US Politics - I'm not orange I'mpeach

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Corporations have been persons for a long time.  They have legal personality, but not actual personality...except maybe Wendy's twitter account.

"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like."

--   Edward, First Baron Thurlow (1731-1806), the Lord Chancellor During the impeachment of Warren Hastings (1712-1818), de facto first governor general of India from 1773 to 1785, i.e. principal servant to that wondrous marriage of imperialism and capitalism, the East India Company.

[Larry of the Lawn]

11 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

“Oh well I’m the president” screams dictator that does what ever he wants. Also a great modern example as to why the presidency should be abolished. Power structures are dangerous. Especially when you have armed wings of government protecting them.

It would be nice and quaint and good  if post -Trump the next Congress takes back some power from the presidency, and has a president who'd sign on to that.  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

A note on FNC and their polling - do not conflate the two.  Of course Trump is going to do that, but that doesn't mean we have to.  FNC polling is not reflecting of the coverage portrayed on the channel - and that goes for morning, afternoon, and primetime.  Fox News has an A rating according to 538, and actually has a slight Democratic bias according to Silver's metrics.  While I'm not too familiar with the two firms they currently commission to conduct their polls, I know they used to use Opinion Dynamics, which has a sterling reputation.  The bullshit weighting among well-known right-wing polling firms is Rasmussen, not Fox News.

Yeah, if anyone is looking for a cratering of support among Trump voters, watch Rasmussen. I posted the Fox poll because it was interesting in that it continues the trend we see of support for impeachment and/or the impeachment inquiry rising among all voting groups. NBC/Marist polling out today shows a similar trend.

[fionwe1987]

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

 

Biden's dropping in the polls. He was the front runner for 99 percent of the time. As people begin to make more informed decisions, many think, "I don't want Biden or Harris." But race it up if you want. Maybe there is a component of race in that Harris is a woman of color and people are more disappointed in her history of hurting people of color because she is a person of color. You too, Brutus?

Biden is dropping in the polls now. He has done nothing new in terms of passing laws that hurt African Americans since he started his candidacy. Nor was the previous debate particularly focussed on his history on that front. There's no causal relationship there that's obvious.

[Guest]

Apropos of nothing much at all, but can I say I find hilarity in the fact that the right is losing it's mind over the NBA/China thing over free-speech being infringed upon, while they were perfectly happy with people getting kicked out of the NFL over almost exactly the same thing.

[The Anti-Targ]

7 hours ago, Ormond said:

Murdoch has been an American citizen since 1985. Though he probably made the decision to become a naturalized American for business reasons, I think people who support immigrants shouldn't now say he's an example of "foreign interference." 

I also don't think one poll is going to get Rupert Murdoch to abandon Trump. It may happen, but they're not there yet. At least on CNN and MSNBC last night they were saying that although the Fox News division reported the poll, the evening shows on Fox which get the highest ratings didn't mention it, except when one Democrat who was being interviewed brought it up. If the right wing hosts on the evening shows start supporting the impeachment inquiry, then we'll know Murdoch has decided to bail.

I'm not saying Murdoch isn't legit. It's just ironic that there is such a strong anti-immigrant streak in among Trumpists. But we all know that it's largely anti-immigrants of a certain hue.

[sologdin]

Attorneys General do not make the laws that discriminate against black people. 

more nuance to this, maybe. the legislature wrote bad statutes, absolutely, and consequently state departments of justice wrote similarly bad external regulations and internal operating procedures.

pursuant to same, their attorneys exercised prosecutorial discretion, perhaps, we must allow, in ways at times that may have been consistent with the discriminatory animus of their respective legislatures.

notice of this abject exercise of discretion was likely taken by the responsive law enforcement agencies, who perhaps from time to time may have unlawfully arrested african americans in accordance with same.

thereafter the discriminatory intentions of an apartheid society may have further manifested consistently in the practices of trial courts--from assumptions made by grand juries to decisions rendered by petit juries, as well as in the sentencing discretion of judges, and thereafter in post conviction relief, enforcement of prison rules, clemency and parole proceedings, and post-release management.

it's accordingly impossible to quarantine the bad race politics. that said, it's difficult to fault harris for being a rule of law candidate who incidentally might be unavoidably contaminated by the general failure to quarantine.  

[Paladin of Ice]

28 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Apropos of nothing much at all, but can I say I find hilarity in the fact that the right is losing it's mind over the NBA/China thing over free-speech being infringed upon, while they were perfectly happy with people getting kicked out of the NFL over almost exactly the same thing.

I’ve been so tempted to point this out a few times and have been biting my tongue about it. Thus far, at least.

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, sologdin said:

it's accordingly impossible to quarantine the bad race politics. that said, it's difficult to fault harris for being a rule of law candidate who incidentally might be unavoidably contaminated by the general failure to quarantine. 

I think this is the rub.  Let's take a hypothetical, but lift up the veil of ignorance a bit - let's say you're a politically ambitious 30 something lawyer at the turn of the millennium trying to figure out your next career move.  AND, you also know you're a black woman.  So you know once you get into a contentious race with the right, they're gonna brand you soft on crime just based on spec.  So what do you do?  You run for DA - of the most liberal city in the country - but hey at least it's still "law and order." 

And then you cultivate that until you're able to become US Senator of the biggest state in the union and are, ya know, actually able to have a say in legislation.  Sounds like a pretty damn sound strategy to me.  But then when you get around to running for president, you're told that you are partly responsible for systemic racism?  GTFO.  I've talked to probably around a dozen black colleagues/fellow alcoholics at the bar about this issue with Harris the past few months, and while opinions on Harris are decidedly mixed, not a one thinks her past "disqualifies" her as a candidate, which I've seen and discussed here and elsewhere.  If a minority voter told me that, I'm not going to argue.  But a white leftist telling Kamala Harris her past policies/actions are too racist for her to run for the Democratic nomination?  We've reached the apex of liberal irony.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

 And that's a danger that didn't exist in 2010. Now that corporations are people and all.

Corporations have always been people.  That’s why they are called “corporations”.

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Corporations have always been people.  That’s why they are called “corporations”.

I'm tired of this lip you're giving me. Continue these vexations and your Basilissa will beat you so bad you'll convert to southpaw.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

 And that's a danger that didn't exist in 2010. Now that corporations are people and all.

If corporations get to be people, does that mean we're also corporations? 

*hums "I'm not a businessman, I'm a business, man"*

3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Corporations have been persons for a long time.  They have legal personality, but not actual personality...except maybe Wendy's twitter account.

Wendy's is nothing compared to Nihilist Arby's, which sadly has been suspended.

3 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Sadly my little reaction button is still silenced from my excessive use last evening.

Nazi Girl Jace was having too much fun in the bigotry grand slam thread.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

If you hit some of those low info, don’t pay much attention to politics folks with Fox News turning against Trump, not to mention wishy washy independents and various others, it will have an impact.

I agree with much of what you had to say, but this bit peaked my curiosity. What do you do when many of Trump's most loyal supporters are also low information voters? For many of them, Trump is an avatar on which they can project anything they want. Most people I've met who like Trump don't watch a lot of news and can't make a strong argument as to why they support him.

Also, this is worth a listening to. It's a podcast on how conservatives consume media, and some of it strikes me as a movement away from Fox.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Apropos of nothing much at all, but can I say I find hilarity in the fact that the right is losing it's mind over the NBA/China thing over free-speech being infringed upon, while they were perfectly happy with people getting kicked out of the NFL over almost exactly the same thing.

Bro, are you high? We're talking about a rich white man's free speech. Apples and Oranges to Kaep and his anti-American protest.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

29 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I'm tired of this lip you're giving me. Continue these vexations and your Basilissa will beat you so bad you'll convert to southpaw.

 

:)

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

Biden is dropping in the polls now. He has done nothing new in terms of passing laws that hurt African Americans since he started his candidacy. Nor was the previous debate particularly focussed on his history on that front. There's no causal relationship there that's obvious.

You want to make up problems, go ahead. Obama's AG passed laws that hurt black people, and was kind of Kamala about it, but Obama got elected. I hate using that example (look one black guy is elected so racism over is about the same level as "look, one white guy is leading and a black lady isn't, so racism is back")

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

You want to make up problems, go ahead. Obama's AG passed laws that hurt black people, and was kind of Kamala about it, but Obama got elected. I hate using that example (look one black guy is elected so racism over is about the same level as "look, one white guy is leading and a black lady isn't, so racism is back")

No Attorney General. Let me repeat. NO ATTORNEY GENERAL. Passes laws. 

End of transmission.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

No Attorney General. Let me repeat. NO ATTORNEY GENERAL. Passes laws. 

End of transmission.

This is accepting the premise of the complaint as legitimate.  First and foremost, what the hell does Obama's AG have to do with him getting elected in any way?  Second, assuming this has to be referring to Holder, right?  So what are we objecting to about Holder's past now?  His 12 years in the DoJ's public integrity unit?  His tenures as US Attorney for DC and Deputy AG during the Clinton administration?  Or his time in private practice during Dubya's administration?  I could see qualms about the latter - I'm sure he represented people and/or corporations that will rub the left the wrong way - but obviously in his capacity as a private attorney he had no role whatsoever in the implementation of laws, let alone the passing of them.

Third, the comparison to Obama, or Holder, or both, is fallacious on its face because neither are black women.  This should be clear to all.  Plus, yes, Harris does not have anywhere close to the political skills of Barack Obama.  But if that's the standard then literally no one can be president.  Maybe Oprah.

[Rippounet]

11 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

No.  This court is heavily textualist and generally rejects "legislative history", or the intent of the draftspersons, in interpreting statutes.  How textualism is applied by the various members varies.  Some of the members believe that you should read the text and should apply the words of the text as such words were understood at the time that the text was written.  Others just look at the text and apply the words of the text as they are understood today, but always in context of the text as a whole (not the individual words in the text). 

Maybe I'm being daft, but I don't think we're really disagreeing here.

On the subject of impeachment the SCOTUS seems to have taken the position that it is a "non-justiciable" issue which I understand as meaning that they will not say anything about it as they see it as 100% political and thus being a question to be left entirely to Congress. At least as things stand (which might change given the times we live in, however unprobable it seems today).

On the 25th otoh the SCOTUS may very well choose to offer an opinion if the executive asks for one since there is no precedent to overturn (according to google there are zero decisions involving the 25th). If you say they'd give a heavily textualist opinion I believe you, but that is still different from declaring the entire issue non-justiciable.

And then in this case, I'm not sure looking at the words and looking at the intent behind them would be that different. I can see a subtle nuance if I think about it long enough, but there's only so many readings of the word "unable" to be found and there isn't that much difference between defining the word (as understood now or at the time) and setting some form of standard in the process, however broad or not it may be.

[sologdin]

offer an opinion if the executive asks for one

that won't work--advisory opinions are unlawful; there'd have to be a live case.

also: no jurisdiction to review impeachment trials.