Jump to content

US Politics: Hey wanna come to my office and see some Top Secret Eyes only documents?


Ser Scot A Ellison
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

Step 1) Keanu 

Step 2) Victory 

Step 3) Rub DMC's face in Hardball Keanu victory

Sounds like underpants gnomes to me.  I also like how you're more preoccupied with somehow "beating" me than actually winning.  Says a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sounds like underpants gnomes to me.  I also like how you're more preoccupied with somehow "beating" me than actually winning.  Says a lot.

Dawg everything I do is WINNING 

 

Eta:

(it's not true)

Edited by Firebrand Jace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DMC said:

Please specify.

Sure, though the article goes into it pretty well. 

We have to start with the assumption that conservative judges will continue the behavior of what SCOTUS has done and make decisions entirely based on the outcome they desire without any caring about legal precedent, actual stated law, or any normal system. If that is the case, relying on the legal system to correct itself is obviously going to fail, and as the article says if you're relying on the legal system you are accepting the flawed outcomes that will happen. 

Similarly, relying on things like career issues is an obvious nonstarter given what SCOTUS is doing and what other Republicans already have signaled. In a regular world these decisions would already be massively career-limiting. 

Therefore, the only solutions are ones that repair the actual judicial system to dilute, remove, or renovate the legal system we have. Things like term limits and expanding courts are really the only choice that is legally viable. The other choices for fixing this are entirely extralegal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TormundsWoman said:

I never trust anyone who doesn’t root for a Keanu Reeves victory. Those people always seem to me up to no good…

I know these posts aren't serious, but you all do realize Keanu Reeves is a Canadian? Maybe you should be finding some actor who's a U.S. citizen to joke about in US Politics. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I know these posts aren't serious, but you all do realize Keanu Reeves is a Canadian? Maybe you should be finding some actor who's a U.S. citizen to joke about in US Politics. :)

Johnny Utah isn’t Canadian. He’s a F          B           I          AGENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Johnny Utah isn’t Canadian. He’s a F          B           I          AGENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Ted Cruz is a Canadian and, in the US Seante, no reason why Keanu can't be president!  Take that all you Debbie Downers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

I know these posts aren't serious, but you all do realize Keanu Reeves is a Canadian? Maybe you should be finding some actor who's a U.S. citizen to joke about in US Politics. :)

So what? Obama was Kenyan, didn't stop him from being POTUS for 8 years.  

(your set up was too good to not get a birther joke in)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, to explain Jace's joke. (At least I assume that was how her thinking on the random insertion of Keanue Reeves worked).

Playing Hardball

Hardball is a movie starring Keanue Reeves

Throw in DMC randomly. 

Usually my semi-bad jokes work come about in a similar manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KalVsWade said:

We have to start with the assumption that conservative judges will continue the behavior of what SCOTUS has done and make decisions entirely based on the outcome they desire without any caring about legal precedent,

Yeah this is an incredibly obvious point no one is arguing.

1 hour ago, KalVsWade said:

Therefore, the only solutions are ones that repair the actual judicial system to dilute, remove, or renovate the legal system we have. Things like term limits and expanding courts are really the only choice that is legally viable. The other choices for fixing this are entirely extralegal.

This is still lacking in specification beyond once again mentioning reforms we've discussed for years and obviously are not possible with the current composition of Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah this is an incredibly obvious point no one is arguing.

I think you're assuming I'm talking to just you; a whole lot of people I saw online were very much arguing that they could just, like, point out how wrong Cannon was in her decisions and that would be sufficient, or they could wait for the appeal and that would be enough. 

58 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is still lacking in specification beyond once again mentioning reforms we've discussed for years and obviously are not possible with the current composition of Congress.

Certainly not with the current composition, no. But it may be time to require that people running for office specify that they support court reform for these reasons as part of saving democracy. Obviously I'll not be going into the extralegal ideas. 

Edited by KalVsWade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KalVsWade said:

I think you're assuming I'm talking to just you

I asked for specification, and then you responded to me.  So yeah at that point I was assuming you were talking to me.  "It's time to play hardball" it an oft-used refrain that almost always lacks any actual new and/or constructive ideas beyond suggesting violence.  Just like this time.

8 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

But it may be time to require that people running for office specify that they support court reform for these reasons as part of saving democracy.

Well, not sure who's going to enforce that.  But no, if, for instance, Kelly anticipates it's not worthwhile to explicitly support expanding the court in order to get reelected in Arizona, I understand that's the wise electoral decision so long as the issue remains significantly unpopular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, not sure who's going to enforce that.  But no, if, for instance, Kelly anticipates it's not worthwhile to explicitly support expanding the court in order to get reelected in Arizona, I understand that's the wise electoral decision so long as the issue remains significantly unpopular.

So how do we get it to become popular? 

My suspicion is that the more unpopular, extreme right-wing decisions that come down without any real recourse, the more people will see the unfairness and we need to jump on that, but I confess it's likely to be very hard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2022 at 9:46 PM, Fez said:

Begich is an odd one. He's certainly Republican, but comes from a long line of Democrats. One of his uncles is former senator Mark Begich, who beat Ted Stevens in 2008, and another uncle is the Democratic minority leader of the Alaska state senate. His grandfather was a Democrat and Alaska's House member from 1968 to 1972, until he died in a plane crash.

I don't know anything about him personally, but I suspect there's a strong chance he likes Peltola more than Palin. He's not running in the crazy lane. Here's one fo his answer to a candidate survey from Alaska public radio:

https://alaskapublic.org/2022/08/10/candidate-qa-u-s-house-nick-begich-iii/

This, to me, is a non-statement*. People rarely actually posit that certain persons should be above the law until the time comes when they have to actually shit or get off the can…and even then they try to pretend to other reasons.

What I don’t get about DMC’s position on Cannon and career risks is that, assuming she can find a not-overtly illegal but obviously biased reason to do w/e Trumo wants…which seems a pretty safe assumption if she’s literate…what does she risk that she hasn’t already risked with this ruling? What enemies will she make she hasn’t already made? Imo, if she’s in for a penny she might as well be in for another penny.

There probably was a time when going unnoticed was better for a judicial career than being noticed as political, but I think that time has clearly passed and more to the point, Cannon and many other legal folk clamouring to get on one bandwagon or another also seem to think so. 


*to be clear, Begich, not Fez.

Edited by James Arryn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KalVsWade said:

So how do we get it to become popular? 

I agree it should be pushed, absolutely - just like the GOP simply repeats lies until people eventually believe them i.e. the infamous Goebbels quote.  But at least until that is undertaken and actually starts working that's not Kelly nor any single candidate's responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

What I don’t get about DMC’s position on Cannon and career risks is that, assuming she can find a not-overtly illegal but obviously biased reason to do w/e Trumo wants…which seems a pretty safe assumption if she’s literate…what does she risk that she hasn’t already risked with this ruling? What enemies will she make she hasn’t already made?

This..actually is my position.  She will indeed rule in a nakedly biased way for Trump so long as there's no serious risk.  But engaging in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice, which is what we were discussing the other night, is obviously a serious risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

This..actually is my position.  She will indeed rule in a nakedly biased way for Trump so long as there's no serious risk.  But engaging in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice, which is what we were discussing the other night, is obviously a serious risk.

I, okay maybe I missed some of the discussion, but to me there is absolutely no need to engage in a provable conspiracy when she can (and likely will) accomplish exactly the same end without it. And if that’s where we both see this heading, I don’t see the need to not get too worked up about her already establishing how she will try to torpedo justice coming anywhere near Trump on this. 

Edited by James Arryn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

I, okay maybe I missed some of the discussion, but to me there is absolutely no need to engage in a provable conspiracy when she can (and likely will) accomplish exactly the same end without it.

The only way she can accomplish this apparent goal without such a serious risk is by running out the clock for 28 months.  I find that unlikely and indeed contradicts her behavior involving the case thus far when considering the speed of her decisions and setting reasonable deadlines like the one tomorrow, which is why I said assuming she will do this is jumping to conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

The only way she can accomplish this apparent goal without such a serious risk is by running out the clock for 28 months.  I find that unlikely and indeed contradicts her behavior involving the case thus far when considering the speed of her decisions and setting reasonable deadlines like the one tomorrow, which is why I said assuming she will do this is jumping to conclusions.

Wouldn’t who she appoints also go a long way to determining what she can accomplish? But, in truth, I think underscoring privilege is already the most damage she can do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...