|
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 |
United States43212 Posts
On July 16 2024 09:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 08:54 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:43 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:35 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:49 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 06:20 Fighter wrote:
[quote]
Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle.
But no, please, go ahead. Keep advocating violence against a former president. That really helps your case. It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people. Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing. Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like? The open taking of bribes is also a potential concern. And the abuse is bipartisan, they all oppose being held to any kind of ethical standard. Sure, Gorsuch spent years being unable to find anyone willing to buy his land off him for asking price and sure, 9 days after appointment a partner at a law firm that argues cases before SCOTUS bought it from him but that’s presumably no worse than all the loans Thomas received and never repaid. Or lying in a nomination hearing and stating unambiguously that Roe vs Wade was established law before overturning it. JFK said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." It can be applied in this context to remembering why both the rulers and the ruled benefit from propriety. People in power don’t allow peaceful revolution because they want to lose their power, they do it because they want to keep their heads. The more open and flagrant their abuses the less willing people are to place their faith in a system that gives them privileges. I think there are people within the establishment that forget this. They should allow themselves to be held accountable because accountability will prevent people from shooting them. Neil Gorsuch sold a property that he had a 20% stake in to a law firm head that has primarily donated to Democrat politicians, including donating the maximum to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It sold for $1.8 million, well under the initial asking price of $2.5 million. Is this one of the supposed "bribes" you're referencing? Also who is bribing who? Is Gorsuch bribing the law firm head by knocking $600,000+ off the asking price? Your guillotine has a pretty low bar. This isn’t about Democrat vs Republican, no judges should be taking payments from any lawyers arguing in front of them, no matter the alignment. . Well good cause the buyer has never argued in front of the supreme court https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer... Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.
Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times. I'm not sure you've been following this story at all because you're wrong on the facts. Or are you saying that because the chief executive didn't personally argue the case, a different lawyer in the law firm in which he's a partner did, then it's not a conflict. Because if that's what you're saying then you're an idiot, you might as well say "I never took money from the suspect, my wife did, and she's not a judge". Gorsuch rules in Greenberg's favor and the buyer makes money. Simple as that. The CEO of a law firm arguing cases before the Supreme Court should not be buying land from a sitting Supreme Court judge in a transaction that made the judge more than a quarter million in profit. The appearance of impropriety standard is easily cleared there. Like I said, I’m not saying it’s entirely Kosher. What I’m saying is that your “appearance of impropriety” standard being adequate for your guillotine is what makes you deranged.
To be clear, I’m not making the argument for the termination of their judgeships. They are, day after day. I’m saying they should stop doing that.
|
On July 16 2024 10:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:54 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:43 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:35 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:49 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 06:52 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
It's not just former Presidents, it's also SCOTUS justices he fantasizes about offing. Violent rhetoric was quite pervasive among the Democrats until Trump got shot. Now it will be just another thing for them to memory hole. The majority of regulars here will happily oblige, just as they willfully look the other way on Kwark's deranged posts about murdering people. Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious. Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing. Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like? The open taking of bribes is also a potential concern. And the abuse is bipartisan, they all oppose being held to any kind of ethical standard. Sure, Gorsuch spent years being unable to find anyone willing to buy his land off him for asking price and sure, 9 days after appointment a partner at a law firm that argues cases before SCOTUS bought it from him but that’s presumably no worse than all the loans Thomas received and never repaid. Or lying in a nomination hearing and stating unambiguously that Roe vs Wade was established law before overturning it. JFK said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." It can be applied in this context to remembering why both the rulers and the ruled benefit from propriety. People in power don’t allow peaceful revolution because they want to lose their power, they do it because they want to keep their heads. The more open and flagrant their abuses the less willing people are to place their faith in a system that gives them privileges. I think there are people within the establishment that forget this. They should allow themselves to be held accountable because accountability will prevent people from shooting them. Neil Gorsuch sold a property that he had a 20% stake in to a law firm head that has primarily donated to Democrat politicians, including donating the maximum to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It sold for $1.8 million, well under the initial asking price of $2.5 million. Is this one of the supposed "bribes" you're referencing? Also who is bribing who? Is Gorsuch bribing the law firm head by knocking $600,000+ off the asking price? Your guillotine has a pretty low bar. This isn’t about Democrat vs Republican, no judges should be taking payments from any lawyers arguing in front of them, no matter the alignment. . Well good cause the buyer has never argued in front of the supreme court https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer... Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.
Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times. I'm not sure you've been following this story at all because you're wrong on the facts. Or are you saying that because the chief executive didn't personally argue the case, a different lawyer in the law firm in which he's a partner did, then it's not a conflict. Because if that's what you're saying then you're an idiot, you might as well say "I never took money from the suspect, my wife did, and she's not a judge". Gorsuch rules in Greenberg's favor and the buyer makes money. Simple as that. The CEO of a law firm arguing cases before the Supreme Court should not be buying land from a sitting Supreme Court judge in a transaction that made the judge more than a quarter million in profit. The appearance of impropriety standard is easily cleared there. Like I said, I’m not saying it’s entirely Kosher. What I’m saying is that your “appearance of impropriety” standard being adequate for your guillotine is what makes you deranged. To be clear, I’m not making the argument for the termination of their judgeships. They are, day after day. I’m saying they should stop doing that.
Except your offered “solution” also applies to Trump who does not have a lifetime appointment and for whom there already exists a peaceful alternative solution: win more electoral votes. Who else does it apply to? Anyone with an R by their name? Anyone who disagrees with you politically? You might as well take the mask off and not pretend like this has anything to do with Gorsuch’s minority stake in a plot of land in Colorado. Maybe MP will let you borrow his grandfather’s uniform.
|
United States43212 Posts
On July 16 2024 10:39 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 10:09 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:54 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:43 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:35 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:49 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:00 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Look, if they want to abuse a lifetime appointment then that’s on them. The remedy to that abuse is literally in the name. I’m not going to do anything, I’m just pointing out the obvious.
Also I’m a registered Republican, just like the shooter, so maybe think before you make this a party thing. Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like? The open taking of bribes is also a potential concern. And the abuse is bipartisan, they all oppose being held to any kind of ethical standard. Sure, Gorsuch spent years being unable to find anyone willing to buy his land off him for asking price and sure, 9 days after appointment a partner at a law firm that argues cases before SCOTUS bought it from him but that’s presumably no worse than all the loans Thomas received and never repaid. Or lying in a nomination hearing and stating unambiguously that Roe vs Wade was established law before overturning it. JFK said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." It can be applied in this context to remembering why both the rulers and the ruled benefit from propriety. People in power don’t allow peaceful revolution because they want to lose their power, they do it because they want to keep their heads. The more open and flagrant their abuses the less willing people are to place their faith in a system that gives them privileges. I think there are people within the establishment that forget this. They should allow themselves to be held accountable because accountability will prevent people from shooting them. Neil Gorsuch sold a property that he had a 20% stake in to a law firm head that has primarily donated to Democrat politicians, including donating the maximum to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It sold for $1.8 million, well under the initial asking price of $2.5 million. Is this one of the supposed "bribes" you're referencing? Also who is bribing who? Is Gorsuch bribing the law firm head by knocking $600,000+ off the asking price? Your guillotine has a pretty low bar. This isn’t about Democrat vs Republican, no judges should be taking payments from any lawyers arguing in front of them, no matter the alignment. . Well good cause the buyer has never argued in front of the supreme court https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer... Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.
Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times. I'm not sure you've been following this story at all because you're wrong on the facts. Or are you saying that because the chief executive didn't personally argue the case, a different lawyer in the law firm in which he's a partner did, then it's not a conflict. Because if that's what you're saying then you're an idiot, you might as well say "I never took money from the suspect, my wife did, and she's not a judge". Gorsuch rules in Greenberg's favor and the buyer makes money. Simple as that. The CEO of a law firm arguing cases before the Supreme Court should not be buying land from a sitting Supreme Court judge in a transaction that made the judge more than a quarter million in profit. The appearance of impropriety standard is easily cleared there. Like I said, I’m not saying it’s entirely Kosher. What I’m saying is that your “appearance of impropriety” standard being adequate for your guillotine is what makes you deranged. To be clear, I’m not making the argument for the termination of their judgeships. They are, day after day. I’m saying they should stop doing that. Except your offered “solution” also applies to Trump who does not have a lifetime appointment and for whom there already exists a peaceful alternative solution: win more electoral votes. Who else does it apply to? Anyone with an R by their name? Anyone who disagrees with you politically? You might as well take the mask off and not pretend like this has anything to do with Gorsuch’s minority stake in a plot of land in Colorado. Maybe MP will let you borrow his grandfather’s uniform.
Since you ask, Cannon is making the argument for Trump too. Let’s say that a person believes that Trump is unfit for office because of the facts around his illegal secret document handling (and they are facts, he’s confessed to it). Normally no direct action would be required. He’s a criminal, he’s confessed to his crimes, he gets sentenced for them, that’s the end of it.
If the system works then people can wash their hands of it and place their faith in the system. The best argument against taking the law into your own hands is a working legal system.
But when Cannon, who is nakedly partisan, says that she’s barring the charges being brought against her candidate who confessed to the crime that is hugely damaging to faith in the system. The main argument against shooting him is devastated by her actions.
I’m not making the argument that someone should shoot Trump, Cannon is. My preference is that he’s held accountable under the law. She seems to prefer that it go a different way.
Edit: I really don’t know why you keep saying Gorsuch minority stake. He made a cool quarter mil (at least, he disclosed it was at least that) on the deal. If the total deal profit was $2m and he only made $400k then he still made $400k. Would that be somehow better than if he got 100% of $100k?
|
On July 16 2024 11:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 10:39 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 10:09 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:54 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:43 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:35 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:49 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like?
The open taking of bribes is also a potential concern. And the abuse is bipartisan, they all oppose being held to any kind of ethical standard. Sure, Gorsuch spent years being unable to find anyone willing to buy his land off him for asking price and sure, 9 days after appointment a partner at a law firm that argues cases before SCOTUS bought it from him but that’s presumably no worse than all the loans Thomas received and never repaid. Or lying in a nomination hearing and stating unambiguously that Roe vs Wade was established law before overturning it. JFK said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." It can be applied in this context to remembering why both the rulers and the ruled benefit from propriety. People in power don’t allow peaceful revolution because they want to lose their power, they do it because they want to keep their heads. The more open and flagrant their abuses the less willing people are to place their faith in a system that gives them privileges. I think there are people within the establishment that forget this. They should allow themselves to be held accountable because accountability will prevent people from shooting them. Neil Gorsuch sold a property that he had a 20% stake in to a law firm head that has primarily donated to Democrat politicians, including donating the maximum to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It sold for $1.8 million, well under the initial asking price of $2.5 million. Is this one of the supposed "bribes" you're referencing? Also who is bribing who? Is Gorsuch bribing the law firm head by knocking $600,000+ off the asking price? Your guillotine has a pretty low bar. This isn’t about Democrat vs Republican, no judges should be taking payments from any lawyers arguing in front of them, no matter the alignment. . Well good cause the buyer has never argued in front of the supreme court https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer... Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.
Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times. I'm not sure you've been following this story at all because you're wrong on the facts. Or are you saying that because the chief executive didn't personally argue the case, a different lawyer in the law firm in which he's a partner did, then it's not a conflict. Because if that's what you're saying then you're an idiot, you might as well say "I never took money from the suspect, my wife did, and she's not a judge". Gorsuch rules in Greenberg's favor and the buyer makes money. Simple as that. The CEO of a law firm arguing cases before the Supreme Court should not be buying land from a sitting Supreme Court judge in a transaction that made the judge more than a quarter million in profit. The appearance of impropriety standard is easily cleared there. Like I said, I’m not saying it’s entirely Kosher. What I’m saying is that your “appearance of impropriety” standard being adequate for your guillotine is what makes you deranged. To be clear, I’m not making the argument for the termination of their judgeships. They are, day after day. I’m saying they should stop doing that. Except your offered “solution” also applies to Trump who does not have a lifetime appointment and for whom there already exists a peaceful alternative solution: win more electoral votes. Who else does it apply to? Anyone with an R by their name? Anyone who disagrees with you politically? You might as well take the mask off and not pretend like this has anything to do with Gorsuch’s minority stake in a plot of land in Colorado. Maybe MP will let you borrow his grandfather’s uniform. Since you ask, Cannon is making the argument for Trump too. Let’s say that a person believes that Trump is unfit for office because of the facts around his illegal secret document handling (and they are facts, he’s confessed to it). Normally no direct action would be required. He’s a criminal, he’s confessed to his crimes, he gets sentenced for them, that’s the end of it. If the system works then people can wash their hands of it and place their faith in the system. The best argument against taking the law into your own hands is a working legal system. But when Cannon, who is nakedly partisan, says that she’s barring the charges being brought against her candidate who confessed to the crime that is hugely damaging to faith in the system. The main argument against shooting him is devastated by her actions.I’m not making the argument that someone should shoot Trump, Cannon is. My preference is that he’s held accountable under the law. She seems to prefer that it go a different way.
This is such deranged take, that I have no words.
Reread it and if you got lost on the way:
"The main argument against shooting him" - this means default action is actually shooting him, and you need excuse not to do so.
|
United States43212 Posts
On July 16 2024 11:29 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 11:04 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 10:39 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 10:09 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:54 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:43 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:35 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:49 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The open taking of bribes is also a potential concern. And the abuse is bipartisan, they all oppose being held to any kind of ethical standard. Sure, Gorsuch spent years being unable to find anyone willing to buy his land off him for asking price and sure, 9 days after appointment a partner at a law firm that argues cases before SCOTUS bought it from him but that’s presumably no worse than all the loans Thomas received and never repaid. Or lying in a nomination hearing and stating unambiguously that Roe vs Wade was established law before overturning it.
JFK said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
It can be applied in this context to remembering why both the rulers and the ruled benefit from propriety. People in power don’t allow peaceful revolution because they want to lose their power, they do it because they want to keep their heads. The more open and flagrant their abuses the less willing people are to place their faith in a system that gives them privileges. I think there are people within the establishment that forget this. They should allow themselves to be held accountable because accountability will prevent people from shooting them. Neil Gorsuch sold a property that he had a 20% stake in to a law firm head that has primarily donated to Democrat politicians, including donating the maximum to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It sold for $1.8 million, well under the initial asking price of $2.5 million. Is this one of the supposed "bribes" you're referencing? Also who is bribing who? Is Gorsuch bribing the law firm head by knocking $600,000+ off the asking price? Your guillotine has a pretty low bar. This isn’t about Democrat vs Republican, no judges should be taking payments from any lawyers arguing in front of them, no matter the alignment. . Well good cause the buyer has never argued in front of the supreme court https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer... Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.
Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times. I'm not sure you've been following this story at all because you're wrong on the facts. Or are you saying that because the chief executive didn't personally argue the case, a different lawyer in the law firm in which he's a partner did, then it's not a conflict. Because if that's what you're saying then you're an idiot, you might as well say "I never took money from the suspect, my wife did, and she's not a judge". Gorsuch rules in Greenberg's favor and the buyer makes money. Simple as that. The CEO of a law firm arguing cases before the Supreme Court should not be buying land from a sitting Supreme Court judge in a transaction that made the judge more than a quarter million in profit. The appearance of impropriety standard is easily cleared there. Like I said, I’m not saying it’s entirely Kosher. What I’m saying is that your “appearance of impropriety” standard being adequate for your guillotine is what makes you deranged. To be clear, I’m not making the argument for the termination of their judgeships. They are, day after day. I’m saying they should stop doing that. Except your offered “solution” also applies to Trump who does not have a lifetime appointment and for whom there already exists a peaceful alternative solution: win more electoral votes. Who else does it apply to? Anyone with an R by their name? Anyone who disagrees with you politically? You might as well take the mask off and not pretend like this has anything to do with Gorsuch’s minority stake in a plot of land in Colorado. Maybe MP will let you borrow his grandfather’s uniform. Since you ask, Cannon is making the argument for Trump too. Let’s say that a person believes that Trump is unfit for office because of the facts around his illegal secret document handling (and they are facts, he’s confessed to it). Normally no direct action would be required. He’s a criminal, he’s confessed to his crimes, he gets sentenced for them, that’s the end of it. If the system works then people can wash their hands of it and place their faith in the system. The best argument against taking the law into your own hands is a working legal system. But when Cannon, who is nakedly partisan, says that she’s barring the charges being brought against her candidate who confessed to the crime that is hugely damaging to faith in the system. The main argument against shooting him is devastated by her actions.I’m not making the argument that someone should shoot Trump, Cannon is. My preference is that he’s held accountable under the law. She seems to prefer that it go a different way. This is such deranged take, that I have no words. Reread it and if you got lost on the way: "The main argument against shooting him" - this means default action is actually shooting him, and you need excuse not to do so.
Not sure what you’re not understanding. The main argument against vigilantism is that we live in a society of rules with a justice system and equality under the law. Take away the justice system and vigilante justice is the only justice that remains. That’s why it’s such a bad idea to take away justice and equality under the law. That’s why I’m against putting people above the law.
The legal system is the superior alternative to people dispensing their own justice. I’m a big fan of it. A much bigger fan of it than Judge Cannon who seems to want to destroy it without remembering that once it’s gone people will resort to the alternative.
|
On July 16 2024 11:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 11:29 Razyda wrote:On July 16 2024 11:04 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 10:39 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 10:09 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:54 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:43 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:35 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:23 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Neil Gorsuch sold a property that he had a 20% stake in to a law firm head that has primarily donated to Democrat politicians, including donating the maximum to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It sold for $1.8 million, well under the initial asking price of $2.5 million. Is this one of the supposed "bribes" you're referencing? Also who is bribing who? Is Gorsuch bribing the law firm head by knocking $600,000+ off the asking price? Your guillotine has a pretty low bar. This isn’t about Democrat vs Republican, no judges should be taking payments from any lawyers arguing in front of them, no matter the alignment. . Well good cause the buyer has never argued in front of the supreme court https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer... Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.
Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times. I'm not sure you've been following this story at all because you're wrong on the facts. Or are you saying that because the chief executive didn't personally argue the case, a different lawyer in the law firm in which he's a partner did, then it's not a conflict. Because if that's what you're saying then you're an idiot, you might as well say "I never took money from the suspect, my wife did, and she's not a judge". Gorsuch rules in Greenberg's favor and the buyer makes money. Simple as that. The CEO of a law firm arguing cases before the Supreme Court should not be buying land from a sitting Supreme Court judge in a transaction that made the judge more than a quarter million in profit. The appearance of impropriety standard is easily cleared there. Like I said, I’m not saying it’s entirely Kosher. What I’m saying is that your “appearance of impropriety” standard being adequate for your guillotine is what makes you deranged. To be clear, I’m not making the argument for the termination of their judgeships. They are, day after day. I’m saying they should stop doing that. Except your offered “solution” also applies to Trump who does not have a lifetime appointment and for whom there already exists a peaceful alternative solution: win more electoral votes. Who else does it apply to? Anyone with an R by their name? Anyone who disagrees with you politically? You might as well take the mask off and not pretend like this has anything to do with Gorsuch’s minority stake in a plot of land in Colorado. Maybe MP will let you borrow his grandfather’s uniform. Since you ask, Cannon is making the argument for Trump too. Let’s say that a person believes that Trump is unfit for office because of the facts around his illegal secret document handling (and they are facts, he’s confessed to it). Normally no direct action would be required. He’s a criminal, he’s confessed to his crimes, he gets sentenced for them, that’s the end of it. If the system works then people can wash their hands of it and place their faith in the system. The best argument against taking the law into your own hands is a working legal system. But when Cannon, who is nakedly partisan, says that she’s barring the charges being brought against her candidate who confessed to the crime that is hugely damaging to faith in the system. The main argument against shooting him is devastated by her actions.I’m not making the argument that someone should shoot Trump, Cannon is. My preference is that he’s held accountable under the law. She seems to prefer that it go a different way. This is such deranged take, that I have no words. Reread it and if you got lost on the way: "The main argument against shooting him" - this means default action is actually shooting him, and you need excuse not to do so. Not sure what you’re not understanding. The main argument against vigilantism is that we live in a society of rules with a justice system and equality under the law. Take away the justice system and vigilante justice is the only justice that remains. That’s why it’s such a bad idea to take away justice and equality under the law. That’s why I’m against putting people above the law. The legal system is the superior alternative to people dispensing their own justice. I’m a big fan of it. A much bigger fan of it than Judge Cannon who seems to want to destroy it without remembering that once it’s gone people will resort to the alternative.
Ok lets go then:
" Let’s say that a person believes that Trump is unfit for office because of the facts around his illegal secret document handling (and they are facts, he’s confessed to it)" - Biden was deemed unable to stand trial cause he was to senile ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68245617 ) - lets apply same measure to both, please. Somehow I dont recall you arguing that main argument against shooting him was devastated by judges.
"If the system works then people can wash their hands of it and place their faith in the system." If It doesnt then people vote for the likes of Trump - I was trying to explain it to you while ago. (as I recall your answer was "I am better than them")
"But when Cannon, who is nakedly partisan, says that she’s barring the charges being brought against her candidate who confessed to the crime that is hugely damaging to faith in the system. The main argument against shooting him is devastated by her actions." - basically what you said here is: If he doesnt go to prison he has to be shoot.
"I’m not making the argument that someone should shoot Trump, Cannon is. My preference is that he’s held accountable under the law. She seems to prefer that it go a different way." - here you pretty much repeat yourself.
|
United States43212 Posts
You’re not really following but that’s okay.
|
On July 16 2024 11:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 10:39 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 10:09 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:54 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:43 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:35 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:49 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Is “abuse a lifetime appointment” slang for make decisions you don’t like?
The open taking of bribes is also a potential concern. And the abuse is bipartisan, they all oppose being held to any kind of ethical standard. Sure, Gorsuch spent years being unable to find anyone willing to buy his land off him for asking price and sure, 9 days after appointment a partner at a law firm that argues cases before SCOTUS bought it from him but that’s presumably no worse than all the loans Thomas received and never repaid. Or lying in a nomination hearing and stating unambiguously that Roe vs Wade was established law before overturning it. JFK said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." It can be applied in this context to remembering why both the rulers and the ruled benefit from propriety. People in power don’t allow peaceful revolution because they want to lose their power, they do it because they want to keep their heads. The more open and flagrant their abuses the less willing people are to place their faith in a system that gives them privileges. I think there are people within the establishment that forget this. They should allow themselves to be held accountable because accountability will prevent people from shooting them. Neil Gorsuch sold a property that he had a 20% stake in to a law firm head that has primarily donated to Democrat politicians, including donating the maximum to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It sold for $1.8 million, well under the initial asking price of $2.5 million. Is this one of the supposed "bribes" you're referencing? Also who is bribing who? Is Gorsuch bribing the law firm head by knocking $600,000+ off the asking price? Your guillotine has a pretty low bar. This isn’t about Democrat vs Republican, no judges should be taking payments from any lawyers arguing in front of them, no matter the alignment. . Well good cause the buyer has never argued in front of the supreme court https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer... Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.
Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times. I'm not sure you've been following this story at all because you're wrong on the facts. Or are you saying that because the chief executive didn't personally argue the case, a different lawyer in the law firm in which he's a partner did, then it's not a conflict. Because if that's what you're saying then you're an idiot, you might as well say "I never took money from the suspect, my wife did, and she's not a judge". Gorsuch rules in Greenberg's favor and the buyer makes money. Simple as that. The CEO of a law firm arguing cases before the Supreme Court should not be buying land from a sitting Supreme Court judge in a transaction that made the judge more than a quarter million in profit. The appearance of impropriety standard is easily cleared there. Like I said, I’m not saying it’s entirely Kosher. What I’m saying is that your “appearance of impropriety” standard being adequate for your guillotine is what makes you deranged. To be clear, I’m not making the argument for the termination of their judgeships. They are, day after day. I’m saying they should stop doing that. Except your offered “solution” also applies to Trump who does not have a lifetime appointment and for whom there already exists a peaceful alternative solution: win more electoral votes. Who else does it apply to? Anyone with an R by their name? Anyone who disagrees with you politically? You might as well take the mask off and not pretend like this has anything to do with Gorsuch’s minority stake in a plot of land in Colorado. Maybe MP will let you borrow his grandfather’s uniform. Since you ask, Cannon is making the argument for Trump too. Let’s say that a person believes that Trump is unfit for office because of the facts around his illegal secret document handling (and they are facts, he’s confessed to it). Normally no direct action would be required. He’s a criminal, he’s confessed to his crimes, he gets sentenced for them, that’s the end of it. If the system works then people can wash their hands of it and place their faith in the system. The best argument against taking the law into your own hands is a working legal system. But when Cannon, who is nakedly partisan, says that she’s barring the charges being brought against her candidate who confessed to the crime that is hugely damaging to faith in the system. The main argument against shooting him is devastated by her actions. I’m not making the argument that someone should shoot Trump, Cannon is. My preference is that he’s held accountable under the law. She seems to prefer that it go a different way. Edit: I really don’t know why you keep saying Gorsuch minority stake. He made a cool quarter mil (at least, he disclosed it was at least that) on the deal. If the total deal profit was $2m and he only made $400k then he still made $400k. Would that be somehow better than if he got 100% of $100k?
There’s lots of people that think the hush money case is a miscarriage of justice. The former NY attorney general Andrew Cuomo-D said those charges shouldn’t have been brought. Falsification of business records is almost never brought as a standalone charge. Everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together acknowledges that if Trump were retired and golfing they wouldn’t have bothered with these charges, etc.
I’m sure I’ve made it abundantly clear that I think progressive DAs and judges that dole out slaps on the wrist to repeat offenders to turn them back on the street and victimize more people is a miscarriage of justice.
Introvert thinks the judge in the hush money case was a partisan that made some unfair rulings. Introvert hasn’t offered extrajudicial killings as a possible recourse. At least it’s kind of you to concede the moral high ground to one of the few conservative posters here.
|
Not a single person in this thread would be arguing against Cannon's ruling that the Attorney General doesn't have the power to take random JDs living in the Netherlands, unilaterally deputize them as US Attorneys while skirting Congress, and have them file and prosecute cases against the administration's political opponents, if it were Drumpf in the White House. The US system is clear, though maybe not to outsiders: Anyone can take anybody to court by suing them in a civil case, but not everybody is afforded the right to bring criminal charges against someone. You have to be a legitimate representative of the government, meaning an actual prosecutor. If Drumpf had done that, it would be fascism.
|
United States43212 Posts
On July 16 2024 13:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 11:04 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 10:39 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 10:09 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:54 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:43 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:35 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 07:49 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The open taking of bribes is also a potential concern. And the abuse is bipartisan, they all oppose being held to any kind of ethical standard. Sure, Gorsuch spent years being unable to find anyone willing to buy his land off him for asking price and sure, 9 days after appointment a partner at a law firm that argues cases before SCOTUS bought it from him but that’s presumably no worse than all the loans Thomas received and never repaid. Or lying in a nomination hearing and stating unambiguously that Roe vs Wade was established law before overturning it.
JFK said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
It can be applied in this context to remembering why both the rulers and the ruled benefit from propriety. People in power don’t allow peaceful revolution because they want to lose their power, they do it because they want to keep their heads. The more open and flagrant their abuses the less willing people are to place their faith in a system that gives them privileges. I think there are people within the establishment that forget this. They should allow themselves to be held accountable because accountability will prevent people from shooting them. Neil Gorsuch sold a property that he had a 20% stake in to a law firm head that has primarily donated to Democrat politicians, including donating the maximum to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It sold for $1.8 million, well under the initial asking price of $2.5 million. Is this one of the supposed "bribes" you're referencing? Also who is bribing who? Is Gorsuch bribing the law firm head by knocking $600,000+ off the asking price? Your guillotine has a pretty low bar. This isn’t about Democrat vs Republican, no judges should be taking payments from any lawyers arguing in front of them, no matter the alignment. . Well good cause the buyer has never argued in front of the supreme court https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer... Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.
Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times. I'm not sure you've been following this story at all because you're wrong on the facts. Or are you saying that because the chief executive didn't personally argue the case, a different lawyer in the law firm in which he's a partner did, then it's not a conflict. Because if that's what you're saying then you're an idiot, you might as well say "I never took money from the suspect, my wife did, and she's not a judge". Gorsuch rules in Greenberg's favor and the buyer makes money. Simple as that. The CEO of a law firm arguing cases before the Supreme Court should not be buying land from a sitting Supreme Court judge in a transaction that made the judge more than a quarter million in profit. The appearance of impropriety standard is easily cleared there. Like I said, I’m not saying it’s entirely Kosher. What I’m saying is that your “appearance of impropriety” standard being adequate for your guillotine is what makes you deranged. To be clear, I’m not making the argument for the termination of their judgeships. They are, day after day. I’m saying they should stop doing that. Except your offered “solution” also applies to Trump who does not have a lifetime appointment and for whom there already exists a peaceful alternative solution: win more electoral votes. Who else does it apply to? Anyone with an R by their name? Anyone who disagrees with you politically? You might as well take the mask off and not pretend like this has anything to do with Gorsuch’s minority stake in a plot of land in Colorado. Maybe MP will let you borrow his grandfather’s uniform. Since you ask, Cannon is making the argument for Trump too. Let’s say that a person believes that Trump is unfit for office because of the facts around his illegal secret document handling (and they are facts, he’s confessed to it). Normally no direct action would be required. He’s a criminal, he’s confessed to his crimes, he gets sentenced for them, that’s the end of it. If the system works then people can wash their hands of it and place their faith in the system. The best argument against taking the law into your own hands is a working legal system. But when Cannon, who is nakedly partisan, says that she’s barring the charges being brought against her candidate who confessed to the crime that is hugely damaging to faith in the system. The main argument against shooting him is devastated by her actions. I’m not making the argument that someone should shoot Trump, Cannon is. My preference is that he’s held accountable under the law. She seems to prefer that it go a different way. Edit: I really don’t know why you keep saying Gorsuch minority stake. He made a cool quarter mil (at least, he disclosed it was at least that) on the deal. If the total deal profit was $2m and he only made $400k then he still made $400k. Would that be somehow better than if he got 100% of $100k? There’s lots of people that think the hush money case is a miscarriage of justice. The former NY attorney general Andrew Cuomo-D said those charges shouldn’t have been brought. Falsification of business records is almost never brought as a standalone charge. Everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together acknowledges that if Trump were retired and golfing they wouldn’t have bothered with these charges, etc. I’m sure I’ve made it abundantly clear that I think progressive DAs and judges that dole out slaps on the wrist to repeat offenders to turn them back on the street and victimize more people is a miscarriage of justice. Introvert thinks the judge in the hush money case was a partisan that made some unfair rulings. Introvert hasn’t offered extrajudicial killings as a possible recourse. At least it’s kind of you to concede the moral high ground to one of the few conservative posters here.
Let us suppose that there was a conspiracy to deny Republicans an electoral victory and it succeeded. Let’s not just stop at trumped up charges, after all, the official position of the Republican candidate is that the last election was stolen. Let us suppose all that was true and that America was now a one party state ruled by Democrats with show elections to placate the masses.
Would it be virtuous for Republicans to trust in that system and take no action? In such a world would that be the moral high ground?
|
On July 16 2024 14:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 13:37 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 11:04 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 10:39 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 10:09 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:54 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:43 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:35 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:23 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Neil Gorsuch sold a property that he had a 20% stake in to a law firm head that has primarily donated to Democrat politicians, including donating the maximum to Hillary Clinton in 2016. It sold for $1.8 million, well under the initial asking price of $2.5 million. Is this one of the supposed "bribes" you're referencing? Also who is bribing who? Is Gorsuch bribing the law firm head by knocking $600,000+ off the asking price? Your guillotine has a pretty low bar. This isn’t about Democrat vs Republican, no judges should be taking payments from any lawyers arguing in front of them, no matter the alignment. . Well good cause the buyer has never argued in front of the supreme court https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer... Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.
Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times. I'm not sure you've been following this story at all because you're wrong on the facts. Or are you saying that because the chief executive didn't personally argue the case, a different lawyer in the law firm in which he's a partner did, then it's not a conflict. Because if that's what you're saying then you're an idiot, you might as well say "I never took money from the suspect, my wife did, and she's not a judge". Gorsuch rules in Greenberg's favor and the buyer makes money. Simple as that. The CEO of a law firm arguing cases before the Supreme Court should not be buying land from a sitting Supreme Court judge in a transaction that made the judge more than a quarter million in profit. The appearance of impropriety standard is easily cleared there. Like I said, I’m not saying it’s entirely Kosher. What I’m saying is that your “appearance of impropriety” standard being adequate for your guillotine is what makes you deranged. To be clear, I’m not making the argument for the termination of their judgeships. They are, day after day. I’m saying they should stop doing that. Except your offered “solution” also applies to Trump who does not have a lifetime appointment and for whom there already exists a peaceful alternative solution: win more electoral votes. Who else does it apply to? Anyone with an R by their name? Anyone who disagrees with you politically? You might as well take the mask off and not pretend like this has anything to do with Gorsuch’s minority stake in a plot of land in Colorado. Maybe MP will let you borrow his grandfather’s uniform. Since you ask, Cannon is making the argument for Trump too. Let’s say that a person believes that Trump is unfit for office because of the facts around his illegal secret document handling (and they are facts, he’s confessed to it). Normally no direct action would be required. He’s a criminal, he’s confessed to his crimes, he gets sentenced for them, that’s the end of it. If the system works then people can wash their hands of it and place their faith in the system. The best argument against taking the law into your own hands is a working legal system. But when Cannon, who is nakedly partisan, says that she’s barring the charges being brought against her candidate who confessed to the crime that is hugely damaging to faith in the system. The main argument against shooting him is devastated by her actions. I’m not making the argument that someone should shoot Trump, Cannon is. My preference is that he’s held accountable under the law. She seems to prefer that it go a different way. Edit: I really don’t know why you keep saying Gorsuch minority stake. He made a cool quarter mil (at least, he disclosed it was at least that) on the deal. If the total deal profit was $2m and he only made $400k then he still made $400k. Would that be somehow better than if he got 100% of $100k? There’s lots of people that think the hush money case is a miscarriage of justice. The former NY attorney general Andrew Cuomo-D said those charges shouldn’t have been brought. Falsification of business records is almost never brought as a standalone charge. Everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together acknowledges that if Trump were retired and golfing they wouldn’t have bothered with these charges, etc. I’m sure I’ve made it abundantly clear that I think progressive DAs and judges that dole out slaps on the wrist to repeat offenders to turn them back on the street and victimize more people is a miscarriage of justice. Introvert thinks the judge in the hush money case was a partisan that made some unfair rulings. Introvert hasn’t offered extrajudicial killings as a possible recourse. At least it’s kind of you to concede the moral high ground to one of the few conservative posters here. Let us suppose that there was a conspiracy to deny Republicans an electoral victory and it succeeded. Let’s not just stop at trumped up charges, after all, the official position of the Republican candidate is that the last election was stolen. Let us suppose all that was true and that America was now a one party state ruled by Democrats with show elections to placate the masses. Would it be virtuous for Republicans to trust in that system and take no action? In such a world would that be the moral high ground?
Virtuous? Perhaps. But I see no reason why they should accept that
|
My god are you slow or something?.... thats his point.
If the courts/law are gone, only violence remains.
|
United States43212 Posts
On July 16 2024 14:39 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 14:18 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 13:37 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 11:04 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 10:39 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 10:09 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:54 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:43 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:35 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
This isn’t about Democrat vs Republican, no judges should be taking payments from any lawyers arguing in front of them, no matter the alignment. . Well good cause the buyer has never argued in front of the supreme court https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer... Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.
Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times. I'm not sure you've been following this story at all because you're wrong on the facts. Or are you saying that because the chief executive didn't personally argue the case, a different lawyer in the law firm in which he's a partner did, then it's not a conflict. Because if that's what you're saying then you're an idiot, you might as well say "I never took money from the suspect, my wife did, and she's not a judge". Gorsuch rules in Greenberg's favor and the buyer makes money. Simple as that. The CEO of a law firm arguing cases before the Supreme Court should not be buying land from a sitting Supreme Court judge in a transaction that made the judge more than a quarter million in profit. The appearance of impropriety standard is easily cleared there. Like I said, I’m not saying it’s entirely Kosher. What I’m saying is that your “appearance of impropriety” standard being adequate for your guillotine is what makes you deranged. To be clear, I’m not making the argument for the termination of their judgeships. They are, day after day. I’m saying they should stop doing that. Except your offered “solution” also applies to Trump who does not have a lifetime appointment and for whom there already exists a peaceful alternative solution: win more electoral votes. Who else does it apply to? Anyone with an R by their name? Anyone who disagrees with you politically? You might as well take the mask off and not pretend like this has anything to do with Gorsuch’s minority stake in a plot of land in Colorado. Maybe MP will let you borrow his grandfather’s uniform. Since you ask, Cannon is making the argument for Trump too. Let’s say that a person believes that Trump is unfit for office because of the facts around his illegal secret document handling (and they are facts, he’s confessed to it). Normally no direct action would be required. He’s a criminal, he’s confessed to his crimes, he gets sentenced for them, that’s the end of it. If the system works then people can wash their hands of it and place their faith in the system. The best argument against taking the law into your own hands is a working legal system. But when Cannon, who is nakedly partisan, says that she’s barring the charges being brought against her candidate who confessed to the crime that is hugely damaging to faith in the system. The main argument against shooting him is devastated by her actions. I’m not making the argument that someone should shoot Trump, Cannon is. My preference is that he’s held accountable under the law. She seems to prefer that it go a different way. Edit: I really don’t know why you keep saying Gorsuch minority stake. He made a cool quarter mil (at least, he disclosed it was at least that) on the deal. If the total deal profit was $2m and he only made $400k then he still made $400k. Would that be somehow better than if he got 100% of $100k? There’s lots of people that think the hush money case is a miscarriage of justice. The former NY attorney general Andrew Cuomo-D said those charges shouldn’t have been brought. Falsification of business records is almost never brought as a standalone charge. Everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together acknowledges that if Trump were retired and golfing they wouldn’t have bothered with these charges, etc. I’m sure I’ve made it abundantly clear that I think progressive DAs and judges that dole out slaps on the wrist to repeat offenders to turn them back on the street and victimize more people is a miscarriage of justice. Introvert thinks the judge in the hush money case was a partisan that made some unfair rulings. Introvert hasn’t offered extrajudicial killings as a possible recourse. At least it’s kind of you to concede the moral high ground to one of the few conservative posters here. Let us suppose that there was a conspiracy to deny Republicans an electoral victory and it succeeded. Let’s not just stop at trumped up charges, after all, the official position of the Republican candidate is that the last election was stolen. Let us suppose all that was true and that America was now a one party state ruled by Democrats with show elections to placate the masses. Would it be virtuous for Republicans to trust in that system and take no action? In such a world would that be the moral high ground? Virtuous? Perhaps. But I see no reason why they should accept that
Then why are you presuming to lecture me when you do not disagree with the point? In a world in which the belief in the system was eroded they would simply stop following the rules of that system. Both sides would. This isn’t partisan.
The appearance of legitimacy, of equality under the law, of a system that works, that all matters. That’s what is at stake here. We all agree to follow the basic rules of the game, even when we lose, for two reasons. Firstly, we believe that we have a fair shot at winning and secondly because the alternative is GH. But that agreement is voluntary, it is built on consensus and it takes surprisingly few 20 year old registered Republicans to destroy that consensus. If one side starts openly cheating then the other side is going to flip the board over.
You don’t accept defeat because you don’t care about winning, you accept defeat because some things are worse than losing. When you lose the vote you make a concession speech because it’s better for the office of president to exist, even if you’re not going to hold it, than to delegitimize it forever.
The Democrats could have locked Trump up by now if they wanted to, but they couldn’t necessarily predict the damage that decision would do to democracy and the confidence of voters in the system.
The Supreme Court are entitled to take as many bribes as they wish as openly as they wish, they are beholden only to their own code of conduct and will never be impeached in a partisan environment. But if they break those norms then they’re damaging the idea of justice which is the only reason they have power in the first place.
Judge Cannon is able to abuse her power to avoid Trump facing a fair trial. But if she refuses to allow a fair trial then she places him above the law and forces anyone seeking justice to try some other means.
While I clearly have an opinion on Trump this isn’t just about him, this is much larger than him. This is about the shortsightedness of cheating to win a game where the prize depends upon the consent of your defeated opponent. The thing that keeps a political party up at night shouldn’t be the fear that your party loses control of the Supreme Court, it should be that people stop listening to the Supreme Court altogether.
I don’t cheer for political violence, I regret that so many institutions have forgotten that they exist to give us something better to believe in. They’re the ones making the calls for violence. They have an obligation to do better.
|
On July 16 2024 15:31 Velr wrote:
My god are you slow or something?.... thats his point.
If the courts/law are gone, only violence remains.
First of all I didn't say extrajudicial killings would be an acceptable response or even that violence would be an acceptable response.
Secondly the idea that some hypothetical could be created in which violence would be acceptable hypothetical response means that I can't disagree with him that we shouldn't off Gorsuch for his "appearance of impropriety" is a pretty asinine thing to say.
Edit: Actually I should give you the benefit of the doubt because maybe you aren't familiar with his posts. Sure, now that I've put the spotlight on Kwark he's being shy and pretending he's just making some principled point that if our justice system breaks down we are left with vigilantism. I'm sure everyone can agree with the logic of that. But here's what he's been posting for over a year now:
On September 05 2023 14:02 KwarK wrote:
No good options. Personally I favour discretely tossing a grenade into the Supreme Court chambers in a video game. Then lame duck Biden can stack it on the way out.
This is not some "if" scenario if there is a complete breakdown of the justice system. This is his "favoured" response for quite some time. That's even before SCOTUS decided on the Trump immunity case. So when I ask him why does his favour this plan and he responds with some bullshit that includes Gorsuch selling a property he had a 20% stake in to make a cool quarter milly and create the "appearance of impropriety" I'm within my right to think he's insane. What say you? Do you favour that plan as well?
|
I think KwarK's point is very clear.
And it's totally not promoting violence, but it's promoting rule of law.
Judge Cannon has sabotaged the legal system, if it was clearly an unjust, even "fascist" act to appoint and pay the special counsel/investigator by the DoJ, why the heck did it took her 2 years to uncover the fact that he wasn't also cleared by the senate?
She has been deliberately slowwalking the case, and now she (and C. Thomas) found it...unconstitutional to appoint a special counsel 3 1/2 monthts before the election.
You can't explain the timing away, even if you agree to the reasoning that Jack Smith should have been approved by the senate.
Trump is on tape, willingly admitting that he took and won't return the boxes and boxes of documents, and tried to hide them from the FBI... as was his right (which it wasn't, but he missunderstood a briefing).
Biden did cooperate to have his home searched, he did agree to return the found documents, and it was concluded that keeping them can be accounted to a simple mistake.
The DOJ however couldn't have put Biden on trial anyway, since he is still POTUS.
They would have needed to find the documents in the 4 years he wasn't.
|
On July 16 2024 04:33 zeo wrote:
Eh, reading up on his foreign policy at least he's not in the pocket of the military industrial complex. Might see 4 years of peace yet
And by "peace" you mean "Russian jackboots stomping on the faces of Ukrainians forever"?
|
"military industrial complex" is just a propagandist term.
They are often used if you can't point towards a face,company or crime, but you need to find another way to say "big bad is in the bushes, believe me okay?"
Every nation needs to constantly spent ressources on their own military production, or in capitalism, the production will stop and the companies will lose their ability to ramp up the production when needed.
Evidence #1: Europe with it's low military spending, still not being able to match russia's output of artillery shells.
This also means that you got to sell weapons to "not so bad guys"...like the saudis.. or the new iraq government.
And sometimes it means making up reasons to invade iraq AGAIN.
Remember when trump was about to bring peace to the middle east? Well what a bunch of crap that was.
|
On July 16 2024 14:39 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 14:18 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 13:37 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 11:04 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 10:39 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 10:09 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:54 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:43 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:35 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
This isn’t about Democrat vs Republican, no judges should be taking payments from any lawyers arguing in front of them, no matter the alignment. . Well good cause the buyer has never argued in front of the supreme court https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer... Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.
Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times. I'm not sure you've been following this story at all because you're wrong on the facts. Or are you saying that because the chief executive didn't personally argue the case, a different lawyer in the law firm in which he's a partner did, then it's not a conflict. Because if that's what you're saying then you're an idiot, you might as well say "I never took money from the suspect, my wife did, and she's not a judge". Gorsuch rules in Greenberg's favor and the buyer makes money. Simple as that. The CEO of a law firm arguing cases before the Supreme Court should not be buying land from a sitting Supreme Court judge in a transaction that made the judge more than a quarter million in profit. The appearance of impropriety standard is easily cleared there. Like I said, I’m not saying it’s entirely Kosher. What I’m saying is that your “appearance of impropriety” standard being adequate for your guillotine is what makes you deranged. To be clear, I’m not making the argument for the termination of their judgeships. They are, day after day. I’m saying they should stop doing that. Except your offered “solution” also applies to Trump who does not have a lifetime appointment and for whom there already exists a peaceful alternative solution: win more electoral votes. Who else does it apply to? Anyone with an R by their name? Anyone who disagrees with you politically? You might as well take the mask off and not pretend like this has anything to do with Gorsuch’s minority stake in a plot of land in Colorado. Maybe MP will let you borrow his grandfather’s uniform. Since you ask, Cannon is making the argument for Trump too. Let’s say that a person believes that Trump is unfit for office because of the facts around his illegal secret document handling (and they are facts, he’s confessed to it). Normally no direct action would be required. He’s a criminal, he’s confessed to his crimes, he gets sentenced for them, that’s the end of it. If the system works then people can wash their hands of it and place their faith in the system. The best argument against taking the law into your own hands is a working legal system. But when Cannon, who is nakedly partisan, says that she’s barring the charges being brought against her candidate who confessed to the crime that is hugely damaging to faith in the system. The main argument against shooting him is devastated by her actions. I’m not making the argument that someone should shoot Trump, Cannon is. My preference is that he’s held accountable under the law. She seems to prefer that it go a different way. Edit: I really don’t know why you keep saying Gorsuch minority stake. He made a cool quarter mil (at least, he disclosed it was at least that) on the deal. If the total deal profit was $2m and he only made $400k then he still made $400k. Would that be somehow better than if he got 100% of $100k? There’s lots of people that think the hush money case is a miscarriage of justice. The former NY attorney general Andrew Cuomo-D said those charges shouldn’t have been brought. Falsification of business records is almost never brought as a standalone charge. Everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together acknowledges that if Trump were retired and golfing they wouldn’t have bothered with these charges, etc. I’m sure I’ve made it abundantly clear that I think progressive DAs and judges that dole out slaps on the wrist to repeat offenders to turn them back on the street and victimize more people is a miscarriage of justice. Introvert thinks the judge in the hush money case was a partisan that made some unfair rulings. Introvert hasn’t offered extrajudicial killings as a possible recourse. At least it’s kind of you to concede the moral high ground to one of the few conservative posters here. Let us suppose that there was a conspiracy to deny Republicans an electoral victory and it succeeded. Let’s not just stop at trumped up charges, after all, the official position of the Republican candidate is that the last election was stolen. Let us suppose all that was true and that America was now a one party state ruled by Democrats with show elections to placate the masses. Would it be virtuous for Republicans to trust in that system and take no action? In such a world would that be the moral high ground? Virtuous? Perhaps. But I see no reason why they should accept that
It would perhaps be virtuous to stand by and do nothing while America descends into autocracy? are you fucking high?
|
On July 16 2024 16:44 ThaddeusK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2024 14:39 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 14:18 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 13:37 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 11:04 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 10:39 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 10:09 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On July 16 2024 08:54 KwarK wrote:On July 16 2024 08:43 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Well good cause the buyer has never argued in front of the supreme court
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer... Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.
Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times. I'm not sure you've been following this story at all because you're wrong on the facts. Or are you saying that because the chief executive didn't personally argue the case, a different lawyer in the law firm in which he's a partner did, then it's not a conflict. Because if that's what you're saying then you're an idiot, you might as well say "I never took money from the suspect, my wife did, and she's not a judge". Gorsuch rules in Greenberg's favor and the buyer makes money. Simple as that. The CEO of a law firm arguing cases before the Supreme Court should not be buying land from a sitting Supreme Court judge in a transaction that made the judge more than a quarter million in profit. The appearance of impropriety standard is easily cleared there. Like I said, I’m not saying it’s entirely Kosher. What I’m saying is that your “appearance of impropriety” standard being adequate for your guillotine is what makes you deranged. To be clear, I’m not making the argument for the termination of their judgeships. They are, day after day. I’m saying they should stop doing that. Except your offered “solution” also applies to Trump who does not have a lifetime appointment and for whom there already exists a peaceful alternative solution: win more electoral votes. Who else does it apply to? Anyone with an R by their name? Anyone who disagrees with you politically? You might as well take the mask off and not pretend like this has anything to do with Gorsuch’s minority stake in a plot of land in Colorado. Maybe MP will let you borrow his grandfather’s uniform. Since you ask, Cannon is making the argument for Trump too. Let’s say that a person believes that Trump is unfit for office because of the facts around his illegal secret document handling (and they are facts, he’s confessed to it). Normally no direct action would be required. He’s a criminal, he’s confessed to his crimes, he gets sentenced for them, that’s the end of it. If the system works then people can wash their hands of it and place their faith in the system. The best argument against taking the law into your own hands is a working legal system. But when Cannon, who is nakedly partisan, says that she’s barring the charges being brought against her candidate who confessed to the crime that is hugely damaging to faith in the system. The main argument against shooting him is devastated by her actions. I’m not making the argument that someone should shoot Trump, Cannon is. My preference is that he’s held accountable under the law. She seems to prefer that it go a different way. Edit: I really don’t know why you keep saying Gorsuch minority stake. He made a cool quarter mil (at least, he disclosed it was at least that) on the deal. If the total deal profit was $2m and he only made $400k then he still made $400k. Would that be somehow better than if he got 100% of $100k? There’s lots of people that think the hush money case is a miscarriage of justice. The former NY attorney general Andrew Cuomo-D said those charges shouldn’t have been brought. Falsification of business records is almost never brought as a standalone charge. Everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together acknowledges that if Trump were retired and golfing they wouldn’t have bothered with these charges, etc. I’m sure I’ve made it abundantly clear that I think progressive DAs and judges that dole out slaps on the wrist to repeat offenders to turn them back on the street and victimize more people is a miscarriage of justice. Introvert thinks the judge in the hush money case was a partisan that made some unfair rulings. Introvert hasn’t offered extrajudicial killings as a possible recourse. At least it’s kind of you to concede the moral high ground to one of the few conservative posters here. Let us suppose that there was a conspiracy to deny Republicans an electoral victory and it succeeded. Let’s not just stop at trumped up charges, after all, the official position of the Republican candidate is that the last election was stolen. Let us suppose all that was true and that America was now a one party state ruled by Democrats with show elections to placate the masses. Would it be virtuous for Republicans to trust in that system and take no action? In such a world would that be the moral high ground? Virtuous? Perhaps. But I see no reason why they should accept that It would perhaps be virtuous to stand by and do nothing while America descends into autocracy? are you fucking high?
In a “turn the other cheek” kind of way it’s maybe more virtuous than picking up a rifle. It’s somewhat subjective, hence the “perhaps.” Kind of irrelevant to the conversation so I’ll happily withdraw it if it pleases you.
|
On July 16 2024 16:13 KT_Elwood wrote:
I think KwarK's point is very clear.
And it's totally not promoting violence, but it's promoting rule of law.
Right… someone that favors throwing a grenade into the scotus chambers [in a video game] and bemoans the near miss on Trump by saying “there’s still 4 more months to finish the job” is definitely not promoting violence. Sure…
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
