US politics: No sub rosa Omarosa

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

29 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Remind me again how thomas voted in bush v gore?

That wasn’t a gross expansion  of Presidential power.  Futher seven members, including some liberals, voted to hold that the standards applied by different Florida Counties in determining what constituted a vote violated equal protection because there was no consistent standard.  People forget that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Where’s the love for the Notorious RBG?

The military as a whole would not. I actually just looked up some polling numbers and Trump does a little better with the military than with civilians, but it has to do with them hating him less, not liking him more. And I’ve talked to my step-brother who is in the Army about this and he dismisses it outright. However, he has said that he wonders if a small faction would break off and try and attempt a coup. He doesn’t think it could be successful, but he hasn’t ruled it out.

I forgot Ginsburg.

[Maithanet]

If Trump wanted the military to back him in a power grab, he'd have to work at it by at least waging some sort of false flag terrorist attack as a pretense.  And given how competent this administration is, I'm not sure they could pull it off. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Maithanet said:

If Trump wanted the military to back him in a power grab, he'd have to work at it by at least waging some sort of false flag terrorist attack as a pretense.  And given how competent this administration is, I'm not sure they could pull it off. 

Agreed.

[James Arryn]

12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

If Trump wanted the military to back him in a power grab, he'd have to work at it by at least waging some sort of false flag terrorist attack as a pretense.  And given how competent this administration is, I'm not sure they could pull it off. 

I’m even less sure it would have to be all that convincing, sorry to say. US objectivity in the immediate wake of what looks like a terrorist attack on the US is...ummm...not at it’s best.

edit for illustration: https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2007/sep/11/thirdofamericansblamesadda

(and that’s 6 years later!)

[lokisnow]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That wasn’t a gross expression of Presidential power.  Futher seven members, including some liberals, voted to hold that the standards applied by different Florida Counties in determining what constituted a vote violated equal protection because there was no consistent standard.  People forget that.

Putting an unelected person in office because you share their political party seems like an expansion of power. I didn’t forget. They have a paper shield technicality to hide their partisanship behind, we all know that was just a legalese excuse created after they had already made their partisan decision. That justification was invented after the fact, they reverse engineered from the outcome they wanted and then claimed that reason was the cause of their decision. Hah.

[Kalbear]

27 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No, they will not.  The ACA exists because Roberts voted in favor of it existing.  How was that a Partisan act?  Thomas goes his own way all the time but he is not in favor of expanding Presidential power beyod what is expressly granted in the Constitution.  I’m confident that Trump would lose this argument before this Court.

Where in the constitution - the original one - is the two-term limit?

[lokisnow]

I just saw tha trump is claiming Burnett television told him there are no tapes. That is probably technically correct. Multitrack audio is recorded as a data file and reality television records to XDCam media _DISCS_ (literally Blu-rays in a protective clamshell). So yeah there is no raw footage “tapes“

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Putting an unelected person in office because you share their political party seems like an expansion of power. I didn’t forget. They have a paper shield technicality to hide their partisanship behind, we all know that was just a legalese excuse created after they had already made their partisan decision. That justification was invented after the fact, they reverse engineered from the outcome they wanted and then claimed that reason was the cause of their decision. Hah.

Then why did liberals on the Court go along with the seven member decision finding an equal protection violation?  If the smaller majority was for purely partisan reasons they gave the partisans cover.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Where in the constitution - the original one - is the two-term limit?

It isn’t in the original document.   It is the 22nd Amendment.  What is your point?

 

[lokisnow]

Because it’s a really good reverse engineered argument designed to sabotage the liberals by forcing them into a Sophie’s choice.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Because it’s a really good reverse engineered argument designed to sabotage the liberals by forcing them into a Sophie’s choice.

How is the argument “reverse” engineered?  I will concede that Thomas’ vote in the five member majority that ended the recount was inconsistent for him ideologically.

[Mexal]

37 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I saw on it  TV, something about that sealed motion from last week. I don’t know how likely it is or of it was just speculation. I saw Manafort’s lawyer on TV afterward simply saying that the prosecution did not meet the standards to convict.

There was some sealed motions last night that I saw. I figured they probably had to do with Calk. My guess is they were just speculating since I haven't seen anything about that at all yet.

[Bonnot OG]

https://nypost.com/2018/08/11/landlord-goes-on-hunger-strike-over-new-homeless-shelter

Lol jesus. Landlords really are garbage.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I’m even less sure it would have to be all that convincing, sorry to say. US objectivity in the immediate wake of what looks like a terrorist attack on the US is...ummm...not at it’s best.

edit for illustration: https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2007/sep/11/thirdofamericansblamesadda

(and that’s 6 years later!)

*cough* Gulf *cough* of *cough* Tonkin *cough* incident *cough*

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Where in the constitution - the original one - is the two-term limit?

Since we’re going down this road, I’ve seen opinion pieces in a few places that speculate that one of the ultimate goals of the conservative billionaire class is to repeal the 17^th Amendment.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Since we’re going down this road, I’ve seen opinion pieces in a few places that speculate that one of the ultimate goals of the conservative billionaire class is to repeal the 17^th Amendment.

Direct election of Senators?  I’d think they’d target the 16th income tax.

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

*cough* Gulf *cough* of *cough* Tonkin *cough* incident *cough*

Exactly. Or the Try Not To Really Remember the Maine!

 

I mean, there’s a frighteningly long list about which there is a kind of ‘somewhat unfortunate, but...’ kind of post-hoc attitude, which probably speaks quite loudly to how upcoming events will be treated. 

[Kalbear]

27 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It isn’t in the original document.   It is the 22nd Amendment.  What is your point?

 

An originalist can easily say that because it's not in the constitution, it isn't what the founders intended. Alternately, they can reinterpret the 22nd to mean something else if they choose to. 

And I think you're probably right that Roberts right now wouldn't do it, because he'd be the deciding vote in a 5-4 decision. However, if he isn't the deciding vote, I think he'd go along with it just fine. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, James Arryn said:

Exactly. Or the Try Not To Really Remember the Maine!

 

I mean, there’s a frighteningly long list about which there is a kind of ‘somewhat unfortunate, but...’ kind of post-hoc attitude, which probably speaks quite loudly to how upcoming events will be treated. 

But using it to justify violating the 22nd Amendment is a whole different level of cra cra