"Will traitor trump be indicted?" thread...

[bird]

Constitutionalist. Something else you’ll never understand.

Bullshit. You and every other so-called originalist fails to note that the constitution only forbids three things in the original document. The bill of rights does not confer absolutes when it comes to rights either.

As for the Presidential Records Act? That acts as a check on the executive. Those documents do not belong either to the president nor to congress. They belong to the people.

[Drak]

An ex President even. He doesn’t get to walk out the door with America’s top secrets. They do not belong to him.

[Bludogdem]

Bullshit. You and every other so-called originalist fails to note that the constitution only forbids three things in the original document. The bill of rights does not confer absolutes when it comes to rights either.

As for the Presidential Records Act? That acts as a check on the executive. Those documents do not belong either to the president nor to congress. They belong to the people.

That act is toothless. And it’s toothless because congress knew they lacked constitutional authority to legislate the management of the office of the president. If PRE becomes a constitutional question then it is in danger with 6 originalist justices.

[gounion]

That act is toothless. And it’s toothless because congress knew they lacked constitutional authority to legislate the management of the office of the president. If PRE becomes a constitutional question then it is in danger with 6 originalist justices.

Here's the thing. Trump has TWO judges in his pocket - Alito and Thomas. The three he hired are running away from him as fast as they can - they won't support his bird-brained assertions. They have to live down the fact that he picked them - they don't want to defend him. They WILL NOT bail him out - we've already seen that.

And this was the Trump lawyer's, what, fifth or sixth defense they conjured out of thin air. These guys themselves don't believe what they are saying. You're the only idiot gullible enough to buy the bullshit. You're hilarious.

[bird]

That act is toothless. And it’s toothless because congress knew they lacked constitutional authority to legislate the management of the office of the president. If PRE becomes a constitutional question then it is in danger with 6 originalist justices.

No, wrong again. Records management does not infringe on the actions of a president. Under your misguided assumption the president could turn over any document to anyone he/she so desired including foreign nations or anyone walking by. The government is to act in the name of the people not in the name of themselves. In addition, there are rules for declassification of classified documents.

Finally, originalism is a fallacy. It is a creation of Bork with no basis in reality. The constitution establishes a government and forbids only three things. Any claim of a law or action being deemed unconstitutional by the unconstitutional power that appears nowhere in the document by the SCOTUS is simply their personal opinion and nothing more.

[Bludogdem]

No, wrong again. Records management does not infringe on the actions of a president. Under your misguided assumption the president could turn over any document to anyone he/she so desired including foreign nations or anyone walking by. The government is to act in the name of the people not in the name of themselves. In addition, there are rules for declassification of classified documents.

Finally, originalism is a fallacy. It is a creation of Bork with no basis in reality. The constitution establishes a government and forbids only three things. Any claim of a law or action being deemed unconstitutional by the unconstitutional power that appears nowhere in the document by the SCOTUS is simply their personal opinion and nothing more.

“ The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”.

All cases, under the constitution. Plus the clear intent in Federalist 78. Judicial review is obvious.

Show me the constitutionally defined power of congress to legislate the operation of the office of the president.

[bird]

“ The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”.

All cases, under the constitution. Plus the clear intent in Federalist 78. Judicial review is obvious.

Show me the constitutionally defined power of congress to legislate the operation of the office of the president.

Show me where judicial review as to constitutionality is permissible. The originalist thinking if such can be described as thinking claims it must exist in the document. It does not. Therefore any claims of such existing must arise from opinion and not from origin.

Federalist 78 is not the constitution but simply opinion.

But let us set that aside. Judicial review of alleged unconstitutionality is flawed from the very start. The base document itself forbids precisely 3 things, no more, no less. The amendments do offer constitutional restraints for protection of rights up to a certain point. Beyond that? No judicial review of constitutionality exists in the constitution. Judicial power is, if we accept your position, unlimited. This clashes with the alleged checks and balances of the document.

Constitutionality or unconstitutionality is opinion, nothing more, nothing less. The sole exceptions are those that deal with rights.

On a tangential but related question: do you support changing the number of SCOTUS justices to match the number of federal districts? Do you support forcing, as a check, the SCOTUS to adhere to the same rules of ethics including recusal due to potential conflict of interest?

[gounion]

“ The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”.

All cases, under the constitution. Plus the clear intent in Federalist 78. Judicial review is obvious.

Show me the constitutionally defined power of congress to legislate the operation of the office of the president.

Greengrass always reminds me of Otto in A Fished Called Wanda:

Otto West: Don't call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

All Greengrass can do is parrot what he finds on crazed, right-wing websites. He doesn't understand any of it, doesn't realize it's all just made up by these lawyers, none of which actually BELIEVE what they are spewing, they are just making shit up and throwing it against the wall, hoping SOMETHING sticks. If they REALLY believed any of it, it would have been their FIRST defense, not the fifth or sixth (I've lost count).

[Bludogdem]

Show me where judicial review as to constitutionality is permissible. The originalist thinking if such can be described as thinking claims it must exist in the document. It does not. Therefore any claims of such existing must arise from opinion and not from origin.

Federalist 78 is not the constitution but simply opinion.

But let us set that aside. Judicial review of alleged unconstitutionality is flawed from the very start. The base document itself forbids precisely 3 things, no more, no less. The amendments do offer constitutional restraints for protection of rights up to a certain point. Beyond that? No judicial review of constitutionality exists in the constitution. Judicial power is, if we accept your position, unlimited. This clashes with the alleged checks and balances of the document.

Constitutionality or unconstitutionality is opinion, nothing more, nothing less. The sole exceptions are those that deal with rights.

On a tangential but related question: do you support changing the number of SCOTUS justices to match the number of federal districts? Do you support forcing, as a check, the SCOTUS to adhere to the same rules of ethics including recusal due to potential conflict of interest?

“ The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”.
That pretty much says judicial review. Just like federalist 58. Which is more than opinion. It is explanation and intent. The Supreme Court cites the federalist papers in opinions.

9 is a good number. Works just fine.

No.

[gounion]

“ The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”.
That pretty much says judicial review. Just like federalist 58. Which is more than opinion. It is explanation and intent. The Supreme Court cites the federalist papers in opinions.

9 is a good number. Works just fine.

No.

You believe the Trumper lawyers and shills. They play you for the fool you are. Give it up, Otto.

[ProfX]

Not that I'm saying this necessarily applies to the Trump situation; don't know.

No, Congress doesn't oversee the president's everyday affairs. He doesn't have to show his daily log book, briefings, appointments, or trips to golf, to Adam Schiff or anybody else.

I can't agree the Founders, or anybody rational, would say a president has the right to - as an example - give a classified document to the Russians, or Chinese, or North Koreans, or anybody else revealing the identities of CIA agents and spooks, which then results in their capture and execution.

Maybe judicial review itself needs to be done on the law Donald Trump signed, enhancing the penalty for the mishandling of classified documents.

There is no precedent that says the POTUS' power to declassify is unilateral, without any supervision or prior review. It also ends after he leaves office and can't be magically invoked retroactively. And while I am not accusing the POTUS of providing these documents to our adversaries, it certainly needs to be determined if that happened, and he has a responsibility like any government employee of properly securing them. Leaving them in a box on a basement table or in a china cabinet at Mierda-Lardo ... not good enough.

[gounion]

Nearly every time Trump goes to court, he gets shot down, and he appeals and appeals and appeals. If this gets to the Supreme Court, it'll get TWO votes - Alito and Thomas. Roberts SURE as hell won't vote for it, nor will Trump's three nominees. They are running away from Trump all they can, and they will spend the rest of their lives on the Court trying to live down being a Trump nominee. They haven't voted to support Trump yet, and they won't start now.

[carmenjonze]

Greengrass always reminds me of Otto in A Fished Called Wanda:

One of the funniest movies, ever

[Bludogdem]

I’ll lean to the judicial expertise of Justice Amy Bergman Jackson. It’s a presidential power to, at their sole discretion, personalize documents.

Of note, in her opinion, she points out that appropriate agencies can petition the courts to challenge, reclassify, and recover said documents.

Trumps departure from office doesn’t change the nature of those documents. They remain in the default state when he put them in a box for shipment.

Also looks like I beat trumps lawyers on this by around 5 weeks.

viewtopic.php?p=38927#p38927

[gounion]

I’ll lean to the judicial expertise of Justice Amy Bergman Jackson. It’s a presidential power to, at their sole discretion, personalize documents.

Of note, in her opinion, she points out that appropriate agencies can petition the courts to challenge, reclassify, and recover said documents.

Trumps departure from office doesn’t change the nature of those documents. They remain in the default state when he put them in a box for shipment.

Also looks like I beat trumps lawyers on this by around 5 weeks.

viewtopic.php?p=38927#p38927

One District Judge, and not on THIS case. No President has done what Trump did.

Oh, and I bet you think the Trump lawyers called you up and asked your opinion, and you told them what to do.

Sorry, but Trump will lose this, like he's lost every case so far. He sure hasn't won even one time with this bullshit. He's going to be laughed out of court.

Try again, Otto.

[gounion]

Hey, Otto you need to call up this judge and let him know he's fucking up.

[ProfX]

Judge Jackson was ruling in 2012 on whether audio tapes made of Bill Clinton by historian Taylor Branch for an oral history he was doing were subject to the PRA. She said no.

Really seems apples and oranges from classified documents dealing with foreign entities, nuclear materials, espionage & national security, etc.

I'm willing to accept tapes of interviews a POTUS did with a historian not necessarily being a public record controlled by NARA - classified docs on nuclear weapons programs, not so much.

[gounion]

Judge Jackson was ruling in 2012 on whether audio tapes made of Bill Clinton by historian Taylor Branch for an oral history he was doing were subject to the PRA. She said no.

Really seems apples and oranges from classified documents dealing with foreign entities, nuclear materials, espionage & national security, etc.

I'm willing to accept tapes of interviews a POTUS did with a historian not necessarily being a public record controlled by NARA - classified docs on nuclear weapons programs, not so much.

Otto doesn't know any better, he's just getting this shit from right-wing sites, and regurgitating it here. He reads it, but he obviously doesn't understand it.

[JoeMemphis]

Nearly every time Trump goes to court, he gets shot down, and he appeals and appeals and appeals. If this gets to the Supreme Court, it'll get TWO votes - Alito and Thomas. Roberts SURE as hell won't vote for it, nor will Trump's three nominees. They are running away from Trump all they can, and they will spend the rest of their lives on the Court trying to live down being a Trump nominee. They haven't voted to support Trump yet, and they won't start now.

I seem to recall the other day you suggested Thomas spoke for all the conservative justices. My what a difference a day makes.

[gounion]

I seem to recall the other day you suggested Thomas spoke for all the conservative justices. My what a difference a day makes.

You also don't get "nuance", do you?

These judges were all presented to Trump by the Federalist Society. They have spent decades grooming judges to overthrow cases like Roe, Loving, Griswold, Lawrence and lately, Obergefell. They put nothing but ideologues on the court whose top mission is to overturn these cases. In that, they join Alito and Thomas.

With me so far?

But Trump himself is a different matter. You KNOW that Trump, being the way he was, demanded of these judges that they support Trump in anything that comes before the Court. And, they had to lie to him and promise fealty to him.

Now, after Jan 6th, they are all running as far away from Trump as they can. They will forever be known as the Trump appointees, and that's a stink they can't get off.

But they don't want an asterisk next to their name in history, and none of them seem to be interested in backing Trump's criminality and insurrections. They've consistently voted AGAINST Trump every time his criminal record has come up.

So yes, when it comes to overturning decades of decided law, Thomas DOES speak for them. But Alito, Thomas and his wife Ginny seem to be the ONLY Trump sycophants on the Court.

But then, you're not interested in anything but personal points against me, so you will run away now that you've been knocked down.

[bird]

“ The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States”.
That pretty much says judicial review. Just like federalist 58. Which is more than opinion. It is explanation and intent. The Supreme Court cites the federalist papers in opinions.

9 is a good number. Works just fine.

No.

Sorry, repeating something is not proof. Constitutionality is not a power given to the SCOTUS by the document. It does not “pretty much” say anything of the kind. The Federalist Papers are not law. They are not the constitution. They are when devolved down to basics agitprop by three men attempting to convince others that what they created should be accepted. It is opinion. The SCOTUS utilizing agitprop is unsurprising. That being said it is using opinion to back opinion which is circular in nature.

Since the court has no fixed number any number would work fine. Your answer is meaningless.

As regards ethics including conflicts of interest your response shows your preference for a court with unlimited power. Thank you for showing your contempt for checks and balances.

[Bludogdem]

Judge Jackson was ruling in 2012 on whether audio tapes made of Bill Clinton by historian Taylor Branch for an oral history he was doing were subject to the PRA. She said no.

Really seems apples and oranges from classified documents dealing with foreign entities, nuclear materials, espionage & national security, etc.

I'm willing to accept tapes of interviews a POTUS did with a historian not necessarily being a public record controlled by NARA - classified docs on nuclear weapons programs, not so much.

The recognition that the president has discretion to personalize documents is not limited to this case exclusively. When justice Jackson made the statement she didn’t limit it. it applies under any circumstance. She even addressed using the court to reclassify personalized documents.

It’s a recognized presidential power regardless of the case.

Also the NARA guidance I posted earlier says the president has sole discretion to personalize documents.

[Bludogdem]

Sorry, repeating something is not proof. Constitutionality is not a power given to the SCOTUS by the document. It does not “pretty much” say anything of the kind. The Federalist Papers are not law. They are not the constitution. They are when devolved down to basics agitprop by three men attempting to convince others that what they created should be accepted. It is opinion. The SCOTUS utilizing agitprop is unsurprising. That being said it is using opinion to back opinion which is circular in nature.

Since the court has no fixed number any number would work fine. Your answer is meaningless.

As regards ethics including conflicts of interest your response shows your preference for a court with unlimited power. Thank you for showing your contempt for checks and balances.

The constitution, article 3 section 2, specifically says they have “the judicial power to all cases, …under this constitution. “ That clearly includes whether the law in question is valid under the constitution.

The Federalist papers aren’t opinions. It’s the framers of the constitution explaining specifically the meaning of the words and phrases written and the intention of those words.

[Bludogdem]

Sorry, repeating something is not proof. Constitutionality is not a power given to the SCOTUS by the document. It does not “pretty much” say anything of the kind. The Federalist Papers are not law. They are not the constitution. They are when devolved down to basics agitprop by three men attempting to convince others that what they created should be accepted. It is opinion. The SCOTUS utilizing agitprop is unsurprising. That being said it is using opinion to back opinion which is circular in nature.

Since the court has no fixed number any number would work fine. Your answer is meaningless.

As regards ethics including conflicts of interest your response shows your preference for a court with unlimited power. Thank you for showing your contempt for checks and balances.

It doesn’t have unlimited power. It’s limited to cases under the constitution. The house and the senate make their own rules. The president nor Scotus have constitutionally defined power to make rules for the house or senate. The president, the house and senate don’t have constitutionally defined power to set rules for Scotus So scotus should make their own rules like the house and senate.

[ProfX]

Appeals court is dubious of Trump’s arguments for special master review of Mar-a-Lago search
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/22/politics ... index.html

A panel of federal appeals court judges – all appointed by Republican presidents – on Tuesday were dubious of former President Donald Trump’s arguments for why the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago required a special master to review the materials that were seized.

During 40 minutes of oral arguments at the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, the three-judge panel posed several skeptical questions for the Trump team, suggesting they were not convinced that Trump had shown that an “extraordinary” judicial intervention into the investigation was necessary.

The move by a Florida-based judge to appoint a third party to help decide what of the roughly 22,000 pages of materials obtained in the search belongs in the hands of investigators had thrown a significant wrench in the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into whether records from Trump’s White House were mishandled.

“Other than the fact that this involves a former president, everything else about this … is indistinguishable,” Judge William Pryor, the chief judge of the appellate court, told Trump lawyer James Trusty during the arguments.

[snip][end]