Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I agree with Alexander Hamilton who wanted the POTUS to be subject to criminal penalty and not immune from it because he believed it would be the one thing that distinguished the POTUS from being a king.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, Woland said:

If you follow the Putin example, one of your first moves is to fire all the state governors and appoint new ones.

Does that include Hot Wheels?  Because...I might be ok with that.

Posted

@Dbeasy, now that I'm caught up on the deck chairs arranging that is this homelessness argument, I just gotta say you have been a terrible advocate for this ruling. I think it was correctly decided, but seeing your posts before the ruling, I was initially inclined the other way. JMO, but you could do with some nuance in your argumentation. And you should focus on the actual opinion, not our general policies w/r/t the homeless. The first couple pages of the opinion do a good job of walking one through what should and should not be considered "cruel and unusual." That would've been a better place for you to ground your position.

Just a little constructive criticism.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, softlynow said:

@Dbeasy, now that I'm caught up on the deck chairs arranging that is this homelessness argument, I just gotta say you have been a terrible advocate for this ruling. I think it was correctly decided, but seeing your posts before the ruling, I was initially inclined the other way. JMO, but you could do with some nuance in your argumentation. And you should focus on the actual opinion, not our general policies w/r/t the homeless. The first couple pages of the opinion do a good job of walking one through what should and should not be considered "cruel and unusual." That would've been a better place for you to ground your position.

Just a little constructive criticism.

Would it be too snarky to call America cruel and unusual?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

He should declare Trump a clear and present danger to the United States and have Seal Team Six kill him. 

(he really shouldn't do this, but he should announce it, and wait a couple days to see what happens)

If you're thinking about going there, kinda seems like you'd need to go full "Night of the Long Knives" - Alito, Thomas, Leonard Leo, Kevin Roberts and the other head fascists at the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation, the Kochs, Jeff Yass, McConnell, etc.  All of these sonsabitches are hell-bent on destroying democracy, and you know they're going to be shopping for the next Trump once he's gone.

  • Drool 1
Posted



I don't see that the Supreme Court did anything other than what we always knew the decision would be.
If Trump performs what is considered an official act of the Presidency, he's protected from prosecution. That has always been the understanding. If he performs an non-official act, he's not protected. 
I don't see how SCOTUS ruled on anything other than this. They didn't decide on individual comments or actions as having immunity or not. They're leaving that up to the lower courts, which in turn of course be back at this court next year. Unless of course, Trump wins and then he stops the cases altogether.


And when it gets back to the Supreme Court?
Posted
3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

That tells you all you need to know about where we are.

Call me crazy, but arresting Supreme Court justices you don't agree with sure seems like fascism.

Removing corrupt officials for failing to do their duty, accepting bribes, and failing to hold themselves accountable to normal ethical boundaries (not hearing their friend's cases, not fact checking cases, being political hacks) seems like the responsibility of the leadership of this country.   Just call them enemy combatants and send them to GITMO.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, softlynow said:

I've represented several dozen formally diagnose as schizoaffective. Several dozen more with other mental illnesses that contributed to anti-social behavior. I was appointed to represent them because they had no money or significant property.

 

And?

I think the question is whether they are homeless involuntarily. I'm not aware of people voluntarily becoming schizoaffective.

Just want to know where you're going with this.

This is beyond the scope of this thread, especially with what is going on with respect to presidential immunity, but if you have actually interacted with these people, you know a large percentage of them are beyond help for the most part in terms of getting them to a functioning level. The medications that help them stay in reality make them feel horrible so they don’t take them.  off medication, they hallucinate and often become violent, and are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. Add substance abuse on top of this, and it’s a horrible situation for all involved. They are a danger to the family members and loved ones, which is often the main reason they are out of doors in the first place. They are a danger to the other residents in group homes, and even when they are not, they are often unable to abide by the rules that will allow them to stay there. Giving them money does not help, because in those cases, they are not competent to manage their own finances and not cooperative with people put in charge of managing the money for them. It is very difficult to involuntarily commit this population, and even if you can, it is extremely difficult to manage them when they are in an involuntarily committed situation. It’s a huge problem

 

also, I would be interested to know how many of these patients were referred to you from directly off the street, and of those what has been your longitudinal experience with these clients over 10 or more years. Their prognosis is grim in my experience.

Edited by Sawbonz
F ing talk to text
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, elfenix said:

John Roberts and a lot of the other Republican party apparatchik think Nixon did no wrong and have set out to fix anything standing in the way of his successor.

Well, they blame him for the EPA.  Other than that....

Posted

I think the under-reported revelation from the decisions of the past week is that bribery-for-pardons is pretty much completely legal, at least for the president being bribed.  There's no question that the pardon power is a core constitutional presidential function.  So what if he takes a payment in deciding how to exercise that function?

For my part, I'm moving my money out of my "flee to a non-extradition country" fund and into my new "bribe Trump" fund.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

This is beyond the scope of this thread, especially with what is going on with respect to presidential immunity, but if you have actually interacted with these people, you know a large percentage of them are beyond help for the most part in terms of getting them to a functioning level. The medications that help them stay in reality make them feel horrible so they don’t take them.  off medication, they hallucinate and often become violent, and are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. Add substance abuse on top of this, and it’s a horrible situation for all involved. They are a danger to the family members and loved ones, which is often the main reason they are out of doors in the first place. They are a danger to the other residents in group homes, and even when they are not, they are often unable to abide by the rules that will allow them to stay there. Giving them money does not help, because in those cases, they are not competent to manage their own finances and not operative with people, but in charge of managing them for them. It is very difficult to involuntarily commit this population, and even if you can, it is extremely difficult to manage them, but they are in an involuntarily committed situation. It’s a huge problem

 

also, I would be interested to know how many of these patients were referred to you from directly off the street, and of those what has been your longitudinal experience with these clients over 10 or more years. Their prognosis is grim in my experience.

I'm given their name and access to the state's file on day 1. Those with moderated to severe illness are almost always still in jail when I am assigned. I have seen a few of them a couple or many years later.

I mostly don't disagree with anything you've said. But I would add that the folks with less severe issues than you describe are also a problem we've decided to mostly ignore, outside of the criminal justice system.

One point I take issue with: we DO involuntarily commit. A lot. We just call it "arrest." Then we don't treat them, for the most part. I've had many, many discussions with ADAs and judges about whether any of our very limited mental health resources are available for a client. I'd say less than 5% of the time, it's even a possibility. A tiny portion of that get to treatment.

I would guess that 75% of our homeless population has a criminal record, even if we disregard tresspassing convictions, which is really just a Scarlet H.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, softlynow said:

I'm given their name and access to the state's file on day 1. Those with moderated to severe illness are almost always still in jail when I am assigned. I have seen a few of them a couple or many years later.

I mostly don't disagree with anything you've said. But I would add that the folks with less severe issues than you describe are also a problem we've decided to mostly ignore, outside of the criminal justice system.

One point I take issue with: we DO involuntarily commit. A lot. We just call it "arrest." Then we don't treat them, for the most part. I've had many, many discussions with ADAs and judges about whether any of our very limited mental health resources are available for a client. I'd say less than 5% of the time, it's even a possibility. A tiny portion of that get to treatment.

I would guess that 75% of our homeless population has a criminal record, even if we disregard tresspassing convictions, which is really just a Scarlet H.

Arrest is usually a revolving door unless they have committed a violent crime. So I don’t really consider that an involuntary commitment in the sense of addressing that individual’s homelessness 

 

eta the ones with less severe illness (assuming also no substance abuse) usually have family or friends who will take them in, or are at least capable of abiding by the rules in group homes. 
 

 

Edited by Sawbonz
Posted
15 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I think the under-reported revelation from the decisions of the past week is that bribery-for-pardons is pretty much completely legal, at least for the president being bribed.  There's no question that the pardon power is a core constitutional presidential function.  So what if he takes a payment in deciding how to exercise that function?

For my part, I'm moving my money out of my "flee to a non-extradition country" fund and into my new "bribe Trump" fund.

Buying appointments as well. We already do that, of course, just now we can skip the “campaign contribution” pretense. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Arrest is usually a revolving door unless they have committed a violent crime. So I don’t really consider that an involuntary commitment in the sense of addressing that individual’s homelessness 

Some of my clients saw arrest as temporary and desirable a solution to that problem, though those "commitments" were essentially voluntary.

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

Some of my clients saw arrest as temporary and desirable a solution to that problem, though those "commitments" were essentially voluntary.

Some. Yeah.  Far too many don’t understand enough to know they need help, or they do understand, have tried help, and would rather be dead than take the medication. 

Posted
Just now, CooterBrown said:

Time for some executive orders like eliminating the electoral college.


north and South Dakota are one state 

PR is a state to keep it 50

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

When does Biden start removing justices ?

I obviously don't like this clearly political decision from SCOTUS, but I think people have it really wrong saying he can do this or do that without repercussion. The immunity is from criminal prosecution. The courts can still reverse any actions the president takes that is not authorized. If he has justices or lawmakers arrested and imprisoned, those people can still petition the courts that the act was outside of executive authority, and they'd be right. The courts can then reverse the decision (like they did Biden's loan forgiveness program which SCOTUS held was not within executive powers). The immunity would only prevent criminal prosecution against the president for kidnapping or whatever the criminal equivalent is of false imprisonment.

Edited by 'stache
Posted
9 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

When does Biden start removing justices ?

He won’t. SCOTUS just made Biden the most powerful president in history and no one is the least bit concerned that he will behave any differently. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, 'stache said:

I obviously don't like this clearly political decision from SCOTUS, but I think people have it really wrong saying he can do this or do that without repercussion. The immunity is from criminal prosecution. The courts can still reverse any actions the president takes that is not authorized. If he has justices or lawmakers arrested and imprisoned, those people can still petition the court that the act was outside of executive authority, and they'd be right. The court's can then reverse the decision. The immunity would only prevent criminal prosecution against the president for kidnapping or whatever the criminal equivalent of false imprisonment is.

How can you reverse the "core executive" act of kidnapping political enemies and secretly transporting them to an uninhabitable atoll in the middle of the south pacific?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

those people can still petition the courts that the act was outside of executive authority, and they'd be right

Forest Whitaker Laughing GIF

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I obviously don't like this clearly political decision from SCOTUS, but I think people have it really wrong saying he can do this or do that without repercussion. The immunity is from criminal prosecution. The courts can still reverse any actions the president takes that is not authorized. If he has justices or lawmakers arrested and imprisoned, those people can still petition the courts that the act was outside of executive authority, and they'd be right. The courts can then reverse the decision (like they did Biden's loan forgiveness program which SCOTUS held was not within executive powers). The immunity would only prevent criminal prosecution against the president for kidnapping or whatever the criminal equivalent is of false imprisonment.

You seem to be overlooking that the highest court in the land is in the bag for a scheme that never relinquishes power.  This delusion was a hallmark of fascism’s rise in Germany and Italy. 
“Hey, this is not as bad as it seems” is an attitude they are counting on. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Come On Please GIF by NBA

 

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Forest Whitaker Laughing GIF

Do you seriously not understand the context of immunity from criminal prosecution vs. executive decision making in general? If your skepticism is that the court is bias and illegitimate, it just underscores that anything Biden does that is arguably outside of the executive function will definitely be reversed by SCOTUS (like student loan forgiveness) even if he's immune from criminal prosecution (which of course this SCOTUS would find that it doesn't apply to Biden, because reasons).

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, CTC2 said:

You seem to be overlooking that the highest court in the land is in the bag for a scheme that never relinquishes power.  This delusion was a hallmark of fascism’s rise in Germany and Italy. 
“Hey, this is not as bad as it seems” is an attitude they are counting on. 

I'm not saying it's not as bad as it seems, I'm saying that Biden can't just start making governmental decisions under the guise of immunity. SCOTUS would still undo anything that is outside the executive power, and yeah, if he's charged with a crime, they'd probably call it not an official act, because Biden, so the decision protects only Donald Trump, period. 

Edited by 'stache
Posted
I'm not saying it's not as bad as it seems, I'm saying that Biden can't just start making governmental decisions under the guise of immunity. SCOTUS would still undo anything that is outside the executive power, and yeah, if he's charged with a crime, they'd probably call it not an official act, because Biden, so the decision protects only Donald Trump, period. 

SCOTUS would be all new people appointed by Biden and loyal to him. So, when the case gets all the way to the new SCOTUS, they say he’s immune and good to go. Thats how a nice dictatorship works.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

 

Do you seriously not understand the context of immunity from criminal prosecution vs. executive decision making in general? If your skepticism is that the court is bias and illegitimate, it just underscores that anything Biden does that is arguably outside of the executive function will definitely be reversed by SCOTUS (like student loan forgiveness) even if he's immune from criminal prosecution (which of course this SCOTUS would find that it doesn't apply to Biden, because reasons).

Man, you law dogs are going to understand eventually. I kind of feel sorry for you at this point.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Goofyboy said:


SCOTUS would be all new people appointed by Biden and loyal to him. So, when the case gets all the way to the new SCOTUS, they say he’s immune and good to go. Thats how a nice dictatorship works.

Trump will replace Alito and Thomas with Aileen Cannon and some 35 year-old psycho judge none of us has ever heard of. And they'll have the majority for the next generation or two. 

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Goofyboy said:


SCOTUS would be all new people appointed by him, loyal to him. So, when the case gets all the way to the new SCOTUS, they say he’s immune and good to go. Thats how a nice dictatorship works.

You're talking about something that has nothing to do with today's SCOTUS immunity decision. When you say "the case gets all the way to the new SCOTUS" you would have to be talking about a criminal prosecution, and what you're talking about would not result in a criminal prosecution in the first place, so immunity has nothing to do with it. In fact, the dictatorship you're referring to would pretty much take the judiciary out of everything, especially any concept of criminal prosecutions against the dictator, that's how dictatorships work. See Netanyahu's recent actions limiting the authority of the judiciary in the first place. 

Posted
Trump will replace Alito and Thomas with Aileen Cannon and some 35 year-old psycho judge none of us has ever heard of. And they'll have the majority for the next generation or two. 

Exactly. Biden should just beat him to the punch.
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, 'stache said:

You're talking about something that has nothing to do with today's SCOTUS immunity decision

No he’s not. What you know about how things work is not true anymore 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Trump will replace Alito and Thomas with Aileen Cannon and some 35 year-old psycho judge none of us has ever heard of. And they'll have the majority for the next generation or two. 

Even worse, it's going to be Matthew Kacsmaryk, the 47-yr old loon in West Texas ALL of us have heard of by now.

  • Rage+1 3
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Man, you law dogs are going to understand eventually. I kind of feel sorry for you at this point.

 

9 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Trump will replace Alito and Thomas with Aileen Cannon and some 35 year-old psycho judge none of us has ever heard of. And they'll have the majority for the next generation or two. 

And if he gets away with it, it'll have nothing to do with immunity from criminal prosecution, because he'd never be charged with any crimes. It'd be a complete breakdown of constitutional checks and balances, which is the real threat we're facing. An entire political party is not only enabling this, but promoting it. In this scenario, who would be criminally prosecuting Trump? Nobody, criminal immunity would therefore be irrelevant. 

Also, I was addressing the people saying that Biden should do this, or Biden should do that. Surely you agree that this SCOTUS under its ruling today would never use it to benefit Biden in any way, right? That's the whole fucking point of this SCOTUS being fucking rogue as fuck.

Edited by 'stache
Posted
Just now, 'stache said:

 

And if he gets away with it, it'll have nothing to do with immunity from criminal prosecution, because he'd never be charged with any crimes. It'd be a complete breakdown of constitutional checks and balances, which is the real threat we're facing. An entire political party is not only enabling this, but promoting it. In this scenario, who would be criminally prosecuting Trump? Nobody, criminal immunity would therefore be irrelevant. 


Literally, all of this breakdown is happening through the judiciary. The fact that you cannot see this is mind-boggling.

Posted
Just now, Sawbonz said:


Literally, all of this breakdown is happening through the judiciary. The fact that you cannot see this is mind-boggling.

One side protected, but not bound by the law, the other side bound, but not protected.  
 

at its core the prevention of that relies on the courts, and the courts have failed

  • Rage+1 1


×
×
  • Create New...