advertisement


Post-Trump: III (decline, further tantrums, legal proceedings, book deals etc)

DonQuixote99 said:
There was a test of that theory back at the time of the Cherokee Removal. The Supreme Court said they couldn't do it. That 19th century Trump, Andrew Jackson, did it anyway.

I am not saying judicial review is futile, or that constitutional checks and balances aren't a brilliant idea, they are. I'm saying understand better what rule of law is up against, and that it can lose. You cannot ignore politics and think the laws and constitution are solid protection. They may not be.
Click to expand...
Sure, but is that not a better vista than relying on a few people of goodwill? I know your SC is now ****ed, & t's no longer sufficient a check or balance due to it's conservative bias but I would venture to say that the US is in this position because it has ignored how fragile the whole system is. The GOP recognised this fragility & targetted it - now it's probably too late for anything to be done
 
Ciunas Audio said:
Sure, but is that not a better vista than relying on a few people of goodwill? I know your SC is now ****ed, & t's no longer sufficient a check or balance due to it's conservative bias but I would venture to say that the US is in this position because it has ignored how fragile the whole system is. The GOP recognised this fragility & targetted it - now it's probably too late for anything to be done
Click to expand...

Biden is doing a good job of playing catch up while Dems control the Senate.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...sident-since-jfk-at-this-point-in-his-tenure/
 
Every so often I like to point to the moderate-but-smart liberal commentary of Doug Muder of The Weekly Sift. His definition of fascism seems particularly lucid:
[Fascism is] a dysfunctional attempt of people who feel humiliated and powerless to restore their pride by:

styling themselves as the only true and faithful heirs of their nation’s glorious (and possibly mythical) past,

identifying with a charismatic leader whose success will become their success,

helping that leader achieve power by whatever means necessary, including violence,

under his leadership, purifying the nation by restoring its traditional and characteristic virtues (again, through violence if necessary),

reawakening and reclaiming the nation’s past glory (by war, if necessary),

all of which leads to the main point: humiliating the internal and external enemies they blame for their own humiliation.
Click to expand...
 
Ciunas Audio said:
Sure, but is that not a better vista than relying on a few people of goodwill? I know your SC is now ****ed, & t's no longer sufficient a check or balance due to it's conservative bias but I would venture to say that the US is in this position because it has ignored how fragile the whole system is. The GOP recognised this fragility & targetted it - now it's probably too late for anything to be done
Click to expand...
You don't get it. I say you need *both* a good constitution with a good judicial check on overstepping by other branches of government, AND people of good character acting to make it function properly. Neither is sufficient alone.

I again invite you to sketch out some improved constitutional features that you think would make the second factor unnecessary. A scoffing attitude at the role of good character in politics only contributes to the fragility that distresses you, I think. We need to keep in mind that it is vitally important not to elect lying assholes.
 
DonQuixote99 said:
You don't get it. I say you need *both* a good constitution with a good judicial check on overstepping by other branches of government, AND people of good character acting to make it function properly. Neither is sufficient alone.
Click to expand...

And exploiting this is of course the great sin -- among the many -- of McConnell. Realising this allowed him a) to achieve at least one and eventually probably more major strategic goals of his party and b) putting an extra (arguably illegitimate) limit on Democrat power despite consistently losing elections.
 
The ruling is bonkers and I suspect they will appeal. Her ruling fails not only on basic law for jurisdictional (it should be in DC) and standing (Trump doesn't own the documents and didn't file under oath claiming ownership of anything that was taken) grounds but also literally says the DoJ cannot be trusted and undermines the basic operation of search warrants.

The DoJ surely won't let this stand and will appeal in short order.

Although if you want to get depressed the appeal would be in the 11th circuit which means a) good chance of a Trump judge on appeal and b) if it gets fast tracked to the supreme court it will end up on Clarence Thomas's shadow docket.

I suspect you will be able to read/watch any number of legal twitter threads or youtube videos later today explaining all this in detail.
 
matthewr said:
I suspect you will be able to read/watch any number of legal twitter threads or youtube videos later today explaining all this in detail.
Click to expand...

I’ve been reading loads, Mueller, She Wrote, EmptyWheel etc and a load of other stuff. I don’t understand it, but it is highly worrying. It may be nothing more than Trump’s usual mob-boss delaying tactics, but it may be an attempt to bounce it to the now clearly tainted and corrupt Supreme Court. There is a suggestion that the Intelligence Services being above the DOJ could escalate things as a national security matter, but who knows? The positive is the DOJ are not daft, they must have predicted this move long ago and maybe what they do next will explain a lot.
 
Ok. If you more than half expect the 11th circuit, and Thomas, would find for a special master, then don't appeal. You get a special master either way, and at least you don't have bad precedents ratified by higher courts.
 
DonQuixote99 said:
Ok. If you more than half expect the 11th circuit, and Thomas, would find for a special master, then don't appeal. You get a special master either way, and at least you don't have bad precedents ratified by higher courts.
Click to expand...

I don’t see how they can’t appeal just on the basis of rule of law. I suppose you can say it will be fine because it will be overturned as soon as someone cites it (I am of course not a lawyer) but I don’t think the DoJ (and especially a Garland DoJ) will take that view just on principle. You can’t be scared of obviously wring rulings.

They might file for reconsideration by this judge to get more in the record before an appeal or some other legal manoeuvring but I think they will appeal and appeal soon.

Also there isnt really much of a rush given they almost certainly won’t indict before the midterms because of precedent and the DNI investigation into the nat sec issues can continue.
 
This ruling on a Special Master doesn’t stop DOJ from continuing their investigation. They’ve already reviewed everything, and it’s not as if they were going to indict before the midterms, and this somehow derails their plan. Doubt they will fight the ruling. Instead, I think they will seek ways to turn it to their advantage, like they did when the judge unsealed the affidavit.

Meanwhile, this happened a few days ago.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...d-sanctioned-russian-oligarch-nbc-2022-09-01/

Can’t help but wonder how many of the missing 43 top secret documents were found.
 
Neal Katyal on the SM (Twitter). I just don’t understand this as it seems so flawed (all the legal Twitter seems on the same page here). Cannon seems to actively highlight exactly why what she is asking for is bullshit legally and then demands it anyway. Surely the intent here from the Trump team has to be to delay and bounce it via a deliberately lost appeal up to his bent Supreme Court. What else can it be?
 
matthewr said:
The ruling enjoins the DoJ to immediately stop their investigation. It really is that bonkers.
Click to expand...

Yes, it will delay the investigation into T***p’s guilt for a few weeks. But the documents have already been reviewed, and the intelligence services are already working to minimize the implications for national security. The judge’s ruling does not impact that work.

I may be wrong, but I still think that the ruling will have little impact on the overall course of the investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top