|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I am sorry if this is not quite within the flow of discussion, but I just found this too hilarious not to be posted. You can't make this up! Using Gondor from LOTR as an example in a lawsuit has to be a new low point.
The sad part is that the both the sheer quantity of lawsuits and the speed which they are dismissed are still used as evidence that something was very wrong with the election, even by congress members. The scary part is what kind of justice system would accept such lawsuits, and that so many Trump supporters would gladly push for such a hyper-partisan corrupt system.
But – unusually for a legal strategy – the case cites as evidence to back up its pro-Trump claims the tragic fate of the kingdom of Gondor, one of the central realms of JRR Tolkien’s fantasy classic, whose exiled ruler, Aragorn, was played onscreen by Viggo Mortensen.
“Gondor has no king,” the lawsuit states, a footnote providing an explanation of the woeful fate of Tolkien’s entirely imaginary land populated by dragons, wizards, hobbits and elves, all threatened by a baleful Dark Lord backed up by an army of orcs and with famously little time for due democratic process.
The suit explains how Gondor’s throne was empty and its rightful kings in exile, presumably positing the idea that Trump is the true king of America – a land happily monarch-free since 1776.
“This analogy is applicable since there is now in Washington DC a group of individuals calling themselves the president, vice-president and Congress who have no rightful claim to govern the American people,” the case states.
The lawsuit then suggests that America’s version of the stewards of Gondor should be selected from among – surprise, surprise – Trump’s cabinet members, who should run the country.
Legal experts have taken a tough line.
“One thing that Americans learned during the post-election litigation is how little patience courts have for absurd legal arguments,” Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law, told Salon in a thorough takedown of the case and its legal merits.
“This legal effort to declare Congress illegitimate will be laughed out of court and could lead to sanctions for the lawyer bringing such a claim.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/23/donald-trump-lawsuit-lord-of-the-rings-gondor-election
|
On January 23 2021 23:26 JimmiC wrote:You think you have heard about all the horrible crap Trump did bur more and more jump keeps coming out. In a effort to get as many people killed as possible before he left office the Trump admin had the supreme court break all sorts of norms (perhaps rules) and skip steps to make rulings in hours (on cases that had not reached them) with no public reasoning always to make sure people died. https://ca.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-complicit-trump-execution-spree-182803719.html@Farvacola is this as horrible as it sounds? Can anything be done or is packing the court the only option? Edit: when I say anything done I mean consequences for the supreme court and preventing this kind of end around justice in the future not necromancy since the the biggest issue is there is no fixing it for those murdered.
Wait a minute. These people were tried and convicted and sentenced in jury trials. DC Circuit court of appeals overturned the stay on Johnson/Biggs' execution, 7th Circuit court of appeals overturned the stay on Lisa Montgomery's. SCOTUS and federal courts don't take orders from the executive branch. Nor, in a lot of these articles, is the invocation of bloodthirsty Trump's name as though he was micromanaging executions borne out by the actual content in the articles, but it would be interesting to know further his role with that part of the DOJ.
If you disagree with something, the state's ability to kill someone, change the law. Many states have no statutes supporting capital punishment. The federal government does. There being a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, does that mean if you sentence someone to death 20 years ago does it no longer "count?" Naturally if the system sentences people to death while not performing executions for years and years, there will be more and more people sitting on death row.
|
|
|
Retooling the federal death penalty/habeas corpus statute is long overdo and is probably the best way to stop this stuff from happening again. Otherwise, there are basically no ways to hold SCOTUS accountable other than impeachment, which is obviously ill suited to this kind of issue.
|
|
|
On January 24 2021 00:36 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2021 00:20 oBlade wrote:On January 23 2021 23:26 JimmiC wrote:You think you have heard about all the horrible crap Trump did bur more and more jump keeps coming out. In a effort to get as many people killed as possible before he left office the Trump admin had the supreme court break all sorts of norms (perhaps rules) and skip steps to make rulings in hours (on cases that had not reached them) with no public reasoning always to make sure people died. https://ca.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-complicit-trump-execution-spree-182803719.html@Farvacola is this as horrible as it sounds? Can anything be done or is packing the court the only option? Edit: when I say anything done I mean consequences for the supreme court and preventing this kind of end around justice in the future not necromancy since the the biggest issue is there is no fixing it for those murdered. Wait a minute. These people were tried and convicted and sentenced in jury trials. DC Circuit court of appeals overturned the stay on Johnson/Biggs' execution, 7th Circuit court of appeals overturned the stay on Lisa Montgomery's. SCOTUS and federal courts don't take orders from the executive branch. Nor, in a lot of these articles, is the invocation of bloodthirsty Trump's name as though he was micromanaging executions borne out by the actual content in the articles, but it would be interesting to know further his role with that part of the DOJ. If you disagree with something, the state's ability to kill someone, change the law. Many states have no statutes supporting capital punishment. The federal government does. There being a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, does that mean if you sentence someone to death 20 years ago does it no longer "count?" Naturally if the system sentences people to death while not performing executions for years and years, there will be more and more people sitting on death row. The point is they changed the rules after the 20 year moratorium as to kill as many people as possible while Trump held office, likely to try to help he get reelected. Had they done what you are suggesting, returned to the way it had been done, been public and transparent with their rulings and so on you would have a point, but they did not.
Oh, what rules changed from the last time (Bush)? I only know they switched to using a different drug for the injections than before. The old drugs were the ones that immobilized you while delivering searing pain that was only recounted after botched executions, right? And that they had problems sourcing doses that weren't expired if I recall correctly.
|
On January 24 2021 00:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2021 00:39 farvacola wrote:
Retooling the federal death penalty/habeas corpus statute is long overdo and is probably the best way to stop this stuff from happening again. Otherwise, there are basically no ways to hold SCOTUS accountable other than impeachment, which is obviously ill suited to this kind of issue. What would it take to do this? (Super high level if you don't mind) I remember that Bush did a change after 9/11 so I'm guessing Biden could, but then it can just as easily be changed back, right?
The same as any other bill, it would need to pass both chambers and get signed by the President or get a veto proof vote. Not very likely, but more possible now than it has been in a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hoping they push through the free money checks ASAP. Would be really troublesome to have to wait another 3-6 months if they end up slogging their way through a split Congress.
|
Republicans justify their obstruction of the bill by saying such things as "we're not here just to spend money", and "we want to make sure the need is there". If it wasn't so insulting off the back of spending billions and even trillions to satisfy the all-holy stock market and its big corporate players, I would be laughing my ass off. Helping taxpayers with their own money is simply asking too much, but tax breaks and stipends for the ultra-wealthy capital class? They couldn't do it fast enough.
As predicted, once Democrats are in control Republicans suddenly sound like they give a shit about the budget again. It's been a while. Bring on the reconciliation, Bernie. No way in hell are they to be trusted.
|
Right now it’s looking like everyone knows the filibuster is dead and it’s just a matter of waiting for the right optics to make it happen. Republicans are trying to pretend they should be able to decide as equals what happens and what doesn’t. If Democrats let that happen, they would be absolutely obliterated in 2022, losing both chambers. So no matter what they know they can’t let republicans prevent the agenda. So now they have to pretend there’s worthwhile negotiations take place while laying the foundation for justifying killing the filibuster. I think both Mitch and Schumer know this is the case. Republicans refuse to let democrats actually rule and democrats have insane pressure right now. Part of me thinks killing the filibuster is safer than they realize. Just keep repeating how critical it is to deal with COVID and keep talking about deaths. Say the filibuster must die or Americans die. Snap that fucking neck
|
It would be an interesting time to kill the filibuster. Democrats are only 50 senators, this is the weakest position to kill it in because then you still need every Democrat to pass all the controversial things you campaign on but are actually afraid of.
Taking a vote to kill the filibuster now means every Democrat scared for re-election now has to take meaningful votes on every other Democrat wish list item. Madness. Nevermind it would reduce each senators power in the long run.
If it dies I wouldn't be surprised to see it as the "filibuster Gorsuch cause mad" backfire of 2021.
|
On January 25 2021 05:16 Introvert wrote:
It would be an interesting time to kill the filibuster. Democrats are only 50 senators, this is the weakest position to kill it in because then you still need every Democrat to pass all the controversial things you campaign on but are actually afraid of.
Taking a vote to kill the filibuster now means every Democrat scared for re-election now has to take meaningful votes on every other Democrat wish list item. Madness. Nevermind it would reduce each senators power in the long run.
If it dies I wouldn't be surprised to see it as the "filibuster Gorsuch cause mad" backfire of 2021.
Senators being less individually powerful is great. Senators being forced to vote on lots of things is also great. Currently senators can hide behind all sorts of things. We should want our senators as accountable as possible
|
Norway28899 Posts
Might just be the best moment to kill it then - reforms shouldn't be done out of political opportunism, but because something needs to be fixed.
|
Trump is apparently telling people the reason he is trying to start a third party is to get acquited in the senate. I think that explains McConnell's weird behavior about impeachment: this is an existential threat to his power in a way little else is. So getting Trump totally kicked to the curb is now something he's going to be forcing everyone he can to get behind. This is the basic way these parties act : they didn't care about the run by Perot in 92 because he ran as an independent, but the knives came out when he tried his own party in 96.
Some examples of him trying to make good on this threat are hilariously stupid acts so far (he backed Kelli Ward as head of AZ gop, who then censured John McCain's widow and the mypillow guy is saying he's being backed by Trump to run for governor of Minnesota, a state that Trump lost by several points).
Multiple people in Trump’s orbit, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, say Trump has told people that the third-party threat gives him leverage to prevent Republican senators from voting to convict him during the Senate impeachment trial. Trump advisers also say they plan to recruit opposing primary candidates and commission polling next week in districts of targeted lawmakers. Trump has more than $70 million in campaign cash banked to fund his political efforts, these people say.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-republican-split/2021/01/23/d7dc253e-5cbc-11eb-8bcf-3877871c819d_story.html
Per WaPo.
I don't think the Filibuster is getting killed before 2022, but it's effectively been dead since 2017 for budgetary items, due to just how bonkers the logic they used to push through the tax cuts was (to balance it they had to pretend that tax cuts would somehow increase government income). It's a really stupid setup (as I don't know why legalizing weed should take 60 votes but setting tax rates to literally 0 would only take 50).
My understanding is that the 2022 Senate map is extremely bad for Republicans - if democrats get another 4-5 seats, then I doubt the filibuster exists.
|
On January 25 2021 05:25 Nevuk wrote:Trump is apparently telling people the reason he is trying to start a third party is to get acquited in the senate. I think that explains McConnell's weird behavior about impeachment: this is an existential threat to his power in a way little else is. So getting Trump totally kicked to the curb is now something he's going to be forcing everyone he can to get behind. This is the basic way these parties act : they didn't care about the run by Perot in 92 because he ran as an independent, but the knives came out when he tried his own party in 96. Some examples of him trying to make good on this threat are hilariously stupid acts so far (he backed Kelli Ward as head of AZ gop, who then censured John McCain's widow and the mypillow guy is saying he's being backed by Trump to run for governor of Minnesota, a state that Trump lost by several points). Show nested quote + Multiple people in Trump’s orbit, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, say Trump has told people that the third-party threat gives him leverage to prevent Republican senators from voting to convict him during the Senate impeachment trial. Trump advisers also say they plan to recruit opposing primary candidates and commission polling next week in districts of targeted lawmakers. Trump has more than $70 million in campaign cash banked to fund his political efforts, these people say. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-republican-split/2021/01/23/d7dc253e-5cbc-11eb-8bcf-3877871c819d_story.htmlPer WaPo. I don't think the Filibuster is getting killed before 2022, but it's effectively been dead since 2017 for budgetary items, due to just how bonkers the logic they used to push through the tax cuts was (to balance it they had to pretend that tax cuts would somehow increase government income). It's a really stupid setup (as I don't know why legalizing weed should take 60 votes but setting tax rates to literally 0 would only take 50). My understanding is that the 2022 Senate map is extremely bad for Republicans - if democrats get another 4-5 seats, then I doubt the filibuster exists. They could pass the 'tax cuts' through reconciliation because they were not tax cuts, they were a tax cut for the rich payed for by raising taxes on everyone else. They just hid it by starting the tax increase with a tax cut and scaling it to an increase over 10 years.
And if Trump wants acquittal threatening to run 3e party is the worst way to go about it (which doesn't rule it out, because its Trump). If Congress convicts Trump they can also deny him from running for any public office in the future. So there is no threat of a 3e party run if he is convicted.
|
On January 25 2021 05:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2021 05:25 Nevuk wrote:Trump is apparently telling people the reason he is trying to start a third party is to get acquited in the senate. I think that explains McConnell's weird behavior about impeachment: this is an existential threat to his power in a way little else is. So getting Trump totally kicked to the curb is now something he's going to be forcing everyone he can to get behind. This is the basic way these parties act : they didn't care about the run by Perot in 92 because he ran as an independent, but the knives came out when he tried his own party in 96. Some examples of him trying to make good on this threat are hilariously stupid acts so far (he backed Kelli Ward as head of AZ gop, who then censured John McCain's widow and the mypillow guy is saying he's being backed by Trump to run for governor of Minnesota, a state that Trump lost by several points). Multiple people in Trump’s orbit, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, say Trump has told people that the third-party threat gives him leverage to prevent Republican senators from voting to convict him during the Senate impeachment trial. Trump advisers also say they plan to recruit opposing primary candidates and commission polling next week in districts of targeted lawmakers. Trump has more than $70 million in campaign cash banked to fund his political efforts, these people say. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-republican-split/2021/01/23/d7dc253e-5cbc-11eb-8bcf-3877871c819d_story.htmlPer WaPo. I don't think the Filibuster is getting killed before 2022, but it's effectively been dead since 2017 for budgetary items, due to just how bonkers the logic they used to push through the tax cuts was (to balance it they had to pretend that tax cuts would somehow increase government income). It's a really stupid setup (as I don't know why legalizing weed should take 60 votes but setting tax rates to literally 0 would only take 50). My understanding is that the 2022 Senate map is extremely bad for Republicans - if democrats get another 4-5 seats, then I doubt the filibuster exists. They could pass the 'tax cuts' through reconciliation because they were not tax cuts, they were a tax cut for the rich payed for by raising taxes on everyone else. They just hid it by starting the tax increase with a tax cut and scaling it to an increase over 10 years.And if Trump wants acquittal threatening to run 3e party is the worst way to go about it (which doesn't rule it out, because its Trump). If Congress convicts Trump they can also deny him from running for any public office in the future. So there is no threat of a 3e party run if he is convicted.
Even with this, it still didn't balance unless you believed in magical math. That's why I'm saying reconciliation budget balancing is now effectively meaningless: their numbers only worked if the cuts increased GDP growth to something like 5 or 6% (edit : I think I recall reading at least one article where they said it was closer to 8%, but not sure the exact number. All economists said it was batshit insane though). Stimulus has an even easier time saying it'll increase GDP growth to something magically high than a tax cut does : there's actually some sort of proven relationship between these items, unlike tax cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
