Biden issues pre-emptive pardons in final hours for Anthony Fauci, Liz Cheney, Milley and others

[mandrill]

What are you basing that on?
It's not in the text. The text just says "subject to the jurisdiction".
Originialism says that the plain meaning of the text is what matters.
The plain meaning is, of course, whatever the supreme court decides it is.
That's the glory of "originalism".

Because diplomatic staff have diplomatic immunity and are not "subject to the jurisdiction".

 

[mandrill]

Then it should be straightforward for the Supreme Court to reverse the Executive Order. Seems like a whole lot of fussing over something that will resolve itself in a short matter of time.

It should be.

Just wondering if Justice Thomas will be taking any more expensive holidays in the next little while though.

 

[Valcazar]

Miranda was made in the 1970's IIRC. Time to chuck that out as well.

They are working on it. I'm not sure how much of Miranda has been rendered null already.

How about Brown v Ohio Board of Education? 1950's IIRC. Chuck it out as well.

Already accomplished for all intents and purposes.
I don't think Brown is used for much other than to strike down affirmative action anymore.

Any legal decision made more than 6 months ago is crap, right?

Nonsense.
Trump has said he intends to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in his inauguration speech Monday, so that's obviously good law still.

Your problem is this: The 1898 decision applies currently relevant law to a currently relevant fact situation. There was an immigration law framework in place by the 1890's - albeit not one that we would be comfortable with today. So the argument that the 14A was just to assure former slaves that they were full citizens in the late 1860's and irrelevant after that time doesn't work.

But that was just what the people who wrote it thought then.
That doesn't apply to what the people who will decide now will decide what the people who write it thought then thought.

You say "There are more browns coming in than yellows in 1898. It's a god damn crisis!" And I say: "Maybe time for a constitutional amendment then. You know how to do that, huh?"

Constitutional amendments are hard.
It is much easier to just continue as they have been proceeding, by re-interpreting what the constitution bits say to mean what they want them to say.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all."

Because the disturbing thing about what Trump has done is that it has bypassed all legislative debate and avoided the deliberately high hurdle to instituting constitutional amendments. Now you have a situation where the constitution is / isn't whatever the Big Man says it is from week to week - kinda like Putin's Russia or Kim's North Korea.

We don't want that, do we?

Yes, they do.
They aren't being coy about it.

 

[mandrill]

Constitutional amendments are hard.
It is much easier to just continue as they have been proceeding, by re-interpreting what the constitution bits say to mean what they want them to say.

Yes, they do.
They aren't being coy about it.

Yeah, but I am guessing that the USSC doesn't want to make it THAT easy.

Because what if the "wrong sort of person" gets to be the Big Man???...... Then you're stuck with the precedent. (Which might not impede them, if your view of their level of cynicism is correct, I guess).

 

[Valcazar]

Because diplomatic staff have diplomatic immunity and are not "subject to the jurisdiction".

Diplomatic staff aren't at issue here, though.
Changing the definition to exclude more people doesn't affect diplomatic staff at all.

 

[Valcazar]

Yeah, but I am guessing that the USSC doesn't want to make it THAT easy.

Because what if the "wrong sort of person" gets to be the Big Man???...... Then you're stuck with the precedent. (Which might not impede them, if your view of their level of cynicism is correct, I guess).

Sure they do.
They've always made it that easy.

"Does it accomplish my political goals while still remaining plausible enough in my eyes" is the standard.
That's why they often send rejected cases back with specific instructions about how to fix them enough to be plausible enough to get 5 votes.

"The definition is wrong, we will clarify the ambiguity" is very easy to get to.
Now, Roberts probably doesn't like Trump going "Fuck you, do what I want even if it makes it super obvious", but he doesn't hold the swing vote anymore in lots of cases.
But he's also approaching retirement and has shown he isn't going to push back on everything just for tone reasons.

So the question is what Gorsuch and Barrett feel about it. If they are both good with it, it doesn't matter what Roberts wants and he probably votes with them.
If it is more dicey, who knows?

 

[mandrill]

Diplomatic staff aren't at issue here, though.
Changing the definition to exclude more people doesn't affect diplomatic staff at all.

You misunderstand.

If you're writing a piece of legislation to state that everyone born inside the borders of your country automatically has citizenship at birth, except diplomatic staff, that's exactly how you'd write it.

So we conclude from that the following: - everyone born inside the borders of your country automatically has citizenship at birth, except diplomatic staff.

Which is exactly how it's traditionally been interpreted.

Because illegal residents are still subject to the jurisdiction of your country because legal systems are territorially based - unless someone has diplomatic immunity.

 

[Valcazar]

You misunderstand.

If you're writing a piece of legislation to state that everyone born inside the borders of your country automatically has citizenship at birth, except diplomatic staff, that's exactly how you'd write it.

So we conclude from that the following: - everyone born inside the borders of your country automatically has citizenship at birth, except diplomatic staff.

Which is exactly how it's traditionally been interpreted.

Because illegal residents are still subject to the jurisdiction of your country because legal systems are territorially based - unless someone has diplomatic immunity.

You are trying to say there is no good faith argument to interpret it other than you are interpreting it.
Which is easily countered by the fact that one - these aren't good faith arguments and two - you just point to any debate at the original signing wherein they offered alternate meanings or clarifications, even if they didn't make it into the final text.
After all, it WAS brought to court before, which means it was in dispute.
And the decision wasn't unanimous.

And in it, they made reference to both his parents having the same status.
That means it is undecided that it meant the same if they had different statuses.

This is a court that freely fucked around and cited witch-hunting literature in a decision just recently.
It completely re-interpreted the second amendment.
These are not serious hurdles you are throwing up here.

 

[bver_hunter]

His point is that other people have been punished for simple mistakes/negligence.
Presumably Clinton should have suffered similar punishment (which presumably he will provide so we can assess how fair that would be and how similar the cases are).

Difference between Clinton's emails and Trump's Ma-a-Lago Secret Documents was night and day. Clinton fully co-operated while Trump fully obstructed!!

 

[mandrill]

You are trying to say there is no good faith argument to interpret it other than you are interpreting it.
Which is easily countered by the fact that one - these aren't good faith arguments and two - you just point to any debate at the original signing wherein they offered alternate meanings or clarifications, even if they didn't make it into the final text.
After all, it WAS brought to court before, which means it was in dispute.
And the decision wasn't unanimous.

And in it, they made reference to both his parents having the same status.
That means it is undecided that it meant the same if they had different statuses.

This is a court that freely fucked around and cited witch-hunting literature in a decision just recently.
It completely re-interpreted the second amendment.
These are not serious hurdles you are throwing up here.

If they are determined enough, they will do scandalous shit like over turning Roe v Wade.

But this would be re-write proof against any court less cynical and opportunistic. The 1898 decision has lasted for 125 years ffs!

 

[squeezer]

I was directing my comment to them. This partisan view that Republican politicians are the only ones to ever be guilty of corruption or other crimes is a certain type of absurdity.

It is important to know all the facts before making certain comments. I KNOW I KNOW, you're going to accuse me of being off-topic to deflect but I'm just going to leave this here for your reading pleasure.

Does the DOJ target more Republicans than Democrats? Here’s the data

Loading…

www.cnn.com

 

[Valcazar]

Difference between Clinton's emails and Trump's Ma-a-Lago Secret Documents was night and day. Clinton fully co-operated while Trump fully obstructed!!

I don't think Wyatt was saying they were the same.
He was saying there is a history of punishing people for having documents without intent and she should have suffered that punishment.

That Trump did something much worse doesn't appear to be part of his argument.

 

[Valcazar]

If they are determined enough, they will do scandalous shit like over turning Roe v Wade.

But this would be re-write proof against any court less cynical and opportunistic. The 1898 decision has lasted for 125 years ffs!

So clearly it is due for a review.
Or, as Wyatt put it, it was written for a totally different circumstance and must be clarified.

You need to get over the "but this makes no fucking sense to me" objection.
This all makes perfect sense to other people.
It's like all those people who look at Trump and see a strong, masculine leader worthy of fanatical devotion.

Your instinct is to think they are lying or making it up or are claiming that while they have another agenda, because it is beyond your comprehension that anyone would really think like this.
But you have to accept that people just think completely different than you do.

It's crazy, but it is what it is.

 

[mandrill]

So clearly it is due for a review.
Or, as Wyatt put it, it was written for a totally different circumstance and must be clarified.

You need to get over the "but this makes no fucking sense to me" objection.
This all makes perfect sense to other people.
It's like all those people who look at Trump and see a strong, masculine leader worthy of fanatical devotion.

Your instinct is to think they are lying or making it up or are claiming that while they have another agenda, because it is beyond your comprehension that anyone would really think like this.
But you have to accept that people just think completely different than you do.

It's crazy, but it is what it is.

It is true. Like my ex's Great Dane puppy liked eating dog turds. Or like Mitch.

OTOH, I DO know how judges think. And 125 years of consistent interpretation meets the judicial objectives of predictability and reliability - good things for a law to be.

So that's a massive impetus to simply uphold the current interpretation of the 14A - unless that panel is EXTREMELY ideologically motivated to change that interpretation - as with Roe.

And even if so - again - do they want the new interpretation to be brought about by an administrative act, rather than legislation with the attendant public debate and argument of the latter???

 

[Frankfooter]

It is true. Like my ex's Great Dane puppy liked eating dog turds. Or like Mitch.

OTOH, I DO know how judges think. And 125 years of consistent interpretation meets the judicial objectives of predictability and reliability - good things for a law to be.

So that's a massive impetus to simply uphold the current interpretation of the 14A - unless that panel is EXTREMELY ideologically motivated to change that interpretation - as with Roe.

And even if so - again - do they want the new interpretation to be brought about by an administrative act, rather than legislation with the attendant public debate and argument of the latter???

People can rationalize all kinds of horrid shite.
Valcazar even said it was 'pragmatic' to support genocide this year.

Now we are witnessing the decline of the American empire.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881837663231283570

 

[WyattEarp]

So clearly it is due for a review.
Or, as Wyatt put it, it was written for a totally different circumstance and must be clarified.

You need to get over the "but this makes no fucking sense to me" objection.
This all makes perfect sense to other people.
It's like all those people who look at Trump and see a strong, masculine leader worthy of fanatical devotion.

Your instinct is to think they are lying or making it up or are claiming that while they have another agenda, because it is beyond your comprehension that anyone would really think like this.
But you have to accept that people just think completely different than you do.

It's crazy, but it is what it is.

I came across this commentary from an appellate law firm. The firm itself is not important to this conversation. I just think they sum things up nicely.

"Ultimately, cries of “unprecedented” executive action on both sides are more histrionic than historical. Yet because they are so easily overturned, repealed, or limited by law, presidents have wisely preferred legislation to executive actions when crafting policy. Accordingly, the ultimate impact of Trump’s executive actions thus far (and to come) remains to be seen. Some will surely affect the lives of hundreds or thousands or more, for better or for worse, while others may serve as little more than symbolic point-scoring with partisan constituencies in the next election."

The Surprisingly Contentious History of Executive Orders

This article originally appeared in The Huffington Post on February 2, 2017. Recently, USA Today savaged President Trump’s executive orders since taking office, from encouraging Keystone XL […]

calg.com

 

[silentkisser]

Now these individuals cannot plead the Fifth when being questioned in front of Congress or in any Court. So it might be interesting.

I don't care much about most of these pardons, but the Liz Cheney pardon is problematic in my opinion. She is being investigated for tampering with a witness related to January 6th. That is a very serious charge.

The thing here is the GOP have a long history of trumping up bullshit to slander or hinder politicians they don't like. Look at Benghazi, the emails, the Biden bribery allegations. All of which were thoroughly investigated and no charges were ever laid. This would just be the same, a lot of thunder and little actual evidence or what not. The right accused the left of going after Trump with so-called law-fare. It looks like Trump would have likely been convicted if he didn't get elected in a few of those cases (ironically, including the election tampering scheme that led to the January 6th insurrection...)....

And, the way I read this, the whole point of these pardons is to stop the GOP from doing this revenge tour. Because, we all know that's what Trump lives for. And, to be frank, I doubt there would be any incriminating testimony if they were called to testify.

 

[WyattEarp]

The thing here is the GOP have a long history of trumping up bullshit to slander or hinder politicians they don't like. Look at Benghazi, the emails, the Biden bribery allegations. All of which were thoroughly investigated and no charges were ever laid. This would just be the same, a lot of thunder and little actual evidence or what not. The right accused the left of going after Trump with so-called law-fare. It looks like Trump would have likely been convicted if he didn't get elected in a few of those cases (ironically, including the election tampering scheme that led to the January 6th insurrection...)....

And, the way I read this, the whole point of these pardons is to stop the GOP from doing this revenge tour. Because, we all know that's what Trump lives for. And, to be frank, I doubt there would be any incriminating testimony if they were called to testify.

I'm sorry but this is just the 5,000 post about how Trump is a criminal, Democrats are just in going after him and Republicans are unjust.

You do realize there are Independents and some Democrats in the U.S. who dislike Trump, but are tired of prosecutors going after Trump for over four years now. I always say Americans are pragmatic. They're certainly more pragmatic than most of the TERB membership.

 

[mandrill]

And - as I predicted - a judge has blocked Trumpo's attack on the 14A....

x.com

x.com

BREAKING: U.S. Judge Blocks President Trump's Order Limiting Birthright Citizenship, Calling It "Blatantly Unconstitutional"

Another loss for those who don't understand the Constitution!

 

[mandrill]

x.com

x.com

Anyone could have predicted this, but the judges (a Reagan appointee, I should add) was scathing!

https://x.com/WilliamJDuPont/status/1882503547729879191/photo/1