Jump to content

US Politics: Supreme Courting to insanity.


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, ants said:

Which, given that would be decided by the SC would have had to be resolved in the same case and would have presumably been thrown out when the SC overturned Roe vs Wade. 

Unlikely.  As the question in that case was whether the Mississippi law violated the precident created by Roe and Casey.  You would have needed a completely different set of facts to have standing to challenge a properly enacted Federal Statute.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

While true, my understanding is she didn't rat anyone out. Let her do some hard time and see if she's willing to spill the beans on some folks. I think it's fair to assume she's got a lot of dirt on some very rich and powerful people. 

You really think she's going to risk going the same way as Epstein?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Poobah said:

You really think she's going to risk going the same way as Epstein?

Have to agree with Ran, Epstein committed suicide, but I can understand why people have their suspicions. That said, Maxwell got 20 years and is appealing. Assuming that fails she'll probably serve 12-14 years as is and she could probably cut some deals to greatly reduce that as well. Her situation is very different from Epstein's who was going to be thrown under the prison for the rest of his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ants said:

I was under that impression, that the constitution sets out where Federal powers apply. Obviously with current interpretation of those clauses. Is that incorrect?

Of course, yes, the SC determines the constitutionality of laws, that's judicial review.  However, this apparent notion the SC necessarily reviews the constitutionality of every federal law that does not pertain to Congress' enumerated powers and/or a "right" is incredibly incorrect.  

6 hours ago, ants said:

On whether a federal abortion law would have stood up on its own without Roe vs Wade, I’m not saying this case said anything one way or another. It didn’t need to. But if such a law had been in effect the decision would have had to deal with it (as the federal law would contradict the new state laws) and I feel this court would have found against it. 

Well, if there was a federal law codifying the right to abortion, and the Mississippi law directly contradicted that law's federal standard, yes, it would be up to the SC to ultimately resolve the conflict - that's part of their original jurisdiction.  But, as Scot alluded to, that would be a fundamentally different case, whether Roe v Wade existed in this hypothetical or not.  Almost always, when a state law contradicts a federal law, the federal law is going to win simply due to the supremacy clause.  Unless the SC determines the federal law violates a constitutional right - e.g. the SC striking down DOMA in US v Windsor.  But again, that has nothing to do with the holding in Dobbs.

Moreover, technically the SC still retains discretion on deciding to take a case.  Just because a federal and state law contradict each other doesn't mean the SC has to take the case.  To use the SSM example, obviously the country was in this kind of gray area from 2004 when Massachusetts became the first state to recognize SSM until Windsor was decided in 2013 (and, really, until Obergefell in 2015).

Anyway, from a realistic perspective, abortion is such a hot-button issue that the court would almost certainly be pressured to resolve the issue - and likely much more quickly than they did with SSM.  And sure, would this court favor a state law banning abortion as opposed to a federal law mandating the right to abortion?  Again, very possible!  But again, the court's reasoning for doing so would have nothing to do with the holding in Dobbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Ran said:

Epstein killed himself. Lets not peddle conspiracy BS.

Fair enough. Is it reasonable for me to suggest that I believe that she may be too afraid to testify against her extremely powerful/wealthy/corrupt clients for fear of her safety?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Epstein's who was going to be thrown under the prison for the rest of his life.

Sounds like a bold new way to incarcerate people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sounds like a bold new way to incarcerate people.

It's just slang for someone tossed in jail for life with the expectation they'll get no protection within.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what struck me most strongly too, because it says w/o argument that the people around rumpisto knew all of this was illegal, criminal and unconstitutional.

" ...White House Counsel Pat Cipollone warning about the criminal liability that then-President Donald Trump and others might face as the mob descended on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/28/cipollone-warning-jan-6-crimes/

Quote

 

.... But on the morning of the insurrection, Hutchinson testified, Cipollone urged her to prevent Trump from going to the Capitol building with the growing, seething crowd of protesters he had assembled nearby. Hutchinson described the scene this way:

Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, “Please make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.”

Keep in mind that one of Cipollone’s jobs as White House counsel was to keep people who work in the White House, including the president, from committing crimes — something that, according to Hutchinson, he was clearly worried about.

Notably, Cipollone’s fear intensified as Jan. 6 wore on. Hutchinson testified that as the riot spun out of control, Cipollone came “barreling down the hallway towards our office” to tell Meadows they had to talk to the president. She continued:

And Mark looked up and said, “He doesn’t want to do anything, Pat.” Cipollone then replied, “Mark, something needs to be done or people are going to die and the blood is going to be on your f---ing hands. This is getting out of control. I’m going down there.  .....

 

I do wish they had invoked the 25th amendment that day.  I'm sort of guessing though, that this was threatened by somebody or somebodies, and that is what finally got him to call off the blood bath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Moreover, technically the SC still retains discretion on deciding to take a case.  Just because a federal and state law contradict each other doesn't mean the SC has to take the case.  To use the SSM example, obviously the country was in this kind of gray area from 2004 when Massachusetts became the first state to recognize SSM until Windsor was decided in 2013 (and, really, until Obergefell in 2015).

Yes.  And don’t forget the “full faith and credit clause”.  Even if “substantive due process” is abandoned by the SCOTUS States have a duty to recognize legal actions by other States (unless that “other State’s” action violates the US Constitution).  This is why people don’t need to be remarried when they move out of State or have to have a driver’s license valid in every State they pass through when driving cross country.  

State laws legalizing same sex marriage are still on the books and the SCOTUS will have a very difficult time ignoring the FF&C implications of existing State laws legalizing same sex marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I do wish they had invoked the 25th amendment that day.  I'm sort of guessing though, that this was threatened by somebody or somebodies, and that is what finally got him to call off the blood bath.

It was a failure on the part of the cabinet that they didn’t invoke the 25th Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

No EPA ruling today, it is expected tomorrow. 

Reading into the push, I suppose this means it's happening.

Great. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JGP said:

Reading into the push, I suppose this means it's happening.

Great. 

The EPA ruling isn't really a question of what they will rule (they will almost assuredly say that EPA overstepped and cannot regulate carbon the way they have been).  The question is how narrowly or broadly they write that ruling.  It could be very narrow, and only pertain the issue of carbon regulation, which would be unfortunate but only a medium sized deal.  It could also be written incredibly broadly and neuter the entire executive branch, overturning a huge portion of the federal infrastructure.  The implications of that are hard to even comprehend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It was a failure on the part of the cabinet that they didn’t invoke the 25th Amendment.

The attempts to protect Trump from himself have resulted in maintaining his viability to be in the position to try again. The 'brave' 'patriots' that are testifying are OK with 'kung flu', cutting immigrations from 'shit hole countries', prosecuting women for abortions, and  running a klepto-capitalist theocracy BUT draw the line at violent insurrection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The EPA ruling isn't really a question of what they will rule (they will almost assuredly say that EPA overstepped and cannot regulate carbon the way they have been).  The question is how narrowly or broadly they write that ruling.  It could be very narrow, and only pertain the issue of carbon regulation, which would be unfortunate but only a medium sized deal.  It could also be written incredibly broadly and neuter the entire executive branch, overturning a huge portion of the federal infrastructure.  The implications of that are hard to even comprehend.

Yup. And even if the SC doesn't write as broadly as you suggest, Republican Attorneys and interest groups probably have a slate of challenges queued up for the SC to expand it further if they don't now.  

Edited by JGP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

This is what struck me most strongly too, because it says w/o argument that the people around rumpisto knew all of this was illegal, criminal and unconstitutional.

" ...White House Counsel Pat Cipollone warning about the criminal liability that then-President Donald Trump and others might face as the mob descended on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/28/cipollone-warning-jan-6-crimes/

I do wish they had invoked the 25th amendment that day.  I'm sort of guessing though, that this was threatened by somebody or somebodies, and that is what finally got him to call off the blood bath.

It was, actually. Hannity told him that some were considering it; after this 45 agreed to do a statement (or the video, I don't remember). They mentioned it at the hearing.

Edited by Mindwalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Week said:

The attempts to protect Trump from himself have resulted in maintaining his viability to be in the position to try again. The 'brave' 'patriots' that are testifying are OK with 'kung flu', cutting immigrations from 'shit hole countries', prosecuting women for abortions, and  running a klepto-capitalist theocracy BUT draw the line at violent insurrection. 

Look… I think their “line” is far to accepting of horrible shit from the losing one term former President who lives in Florida and loves the Russian dictator… regardless I’m glad they have a line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...