Jump to content

Ojo Rojo

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1565
  • Joined

Everything posted by Ojo Rojo

  1. I know, my dudes. It was rhetorical, which is sad.
  2. I mean, honestly - I welcome some World War Z type shit right now. My current routine isn't really doing it for me that much anyway. I'm down for some survivalist shit, personally.
  3. What could go wrong?
  4. Said no one ever. Said everyone all the time.
  5. How do I give infinity rep?
  6. Don't disagree if it's limited to a "sanity check" for an absurd result. Sure. But here, too, is a line-drawing exercise. There are decisions that would be certain to lead to an absurd result and then there are decisions where there is a theoretically possibly absurd outcome. At what odds do you draw the line where you can't make the decision because of the result? Your line is way before mine. I admit that I haven't studied the opinion at length and so my understanding of the full effect may be imperfect, but applying your absurd result test here... Really? Why would they want that? They are not dumb enough to do create a monarchy by accident. They are not untethered from the Constitution enough to do it intentionally. On this, no fucking way.
  7. I disagree, but now we're getting into judicial philosophies. I don't think it's a good idea for a court to consider the effect of their rulings as a guiding principle for how to rule. That makes them legislators and that function is reserved for the Congress. You can be aware of the impact and you can even spell out what the impact of the decision will be within the decision itself as a guidepost or as a plea for Congress to act. I don't think the court banned all evidence behind a presidential act; they banned evidence of motive. Again, the way it's supposed to work is if people don't like that shit, Congress has to act. I know, I know, fat chance. But that's the system we got. I also don't think SCOTUS wants a king or intended to crown one. Do you?
  8. We're going a long way to make a small point. If you read the opinion, it goes into why the plaintiff had standing. The standing issue was addressed at the 10th Circuit and the Supreme Court. They both found "a credible threat" that the plaintiff would be affected by the Colorado law. The plaintiff did not rely on this "phantom" customer to create the case or controversy and the courts did not rely on it either. Everyone here has said that the Supreme Court absolutely issues rulings based on hypotheticals. They cited to this case as an example. The hypothetical everyone was referring to was a made up customer that the business refused to serve. But that hypothetical customer situation is not what the case relied on for standing or for the ultimate ruling. It relied on "a credible threat" that the business would be affected by the Colorado law. There's a difference between a credible threat and a made up factual scenario. I have no problem with the credible threat standard because there is actually a lot of analysis that goes into whether something is a credible threat under the law. It's not arbitrary. So here's where you say, "AHA! But there is a credible threat of Trump using Seal Team 6 to murder a political rival or creditor!" And you would be wrong, but it's not because it is inconceivable; it's because such a thing has not yet been subjected to the credible threat standard described in the 303 Creative case. In other words, you can't assume (as a matter of logic as a normal citizen or as a sitting Supreme Court justice) that just because Trump is capable of such things because he's an unscrupulous immoral unmoored piece of shit and just because he could do it because Congress and the rest of the government utterly failed to stop him, that there is a credible threat that he actually would.
  9. Except that the ruling in the 303 Creative wasn't based on the hypothetical.
  10. Some of y'all's sarcasm meters are broken.
  11. I don't disagree that there is a real danger, but let's just do as Roberts suggested and wait until the President actually orders a political rival (or creditor) to be killed and take it up then.
  12. That it isn't should be your clue.
  13. Lord. Am I really defending the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Donald Trump here? Fuck me. You have to read the whole sentence together. "Extreme hypothetical" = murdering political opponents. "Violating federal criminal law" = of which murdering political opponents would be an example. Roberts wasn't saying the hypotheticals were merely violations of federal criminal law (which he was actively engaged in at the time), but extreme (like murder) and hypothetical (things that haven't actually happened).
  14. A court, especially the Supreme Court, doesn't rule on hypotheticals. There has to be an actual case or controversy. So, I guess if you are a pessimist or whatever, then you could assume the court would determine murdering political opponents is an official act and that the President is immune for prosecution of it, but we don't really know that.
  15. I know the argument. Chief Justice Roberts said it better than I ever could: "The dissents' positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution's separation of powers and the Court's precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President 'feels empowered to violate federal criminal law,'" he wrote.
  16. They did not rule that in effect the President could assassinate his rivals. The dissent was making a point. C'mon.
  17. Buncha Chicken Littles up in here. What has actually happened so far? Deportations and pardons have happened and those are within the president's powers. The other shit - shutting down federal agencies, blocking funding, giving private citizens access to very sensitive data and processes - all of that shit is currently being challenged in the courts. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on any of those issues. If the courts overturn Marbury v. Madison and disregard the Constitution to hand absolute power to Trump or if the court rules against him and he defies the order and there is no mechanism found or used to force him to comply then, and only then, yes, we are actually fucked. That's when the people have to take to the streets and show Congress, the President, fellow citizens and the rest of the world that Americans want the rule of law and the foundations of our country to stand. That will show which way the political winds blow and the politicians will follow. Either that or Trump's gestapo will mow down all protestors in cold blood, at which point they can bury me upside down so the whole world can kiss my ass.
  18. The immunity decision didn't answer the core question - did Trump violate the law by inciting the Jan. 6th insurrection, among other things? SCOTUS kicked that issue back to the lower court then the case was dropped when he got reelected. I actually think the court got both cases right. The president does, and should, have broad immunity for official acts. They didn't fully answer the question of what constitutes "official acts." They did suggest that the efforts to get slates of fake electors and inciting the riot were not official acts. The Colorado ballot case was the longest of longshots from the beginning. So neither of those cases proves that the Supreme Court has fully bent over for Trump.
  19. Congress is a fucking joke. If you have to pin your hopes on those spineless windbags you are turbo-fucked. If SCOTUS punts it as a political question or, if Trump defies a SCOTUS order then we have to march on Washington. I'm dead fucking serious. And I will ask all of you to come with me.
×
×
  • Create New...