Trump Thread

[Hooahguy]

Nadler says that Barr deserves to be impeached, but that pursuing it would be a "waste of time" because of the Republican-controlled Senate.

He's not wrong in the sense that its not going to go anywhere, but I feel that he and many Dems in the House are focused on the politics than upholding the constitution. And they arent wrong per say, since if you look at the bigger picture we have 120,000+ Covid deaths with no end in sight, an economy in recession if not depression, long lines for unemployment as benefits start to run out, and people in the streets protesting racial justice. Going through another impeachment that will inevitably end in obstruction and failure is just not a priority at all for most people and I think it would become an election liability. Part of me agrees with this point of view but I cant help but feel like they are shirking their constitutional responsibility.

[Montmorency]

Oh. My. God.

!!!!!!!!

(I actually thought this was satire voiced by an impersonator at first, maybe JL Cauvin)

Add this clip [pretty good Biden campaign ad] to the pile of things that should instantly end a normal career.

https://twitter.com/Jerri_Lynn25/sta...84176910405635

Nadler says that Barr deserves to be impeached, but that pursuing it would be a "waste of time" because of the Republican-controlled Senate.

He's not wrong in the sense that its not going to go anywhere, but I feel that he and many Dems in the House are focused on the politics than upholding the constitution. And they arent wrong per say, since if you look at the bigger picture we have 120,000+ Covid deaths with no end in sight, an economy in recession if not depression, long lines for unemployment as benefits start to run out, and people in the streets protesting racial justice. Going through another impeachment that will inevitably end in obstruction and failure is just not a priority at all for most people and I think it would become an election liability. Part of me agrees with this point of view but I cant help but feel like they are shirking their constitutional responsibility.

Come to think of it, it's pretty easy to circle back impeachment into basically all our ongoing news events. What, is the House very busy these days, waiting for the Republicans to maybe regain interest in legislating over contemporary national challenges? They should be making war and making clear that it's war, not holding meta-procedural debates at a murmur. Impeach.

[Hooahguy]

Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says

American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan — including targeting American troops — amid the peace talks to end the long-running war there, according to officials briefed on the matter.

The United States concluded months ago that the Russian unit, which has been linked to assassination attempts and other covert operations in Europe intended to destabilize the West or take revenge on turncoats, had covertly offered rewards for successful attacks last year.
...

The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said. Officials developed a menu of potential options — starting with making a diplomatic complaint to Moscow and a demand that it stop, along with an escalating series of sanctions and other possible responses, but the White House has yet to authorize any step, the officials said.

The ads that come out of this are going to be incredible. I guess the Dems are the party that supports the military now?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think people read too much into Roberts as some master navigator with his finger always on the pulse of just how far he can go in making conservative decisions.
The dude has been working in the legal system his whole life and from what I can tell he is just a conservative dude who believes heavily in the legal process and the prestige of the SCOTUS.

If any of these conservative judges were full on shills, they wouldn't have a track record of shifting left: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...hey-get-older/

Roberts is not a political actor, and attempts to divine the output on any of these cases is always buried once the verdict is given and the ex post facto arguments come out. Of course he wouldn't push the abortion law at this moment...
No matter how well the Democrats do, they won't have the political strength in the Senate to remove him or anyone else from the court. At most Biden will replace Ginsburg and maybe Breyer, the conservatives will stay on until they die or another GOP president is elected, so if Roberts really wanted to kill Roe v Wade there was nothing stopping him from doing so right here and right now.

Like the rest of the conservative movement, Roberts is getting his reputation tarnished with the guilt by association that follows from him simply following his values during a Trump presidency. He is aware of the road he has to navigate in order to maintain the reputation of the institution he has spent is whole life in, but like all people he is flawed with his own biases and is not some stoic sage that can totally separate himself from his outputs.

@strike would have better understanding of whether his written arguments are in good faith or not.

[a completely inoffensive name]

There is a certain etiquette, if that's the right word, that Roberts values above ones like Thomas or Alito.

Maybe we could put it as Roberts being a partisan, an ideological, and a strategic actor, with the lifetime sinecure of the Supreme Court affording him the opportunity to make independent decisions on the basis of his vision alone of what is right, what is best for country or party, and what befits his office.

I guess my contention is that we should strike out 'ideological' from the list. He certainly has his partisan bend but the Obamacare case and his constant "do better" rulings to the Trump admin demonstrate he is respectful of the process above whatever slant he possesses. My point is that that's a much more respectable account to bestow than what the left is currently trying to portray.

The main contention for his decisions being activists and ideological is the disregard for 'stare decisis' to achieve GOP/business favored outcomes. But I have to say Monty, the left really needs to move beyond venerating the practice of 'stare decisis' as applied to SCOTUS in the same way we have been moving beyond the Fillibuster in the Senate. Both are practices and not rules codified into our system. As far as I am concerned, there are many just as bad decisions within the US legal code that stare decisis protects than otherwise. The mid 20th courts disregarded precedent in rulings we now consider landmark cases for the better.

The authority of SCOTUS decisions applied to lower court rulings should remain in place, but as its place at the top of the chain, SCOTUS shouldn't really be held to its own problematic history of rulings. If we accept that limitation on ourselves we give the reactionaries another avenue to abuse when they are in power and then shackle the left when they are not. SCOTUS is now politicized to a degree we have to toss it out and either accept a new political norm of more rapidly changing instructions from the top or as I have suggested in the past we have to further remove political actors from deciding who gets to sit among the nine.

[Montmorency]

Perhaps it is because these others break the law more often?

On the topic of racist government violence, you should be leerier about suggesting 'The police are brutal toward everyone, but maybe they should be more so toward blacks because they're uniquely dangerous.'

And in my opinion, the police reaction is a natural thing to happen in a country where firearms could be borne by almost everyone.

And yet, most of the civilian firearms are held by white conservatives, who tend to receive the most deferential or light touch. Which is not just a problem of fairness but one of institutional integrity as police departments are notoriously overrun by Neo-Nazis and the like.

I could offer half a dozen factors off the top of my head (and after putting on my thinking hat as many more) that could be seen by conspiracy-minded people and blown out of proprotion by the media (mind you, I don't know much either of the victim or of perpetrators, but all kinds of factors may be found and given a proper slant):

1) The victim was a Russian-speaker and the cops were Ukrainian-speakers.
The media: "Ukrainian nazis of whom current law enforcement bodies consist rape a Russian-speaking woman. Let's disband the police."
2) The victim was a Ukrainian-speaker and the cops were Russian-speakers.
The media: "Russian-speaking cops who are FSB agents under cover rape a Ukrainian patriot. Let's disband the police."

If the victim was of a different ethnicity from the offender, the possibility of a hate crime should be evaluated. Especially in the context of ongoing violent national conflict.

You didn't read carefully what I wrote. I repeat: the perpetrators should be punished. BUT: I see no reason in making a saint or martyr out of an average рецидивист.

Your assumption is not the case.

As for homework, look up "structural racism" and "overpolicing."


I'm put in mind of this old ditty.

Маленькие дети!
Ни за что на свете
Не ходите в Африку,
В Африку гулять!
В Африке акулы,
В Африке гориллы,
В Африке большие
Злые крокодилы
Будут вас кусать,
Бить и обижать,-
Не ходите, дети,
В Африку гулять.

В Африке разбойник,
В Африке злодей,
В Африке ужасный
Бар-ма-лей!

Он бегает по Африке
И кушает детей —
Гадкий, нехороший, жадный Бармалей!

И папочка, и мамочка
Под деревом сидят,
И папочка, и мамочка
Детям говорят:

«Африка ужасна,
Да-да-да!
Африка опасна,
Да-да-да!
Не ходите в Африку,
Дети, никогда!»

I guess my contention is that we should strike out 'ideological' from the list. He certainly has his partisan bend but the Obamacare case and his constant "do better" rulings to the Trump admin demonstrate he is respectful of the process above whatever slant he possesses. My point is that that's a much more respectable account to bestow than what the left is currently trying to portray.

I don't understand. These episodes indicate the opposite. And why do you strike out "ideological"? That current should be evident whether or not you approve of it.

The main contention for his decisions being activists and ideological is the disregard for 'stare decisis' to achieve GOP/business favored outcomes. But I have to say Monty, the left really needs to move beyond venerating the practice of 'stare decisis' as applied to SCOTUS in the same way we have been moving beyond the Fillibuster in the Senate. Both are practices and not rules codified into our system. As far as I am concerned, there are many just as bad decisions within the US legal code that stare decisis protects than otherwise. The mid 20th courts disregarded precedent in rulings we now consider landmark cases for the better.

That's like a mirror image of the anti-Democrat reasoning that if Democrats complain about Trump undermining American foreign policy, they're a bunch of reckless imperialists. What's going on here, over and over, is that Roberts makes pretensions to calling "balls and strikes", respecting tradition, precedent, and constitutional and statutory text, but will happily employ flimsy pretexts and ignore his stated principles to rule against laws or doctrines that protect labor/civil rights or hinder Republican power.

Whether or not liberal judges should act this way - and I don't really care right now to examine the balance of judging and revising precedent on the merits of legality or justice versus promoting stability in governance - is a separate question from how to evaluate Roberts and his court.

[Hooahguy]

So the latest Gallup poll has Trump's approval rating at just 38%. He is at at 91% with Republicans, 33% with independents (which is down 10 points from earlier this year), and just 2% with Democrats. Yikes. According to the poll its the widest partisan gap ever so thats something. But man, that 91% approval rating with Republicans. They are really all-in aren't they?