U.S. Politics: Great Men Master trends

[Zorral]

5 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I am normally very incarcertation-skeptical, but these guys need to see the inside of a prison cell for a good long time.

Where They record anthems to Themselves and the orange extrusion, which he uses as his rallies' anthem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2023/trump-j6-prison-choir/?itid=hp-top-table-main_p001_f002

If anyone had been imprisoned as BLM insurrectionists, they wouldn't be allowed to make music videos to go out into the world and online.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

I had to teach social psychology about three times during my career when there was no actual social psychologist available to teach it that term.  It was a fun class to teach, but it's not my area of expertise. 

What other courses did you have to teach verse you enjoyed teaching outside of personality? I would have loved to have you as my cultural psych prof as opposed to the grad student who nearly got laughed out of the room on day 1.

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

You know, it is quite possible for people to have heard an "urban legend" story and believe it without actually having any concrete evidence of it themselves, and then "complain about it", assuming the reason they couldn't find a book right away when they were looking for it is because some supercompetitive jerk had destroyed it when there was actually another explanation. And yes, law students would be just as likely to make incorrect assumptions based on urban legends as other human beings. 

I've literally heard multiple lawyers, both family members and friends, who said this happened and was more common than you'd expect. Just because it's not universal doesn't make it an urban legend. And the frightening thing to me is they all seemed to think it was encouraged. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

32 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I am normally very incarceration-skeptical, but these guys need to see the inside of a prison cell for a good long time.

More like inside a volcano or a shark's stomach. The difference between Tarrio and Benedict Arnold is exactly what?

[James Arryn]

22 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Going a few weeks back about the rolling back of child labour protection laws

I'm not loving it.

A Kentucky McDonalds? Did they do a quick informal political poll while they were there? Diner season starts soon, right?

[Mindwalker]

I wonder if KBJ is the only non-corrupt (I hope) member of SCOTUS?

[Gaston de Foix]

22 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Yes, let's assume a spherical law. 

In those cases I believe the primary consideration was also not the law, it was the court's viewpoint that they should not be involved in those kind of cases. It's similar to their stupid viewpoint about gerrymandering (though that is not shared by the whole court). And that's entirely their choice, not based on any specific law or viewpoint. 

So...other than the fact that it was a political decision it wasn't a political decision?

No, they defected because of political considerations. Specifically, they felt that ensuring precedence from prior decisions was more important to preserve than their viewpoint of the law. Precedence is not an actual law though - it's just a norm. Which can be violated happily if people choose to exercise that power. 

 

Sigh.  I'm losing the will to argue for subtlety and nuance for a Court whose decisions I frequently disagree with and whose personnel consist of two sex abusers, but (1) the census case was not a case of judicial non-involvement but justified judicial intervention; (2) a lot of our debate is happening because we have different understandings of what "law" is and what "politics" is.  

Your reference to precedent is a good example.  Following precedent is not a norm, it binds all actors in the US legal system (lawyers, trial courts, appellate courts).  Some questions are not covered and are questions of first impression or arise from a change in law or a change in the world.  What's called vertical precedent is absolute; lower federal courts have to follow SC rulings.  What's called horizontal precedent is binding, even on the SC, unless one of the parties is calling specifically for the Court to overturn a precedent. 

Even then, there is precedent on the operation of law of precedent, i.e., under what circumstances the Court is entitled to reconsider and overturn established precedent.  Because you have a rule and exceptions to that rule, doesn't mean that there isn't a rule.  And sure, rules, norms, constitutions, are all capable of being manipulated.  

But, look, you (probably rightly) don't care about any of this so let's cut to the elephant in the room. 

The Court overturned dozens of its own precedents and made a mockery of the law of precedent when it overturned Roe.  Yes, that's completely true.  Politics fought law and law lost.  

The part I disagree with is what follows from that conclusion: so has it always been, so shall it always be, world without end, Amen. Turtles all the way down. 

It didn't have to happen that way, and almost certainly wouldn't have but for RBG's death.  It's no accident that Elena Kagan become the strongest defender of stare decisis on the Court.  It was a strategic decision because stare decisis was the strongest argument to preserve Roe and other rulings of the Warren and Burger courts from being overturned by a much more conservative bench.  And her strategy worked.  It worked while Kennedy was on the Court and it worked when he left and he was replaced by Kavanaugh.  Roberts declined to overrule Whole Women's Health v Hellerstedt in Russo even though he had dissented 4 years earlier.  That case was interpreted as an important signal that Roe itself was safe while Roberts was the swing vote.  That's been borne out by subsequent events but if you don't believe me, you can read Robert's own explanation: (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf):

Aha, says, DMC (the poli-sci prof), this is just politics by another name.  Roberts wanted to preserve the Court's institutional integrity/reputation.  Well, you can read his own explanation: 

Stare decisis (“to stand by things decided”) is the legal term for fidelity to precedent. Black’s Law Dictionary 1696 (11th ed. 2019). It has long been “an established rule to abide by former precedents, where the same points come again in litigation; as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion.” 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 69 (1765). This principle is grounded in a basic humility that recognizes today’s legal issues are often not so different from the questions of yesterday and that we are not the first ones to try to answer them. Because the “private stock of reason . . . in each man is small, . . . individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages.” 3 E. Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France 110 (1790). Adherence to precedent is necessary to “avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 529 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). The constraint of precedent distinguishes the judicial “method and philosophy from those of the political and legislative process.” Jackson, Decisional Law and Stare Decisis, 30 A. B. A. J. 334 (1944).

It sure seems like legal reasoning to me.  And what's important is that the dissenters took his arguments seriously.  Both Thomas and Gorsuch tried to answer them on their own terms.  The only way you can say this is not law is by believing in the fairy-tale that law is just rules to be mechanically applied to produce black or white answers.    

[Gaston de Foix]

17 hours ago, DMC said:

Same point.  HW's image wasn't "enhanced" by being VP, nor was Mondale's nor Gore's.  Or at least, any more than Harris' is.  Again, this is a dumb and unfounded argument.  VP's are almost always chosen because they've already established an "image" - including Harris.  They don't "enhance" it in office in any way other than the simple fact they are VP.

Same thing with this century's examples.  Cheney's "image" certainly wasn't enhanced when he left office.  Biden left office without running for the Dem nomination when he clearly wanted to.  Pence's "image" may have been enhanced among sane people because he didn't agree to cooperate in a coup, but it certainly hasn't helped him politically.

I really don't see much of a distinction between Whitmer and Harris at the national level.  As for Kelly and Warnock, uh, no, I don't see either as presidential candidates.  Especially Kelly.

A bit rude, DMC, and I don't really understand why we are fighting pretty self-evident facts. 

Kamala Harris was chosen as Biden's VP nominee in 2020 because she was thought to be an electoral asset and a responsible choice if something happened to Biden.  Today, during the re-elect, Harris is widely seen a political liability, Republicans are definitely going to make her replacing Biden one of their headline arguments in 2024, and Biden's team is working hard to defend her.  However we got from point A to point B, this is where we are. 

Most VPs go on to at least win their party's nomination and have a decent shot of becoming president themselves.  Whether it's holding the office doing the work, or group-think, or their performance in office or whatever, is largely irrelevant.  Some succeed and become President, some crash and burn.  But few become a liability.   

I happen to believe that this was not inevitable, but reasonable people can disagree.  I can't think of the last time the identity of the vice-presidential candidate became a major talking point for the opposing party.  Is sexism/racism a part of it? Sure.  Is it a hackish move from a nihilist party? Sure.  But they think it'll be effective.  Why, I wonder? 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Your reference to precedent is a good example.  Following precedent is not a norm, it binds all actors in the US legal system (lawyers, trial courts, appellate courts).  Some questions are not covered and are questions of first impression or arise from a change in law or a change in the world.  What's called vertical precedent is absolute; lower federal courts have to follow SC rulings.  What's called horizontal precedent is binding, even on the SC, unless one of the parties is calling specifically for the Court to overturn a precedent. 

Hah, no. As we've seen repeatedly with various decisions from the federal appeals court just this year.

2 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Even then, there is precedent on the operation of law of precedent, i.e., under what circumstances the Court is entitled to reconsider and overturn established precedent.  Because you have a rule and exceptions to that rule, doesn't mean that there isn't a rule.  And sure, rules, norms, constitutions, are all capable of being manipulated.  

Show me the law that says that precedent needs to be followed. I do care about this, and the point is that precedent can be followed until it is expedient not to. Which...makes it a norm, not a law.

2 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

But, look, you (probably rightly) don't care about any of this so let's cut to the elephant in the room. 

The Court overturned dozens of its own precedents and made a mockery of the law of precedent when it overturned Roe.  Yes, that's completely true.  Politics fought law and law lost.  

The part I disagree with is what follows from that conclusion: so has it always been, so shall it always be, world without end, Amen. Turtles all the way down. 

It didn't have to happen that way, and almost certainly wouldn't have but for RBG's death.  It's no accident that Elena Kagan become the strongest defender of stare decisis on the Court.  It was a strategic decision because stare decisis was the strongest argument to preserve Roe and other rulings of the Warren and Burger courts from being overturned by a much more conservative bench.  And her strategy worked.  It worked while Kennedy was on the Court and it worked when he left and he was replaced by Kavanaugh.  Roberts declined to overrule Whole Women's Health v Hellerstedt in Russo even though he had dissented 4 years earlier.  That case was interpreted as an important signal that Roe itself was safe while Roberts was the swing vote.  That's been borne out by subsequent events but if you don't believe me, you can read Robert's own explanation: (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf):

If the choice of following stare decisis comes down to personal preference and an emphasis by people that by default means that it has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with politics. 

2 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

It sure seems like legal reasoning to me.  And what's important is that the dissenters took his arguments seriously.  Both Thomas and Gorsuch tried to answer them on their own terms.  The only way you can say this is not law is by believing in the fairy-tale that law is just rules to be mechanically applied to produce black or white answers.    

Using legal reasoning to justify your choices doesn't mean it has to do with law, any more than my using legal reasoning in this thread (or you using it) makes it a law. That's just a framing mechanism for choices. As we've seen repeatedly legal reasoning can be used in progressively more and more stupid things (like saying that corporations should be treated as people) and more importantly they are more and more willing to do so. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

42 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Why, I wonder? 

Because sexism and racism sells in the party of white nationalism? Shocking, I know. Harris is exactly the same person today she was in 2020 and most of the bad things the right have said about her since belong in the "Obama wore a tan suit at the wrong time" bin. It's just bullshit. Don't feed the trolls. That some on the left will actually carry this same water is disappointing.

38 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Using legal reasoning to justify your choices doesn't mean it has to do with law, any more than my using legal reasoning in this thread (or you using it) makes it a law. That's just a framing mechanism for choices. As we've seen repeatedly legal reasoning can be used in progressively more and more stupid things (like saying that corporations should be treated as people) and more importantly they are more and more willing to do so. 

As I've said over and over, if you're a halfway decent lawyer you likely know where you're starting and ending. Filling in the gaps just needs to make it look semi-reasonable. However today that's not even that important if you simply give zero fucks about public perception. 

[ThinkerX]

Group of democratic senators attempting to force ethics on the supreme court via budget cuts. Republicans are furious. As this is a budget issue, maybe it could be slid into the inevitable giant omnibus bill later this year?

A group of Democratic senators want to withhold $10 million in Supreme Court funding until it adopts a public code of ethics: report (msn.com)

 

• A group of fifteen Democratic senators sent a letter in March asking to withhold $10 million in Supreme Court funding.
• The senators said the $10 million should be withheld until a public code of ethics is instituted for the court.
• The letter was sent before ProPublica revealed GOP megadonor paid tuition for a child in Clarence Thomas' custody.

[Gaston de Foix]

1 hour ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Hah, no. As we've seen repeatedly with various decisions from the federal appeals court just this year.

Not sure what you have in mind, please elaborate.  Just to be clear, we are talking about federal appeals courts disobeying SC precedent?

2 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Show me the law that says that precedent needs to be followed. I do care about this, and the point is that precedent can be followed until it is expedient not to. Which...makes it a norm, not a law.

Well the law of precedent is part of the common (not statutory) law, so I can cite a bunch of cases, or refer to Alexander Hamilton's writings in Federalist 78 or something.  Does that help? Between superior and inferior tribunals, stare decisis is absolute.  A trial judge can't disapply Miranda because he thinks its wrong.  

2 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

If the choice of following stare decisis comes down to personal preference and an emphasis by people that by default means that it has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with politics. 

I'm not sure what you mean by personal preference.  It's not.  There's considerable judicial discretion in overturning precedent at the SC level based on what "egregiously wrong" means.  But there are also objective elements like "workability", and reliance interests that are meant to constrain that discretion.  Any honest application of those principles would have led the Court to reaffirming Roe.  

And yes, of course, legal reasoning is and can be applied to achieve political ends.  That's why I've been careful about disavowing both the outcome of cases where I think the Court has erred greatly and also pointing out the US Supreme Court is a global anomaly in how political it is. 

The UK Supreme Court, The High Court of Australia, the Canadian Supreme Court or the German Federal Constitutional Court are hugely different institutions.  

[Ormond]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

What other courses did you have to teach verse you enjoyed teaching outside of personality? I would have loved to have you as my cultural psych prof as opposed to the grad student who nearly got laughed out of the room on day 1.

 

This is getting away from the thread topic so if you want more after this please personal message me or start a new thread --

However, I taught at a small university where there were never more than three full time psychology professors at once. So I taught Culture & Psychology, Human Sexuality, Abnormal Psychology, History of Psychology, and Psychology of Religion in addition to Personality Theory, Intro to Psych, and the occasional Social Psychology. There were aspects to all of them I enjoyed though Abnormal was the one I was most happy to stop teaching.  

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Group of democratic senators attempting to force ethics on the supreme court via budget cuts. Republicans are furious. As this is a budget issue, maybe it could be slid into the inevitable giant omnibus bill later this year?

A group of Democratic senators want to withhold $10 million in Supreme Court funding until it adopts a public code of ethics: report (msn.com)

 

• A group of fifteen Democratic senators sent a letter in March asking to withhold $10 million in Supreme Court funding.
• The senators said the $10 million should be withheld until a public code of ethics is instituted for the court.
• The letter was sent before ProPublica revealed GOP megadonor paid tuition for a child in Clarence Thomas' custody.

So ... fighting rethug fascists with the rules of their own gamebook.  

W/o a budget, etc. the SCOTUS won't get funded anyway ... is that right?  I honestly don't know.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Zorral

[mcbigski]

6 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Group of democratic senators attempting to force ethics on the supreme court via budget cuts. Republicans are furious. As this is a budget issue, maybe it could be slid into the inevitable giant omnibus bill later this year?

A group of Democratic senators want to withhold $10 million in Supreme Court funding until it adopts a public code of ethics: report (msn.com)

 

• A group of fifteen Democratic senators sent a letter in March asking to withhold $10 million in Supreme Court funding.
• The senators said the $10 million should be withheld until a public code of ethics is instituted for the court.
• The letter was sent before ProPublica revealed GOP megadonor paid tuition for a child in Clarence Thomas' custody.

Jesus fucking christ.  Are they actually saying that you can buy 5 supreme court votes for 2 million each?  Because that looks the implication to me.

If a supreme court judge has broken the law, go ahead and charge them with something specific.  Not sure where they have immunity or not, but they are subject to impeachment.  Go for it.  Everyone claims to want to have justices above reproach.  Let's apply that all the way down the line.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Jesus fucking christ.  Are they actually saying that you can buy 5 supreme court votes for 2 million each?  Because that looks the implication to me.

That's certainly one bad way to look at it. The far more sane way is to view the court as acting in a highly unethical way and because they won't willingly reform themselves, they should not receive a single penny until changes are made. Frankly withholding $10M is nowhere near enough.

Quote

If a supreme court judge has broken the law, go ahead and charge them with something specific.  Not sure where they have immunity or not, but they are subject to impeachment.  Go for it.  Everyone claims to want to have justices above reproach.  Let's apply that all the way down the line.

Thomas has pretty clearly broken several laws repeatedly. But per usual with this backwards country, those at the top often have the least accountability. 

[mcbigski]

55 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Thomas has pretty clearly broken several laws repeatedly. But per usual with this backwards country, those at the top often have the least accountability. 

That's an amazing take.  Clarence Thomas as the entitled power holder.  

How much does his art sell for?

[karaddin]

In the absence of images, I'll just have to use the last panel of the breaking bad meme.

Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?

A lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land is indeed a position of extreme power, he is not known for his art.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

That's an amazing take.  Clarence Thomas as the entitled power holder.  

How much does his art sell for?

Sounds like his sugar daddy isn't too worried about the cost of doing business. Why is that do you think? If a liberal member of the SC had someone paying for the bills of multiple members of their family while sending them regularly on trips that would cost more than double their annual salary, would you just blow it off as no biggy? I think not. But sure, that's all the same as selling the art collection of a dead woman.  

Also, show a bit of pride and don't finish in fifth place next year. 

[mormont]

4 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Jesus fucking christ.  Are they actually saying that you can buy 5 supreme court votes for 2 million each?  Because that looks the implication to me.

That is probably an overestimate, yes.

4 hours ago, mcbigski said:

If a supreme court judge has broken the law, go ahead and charge them with something specific. 

Ethics. Ethics is the issue. Not lawbreaking. Ethics and high standards are important in public life. This is where, I know, you'll start parroting right wing talking points about Biden, rather than discuss Donald Trump, a man whose entire life including his presidency has been defined by his contempt for the notion of ethical behaviour. But the modern Republican party is more or less defined by its absolute rejection of the notion that there should be standards in public life, and that does matter.

4 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Not sure where they have immunity or not, but they are subject to impeachment.  Go for it.  Everyone claims to want to have justices above reproach.  Let's apply that all the way down the line.

Sure. Not many of Trump's appointees will be left, so that's good.

[Mindwalker]

16 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

What other courses did you have to teach verse you enjoyed teaching outside of personality? I would have loved to have you as my cultural psych prof as opposed to the grad student who nearly got laughed out of the room on day 1.

I've literally heard multiple lawyers, both family members and friends, who said this happened and was more common than you'd expect. Just because it's not universal doesn't make it an urban legend. And the frightening thing to me is they all seemed to think it was encouraged. 

With my comment re: library theft I was obviously not referencing hearsay but hard data like, you know, stolen (and yes, destroyed) books.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Mindwalker