unclevlad Posted November 8, 2018 Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 14 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said: That sounds far too clever for a Trump appointee. No, that sounds exactly like a Trump appointee. Those actions would have high deniability and low visibility. And it's exactly how Trumps boys are gutting, for example, the EPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted November 8, 2018 Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 21 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said: FYI, it also looks like Michigan will be joining the legal-marijuana states. Sorry to derail, but as a confused Canadian - how does that work? It's legal under state law but still illegal under Federal law, as I understand it. With recent legalization in Canada, there is a lot of concern about issues on travel to the US, especially in British Columbia, just north of Washington State, where there is an imaginary line between the two where marijuana remains illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted November 8, 2018 Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 Interesting snapshot of public reactions to the American mid-term results internationally: The World Ponders the United States of Confusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeropoint Posted November 8, 2018 Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 56 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said: Sorry to derail, but as a confused Canadian - how does that work? It's legal under state law but still illegal under Federal law, as I understand it. I'm not entirely certain, and law is not my field, so don't quote me on this, BUT: I think the way it works is that state (and lower) law enforcement in states that have legalized it will no longer take action against users, but federal law enforcement operating in the state still could. However, as I understand it, federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI or the US Marshals have their jurisdiction limited by subject matter . . . and there aren't any federal agencies tasked with catching individual drug users? It's a bit murky to me, too. Hugh Neilson 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted November 8, 2018 Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 1 hour ago, Old Man said: Word is that instead of outright ending the investigation, he'll try a soft kill by defunding it or refusing to approve key activities like witness interviews. The real question is along these lines: "Is it still a constitutional crisis if one party refuses to agree that it is a constitutional crisis?" Suppose Mueller indicts Trump Jr on multiple counts of conspiracy with the Russians. Then 45 pardons his own son and orders Whitaker to fire Mueller (and he does). In a normal, sane and rational universe, the president would be removed from office or forced to resign in a matter of weeks. In this universe, it is overwhelmingly likely that the Republican Senate would back Trump's play and refuse to even consider removing him. At the precise point in time that happens, the Republic as we know it will have died. It's far from certain that it could even be restored after that. I am not being melodramatic but rather I am being very direct about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrickstaPriest Posted November 8, 2018 Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 1 hour ago, unclevlad said: No, that sounds exactly like a Trump appointee. Those actions would have high deniability and low visibility. And it's exactly how Trumps boys are gutting, for example, the EPA. Gutting the investigation is political. Which some claim is neutral, but I will not. However gutting the EPA is purely evil. Welcome to the race to the bottom on a worldwide scale. By the by, you'll be happy to know I know a HERO gamer seriously considering buying a tiny, cheap lake in Canada. As long as the water stays fresh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st barbara Posted November 8, 2018 Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 Was watching CNN and some of the people there were saying that it is more likely that Whittaker will starve Mueller of funds (as he suggested in an interview some time ago) to bring the investigation to an end, then suppress any report. Win for Trump. loss for democracy and the rule of law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted November 8, 2018 Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 14 minutes ago, st barbara said: Was watching CNN and some of the people there were saying that it is more likely that Whittaker will starve Mueller of funds (as he suggested in an interview some time ago) to bring the investigation to an end, then suppress any report. Win for Trump. loss for democracy and the rule of law. He can't suppress the report. Congress will subpoena it, the DOJ can fight, but in the interim several of those prosecutors will feel free to leak to the media regarding the contents, which makes withholding it moot and makes it look even worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted November 8, 2018 Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 4 hours ago, megaplayboy said: He can't suppress the report. Congress will subpoena it, the DOJ can fight, but in the interim several of those prosecutors will feel free to leak to the media regarding the contents, which makes withholding it moot and makes it look even worse. So Congress subpoenas. DOJ says no. Where does it go from there? Oh.... Now maybe the Court backs Congress; it's entirely possible they'd do that. I remember some issues that were generally similar where the votes were rather strong in cases where the administration went notably too far. However, I don't want to bank on that with THIS court. I have seen it suggested (hoped?) that maybe Mueller's already got grand jury testimony all done and indictments already exist...sealed. THOSE could not be stopped, as they're already existing records. Prosecutors leaking won't have that much credibility, and Trump's already shown he's Teflon against allegations with that little weight behind them. A leak from the Mueller investigators would probably HELP Trump more than hurt him, as he'll just spin it as Yet Another Witch Hunt. I mean, really, mega...can our general opinion on Trump really get any worse than it already is? I suppose there's always a chance this would be a straw to break Trump's back, but I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted November 8, 2018 Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in the hospital with three broken ribs. Here comes the overturning of Roe v Wade. https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/18075262/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-hospital-age And the red states can just taste it. Alabama and Virginia just joined some other states with "trigger bans" that go into effect if Roe V Wade is ever overturned. https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18072682/alabama-west-virginia-wv-abortion-election-results Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 8, 2018 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 STOP. THE. HISTRIONICS. If you have actual information regarding cases that are going before the SCOTUS, feel free to share and comment. If you continue to conjecture and fear monger, you will be punted. TrickstaPriest, Lord Liaden and archer 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted November 8, 2018 Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 3 hours ago, Simon said: If you have actual information regarding cases that are going before the SCOTUS, feel free to share and comment. I'm not sure if you saw it, because it's at the bottom of the page, but the second Vox article Sociotard linked cites this article (also on Vox), which lists 13 cases before federal courts of appeals. Any of those could potentially go to the Supreme Court. I'm not sure if any of those would actually spell doom for Roe vs. Wade, but Vox does provide some cases to look at. I'm more wait and see on this one, as the SCOTUS doesn't overrule itself very often. And Ginsberg seems to be a pretty tough lady, so I think she can hang in there a bit longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 8, 2018 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 I'm not saying that it's impossible or even outside of the realm of likelihood. What I am saying is that conjecture and fear mongering is not going to be tolerated. "Oh no! RBG is in the hospital! Everything we hold dear is going to be overturned in the SCOTUS while she's incapacitated!" That shit is NOT going to fly and will get you banned from the forums. I've let things slip recently while folks vented, and that was a mistake. If you have factual news to post and discuss, feel free....otherwise, take it elsewhere if you want to continue to be welcome in the forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted November 8, 2018 Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 1 minute ago, Simon said: What I am saying is that conjecture and fear mongering is not going to be tolerated. And that tends to be the tone of Vox. I just figured I'd point out their citations in case you didn't see them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archer Posted November 8, 2018 Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 3 hours ago, Sociotard said: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in the hospital with three broken ribs. Best wishes for her recovery. Getting over a fall which results in multiple broken bones is difficult for someone her age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 8, 2018 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 1 minute ago, Pattern Ghost said: And that tends to be the tone of Vox. I just figured I'd point out their citations in case you didn't see them Saw them...has no bearing on things -- the poster is responsible for the tone and content of any links they post. Posting a link to an article that focuses on fear mongering (or just lies) is not going to end up any different than just posting that on your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnia Posted November 8, 2018 Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/08/us-press-corps-trump-journalists-press-conferences Quote In holding on to this idea of balance – a noble idea – the press corps sets itself up to be trampled on time and time again. It ends up broadcasting its own irrelevance and powerlessness as long as it is left to individual reporters to challenge the president. They are simply manhandled away. The press is merely a tool for him to use. This policy of treating him as a giant toddler – ignore the bad behaviour and reward the good – has not worked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted November 8, 2018 Report Share Posted November 8, 2018 So it seems like Trump's choice for acting AG is actually not Constitutional. Gist is, AG's position requires someone confirmed by the Senate. There are people who have been...but Trump's lackey is not one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted November 9, 2018 Report Share Posted November 9, 2018 Hmm... I wonder how long someone can be "acting" AG before that confirmation procedure has to be started. And whether that puts any practical limits on his ability to exercise the office's powers in the meantime. But can anyone who's followed the actions of this Republican-dominated Senate for the past two years, really believe there's a chance Trump's pick won't be confirmed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ternaugh Posted November 9, 2018 Report Share Posted November 9, 2018 5 hours ago, Lord Liaden said: Hmm... I wonder how long someone can be "acting" AG before that confirmation procedure has to be started. And whether that puts any practical limits on his ability to exercise the office's powers in the meantime. But can anyone who's followed the actions of this Republican-dominated Senate for the past two years, really believe there's a chance Trump's pick won't be confirmed? It depends. If FVRA was interpreted correctly, then 210 days, or longer if there's an appointment process going on for a permanent candidate. However, FVRA isn't supposed to be triggered when the person is fired (and Sessions was fired), or when a more specific replacement clause exists (which it does: Section 508 indicates that the Deputy AG Rosenstein should have been the interim AG). https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/matthew-whitaker-jeff-sessions-replacement-illegal.html archer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted November 9, 2018 Report Share Posted November 9, 2018 The President signed for a new asylum policy. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-upholding-rule-law-ensuring-consequences-illegally-cross-border/ Now people HAVE to present themselves at a port of entry, rather than being able to cross the border without proper procedures without having that misdemeanor affect their asylum process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted November 9, 2018 Report Share Posted November 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Sociotard said: The President signed for a new asylum policy. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-upholding-rule-law-ensuring-consequences-illegally-cross-border/ Now people HAVE to present themselves at a port of entry, rather than being able to cross the border without proper procedures without having that misdemeanor affect their asylum process. And I'm guessing not one dollar more to help the already overwhelmed Asylum courts in question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted November 9, 2018 Report Share Posted November 9, 2018 Worse, I haven't heard of any ideas for what the US can do to help stabilize the Northern Triangle, not from any party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted November 9, 2018 Report Share Posted November 9, 2018 3 hours ago, Ternaugh said: It depends. If FVRA was interpreted correctly, then 210 days, or longer if there's an appointment process going on for a permanent candidate. However, FVRA isn't supposed to be triggered when the person is fired (and Sessions was fired), or when a more specific replacement clause exists (which it does: Section 508 indicates that the Deputy AG Rosenstein should have been the interim AG). https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/matthew-whitaker-jeff-sessions-replacement-illegal.html The other thing is, Whitaker never went through a confirmation process for his prior job, while Rosenstein, Brand, Francisco and Sessions did. Cabinet level officials are all supposed to be confirmed before appointment, even if their position is temporary. Even "torture memo guy" John Yoo says the appointment of Whitaker is unconstitutional. If Whitaker signs off on indicting a criminal defendant while AAG, said defendant can challenge that decision as illegitimate on that basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted November 9, 2018 Report Share Posted November 9, 2018 3 hours ago, Hermit said: And I'm guessing not one dollar more to help the already overwhelmed Asylum courts in question. But $400 million for troops to rush to the border and machine gun turn back the caravan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.