Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    39348
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Excellent point. It really isn't so much the CRT, or Marxism, it's that education encourages higher-order thinking that is necessary to overcome otherism and prejudice, along with generally broadening people's experience. A lot of that happens somewhat naturally, regardless of what is actually taught, but having an anti-empathy curriculum can surely help. Cutting down diversity in schools is probably more effective for breeding other-ists than any other single thing. Something had been bothering me about "our" contention that education or lack thereof was dragging Trumper types down. I think that is more or less same as it ever was. Morons never learn much anyway, regardless of what you teach. And everyone starts to "lose" whatever they were taught the further removed they are from school. When school stops at 18, or earlier, it's just that much quicker, especially if you're in a community of other backwards like yourself, e.g. rurals.
  2. For the record, Republicans couldn't "25th Amendment" him, unless he decided to appoint a bunch of em as Cabinet secretaries. They could have tried to impeach him.
  3. Regarding yesterday's hearing in the Abrego Garcia case, the government submitted a declaration from lil Marco supporting the invocation of state secrets privilege. Judge Xinis found it wanting and will unseal it. Also she was mad that no declarations came from DHS/ICE Barbie. She appears ready to invoke the power to review the material the government is withholding (without showing it to the opposition) to see if the privilege is properly invoked, an "in camera" review. That should be fun. Also, in the expedited discovery period, the plaintiffs were permitted to depose the three people that gave declarations in the status of Abrego Garcia. As could be expected, those people knew nothing and were escape goats. Accordingly, the plaintiffs requested, and were granted, permission to take the depositions of DHS, DOS, and DOJ on an "institutional" basis, where the witness has to dig around for information to answer questions and can't respond "I don't know that's not my area." Also indicated that the court may grant a request for such a deposition of the "White House." Probably pretty unusual.
  4. What were Jonah's "antics" at Florida?
  5. 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.
  6. You guys talking shit on Flores.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Sure, theoretically. But not for their judicial decisions.
  10. They are 3-25, with the three coming against you-know-who. That's perfect in a way.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. And Oz, like most commonwealth countries, has a pretty draconian immigration set up, even for white males.
  21. 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.
  22. So, how about Pete as head of DNC?
×
×
  • Create New...