Jump to content
DireWolfSpirit

U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It’s not like something historic isn’t happening right now or something….

It's certainly historic, but it's also pretty boring - one hour in and still getting through Taylor's opening statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The republicans interrupting each other to get points of order/ parliamentary inquires across was amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure everyone's already all over this (or even better sources of info) but just in case (from Slate)...

Quote

We know Twitter will be having a field day, which is why we’ve rounded up top commentators from both sides of the aisle. You’ll see liberal tweets on the left and conservative tweets on the right. Follow along below.

It's kind of fun to see both "sides" react/spin in almost real-time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the plaintiff's theory and the procedural history are summarized in the petition for certiorari (NB: this is the petitioners' interpretation of what was alleged by the plaintiffs/respondents and what the courts below did with the case).   this is further the petition that the US supreme court has denied. 

the state supreme court apparently reversed the lower state court's dismissal of a claim (i.e., on the pleadings alone) under the state unfair trade practices statute; the state supreme court seems to have ruled that one theory of recovery under this state statute is timely under state law.  the US supreme court will not have cared about this issue.

the state supreme court then went on to rule that the state unfair trade practices statute is an exception to the federal PLCAA (15 USC 7901 et seq.) that generally preempts claims against firearms manufacturers; the exception concerns statutes applicable to the sale of firearms (15 USC 7903(5)(A)(iii))--here, an allegation that the marketing is wrongful under the state statute. 

the petitioners agree with the state supreme court dissent that this general state UTP act is not specifically applicable to the sale of firearms, making a 'policy' argument that congress intended to immunize the firearms industry from this sort of claim--ignoring nevertheless that the PLCAA has an exception for "an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought."

i can see why this would be interesting to the US supreme court, though it is not obviously something that should be dismissed.  This is a win for gun control advocates--but it is not unequivocal--it is merely the declination of the high court to hear this initial appeal at the motion to dismiss stage; the defendants can appeal later at the summary judgment stage and the post-trial stage.  it is accordingly difficult to draw any inferences.

Edited by sologdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

It's kind of fun to see both "sides" react/spin in almost real-time.

I like how Richard M. Nixon is one of the Twitter handles frequently cited on the right side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's certainly historic, but it's also pretty boring - one hour in and still getting through Taylor's opening statement.

Boring to most, fascinating to few. I was always excited to do committee prep when I was an intern in the MN State Senate. That said, I think this paints the contrast perfectly:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DMC said:

I like how Richard M. Nixon is one of the Twitter handles frequently cited on the right side.

Me, too!  I also like how, so far, a big deal to the Trumpists seems to be how Schiff lied about not knowing the identity of the whistleblower.  "If you can't argue the facts or the law, pound the table!"  Indeed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Boring to most, fascinating to few. I was always excited to do committee prep when I was an intern in the MN State Senate.

Yeah I don't think many are tuning in because they get all hot and bothered by Robert's Rules of Order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not knowing the identity of the whistleblower

is it fair to say that the whistleblower is irrelevant now that there are witnesses under oath?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sologdin said:

not knowing the identity of the whistleblower

is it fair to say that the whistleblower is irrelevant now that there are witnesses under oath?

Well...this is what I think (and I heard Schiff say the same just this morning).  But this little fact will not deter those on the right from desperately needing to discredit the whistleblower anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, sologdin said:

is it fair to say that the whistleblower is irrelevant now that there are witnesses under oath?

In sane land, yes.  But as PotN said, Schiff's efforts to protect the whistleblower - which is, ya know, required by law - will (and already is) be used by the GOP to deflect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on this is the media is killing impeachment by overload.  It may well be the strategy - objective ....

Every website, every newspaper site, every television and radio site has live streaming, while their own talking heads talk talk talk repeating everything and then telling us what we are to think about it.

Local public radio station is airing it all live on both AM and FM frequencies.  Don't know what PBS finally decided to do after getting yelled at by Some for planning not to do gavel to gavel live.

My own approach is just to tune it it out, check my news sources no more than usual (which 'usual' is probably way too often), because everybody's gonna be talk talk talk so-called analysis.  Mostly it seems the rethugs are doing their best with plants and every other stunt they can come up with to disrupt and turn attention from the proceedings, making it about that instead.

Every voter is going to be so sick of this going into the second week of this they are all, no matter what side, gonna tune out and just pray for it to be over with.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My fear is that this is all happening too soon.  We're still a year out from the election.  We'll have it all laid out here, the House will obviously vote to impeach, the Senate will then have the last word/spin on it and will not vote to impeach, and the conservative media will have a very long time to also spin it leading up to the election.  I fear that it just won't matter very much in the end and people will simply vote their already completely baked-in, confirmation bias-fueled opinions/consciences:(  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

My fear is that this is all happening too soon.  We're still a year out from the election.  We'll have it all laid out here, the House will obviously vote to impeach, the Senate will then have the last word/spin on it and will not vote to impeach, and the conservative media will have a very long time to also spin it leading up to the election.  I fear that it just won't matter very much in the end and people will simply vote their already completely baked-in, confirmation bias-fueled opinions/consciences:(  

I think that the closer the impeachment hearings are to the elections, the more they'll seem like a political hit job rather than a serious investigation of serious crimes.  So I'm not at all sad that the Democrats are moving quickly on this. 

As for the rest, you are right, but IMO kind of missing the point.  Yes, partisans will view impeachment through their own lens, and partisanship is the overwhelmingly most important element in who people vote for.  But that doesn't mean that nothing matters.  If Democrats can, in a clear and simple way, show that Trump used public money to attack political opponents, that will damage Trump.  Doing that sort of thing is not popular with low information independents or milquetoast Republicans.  Both those groups voted overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016 and he needs them again in 2020.  While it might show up as only a blip in national polling (like the difference between 41 and 42% Trump approval), it has the potential to be the difference between winning or losing a year from now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

@Maithanet I certainly hope you're right!   

Remember that I said it's possible.  I have no doubt that this COULD be a winner for Democrats.  But they could definitely drop the ball, they have a lot of practice at that sort of thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh this is hilarious now.

The Republican defense now is that Taylor’s actions as ambassador are all based on people lying to him or that he misunderstood them.

Just imagine, US embassies conduct business on lies coming from the State department.

eta: I assume this means that Sondland is going to be pushed under a great big bus.

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×