Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

Also, let me throw in that Democrats don't believe in democracy and every accusation of disenfranchising voters is an admission. GOP didn't launch the first ballot nuke.

Democrats (of the Party kind, who have to deal with the potential kickback) aren't even cheering this result.

(And, on the whole, potential voters do seem not to be supressed so much when they're not the 'wrong' kind of voter from a Republican point of view. But what's that got to do with this?)

[Bumber]

Apparently Democrats already did this once before when they kicked Lincoln off the ballot in 10 states in 1860? Not sure what the ruling was there, or if they prevented write-in ballots from being counted.

[Rolan7]

Lincoln.
ok
Truly amazing that we're still getting "Democrats were the racists, look at the Civil War!!" in current year, and current thread.
Surely nothing has changed in 150 years.  Don't look up the Southern Strategy, don't mind who is literally stopping people from voting ("coincidentally" along racial lines), certainly don't explore the somewhat murkier waters of gerrymandering.

This sort of inanity serves the side that benefits from obfuscation, by the way.

[Random_Dragon]

Imagine ignoring the Southern Strategy being literally the reason why it's the republican party that today pulls the kinda racist shit the democrats of the civil war era were known for. What's the matter, the half a brain cell you got rattling around in there got so busy trying to focus on the "put head up own ass to twist what my party is doing into an excuse to take a potshot at the other gaggle of old men" train of thought that it lost track of the "but wait, we're racist cucks so are supposed to be proud of our ancestors for their fine tradition of committing treason" train of thought, and forgot the historical details?

Not that historical facts matters to you braindead fascist wannabes, case in fucking point: reminder that it was a group of republican voters (who evidently picked up an extra brain cell for them to finally realize that backing the orange turd is a stupid idea) that pushed the issue that led to the colorado court decision, not the democrats.

Take your bad-faith horseshit and shove it.

[Starver]

And why stop at the Civil War? Let's compare the current Party System to that when you had the Whigs? ...or Federalists?

"What Would Hamilton Do?"

[anewaname]

Does it matter if the federal supreme court allows Trump on the ballot or not?

From the Colorado SC's pdf:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”
• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump
“engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions

Will the federal supreme court disagree with that part of the two lower court rulings? What reasoning could they possibly use? And if they agree, can additional legal proceedings be opened against those who participated in the insurrection, like against those congressmen and senators who Trump was calling on Jan 6 from his burner phone?

It looks like someone placed a baited trap near the federal SC's burrow entrance... am I wrong about this?

5th and 14th Amendment due process. Trump hasn't even been charged with the crime of insurrection, let alone convicted.

Due process was followed in Colorado. The case was an attempt to remove him from the ballot and the defense failed to prove that Trump had not "engaged in an insurrection" and or that the sitting president is not an officer of the US. So, the 14th, which protects against abuses by state-level government against individuals, isn't an issue. In no way did Colorado need to wait for a federal charge and conviction against Trump to complete. The state has the right to adjudicate its own laws and their own constitution, just as the loser in the case has the right to appeal to the federal courts in an attempt to overturn the state courts.

The 5th amendment due process won't be an issue until it enters the federal courts.

SCOTUS is can definitely rule that the Colorado courts erred concluding Trump committed a federal crime he hasn't been legally charged with. There's also the argument that it doesn't apply to POTUS's qualifications based on the wording of a section of the statute.

This is what I want popcorn for.... In order for SCOTUS to rule against the Colorado court findings, they need to go against the Jan 6th committee's evidence that the prosecution used in that case and the lack of evidence used by the defense, or they need to refute the Colorado SC's ruling that "POTUS is an officer", which was based on...:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 We do not place the same weight the district court did on the fact that the Presidency is not specifically mentioned in Section Three. It seems most likely that the Presidency is not specifically included because it is so evidently an “office.” In fact, no specific office is listed in Section Three; instead, the Section refers to “any office, civil or military.” True, senators, representatives, and presidential electors are listed, but none of these positions is considered an “office” in the Constitution. Instead, senators and representatives are referred to as “members” of their respective bodies.

That is razor-sharp... showing that the 14th didn't exclude the president because the POTUS isn't an officer, but that the 14th included the senators, congressmen, and electors because they were not officers.

Every ethically-minded law-bender will have their critical eyes on how SCOTUS handles the case and I don't see SCOTUS's five conservatives lining up on the same side of the vote for the same reasons many conservative legal specialists and judges have been speaking about publicly.

Otherwise red states are going take Biden and Harris off the ballot for "engaging in" this little "insurrection" through their personal actions. If SCOTUS can't challenge Colorado, then they've tied their hands here.

Huh... that article doesn't have anything to do with Biden and Harris, and those riots probably didn't either, though I suspect both vocally supported the non-violent aspects of the protests. And any state that wants to take Biden/Harris off the ticket will need to follow due process, meaning they need to prosecute a case in court and supply evidence to support their case. Remember the 62 election fraud cases which had no evidence and were lost?

Also, let me throw in that Democrats don't believe in democracy and every accusation of disenfranchising voters is an admission. GOP didn't launch the first ballot nuke.

I'd agree that the small-"d" doesn't exist as much in the Democratic party as it should, but with Trump and his clones talking about replacing small-"d" with caplocks-"A" by replacing the 300 year old Constitution and curbing individual rights, etc; where do you think the independents will put their votes? Trump received many 2016 independent votes because he was an outsider and said he was going to drain the swamp. Now the independents know Trump just wanted to make the swamp his personal estate, and they are not happy with him or his cult. Trump will never have the same popular support again.

[scriver]

Yeah so I think I should clarify my stance. What I want is effectively a universal labor union, not these piecemeal industry- and geography-specific unions.  Ostensibly that is what the labor laws in the US did for a while, and was partly why the unions got weak - the workers had their protections in law, and they were paying for it with taxes, so didn't really want to double-pay by also paying union dues.

There are universal labor unions in Spain. I was (still am, though I should really sign off now that I've not worked there in 4 years) a member of one back in Spain.  In Ireland I'm a member of a trade-specific one (the IHCA).

Both approaches have their pros and cons. Obviously 'universal'unions are bigger, which gives them more theoretical strenght. Trade specific ones might cater to needs that are more specific to yourself.


I think its important to know how to use unions. I think its important to join one, but its also important to understand that they are another burocracy you'll have to navigate, not an instant 'sort out my problems'card

My other concerns are the unions are targeting the employers - which are the entities that generally are actually creating wealth - instead of targeting the industries that are charging people lots of money.  You don't get a functional economy by stressing the entities that actually create wealth.

I dont know what you mean by this. Obviously unions target the employers not the workers. Thats how collective bargaining works.

I almost think we don't need labor unions, but we need consumer unions.  Collective bargaining for housing, for instance.  I dunno how you'd swing that, to be honest, but it's an interesting thought.  Make a resident-owned real-estate conglomerate, with the goal not of making money, but of keeping prices down.

Consumer associations also exist. But what you're proposing is actually  in effect a state bureau for housing. I dont disapprove mind you, but I never took you for a communist

I don't have much of an understanding enough to say which would be better, but my immediate worry about universal labour unions is that they scope would mean the particular interests of smaller, specific groups would fall by the table when larger groups dominate the discussion.

[da_nang]

This is what I want popcorn for.... In order for SCOTUS to rule against the Colorado court findings, they need to go against the Jan 6th committee's evidence that the prosecution used in that case and the lack of evidence used by the defense, or they need to refute the Colorado SC's ruling that "POTUS is an officer"

Or they can rule that states don't have the power to enforce 14A §3 when Congress has spoken on how it's meant to be enforced, such as 18 U.S. Code §2383, or the Confiscation Act of 1862 and Enforcement Act of 1870 prior to June 25, 1948.

The Fourteenth Amendment §5, the Enforcement Clause, is eerily similar in wording to Article I §8 cl. 3, the Commerce Clause. And we know how little power states have to regulate interstate commerce when Congress has spoken. Compare that to say, Article I §3 cl. 6-7, which explicitly strip power from states to decide disqualification from impeachment, and Article II § 1 cl 5 and the 22nd Amendment, which do not have power clauses and thus plausibly allow states to decide those qualifications. Furthermore, Article II § 1 cl. 3 only grants states the power to direct the appointment of electors, and perhaps the power to exclude candidates already-deemed disqualified, but it on it own does not grant the power to decide if a candidate is disqualified.

Add to that the unlikelihood of anyone in the Reconstruction Era taking a lawsuit on those grounds to SCOTUS when a plaintiff's insurrection aut al. would've been so clear and public and thus unlikely to receive an acquittal to a prosecution under the Confiscation Act. Not to mention the seeming unwillingness of the Union to actually prosecute the Confederates in the first place.

[McTraveller]

I dont disapprove mind you, but I never took you for a communist

Oh I'm no communist, I fully support private ownership of means of production.  I'm also for strong protection against abusing the stressed, and I'm also for social structures that encourage using profits to benefit all of society, not just a few. I don't actually know the name for this, because it's a combo of capitalism and social protections.

Spoiler: For example (a bit of a soap-box) (click to show/hide)

I think we should outlaw overdraft fees; these are effectively charging people extra money when they already don't have any. You can set up other mechanisms to prevent abusing the system. For example, you can't charge an overdraft fee, but you can suspend all payments - so the person without money is still having to deal with failing their payment obligations. They just aren't multiply-penalized.  Especially when overdraft fees are applied every time an overdraft occurs, and especially when the overdraft fee is more than the amount of the overdraft.

There's no excuse with modern compute infrastructure to simply check the existence of a balance before trying to withdraw funds.  Just don't make the payment, and have the person deal with late/missing payments (which is bad enough).  Charging someone $25 or $50 for every auto-payment that fails due to lack of funds... how does that help society?

[anewaname]

This is what I want popcorn for.... In order for SCOTUS to rule against the Colorado court findings, they need to go against the Jan 6th committee's evidence that the prosecution used in that case and the lack of evidence used by the defense, or they need to refute the Colorado SC's ruling that "POTUS is an officer"

Or they can rule that states don't have the power to enforce 14A §3 when Congress has spoken on how it's meant to be enforced, such as 18 U.S. Code §2383, or the Confiscation Act of 1862 and Enforcement Act of 1870 prior to June 25, 1948.

The Fourteenth Amendment §5, the Enforcement Clause, is eerily similar in wording to Article I §8 cl. 3, the Commerce Clause. And we know how little power states have to regulate interstate commerce when Congress has spoken. Compare that to say, Article I §3 cl. 6-7, which explicitly strip power from states to decide disqualification from impeachment, and Article II § 1 cl 5 and the 22nd Amendment, which do not have power clauses and thus plausibly allow states to decide those qualifications. Furthermore, Article II § 1 cl. 3 only grants states the power to direct the appointment of electors, and perhaps the power to exclude candidates already-deemed disqualified, but it on it own does not grant the power to decide if a candidate is disqualified.

Add to that the unlikelihood of anyone in the Reconstruction Era taking a lawsuit on those grounds to SCOTUS when a plaintiff's insurrection aut al. would've been so clear and public and thus unlikely to receive an acquittal to a prosecution under the Confiscation Act. Not to mention the seeming unwillingness of the Union to actually prosecute the Confederates in the first place.

There must be an avenue for legal recourse. If SCOTUS claims the sole authority to enforce 14A §3 lies at the federal level, it creates the obligation at the federal level for that authority to be exercised regarding the Colorado case. Colorado had the right to bring the case forward because the federal government did not.

EDIT:I do appreciate the concise and contextual post you made, it led me through good reading.

[Folly]

Trump recently made some comments about immigrants "poisoning the blood of our country". Today an interviewer asked him to clarify what he meant by that. Trump's response, "Exactly what I said".

The parallel between that and a recent scene from Captain Laserhawk are just too priceless! ROFL!

[Grim Portent]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67807405

So Biden's done a partial pardon on Federal marijuana crimes. Will this actually affect many people? I was under the impression marijuana possession/use only really gets federally pursued in states where it's already a state crime so the local cops will help out, and at that point it's usually not even prosecuted federally because it's redundant.

[hector13]

It’s mostly prosecuted as a state crime, so no, not really. It might make states do the same though, so a step in the right direction is still progress.

[Bumber]

Lincoln.
ok
Truly amazing that we're still getting "Democrats were the racists, look at the Civil War!!" in current year, and current thread.
Surely nothing has changed in 150 years.  Don't look up the Southern Strategy, don't mind who is literally stopping people from voting ("coincidentally" along racial lines), certainly don't explore the somewhat murkier waters of gerrymandering.

This sort of inanity serves the side that benefits from obfuscation, by the way.

lol

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/04/democrats-voting-rights-contradiction/618599/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/new-york-court-new-congressional-map-democrats-rcna129292
https://freebeacon.com/democrats/marc-elias-makes-millions-off-democratic-gerrymandering-efforts/

Pointing back to Goldwater's 1968 campaign strategy is a nice bit of whataboutism, though.

Imagine ignoring the Southern Strategy being literally the reason why it's the republican party that today pulls the kinda racist shit the democrats of the civil war era were known for. What's the matter, the half a brain cell you got rattling around in there got so busy trying to focus on the "put head up own ass to twist what my party is doing into an excuse to take a potshot at the other gaggle of old men" train of thought that it lost track of the "but wait, we're racist cucks so are supposed to be proud of our ancestors for their fine tradition of committing treason" train of thought, and forgot the historical details?

Not that historical facts matters to you braindead fascist wannabes, case in fucking point: reminder that it was a group of republican voters (who evidently picked up an extra brain cell for them to finally realize that backing the orange turd is a stupid idea) that pushed the issue that led to the colorado court decision, not the democrats.

Take your bad-faith horseshit and shove it.

Ironic that Trump is playing the role of Navalny while you're on the side of Putin and opposing open elections as you froth about the mouth regarding fascism. Meanwhile I remain a Libertarian.

4 Republicans, 2 Independents. They couldn't have been Democrats and have legal standing.

Due process was followed in Colorado. The case was an attempt to remove him from the ballot and the defense failed to prove that Trump had not "engaged in an insurrection" and or that the sitting president is not an officer of the US. So, the 14th, which protects against abuses by state-level government against individuals, isn't an issue. In no way did Colorado need to wait for a federal charge and conviction against Trump to complete. The state has the right to adjudicate its own laws and their own constitution, just as the loser in the case has the right to appeal to the federal courts in an attempt to overturn the state courts.

I'm sorry, what's this about proving innocence in court? Does reasonable doubt not exist from "Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"? (I also can't find anything about who the defense was here. I don't think Trump was personally in a Colorado court. Was it ruled by the partisan Jan 6th committee issuing an opinion? You don't get the same legal rights in a congressional hearing as a courtroom, FYI.)

This is what I want popcorn for.... In order for SCOTUS to rule against the Colorado court findings, they need to go against the Jan 6th committee's evidence that the prosecution used in that case and the lack of evidence used by the defense, or they need to refute the Colorado SC's ruling that "POTUS is an officer", which was based on...:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 We do not place the same weight the district court did on the fact that the Presidency is not specifically mentioned in Section Three. It seems most likely that the Presidency is not specifically included because it is so evidently an “office.” In fact, no specific office is listed in Section Three; instead, the Section refers to “any office, civil or military.” True, senators, representatives, and presidential electors are listed, but none of these positions is considered an “office” in the Constitution. Instead, senators and representatives are referred to as “members” of their respective bodies.

That is razor-sharp... showing that the 14th didn't exclude the president because the POTUS isn't an officer, but that the 14th included the senators, congressmen, and electors because they were not officers.

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Trump hasn't been charged with 18 USC 2383: Rebellion or insurrection. Nor did he swear any oath to overthrow the US government (which he was currently a part of and didn't want to leave,) that one could point to. This isn't a (dis)qualification you can find on a birth certificate, so it needs to be very carefully applied for risk of misuse. Generally that means a trial by jury with all legal protections since you're taking away a right. (Also, POTUS involves a national election, just to point out that difference.)

Huh... that article doesn't have anything to do with Biden and Harris, and those riots probably didn't either, though I suspect both vocally supported the non-violent aspects of the protests. And any state that wants to take Biden/Harris off the ticket will need to follow due process, meaning they need to prosecute a case in court and supply evidence to support their case.

Hardly matters when you're stretching legal terms and engaging in judicial activism, does it? States will determine what their due process is.

Remember the 62 election fraud cases which had no evidence and were lost?

Since you brought it up:

Judges tossed out nearly all of the roughly 60 suits filed by the Trump campaign and its backers for a variety of reasons and, in many instances, individual cases were dismissed on many different grounds. Some judges said the Trump campaign lacked legal standing to challenge voting procedures. Others said Trump electors or individual voters lacked standing.

Many cases were thrown out for laches — a legal principle barring untimely suits. Others were declared to be moot or precluded by ongoing litigation at the state level. At least two suits were deemed to violate the Eleventh Amendment — the constitutional provision limiting federal-court litigation against states and state officials.

[...]

Some judges also used another basis to throw out the Trump lawsuits — finding that the claims were too speculative to proceed. Those kinds of dismissals trouble many left-leaning lawyers because they deny court-ordered discovery like subpoenas and depositions in cases where litigants lack details about how they were defrauded or injured.

[hector13]

If you’re a Libertarian you should be aghast that, from your perspective, both parties are infringing on electoral rights rather than whatabouting that the Dems “started it first” so it’s okay that the Republicans are doing it too.

You don’t get more free by making people less free, surprisingly.