Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[cubby]

Doesn't really matter, because if they were they were upheld, and if they weren't they are still valid precedent that would uphold this one. I mean we have like 5 good examples of these pardons, and all of them stood, several for a few centuries now.

The legal veracity of an action doesn't matter? How were they "upheld" if they weren't tested in court?

[Thekri]

The legal veracity of an action doesn't matter? How were they "upheld" if they weren't tested in court?

You are kind of grasping at straws here. If 5 different US Presidents, spread through the entirety of US History did something, and that action wasn't overturned or in any way impaired by any sort of legal argument against it, then absolutely any court is going to say it is clearly fine.

The vast majority of executive authority is based on precedent. The Pardon is one of the few things that is not, as it is actually given to the President in the Constitution, with the following text:

The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Notice when I invoke the constitution I actually quote the thing. Anyway, since the only limit that is specified in the constitution is that he can't use it for impeachments, and it does specifically say "For offenses against the United States" and many other Presidents have already used it to blanket pardon acts of insurrection...

I just don't see any sane legal argument against it. Granted, if Trump is actually convicted of charges stemming from the same action, that probably completely changes the dynamic, and I can totally see a court rejecting a pardon under that circumstances. But Blanket Pardons for insurrections are a hard yes in legal terms.

[Benggaul]

OTHER PEOPLE DIED AND PAID FOR THIS COUNTRY SO LISTEN TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Pathetic.

Also pathetic is that that's not even a real bookcase behind her.

[cubby]

You are kind of grasping at straws here. If 5 different US Presidents, spread through the entirety of US History did something, and that action wasn't overturned or in any way impaired by any sort of legal argument against it, then absolutely any court is going to say it is clearly fine.

Or not, maybe. Perhaps there were other factors as to why it wasn't brought to court?

The vast majority of executive authority is based on precedent. The Pardon is one of the few things that is not, as it is actually given to the President in the Constitution, with the following text:

No, it's not. Not even remotely. I don't even think you know what precedent means at this point - you're certainly using it incorrectly here.

Notice when I invoke the constitution I actually quote the thing. Anyway, since the only limit that is specified in the constitution is that he can't use it for impeachments, and it does specifically say "For offenses against the United States" and many other Presidents have already used it to blanket pardon acts of insurrection...

Notice when you're a snide asshole you get shit on. Can you show me the SCOTUS rulings on those? No? Guess you're fucking done then. Or have you never heard of judicial review?

I just don't see any sane legal argument against it. Granted, if Trump is actually convicted of charges stemming from the same action, that probably completely changes the dynamic, and I can totally see a court rejecting a pardon under that circumstances. But Blanket Pardons for insurrections are a hard yes in legal terms.

That's because you stopped thinking rationally a few posts ago. I asked you a pretty fucking simple question and you just lash out with your idiocy. Give us all a shout when you understand what judicial review means. We'll wait.
(hint - it's also found in the Constitution - if I don't quote it, does it still exist? )

[Toppy]

I see this as McTurtle purging Trump from the Republican Party. Not Trumpism, just Trump.

McTurtle was a shitty piece of garbage, completly amoral and uncaring about anyone before Trump so stop it.

[Egomaniac]

I suppose this is as good a place as any:

British newsman adamboultonSKY interviewed MAGA loyalist ErinElmore — and she had a complete meltdown when he told her she’s living in an alternate reality.

Wow. That was batshit fucking loco.

[Breccia]

Excellent.

It's spelled "unPresidented".

Yes, this should not only be felony murder, but I'm pretty sure there's some sort of RICO too. I mean, if 1,000 people organize a riot and in that riot someone dies, which of the 1,000 people is to blame? I think the answer is "all of them" but you're the expert.

[Thekri]

Or not, maybe. Perhaps there were other factors as to why it wasn't brought to court?




No, it's not. Not even remotely. I don't even think you know what precedent means at this point - you're certainly using it incorrectly here.




Notice when you're a snide asshole you get shit on. Can you show me the SCOTUS rulings on those? No? Guess you're fucking done then. Or have you never heard of judicial review?




That's because you stopped thinking rationally a few posts ago. I asked you a pretty fucking simple question and you just lash out with your idiocy. Give us all a shout when you understand what judicial review means. We'll wait.
(hint - it's also found in the Constitution - if I don't quote it, does it still exist? )

Not exactly sure what your problem is, or what sort of legal basis you are basing your complete lack of an argument on.

As best I can tell you are invoking the legal principle of "Nuh uh", while I am quoting the actual constitutional text, citing specific cases, and discussing context. Please, take a look at your post and tell where there is an actual argument I can engage with, because I can't find one.

I get that you don't like it, I don't either. Trump pardoning these assholes would be horrible, but he legally can do so. I don't find resistance to reality to be helpful.

You really want Supreme Court Precedent, here you go.
Ex parte Garland from 1866 The Supreme Court upheld Johnson's power to pardon Confederates, even as congress strenuously objected to it.

Connecticut Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat in 1981. The Supreme Court ruled that pardons are NOT subject to Judicial Review.

Make an actual argument, or give up. Stop picking stupid fights. This took like 2 minutes of googling.

[Breccia]

Holy. fucking. shit.

I'll believe it when it happens. Which won't be by Jan 20th.

[Edge-]

Have you missed the last decade where controlling more states than having support of people has led to the Republican bullshit we’ve seen?

Let's look at the past decade in the House, including the current 117th Congress (which extends beyond that decade, but we'll count it) -

2011 - Republicans
2013 - Republicans
2015 - Republicans
2017 - Republicans
2019 - Democrats
2021 - Democrats

Republicans have controlled the house for 2/3 of the past decade, this is not a good argument. All of these argument seem predicated on the notion that simply because Democrats have a national majority that it translates to a House majority. Something which isn't even necessarily true if all gerrymandering were to go away because populations are not spread out equally and simply having more overall voters doesn't mean they'd get more Reps.

Or, just force the Senate to bring bills the House passes to the floor for a vote. And vice versa.

As pointed out, there are a million other ways to use that to destroy normal governance and abuse such a system as well. Sounds good until you think about how easily abused and exploited it is.

[Breccia]

Oh um...hmm.

McConnell won't reprise role as chief Trump defender

A Republican official said McConnell has made it clear to his allies that he’s done defending Trump and that the Senate GOP leader hasn’t spoken to the president since December.

Wow.

McConnell had given a speech sharply breaking with Trump over the election — which the GOP leader tellingly said had not been that close — moments before the Capitol was overtaken by a mob. Aides and police later had to help McConnell, 78, as he and other senators were evacuated.

“He’s genuinely furious about what happened last week and what led up to it,” the GOP source said of McConnell’s anger over the storming of the Capitol.

The New York Times on Tuesday afternoon published a story that said McConnell has told associates that he believes Trump committed impeachable offenses.

Senate Republican sources told The Hill that McConnell hasn’t revealed whether he would vote to convict Trump on an article of impeachment.

A majority of House Republicans are expected to oppose impeachment, and it's also likely a majority of Senate Republicans would vote to acquit Trump in a trial, even after the mob attack.

Bolded and orange for "Party of Trump".

Simply put, the former Republican Party now has too many, well, insane Trump supporters to win elections if the Trump supporters don't vote. Republicans are getting old and dying, they attached themselves to the gun nuts and the religious right just to tread water. Now they're entering whitewater. They take off the floaties, they drown.

[cubby]

Not exactly sure what your problem is, or what sort of legal basis you are basing your complete lack of an argument on.

I love it when people on this forum, like YOU, express their ignorance for all to see.

Now if we can all turn to page 2, we can see your ignorance expressed directly:

As best I can tell you are invoking the legal principle of "Nuh uh", while I am quoting the actual constitutional text, citing specific cases, and discussing context. Please, take a look at your post and tell where there is an actual argument I can engage with, because I can't find one.

The legal principle I'm "invoking" (lol's) is called JUDICIAL REVIEW. If you haven't heard of it before, this conversation is already over. But it's pretty clear that won't stop you.

You really want Supreme Court Precedent, here you go.
Ex parte Garland from 1866 The Supreme Court upheld Johnson's power to pardon Confederates, even as congress strenuously objected to it.

Connecticut Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat in 1981. The Supreme Court ruled that pardons are NOT subject to Judicial Review.

This took like 2 minutes of googling.

And in those 2 minutes, you didn't read either court case, did you? Because I just did, and whoopsie - you fucked up.

Make an actual argument, or give up.

I already made the argument, you just don't understand it.

Stop picking stupid fights.

The only person picking stupid fights is you, and the irony is that you're doing it because you didn't understand the simple point I made.

Presidential Pardon's have not seen SCOTUS scrutiny.

[Thekri]

I love it when people on this forum, like YOU, express their ignorance for all to see. And if we can all turn to page 2, we can see your ignorance expressed directly:




The legal principle I'm "invoking" (lol's) is called JUDICIAL REVIEW. If you haven't heard of it before, this conversation is already over. But it's pretty clear that won't stop you.




And in those 2 minutes, you didn't read either court case, did you? Because I just did, and whoopsie - you're fucking wrong.




I already made the argument, you just don't understand it.

Presidential Pardon's have not seen SCOTUS scrutiny.

Ok, well I am not find of internet mudslinging contests, so have a great day. Thanks for your opinions, to bad they didn't have any facts behind them.

No hard feelings, I am sure we will continue to agree on most stuff when I am not pricking your incredibly thin skin.

[cubby]

Ok, well I am not find of internet mudslinging contests, so have a great day. Thanks for your opinions, to bad they didn't have any facts behind them.

No hard feelings, I am sure we will continue to agree on most stuff when I am not pricking your incredibly thin skin.

Hey, you too. Next time you don't understand something, just ask us - we can explain it for you. No need to make an idiot of yourself based on ignorance. Remember, you started this - I'm just cleaning it up for you.

Shout if you need help with any other legal concepts!

[Corvus]

There are 3 house Republicans now on record saying they will vote to impeach but media outlets are saying that up to 20 will actually do so.

It's a small number overall but it does show the cracks that are appearing in the GOP wall.

[cubby]

There are 3 house Republicans now on record saying they will vote to impeach but media outlets are saying that up to 20 will actually do so.

It's a small number overall but it does show the cracks that are appearing in the GOP wall.

It's a reasonably safe play on their part. The Impeachment vote in the House is almost a done deal, and the GOP as a whole could greatly benefit from Impeaching Trump and then removing him from office.

Agreed that cracks are showing.

[Zaktar]

Hey, you too. Next time you don't understand something, just ask us - we can explain it for you. No need to make an idiot of yourself based on ignorance. Remember, you started this - I'm just cleaning it up for you.

Shout if you need help with any other legal concepts!

It might be time to switch to decaf.

[cubby]

It might be time to switch to decaf.

Seriously? I guess you didn't read the whole exchange. You should, it's hysterical. The part about "why does judicial review matter when we already have precedent" is particularly enjoyable. It's not my fault he lashed out from ignorance, but I'm certainly not going to let him get away with it. It's not my fault he went off the rails.

[Zaktar]

Seriously? I guess you didn't read the whole exchange. You should, it's hysterical. The part about "why does judicial review matter when we already have precedent" is particularly enjoyable. It's not my fault he lashed out from ignorance, but I'm certainly not going to let him get away with it. It's not my fault he went off the rails.

I did read the whole thing, as it was happening, and I'm just teasing. It seemed to go off the rails so hard, so fast, and you're both usually pretty reasonable.

[Corvus]

It's a reasonably safe play on their part. The Impeachment vote in the House is almost a done deal, and the GOP as a whole could greatly benefit from Impeaching Trump and then removing him from office.

Agreed that cracks are showing.

One of the three is Liz Cheney, who isn't exactly a minor figure in the party. When Dick Cheney's daughter thinks you gone too far, well....