Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    39679
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Keeping up with the Twatter jack, one reason I disliked it even before Elmo ruint it, the short-form format leads to a lot of inaccuracy, particularly for nuanced material. It always required fact-checking. Therefore, it's fucking perfect for MAGA. And probably anathema for the rest of us, outside of sports takes. But Dems would probably be well advised to distill things to 140 characters or whatever it is.
  2. You guys talking shit on Flores.
  3. Argue all you want about the expected value of a bunt. It places pressure on college defenses that they often cannot withstand. It's something that should be in every team's arsenal.
  4. Apparently the real quote is: DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told CNN in a statement that DHS “receives hundreds of television show pitches a year, ranging from documentaries surrounding ICE and CBP border operation to white collar investigations by HSI. Each proposal undergoes a thorough vetting process prior to denial or approval.” Documentaries, perhaps with access to sitting DHS personnel, makes a certain amount of sense. A fucking game show makes no sense at all. Except with a game show host as POTUS.
  5. Sure, theoretically. But not for their judicial decisions.
  6. They are 3-25, with the three coming against you-know-who. That's perfect in a way.
  7. Really rather unusual for the Court to base a ruling on the factual realities of a case, and this Court in particular. But they're seeming to get that when the government is threatening to remove people without due process and then claim they can't get them back, that's the kind of irreparable harm that renders the other injunction factors kinda irrelevant.
  8. Yeah, everything I read said they're focused pretty much entirely on the nationwide injunction issue and don't consider the citizenship issue squarely before them. I am getting a definite sense that the quality of advocacy of the Trump administration has taken a dive. This Sauer cat seems like an asshole it was not well received.
  9. Thank you. "Upholding the legal process," as noble as it sounds, is as subjective as it comes. And when you open up the process of disbarment to subjective criteria, as you note above, you open it up to abuse. To weaponization, as it were. And while that system, with a little added incompetence, lets some Sidney Powell's retain their licenses, as you note, the Paxtons and Patricks are dangerously close to taking over everything, and a more subjective system would put a lot more good guys in peril than bad.
  10. Back on the docket today, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 1PM ET. https://apnews.com/article/kilmar-abrego-garcia-deportation-state-secrets-7a4d39f9a2013003b592efa94aa230ed This time apparently on the government's assertion of state secrets privilege. As we left it, the parties had agreed to stay discovery until April 30, which we thought might mean something good for Abrego Garcia. Apparently not. Discovery has resumed with a flurry of motions for KAG to take more depositions and the government actually produce a privilege log (listing of documents not produced with applicable privilege). And that lead us to the state secrets bullshit.
  11. Well, weird worked because we were four years removed from Trump. And clearly a whole lot of people forgot how weird and fucked up Trumpco really was. Now, harder words are appropriate. I think lied and liar should be near the top of the list. He lied to you about who paid tariffs, he lied to you about grocery prices and the stock market. He lies. Everyone knows that but considers them immaterial.
  12. A bit of an explainer on injunction scope. In the usual case, an injunction applies only to the parties to the case: the enjoined party cannot do unto the opposing party. Most court cases only have application as between the two parties, except as one form or another of precedential value (law of the case, claim or issue preclusion, persuasive precedent, or controlling precedent) on other cases. In a case where the government is a party, however, the injunction usually involve a determination that the government's action is invalid, and then, it's not so much the injunction, but the holding of invalidity that becomes the issue. How far does that extend? In the usual case, a district court holding has limited precedential value: it really only controls the parties before the court, and maybe (persuasive) other courts within the district. Once it is affirmed by the court of appeals, it becomes a binding precedent in that circuit, and whatever states comprise it. And becomes not controlling precedent, but "advisory" or persuasive to courts in other circuits If ruled upon and affirmed by SCOTUS, it's nationally controlling precedent. Which brings us back to the injunction. How far should the government be permitted to continue to enforce a law or policy that has been held invalid by only one court. Granted, that ruling in and of itself may cast the law or policy into serious doubt, but then there's Reed O'Connor. Without extending the holding beyond the parties, you get a different ruling from every district court considering, some enjoining some not, and on differing grounds. Once it makes it to courts of appeal, you get something like 11 variants, one for each circuit. You avoid that "chaos" by permitting either circuit-wide effect (11 variations) or national effect (no variations). Apart from the current crisis issues, it's an interesting question.
  13. Well, and you weren't raised by wolves, either your actual parents, or your peers. It is true that our juvenile system, a lot like the adult system, offers little rehabilitation and may likely actually be a crime school of sociopathy. Even if true, that doesn't completely undermine the justification of a juvenile system that is less punitive than the adult system.
  14. Right, miserable shit. But they're forcing decent humans to take a position on trans issues, again. And they're gonna cram it up our ass, again. I'm beginning to think many of them actually dgaf about being anti-trans, but are just keeping the issue alive for electoral purposes. Maybe it doesn't work so well outside of the "boys in girls sports" meme.
  15. I think bozo's point is that while Twatter may suck and us bystanders may want to get off, candidates, the party, and those that consider themselves thought leaders or persuaders need to stay on.
  16. And Oz, like most commonwealth countries, has a pretty draconian immigration set up, even for white males.
  17. And the GOP is pushing more anti-trans legislation everywhere. Which Ds will have to oppose because they're human beings, and that's going to feed that narrative again.
  18. So, how about Pete as head of DNC?
  19. “The Department of Homeland Security receives hundreds of television show pitches a year,” she said in a statement. “Each proposal undergoes a thorough vetting process prior to denial or approval.” Um what?
  20. Seems like ol Steve-o getting a healthy dose of thee is me here.
  21. I believe it's state regulation of AI that is prohibited. I'm not sure the feds can preempt without legislating in the field. And, amusing how all the white genocide blurb refers to "Kill The Boer," because a song is as close as there is to white genocide in SA.
  22. Look at that fuckwad's haircut. And he's wearing a blazer over a hoodie? And he doesn't know the difference between facts and opinions.
  23. And, I think one of the sort of uniquenesses of the US is that the rule of law was more or less established independent of a specific "top," That is, by the Constitution, before any leader or ruler was elected. That's a fairly common thing since, but was fairly unique at the time. There is, of course, the Magna Carta, but that was negotiated between a ruler and a set of nobles in the context of an existing monarchy and feudal system. So, I guess the rule of law is almost inevitably going to issue from some form of top.
×
×
  • Create New...