News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

Started by FunkMonk, November 08, 2016, 11:02:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jacob

If Biden loses he should carry out a coup, then. First order if business should be to arrest perfidious Supreme Court justices.

HVC

Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

The Minsky Moment

If you want to look at things from the glass half full perspective, America had almost a 250-year run as a functioning democracy, which is pretty good by historical standards. We'll always have those fond memories to look back on.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: Jacob on July 01, 2024, 01:04:20 PMIf Biden loses he should carry out a coup, then. First order if business should be to arrest perfidious Supreme Court justices.

Sure, he could order the AG to arrest them and detain them on nonsense charges.
He could order the military to stick them in black hoods and dump them in Gitmo as suspected terrorists
He could order the military to kill them as rebellious traitors.

Doesn't matter if any of it is true - under the Court's opinion all of that would be immune from prosecution.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

The Minsky Moment

As to all the gobbledygook in the opinion about official vs unofficial acts, let me cut through the verbiage from my perspective as a trial lawyer. The opinion is written to leave open the potential of a prosecution based on unofficial acts in theory while denying any reasonable way to pursue such a successful prosecution in practice.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

frunk

I think Biden's infirmity is no longer a bug but a feature.  The only way to make sure US democracy continues is if we have presidents incapable of using their presidential powers.

Sheilbh

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2024, 01:11:27 PMAs to all the gobbledygook in the opinion about official vs unofficial acts, let me cut through the verbiage from my perspective as a trial lawyer. The opinion is written to leave open the potential of a prosecution based on unofficial acts in theory while denying any reasonable way to pursue such a successful prosecution in practice.
Also presumably to argue it's just an extension of the Nixon case? (That was civil liability right?)
Let's bomb Russia!

Valmy

Quote from: frunk on July 01, 2024, 01:12:44 PMI think Biden's infirmity is no longer a bug but a feature.  The only way to make sure US democracy continues is if we have presidents incapable of using their presidential powers.

Oh there is an endless list of conspiracy theories one might come up with to explain why the Democrats insist on running this guy. That is an unusually noble one though   :lol:
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 01, 2024, 01:13:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2024, 01:11:27 PMAs to all the gobbledygook in the opinion about official vs unofficial acts, let me cut through the verbiage from my perspective as a trial lawyer. The opinion is written to leave open the potential of a prosecution based on unofficial acts in theory while denying any reasonable way to pursue such a successful prosecution in practice.
Also presumably to argue it's just an extension of the Nixon case? (That was civil liability right?)

Yes, ironically for a court majority whose interpretive hallmark is invoking original meaning and "history and tradition" grounded in late 18th century understanding, the Court almost exclusively relies on Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a civil case for damages against Nixon decided in the 1980s.  But the reliance on Fitzgerald is bizarre and preverse, because the court in Fitzgerald specifically relied on the distinction between civil and criminal actions to find immunity appropriate:

"When judicial action is needed to serve broad public interests -- as when the Court acts not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance, cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, supra, or to vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution, see United States v. Nixon, supra -- the exercise of jurisdiction has been held warranted. In the case of this merely private suit for damages based on a President's official acts, we hold it is not."

This is a classic example of what conservatives used to attack the Warren Court for doing: making up rules of law on the spot without any supporting text or precedent - indeed, contrary to such text and precedent - purely on the basis of the Court's analysis of policy rationales.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Valmy

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2024, 01:23:12 PMYes, ironically for a court majority whose interpretive hallmark is invoking original meaning and "history and tradition" grounded in late 18th century understanding, the Court almost exclusively relies on Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a civil case for damages against Nixon decided in the 1980s.  But the reliance on Fitzgerald is bizarre and preverse, because the court in Fitzgerald specifically relied on the distinction between civil and criminal actions to find immunity appropriate:

"When judicial action is needed to serve broad public interests -- as when the Court acts not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance, cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, supra, or to vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution, see United States v. Nixon, supra -- the exercise of jurisdiction has been held warranted. In the case of this merely private suit for damages based on a President's official acts, we hold it is not."

This is a classic example of what conservatives use to attack the Warren Court for doing: making up rules of law on the spot without any supporting text or precedent - indeed, contrary to such text and precedent - purely on the basis of the Court's analysis of policy rationales.

Oh so Presidential immunity is not in the Federalist Papers? James Madison didn't answer anti-Federalist concerns that the President was going to be like a King by saying "basically, isn't that great?"
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

HVC

Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2024, 01:25:09 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 01, 2024, 01:23:12 PMYes, ironically for a court majority whose interpretive hallmark is invoking original meaning and "history and tradition" grounded in late 18th century understanding, the Court almost exclusively relies on Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a civil case for damages against Nixon decided in the 1980s.  But the reliance on Fitzgerald is bizarre and preverse, because the court in Fitzgerald specifically relied on the distinction between civil and criminal actions to find immunity appropriate:

"When judicial action is needed to serve broad public interests -- as when the Court acts not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance, cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, supra, or to vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution, see United States v. Nixon, supra -- the exercise of jurisdiction has been held warranted. In the case of this merely private suit for damages based on a President's official acts, we hold it is not."

This is a classic example of what conservatives use to attack the Warren Court for doing: making up rules of law on the spot without any supporting text or precedent - indeed, contrary to such text and precedent - purely on the basis of the Court's analysis of policy rationales.

Oh so Presidential immunity is not in the Federalist Papers? James Madison didn't answer anti-Federalist concerns that the President was going to be like a King by saying "basically, isn't that great?"

Washington should have taken the American crown. Maybe you'd have a functioning parliamentary system now :P
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

Grey Fox

Quote from: Jacob on July 01, 2024, 01:04:20 PMIf Biden loses he should carry out a coup, then. First order if business should be to arrest perfidious Supreme Court justices.

Why wait? The US Military should be arresting any Republican officials right now.
Colonel Caliga is Awesome.

crazy canuck

Republic of the United States of America, it's been nice knowing you. Sorry to see you go. 

Zanza

Is only the President immune or also the people that follow his orders?

Zanza

Quote from: Jacob on July 01, 2024, 01:04:20 PMIf Biden loses he should carry out a coup, then. First order if business should be to arrest perfidious Supreme Court justices.
Why wait until the election?