Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

to the question of where does the army stand, request to counselors present to lawsplain this statement from that article:

"they're honorable officers and they are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice not to obey unlawful orders"

afgm7.jpg?w=512

Posted
6 minutes ago, sidis said:

not to be needlessly pedantic but that's not true as proven in the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis matter. it just depends on how badly they want to rule and if alito and thomas want to implement their vision for the country, they will take on cases with completely made up facts and a appellant with no standing.

This.  

Posted
31 minutes ago, sidis said:

not to be needlessly pedantic but that's not true as proven in the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis matter. it just depends on how badly they want to rule and if alito and thomas want to implement their vision for the country, they will take on cases with completely made up facts and a appellant with no standing.

Except that the ruling in the 303 Creative wasn't based on the hypothetical.

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, faps said:

After watching the Elon/Trump Oval Office video, I had this fever dream of Trump resigning at some point prior to the end of his term and naming Elon as acting president. And no one stopped him. With the way things are going, I don't even think it's that far fetched of a nightmare.

That's just an extreme hypothetical,  you have nothing to worry about.

Posted
1 hour ago, Ojo Rojo said:

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.

Holy shit.  Lawyers.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Except that the ruling in the 303 Creative wasn't based on the hypothetical.

To the extent it was a declaratory judgment based on acts that highly likely would happen but did not actually happen, it was a hypothetical, yes.

Also, something that would help here is if Congress would go ahead and legislate a bunch of things the President, and other high officials, can be prosecuted for.  Fat fucking chance, but still.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
1 hour ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Except that the ruling in the 303 Creative wasn't based on the hypothetical.

i think i am missing something nuanced in what you are saying.

explain it to me like i'm helobious.

  • Haha 9
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

To the extent it was a declaratory judgment based on acts that highly likely would happen but did not actually happen, it was a hypothetical, yes.

Also, something that would help here is if Congress would go ahead and legislate a bunch of things the President, and other high officials, can be prosecuted for.  Fat fucking chance, but still.

 

37 minutes ago, sidis said:

i think i am missing something nuanced in what you are saying.

explain it to me like i'm helobious.

 

32 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What was it based on?

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.

Edited by Ojo Rojo
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

 

 

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.

what about the fact that the business as a going concern itself was actually hypothetical? since the plaintiff had never actually undertaken any web design for any actual wedding sites at the time of the lawsuit, how is the controversy "a credible threat" to anything but a made up scenario in someone's head? the plaintiff absolutely relied on a "phantom" business and a "phantom" customer.

also, when you say:

20 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

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.

and that it is still predicated on a hypothetical...which is the pedantic point i was making.

Edited by sidis
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
16 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

 

 

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.

Well, if you really want to get technical about it, 28 USC 2201  and Rule 57, Fed. R. Civ. P. authorize the courts to entertain disputes such as Creative 303, subject to some discretion.

They would not authorize hearing something like a presidential assassination, assuming it didn't actually happen.

Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, if you really want to get technical about it, 28 USC 2201  and Rule 57, Fed. R. Civ. P. authorize the courts to entertain disputes such as Creative 303, subject to some discretion.

They would not authorize hearing something like a presidential assassination, assuming it didn't actually happen.

The Office Thank You GIF

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

The Office Thank You GIF

1) the court need not adjudicate the question of a POTUS-ordered hit on a rival/creditor/etc.  They DO need to consider that as a possible consequence of their decision.

2) and...in doing so, MAYBE they shouldn't have issued a blanket ban on considering evidence behind a purported act of presidential powers.  That's the real fucking point here.  They set up a rule that 1) if the act is of a character that puts it within the president's powers (e.g., a drone strike on foreign territory), then that's it.  Full-stop.  There can be no consideration of any facts or evidence of the act to determine whether it was truly an exercise of presidential powers, or was it a use of the resources of the US to perform a personal mission that is wholly against the law.

Think through the impact of your decision.  That's what any decent court does.  Not only did SCOTUS NOT do that....they barred any future court from considering evidence that could be relevant to determining the impact of their decision.  They knew what they were doing.  They created a king, entirely above and not subject to the law.

That decision is already having consequences, and it will have many more grave consequences to come.

Because once you have a king, there's only one way to remove them from power.  This sets up an outcome that is necessarily violent and bloody.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So the court’s position is it’s ok to grant broad immunity to potus because a potus would never break any “bad” laws?

Like the Impoundment Control Act?

Posted
31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

1) the court need not adjudicate the question of a POTUS-ordered hit on a rival/creditor/etc.  They DO need to consider that as a possible consequence of their decision.

2) and...in doing so, MAYBE they shouldn't have issued a blanket ban on considering evidence behind a purported act of presidential powers.  That's the real fucking point here.  They set up a rule that 1) if the act is of a character that puts it within the president's powers (e.g., a drone strike on foreign territory), then that's it.  Full-stop.  There can be no consideration of any facts or evidence of the act to determine whether it was truly an exercise of presidential powers, or was it a use of the resources of the US to perform a personal mission that is wholly against the law.

Think through the impact of your decision.  That's what any decent court does.  Not only did SCOTUS NOT do that....they barred any future court from considering evidence that could be relevant to determining the impact of their decision.  They knew what they were doing.  They created a king, entirely above and not subject to the law.

That decision is already having consequences, and it will have many more grave consequences to come.

Because once you have a king, there's only one way to remove them from power.  This sets up an outcome that is necessarily violent and bloody.

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?

Posted
8 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

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. 

It's actually an incredibly effective technique to gauge whether the decision you're contemplating actually makes sense.  If it can lead to an absurd outcome that would undermine the very fabric of the Republic, then yes....you should fucking second guess yourself.  It doesn't mean that your decision is ultimately wrong.  It DOES mean that if your decision would yield an absurd result, that is a strong sign that perhaps you are missing something in your analysis.  It's a "temperature check."

10 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I don't think the court banned all evidence behind a presidential act; they banned evidence of motive. 

Yeah....so, they literally banned all of the evidence that could be used to consider whether it was a crime.  Of course they didn't ban evidence OF the act.  You can introduce the order "Dear Air Force: drone strike terrorist Cal Creditor at his villa in Cyprus."  You can introduce the video of the villa going boom.  You can introduce a photo of Cal.  Whoop-de-fucking-do.  All of it irrelevant to....anything.

Motive is what MAKES it illegal.  Most every other government official, at every level, can be subject to sanction/prosecution for committing an otherwise lawful act for an unlawful purpose, AND evidence relevant to that purpose is admissible.  The POTUS is now singular and unique among all 350 million of us.  So to answer your question:

13 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I also don't think SCOTUS wants a king or intended to crown one.  Do you?

ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY THEY DID, BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID AND THEY KNEW IT.

"Dear executive: you have supreme, limitless power [seriously -- the executive literally has the unilateral power to end all human life on earth with nuclear strikes].  And we are making it against the law to even question your use of that power."  What the fuck is that OTHER than a declaration that he is a monarch, answerable only to the God who placed him in office where he acts by divine right?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

It's actually an incredibly effective technique to gauge whether the decision you're contemplating actually makes sense.  If it can lead to an absurd outcome that would undermine the very fabric of the Republic, then yes....you should fucking second guess yourself.  It doesn't mean that your decision is ultimately wrong.  It DOES mean that if your decision would yield an absurd result, that is a strong sign that perhaps you are missing something in your analysis.  It's a "temperature check."

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.

 

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah....so, they literally banned all of the evidence that could be used to consider whether it was a crime.  Of course they didn't ban evidence OF the act.  You can introduce the order "Dear Air Force: drone strike terrorist Cal Creditor at his villa in Cyprus."  You can introduce the video of the villa going boom.  You can introduce a photo of Cal.  Whoop-de-fucking-do.  All of it irrelevant to....anything.

Motive is what MAKES it illegal.  Most every other government official, at every level, can be subject to sanction/prosecution for committing an otherwise lawful act for an unlawful purpose, AND evidence relevant to that purpose is admissible.  The POTUS is now singular and unique among all 350 million of us. 

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... 

 

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY THEY DID, BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID AND THEY KNEW IT.

"Dear executive: you have supreme, limitless power [seriously -- the executive literally has the unilateral power to end all human life on earth with nuclear strikes].  And we are making it against the law to even question your use of that power."  What the fuck is that OTHER than a declaration that he is a monarch, answerable only to the God who placed him in office where he acts by divine right?

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.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

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. 

Wait, what?  THAT's your analysis?

Posted
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.

Supposing….they are?
Posted

This is one of the more advanced cases of lawyer brain I've encountered. At least outside of some law professors who've never sullied themselves with the actual practice of law and thus get all the column space they want on op ed pages to write about how actually Brett Kavanaugh would make a great justice.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Holy shit this thread. @Ojo Rojo no offense but do you think these people are on the level? You seem to think that there are principles and reason and philosophies and shit at work here. 

Oh, there are principles and philosophies involved.  Bet.  Your. Fur.

Dominionism. Integralism.  Common good constitutionalism under other names.  And so on and so forth.

Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

* Because once you have a king, there's only one way to remove them from power.  This sets up an outcome that is necessarily violent and bloody.

* Elon, my pos rep of this statement only connotes agreement that SCOTUS has created an environment that may lead to the abrupt and painful demise of a future "president" many years in the future, long after both Trump Daddy and I have lived out our natural lives.  I would never wish any harm on dear leader or his sycophants.

  • Haha 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

1) the court need not adjudicate the question of a POTUS-ordered hit on a rival/creditor/etc.  They DO need to consider that as a possible consequence of their decision.

2) and...in doing so, MAYBE they shouldn't have issued a blanket ban on considering evidence behind a purported act of presidential powers.  That's the real fucking point here.  They set up a rule that 1) if the act is of a character that puts it within the president's powers (e.g., a drone strike on foreign territory), then that's it.  Full-stop.  There can be no consideration of any facts or evidence of the act to determine whether it was truly an exercise of presidential powers, or was it a use of the resources of the US to perform a personal mission that is wholly against the law.

Think through the impact of your decision.  That's what any decent court does.  Not only did SCOTUS NOT do that....they barred any future court from considering evidence that could be relevant to determining the impact of their decision.  They knew what they were doing.  They created a king, entirely above and not subject to the law.

That decision is already having consequences, and it will have many more grave consequences to come.

Because once you have a king, there's only one way to remove them from power.  This sets up an outcome that is necessarily violent and bloody.

The amount of decisions made in human history where unintended consequences eventually showed up are as numerous as the sand on the seashore. We are still reeling from decisions the CIA and American government made in Central America six decades ago. I use that one as a point of reference every single time someone tells me we shouldn’t be taking in anymore immigrants from there. We created the problem, fubar’d several countries for decades at every level and then have the audacity to blame their situation entirely on them. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
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?

The impact of the opinion matters because a rule of legal interpretation is to use the plain meaning of the text “unless doing so would lead to absurd results”. It’s a canon of construction cited frequently in legal opinions. It’s relevant because that particular consideration is useful when trying to determine legislative intent.


×
×
  • Create New...