Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kalbear Total Landscaping

US Politics: Ruthless ambition

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Kal and I have said this was likely coming for years.

:rolleyes:

Ok, you're not surprised.  Why do you think it matters?

Share this post


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

:rolleyes:

Ok, you're not surprised.  Why do you think it matters?

One way I think it (indirectly) matters is that it really shows how the entire history of the U.S. government rests on what is essentially (and in some ways, literally) a gentleman's agreement.

Get enough people with zero scruples together, put them in the right places, and they can break the government. That should probably be addressed if we make it to the other side relatively intact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Basically there are six swing states with Republican legislatures, and one path to victory is having each Republican state party sue over the election results, pushing it to the date the electors are required so they can appoint Trump friendly electors and instruct them to ignore the states' popular vote.

I'm not trying to impugn Barton Gellman, but can anyone tell me where in the fuck this strategy has any even semblance of a basis?  Looking over the state laws for the EC, I barely see the state legislature mentioned - each state pretty much has the same process:  the state parties nominate their electors, the SoS and the governor certify the results, and then they send the winning parties electors to the college.  Seriously, let me know if I'm missing something.  I only looked at possible swing states, I just woke up an hour ago, and I may be guilty of some skimming.

Moreover, such a gambit clearly violates both federal law:

Quote

The Electoral Count Act (“ECA”) includes a “safe harbor” provision that treats as “conclusive” a state’s chosen slate of electors if two criteria are satisfied: (1) the electors must be chosen under laws enacted prior to Election Day, and (2) the selection process, including final resolution of any disputes, must be completed at least six days prior to the meetings of the electors. 3 U.S.C. § 5. This year, the ECA “safe harbor” deadline is December 8, 2020. A post-Election Day appointment of a state legislature’s preferred slate of electors would almost always deviate from the legal process for appointing electors established by the state prior to Election Day.10 Although the ECA safe harbor criteria are not mandatory, the consequences of failing to adhere to them are significant. Losing the safe harbor protection leaves Congress to decide which electors to count from a state, without mandatory deference to the preferences of either the state’s voters or legislature.11

As well as constitutional law and precedent:

Quote

The Supreme Court has explained that “[w]hen the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental,” and is subject to constitutional due process and equal protection guarantees. Bush, 531 U.S. at 104-05. The due process clause, in particular, protects citizens’ reasonable reliance on the expectation under state law that they will be able to meaningfully exercise their fundamental right to vote.13

That precedent - Bush 531 - was William Rehnquist's concurring opinion in Bush v Gore btw.

To be clear, I am absolutely sure Gellman is right that they may try this.  And, of course, it may work.  Just, I dunno, maybe shut your face about it as all that does is grant something that's completely pulled out of their ass some semblance of legitimacy.  Plus, when we're talking about Trump's lawyers and their expertise on the facts of the case, it's quite possible you may be giving them ideas they'd otherwise never think of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Get enough people with zero scruples together, put them in the right places, and they can break the government.

This is true of any government.  That's why the philosophers/theorists that spearheaded the democratization of the west 3-4 centuries ago referred to government as a social compact or contract.

Share this post


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

:rolleyes:

Ok, you're not surprised.  Why do you think it matters?

Even if it was suspected, hearing the president say he’ll throw out ballots to stay in office is important news to report. What does it say about our country if it isn’t anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

What does it say about our country if it isn’t anymore?

That our president has been saying batshit, dangerous, and hateful things since about thirty seconds after he was inaugurated (well, obviously before as well, but he was president then).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Are we talking RDJ's Tony Stark kind of arms dealer or Nic Cage's Lord of War arms dealer?

Guy selling arms to Nazis, sounds more like Liam Neeson's Oskar Schindler to me.

Edited by A Horse Named Stranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

This is true of any government.  That's why the philosophers/theorists that spearheaded the democratization of the west 3-4 centuries ago referred to government as a social compact or contract.

That's just an "It's turtles all the way down" counterargument. 

In the most basic sense, all of human civilization is one kind of social compact or another. Some have more effective built-in checks on the system than what we have here, where everything is basically predicated on nothing more than the honor system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meaningfully exercise their fundamental right to vote

if it is fundamental right, then any regulation thereof is subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review, which means there's a high likelihood that the regulations are toast.

so, again, panic is unwarranted.

Edited by sologdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

That's just an "It's turtles all the way down" counterargument. 

In the most basic sense, all of human civilization is one kind of social compact or another. Some have more effective built-in checks on the system than what we have here, where everything is basically predicated on nothing more than the honor system.

No it's not.  There certainly could be better checks employed in our system, sure, but that has little relevance to Trump's comments in reference.  He's blatantly saying he's willing to ignored those instituted checks that are codified in state, federal, and constitutional law.  The only way this is a failure in the checks and balances of our system is because/if the president and the Supreme Court ignore those checks.  If they're willing to do that, then yeah, it's all based on the honor system.  There's no possible way to institutionalize checks or come up with some magical words to put into with the full force of law if the people in power are simply willing to ignore them.  That's not a flaw in the system, no government can overcome that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liz Cheney, Mark Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Andrew McCartney all vow a peaceful transition of power and valid election results this November. After Trump refuses to commit to peacefully leaving if he loses.

Basically the lawmakers are refusing to have his back on such a deplorable stand. Romney referring to it as "unthinkable" for a President to refuse to exit.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/517956-liz-cheney-promises-peaceful-transfer-of-power-after-trump-declines

Kudos to these voices saying they would not go along with this if it comes to pass.

We shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DireWolfSpirit said:

Kudos to these voices saying they would not go along with this if it comes to pass.

Of course they're willing to go along.  They're just telling Trump to shut his facehole and stop telling people that's what he's gonna do.  Even McConnell told him to shut up.

Share this post


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

No it's not.  There certainly could be better checks employed in our system, sure, but that has little relevance to Trump's comments in reference.  He's blatantly saying he's willing to ignored those instituted checks that are codified in state, federal, and constitutional law.  The only way this is a failure in the checks and balances of our system is because/if the president and the Supreme Court ignore those checks. 

Fortunately the POTUS and SCOTUS would NEVER ignore those checks in favor of other things o wait

(The difference that it makes, by the way, is that a whole lot of people are realizing precisely how little our Democracy actually relies on and how laws they thought existed...don't (or don't matter). )

Edited by Kalibear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

Of course they're willing to go along.  They're just telling Trump to shut his facehole and stop telling people that's what he's gonna do.  Even McConnell told him to shut up.

Only problem, McConnell has zero credibility (mildly put) in general, but particularly when it comes to upholding democratic norms

I wouldn't believe him, when he told me turtle Island has a blue sky and lies in the middle of an ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

The difference that it makes, by the way, is that a whole lot of people are realizing precisely how little our Democracy actually relies on and how laws they thought existed...don't (or don't matter).

Again, people in power willing to abide by the law is kind of a given for any democracy to work.  This would be like if in the UK the prime minister decided to ignore the election results and the crown was like "cool."  That doesn't make the UK's democracy any weaker than anyone else's, just as it doesn't with ours.  What you could say is things like the EC, Senate malapportionment, and voter suppression are flaws in our system that enabled these people to be in power.

5 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Only problem, McConnell has zero credibility (mildly put) in general, but particularly when it comes to upholding democratic norms

He's not upholding norms, he's just telling Trump to be quiet about how they're gonna try to steal the election. 

Edited by DMC
slop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

Again, people in power willing to abide by the law is kind of a given for any democracy to work.  This would be like if in the UK the prime minister decided to ignore the elections results and the crown was like "cool."  That doesn't make the UK's democracy any weaker than anyone else's, just it doesn't with ours.  What you could say is things like the EC, Senate malapportionment, and voter suppression are flaws in the our system that enabled these people to be in power.

He's not upholding norms, he's just telling Trump just be quiet about how they're gonna try to steal the election. 

So you want to get in contact with Chataya's ex, commandante DM Guevara?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMC said:

Again, people in power willing to abide by the law is kind of a given for any democracy to work.  This would be like if in the UK the prime minister decided to ignore the elections results and the crown was like "cool."  That doesn't make the UK's democracy any weaker than anyone else's, just it doesn't with ours.  What you could say is things like the EC, Senate malapportionment, and voter suppression are flaws in the our system that enabled these people to be in power. 

Yes, and until recently I think people didn't actually really understand that. That if the senate is going to do whatever the POTUS wants there is really no actual limit on the power - including doing things like stealing the election. That's 'what matters'. it's not that Trump is saying this sort of thing out loud (though really, it is a big deal that the POTUS is literally not committing to a peaceful transition of power out loud), but it's that they're now understanding what that would actually entail, and just how easily he could get away with it. 

Just now, DMC said:

He's not upholding norms, he's just telling Trump just be quiet about how they're gonna try to steal the election. 

yep, this. The biggest flaw of Trump in conservative views is that he keeps saying too many of the quiet parts out loud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kalibear said:

That if the senate is going to do whatever the POTUS wants there is really no actual limit on the power - including doing things like stealing the election.

Well, the limit in this case is/was the Court.  Even now, the Senate is relying on the SC to hand Trump the election, not do it themselves.  The response to Trump's comments by the GOP caucus discussed above make that clear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

Well, the limit in this case is/was the Court.  Even now, the Senate is relying on the SC to hand Trump the election, not do it themselves.  The response to Trump's comments by the GOP caucus discussed above make that clear.

But that comes from the Senate's power to advise and consent too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kalibear said:

But that comes from the Senate's power to advise and consent too. 

Really?  Thanks, I was thinking about taking an interest in government recently.  :P

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...