What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[viper37]

As far as whether or not what version happened in that article is accurate, ask yourself what is more plausible:  somebody like Kelly telling somebody like Bannon and Miller to shove it, or somebody like Spicer saying it didn't happen that way?

We can not dispute alternative facts.

[LaCroix]

BBC also has the appeal turned down :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38872680

The Constitution passes stage 1 of its stress test 

I dunno - my understanding was that Trump's travel ban, though odious, appeared to be on pretty firm legal basis in general (the issue of those with greencards notwithstanding).

you can't really appeal a temporary restraining order -- the question on this appeal was whether the US could appeal it. this was an uphill battle for the government, so I'm not surprised to see it lost. they weren't appealing the full merits of the case, because the full merits haven't been explored yet.

[Habbaku]

Bannon should be freaking out about those skits. You know Donald Trump is watching, and the perception that he is Bannon's bitch is something Donald won't tolerate.

I have seen people saying this for about a week now.  Do we actually have any evidence that this is true, or that Bannon should worry over his position?  All the talk about "President Bannon" rankling Trump just strikes me as hopeful rather than factual.

[LaCroix]

minsky, I don't have the energy to respond to all the points in your posts. when you said tried arguing gorsuch applied the "personal, direct" language out of context, because that language refers to a shareholder's direct claim that's independent of its shareholder status, and then explained this meant a "right entirely independent of the entity and unrelated to their status as shareholder," you again tipped your hand. a shareholder has a personal, direct claim when his right to vote at a shareholder meeting is stripped away. that's the classic example. his right to vote at a shareholder meeting stems from his status as a shareholder, but corporate law considers it a direct claim because it affects the individual -- his right to vote. similarly, the greens' were directly impacted as explained in the opinion. this might be a new type of direct interest that can give a shareholder direct interest, but as you know the law is always evolving. this opinion didn't break corporate law, just as citizens united didn't break corporate law.

you (assuming unintentionally) misconstrue these things often in these arguments where you blow a gasket on an opinion, because when it's fact checked the argument just falls apart. your position was the opinion is crazy, and that's a high threshold to meet. you've failed to meet this threshold. I wouldn't even call this opinion wrong -- it's as I said, it's a different but valid interpretation from how you'd rule if you were in their shoes. if I'm appealing to authority, then you're ad homineming with your "these people haven't worked in corporate law, so they don't know shit." corporate law isn't a mysterious and unknowable area of law if someone hasn't worked as a grunt in the thresher of corporate biglaw

[LaCroix]

also, at one point you asked where RFRA gives a private cause of action to individuals. a circuit split has existed since like the 1990s with a number of circuits holding RFRA does provide a private cause of action to individuals. I only mention this because I spent a few minutes looking this up on google last friday, so I'd rather not have that time be wasted

[The Minsky Moment]

a shareholder has a personal, direct claim when his right to vote at a shareholder meeting is stripped away. that's the classic example. his right to vote at a shareholder meeting stems from his status as a shareholder, but corporate law considers it a direct claim because it affects the individual -- his right to vote. similarly, the greens' were directly impacted as explained in the opinion.

I don't understand what you are talking about.  This was a case about a government regulation that applies to the business, not to individual shareholders of the business.  It's not remotely comparable to a denial of a shareholder's right to vote.  Apples and oranges. This is all very basic corporate doctrine - and the cases that Gorsuch relies on apply it in that traditional way.  He does not, and thus misuses the precedent.

might be a new type of direct interest that can give a shareholder direct interest, but as you know the law is always evolving. this opinion didn't break corporate law, just as citizens united didn't break corporate law.

IMO it would be a terrible way for it to evolve because it breaks down the fundamental distinction between shareholder and entity.  CU made the same error.

If you want to argue nonetheless the law should go that way, it's not for a federal court to do, even the USSC.  You need to go to the Delaware legislature or the Court of Chancery and make your argument there. 

you (assuming unintentionally) misconstrue these things often in these arguments where you blow a gasket on an opinion, because when it's fact checked the argument just falls apart. your position was the opinion is crazy, and that's a high threshold to meet. you've failed to meet this threshold. I wouldn't even call this opinion wrong -- it's as I said, it's a different but valid interpretation from how you'd rule if you were in their shoes. if I'm appealing to authority, then you're ad homineming with your "these people haven't worked in corporate law, so they don't know shit." corporate law isn't a mysterious and unknowable area of law if someone hasn't worked as a grunt in the thresher of corporate biglaw

I'm trying to polite, but I honestly can't make heads or tails of what you are saying here.  It's clear you disagree but damned if I can figure out what the argument is here.  What "fact checks" are you talking  about?  I didn't see a single fact in your post.  You are a lawyer, so make an argument like a lawyer.  Cite a case, and explain exactly how it fits what Gorsuch is arguing without just saying "it does."  Don't make arguments about how a 10th circuit judge is allowed to reinterpret Delaware state law, when you know or should know he can't.

Corporate law isn't unknowable but it can be very confusing and counterintuitive, especially with regard to the distinction between the entity and its shareholders and managers.  Really smart lawyers get tripped up on this all the time, e.g. with conflicts, or corporate privilege.  Shouldn't be shocking that even a smart judge pushing an agenda could get it wrong.

[The Minsky Moment]

also, at one point you asked where RFRA gives a private cause of action to individuals. a circuit split has existed since like the 1990s with a number of circuits holding RFRA does provide a private cause of action to individuals. I only mention this because I spent a few minutes looking this up on google last friday, so I'd rather not have that time be wasted

I don't recall asking that question.  Honestly I would have assumed it did, a little surprised to learn that was an open question. 

[PDH]

I have seen people saying this for about a week now.  Do we actually have any evidence that this is true, or that Bannon should worry over his position?  All the talk about "President Bannon" rankling Trump just strikes me as hopeful rather than factual.

In Trump's world, all of the hate against Bannon just likely earns him respect from the Yardies.

[Admiral Yi]

Joan, did the case you're discussing involve anything about the will of person who established the trusts requesting that no whore pills be handed out to trollops who have strayed from the path of Jesus?

[CountDeMoney]

Bannon should be freaking out about those skits. You know Donald Trump is watching, and the perception that he is Bannon's bitch is something Donald won't tolerate.

I have seen people saying this for about a week now.  Do we actually have any evidence that this is true, or that Bannon should worry over his position?  All the talk about "President Bannon" rankling Trump just strikes me as hopeful rather than factual.

Yeah, I think it's very much a hypothesis...then again, Trump has never really been in this situation before.  He's always been the one-man show; and while Jared had a lot to do with getting Chris Christie out of the picture, remember how Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, Paul Manafort and Corey Lewandowski have put enormous investments into Team Trump, just to come up snake eyes if there's any degree of attention diverted to others.  It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[LaCroix]

I don't understand what you are talking about.  This was a case about a government regulation that applies to the business, not to individual shareholders of the business.  It's not remotely comparable to a denial of a shareholder's right to vote.  Apples and oranges. This is all very basic corporate doctrine - and the cases that Gorsuch relies on apply it in that traditional way.  He does not, and thus misuses the precedent.

this was a case in part about individual shareholders with controlling interests who were directly impacted. it's comparable to an individual shareholder who was directly impacted. you're attempting to distinguish these two scenarios, and a court could distinguish these two scenarios, but it could also accept they're apples and apples. have you ever worked in an appeals court? cases are distinguished or not distinguished whenever the court wants. you can always distinguish things. corporate law, and every other area of law, evolved because courts chose not to distinguish the circumstance at bar with some past circumstance already decided. I get that you want to distinguish these two scenarios, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to not distinguish them

IMO it would be a terrible way for it to evolve because it breaks down the fundamental distinction between shareholder and entity.  CU made the same error.

yes, in your opinion. that's what I've been saying. it doesn't break down the fundamental distinction between shareholder and entity any more than allowing shareholders to directly sue because of, for example, that amish scenario in lee. (as an aside, I remember you made a big deal about how the amish dude eventually lost -- that doesn't matter re: the argument about standing; the court found he had standing -- he personally could sue because of the burden on his corporation). corporate law already allows exceptions in various circumstances very similar to this one.

If you want to argue nonetheless the law should go that way, it's not for a federal court to do, even the USSC.  You need to go to the Delaware legislature or the Court of Chancery and make your argument there.

you can take that stance, sure. sounds familiar. "Judicial activism, by definition, is a term applied to judges who render decisions with which you disagree."

You are a lawyer, so make an argument like a lawyer.  Cite a case, and explain exactly how it fits what Gorsuch is arguing without just saying "it does."

I'm not in law school anymore, so citing caselaw and writing up a mini-memo on an internet message board just isn't as appealing these days

[LaCroix]

I don't recall asking that question.  Honestly I would have assumed it did, a little surprised to learn that was an open question.

looked back and had misremembered, my mistake

There's nothing in RFRA that would suggest that corporate shareholders have separate and independent *personal* standing to redress alleged wrongs to the corporation.

this isn't exactly the same as what I said you said, because it requires a few more steps. private cause of action -> affected personal interest -> personal interest stems from controlling shares in a corporation -> federal law burdened the corporation

[mongers]

Heh, why don't people try and not to post about Trump for the duration of the Superbowl, that way we can pretend there's a normal life and world outside of this Trump circus?

[LaCroix]

this year, I feel safer that a terrorist attack won't happen during the super bowl. thank you mr. president

[celedhring]

this year, I feel safer that a terrorist attack won't happen during the super bowl. thank you mr. president

So-called judges are letting all the bad guys in, though.