[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Maark Abbott, on 18 June 2024 - 06:48 AM, said:

Hmmmm, over here you might have some folk say 'I'm red' but it's pretty rare to directly identify with a political party unless you're an actual member of that party. Or at least, it's not something I've very often encountered at all.

Not even "I AM THE LAW REFORM"?

Wonder if it's any more common among the Tories (actually the Conservative and Unionist Party, since the Tory party is officially no more). And whether the syntax of "I am a Tory" vs "I am Labour" gives the Conservative and Unionists any advantage. "Reform" does seem like a more effective name than Ukip: "I am UKIP the mighty and singular! And nothing is more English than UK IP!"

Ukip sounds almost as "foreign" and demonic as Maga. George W. Bush's Skull and Bones code name is Magog after all; "I am MAGA(G)!"

In my personal experience Republicans are much more likely to say "I'm a Republican" than Democrats are to say "I'm a Democrat". But I've probably heard "I'm a Marxist" or "I'm a socialist" more often than either, so I'm hardly representative....

[Edit: correction: the Tories are officially the "Conservative and Unionist Party".]

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 18 June 2024 - 11:40 AM

[Lady Bliss]

Azath Vitr (D, on 18 June 2024 - 11:15 AM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 18 June 2024 - 06:48 AM, said:

Hmmmm, over here you might have some folk say 'I'm red' but it's pretty rare to directly identify with a political party unless you're an actual member of that party. Or at least, it's not something I've very often encountered at all.

Not even "I AM THE LAW REFORM"?

Wonder if it's any more common among the Tories (actually the Conservative and Unionist Party, since the Tory party is officially no more). And whether the syntax of "I am a Tory" vs "I am Labour" gives the Conservative and Unionists any advantage. "Reform" does seem like a more effective name than Ukip: "I am UKIP the mighty and singular! And nothing is more English than UK IP!"

Ukip sounds almost as "foreign" and demonic as Maga. George W. Bush's Skull and Bones code name is Magog after all; "I am MAGA(G)!"

In my personal experience Republicans are much more likely to say "I'm a Republican" than Democrats are to say "I'm a Democrat". But I've probably heard "I'm a Marxist" or "I'm a socialist" more often than either, so I'm hardly representative....

[Edit: correction: the Tories are officially the "Conservative and Unionist Party".]

Gee I personally identify as a flaming liberal.

[Maark Abbott]

I mean if a working class person says 'I am a Tory' then they're gonna be seen as a bootlicker at best, so...

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Quote

On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court handed down a case that poses an existential threat to federal regulatory agencies' ability to do their work in an efficient and effective fashion.

Spoiler

[...] the six-justice conservative supermajority ruled that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles that defendant to a jury trial in federal court. It sounds pretty abstract, but in reality, the decision seriously threatens federal enforcement at the SEC and myriad other federal agencies.

[...] if the court struck down some law that criminalizes fraud, it would provoke mass outrage. But when the Supreme Court hobbles a federal agency's ability to police against fraud, most people just don't pay attention. Nobody understands that the court has ground the wheels of justice to a halt. [...]

[...] the scope of this decision is almost as big as the scope of the whole administrative state.

[...] It seems wildly unlikely to me that Congress will give those agencies and the Department of Justice the massive infusion of money and personnel that they'd need to try all these cases before a jury. If every single time you want to bring a civil penalty, you have to call DOJ and ask to borrow some lawyers for a few years, you're just going to drop the action instead.

Sonia Sotomayor warns of the Supreme Court's dirtiest open secret. (slate.com)

Quote

in [...] a major case about emergency abortions [... the Supreme Court decided to send] it back down to the lower courts without any decision on the merits. It also reinstated an injunction requiring Idaho to permit abortions in the case of major health crises.

This outcome reeks of a cynical compromise, secured by the more tactical conservative justices, to push this explosive issue past this fall's election.

Spoiler

The Republican Party's position—that states may force patients to the brink of death before allowing them to terminate a failing pregnancy—is politically toxic. A Supreme Court decision allowing states to impose such a draconian policy could hurt Republicans, and Donald Trump specifically, in November. The three less-extreme conservative justices may have therefore figured out a way to punt the case. Yet they also gave us good reason to believe that when it comes back around next year, they will side with the red states that wish to enforce their abortion bans against patients in extreme medical distress.

The Supreme Court's new leaked abortion draft reeks of cynicism. (slate.com)

[HoosierDaddy]

RIP American Republic
1788 - 2025

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 28 June 2024 - 02:23 AM

[Mezla PigDog]

Just reading up on the debate. How have the parties let it come to this?

We are going through a time where western democracy is not meeting the most basic of expectations. It's scary.

People like Biden and Pelosi need to take a long hard look at themselves. RBG did damage as well. A strong legacy would include the generation they raised up behind them. It's how the world is supposed to work.

[Tsundoku]

Azath Vitr (D, on 28 June 2024 - 12:44 AM, said:

Quote

On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court handed down a case that poses an existential threat to federal regulatory agencies' ability to do their work in an efficient and effective fashion.

Spoiler

[...] the six-justice conservative supermajority ruled that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles that defendant to a jury trial in federal court. It sounds pretty abstract, but in reality, the decision seriously threatens federal enforcement at the SEC and myriad other federal agencies.

[...] if the court struck down some law that criminalizes fraud, it would provoke mass outrage. But when the Supreme Court hobbles a federal agency's ability to police against fraud, most people just don't pay attention. Nobody understands that the court has ground the wheels of justice to a halt. [...]

[...] the scope of this decision is almost as big as the scope of the whole administrative state.

[...] It seems wildly unlikely to me that Congress will give those agencies and the Department of Justice the massive infusion of money and personnel that they'd need to try all these cases before a jury. If every single time you want to bring a civil penalty, you have to call DOJ and ask to borrow some lawyers for a few years, you're just going to drop the action instead.

Sonia Sotomayor warns of the Supreme Court's dirtiest open secret. (slate.com)

Quote

in [...] a major case about emergency abortions [... the Supreme Court decided to send] it back down to the lower courts without any decision on the merits. It also reinstated an injunction requiring Idaho to permit abortions in the case of major health crises.

This outcome reeks of a cynical compromise, secured by the more tactical conservative justices, to push this explosive issue past this fall's election.

Spoiler

The Republican Party's position—that states may force patients to the brink of death before allowing them to terminate a failing pregnancy—is politically toxic. A Supreme Court decision allowing states to impose such a draconian policy could hurt Republicans, and Donald Trump specifically, in November. The three less-extreme conservative justices may have therefore figured out a way to punt the case. Yet they also gave us good reason to believe that when it comes back around next year, they will side with the red states that wish to enforce their abortion bans against patients in extreme medical distress.

The Supreme Court's new leaked abortion draft reeks of cynicism. (slate.com)

Just in case there was anyone who was in the dark about who SCOTUS really serves ...
(HINT: it's the guys they play golf with, whose kids go/went to the same schools as theirs.)

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

HoosierDaddy, on 28 June 2024 - 02:22 AM, said:

RIP American Republic
1788 - 2025

Trump still has time to save the Republic by inspiring people to assassinate Biden before the Democratic convention....

Quote

Biden's performance was such a disaster that it immediately shifted the Democratic conversation to whether Biden should be replaced atop the ticket. [...] If you didn't see the debate, it's honestly hard to describe what went on here: Biden could not speak extemporaneously in a coherent manner for much of the debate. He didn't look confident, staring down and around, mouth slight agape.

Who won the debate? Here's the big takeaway from Biden's rough night. (slate.com)

Zillion articles on the need to replace Biden and how to do it today.

Quote

Biden Rejects Calls to Drop Out: 'I Think We Did Well'

Biden Rejects Calls to Drop Out: 'I Think We Did Well' (thedailybeast.com)

Quote

Biden Aides Update Their LinkedIn Pages After Debate: Report

[...] they made sure to get their LinkedIn pages updated Thursday night "just in case" [they're out of a job soon]

Biden Aides Spruce Up Their LinkedIn Pages After the Debate: Report (thedailybeast.com)

Quote

within 30 seconds it was over.

Biden's pasty complexion coupled with his doddering and incoherent speech in the first answer sealed it. Blank faces with raised eyebrows darted around the table as cell phones began to explode with texts.

Jesus Christ, what is happening?

This feels like elder abuse.

Spoiler

My god, this is an unmitigated disaster…

Who prepped him? Who let him on stage looking like this?

How is it possible that Trump looks…presidential????

[...] The panel of far-left commentators resembled a funeral, as each, presumably wary of their own reputations, was forced to publicly articulate the undeniable reality: Joe Biden is not up to serving another four years.
<br style="font-size: 15px;">

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama: You Can End Democrats' Joe Biden Nightmare (thedailybeast.com)

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 28 June 2024 - 01:08 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

Mezla PigDog, on 28 June 2024 - 06:23 AM, said:

Just reading up on the debate. How have the parties let it come to this?

We are going through a time where western democracy is not meeting the most basic of expectations. It's scary.

People like Biden and Pelosi need to take a long hard look at themselves. RBG did damage as well. A strong legacy would include the generation they raised up behind them. It's how the world is supposed to work.

Just like in every other aspect of life, people have a hard time letting go. It is especially difficult when your job defines who you are, how can you ever just walk away from who you are ?

The answer is that it isn’t supposed to be a job and your job isn’t supposed to be how you define yourself. It’s a role you need to put on and then take off when it’s time.

Unfortunately the party structure is and has been broken and is no way to offer the beat choices. The norms have not held. The dam doesn’t have holes. There is no dam anymore.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 28 June 2024 - 12:50 PM

[amphibian]

The lack of succession 25 years ago through 4 years ago means we are where we are.

My theory is that the Clintons really hijacked the Carter vision of where the party was headed and they ate their young to keep Hilary in the running for president.

I strongly believe Bernie should be building people in Vermont up to be his successors because he really understood how to connect to newer voters and younger people while keeping enough of the olds to be viable. We have Priztker and to a lesser degree Whitmore, but we should have like 15 of them in the Senate and governor spots.

A great leader is always training their replacement because sometimes the opportunities or needs to move up or to a different place come at times that are not anticipated. My boss sure as hell has been training me for the last two years to do her job and I train other people to do mine.

[Cause]

I’d vote for Biden’s corpse over Trump. For me that’s not a question. One is a danger and will break the USA, the other just by virtue of not breaking the system can leave it on autopilot: it’s worked exceptionally well the last four years.

They would have to do polling but I’d think subbing in Gavin Newsome or whoever else the da might try at this stage may be more damaging than letting Biden run.

[amphibian]

The NY Times doing an editorial board piece saying Biden should drop out when we've got a 34x convicted felon in Trump is utterly absurd.

I do wish we'd got younger people, but in an article where he's said to be a fine President, the conclusion shouldn't be "oh, do the thing that tosses the race to the other guy". Utter stupidity and I'm letting them know tomorrow.

[Mezla PigDog]

The logic that Biden is old so choose Trump is absolute madness. Like Cause said - any sane person would vote against Trump anyway. You would hope that on the day many many people think the same thing.

I have a visceral reaction to seeing pictures and video of Trump. He absolutely turns my stomach. I genuinely can't look at him. I don't understand how anyone could vote for him.

This post has been edited by Mezla PigDog: 29 June 2024 - 08:10 AM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Quote

Before Thursday night's debate, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had signaled to political allies that he was open to options other than President Biden if his debate performance was disastrous[...]

[Schumer] liked the idea of any early debate [... because i]t would also give the Democratic Party more time to consider the best way forward.
Schumer's pre-debate fears about Biden come true (axios.com)

In less hopeful news...

Quote

The Supreme Court Just Legalized Bribery

Spoiler

[...] prosecutors argued the mayor rigged the town procurement process to award [...] a local garbage truck company. Within weeks, a company executive wrote Snyder a check [...] The executive later testified that the mayor, who was struggling financially at the time, had demanded the money.

Under prosecutors' interpretation of Section 666, this money was considered an illegal gratuity: the mayor had accepted the gift as a reward for rigging the bids.

But in his opinion for the majority, Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that such corrupt rewards were not, in fact, illegal

The Supreme Court Just Legalized Bribery (jacobin.com)

In time for the return of Trump, the Swamp King... he's going to flood the swamp with shit, and ride to the moon on top of it!

And they legalized criminalizing sleeping while involuntarily homeless (as in no available spots in homeless shelters). Because not sleeping will make homeless people, many of whom already have mental health issues, more... reasonable? The punishments they specifically okayed include fines---because what better way to help people afford housing than to fine them, and charge compounding interest on the debt they can't pay?---and 30 days in jail, though it's not clear whether they'd be fine with permanent imprisonment and slavery (which is legal and widely practiced in the US prison system (which is almost certainly one reason why the US has the world's largest prison population...)). But if you jail homeless people for 30 days every time they sleep in public, then they get out of jail and they're still homeless so they sleep again and back to jail (and slavery) they go?

Quote

in prosperous American cities, homelessness abounds. It's not because drugs were invented in the past several decades, nor is it because mental illness was invented by Millennials.

Spoiler

Rather, it's because local governments have sought to rid their housing markets of low-income people by getting rid of low-income-housing options, while ensuring that the rest of the market would become prohibitively expensive. [...] cities have successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to allow them to ignore a problem of their own making. If they're not willing to allow more housing, they certainly are willing to house the indigent in jail.

[...] Writing for the three dissenting liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor zeroed in on a core problem: Does criminalization even work? "For people with nowhere else to go, fines and jail time do not deter behavior, reduce homelessness, or increase public safety … Police officers in these cities recognize as much: 'Look we're not really solving anybody's problem. This is a big game of whack-a-mole.'"

What the Supreme Court Doesn't Get About Homelessness - The Atlantic

... unless that 30 day jail term is extended to years for repeat offenders? (And if not being allowed to legally sleep drives many homeless people over the edge (or further) into insanity, that will "help" to make permanently imprisoning them seem like a great idea.) Between Trump's plan to build concentration camps for undocumented immigrants and the ability to jail homeless people, the incarcerated population is poised to grow substantially. Not sure if undocumented immigrants can be forced to perform slave labor before they've been convicted of a crime---such as the crime of being undocumented immigrants---but after they have, they can be.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 29 June 2024 - 06:47 PM

[Macros]

So what does this immunity ruling actually mean?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

From the Supreme Court decision:

Quote

Criminally prosecuting a President for official conduct undoubtedly poses a far greater threat of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch than simply seeking evidence in his possession. The danger is greater than what led the Court to recognize absolute Presidential immunity from civil damages liability—that the President would be chilled from taking the "bold and unhesitating action" required of an independent Executive Go*-Emperor. [...] the separation of powers principles explicated in the Court's precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President's acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. [...] At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no "dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch."

Spoiler

[...] The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the "outer perimeter" of the President's official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are "not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority."

[...] In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President's motives. [...]

[...] The indictment's allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct [...]

The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. It is the Government's burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution involving Trump's alleged attempts to influence the Vice President's oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

23-939 Trump v. United States (07/01/2024) (supremecourt.gov)

So... he's almost certainly not going to be prosecuted before the election. They're explicitly granting him immunity for some of the charges, and for the others the prosecution either has to show that they are beyond the "outer perimeter" of official acts and "manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority", or that they are non-core "official acts" and that prosecution would not "pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch." Because the President needs to take "bold and unhesitating action".

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 01 July 2024 - 03:01 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

HoosierDaddy, on 28 June 2024 - 02:22 AM, said:

RIP American Republic
1788 - 2025

See above.

God save the king.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

From Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion:

Quote

When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune.

23-939 Trump v. United States (07/01/2024) (supremecourt.gov)

So Trump won't get prosecuted before the election (especially since any determinations about "official acts" etc. will be appealed to the Supreme Court)... but Biden can assassinate them all before the election! We're saved!

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 01 July 2024 - 04:48 PM

[Tsundoku]

It means they're not even bothering to hide it anymore. Absolutely shameless.

Well then, maybe Biden could order the majority of SCOTUS killed, along with any dissenters in Congress? Install his own people, and it's El Presidente por vida.

[Macros]

I mean, that would be horrendous.

but fucking delicious in a novel to see the evil empire hoisted on its own petard.

do it all Biden, then install a new court that will strip the protection away and get your democracy back.

Robocop the fuck out of it