micronesia wrote:

The argument is most likely that a significant majority of congress can remove the president at any time. If the republican senators didn't fully side with the president in the impeachment hearing Trump would have been out.

Of course, if the president can block all investigation federally and by States, then the incriminating evidence won't come out so allies will never vote to remove him/her.

On July 10 2020 05:24 Nevuk wrote:

The majority required for impeachment is way too high, imo. 2/3 of the senate and 1/2+1 of the house is nuts. Most countries set it at a bare majority for no confidence votes which is a little low, but it's so high that even people who definitely should've been removed weren't (speaking mainly of Andrew Johnson here). It's so high that it's rare for anyone to get impeached, even non-presidential offices. Over 250 years I'd have expected us to have more than the 50 or so on the wikipedia article on it.

Would that mean that we might have seen Clinton impeached and removed? Maybe. I'd have been fine with that. His behavior was awful (though by no means unique to him as a president).

On July 10 2020 04:53 micronesia wrote:

Based on what we've seen recently, what will happen if future presidents being impeached refuse to turn over any documents or cooperating witnesses in response to subpoenas?

On July 10 2020 05:42 Danglars wrote:

They'll go to court, and lose (should the subpoena be relevant to the impeachment).

United States v. Nixon: Nixon is forced to give over the tapes and other materials
Clinton: Subpoenaed, but withdrawn when he agreed to testify under oath
(Bonus, only slightly related Clinton vs Jones: Sexual harassment civil suit could continue for acts done before taking office)
Latest House subpoenas of Trump relating to impeachment: Abandoned court fight, many times didn't even issue subpoenas

So, any House that isn't rushing to get to the vote and skipping key steps, will win subpoenas fights tailored around the substance of the impeachment charge. The record is crystal clear.

On July 10 2020 05:46 micronesia wrote:

Thank you for your response.

Do you think, had the current house gone to court and fought it out for all the things they wanted to subpoena during the recent impeachment hearings, that the courts (at whatever level it went to) would have ruled in their favor for at least a decent chunk of the requests?

Separately, if this is happening towards the latter portion of a term, multiple levels of court battles could delay the impeachment inquiry until the president reaches the term limit or steps down after a full term, so it's probably not a preferred place to be for the house.

On July 10 2020 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone remind me, I thought the house DID subpoena people, but they never showed up because executive privilege or whatever? It is not clear to me what they didn't follow through on.

I remember being grumpy and wishing the house was more aggressive, but I don't clearly remember what punches the house pulled that they should not have.

On July 10 2020 06:53 farvacola wrote:

You're remembering correctly, the holding of the DC Circuit you're referring to is very much in question now, or would at least require a redo after these SCOTUS cases came down. Its posture was different from the cases decided today in that it dealt more with the roles of federal courts than the scope of executive privilege outright. Here's a recap of the controversial 2-1.

That was perplexing to me as well, the White House/DoJ were getting cases shot up the appeals chain right in front of Congress' eyes.

On July 10 2020 06:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Well this ruling has forced Deutsche bank to comply about Trumps Finances anyways which they now have agreed to comply as well. Even if they continue trying to take the ruling back to the courts, the Deutsche bank is getting ready to hand over all documents to SDNY.

On July 10 2020 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:


It's quite remarkable Deutsche Bank even continues to exist. They make Wells Fargo look like a fine institution by comparison.

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that much of eastern Oklahoma falls within an Indian reservation, a decision that could reshape the criminal justice system by preventing state authorities from prosecuting offenses there that involve Native Americans.

The 5-to-4 decision, potentially one of the most consequential legal victories for Native Americans in decades, could have far-reaching implications for the people who live across what the court affirmed was Indian Country. The lands include much of Tulsa, Oklahoma’s second-biggest city.

The case was steeped in the United States government’s long history of brutal removals and broken treaties with Indigenous tribes, and grappled with whether lands of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation had remained a reservation after Oklahoma became a state.
A New Map of Oklahoma

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that much of eastern Oklahoma falls within an Indian reservation.

“Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law,” Justice Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. “Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.”

The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation. As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so. Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.

On July 10 2020 10:25 Nevuk wrote:
So the supreme court issued a ruling that may have larger implications than Trump's tax returns that we didn't talk about at all.

5-4 decision in McGIRT v. OKLAHOMA, written by Gorsuch, that most of the eastern half of Oklahoma still belongs to native americans (the Creek specifically in the case, with four other tribes affected). This includes Tulsa.
This is because the treaty that gave them the land was never revoked by congress, despite being from the 1800s. The ruling appears to be limited to law enforcement purposes currently, but it makes it very clear that they consider treaties valid unless congress invalidates them - which they almost never did. So expect a lot of challenges to be brought up rapidly.

(bolded emphasis mine)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/us/supreme-court-oklahoma-mcgirt-creek-nation.html


Some more from the opinion - it has very strong language indicating that Gorsuch is willing to side with tribes in the future.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf


(both nyt and wikipedia have maps on areas affected)

On July 10 2020 15:57 Acrofales wrote:


Is there anything stopping congress from passing a revoke-deprecated-treaties act that does what Gorsuch wants?

Or even create legislation that automatically invalidates treaties older than 50/70/100 years?

I mean, Gorsuch doesn't actually side with the Indians, her just says that Congress needs to get their paperwork in order.

Of course, if this means reparations need to be paid for ~200 years of illegal exploitation of the land, and persecution of its rightful owners, this will have legs, but I don't think you can get there from this ruling.