US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[6MillionCoofs]

Where are you guys watching this? Sorry I'm a tard, need something to listen to at work.

C-Span

There’s also various lawyers watching it live

 

[Bland Crumbs]

Listening to Sotamayor is amazing. She sounds like she legit should not be there

Sotamayor and Kagan are both really bad. There have been plenty of justices I disagreed with or disliked. RBG for example I disliked but she knew what she was doing. Kagan and Sotamayor are borderline retarded.

 

[mandatorylurk]

I like how Gorsuch roughly said "Trump cannot be an officer because he's the one who appoints officers, the insurrection clause is for officers."

I'm waiting for a smug reddit response of "well, he's the commander-in-chief, is he not?" *fedora tip*

 

[6MillionCoofs]

Sotamayor and Kagan are both really bad. There have been plenty of justices I disagreed with or disliked. RBG for example I disliked but she knew what she was doing. Kagan and Sotamayor are borderline retarded.

Oh absolutely. Me saying she should not be there has nothing to do with her politics, it’s that she sounds lost and confused and can’t clearly make a point

 

[X Prime]

Oh absolutely. Me saying she should not be there has nothing to do with her politics, it’s that she sounds lost and confused and can’t clearly make a point

So she's liberal, which has everything to do with her politics?

 

[dustbuster]

Sotamayor and Kagan are both really bad. There have been plenty of justices I disagreed with or disliked. RBG for example I disliked but she knew what she was doing. Kagan and Sotamayor are borderline retarded.

This is why the federalist society sucks.

The left plays power politics with the court.
The right appoints people who "follow the rules".

Fuck that, I want more partisan hacks on the right to counter these retards.

 

[mandatorylurk]

It feels like in the beginning you had TDS being released, but now that the high of fart sniffing by the liberals is done, the CO argument is so retarded and lacking a foundation they're trying to now spin back to pointing out how this is unconstitutional.

 

[dustbuster]

It feels like in the beginning you had TDS being released, but now that the high of fart sniffing by the liberals is done, the CO argument is so retarded and lacking a foundation they're trying to now spin back to pointing out how this is unconstitutional.

TBH i'm much less concerned about this case than the sham J6 and classified docs charges against Trump.
There's no excuse for this case, but even Thomas refused to bitchslap the DOJ for ignoring the clear black-letter law of the PRA and the clear precedent of Navy V. Egan and JudicialWatch v Clinton.

 

[Your Girlfriend's Dad]

... and they've adjourned.

Somebody give me a quick summary of how this panned out while I listen from the beginning.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

So she's liberal, which has everything to do with her politics?

I specifically did not bring that up because I’ve heard librals argue better and cons argue just as bad.

She’s simply shit.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Watch out for mentions of John Major or Margaret Thatcher.

Tell him the British PM is here and see if he looks confused or screams in terror.

 

[Overly Serious]

New talking point about illegals flooding the country, it's all about being the most amazing economic zone around. Stephen Miller makes the correct point number go up isn't the most important thing:

View attachment 5704101
View attachment 5704102

View attachment 5704103

The only thing used more inappropriately than GDP are the kids on Jefferey Epstein's island. Seriously - why did people ever take GDP as this synonym for economic health? It's moronic. If your landlord puts your rent up - hey, that's an increase in GDP. If you get a serious illness and have to draw out all your savings to cover medical bills, hey - that's an increase in GDP. Seriously, the moment you see people trot out GDP, start questioning everything they say.

 

[dustbuster]

The only thing used more inappropriately than GDP are the kids on Jefferey Epstein's island. Seriously - why did people ever take GDP as this synonym for economic health? It's moronic. If your landlord puts your rent up - hey, that's an increase in GDP. If you get a serious illness and have to draw out all your savings to cover medical bills, hey - that's an increase in GDP. Seriously, the moment you see people trot out GDP, start questioning everything they say.

That's the whole point.
Gross National Product measured who was actually making money off production.
This looked really awful within a couple years of NAFTA, so they quietly shifted to GDP specifically to pad the numbers in this way.

 

[John.Doe]

... and they've adjourned.

Somebody give me a quick summary of how this panned out while I listen from the beginning.

Trump's counsel went first, and did not present super well. He was a bit scattered and could not simplify his case into clear principles, but then again he had a really tough time because A) the DIE squad kept interrupting him to misconstrue his points , B) he was fighting against a multi headed hydra of stupid Gish Gallop arguments and C) the case is so egregious that he was overwhelmed with his own arguements.

Kinda hard to follow.

When the Colorado petitioners and the SOS (Colorado secretary of state) came up, things were a lot easier to follow because the smart justices were asking questions and actually making fucking sense. The petitioners got beaten half to death with very pointed questions regarding the potential usurpation of national/federal authority in elections, the potential for a lack of uniformity in determination of disqualification, the scope of section 3, the definition of 'officer' and the intent of the amendment drafters. Weirdly, even the dipshit sheboon seemed to find some places to ask some good questions and expressed some serious concerns about the petitioners. If I had to opine, I'd say the Court's biggest concerns were about the state court's authority in the first instance, and secondly the prospect of possibly deciding 40+ more cases like this.

So, adding together what I heard in these arguments and what I know about the Court, I think that they will:
1) Make no FACTUAL determination (whether an insurrection happened, or if Trump was involved)
2) Make no Due Process determinations about the bullshit Colorado pulled (if it was fair or not)
3) Make no determination about Trump's eligibility to be on the ballot OR hold office

What they WILL likely do is:
A) Hold that the states cannot unilaterally make determinations about disqualification under section 3
B) Hold that the power to make said determination is up to a method designed by Congress passing specific legislation
C) Hold that Colorado's decision must therefore be reversed.

This ruling would accomplish a number of goals, it would let the Court slip out of this situation without making any kind of political statement one way or another, it would prevent this issue from coming up again from 40+ other states, and it would allow the Court to deflect blame to Congress. Its the easiest way for them to try and maintain their status as aloof, neutral arbiters of law. (A status only Roberts believes in.) So I think its pretty likely.

I await your rainbows.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

Tell him the British PM is here and see if he looks confused or screams in terror.

I am pretty sure Biden is stuck within the John Major era. When he went to the UK last year he shoved Sunak out of the way and saluted a middle age white Royal Marine and went to give him a good handshake unlike the smaller and faster shake he had given Sunak with means it has to be John Major cause the next white guy PM is a bit too late for Mitterand and Kohl.

 

[mandatorylurk]

Trying to read the tea leaves for the next cases like the 1502C case and the immunity case, Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch seem obvious to take it up, Kavanaugh seems like he would be the fourth who would take it up just because he's seeing the fuse burning now coming towards them, and even Roberts seemed, in his self-preservation way, to realize this needs to at a minimum be decided by the voters in November.

 

[Overly Serious]

A) Hold that the states cannot unilaterally make determinations about disqualification under section 3

Hopelessly uninformed outsider question, but is it not with a State's rights to determine who their electors are and who they can give the votes to? So they could say that they will not give their votes to a presidential candidate that they do not accept the legitimacy of?

 

[John.Doe]

Hopelessly uninformed outsider question, but is it not with a State's rights to determine who their electors are and who they can give the votes to? So they could say that they will not give their votes to a presidential candidate that they do not accept the legitimacy of?

I think the justification would be that the disqualification in Sec 3 for federal roles can only be enforced by Congress through the enforcement clause in sec 5, which provides for national uniformity of the process.

Remember, this is for holding office, not for being elected. (Which is a whole other issue.)
Disclaimer, I'm not specialized in this type of law. I've just read the briefs and heard the arguments.

 

[draggs]

Judging solely by today's oral arguments, 8-1 or 9-0 on the grounds that a State cannot unilaterally determine by any method that a candidate has engaged in an insurrection. Only Congress and the federal courts can, either through impeachment, or through passing proper Section 5 legislation, which it did with the Insurrection Act, and proper process through the federal court system, ie a federal indictment, trial, and conviction under that Act. Kagan and the negress were much more hostile to Colorado than expected. Sotomayor is a blithering dolt so it's a coinflip if she allows Roberts to tard wrangle her through Kagan or goes full Wise Latinatard

 

[Barry McKockner]

Hopelessly uninformed outsider question, but is it not with a State's rights to determine who their electors are and who they can give the votes to? So they could say that they will not give their votes to a presidential candidate that they do not accept the legitimacy of?

100% and they don't even need a reason. The only thing holding them back is their own laws about elector selections. Colorado could change it's elector selection law tomorrow and voting for Trump even if he is on the ballot would be completely pointless.