News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Recent posts

#1
Off the Record / Re: If you were Kamala Harris,...
Last post by jimmy olsen - Today at 10:33:02 PM
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-vp-vetting/

Hmm...
QuoteMultiple sources tell CBS News that the list of candidates includes several governors: Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Roy Cooper of North Carolina, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Tim Walz of Minnesota, J.B. Pritzker of Illinois and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.

...
Members of the Biden administration, including Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg are also being considered, along with Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, among others.

As a Rhode Ilsander, I say no to Raimondo, she's a component technocratic centrist and that's it
#2
Off the Record / Re: Climate Change/Mass Extinc...
Last post by grumbler - Today at 08:04:52 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 19, 2024, 05:29:53 PMI feel like I should split this comparative economics tangent off into its own thread. :shifty:

I don't think that that would help it make any more sense. It's between people with completely different definitions of economic terms.
#3
Off the Record / Re: 2024 US Presidential Elect...
Last post by grumbler - Today at 08:01:46 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on Today at 06:54:20 PMIf Trump were able to find a judge at level one to issue a temporary injunction, that could be accomplished in a matter of days.  Then it would up to Harris to get the higher level courts to reverse it. If Trump was forced to rely on a Supreme Court hail mary it would take longer, but in federal court, orders denying an injunction can be appealed immediately and it is theoretically possible to skip stage 2.  That would likely take weeks not days but it still could be fast enough to do real damage.

So, all that Harris has to do to cripple the Trump campaign is to find a sympathetic judge to impound all of the Trump campaign's money via emergency injunctive relief and then fight to delay the granting of relief for that injunction?  I'm wondering why this doesn't happen frequently, in that case. 

QuoteA party seeking an injunction must show likelihood success on the merits, irreparable harm, and a favorable balance of the equities.  Could trump do so in this case?  No.  But that only matters if the judiciary does their job and my level of confidence has dropped. Never in a million years did I imagine that even this Supreme Court could drop an opinion like they did in the immunity case. Never in a million years did I imagine that a federal judge would pull the kind of antics Cannon has been pulling in Florida.

Would the corrupt judge's granting an injunction also sequester the money Harris raises after the injunction is granted?  If not, I can't see Harris being unable to raise $100 million in outrage money should Trump "win" his case for standing and then an injunction. 
#4
Off the Record / Re: The Off Topic Topic
Last post by FunkMonk - Today at 07:48:21 PM
First we lose to Fiji in rugby and then our men's soccer team gets blasted by France. This country is finished thanks to Joe Biden.
#5
Quote from: grumbler on Today at 06:29:04 PMIt would take three levels of the courts to even rule the same way on standing before the circuit judge could begin to rule on emergency injunctive relief, no?  Then the plaintiff, if granted standing, has to show damage caused by the lack of injunctive relief, no?

I guess that "zero probability" is never off the cards, but the difference between zero and whatever chance there is in this case doesn't seem worthy of detailed exploration.

If Trump were able to find a judge at level one to issue a temporary injunction, that could be accomplished in a matter of days.  Then it would up to Harris to get the higher level courts to reverse it. If Trump was forced to rely on a Supreme Court hail mary it would take longer, but in federal court, orders denying an injunction can be appealed immediately and it is theoretically possible to skip stage 2.  That would likely take weeks not days but it still could be fast enough to do real damage.

A party seeking an injunction must show likelihood success on the merits, irreparable harm, and a favorable balance of the equities.  Could trump do so in this case?  No.  But that only matters if the judiciary does their job and my level of confidence has dropped. Never in a million years did I imagine that even this Supreme Court could drop an opinion like they did in the immunity case. Never in a million years did I imagine that a federal judge would pull the kind of antics Cannon has been pulling in Florida.
#6
Off the Record / Re: Songs you don't like to ad...
Last post by grumbler - Today at 06:32:23 PM
YMCA
#7
Off the Record / Re: 2024 US Presidential Elect...
Last post by grumbler - Today at 06:29:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on Today at 01:35:22 PM
Quote from: grumbler on Today at 11:14:25 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 10:52:56 AMYou are of course correct in your legal interpretation, but I'm not so sure the US Supreme Court will care about long recognized legal principles like standing.

It's always a concern that the Republican Party Supreme Court feels no compulsion to follow the law and precedent, but
1.  The case would have to work its way up the chain of District, Circuit, and RPSC before the RPSC could make a ruling.  That would take many months.
2. The RPSC isn't in session anyway, and doesn't reconvene until October 7th.  Even if they considered the case and ruled that same day, all that would happen in the worst case is that they would remand the decision on standing back down to the district court.  Then, there would have to be a trial before the verdict could be reached, and the District Court wouldn't even be able to schedule such a trial before the election.

Hypothetically (because so far there is only an FEC complaint on file), the case would be initiated along with a request for emergency injunctive relief demanding to freeze the funds.  That could receive expedited treatment if put before a sympathetic judge. Depending on the outcome a motion seeking an emergency injunctive order can be obtained outside the Supreme Court term by directing it for the Justice responsible for the judicial circuit where the case is pending.

I agree there doesn't seem like there is a viable procedural or substantive basis for such an order, but if a court were inclined to act, it could be done in time to impact the campaign. As of even a year ago, I would have felt safe saying there is 0 chance of that happening.  After the last Supreme Court term, though, I really don't know what to expect anymore.  There is nothing this Court can do anymore that would surprise me.

It would take three levels of the courts to even rule the same way on standing before the circuit judge could begin to rule on emergency injunctive relief, no?  Then the plaintiff, if granted standing, has to show damage caused by the lack of injunctive relief, no?

I guess that "zero probability" is never off the cards, but the difference between zero and whatever chance there is in this case doesn't seem worthy of detailed exploration.
#8
Off the Record / Re: The Off Topic Topic
Last post by grumbler - Today at 06:22:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 04:45:42 PM
Quote from: Josquius on Today at 12:53:36 PMDude. You're like. 100.

1980s not the 1880s - thats Grumbler  :D
Hey!  Don't knock the 1880s.  :mad:   The Gunfight at the OK Corral was a lot more interesting than any gunfight of the 1980s.  Life expectancy was only 39 years, but we liked that because we could inherit while still young enough to enjoy the money.
#9
Quote from: Josquius on Today at 12:58:26 PMI do hope out of this the SS gets reformed including receiving a new name which is
1:more accurate to their job.
2:doesn't involve talking about The SS. It's too SSy

(https://youtu.be/anjbOuMiGXY?si=B33Vu-P5u94I-G9K)

If Trump wins that abbreviation might become more appropriate.
#10
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by Sophie Scholl - Today at 05:36:03 PM
Between all of the stuff during Trump's term with the Secret Service, especially on January 6th, and now this, it appears sweeping reforms and changes need to come to it and soon.