Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
On 7/16/2024 at 9:48 AM, wildcat09 said:

How about instead of whining about whatever you think “the American public” thinks, you pussies cowboy the fuck up and start actually helping? The election is a fucking coinflip right now and there’s plenty of time left to remind people who haven’t been paying much attention the last few years why Trump sucks so goddamned much. 

Look around the world right now. The right has collapsed in the UK, just got repudiated by normies in France, and have faced significant electoral setbacks recently in Turkey and India. They’re not invincible. They’re fucking losers who win when their opposition splits and stays home because they think the right can’t be stopped. But one way or another the fascists will lose, because the first and last thing every fascist is is a fucking loser, but it’ll be a lot fucking easier to beat these assholes at the ballot box than in a civil war.  
 

Jesus fucking Christ, act like goddamned men.

Not a man. 

I do my part, but as a woman with the Handmaid's Tale more than a non-zero chance, I also have to protect myself.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Not a man. 

I do my part, but as a woman with the Handmaid's Tale more than a non-zero chance, I also have to protect myself.

yeah some of us have little choice when it get's rough, we are first in line for the harm. you can be tougher than just about anyone and still run and hide is at times the best strategy. I'm pretty sure if Trump wins, I'm going dark. I'd rather not, but I think minimizing my online presence, all but eliminating my online speech and holding on for dear life until we can move is the only smart strategy if protect my family is priority number 1.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

and in case that sounded self-focused (it was intended to be inclusive), I can't see how women who can still have children, and the men who love them, can stay in states like Texas. and kids? GTFO.

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, troph said:

and in case that sounded self-focused (it was intended to be inclusive), I can't see how women who can still have children, and the men who love them, can stay in states like Texas. and kids? GTFO.

Our son and DIL live in Texas and the reason we will never have grandchildren. They will not chance it. 

Edited by Mo Horn
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

i've talked before about how my college-age niece had to basically fight her 'doctor' (north Texas) to get an iud, he kept coming up with excuses, tests, etc. for NINE MONTHS before she finally told him if he wouldn't do it she'd go to another doctor. serious bullshit!

so now...she's planning a hysterectomy when she ages out of it. for all the reasons. 

i don't know how practical that is, i doubt you can get one on demand (especially in a few years, the direction we're headed 😐), and there's a possibility she'll feel differently once she hits 30. but right now... she thinks we're all fucked and she wants no part of it 😕

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That is true.  But, that's not the only ground under which they could remand it to a different judge.  Two pretty bad rulings, some questionable but not unlawful docket management, her inexperience, the literally thousands of complaints the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference has received about her (most not actionable) and the fact that even other conservative district judges urged her to give it to another judge.  That all spells "the interest of justice."

It's far from a slam dunk, but it's more possible that it may initially seem.

And the ruling is heading pretty hard toward bonkers, a serious misapprehension of the Appointments Clause.

Fail Charlie Brown GIF by Peanuts

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, mchookem said:

i've talked before about how my college-age niece had to basically fight her 'doctor' (north Texas) to get an iud, he kept coming up with excuses, tests, etc. for NINE MONTHS before she finally told him if he wouldn't do it she'd go to another doctor. serious bullshit!

so now...she's planning a hysterectomy when she ages out of it. for all the reasons. 

i don't know how practical that is, i doubt you can get one on demand (especially in a few years, the direction we're headed 😐), and there's a possibility she'll feel differently once she hits 30. but right now... she thinks we're all fucked and she wants no part of it 😕

Was that because of politics or the kind of nasty history of IUDs?

Posted

unclear, but i know several others that got one pretty easily. honestly it could have just been financial, i.e., milking her insurance for all sorts of unnecessary things? who knows...bottom line, she felt very minimized and unheard by her doctor. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, mchookem said:

unclear, but i know several others that got one pretty easily. honestly it could have just been financial, i.e., milking her insurance for all sorts of unnecessary things? who knows...bottom line, she felt very minimized and unheard by her doctor. 

I get it.  I'm a dude of a certain age, so lack some sensitivity to it.  Apparently, only the Dalkon Shield was problematic (but very much so), but to my mind IUDs have a bit of a medical stigma.  The consensus and history is that they're fine, but if your niece's doc had the misfortune of prescribing some Dalkon Shields, he may be a permanent skeptic.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Doesn’t a full hysterectomy affect female hormones?  And is serious surgery that isn’t performed as birth control?

yes and yes. i told her it's unlikely she'll be able to just get it if she doesn't have some actual issue,  endometriosis or something. i just shared it in context of this thread and the...despair a lot of young women are experiencing. it's real. 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I get it.  I'm a dude of a certain age, so lack some sensitivity to it.  Apparently, only the Dalkon Shield was problematic (but very much so), but to my mind IUDs have a bit of a medical stigma.  The consensus and history is that they're fine, but if your niece's doc had the misfortune of prescribing some Dalkon Shields, he may be a permanent skeptic.

If the doctor has specific concerns about a method of birth control, then the doctor should express those concerns and why they should outweigh the patient's preference.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
4 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Doesn’t a full hysterectomy affect female hormones?  And is serious surgery that isn’t performed as birth control?

Yes, and there can be complications with organ prolapse too. 

Posted

This been discussed?

https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-wrote-note-intended-aileen-cannon-glenn-kirschner-1927980


Speaking on his YouTube channel on Friday, Kirschner, a former assistant U.S. attorney and frequent Trump critic, pointed towards a note that Thomas had written in his separate concurrence regarding the immunity ruling.

"Clarence Thomas wrote a little note that he obviously intended for Judge Cannon saying, 'Hey judge Cannon, you might want to look into the appointment of special counsel thing. I think maybe there's an issue there that could help Donald Trump.' In substance that's what Clarence Thomas communicated to judge Cannon," Kirschner said.
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
16 hours ago, Satchel said:

Yep. There is talk about court collusion up thread.

By the same token, Barrett actually gave Chutkan something of a roadmap to navigate the official/unofficial conduct thing that won't be immediately reversed by the majority.

26 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Easy way to avoid more legal costs.  Dismiss the case.

An appeal is going to cost at least as much as continued pretrial proceedings (less than a trial and the last few weeks up to it).

Posted
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

An appeal is going to cost at least as much as continued pretrial proceedings (less than a trial and the last few weeks up to it).

Do both sides have to pay for the appeals process?  Seems like that burden should fall to the one appealing, no?

Posted
8 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Do both sides have to pay for the appeals process?  Seems like that burden should fall to the one appealing, no?

Both sides have to file a brief, that costs attorneys fees.  At this level, probably 25-50k if you're paying your lawyer.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

By the same token, Barrett actually gave Chutkan something of a roadmap to navigate the official/unofficial conduct thing that won't be immediately reversed by the majority.

Well the majority has been so consistent sticking to precedent and following the guidance of past rulings, so there's absolutely nothing to worry about right?

  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Guliani and Meadows are fuuuuuucked

No deals for them, Trump had immunity 

This is my take as well. It’s possible that Trump will escape some (all?) cases because of the SCOTUS ruling. At a minimum he can tie up his cases for long stretches with appeals. The others don’t have that. Is there a count of everyone that has gone to prison for Trump?

its also key that Jenna Ellis agreed to give testimony to any jurisdiction, including federal in exchange for her immunity in AZ. She’s a govt witness now across the board for any prosecutor.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

The AZ case just got a lot more interesting ….

 

Jenna Ellis taking a life raft off the capsizing SS Trump is some evidence that A) Trump's 2nd presidency is mostly about avoiding punishment for crimes committed during the first and that B) the ability for Trump to win the election is looking...

9f4a6a1444707d4d4473d30f356a2dd7c48464a1

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

At this point there was little chance it would go to court before the election.  Trump can sweat it out as it's an unknown hanging over his head and Jack Smith can figure out his case.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, tx ind said:

At this point there was little chance it would go to court before the election.  Trump can sweat it out as it's an unknown hanging over his head and Jack Smith can figure out his case.

Angry Fire GIF by Gerbert!

 

 

i said from the start that smith was in over his head here 

Posted
10 hours ago, tx ind said:

At this point there was little chance it would go to court before the election.  Trump can sweat it out as it's an unknown hanging over his head and Jack Smith can figure out his case.

After SCOTUS's ruling, there was no chance the trial would start before the election. Might as well take all the time they can get to figure out how best to argue the case and whether they should go ahead and charge him for more shit (like insurrection).  

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

After SCOTUS's ruling, there was no chance the trial would start before the election. Might as well take all the time they can get to figure out how best to argue the case and whether they should go ahead and charge him for more shit (like insurrection).  

Yeah but he led the insurrection as the president so wouldn’t it be an official act…

Joking / not joking.

Posted
10 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Angry Fire GIF by Gerbert!

 

 

i said from the start that smith was in over his head here 

And you were wrong.  

The Supreme Court gave little direction to speak of, as to which facts may or may not support conviction under the immunity decision on any given charge - which in and of itself is a gift to Trump-because any wrong decision guessing what the right law is under which facts will be Res Nova and a chance for SCOTUS to dismiss stuff.  

The bigger danger, IMO, is to get a Doddard charge dismissed because of a mistake, and so not rushing ahead meaninglessly to meet an election trial deadline that cannot be met under any circumstance is silly. 

Rather than ‘over his head’, I think this is exactly the right move.  Jack has to react on the fly from total bullshit by the Supreme Court.   A little caution in proceeding is not an indication he doesn’t know what he’s doing.  more than likely, they identified some potential dangers and need more time to figure out how to deal with them. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted

nine days after the September 9 debate, Trump will have his criminal sentencing.  I’m sure he will remind him at the debate so he doesn’t miss the appointment.

Posted
On 8/9/2024 at 9:45 AM, Gatorubet said:

And you were wrong.  

The Supreme Court gave little direction to speak of, as to which facts may or may not support conviction under the immunity decision on any given charge - which in and of itself is a gift to Trump-because any wrong decision guessing what the right law is under which facts will be Res Nova and a chance for SCOTUS to dismiss stuff.  

The bigger danger, IMO, is to get a Doddard charge dismissed because of a mistake, and so not rushing ahead meaninglessly to meet an election trial deadline that cannot be met under any circumstance is silly. 

Rather than ‘over his head’, I think this is exactly the right move.  Jack has to react on the fly from total bullshit by the Supreme Court.   A little caution in proceeding is not an indication he doesn’t know what he’s doing.  more than likely, they identified some potential dangers and need more time to figure out how to deal with them. 


all true, I was just let down how this played out 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
On 8/9/2024 at 9:33 AM, tx ind said:

Playing it forward, if Trump loses the election, the documents case in Florida will be resurrected.

Well  . . . either it will or it won't.  I'm fairly sure the case will be resurrected by the 11th Circuit, regardless of what happens, and likely before the election. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68955302/12/united-states-v-donald-trump/

What the Supremes do, and how dependent is that on the election, is not clear to me.**  There is some fucked up shit in Cannon's dismissal, but one thing that bothers me (without having read other cases on the issue),  is that the statutes concerning the powers of the Attorney General do not authorize special counsel or independent counsel as clearly as one could hope.  Pinche Congress. A functional Congress could fix that in a blink, if it is even necessary.  But where that ends up, I dunno.

ETA fn **:  If they are wholly in the bag for Trump personally, they might protect him even if he is not POTUS.  If they are in the bag for christofascist, of which Trump is only a sometime symbol, then it's less clear how protecting him serves their interest.  More broadly at stake is the viability of a special or independent counsel under these AG rules.  Because nothing in the AG rules actually (perhaps in practice, though) creates some kind of super-prosecutor, but only one that has some degree of independence from the AG and thus the administration for appearance's sake, at least.  The alternative, no special counsel unless Congress authorizes, doesn't actually seem to change much.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted

What I think is a pretty accessible article on the issue regarding Special Counsel, the language of statutes authorizing (or failing to authorize) their appointment by the AG.  https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/judge-cannon-should-have-stuck-to-the-beaten-path

Lawfare does some really good stuff on these kinds of things.  A great example of a liberal-affiliated (Brookings) outlet that doesn't pull punches.



×
×
  • Create New...