Kansas Crimson

zsn wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 3:49 pm The Court is pretty craven. At least a majority of them. They do whatever Leo, Crow and the rest of the fascist oligarchs want.

zsn wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 3:49 pm The Court is pretty craven. At least a majority of them. They do whatever Leo, Crow and the rest of the fascist oligarchs want.

Sparko wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 5:13 pm The issue with being an oligarch pushing populist arguments about government and immigration is that rich priveleged guys are exactly the thing they actually hate. Those private armies cost real money.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 9:02 am Sadly, I’m afraid this red flag is going to be required reading.

https://x.com/davidcorndc/status/173857 ... PzNG4aOfKQ

THIS JUST IN: The far-right is pushing a bizarre conspiracy theory to discredit Jack Smith. It's based on unconfirmed & wild allegations from a Kosovo businessman who's been arrested for extortion & fraud. @dfriedman33 & I break it down. It's a wild read:

[…]

Making cameo appearances in this crazy story: Russian oligarchs, a guy who claims to be CIA, Serbian intelligence, a Russian mobster, Michael Flynn, top election denier Patrick Byrne, the lawyer repping the man who obtained Hunter Biden's laptop & an anti-Clinton former DEA agent

zsn wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 3:49 pm The Court is pretty craven. At least a majority of them. They do whatever Leo, Crow and the rest of the fascist oligarchs want.

twocoach wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 6:35 pm

zsn wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 3:49 pm The Court is pretty craven. At least a majority of them. They do whatever Leo, Crow and the rest of the fascist oligarchs want.

I still have some faith that the Supreme Court will rule based on the law. They have already had some rulings that have surprised many when they could have behaved in a purely partisan manner. Maybe I am naive but I still believe they err on the proper side of the law.

Sixteen Republicans — former prosecutors, elected or appointed officials and lawyers — who signed onto the brief, including Ty Cobb (Trump’s former lawyer), Bill Kristol (former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle), lawyer George T. Conway III, former Massachusetts governor William F. Weld and former congressman Tom Campbell — made their arguments against immunity from a distinctly conservative perspective. (These would be the sort of arguments that might have appealed to honest conservative justices of the past, such as Sandra Day O’Connor, Byron R. White and even Antonin Scalia.)

First and foremost, the amicus brief demonstrates fidelity to the clear meaning of the Constitution. When its writers argue that the Constitution’s text omits any reference to presidential immunity and that the Framers could have put one in had they intended to shield the office from prosecution (as they did for members of Congress in the speech or debate clause), the writers are deploying honest originalism. Because the text lacks an immunity provision, the courts have no power to invent such a protection. They likewise find no basis in the Constitution for Trump’s argument that prosecution must be preceded by impeachment and conviction. In deploying an originalist analysis, the amicus brief returns to a principle that the current right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has kicked to the curb: judicial restraint.

Second, these true conservatives embrace the concept of limited government. Citing Federalist Paper No. 69, they note that the president should not be regarded as a king but rather as something akin to the governor of New York (hence, subject to prosecution). To back up their argument that the president has never been regarded as beyond the reach of criminal laws, they cite, among other things, the pardon for Richard M. Nixon (unnecessary if he was immune) and Trump’s own arguments in the second impeachment trial.

Trump’s notion that Article II means he can do whatever he wants is a repudiation of our constitutional system that rejected a monarchy. In an era in which the GOP attempts to intrude into every corner of life — from banning abortion and books to micromanaging health care for LGBTQ+ youths — it’s helpful to remember that limited government used to be a fundamental principle for conservatives. Presidents are not kings; government is not all-powerful. Such ideas are now an anathema to Trump’s MAGA party.

Third, the amicus brief argues that an immunity defense would shred the concept of separation of powers. The Constitution’s protection against despotism rests on a structure in which the three branches hold different powers, with no branch dominating the others. Allowing prosecution for criminal actions of a former president, the brief argues, vindicates the current president’s power to “take care” in enforcing the law. Trump is impermissibly attempting to “wield the Judicial Branch to obstruct the Executive’s prosecutorial prerogatives.”

Whereas Trump and his MAGA allies continually sought to interfere with and take over other branches’ powers (e.g., robbing Congress of the power of the purse, ignoring more than 60 post-election court decisions), actual conservatives recognize that the very structure of the Constitution is designed specifically to prevent a tyrannical figure like Trump from seizing all the functions of government to the detriment of individuals and other levels of government (i.e., the states).

Fourth, in rebutting a claim to a lesser type of immunity, the amicus brief reaffirms the rule of law and the sanctity of elections. Preventing an incumbent from overriding the results of the electoral college and barring a president from interfering with state officials’ conduct of elections — actions that are central to the Jan. 6, 2021, indictment — reflect the principle that the laws, including election laws, treat both sides equally, allowing the incumbent no superpowers to shape the result. Allowing an incumbent to fix the outcome of his own election to exceed his own four-year term would debilitate the entire constitutional system.

In spelling out these arguments in this fashion, the amicus brief not only dismantles Trump’s preposterous claims to immunity but also rebukes the entire GOP that has followed Trump into a thicket of lawlessness, authoritarianism, violence and chaos. Its authors thereby vividly illustrate how far Republicans have come in abandoning liberty, limited government, judicial restraint and fair play.

Only if Trump loses and the MAGA movement’s lurch to authoritarianism is defeated can the GOP reemerge as a legitimate pro-democracy, center-right party based on the principles outlined in the amicus brief. If that ever occurs, the amicus brief authors might be just the people to advise and lead their former allies to return to the values they once held dear.

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 9:13 am Excellent read, thank you for that. It mirrors how I feel and gives me hope.

I believe that the system of government designed by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution they wrote to safeguard it will prevail if it is applied and adhered to.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 9:21 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 9:13 am Excellent read, thank you for that. It mirrors how I feel and gives me hope.

I believe that the system of government designed by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution they wrote to safeguard it will prevail if it is applied and adhered to.

I think we're going to see the Court casually dropkick the immunity thing right into hell.

The disqualification thing has more offramps (of varying degrees of weaselliness) available, but is an even more potent political opportunity for the Court.

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 9:59 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 9:21 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 9:13 am Excellent read, thank you for that. It mirrors how I feel and gives me hope.

I believe that the system of government designed by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution they wrote to safeguard it will prevail if it is applied and adhered to.

I think we're going to see the Court casually dropkick the immunity thing right into hell.

The disqualification thing has more offramps (of varying degrees of weaselliness) available, but is an even more potent political opportunity for the Court.

The wording of the disqualification thing seems to be pretty plain in the Constitution so I will be interested to see how they interpret that argument.

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:44 pm Whether he deserves to be disqualified or not, I think it would be better for Joe (or hopefully someone else) to defeat Trump fair and square.

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:44 pm I think the most dangerous thing that can happen to the 2024 election would be for Trump to be taken OFF the ballot.

Whether he deserves to be disqualified or not, I think it would be better for Joe (or hopefully someone else) to defeat Trump fair and square.

Taking him off the ballot will result in even more people than 2020 believing the election was illegitimate/stolen.

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 3:00 pm

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:44 pm I think the most dangerous thing that can happen to the 2024 election would be for Trump to be taken OFF the ballot.

Whether he deserves to be disqualified or not, I think it would be better for Joe (or hopefully someone else) to defeat Trump fair and square.

Taking him off the ballot will result in even more people than 2020 believing the election was illegitimate/stolen.

I honestly don't care what people who have proven willing to believe the dumbest shit on the planet believe. They have already proven that they do not believe that a fair and square win by Biden is legitimate. Fuck them and their feelings. Enforce the Constitution and our laws.

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 3:08 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 3:00 pm

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:44 pm I think the most dangerous thing that can happen to the 2024 election would be for Trump to be taken OFF the ballot.

Whether he deserves to be disqualified or not, I think it would be better for Joe (or hopefully someone else) to defeat Trump fair and square.

Taking him off the ballot will result in even more people than 2020 believing the election was illegitimate/stolen.

I honestly don't care what people who have proven willing to believe the dumbest shit on the planet believe. They have already proven that they do not believe that a fair and square win by Biden is legitimate. Fuck them and their feelings. Enforce the Constitution and our laws.

It'd be more than the 10-15% die hard Trumpers that will be against removing him from the ballot.

I agree about those types. But it won't be just them that we will be talking about.

It's a dangerous game to play. I do not believe you'll be all "fuck them and their feelings" if it turns to closer to 50% of the country feeling like an election was illegitimate. Or if violence happens on a large scale. I don't think that's good for anyone.

Trump probably isn't going to beat Biden. It's highly unlikely. Let him lose and let's move on.

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2024 3:28 pm They broke into the US Capitol with aims to overthrow our election and were looking to murder elected officials, including our Vice President and Speaker of the House. Fuck that. Enough is enough. This isn't a game.