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
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Hell, just look at the emoluments cases. 

Look, just because the Constitution disallows POTUS and various other elected and appointed representatives from taking foreign money doesn't mean that doing so is illegal.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

What the fuck.  That's just evil.

in mass torts the ultimate resolution may involve hundreds of millions - or billions - of dollars.    I would imagine that the pressure put on defense counsel by their clients so that they don’t lose a billion bucks is……uncomfortable. 

Also, a lawyer who loses that cornucopia of endless massive billing client needs to find a new firm. 

Posted
19 hours ago, Upgrayedd said:

It’s where I left my wallet 

 

6 minutes ago, texasdago said:

I lost my wallet in El Segundo.  Gotta get it.

ummm

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Sure it does. Being a corrupt piece of shit is fundamental to fascism and they've all fully embraced varying degrees of fascism.  They just disagree over how openly fascist they should be.

You keep pointing out that they didn't "help" Trump in his personal cases while he was President, but you're only partially right. Sure they didn't overturn an election for him and they didn't rule that his tax returns were totally privileged. But they repeatedly delayed proceedings and ruled in ways that allowed him to drag things out. Hell, just look at the emoluments cases. 

As for their attack on Chevron, you know as well as I do that they rule on admin law shit pretty much solely based on which party is in the White House. Eliminating Chevron won't keep them from upholding whatever draconian immigration shit a second Trump administration wants to do.  

I was unaware that the emoluments cases reached SCOTUS prior to being dismissed as moot.

I can also not think of a single ruling in favor of Trump in his personal capacity from SCOTUS.

And you missed my point about Chevron.  Everyone talks about Chevron like it's going to destroy Congress.  There's some small truth to that.  But what it will really do is disable varying rulemakings based on executive policy leanings and thus weaken executive policymaking while strengthening judicial policymaking.  

The point being, carrying out conservative policies is limited by their unwillingness to weaken the judicial branch. 

They want in on the fascism too.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

What are you even talking about man? Who talks about Chevron as if it will destroy Congress? Everyone knows it’s a judicial power grab at the expense of the executive branch.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What are you even talking about man? Who talks about Chevron as if it will destroy Congress? Everyone knows it’s a judicial power grab at the expense of the executive branch.

ok, so... work with me here

Posted (edited)

Kise, who is also Continental Law Group, is being paid most handsomely to beclown himself.

Not handsomely enough, but he's the big winner there, by a substantial margin.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Kise, who is also Continental Law Group, is being paid most handsomely to beclown himself.

Not handsomely enough.

Easy to see why he is all smiles though.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BamaATL said:

Easy to see why he is all smiles though.  

It's interesting that Blanche and Lauro are relatively low as I think they are doing most of the heavy lifting in his federal criminal cases, but I think the lifting got heavier in the second part of 2023.

Also notable that that doesn't include any of the NY civil fraud trial.  That was probably worth another couple mil to Kise, at least.

Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's interesting that Blanche and Lauro are relatively low as I think they are doing most of the heavy lifting in his federal criminal cases, but I think the lifting got heavier in the second part of 2023.

Also notable that that doesn't include any of the NY civil fraud trial.  That was probably worth another couple mil to Kise, at least.

Well I'm just certain that if anyone is on top of campaign accounting it's the Trump campaign.  I'm sure they got a few well respected Arthur Andersen guys running that  shit.  

Posted
4 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Well I'm just certain that if anyone is on top of campaign accounting it's the Trump campaign.  I'm sure they got a few well respected Arthur Andersen guys running that  shit.  

I might assume that it's "qualitatively" accurate if not quantitatively precise.  That is, if the numbers are lowballed, they're lowballed relatively equally or proportionally.

Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Maybe already posted but https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/credit-card-statements-show-trump-special-prosecutor-appointed-georgia-rcna134791

Good Lord, Fani. Between this and hosting the fundraiser against the investigation target what are you doing? 

To quote the grand jury judge, the Optics are terrible. 

Good thing we got dotard on tape committing the crime.  Shit shouldn’t take more than an hour to wrap up.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I would give it north of a 50% chance you’d get paid. 

Also, I'm told if you just use "services rendered" on your invoice it drives the point home.

Add in a conditional lien waiver of some type and I bet you are golden.  

Posted
On 1/19/2024 at 2:01 PM, Gatorubet said:

I still think the Supreme Court must know that a Trump presidency will be the last time that anyone in the executive or legislative branch gave a flying fuck about what the Supreme Court said about anything. Trump won’t.   Even this fucked up crew will not rule that Trump can be dictator forever.   So after he gets in, they gotta go if they will not do what he wants

Roberts might have to rule against Trump to preserve the quaint belief that the other branches have to bow to the Supreme Court.  I keep thinking that this might be a Marbury V Madison moment.  

I see Trump’s reelection as the biggest threat to the continued legitimacy of the authority of the Supreme Court that has happened in 200 years. For self preservation reasons, SCOTUS should do everything within its power to ensure that Trump does not get reelected.

Why do they care?  They've proven that they just want to get paid by accepting bribe after bribe. They'd essentially just be getting a severance package, instead of extending it over time, and payment would have to be up front.   

Posted
31 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Why do they care?  They've proven that they just want to get paid by accepting bribe after bribe. They'd essentially just be getting a severance package, instead of extending it over time, and payment would have to be up front.   

Your use of “they” to mean all the Justices does not appear to be grounded in any sort of reality or evidence that you can share.    Feel free to if you can.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Your use of “they” to mean all the Justices does not appear to be grounded in any sort of reality or evidence that you can share.    Feel free to if you can.

What is the current tally of justices taking improper benefits aka bribes. 2 of 9?

Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Who paid off Kavanaugh’s credit card bills?

This is why the Qanon idiots as a whole seem to be mentally ill.

There's so much shady shit actually happening and it's out in the open and the dots are waiting to be connected, but they want to cling to dumbfuck FEMA and adrenochrome and imaginary basement theories.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
On 1/19/2024 at 2:36 PM, TwiceHorn said:

And you missed my point about Chevron.  Everyone talks about Chevron like it's going to destroy Congress.  There's some small truth to that. 

Oh, we are laughing. My friend I worked for an industrial giant for many years and I assure you  that is not what they are talking about.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Your use of “they” to mean all the Justices does not appear to be grounded in any sort of reality or evidence that you can share.    Feel free to if you can.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think.  What they do and why they do it, broadly speaking, is unknowable.  All we can do is guess.

But most of these guys, particularly now, could make more money than the value of all their bribes in a law firm. Greed is not the answer.

Uncle Clarence is the only one against whom significant evidence of bribery or suspicious payments has been accumulated because he had a pitiful private sector career.

They wouldn't be in "public service" except for the power. So, whatever their proclivities and tendencies, you can rest fairly assured that they won't do anything that would significantly diminish their power.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Oh, we are laughing. My friend I worked for an industrial giant for many years and I assure you  that is not what they are talking about.

It's what the news sources are saying.  And, in a very indirect way, they're right.  It constrains Congress' ability to create executive agencies with broad and vague statutory mandates to fill gaps with ostensible expertise.  The so-called "death of the administrative state."

People around here are somewhat more sophisticated in understanding that the more immediate effect is to curtail their rulemaking power, which more immediately affects the ability of a given administration to effect policy.

Overall, I'd say it elevates the judiciary over the executive moreso than the legislative.  It won't stop Congress from creating executive agencies.  It might force them to tighten their mandates and statutory schemes.  But it is going to hamstring executives attempting to implement policy via administrative rulemaking.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

People around here are somewhat more sophisticated in understanding that the more immediate effect is to curtail their rulemaking power, which more immediately affects the ability of a given administration to effect policy.

I think that’s right, but more broadly the concern is that while it can be difficult, inept, unfair and even counterproductive at times, the regulatory infrastructure and compliance environment of the Federal government in a highly regulated industry generally makes the market more efficient and enables trade because it allows participants to have a set of assumptions they don’t have to worry about. 
I generally hate sports analogies, but it’s like officiating- we are all often frustrated by the refs but we mostly agree that we ought to have them.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think that’s right, but more broadly the concern is that while it can be difficult, inept, unfair and even counterproductive at times, the regulatory infrastructure and compliance environment of the Federal government in a highly regulated industry generally makes the market more efficient and enables trade because it allows participants to have a set of assumptions they don’t have to worry about. 
I generally hate sports analogies, but it’s like officiating- we are all often frustrated by the refs but we mostly agree that we ought to have them.

Well, we'll still have them.

Just a lot more replays and the replay booth will be at the local (or otherwise) federal courthouse.  Without any convincing evidence to overturn.

Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, we'll still have them.

Just a lot more replays and the replay booth will be at the local (or otherwise) federal courthouse.  Without any convincing evidence to overturn.

In name only. If every court and every case is up for grabs depending on not the established law, but the politics underlying it..... That ain't jurisprudence or regulation. That's fucking chaos and the absence of ACTUAL law.

I mean yeah, you can continue to do a Pollyanna and act like that's actually a good thing - but the courts have not been a friend to democracy or civil rights for the last decade plus.

Posted
52 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think that’s right, but more broadly the concern is that while it can be difficult, inept, unfair and even counterproductive at times, the regulatory infrastructure and compliance environment of the Federal government in a highly regulated industry generally makes the market more efficient and enables trade because it allows participants to have a set of assumptions they don’t have to worry about. 
I generally hate sports analogies, but it’s like officiating- we are all often frustrated by the refs but we mostly agree that we ought to have them.

To take it a step further, even if the officiating is "shitty" according to the established rules (say, the defined strike zone), what's important as a fall-back is that it be called consistently and predictably.  Maybe umpires have edged into calling pitches for strikes that are a bit high.  All in all, that's okay, so long as the batter knows it, and it's predictable.  That way, he can plan his at-bat accordingly.  That's honestly the most important thing for "the rule of law" in general -- people, businesses, etc., need to have a known and predictable set of rules, so they can plan and act accordingly (swing at the high pitches, to continue the metaphor).  That's one of the bigger reasons why the current plan of "Calvinball" sucks; my clients ask me what the law on a certain point is, or how a court should rule based on established law and precedent, so they can plan and act accordingly, and my answer is often

elmo-sesame-street.gif

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That’s the problem though.

Never said it wasn't. 

To an extent, we already have this problem with the rules ostensibly changing with every administration and their varying policy goals.  But at least it's only every four or eight years.

This presumably will increase the frequency of whipsawing, leading to the problem brisket identifies, which already exists to a lesser extent.

My only point was that the judiciary is taking more away from the executive than the legislative, and empowering the judiciary.  And I think you can largely rely on this Court to accumulate rather than give away power.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, I agree with you. I think.  What they do and why they do it, broadly speaking, is unknowable.  All we can do is guess.

But most of these guys, particularly now, could make more money than the value of all their bribes in a law firm. Greed is not the answer.

Uncle Clarence is the only one against whom significant evidence of bribery or suspicious payments has been accumulated because he had a pitiful private sector career.

They wouldn't be in "public service" except for the power. So, whatever their proclivities and tendencies, you can rest fairly assured that they won't do anything that would significantly diminish their power.

C'mon man. This assumes they're robots, not people.

Posted
3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think that’s right, but more broadly the concern is that while it can be difficult, inept, unfair and even counterproductive at times, the regulatory infrastructure and compliance environment of the Federal government in a highly regulated industry generally makes the market more efficient and enables trade because it allows participants to have a set of assumptions they don’t have to worry about. 
I generally hate sports analogies, but it’s like officiating- we are all often frustrated by the refs but we mostly agree that we ought to have them.

I wouldn't watch a game where the rules change depending on the conference or team.  What's the point?  Maybe people need their medicare, medicaid and social security taken away before they stop playing teams and start playing reality.   

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Your use of “they” to mean all the Justices does not appear to be grounded in any sort of reality or evidence that you can share.    Feel free to if you can.

My use of they didn't stop unraveling women's reproductive rights, citizens united and several other harmful cases.  I believe Thomas, Kavanaugh, Alito are definites and Roberts ignoring SCOTUS ethics along with his ruling on Citizens United ruling makes him questionable. That's almost half which is all that's needed.   Until Roberts takes a firm stand on ethics, unless I missed it--fuck it, Republican appointees judges.  They had to have more than just ideological beliefs to be appointed by Trump.  Trump is a mobster, and mobsters prefer people with blood on their hands for blackmail purposes.  But I am probably pretty far on the ledge at this point, especially since timing is everything now.    

Posted
2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

C'mon man. This assumes they're robots, not people.

Uh. You don't think power is kind of important to them?  Like maybe more important than giving some transient, transactional political figure more power?  

Posted
40 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Uh. You don't think power is kind of important to them?  Like maybe more important than giving some transient, transactional political figure more power?  

Of course power is important. But they're processing their desire for power through their human brains, which are notably not computer algorithms.  E.g., I know Clarence very much values his power, but he also very much values all the perks that he's received to keep him from abandoning that for a higher-paying gig, the public revelation of which certainly threatens to diminish his power.

They're not perfectly rational automatons. They overdose on Fox News bullshit and succumb to efforts to buy their votes just as easily as anyone else would, among many other influences, and they do and absolutely will continue to do shit that could result in them losing some or all of their power because they miscalculate shit all the time.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Of course power is important. But they're processing their desire for power through their human brains, which are notably not computer algorithms.  E.g., I know Clarence very much values his power, but he also very much values all the perks that he's received to keep him from abandoning that for a higher-paying gig, the public revelation of which certainly threatens to diminish his power.

They're not perfectly rational automatons. They overdose on Fox News bullshit and succumb to efforts to buy their votes just as easily as anyone else would, among many other influences, and they do and absolutely will continue to do shit that could result in them losing some or all of their power because they miscalculate shit all the time.

They also fear for their lives.  Do you really think that they haven't each received NUMEROUS communications threatening them with violence, rape, death, etc. if they fail to protect the Cult's Orange God?  They know what's at stake: a ruling that is openly negative for Trump puts their lives at risk.

That is 100% where we are as a country.  And remember, every single person who votes Republican REWARDS that state of affairs, and thus is 100% okay with it.

  • Like 1
Posted
On 1/18/2024 at 7:36 PM, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Growing up, I  thought that Redd Foxx was like 65 when this show was on.  Turns out he was 49 at the debut.

Man, I feel old now.

Same!  And on a similar note, I thought Sparky Anderson was well into his 60s when he managed the Big Red Machine of the 70s.  This is a photo of him in 1974.  He was 40!

sparky.thumb.jpg.865fd5eca073d405f31cd48502f1ae5b.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

They also fear for their lives.  Do you really think that they haven't each received NUMEROUS communications threatening them with violence, rape, death, etc. if they fail to protect the Cult's Orange God?  They know what's at stake: a ruling that is openly negative for Trump puts their lives at risk.

That is 100% where we are as a country.  And remember, every single person who votes Republican REWARDS that state of affairs, and thus is 100% okay with it.

Fear for one’s life seems to trump, pardon the term, the accumulation of rather abstract power.   The former is a more immediate, and salient emotion.  The latter a calculation.  

Posted

On a more objective note, I am expecting the DC Circuit to affirm Chutkan and deny Trump immunity literally any day now.

It will be interesting to see what spins and alterations they put on Chutkan's analysis.

And then we can really start speculating about what SCOTUS will do.

  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...